151. Comment #176554 by ASMarques on May 7, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Said Teratornis: If you think the military and historians are way off on the number of dead Jews, why do you trust the same people to tell you how many Germans died in Dresden?

Well, let me try to explain to you what would happen if we applied standard "Holocaust" consistency requirements to the WW2 bombing of Dresden. I, for one, wouldn't believe in the fire bombing of Dresden if official historiography, TV docudramas and German pop culture told me the following story:

1. All "Dresden bombing scholars" -- a sort of special branch of the historian profession -- assured me that all the personnel who had participated had done so without written orders, not a single document having been presented to them at the time of the bombing, the whole thing having been born out of a "mysterious meeting of minds" that trickled down telepathically from Churchill to "Bomber" Harris to about everyone involved, in spite of the incredulity of Harris himself and his staff concerning the purported bombing, during the London War Crimes Trial, dully taken care of by a few affidavits with no cross examination possible, from pilots who swore they had taken part in the operation and then were released with slight reprimands, after Harris was hanged. And with "Functionalists" and "Intentionalists" debating to this day how such a thing could have happened without a single written order being produced at any level. Meaning by this not simply "no written order from Churchill to Harris," but no orders from Harris & staff at Bomber Command to others, no explicit planning with the U.S.A.A.F. to coordinate the operation (except by winks and nods that left no traces), no operational orders to the British and American bomber squadrons participating, and no briefings to, or logs from, the air crews referring any details of the operational plan with minimal consistency. And no precise messages to politicians, no references to Parliament or Congress or to the press or broadcasted to the public, before, during or after the event. Nothing but the usual bits of off the wall contradictory wartime propaganda and -- oh yes! -- a coded speech by Winnie speaking about "some chicken, some neck" in which the Churchill exegetes read "Dresden is going to be destroyed" ("chicken" meaning the concentration of fugitives from the East and "neck" the bottleneck in the city and outskirts). All this conspiratorial blackout around the bombing in the extraordinary hope that, in spite of the expected destruction of Dresden, no signs of it would be perceptible to posterity.

2. Eyewitnesses and confessions from the War Crimes trials conducted by the Axis winners told me the aircraft taking part in the bombing were thousands of specially adapted pesticide sprayers droping incendiary hand grenades according to one version, hydroplanes dropping special Diesel naval incendiary torpedoes according to another, and surplus barrage balloons dropping burning pianos and anvils according to a third one. Some even saying all the different versions were true and meant there were actually three different bombing waves. And if I dared to doubt that any large scale dropping of burning pianos and anvils made any sense at all, I would simply be asked "wouldn't you be dead if a burning piano was dropped on your head, you dummy? maybe you want to try an anvil?"

3. The city was said to have been completely destroyed and 6 million Dresden inhabitants killed, in spite of only 4.5 million being there at the time of the bombing, and the lost population being quickly recovered afterwards in apparent defiance of statistic birthrate and movement expectations, with no orthodox demographic study in existence and research on the topic not encouraged at all. Also a few people talking about small variations in the figures and doing this out of thin air, being nevertheless assumed to know what they were talking about, since they were all roughly agreeing with the 6 million figure, one "Dresden bombing scholar" nevertheless claiming the real figure was just 5.621.633 (but not why it should be so) and getting away with this.

4. Not one scholar (or anybody else) claiming a single photo of the thing itself, i.e. of the city in ruins, existed. Instead we had some photos of people on the road with their belongings, several more of people being burned alive with flamethrowers, and unidentified burnt bricks said to have come from Dresden. However, in spite of the alleged near total extermination of Dresdeners, "Dresden survivors" -- even 63 years later -- seemed to be everywhere, and were being paid compensation for their sufferings during the fire bombing, with Germany itself collecting colossal reparations from the defeated Allied powers, with no end in view for any of this.

5. Revisionists who had been studying Dresden claimed many buildings there were more than 63 years old, and showed no signs of any gigantic devastating fire. And this claim, disturbing in extreme to many constituted interests, was being fought by putting on display in "Dresden Bombing Museums" all over the World burnt out piano keys and rusted anvil pieces said to have been discovered in the Dresden public gardens. Furthermore, the German World Congress and a host of German Foundations and Bunds were simultaneously imposing censorship and punitive laws against the wicked revisionists, and blackmailing the Swiss banks into coughing up more gold, as if the end of the World was at hand, under the pretext that neutral Switzerland had been an Allied belligerent in disguise, hiding enormous amounts of money that had been really the property of Dresden refugees. Worlwide censorship was also being proposed by Germany at the UN General Assembly and radical doubters were landing directly in jail to the great pleasure of all known civil rights and political amnesty movements.

If this was the scenario, it would be prudent not to believe the rather scarce official historiography -- "historiography" not being naturally the same as bestselling "witness memoirs" -- and at least suspend judgment instead, while ensuring freedom of inquiry and speech for all. No more would be needed: the "Dresden bombing hoax" would collapse under its own weight like a grounded whale.

Other Comments by ASMarques

152. Comment #176555 by Podaar on May 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Teratornis,

I look forward to your patient reply to the above. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to even approach it. The anger that you deplore is too close to the surface.

Good luck.

Other Comments by Podaar

153. Comment #176558 by al-rawandi on May 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm

ASM,









You truly are a skid mark. I will leave your intellectual death to Teratornis.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

154. Comment #176560 by Shergar on May 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Who is this interviewer? - She obviously developed her style after watching Sacha Barron Cohen in his 'Borat' incarnation. Is she a spoof and I'm just not getting it??

If she is a spoof - I will study harder - if she is real - how can I get a job as an interrogator of people who are infinitely more talented than I am?

