While I happen to be on the topic of free speech and neo-Nazis today, here's something that came to me via Holocaust Controversies, a Holocaust denier comments about Sergey's post about the 65th anniversary of the Babi Yar massacre:
So is this the so-called "massacre" where kikes were supposedly massacred? God, but were it only so. Thus the volk who seek freedom fm Judaic oppression need merely review the proper historical dialectic.
He then goes off on a standard anti-Jew rant, citing arch anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Michael Hoffman III.
As you can see, this "Apollonian" is the variety of denier known as "the Holocaust didn't happen but the Jews deserved it" denier (not to be confused with "the Holocaust never happened and it should happen again" denier). Now that I think of it, one of these days, I'll have to list the different varieties of Holocaust deniers, a taxonomy, if you will. There are at least several distinct types.
"An honest holocaust denier" is an oxymoron, as to deny the Holocaust is in itself an extreme act of dishonesty!
"to deny the Holocaust is in itself an extreme act of dishonesty!"
Let's be fair now, it could be an honest act rooted in abysmal bigoted ignorance.
Ah, denialism.
It is its own kind of crazy isn't it?
Although I don't know why you bother addressing these denialists in particular, because once they demonstrate obvious racism/antisemitism, who thinks they have any credibility? They're so easy to just categorically ignore, after using the word "kike" the argument is over. They're just bigots, no need to pay attention.
I'll start worrying when holocaust deniers show up who aren't obviously antisemitic or racially-bigoted assholes.
That would be really interesting. Go for it.
Don't forget to include the "holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier!" variant (also known as the Fafarman), who claims to agree the holocaust happened whenever accused of being a denier but otherwise claims that apparently all publicly available information about the holocaust is wrong. When pressed for specifics on this they will usually fall mysteriously silent.
Then there's this, which I just don't know what to make of it.
For a long time I didn't understand this continuing focus on the Holocaust, when there have been many other atrocities in even relatively recent history. No one talks about the Congo Free State at the beginning of the 20th century where the Belgians massacred 12 to 15 million inhabitants, reducing the population by more than half.
Then I read books like Norman Finkelstein's "Holocaust Industry" and understood that it has just become a propaganda tool to create a permanent guilt complex, even on Americans who had nothing to do with it. Why are there several holocaust museums in the U.S. but no slavery museum?
Frankly, nobody gives any credibility to holocaust deniers, but there equally no reason to fall for the crocodile tears of the holocaust memorialists. That also is an act of extreme dishonesty.
I am fed up with holocaust films and books which come out like clockwork every year. All other historical tragedies are pushed to the sidelines.
Have any of you seen Ahmadinejab's interview on CNN?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/21/cnna.ahmedinejad/
On the holocaust:
AHMADINEJAD: If this event happened, where did it happen? The where is the main question. And it was not in Palestine. Why is the Holocaust used as a pretext to occupy the Palestinian lands?
COOPER: But do you understand why it's deeply offensive to people. ...
AHMADINEJAD: That subject, how is it connected to the occupying regime in Jerusalem?
On Israel's right to exist:
COOPER: To some in America, though, that is going to sound like you're not answering the question. ... The question really is, do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
AHMADINEJAD: I say that it is an occupying regime.
We say we must -- you must allow the Palestinian nation to decide for itself what its fate should be. There are 5 million displaced Palestinians, 4 million who live under the threat of bombardments, or actual bombardments and attacks.
So, let Palestinian people decide for themselves. We support the vote of the people. And whatever the result is, we must all accept.
And again:
COOPER: The same statement could be said of Jewish people in Israel, that they're living in what they say is their homeland. Don't they have a right to exist?
AHMADINEJAD: Yes, in Palestine, there were a group of Jews that live. But where did they come afterward, the larger groups that came to Palestine?
We know what the trend was. A group of people came from other places to that land. Where does the father of Mr. [Ehud] Olmert come from, for example? Some of the ministers in Israel are in fact of Iranian origin, with no background, historical background, in Palestine. But they're there, ruling.
