| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Nick at his best.
His mistake was in using an identifiable screen sobriquet across forums, which allowed 7/7 truth adversaries to associate him with "antisemitism", though of course non-agenda research ought to lead you to whatever conclusions it leads you .
I've not yet seen UCL, the RN crowd or Nick Cohen actually take apart his research to prove him wrong
Anyway, yes,a good interview of which I'd like to see more.
Coincidentally did anyone catch the Daniel Obichike interview in Edge TV this evening?
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
What are we supposed to be assessing here? That Nick knows the basic facts about 9/11, 7/7 and the war on terror and 9/11, as we all do? Or because due to his becoming high profile through his disgracing the truth movement, someone has bothered to put a camera in front of his face in order for him to demonstrate it?
Nafeez Ahmed could tell us all of this, so could Annie Machon, or Ian Henshall, Ian Neal, Calum Douglas - any credible British researcher or campaigner.
Are we supposed to throw our hands up and say we've misjudged him?
bs.
Sorry Nick. I judged you long before your anti-Semitism became public record.
When?
When I realised your only contributions to any meeting were to try and bring in some angle about "the Jews" and how we should all be looking at super-tenuous connections between 7/7 and various Jewish companies?
No, I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time before realising you were essentially prejudice. When you starting saying "We - or "the Goy" as THEY'D call us" and the like at meetings it seemed pretty clear you were a lost cause.
But let you tell me the moment my suspicions were confirmed.
I'd spent months trying to convince my brother to come along to a lecture or public meeting and take a look at 9/11, eventually I got him along to a talk I'd been largely involved in and was very proud of the tone and success of - A double bill of Calum Douglas and Gordon Ross.
My brother enjoyed it a lot. At the usual meeting at the pub around the corner I caught you out of the corner of my eye walking towards me. I knew what was coming and in panic I swiftly pre-empted:
"This guy's dodgy" I told my brother "Count the seconds before he mentions "The Jews""
And what happened? This:
"Hi Nick"
"Hello Stefan"
"This is my brother Jan"
"Hello"
"Did you enjoy the talk?"
"I did, but why won't Calum make the important point - why won't he just say that Rumsfeld is a Jew?"
I'd never felt so embarrassed or ashamed to be a part of this movement in my life.
Here's the bottom line:
I AM SICK OF PEOPLE SAYING NICK IS A VICTIM OF A MEDIA CAMPAIGN. HE IS A VICTIM OF HIS OWN BIGOTED PREJUDICE AND DESERVES EVERYTHING HE GETS. HE IS AN ANTI-SEMITE AND MY JUDGMENT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH MY EXPERIENCE OF HIM LONG BEFORE ANYTHING THE MEDIA HAD WRITTEN ABOUT HIM. FULL STOP..
You don't know how many times I've typed a similar post to this in the past and then decided it just isn't worth it and not posted. But now Tony has decided he is Nick's champion it's just gone too far.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | That's not the Nick I know. Isreali firm, Verint Systems, was in charge of security and cctv cameras on the London Underground on 7/7.
With me, Nick's tackled the Zionist angle on 7/7, despite the obvious pressures not to criticise anything Isreali for fear of being labelled anti-semitic.
We must be prepared to hold Isrealis to the same standards we hold everyone else in the world. That's not anti-Semitism, it's Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.
| Stefan wrote: |
When I realised your only contributions to any meeting were to try and bring in some angle about "the Jews" and how we should all be looking at super-tenuous connections between 7/7 and various Jewish companies? |
|
Tony,
I am a staunch critic of the State of Israel - it was the issue which politicised me way back in my teenage years.
I've shared the same air as this guy for too many meetings, heard the term "the Jews" rolled out in reference to Israel too many times, seen the topic of too many conversations turn inevitably to some Jewish connection too many times, heard him sneeringly insinuate that Jewish people disrespect non-jewish people, too many times. As this was before his utterly inappropriate non-point about Rumsfeld in front of my brother even happened.