I say interrogate as she is obviously posing set questions and giving NO consideration to the response before moving on to the next inane question

Other Comments by Shergar

155. Comment #176581 by Teratornis on May 7, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Comment #176555 by Podaar:

Teratornis,

I look forward to your patient reply to the above. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to even approach it. The anger that you deplore is too close to the surface.

"Deplore" sounds kind of angry to me, and anger at anger seems a bit self-referential, so I'd prefer to say "The anger that I advise against", or perhaps, "The anger that I suggest we remain consciously aware of."

Anger is a natural human emotion which results from a failure to impose our will on our surroundings. Since none of us can get reality to conform exactly to our wishes, there's no way to be human and entirely free from anger, but the main danger comes from not being consciously aware of our anger, and then acting impulsively on it. That's usually a maladptive response in a civilized society.

Actually, I'd say if you feel angry upon reading ASMarques' reply, then it would be a good exercise for you to rebut it. See if you can respond using only the tools of reason and not emotion. If you can do that, then you will have accomplished something, even if you convince him of nothing - you will have convinced yourself of the value of not submitting to your anger.

Everything you need in the way of data is right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about peak oil denial. Even if everybody on Earth rejected the facts about the Holocaust, civilization would probably carry on. Now that the Jews have nuclear weapons, they aren't likely to go down easily again. And there are still genocides occurring from time to time despite the orthodox acceptance of the reality of the holocaust, so it's not as if getting the facts right guarantees smooth sailing.

In contrast, civilization might not survive a large-scale rejection of the facts surrounding peak oil. What we think about peak oil, and how we choose to act right now, will probably have a huge impact on our prospects for the very near future.

The problem with peak oil is probably more a matter of simple ignorance. When I watch the news correspondents reporting on oil prices breaking record highs every few days, I don't see many who can provide anything resembling a coherent explanation for the price run-up. Except this guy from Australia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kWMa1Qpusc
Alan Kohler on Oil
(1 min 26 sec into the video, notice the graph entitled "It's Simple Really")

The astounding ignorance about the imminent peaking and unavoidable decline of world oil supply matters, because most people still seem to have no inkling of the severity of the problem we face, nor of the massive changes in attitudes and lifestyles that must occur - and should have started years ago.

Other Comments by Teratornis

156. Comment #176582 by Podaar on May 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm

158. Comment #176581 by Teratornis

Thanks dude! I can head home with a smile now.

By the way, I understand your view on peak oil. Really I do. I think most regular readers of this site do. I think most readers probably agree with you...but, I also think you're loosing your audience.

And no, I'm not angry.

Good night.

Other Comments by Podaar

157. Comment #176590 by Teratornis on May 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Comment #176582 by Podaar:

By the way, I understand your view on peak oil. Really I do. I think most regular readers of this site do. I think most readers probably agree with you...but, I also think you're loosing your audience.

We've probably also lost ASMarques.

I wish I could put more oil in the ground by losing my audience. Exxon would pay me billions of dollars to go around alienating people!

Unfortunately for my prospects for obscene wealth, reality doesn't care what anything thinks about reality.

When we argue with holocaust deniers, they can stay in denial forever. It's unfalsifiable, like believing in God - the belief does not depend on anything that will happen in the real world.

Peak oil is a lot more interesting, because very soon we will see who is right. Anyone who has experienced being out of gas knows how difficult it is to stay in denial about that.

Everyone should carefully examine the viability of their jobs, career plans, life plans, living arrangements, recreational preferences, etc., and see how they're set for oil at $200/bbl, $300/bbl, or $400/bbl (current price: around $120/bbl). Can your employer and your community continue to function at those prices? Can you?

Everybody should ask their employer, what's the plan if employees start having trouble getting fuel to drive to work? Are we set up to let people telecommute to the extent possible?

The $200 mark is looking like a near certainty within two years or less. The larger numbers are by no means out of the question either - throughout the oil price run-up since 2003, almost all "mainstream" projections about the future price have been too low. The exception has been the peak oil camp, of course, which said "I told you so" after the U.S. peaked in 1970, and is doing it again now that whole world appears to be peaking. The world has no spare oil production capacity any more, and demand continues to increase. New discoveries aren't keeping up with the decline in existing fields. So the price of fuel has nowhere to go but up.

I know it's a disturbing topic - which is why, of course, I obsess on it - but that's why we need everybody to get in the game. The problem is not going to solve itself, and (the nonexistent) God knows our politicians aren't going to solve it for us.

It's more fun to focus on comparatively meaningless trivia like the creation/evolution/ID controversy, or holocaust denial. We will have plenty of time to play whack-a-mole on those, but only if we solve our energy problems first.

Other Comments by Teratornis

158. Comment #176659 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 7, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Teratornis

While I understand your hate

Whoa whoa, hate?

I never used that word, the word you're looking for is "pun"

I am making fun of the name because he/she has been going around for a while now denying the holocaust, consistanly; it's rather disgusting.

Please spare me your scolding and reinterpreting my humor as "hate"

as for your sports analogy: you get a yellow card, perhaps you should get off your high horse.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

159. Comment #176671 by ASMarques on May 7, 2008 at 9:05 pm

ASMarques - could you please explain to me why every historian who has ever written anything on the Holocaust (apart from those who go against it, of course) goes along with the world wide hoax which you appear to believe in?

Sure. If by historians you mean academic professional historians, you won't find many approaching the dangerous stuff. Count them and send me if, you can, six names. The field of "Holocaust scholarship" is an inbreeding one where ordinary research is not possible for obvious reasons. As I said before, it's understandable that historians generally won't touch such an extraordinarily sensitive political minefield with a 10 foot pole, unless they are not very clever or have a very low threshold of self-respect and don't mind parroting the conformist views without relevant investigation by themselves.