Bernarda, we can see right through you. All the non-sequiturs that you write will not confuse us.
It does not matter what "the Jews" do, what Ahmadinejad does, what the Holocaust deniers say, or how counter-productive the laws in Germany are: none of those things have any bearing, of any kind, on the veracity of the current consensus among historians.
The Holocaust happened, the Nazis did it, and that is true, and the fact the some people may choose to use that to their advantage even today makes no difference.
And, by the way, there are plenty of movies and museums about black slavery in the US; how else do you think people nowadays "know" what it was like back then for slaves? No-one has been a slave in the US for nearly 150 years.
valhar, why do you use the royal "we" "us"? Why don't you just speak for yourself?
There is nothing to "see through" with me because I clearly wrote what I think. The fact is that the holocaust is history, like the inquisition, it has no meaning in today's politics except for zionists using it as an excuse for Israeli crimes against humanity in Palestine.
I had nothing to do with the holocaust and neither did anyone in my family(in fact, some of them liberated Europe). I am tired of this holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude on the part of those hypocrites who make a career out of the shoah business. They are ethically no different than the holocaust deniers.
I wouldn't be surprised if Israel secretly supports and encourages the deniers and antisemites so they can create the public illusion that they are somehow in danger.
Typical denialist stuff, avoid the question and throw out the red herrings to confuse the issue.
Once the sciencebloggers and scientists in general realize that all of their problems with politicization of science can be traced back to a tactic the cigarrette companies originally used to try to confuse the issue over carcinogenicity of tobacco, we'll realize that the enemy in all of these situations is denialism. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, when you've got no data, and not a leg to stand on, you resort to these obfuscatory tactics of denialists everywhere.
Maybe I should have a talk with Chris Mooney about this idea.
I rather suspect that Bernarda, Michael Hoffman, and Apollonian (not to mention Hutton Gibson) would find broad agreement on many issues. I particularly like the truly conspiratorialist touch at the end: The Jews encourage Holocaust denial in a nefarious plot to make themselves look like victims.
Bullshit. (That's merde to you, bernarda.)
I am, however, curious about what bernarda means by the "Holocaust." To me, bernarda resembles the "Holocaust happened and the Jews deserved it" crowd (not really "deniers" in the strictest sense of the word, but often associated with them).
But let's ask a few questions:
1. Were approximately six million Jews killed by the Nazi regime as part of a planned program of extermination? Yes or no?
2. Were there homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz? Yes or no?
3. Do Jews exaggerate the number of deaths in the Holocaust?
Good tactic Orac.
I like it.
Bernarda, the Holocaust is not used as a pretext for discrimination against the Palestinians. So Ahmadinejad is full of it. Why do you quote him, then?
Orac, Raul Hilberg would answer "no" to your first question ;-)
Sergey,
OK, I'll reword it slightly: Did the Nazi regime implement a program to expel or exterminate European Jewry in Nazi-occupied territory, the fruits of which were the deaths of between five and six million Jews?
Better?
It is funny to see these personal attacks and guilt by (false) association. "I am, however, curious about what bernarda means by the "Holocaust." To me, bernarda resembles the "Holocaust happened and the Jews deserved it" crowd (not really "deniers" in the strictest sense of the word, but often associated with them)."
Nothing to say about the real subject. It is not really the scientific method, is it? Welcome to the David Horowitz mccarthyite witchhunt of academia.
None of the things in Ahmadinejad's interview are discussed and none of the things I discussed are debated. It is all personal insults. Is that how scientists now work?
As to this site, apparently there is some insolence which is not very well tolerated. So I am not PC on the shoah business. So what? 6 million jews were killed in WWII, and what about the other 50 to 60 million that were killed?
Maybe 20 to 30 million Chinese were killed by the Japanese, where is their lobby and their museum in the center of Washington? I know Chinese who were in the war or the children of them. They don't bring up the holocaust there at a drop of a hat.
Typical of orc's character assassination is attributing to me "Holocaust happened and the Jews deserved it" Where did I say anything like that? Why not say that I think the other 50-60 million people deserved it?