I'll also tell you I know for a fact he has 0 regard for the credibility of 7/7 or 9/11 truth - having tied 7/7 truth up with his highly divisive views on the holocaust for the pleasure of the BBC and only the integrity of a film maker being in the way of him tying them up with 9/11 truth as well.
How many Jewish friends do you have? How many of them would you invite for a pint if Nick was coming along?
Just be honest with yourself man.
You know know the truth.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Stefan
I sympathise with you entirely
I've personally loathed Nick for a while this year after he deliberately entangled me with him and the BBC before I knew anything of his views of the holocaust or Jews or or anything
On the other hand it's difficult when you meet up with so many Zionists, mainly non-linguistically semite or geographically or racially-origined "jews" at the end or top of so many pathways
It's a horrible problem given the meme 'semite-jew' in the general consciousness
I avoid, censor or dismiss much of it
It's a complete throwaway, much as the BNP being subject to a genuine social fascism in recent days
You have to choose friends and associates carefully, and I for one would hold Nick at arm's length, though not disagreeing with much of what he says
Still, I hold 'mad' views myself and am kept at arm's length by some people
It's always very difficult and how to put forward the most positive and acceptable parts of your promotion, while damping down or avoiding things that the mind-control media find abhorrent
It's politicking and it's unworthy and even the biggest names in truth-seeking do it
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Isreali firm, Verint Systems, was in charge of security and cctv cameras on the London Underground on 7/7. |
But why - exactly - is this relevant?
The - IIRC apparently broken on the day - cctv for the bus was maintained by a Lancashire company - is that important too? If not, why is it different?
Why is who was in charge of the cctv, whoever they were, particularly relevant? What would they be expected to be seeing that was instantly notable at the time prior to the event (apart from throngs of people milling about on a multitude of cameras)? Would it not be the police who would be seizing and going through all the footage after the event?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | How could anyone dream up the delerious notion that the total absence of CCTV images of the 4 alleged bombers on the London Underground network on 7th July 2005 is insignificant.
Despite the fact that the lads would have passed a total of something like 2-300 cameras on their trip, each of which may have captured them. That is, if there is a shred of truth in the notion that they were indeed suicide bombers roaming the tube.
Are we supposed to not notice who had ownership of the CCTV system that day?
The notion that no CCTV images have been released is extraordinary to say the least.
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
Why is who was in charge of the cctv, whoever they were, particularly relevant? What would they be expected to be seeing that was instantly notable at the time prior to the event (apart from throngs of people milling about on a multitude of cameras)? Would it not be the police who would be seizing and going through all the footage after the event? |
|
Are you suggesting it is the company that controlled the cctv that is responsible for deciding what images are released into the public domain?
Are you suggesting it is them that would be responsible for having possession of and scrutinising the images after the event and not the authorities?
You haven't answered what I actually asked.
Would it not be the police who would be seizing and going through all the footage after the event?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
7/7 is similar to 9/11 in that the patsies were conspicuously recorded on the way to the points where the real pre-planted explosives went off.
But, suppose the security video system had been owned by someone not complicit in the set-up, what could they have done? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and inability to find the supposed bombers on the videos, if there had been any, would not have proved they didn't board unseen from the particular video angles available.
In fact, the aim of a complicit security video company would have been to insert faked-up footage of the supposed bombers in as many suitable spots as possible, which is not what happened, so the onus is on those who want to stress the possible complicity of the security video company to explain why it was unable to achieve this positive result.
On the other hand, a complicit security video company would be invaluable in concealing the activities, before the blasts, of the teams that put the explosives in position -- assuming they were placed in the tunnels.
But whatever our precise list of complicit agencies may be, I think the easiest thing of all would have been to insert the explosives into the train seats while the trains are at their marshalling yards on some previous night.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IanFantom
Validated Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 296
Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Best of luck with the book, Nick.
| Quote: | | Such a pity that Nick Cohen and the Jewish Chronicle felt it necessary to attack Nick. Such a pity that Nick overstepped the mark in his 'research' about the Nazi gas chambers. |
I think this sort of thing is to be expected when a scientist undertakes research that impacts society and gets unexpected results. It's the clash of cultures.