Major revisionist breakthroughs like the Leuchter and Rudolf Reports had to be achieved by stealth because the authorities of the Auschwitz museum wouldn't cooperate in their own exposition and demise. Their concessions have always lagged behind, as damage control when the truth can no longer be obfuscated. If you want to form an idea of the achievements of revisionism that the cult priesthood hides from you, read this carefully:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Faurisson/at_Teheran_conf_2005.html

And do you really think that the German and Austrian government would go along with this hoax for "Carthaginian reasons"?

Of course they do. You talk a lot of "governments." Well, governments are not known for spearheading change in matters of extreme political conformity, are they? Individual people who use their own heads are, and this is what happens when they try:

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/staglich.html
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres6/WSeng.pdf

Judge Stäglich's book is today a dated one but it's still important reading to understand the inner logic of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials (1963-1965), and by extension the same sort of problem in similar show-trials. Self-incriminating testimony in witch-trials is always a strong telltale of what goes on behind the façade. Want to understand what's going on? Take the Frankfurt trials: it's supposed to be where the German SS confessed their criminal gassings but actually what you have is such idiocies as a guy saying "he saw everything from a hiding place," and only two SS actually confessing to having taken a role in any gassings! Their names were Hans Stark and Pery Broad.

Both sang the correct tune, got away with small sentences, and were freed before their time. The sentences were respectively ten and four years. Stark was a minor and was sentenced under juvenile law! Such is the quality of the "eyewitnesses" and "perpetrators" the Frankfurt sham trial managed to put across to the public as required.

Judge Stäglich tried to inquire about the residence of Pery Broad after his release in order to interview him, but he was not even allowed to look at the trial records, in spite of being a full judge himself. I wonder why all the secrets...

How about camp Commandant Richard Baer that was going to be put on trial at the same time, and was reputed to have denied everything about the gas chambers during the instruction phase?

Oh, he died under custody, days before the trial began. The autopsy said "poisoning cannot be ruled out," an interesting way of putting it. Note that he was not a candidate for hanging, since the Frankfurt trials were conducted by the Federal Republic of Germany, he had been in good health, and suicide was highly unlikely. Must have been the long hand of fate, once again...

And why didn't every single German who was tried at Nuremberg say that the Holocaust never happened and it was all made up? Quite a few of them were sentenced to death anyway, so them then saying it never happened wouldn't have done them any harm.

Because the War Crimes trials were a farce and you don't stand a chance if don't try to go along. People who were fighting for their lives in the modern equivalent of witch trials had to compromise and follow their inner logic.

Their line of defence was "yes, the witches went to the sabbath and had intercourse with the devil, but I never actually participated in their rompings. I'm the one who just kept watch at the bottom of the mountain and couldn't help but crying and crying."

Obviously any "witch" who says "wait a minute, there is no devil" is ready for the stake. And by the way, many "witches" who were practically certain they would indeed go to the stake, denied in block. People like Goering and Kaltenbrunner, who couldn't possibly not have known, denied any knowledge, so your assumption is not correct at all.

And why did Albert Speer keep on apologising for it if it had never happened?

He knew how he could stand a chance. He was a highly intelligent man. Can you imagine him saying "Aha, I was just kidding in order to leave Spandau. Now I'm going to tell you the truth and nothing but the truth"? What do you think would have happened?

My guess is the same that happened to Rudolf Hess when he was on the verge of being set free. The Soviets had finally agreed to let him go and the British who always had posed as humane and concerned with his prolonged emprisonment were suddenly caught at their own game. Of course, they, not the Soviets, were the ones who stood to lose the most by revelations over Hitler's secret offers of peace to Britain in 1940, so...

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n1p24_Hess.html

Other Comments by ASMarques

160. Comment #176679 by Goldy on May 7, 2008 at 9:16 pm

The field of "Holocaust scholarship" is an inbreeding one where ordinary research is not possible for obvious reasons

Good Lord! Holocaust denial IS ID!!! Is this not the argument used against scientists that do not believe in evolution?
:-D
Not looking good there, ASM ;-)

The Soviets had finally agreed to let him go and the British who always had posed as humane and concerned with his prolonged emprisonment were suddenly caught at their own game. Of course, they, not the Soviets, were the ones who stood to lose the most by revelations over Hitler's secret offers of peace to Britain in 1940, so...

But of course, it was the British! My, one wonders how the hell we lost an empire!

Other Comments by Goldy

161. Comment #176709 by ASMarques on May 7, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Oops, sorry. Never forget the small change.

Said al-rawandi:

I will leave your intellectual death to Teratornis.

You mean you have to go?

Said Podaar:

Teratornis,

I look forward to your patient reply to the above. I don't have the intestinal fortitude to even approach it. The anger that you deplore is too close to the surface.

Don't be angry, Podaar. There is life after intestinal fortitude breaks down.

Said Teratornis:

Everything you need in the way of data is right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

[...]

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about peak oil denial.

Thanks. The mighty Wikitruth opens the door into happines. I guess that solves all our problems.

And, of course, I understand. I'm very concerned too.

Said Star Spangled Eagle:

Said Teratornis:

While I understand your hate

Whoa whoa, hate?

I never used that word, the word you're looking for is "pun"

Please spare me your scolding and reinterpreting my humor as "hate"

Come on folks, calm down. Stop fighting.

Tell you what: to keep your juvenile minds well entertained with your favourite subject, he who first manages to explain the absence of holes in the roof of Krema II will win a signed certificate testifying he licked you know who.

Said alan baylis:

It cannot be only me who is struck by the overwhelming similarity of the arguments for holocaust denial and those for id/creationism. Just try substituting "evolution" for "holocaust" and it's plain to see.

I was going to give a long list of these similarities.