I just say that all that is now history and it is time for you to get over it. Have you ever heard one zionist express concern over the Chinese who were massacred or even the 4 million Indonesians that were massacred in WWII?
You seem to be saying that they deserved it.
They claim they're not deniers then they jump right into denialist rhetoric.
In this case, red herring after red herring. None of your complaints have anything to do with the discussion. Orac asked the three questions
1. Were approximately six million Jews killed by the Nazi regime as part of a planned program of extermination? Yes or no?
2. Were there homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz? Yes or no?
3. Do Jews exaggerate the number of deaths in the Holocaust?
Of course these are not replied to, instead you distract and dissemble and talk about a whole bunch of other things, but never answer the specific questions like Orac asked.
In the end it invariably boils down to antisemitism, and you can call it McCarthyism if you like, but it's more that it's just not a good use of time to argue with fools. There are types of arguments which are generally accepted to be invalid, and the use of red herrings or these conspiratorial beliefs are classic examples of bullshit arguments.
Yipes.
Re bernarda's comments above:
I for one would definitely say that there are other holocausts besides The Holocaust, both historical and ongoing, which absolutely deserve far more attention than they usually receive. These other events may not approach the Holocaust in scale and extent, but this does not lessen the importance of ensuring that they too are remembered. It is important when studying the Holocaust, I think, to remember that it was not an isolated incident, but part of an ongoing pattern in human affairs-- in other words, it is important to remember that genocide is something that can, and does, happen again.
But if someone were legitimately interested in calling attention to these other tragedies, they'd just, you know, go ahead and do that-- talk about the tragedies and bring them to people's attention. Someone whose honest intent was to call attention to human tragedies beyond just the Holocaust would clearly not do so by belittling the Holocaust itself.
And anyone who, as bernarda does above, seems only interested in those other tragedies to the extent they give him a pretense to attack those who take the horrors of the Holocaust seriously... well, I don't think such a person's motives could be any more transparent.
I would personally say that there's almost no better way to honor the memory of those who suffered in the Holocaust than to do everything we can to make sure nothing of the kind is ever allowed to happen again. And I would say that those who are facing atrocities in the world today are in no way being helped by belittling the atrocities that have gone before.
By the way, what's this about there not being an American slavery museum? There are two, one under construction in Maryland, the other under construction in Virginia. It took me two minutes to find that out on google. This also is not counting the many black history or civil rights history museums in the United States which incorporate the history of slavery as exhibits. And there are enough plantations in the south preserved as historic sites-- most of which could I think qualify as museums about slavery even if they aren't specifically called that-- that I'm not sure how to go about counting them. The resources for learning about the civil rights struggle in America are abundant, if one is actually interested in learning about them.
Coin has put it much better than I did.
In addition to what he has said, I would say that probably the most important reason why we focus so much on the Holocaust is that there are so many kooks out there working full time to lie about it.
I know (and I think "we" would be warranted here) that nearly 60 million people die in Europe during WWII, and that a similar number died in Russia during Stalin's time (a fact which I bring up again and again with my excessively left-leaning acquaintances), and I know that Pol Pot killed a third of Cambodia's population, and I also know that ethnic cleansing wars flare up regularly in Africa, and take a toll of thousands when they do.
But you don't find people denying these facts and receiving the backing of thousands by expressing such execrable claims. For some reason (and we all know what that reason is) only the Holocaust, out of the hundreds of massacres in recorded history, brings out kooks in such profusion.
So, we fight the kooks where they show up.
Some quick googles for "bernarda" with appropriate extra verbiage provides a lot of really amusing blog comments, in case anyone's interested in seeing how far the rabbit hole goes.
My reply to bernarda is here.
Please direct replies to the thread in the link above.
bernarda is one of those dumb deniers that doesn't read what is written to them.
E.g., I wrote earlier:
"Bernarda, the Holocaust is not used as a pretext for discrimination against the Palestinians. So Ahmadinejad is full of it. Why do you quote him, then?"
This is a discussion of Ahmoonbat's point, isn't it?