In science you judge the quality of research work by adherence to scientific method and that alone. If people don't like the results, then tough. The results may be wrong, but it's part of scientific method for the details to be submitted to peer review. Nothing else counts.
In society, people judge the quality of research work by whether or not they like the conclusions, or the presumed conclusions.
Once you engage on research into a controversial topic, such as 9/11, you take on a huge commitment, because you expect to be vilified if your results aren't what people expect. If you go on and on researching more and more, as Nick has done, then sooner or later you come up with something that even your friends will find unbelievable. That's just the way it is.
I've been through something similar, but on a smaller scale. The more you uncover, the less credible you become, because most people will not look at the evidence, but only about the credibility of the supposed conclusions. Eventually, if you stick to the evidence and don't get provoked too much, people start to see the bigger picture, but it's a long haul. Mud sticks, too, and that can be just as devastating to the individual in a small-scale investigation as in a case that hits the national press. You just have to wait till the other side makes a stupid mistake, and then you start to gain credibility.
In the case of the holocaust stuff - and Nick's research was about the gas chambers rather than the holocaust - I still haven't come across the seminal paper on the holocaust which gives the scientific basis of the generally accepted theory. Without that, we cannot even begin to discuss in any scientifically sound manner whether its conclusions are correct or not. Nor can we say there is a conflict between Nick's research and that seminal research. It is perfectly possible that both are right: that Nick's analysis of the walls of Auschwitz and the idea that Hitler killed nine million Jews are actually not in contradiction. As with everything, we need the evidence.
Can someone please publish the biographical details of that paper, so that we can have some rational debate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frazzel
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Posts: 480
Location: the beano
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
good video but ....its nick. we need clips of people who dont have any connections to holocaust revisionism. as nick knows, i dont support his views.
_________________
"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IanFantom wrote: | Best of luck with the book, Nick.
| Quote: | | Such a pity that Nick Cohen and the Jewish Chronicle felt it necessary to attack Nick. Such a pity that Nick overstepped the mark in his 'research' about the Nazi gas chambers. |
I think this sort of thing is to be expected when a scientist undertakes research that impacts society and gets unexpected results. It's the clash of cultures.
In science you judge the quality of research work by adherence to scientific method and that alone. If people don't like the results, then tough. The results may be wrong, but it's part of scientific method for the details to be submitted to peer review. Nothing else counts.
In society, people judge the quality of research work by whether or not they like the conclusions, or the presumed conclusions.
Once you engage on research into a controversial topic, such as 9/11, you take on a huge commitment, because you expect to be vilified if your results aren't what people expect. If you go on and on researching more and more, as Nick has done, then sooner or later you come up with something that even your friends will find unbelievable. That's just the way it is.
I've been through something similar, but on a smaller scale. The more you uncover, the less credible you become, because most people will not look at the evidence, but only about the credibility of the supposed conclusions. Eventually, if you stick to the evidence and don't get provoked too much, people start to see the bigger picture, but it's a long haul. Mud sticks, too, and that can be just as devastating to the individual in a small-scale investigation as in a case that hits the national press. You just have to wait till the other side makes a stupid mistake, and then you start to gain credibility.
In the case of the holocaust stuff - and Nick's research was about the gas chambers rather than the holocaust - I still haven't come across the seminal paper on the holocaust which gives the scientific basis of the generally accepted theory. Without that, we cannot even begin to discuss in any scientifically sound manner whether its conclusions are correct or not. Nor can we say there is a conflict between Nick's research and that seminal research. It is perfectly possible that both are right: that Nick's analysis of the walls of Auschwitz and the idea that Hitler killed nine million Jews are actually not in contradiction. As with everything, we need the evidence.