Fascinating stuff. Why don't you? I'd love to see that.

Other Comments by ASMarques

162. Comment #176717 by ASMarques on May 7, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Said Goldy:

But of course, it was the British!

Not necessarily, and nothing against the British on my part. But do you have a better theory? Of course, no more than conjecture, but why not telling us about it?

Other Comments by ASMarques

163. Comment #176739 by dlitt on May 7, 2008 at 11:27 pm

ASMarques,

The amount of literary effort you put into 'holocaust denial,' in the least, could be described as obsessive. Did someone cut the skin off your willy when you were little? Maybe you need to talk to a professional.

Other Comments by dlitt

164. Comment #176755 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 12:49 am

Comment #176659 by Star Spangled Eagle

Good on you mate!

These holocaust deniers are deeply unpleasant people with a sinister agenda, (and, I don't mean wacky handed)!

Skid marques on the underpants of humanity is an apt description, I think!

Other Comments by alan baylis

165. Comment #176757 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 12:52 am

Another hopeless mishmash of obfuscation, denial and avoidance was presented by ASMarques. To pick just a few hilarious moments (remember, it's not necessary to debunk delusional viewpoints in detail but just to underline them);

ASMarques;
'It's naturally difficult to come up with precise statistics after so much obfuscation, with no real official investigation ever done on the subject, but I would consider '

An interesting revelation of your duplicity here in two ways. You very soon chide Teratornis for asking why virtually all historians accept that there were mass killings of Jews by stating that very few have actually done any real investigation into original references (totally ignoring the accepted premise that, unlike science, historical research can and does rely on reputable investigation without having to 'repeat' the experiments/investigation to verify the results). And secondly, in response to your passionate plea for belief contained in the quote above, I'm sure you won't fail to link to your own original research that allows you to so confidently say that 'you consider'. I'm sure you have it rather than, as you have exclusively done so far in justifying your outlandish views, relying upon other peoples' views. That would be hypocritical wouldn't it?

You then launch into another extensive diatribe about your views but we've seen it all before; repetition can be a signal of deep-seated conflict, can't it?

Yet then direct me to one of your previous messages which you aver covers your reasons for being a Holocaust denier;

- you are an ardent seeker of the 'truth'
- you believe that virtually all historians live in genuine fear of what Jews will do to them if they question the accepted history. (see comment #164730)

I have no problem with laughing loudly at your first claim. You have provided more than enough instances of obfuscation, lying, duplicity and plain craven ignorance in your posts (including the last few) for everyone else to join me in the laughter as well.

Your second point is more troubling. Not for me but for you. I've attempted to have an open mind up to this point but now you put yourself clearly in the tinfoil hat brigade. Teratornis compiled a list of popular conspiracy theories a while back and I'm sorry to say that I refrained from joining in with the general view that you should be lumped into that category. However if, as you state, your whole reason for pursuing this denial position is a belief in a Zionist conspiracy then, I'm sorry, but I too shake my head and leave you to your own mind.

A final quote from you;

'Denial of what? "Denial," just like that? Isn't the denied matter interesting any longer? Is the magic word too powerful to be pronounced by the lesser believers further away from the Holy of Holies?'
As I said at the beginning, sometimes it's only necessary to underline not debunk lunatic positions.

Other Comments by AllanW

166. Comment #176800 by ASMarques on May 8, 2008 at 4:26 am

Hi AllanW.

I'll be glad to debate with you any points you wish if you'll be kind enough to organise a little better your texts in the following way:

1) Don't quote me in your words as in "You very soon chide Teratornis for asking why virtually all historians accept that there were mass killings of Jews etc." Quote me in my words usign blockquote. It's not comfortable at all for me to go looking for something you attribute to me in less than exact words.

2) Don't spend so much time discussing my bad character as you see it, as in "your reasons for being a Holocaust denier [...] you are an ardent seeker of the 'truth' [...] I have no problem with laughing loudly at your [...] claim" etc. Of course, you're fully entitled to have any opinion you wish, but I find it sligthly annoying to be constantly requested to talk about myself instead of the subject we are discussing, then to have to discuss with you why my assessment of myself or my motives are completely wrong in your view, and so on ad infinitum.

Other Comments by ASMarques

167. Comment #176802 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #176800 by ASMarques

'I'll be glad to debate with you any points you wish if you'll be kind enough to organise a little better your texts in the following way:'

You seem to have misunderstood; you have been debating the entire site on this issue for more than a month now.

'Don't quote me in your words (snip) Quote me in my words'

I have consistently done so by using quotation marks (see for example the first phrase in this post and the quote above).

'It's not comfortable at all for me to go looking for something you attribute to me in less than exact words.'

I repeat; every time I quote you the phrase is in quotation marks and every time I paraphrase the difference is clear and obvious. Stop wriggling.

'Don't spend so much time discussing my bad character as you see it'

I have made one post on this topic, my last one. It was made as a result of having analysed your arguments and the data presented and concluding that the only missing piece, for me, was your motivation. You kindly provided that, thank you (comment #164730; 'Do you think it may have something to do with a naked fear of what the Jews may do to you?')

Goodbye.

Other Comments by AllanW

168. Comment #176804 by ASMarques on May 8, 2008 at 5:03 am

Said dlitt,

The amount of literary effort you put into 'holocaust denial,' in the least, could be described as obsessive.

It's basically effortless, Goldilocks. Unless people start asking for replies to rather disorganised messages. That can be a real problem.

Did someone cut the skin off your willy when you were little?

You mean am I a Jew? Not to my knowledge.

Other Comments by ASMarques

169. Comment #176807 by Titania on May 8, 2008 at 5:10 am

Re: ASMarques

Why are you guys still feeding this troll? Why even respond to someone who cites an electrical engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Butz) as an expert on history in support of his ridiculously uninformed drivel? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. Please do not give him the attention he is seeking to feed his dysfunctional ego.