But bernarda has a gall to write:
"None of the things in Ahmadinejad's interview are discussed and none of the things I discussed are debated. It is all personal insults. Is that how scientists now work?"
Exactly, I really didn't notice as starkly as now, Sergey, deniers for one absolutely do not read retorts and what is posted to them. I have read logical well put points and arguements that directly counter deniers statements and arguements and yet the next post in same thread the denier makes is ignorant of said counter. These deniers are losers in the first degree and honestly, are not human-beings. A human-being is one who always considers, not think things through to a "desired" conclusion and stick there. A human-being has empathy and true objectivity. A person does not have to be abused to grow badly, only ignored and not taught and conversed with and paid attention to. Should they be pitied? No, as a rational being they can always pull themselves out of the hole of damnation into the light of truth.
Every statment further shows they are forfeit. Slavery in American? After the pain and horror, a powerful and voiced black community of many millions now exist in a country that is the most powerful in the world. This vast community of 30-40 millions is more capable then whole other countries. Not that the ends fit the means- sorry, it was never the intent- as well as the LAST thing a bigotted person of shades of people would have desired. It is. The Holocaust, on the other hand, rings and pervades whole countries to this day. It was a tragedy never ending.
No reasonable historian (or reasonable person for that matter) still believes the holocaust happened "as advertised" (i.e. six million Jews killed, four million in gas chambers at Auschwitz etc). There is too much evidence to the contrary.
American have been inculcated with the holocaust; ask the average American how many Jews died and you'll get the standard "six-million", then ask him or her how many American servicemen died and they haven't a clue.
To question the existence of God is perfectly legal (and even philosophically healthy) but to question the existence of the holocaust draws prison time in much of Europe. Right this moment, one of the greatest historians of out time (David Irving) is sitting in a jail cell in Austria because he questioned the historical veracity of the holocaust.
That the holocaust didn't happen as typically accepted is already passé; it just remains for society to catch up. Ten years ago you wouldn't have gotten any skeptics and now, half the comments here are from non-believers. The real story behind the holocaust is quite interesting but you actually have to do some research to find it -- thank God for the internet.
Sky
1) "No reasonable historian (or reasonable person for that matter) still believes the holocaust happened "as advertised"
"as advertised", of course, opens an easy way for you to put up as many straw-men as you'd like. But what does that mean? Just because someone somewhere said something about the Holocaust, this is included in "as advertised"? Well, this applies to _all_ historical events then, so if this was intended to be understood in a pejorative sense, congrats, you've just denigrated all history.
Of course, any reasonable person will agree that the sources of the claims matter. E.g., is the claim of Dr. Piper about roughly 1 million people murdered in Auschwitz somehow "equal" to the Soviet-Polish claim of 4 million victims? No, because they're based on different methodologies and sources, Piper's methodology and sources being much more refined (a huge understatement, actually). So, given what we now know about Auschwitz death toll, will any _reasonable_ person bring up the Soviet death toll just in order to bash the "Holocaust story" simply because such a claim has been made? No.
2) "i.e. six million Jews killed"
You will see quite a lot of reasonable people believing in 6,000,000 Jews killed. This is not an "exact" belief, but it is close enough to be almost correct. Historians give the range of 5 to 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust (Hilberg - around 5 million, Benz - about 6 million). Unfortunately "6 million" has become a symbol, a powerful meme. So it is quite widespread and is often repeated without a second thought. But since it's not really that far from the truth, it's not such a big deal. People repeat memes all the time, why single out the Holocaust?
3) "four million in gas chambers at Auschwitz"
Nobody claimed that 4 million died specificaly in gas chambers. Also, if you meant that the claim was about 4,000,000 Jews (at least your sentence can be so interpreted), then you're in trouble, because the "popularizers" of this toll, Soviets and Poles, never meant it to refer only to Jews.
4) So, you have brought up these irrelevancies, and what exactly did you achieve?
5) "To question the existence of God is perfectly legal (and even philosophically healthy) but to question the existence of the holocaust draws prison time in much of Europe."