Can someone please publish the biographical details of that paper, so that we can have some rational debate? |
The problem is - irrespective of what he may have contributed to other areas - Nick's research basically consisted of regurgitating stuff from years ago. For example, see these very old essays.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
It's very clear that when Nick wrote his various essays he knew very, very little about the subject, by his own admission his reading list consisted of very, very little, and from my interaction with him he didn't seem particularly familiar with what he said he'd read.
I asked Nick to discuss his "findings" on a forum where he could find knowledgeable people and he flatly refused the challenge.
There isn't any single paper "which gives the scientific basis of the generally accepted theory" because what we know is based on a wide variety of different kinds of sources and you can't reduce it to a single "scientific paper" that proves or disproves anything.
To put it bluntly, Nick did not "undertake research" that found "unexpected results", he just culled stuff from the existing Holocaust denial canon - anyone on this forum could have easily replicated this 'research' by spending an afternoon browsing various websites.
You may argue he's right about other things, but he certainly lost the plot on this one.
I'm not sure where "nine million Jews" comes from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IanFantom
Validated Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 296
Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
I'm not sure where "nine million Jews" comes from. |
What's your figure? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IanFantom wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: |
I'm not sure where "nine million Jews" comes from. |
What's your figure? |
Well I'm no expert so I don't feel I'm in a position to have a figure of my own, but estimates of between 5-6 million seem most popular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"the existing Holocaust denial canon"?
you are a pretentious cretin, which I expect is the ideal type for the thought police. I wouldn't waste as much time as T Gosling does talking to you/
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | | Why on Earth Nick felt it necessary to spend his time and effort rehabilitating the Nazis is beyond me ... The fact that he's had the courage and tenacity to persue the 7/7 story cannot undo what he's said about Nazi gassings. |
Rehabilitating the nazis? Please illustrate. Also, explain why his 'courage and tenacity' are invalidated by his views on the gas chambers. Logic would suggest precisely the opposite, namely, that by knowingly adopting a public stance of suicidal unpopularity, he has shown even more 'courage and tenacity'. You might as well accuse him of 'cowardice', as for some reason the authorities always do with suicide bombers, if you are going to adopt media duckspeak.
By the way, you'll love this sly little piece from France-2 about '9/11 deniers'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmeSUD0JHzo
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rowan Berkeley wrote: | "the existing Holocaust denial canon"?
you are a pretentious cretin, which I expect is the ideal type for the thought police. I wouldn't waste as much time as T Gosling does talking to you/ |
What would you call it then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't call it anything, because it is patently obvious that your sole purpose here is to entrap as many of your interlocutors as possible in damaging, ill-considered remarks.
My objection to your writing that way, the reason I call it cretinous, is that you evidently aren't able or willing to decide whether you are being sarcastic or serious. That way, whichever assumption your interlocutor makes, you can always claim that your intention was not the one he or she assumed: that you seriously believed it made sense to talk about a 'canon' (incidentally, FYI, a canon is a body of religious law), or that you were just attempting a little 'gentle irony'.
It's also interesting as an example of psychological projection, whether conscious or unconscious. As you probably never noticed, I have stated here and elsewhere that the facticity of the gas chambers is not in reality the issue, any more than the facticity of the crucifixion of Jesus is an issue. The issue is that the 'Holocaust' itself has been made into a secular, global pseudo-religion, with its shrines all over the world but centred on Auschwitz and Yad Vashem, the sites of the supposed passion and the resurrection of 'the Jews', who are collectively the Messiah in this quite simple scheme, and its own 'canon' is manifest precisely in the use of such terms as 'deniers' for people who dispute it. This is modelled - note, I say modelled - on the classic inquisitioner's question to the unfortunate crypto-Jew on the rack - "Do you deny your Saviour?"