Other Comments by Titania

170. Comment #176811 by ForestMist on May 8, 2008 at 5:25 am

ASMarques - I still don't think you've answered my question. I didn't ask why lots and lots of historians weren't writting books/articles on the Holocaust, I was asking why the vast majority of historians go along with your "hoax". If the evidence is as flimsy as you claim, then why hasn't every historian said so? What possible reason have all these people got for going along with the "hoax"?

I actually do not talk a lot about governments. I don't recall having mentioned them before. I only mentioned them in my last post as I was querying a statement you had made. And you didn't answer my question - why would the German and Austrian governments have gone along with this "hoax" for purely Carthaginian reasons, as you said previously.

I don't think anything would have happened to Albert Speer if on release from Spandau he had said that the Holocaust never happened, but that he only took responsibility for it in the Trials to avoid being killed. The fact is that for the rest of his life he continued to apologise for it - the actions of a man who knew it never happened? Seems highly unlikely, don't you think?

And comparing the War Trials to Witchcraft trials is a bit trite don't you think?

I have to wonder, is there anything that could possibly change your mind about the "hoax"? It seems that everything that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is wrong, or else people have been made to say things by other agencies (and for some reason the "British" seem to be your new baddies) or else killed by other agencies. Again, why would so many people go along with this "hoax"?

Other Comments by ForestMist

171. Comment #176826 by ASMarques on May 8, 2008 at 6:03 am

Said Titania:

Why are you guys still feeding this troll?

In translation, if I may take the liberty: "How come free speech on the 'Holocaust' hoax is being permitted?"

Why even respond to someone who cites an electrical engineer [...] as an expert on history in support of his ridiculously uninformed drivel?

Not a good argument, I'm afraid. As I said before, academic historians are the exception, not the rule in the "Holocaust" field (or maybe I should say "minefield").

For example, Gerald Reitlinger was an art dealer with no academic qualifications; Georges Wellers, considered a prominent French writer on the Holocaust and a bitter opponent of revisionism, was the director of a medical research laboratory and had no historical training; Jean-Claude Pressac, author of several books on the Auschwitz gas chambers, had a diploma in pharmacy but no historical training whatsoever; Walter Laqueur, author of many books on the Holocaust never completed a university degree; Raul Hilberg's studies were in political science. I think Butz puts his case across much better than any of the others:

THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESUMED EXTERMINATION OF EUROPEAN JEWRY
By Arthur R. Butz

[Free PDF download]
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf

[Quote from Butz]

A common complaint about this work has been that I am not a trained historian or history professor. It is, however, not unusual for people who are not academic historians to make contributions to history. The great American historian Francis Parkman was no history professor; he had only a brief academic appointment as Professor of Horticulture at Harvard. The late Arnaldo Momigliano urged wariness of academic historians and pointed out that none of the three leading nineteenth century historians of the ancient world was a history professor, e.g. Mommsen was a Professor of Law.

However, such examples do not satisfactorily illustrate the fact that history has a closer relationship to popular culture than most other academic disciplines. This is easily clarified and proved. In the major book reviews (New York Times, New York Review, etc.) one can find reviews of, and advertisements for, many works on the leading edge of historical research, i.e. works not specifically written for popular readership. No such attention is given to leading edge works in electrical engineering and most other academic disciplines. Many intelligent laymen can read such historical works with comprehension. If many can read them, then some can write them. I could give reasons for this relatively popular status of serious history study, but it would carry us too far afield. In any case, there is no venality on the part of academic historians in approving of such popular promotion of their books.

Such observations show, however, that there is hypocrisy in their common implication, when denouncing Holocaust revisionism, that only people with their kinds of Ph.D. degrees are competent to deal with historical issues.

The style of my book is certainly not elegant. I believe my style has improved much since then but, like most men with a technical education, my style remains at best dry and not elegant. It was, however, good enough to do the job. I have even sometimes wondered if elegance of style might be incompatible with a subject as dreary as the present one.

Please do not give him the attention he is seeking to feed his dysfunctional ego.

Again in translation: "Please do not pay attention to inconvenient facts about the 'Holocaust' hoax, what's the world coming to!"

I'll never understand why some people find it so necessary to interfere when others are talking of things they're not interested in.

Other Comments by ASMarques

172. Comment #176862 by alan baylis on May 8, 2008 at 7:29 am

ASS Marques,
I was looking through your earlier posts, when I had a classic coffee-keyboard moment. You actually described David Irving as an honest man! Anyway, when I stopped laughing I remembered that way back in the mid-seventies good old PRIVATE EYE was already on his case. This stemmed from his habit of giving talks to far right and neo-nazi groups in Britain and Europe. In answer to this he whined that he did not know who they were when they booked him!
From then on, the EYE renamed him "Berlin Irving" in recognition of his nazi sympathies.

Anyone who would like to know more about Irving could do worse than googling "David Irving libel trail". This will give an idea of what these people are about and of their characters. (Keep in mind that Irving was the silly bugger who was sueing)!
Note what the judge said of him in his summing up: From wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

I am sure this would serve equally well as a description of ASS Marques.

Skid, we do agree on one thing. Making holocaust denial an offence is a mistake. It grants it more importance than it deserves. You and your ilk already have outsized martyr complexes. The world is short of timber. If you lot would get off your many crosses we could save a good-sized forest.

Other Comments by alan baylis

173. Comment #176863 by ASMarques on May 8, 2008 at 7:33 am

Said Goldy:

Good Lord! Holocaust denial IS ID!!!

Hmmm, are you sure?