The analogy is not very good, as atheism is not associated with hate propaganda. An objective fact. Still, I, Orac and many other anti-deniers oppose such laws.
6) "Right this moment, one of the greatest historians of out time (David Irving)"
Not only Irving is not one of the greatest historians of our time, he is no longer even a historian (if he ever was one). If you think otherwise, I would suggest addressing the expert reports and the judgement in 2000 Irving v. Lipstadt trial. Point by point. Specifically Evans' report.
7) So what we have above is the usual whining denier's rant - ignorant claims richly peppered with claims of persecution (to mask the stench).
I am not going to play the "refute line-by-line" game with Sergey (who lives in Russia with a Russian name but doesn't speak Russian), the reader can see what I wrote and how Romanov refuted it but I will point out one aspect of his type of rebuttal.
In my original post, I made this statement:
"Right this moment, one of the greatest historians of out time (David Irving) is sitting in a jail cell in Austria because he questioned the historical veracity of the holocaust."
And here is Sergey's response:
"Not only Irving is not one of the greatest historians of our time, he is no longer even a historian (if he ever was one). If you think otherwise, I would suggest addressing the expert reports and the judgement (sic) in 2000 Irving v. Lipstadt trial. Point by point. Specifically Evans' report."
Please note that he did not address the point (Irving in jail for questioning the veracity of the holocaust) but attacks the man himself saying that he is not even a historian! This won't be obvious to everyone but anyone with even a passing interest in WWII is familiar with Irving's work, he has written some 30 books (primarily) on WWII and is recognized as a leading historical scholar. Sergey Romanov's bona fides?: A "veteran of many online battles against Holocaust deniers".
Sergey Romanov (who supposedly lives in Russia and with a Russian name but doesn't speak Russian) attacks Irving based on what a legal hired-gun (Evans) wrote about Irving for the Lipstadt trial whose sole purpose was to discredit Irving. BTW, this is standard courtroom practice and I have no qualms with trying to discredit Irving -- his work speaks for itself -- but to base your argument on it?
Of course Irving is the same historian that Dr. Nick Terry, PhD. (I know it's redundant -- not to mention sanctimonious -- but that's actually how he's billed at RODOH) complained about because it was too difficult to check his (Irving's) references. I thought references were what it was all about in the research game? The HC boys are what David Irving calls "incest-historians"; they tell each other lies until they actually start to believe them.
Anyway, Sergey, keep up the good work. Even the casual reader can see that you refute when you'd be better served to at least acknowledge what is true.
David Irving? A "leading historical scholar"?
Heh.
HAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, I just can't stop laughing. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
I am 12 years old -- Mr. Orac sucked my dick. I liked it and he loved it ... am I a queer or is he?
Just wondering. Please reply soon because he has asked to do it again.
Yeah, he sucked my cock too but he paid me $12.00 and I hadn't washed in two days so it was worth it. Plus, I fucked his daughter in the ass. Where's the rub?
That's otal bull shit! Dr. Rosenbloom was found not guilty off ALL CHARGES except the one boy abd he was 17 yeras old (legal in Ohio) so shut the F### up and get a life!
He is not GAY! Todd
Orac id NOT QUEER!!!!! He was aquitted!!!!!
Ah, I see that the Holocaust deniers lurking about have returned to their usual intellectual level of discourse, with ad hominems and adolescent obsessions with labeling those they don't like as homosexual.
Typical behavior when the facts aren't on their side--which is pretty much always. Really, if I was interested in engaging in "debates" on this level, I never would have left alt.revisionism on Usenet. I leave their comments up simply to demonstrate their level of intellect. I also note that these comments, including some others on other threads that I've deleted, come from only two different IP addresses, implying a bit of sockpuppet action going on.
Really "guys," do your Mommas know what you say online?
Is there some guy who made up a rule that the first side to call the other gay automatically forfeits the argument, kind of like the extensions of Godwin's law?
If not, we really need a convenient term for it.
The psychological projection law, maybe? ;)
How about the "we're not at high school anymore" doctrine?