I can think of nastier words for your method than cretinous, but having stated that I see your role here as one of entrapment, obviously, I shan't gratify you by throwing any more insults. But, as for the other part, 'pretentious', it seems amply justified by your pointless and meaningless appropriation of a portrait of Jean-Paul Sartre as your avatar. If that isn't pretentious, then it's just mindless.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackbear
Validated Poster
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Invoking the Holocaust to Defend the Occupation
John Mearsheimer
......Let's hope that The Holocaust is Over is widely read and discussed, because it makes arguments that need to be heard and considered by Americans of all persuasions, but especially by those who feel a deep attachment to Israel. The fact that Burg wrote this book also matters greatly. He cannot be easily dismissed as a self-hating Jew or a crank, as he comes from a prominent Israeli family and has been deeply involved in mainstream Israeli politics for much of his adult life. Moreover, he clearly loves Israel...........
...Anti-Semitism seems ridiculous, even innocuous compared with the strength of the Jewish people of today.".....
... Sadly, there is no end in sight to the Occupation, and thus we are likely to hear more, not less, about the Holocaust in years ahead.....
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/09/for_american_readers_t he_great/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I go along with Stefan on this. We should stop giving Nick the 'oxygen of publicity', and keep off of the subject of the Holocaust on 9/11 Forums.
We have enough of an uphill battle to get our messages across, without doing some 'danse macabre' round the Holocaust, and playing into our enemies (NWO, Zionists, Masons, Fascists et al) hands.
Use your loaf, people. We have nothing to lose, but the limited credibility we have managed to get so far.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rowan Berkeley wrote: | I wouldn't call it anything, because it is patently obvious that your sole purpose here is to entrap as many of your interlocutors as possible in damaging, ill-considered remarks.
My objection to your writing that way, the reason I call it cretinous, is that you evidently aren't able or willing to decide whether you are being sarcastic or serious. That way, whichever assumption your interlocutor makes, you can always claim that your intention was not the one he or she assumed: that you seriously believed it made sense to talk about a 'canon' (incidentally, FYI, a canon is a body of religious law), or that you were just attempting a little 'gentle irony'.
It's also interesting as an example of psychological projection, whether conscious or unconscious. As you probably never noticed, I have stated here and elsewhere that the facticity of the gas chambers is not in reality the issue, any more than the facticity of the crucifixion of Jesus is an issue. The issue is that the 'Holocaust' itself has been made into a secular, global pseudo-religion, with its shrines all over the world but centred on Auschwitz and Yad Vashem, the sites of the supposed passion and the resurrection of 'the Jews', who are collectively the Messiah in this quite simple scheme, and its own 'canon' is manifest precisely in the use of such terms as 'deniers' for people who dispute it. This is modelled - note, I say modelled - on the classic inquisitioner's question to the unfortunate crypto-Jew on the rack - "Do you deny your Saviour?"
I can think of nastier words for your method than cretinous, but having stated that I see your role here as one of entrapment, obviously, I shan't gratify you by throwing any more insults. But, as for the other part, 'pretentious', it seems amply justified by your pointless and meaningless appropriation of a portrait of Jean-Paul Sartre as your avatar. If that isn't pretentious, then it's just mindless. |
1/To be clear, the preceeding discussion was specifically about denial - exactly regarding the "facticity of the gas chambers". That's what Nick was talking about. That's what my brief exchange with Ian Fantom was about. That's kind of what deniers do with the variable of the continuum of exactly how far you go with it - mass shootings, T4, Gypsies etc. To be a "denier" is to deny the Holocaust occurred. If you think that's not the issue (and forgive me but OTTOMH I don't recall you previously saying that) and think the issue is more how the Holocaust is presented and regarded, then I do not consider that "denial" and I have never said it is. However, the two issues do tend to become conflated and deniers frequently add to this by e.g. using the term "Holocaust industry" with gay abandon outside the context Finkelstein employed. I think your description is a bit overblown, but there is some interesting work out there critiquing how the Holocaust is portrayed in various situations and media.
2/Deniers are apt to use terms like "exterminationist" for people who dispute them.