Seems to me like ID seeks "validation by undeniable buzzword" much like the big H, whereas the perfidious deniers constantly invoke the experimental approach rather than vague evidence of a moral nature...

Hints:

-- Did you know Hilberg wrote his magnum opus on how the Jews were massively chain-killed with the same product used to save their lives, without ever setting foot on a single concentration camp to see a gas chamber for himself, let alone to inspect it closely?

-- Did you know Faurisson traveled to the main concentration camps to see with his own eyes the shadowy "gas chambers," managing to discover in the Auschwitz archives the till then unheard of blueprints of the crematories and their morgues, proceeding from there to inspire the landmark inspection and scientific analysis presented in the Leuchter Report?

Now, if you want some real intelligent design read the court testimony of "Holocaust scholar"
Robert Van Pelt and note his moral certitude that the "epicentre of the Holocaust" was a gas chamber with no detectable holes for the introduction of the gas:

Comment #174561:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2472,Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss,RichardDawkinsnet,page3#174561

If in moral doubt concerning scientific standards consult brilliant "Holocaust scholars" such as these:

Deborah "No debate" Lipstadt:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n5p40_Oluwatoyin.html

Franciszek "Ooops" Piper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP8eB4oPS0o

And, of course, you can always depend on Dawkins for moral support against the "liars."

Other Comments by ASMarques

174. Comment #177031 by Rawhard Dickins on May 8, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Israels 60th today..

Take out the religion, share the land.


We're all human! (even if I am rather short and hairy).

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

175. Comment #177206 by ASMarques on May 8, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Said Rawhard Dickins:

Israels 60th today..

Take out the religion, share the land.

Best proposal for the future of Israel, the Middle East and all of us I've ever heard:

http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=video_p&id=2

A secular state for all of Palestine under some sort of initial guarantee from the UN might be turned into a beacon both for Jewish humanistic cosmopolitism (well, I for one would comply with that sort of face-saving make-believe foundational myth; after all, the abominable "Holocaust" blood libel against non-Jews is much worse!) and -- certainly not a minor hope -- Arab secular developments in the region.

But, of course, nuclear disarmament of Israel would have to be one of the first requirements of such a program. So, unfortunately, I fear we are in for a prolonged low-intensity world war with occasional nuclear devastation, until the concept of an exclusivist Israeli Palestine embattled along pseudo-racial and religious lines somehow fades away as a worst option for Jews than other options. And the new religious ground that will make the western world close ranks in the defence of Jewish supremacism until then will be none other than the big H. What a sad way of ending the age of western world supremacy.

Other Comments by ASMarques

176. Comment #177208 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Not necessarily, and nothing against the British on my part. But do you have a better theory? Of course, no more than conjecture, but why not telling us about it?

Sarcasm, old boy, sarcasm. It's always the fault of the British. Living in a former colony, don't ask how many ills have been heaped on our heads :-) Of course, I can always point to the Zionists!
As for the ID

Hmmm, are you sure?

IDiots appear to be under the impression there is a conspiracy afoot to discredit any "research" into intelligent design in favour of evolution. Your comments about some conspiracy being afoot to discredit holocaust deniers sounded so much alike I had to laugh out loud (in print, no easy feat!)
I'm a bit unsure about this

JEWS: ordinary people, often with big noses and very nice IQ, under the curse of the worst religion ever invented.

Often with big noses? One hopes there is a hint of...racial stereotyping here. Does add a slight flavour to your arguments.

Other Comments by Goldy

177. Comment #177266 by ASMarques on May 8, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Said Goldy:

IDiots appear to be under the impression there is a conspiracy afoot to discredit any "research" into intelligent design in favour of evolution.

So what? What has that to do with the very real persecution of "Holocaust" deniers? Do you by any chance ignore that "denial of the Holocaust" is banned in most of the western world? I don't mean it in a symbolic way. I mean extremely harsh fines and prison sentences. Your logic in the face of the events seems to be as follows:

The facts:

1) Deniers deny H.
2) Deniers get ruined or jailed for denying H.
3) Deniers get discredited for having being ruined or jailed.
4) Denial of H gets discredited because deniers got discredited.

Your conclusion:

5) Therefore H is true and no conspiracy on behalf of H exists.

It's the conclusion that seems weird to me. Can't you explain yourself any better?

In what is the (punishable) denial of the "Holocaust" hoax similar to the (non punished) denial of the scientific method in general or evolution in particular?

Anyway, your obsession with the inexistence of conspiracies is intriguing to me. You seem to believe there is a Conspiracy going on by conspiratorially-minded people who believe real minor conspiracies other than the One and Only Conspiracy exist. Should we perhaps start talking about monoconspiracism and polyconspiracism?

JEWS: ordinary people, often with big noses and very nice IQ, under the curse of the worst religion ever invented.

Often with big noses? One hopes there is a hint of...racial stereotyping here. Does add a slight flavour to your arguments.

Well, actually I don't believe in any of that. I was just fishing for someone like yourself to point out that you resent the racial stereotyping of Jews, but only in one sense. You become agitated by the thought that Jews may often have less than perfectly beautiful noses, but not by the thought that Jews may often be clever. In a sense, whether you're a Jew or not, it's another consequence of the "Holocaust" hoax, but I don't expect you to accept that without an intensive program of self-education.

Other Comments by ASMarques

178. Comment #177274 by Goldy on May 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm

My my, getting a bit touchy, aren't we?
My conclusion to the suppression statement you used - sounds the same as the IDiots' excuse. No more, no less. The punishable aspect I find does contravene free speech. However, one can say it is balanced a bit by Turkey, the opposite occurs, namely denial is official and denial of denial is punishable by prison.