Orac -- like Sergey (who lives in Russia and has a Russian name but doesn't speak Russian) -- also failed to address the issue of David Irving sitting in prison choosing instead to attack him as a historian. Why is that?
A couple of points here. Almost two weeks ago (10/13), I made this statement:
"Right this moment, one of the greatest historians of out time (David Irving) is sitting in a jail cell in Austria because he questioned the historical veracity of the holocaust."
And Orac made no comment what-so-ever. Now, two weeks later (apparently he is trolling his own blog) we get this from Dr. Orac:
(start)
David Irving? A "leading historical scholar"?
Heh.
HAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, I just can't stop laughing. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
(stop)
Folks, this is a grown man, and adult, a doctor were talking about here and he writes like a 12 year old girl in a chat room. Picture that for a moment; an adult human being -- a doctor for Christ's sake! -- resorting to all caps and multiple "HAHAs" to make his points?
No Orac, it just won't do. The goyim ain't what they used to be (thank God for the internet).
People, think what you want about David Irving -- better yet, read some of his work -- but it is certainly not "the funniest thing I've heard..." to suggest that he (Irving) is one of the greatest historians of our time, especially concerning his WWII writing.
So I say again, Sergey and Orac, keep up the good work! Informed people no longer fall for your attacks. The net effect is that people are going to say, "methinks the doctor doth protest too much" and maybe they will even pick up a book or two.
How about Orac's law: The first guy to use multiple school-girl LOLs forfeits the argument?
Take your time, I can wait.
Sky
I gave your comments about David Irving as a "great historian" exactly the degree of respect and decorum that they deserved, no more, no less. (Indeed, your description of Irving as a "great historian" was truly amusing to me.)
Of course, ask yourself this: What makes one look worse, honestly laughing like crazy over an amazingly idiotic statement by you about David Irving, or using sockpuppets to spout off adolescent homophobic drivel not just after this post, but after two other completely unrelated posts?
Orac Law (Corollary I): When you can't address the point, change the subject.
Sorry doc, but spin won't work here. We'll just have to let the reader decide.
Sky
Says the person who uses sockpuppets that mutually reinforce each other.
I'm perfectly happy to let my readers decide who is more credible. Always have been. But before they do, here's something to help them. For instance, here are a lot of posts about the Holocaust and Holocaust denial from my old blog. More recent material can be found here and here. In case you're curious about what I thought of the David Irving verdict in February, you can check out here and here. And, finally, I've written before about David Irving and his Holocaust denial.
Enjoy!
And perhaps that will show you why I don't always feel the need to repeat myself yet again whenever another Holocaust denier pops up; been there, done that, both on Usenet for more than six years and here for nearly two. Want to see if you can get me to do otherwise? Use an argument I haven't heard before!
I don't think the laughter is an automatic forfeit if we're talking about, say, someone who seriously thinks the Earth is flat. So far, I don't see much difference between Irving and flat Earthers.
Dr. Orac describes himself as a surgeon and a scientist but if you want to really understand his holocaust contributions, you have to realize that first and foremost, he is a Jew. And as such, he will say whatever it takes and besmirch whomever it takes to further the Jewish agenda, which is continued acceptance of the official holocaust story. You would think Jews, of all people, would want to know the truth but Dr. Orac is willing to denigrate the very graves of his fore-parents to perpetrate this fraud.
In all fairness, I will allow that he may be so blinded by ... oh, what is the word? Sanctimoniousness? Self-righteousness? Racism? Superciliousness? Condescension? Or possibly his status as "chosen", to really see the truth. In other words, he may actually believe it ... but these are the same folk who believe they are specifically chosen by God over other mortals so it I suppose it makes sense in a twisted sort of way.
In this particular case he says that my description of David Irving as one of the greatest historians of our time is the "funniest thing he has ever heard" and then goes on to giggle like a school-girl to demonstrate his dismissal of such a statement. Surely there are funnier things than that? You really have to start picking your battles a little better Dr. Orac, it's issues like this that make you guys look dopey. Hell, I (as a revisionist) could say the sky is blue and Dr. Orac would call me a Nazi scum.