3/The canon is that it did not happen and that must be maintained at all times. Anything that appears to suggest otherwise must not be accepted. I have seen enough single minded repetition of the same canards and meaningless factoids over and over and over again to make me think a comparison to religious law is not inappropriate. And you know what? It gets very boring after a while.
4/I am sorry I like Satre. If you would care to suggest possible avatars that won't upset you, I'll consider them.
5/I do not understand what you are going on about regarding "entrapment". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you are so fond of Sartre, then you might try to learn to think logically, as he did. Consider, your argument is completely circular. You assume that there is already a 'canonical' definition of 'the Holocaust', which includes everything from T4 to shootings to gas chambers, and anyone who announces that any one of these components is factually implausible is defined as 'denying the Holocaust', AS A WHOLE, in the same way that anyone who rejects ANY ONE of the propositions of faith of the religion they are supposed to belong to is held to have rejected the whole. On the other hand, if there is really anyone out there who really DOES holds that "NONE of it happened," then I haven't come across them.
Now, I am not going to bother with this any more. In the first place, Gosling has stated a number of times that this subject shouldn't be discussed at all here. As a result of its hypocritical and cowardly editorial censorship, the site seems to be largely populated by superstitious loonies, anyway.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rowan Berkeley wrote: | If you are so fond of Sartre, then you might try to learn to think logically, as he did. Consider, your argument is completely circular. You assume that there is already a 'canonical' definition of 'the Holocaust', which includes everything from T4 to shootings to gas chambers, and anyone who announces that any one of these components is factually implausible is defined as 'denying the Holocaust', AS A WHOLE, in the same way that anyone who rejects ANY ONE of the propositions of faith of the religion they are supposed to belong to is held to have rejected the whole. On the other hand, if there is really anyone out there who really DOES holds that "NONE of it happened," then I haven't come across them.
Now, I am not going to bother with this any more. In the first place, Gosling has stated a number of times that this subject shouldn't be discussed at all here. As a result of its hypocritical and cowardly editorial censorship, the site seems to be largely populated by superstitious loonies, anyway. |
I said there was a continuum.
Historically, the gas chambers have been the chosen focus of deniers. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say the Auschwitz gas chambers existed but deny T4 happened or something.
If you don't think there are people who say none of it happened you should probably spend some time on CODOH or the David Icke forum. Probably Stormfront too. That Hannover tw@t who runs CODOH thinks T4 didn't happen, Gypsies weren't exterminated and mass shootings were justifiable anti-partisan actions, that "women and children were involved in the terrorist partisans" which makes their extermination wholly justifiable, though he also denies many mass shootings actually occurred. It doesn't really get much more 'deny the lot' does it?
Meanwhile, it appears another bozoloid wave is happening on the DI forum, except I can't be arsed with talking to brick walls right now. It is, after all, nearly Christmas.
Maybe you get a different internet to me, I dunno, but I tend to find things fan out from the gas chambers and before you know it Nazi Germany was a paradise of gentle SS do-gooders simply trying to bring joy to the world if only the Jews would let them.
It's more helpful if you can attack stuff like T4 into the bargain as gas chambers gassing people and many of the crew responsible being subsequently - for some reason - relegated to manning apparently perfectly innocent boring old 'transit camps' that had an uncanny knack of losing everyone that went to them doesn't really help the denier cause. And if you deny gas chambers you have to deny Gypsies were gassed too. And acknowledging a genocidal program of mass shooting of Jews doesn't exactly help claims of 'holohoax' does it?
Still, T4 and the Gypsies aren't specifically 'the Holocaust', though 'when Nazis run wild' as a catch-all for everyone probably doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
The irony is, though, by themselves elevating the gassing of Jews to preferred hobby horse, they contribute to the comparative lack of attention the fate of other groups gets, something I do think should be addressed.
Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've observed, I'd say deniers tend to start with the gassing of the Jews and work outwards, denying as they go or will try to offer a justification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