I was just fishing for someone like yourself to point out that you resent the racial stereotyping of Jews, but only in one sense

And I was smiling when I wrote it. Actually, Europeans are called "Big Noses" in Asia. And who is to say big noses are not beautiful?
In answer to my question, I would not have mentioned noses or IQ - they are irrelevant and merely act to colour a person. Jews are well known to be good with money - maybe the IQ reference covered that? We all know where that stereotype got them...

Should we perhaps start talking about monoconspiracism and polyconspiracism?

OK - right after micro evolution and macro evolution :-)
Cheer up - not everything here is nasty. I personally have no bone to pick with you. I do think the holocaust happened. Given man's predeliction for slaughtering millions at the drop of a propaganda radio program, why couldn't it have happened? Because Germans are European and Europeans don't do that? Because logistically one can't see it happening? I don't know. If I were to study this, I'd have to trawl through all the evidence, pro and con. You have given us all the con - everything you gave tells us it didn't happen. I need a balance to tell me it did, then I can make my mind up.
Relax, have a beer and chill.

Other Comments by Goldy

179. Comment #177431 by ASMarques on May 9, 2008 at 4:58 am

Said ForestMist :

ASMarques - I still don't think you've answered my question. I didn't ask why lots and lots of historians weren't writing books/articles on the Holocaust, I was asking why the vast majority of historians go along with your "hoax". If the evidence is as flimsy as you claim, then why hasn't every historian said so? What possible reason have all these people got for going along with the "hoax"?

*** Why historians go along with the "Holocaust" hoax ***

Obviously I cannot list every possible motive for every possible historian, so I'll try to pin down the most likely reasons for you. Of course, several of them may coexist in any given historian's professional behaviour.

1) If you mean academic historians in general, I can only point out to you that a historian who specializes, say, in Ancient Greece, and is not particularly interested in the "Holocaust," or is but follows the extra-professional conventional wisdom on the subject and has not looked into the revisionist allegations, is no better equipped to understand why the "Holocaust" is a hoax than anyone else is. So, in their case, the most likely reasons may be (in decreasing order of importance):

-- Ignorance (they may not know and not care).
-- Naïveté (historians are not hoax proof)
-- Prudence (debunking the myth is not a career booster).
-- Fear (they may fear losing their jobs, being assaulted, judicially prosecuted etc.).

2) If you mean academic historians who specialize in the "Holocaust" itself, I would point out to you that there is just a handful of them. See my message #176826 to Titania, on this same thread, to understand that a little better. So, I assume that by "historians" we mean here both the handful of academics and anyone who writes on, and claims extensive knowledge of, the "Holocaust." And the most likely reasons may be (in decreasing order of importance):

-- Tribalism (they may be Jews unable to professionally detribalise) [1]
-- Devotion (they may be "Holocaust" cultists unable to reason) [2]
-- Greed (they may find the platform lucrative and not too crowded)
-- Incompetence (they may be exceptionally stupid)
-- Fear (they may fear losing their jobs, being assaulted, judicially prosecuted etc.).
-- Impotence (they may be demoralised, reduced to indigence or imprisoned)
______________

[1] In order to better understand the concept compare with patriotically motivated historians who glorify their own country's history and pay deficient attention to the historical record (say a Russian communist historian writing on the Great Patriotic War).

[2] In order to better understand the concept compare with religiously motivated historians who believe in the miracles of their own religions and have a deficient understanding of History itself (say a Christian historian writing on the supernatural origins of Christianity).
______________

I actually do not talk a lot about governments. I don't recall having mentioned them before. I only mentioned them in my last post as I was querying a statement you had made.

Sorry about that. I suppose when I wrote "you talk a lot of governments" I was thinking of the plural "you" since the question has been repeated several times by others.

And you didn't answer my question - why would the German and Austrian governments have gone along with this "hoax" for purely Carthaginian reasons, as you said previously.

I meant a historical parallel. The Romans are reputed to have destroyed the foundations of Carthage, not simply by destroying its defences, taking captives, imposing taxes and garrisons etc., but actually by burning the city to the ground and dismantling it, not leaving stone upon stone, and finally sowing salt on the location in order that no new life would be growing there, in symbolic fashion. Later a different Carthage, a Roman one, was founded nearby, but the Punic Carthage completely vanished from history. What I meant by "Carthaginian reasons" was Germany goes along because she underwent a total defeat and has not recovered from it, remaining -- even in prosperity and comfort -- a traumatised country with no will of its own, under a Jewish grip imposed largely through the agency of the "Holocaust" libel.

I don't think anything would have happened to Albert Speer if on release from Spandau he had said that the Holocaust never happened, but that he only took responsibility for it in the Trials to avoid being killed.

His release was in 1966. How could he have done that if the "Holocaust" concept dates from the seventies? If you mean simply the notion of "German crimes," well, they did occur (as Allied crimes also did, but so far no apologies).

The fact is that for the rest of his life he continued to apologise for it - the actions of a man who knew it never happened? Seems highly unlikely, don't you think?

"Apologise for 'it' [...] 'it' never happened"? Have you noticed what the "it" is standing for in your question? Is that really what Speer claimed he had known about?

Let me again call your attention to the Newspeak role of the "Holocaust" word.

As Minister for Armaments, Speer had responsibility over the use of slave labour that could be, indeed should be, considered criminal. The same, by the way, can be said of Allied leaders like Stalin, Eisenhower, De Gaulle and Truman. The criminal case against Speer was much better than was, for instance, the case against Streicher who was hanged strictly on account of his writings.

But what Speer claimed was -- to present you with a quote from the Wikipedia [*] -- that "he had no direct involvement or knowledge of the Holocaust, although he admitted having blinded himself to its existence and expressed remorse for this."

Well, if he claimed to have had no knowledge, his groveling can hardly be taken as proof of it, can it?