Speaking of ad hominems, if anyone is wondering why Sergey Romanov (who lives in Russia and has a Russian name but doesn't speak Russian) is not here defending himself, it's because he's hiding so he doesn't have to address the "Russian" problem. So typical of the lie these fucks live.
The holocaust is already passé among most historians and is fast becoming so to the public in general. The cry used to be "Four million gassed at Auschwitz! Four million gassed at Auschwitz! Never again!" until that figure became just too incredulous to defend any longer then it was quietly abandoned for the still wildly inflated 1.5M (without adjusting the sacrosanct 6M total) but not before cranking out a holocaust movie (or ten) and it was back to (Shoah) business as usual. It's like The Emperor's New Cloths; we're just waiting for the little boy to point out that the emperor is running around naked ... 'course if he says it in most of Europe, he'll go to jail!
Yeah, Dr. Orac, enjoy it while you can, your days are numbered. In the meantime, you do have quite a stranglehold on the goyim; I just turned on the TV and on three of my four channels (I don't have cable) were Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, and Ellen DeGeneres ... all Jews. If that doesn't cheer you up, surly 500,000(+) Iraqis war dead -- courtesy of the U.S. Government -- or the various imprisoned historians and researchers has to make you sleep well at night.
Shalom.
Yawn. Genetic fallacy. Appeal to motivation. Poisoning the well. All of those are forms of immunization against evidence. Even if that were true, it's not going to magically alter the validity of his arguments. This isn't some mamby-pamby newage world where desires alter reality.
He's been over Irving before. Why should he post the same dismissals a thousand times? You've been referred to his previous takedowns.
You're probably not worth the time. You won't actually read anything Orac's written. You've made up your mind, as demonstrated above with your efforts to immunize yourself against evidence. Besides, some people here have lives, you know.
The holocaust is already passé among most historians and is fast becoming so to the public in general. The cry used to be "Four million gassed at Auschwitz! Four million gassed at Auschwitz! Never again!" until that figure became just too incredulous to defend any longer then it was quietly abandoned for the still wildly inflated 1.5M (without adjusting the sacrosanct 6M total) but not before cranking out a holocaust movie (or ten) and it was back to (Shoah) business as usual. It's like The Emperor's New Cloths; we're just waiting for the little boy to point out that the emperor is running around naked ... 'course if he says it in most of Europe, he'll go to jail!
Last time I checked, NO ONE ever claimed 4 million got gassed at Auschwitz. Straw man.
1. Just what does some Jews being on television have to do with anything?
2. Last time I checked, Orac was not fond of the war in Iraq.
[Tu_Quoque] I suppose you're happy that millions of kittens are dying all the time. Don't you think that says something about your stand on this issue? [/Tu_Quoque]
Actually, I'm not Jewish. Regular readers of this blog know, I'm basically a lapsed Catholic. Why on earth do you automatically assume that I'm Jewish?
Oh, I get it. It's because you hate Jews. You don't like me or what I say about the historicity of the Holocaust. You don't like my efforts to combat Holocaust denial. And the victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jewish. If I'm speaking out against Holocaust denial, therefore, I must be a Jew. QED.
You know, the whole "you must be a Jew" gambit Holocaust deniers like to play gets very tiresome the 1,000th time I hear it; so you'll excuse me if it evinces from me no more than a yawn. I have the same reaction to your use of the Auschwitz "four million" gambit, which is a favorite canard that Holocaust deniers like to use. It's nicely debunked here.
As for the Iraq War, I'm on record on this blog as saying that the war in Iraq is the single biggest foreign policy fiasco that's occurred within my adult lifetime.
I suppose next he'll claim that evolution means everything's random.
Doc, if you are not a Jew then I was misled and we're pretty much at a stalemate here because, yes, I did base much of my argument on your ethnicity.
Here's my problem: I'm not sure I believe you.
When I made the (at least) reasonable David Irving comment, you made an "over-the-top" show of pooh-poohing it with puerile HAHAs et cetera but when I make the apparently egregious error of calling you a Jew (if you're not), you calmly set the record straight by saying you are a lapsed Catholic.
Something doesn't smell right.
In any event, you don't have to respond, there is no way of verifying anything anyway. Reasonable people can disagree (and we do agree on the Iraq war fiasco) ... besides Bronze Dog/Globus needs some more room to piss all over himself -- I'm still trying to understand the "dead kitten" or "evolution" relevancy.
Sky
P.S. You'll excuse me if I don't accept Nizkor's explanation of Auschwitz.
That's why ad homenims are discouraged: The arguer is irrelevent to his argument
Your bigger problem is that you seem to think it matters.
It's a matter of showing you your reflection.
Kitten analogy: Most people consider harming kittens to be extremely evil, just like many people don't like the Iraq war. You attempted to transfer that hatred and attach it to Orac, so I showed you just how silly it looks by mirroring you. It's a big distraction technique.
Evolution: It's an example of a long-debunked straw man: Evolution isn't random, but Creationists like to keep saying it over and over and over again. It's all about sloganizing everything.
Why not? You must have a good reason.
Blah, blah, blah.
Until civilized countries stop putting people in prison for what they think -- and people like you stop thinking that there is no problem with that -- all your arguments (and Dr. Orac's) are completely are moot.
You're living a lie.
Sky
Your claim that I don't think there is anything wrong with locking Irving up for his odious Holocaust denial makes it painfully obvious to me that you never bothered to look at the links to posts by me about the David Irving trial. Even a cursory reading of them would reveal that I don't approve of Irving's being in jail for Holocaust denial. The fact that you spout off such idiotic and incorrect statements about my views on the David Irving trial, even after having been pointed to links to posts in which I expressed my disapproval of what was done to David Irving shows me that you are not worth taking seriously. After all, if you keep spouting off things that are so obviously untrue even after having been shown they are untrue, why should I consider you anything other than a Holocaust denying troll?
Try again. Here are a few of my posts about the David Irving trial in particular and bans on Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols in general, from the most recent to the oldest:
Another reason why bans on symbols lead to bad policy
Stomping free speech flat in Austria
Shooting free speech in the foot: David Irving sentenced to three years in jail for denying the Holocaust
David Irving on trial for Holocaust denial
David Irving to stand trial in Austria
More schadenfreude: David Irving now admitting there were gas chambers?
Schadenfreude
Sky's probably rigged the debate so that it's impossible for him to lose: His actual opponents aren't allowed to present their actual arguments. He wills them out of existence and continues on as if nothing happened.
Orac,
My apologies doctor, my comment was directed at Bronze Dog. And yes I have read all that you've directed me to -- you are crystal clear on Irving (et al) in jail.
You have an informative site, conduct yourself with decorum, and don't deserve pot-shots from me, I'm just a little sensitive about a 70 year old researcher/historian in jail. It's smacks of the very behavior that is claimed odious. Kafkaesque.
Sky
The latest nonsense from goofball BD: "He wills them out of existence ..."
Anybody know what that means? Anyone? Yes, you in the back! Oh, you were just scratching your ass? Sorry, anyone else? Anyone? Don't be shy (sound of crickets chirping).
Nice of you to fabricate a point of view for me without evidence that I support any of that. Reminds me of the people who think I'm a Communist because I'm an atheist.
As for the phrase: I said it when I thought you were talking about Orac's alleged support for Irving's jailing and ignoring his actual views and carrying on regardless.
Didn't notice this at the time since I was busy with other matters. I got a click from here to the blog and decided to look, and here I see that this "Sky" guy wasn't able to reply with anything but ad hominems.
I exposed his total ignorance in regard to the Holocaust, so he is "not going to play the "refute line-by-line" game with" me. And I even know why! ;-)
He writes: "Sergey (who lives in Russia with a Russian name but doesn't speak Russian)" - how would he know that I do not speak Russian? I.e., we're dealing with a total, absolute, pure loon, ladies and gentlemen :-)
The rest is only ad hominem, and I only need to point out once again that it was proven during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial (which Irving himself initiated) that he is not a historian. He may have been once, but no more.