However you use the simple fact that he apologised for something as evidence for the "Holocaust" (extermination, homicidal gas chambers, approximately 6 million murdered Jews).

Don't you notice the trouble I constantly go to in order to keep the meaning of the word present by parenthesizing it?

As I said before, a concept like the Second World War may be called a historical fact because, in spite of the complexity of the events, we establish definitions and understand them: a "war" is a state of belligerence between states, a "world war" is a war of global world significance, and "the Second World War" is the particular world war that took place from 1939 to 1945.

Similarly, if we are to discuss the "Holocaust" as an alleged historical fact we must understand the meaning of the word and not change it at every turn. The "Holocaust" is assumed to be a relatively precise set of events involving an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in the German supposedly homicidal gas chambers. Am I correct in believing you are familiar with this?

If you agree -- as I think you do, hopefully for a lapse of time sufficient to read this whole paragraph -- I suggest you do the following: each time you write the H word, immediately pin it down by forcing yourself to write the parenthesized meaning next to it. That way you'll be able to actually discuss a meaningful concept instead of an empty one.
______________

[*] I quote the Wikipedia, not because I trust it on controvesial matters such as the "Holocaust," but because the quote is reasonably consensual and spares me the task of looking for adequate passages from Speer's Memoirs etc.
______________

And comparing the War Trials to Witchcraft trials is a bit trite don't you think?

Perhaps, if the comparison was used superficially, as an oratory device to build up emotion. Not at all, if you get hold of its precise meaning and use it to vehiculate a comprehension of the facts, i.e. of the inner logic of the trials and the behaviour of those concerned.

I have to wonder, is there anything that could possibly change your mind about the "hoax"?

See my comment #175261:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2527,Shaw-TV-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Shaw-TV-Richard-Dawkins,page2#175261

It seems that everything that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is wrong, or else people have been made to say things by other agencies (and for some reason the "British" seem to be your new baddies) or else killed by other agencies.

Assuming you're talking about the possible British role in murdering Rudolf Hess (both the strange way of his death and his autopsy seem to indicate a murder), why do you say "for some reason" if the reason (the British stood to lose the most by revelations over Hitler's secret offers of peace to Britain in 1940) was clearly given?

Again, why would so many people go along with this "hoax"?

Basically due to P.T. Barnum's famous truism.

Other Comments by ASMarques

180. Comment #177901 by ASMarques on May 9, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Said Goldy:

My my, getting a bit touchy, aren't we?

Not at all. On this medium you have no idea of whom you're talking to, and generally no idea of the tone involved. It's very easy to get it wrong. You must concentrate on what exactly is being said.

Cheer up - not everything here is nasty.

Am I correct in assuming you meant to write "hasty"? That's where we might eventually disagree concerning the local idolatric cults.

I personally have no bone to pick with you. I do think the holocaust happened. Given man's predeliction for slaughtering millions at the drop of a propaganda radio program, why couldn't it have happened?

Well, in the first place "could have happened" is not the same as "happened," and anyone who thinks it is has got to exterminate a few bats in his belfry. And I'm sorry to say I don't believe a set of holes in a roof can simultaneously exist and not exist.

Because Germans are European and Europeans don't do that?

You mean they cannot possibly take advantage of the defenceless vanquished and abuse them in the most loathsome modes imaginable? If you're referring to macroscopic holes in a roof that can simultaneously exist and not exist, well, maybe guys like Jesus and Merlin the wizard would be able to do that, but, mysteriously, that sort of ability nowadays is restricted to people like Van Pelt, Lipstadt & Co.

Because logistically one can't see it happening? I don't know.

Score a point and keep thinking!
:^)

If I were to study this, I'd have to trawl through all the evidence, pro and con.

Right. That would be the almost unatainable ideal. I wish I could do it myself. But one can always extend or stengthen one's own knowledge. The abominable thing is mental paralysis before time. We'll get there eventually, but we should put up a fight before taking the plunge in good spirits.

You have given us all the con - everything you gave tells us it didn't happen.

Friend, I haven't given you one hundredth of it. I cannot possibly. You shall have to look for it yourself.

I need a balance to tell me it did, then I can make my mind up.

Absolutely. Never throw away the pile of rubbish. Use it to compare.

Relax, have a beer and chill.

Cheers.

Other Comments by ASMarques

181. Comment #177991 by One God Further on May 10, 2008 at 7:02 am

The main thing i noticed about this video is that there is a reversing truck sound in the background. I would expect better quality work from a channel such as this.

As always Dawkins made too much sense, answered the questions perfectly.

Other Comments by One God Further

182. Comment #179494 by gr8hands on May 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

ASMarques, please read Why People Believe Weird Things by Dr. Michael Shermer, specifically pages 188 through 241 which is Chapter 13 "Who says the Holocaust never happened, and why do they say it?" and Chapter 14 "How we know the Holocaust happened".

Other Comments by gr8hands

183. Comment #179501 by gr8hands on May 13, 2008 at 10:41 am

ASMarques, you wrote

Do you by any chance ignore that "denial of the Holocaust" is banned in most of the western world? I don't mean it in a symbolic way. I mean extremely harsh fines and prison sentences.

Would you please provide the evidence of which countries in the western world ban Holocaust denial?

For that, of course, you'd have to list which countries you believe make up the "western world" and then identify (with authoritative links) which have bans, their fines and prison sentences -- so that we can evaluate whether they are "extremely harsh" or even exist at all in any way other than anecdotally, and whether they make up a majority (to validate your claim of "most").

Other Comments by gr8hands

184. Comment #180014 by ASMarques on May 14, 2008 at 5:34 am

Said gr8hands:

ASMarques, please read Why People Believe Weird Things by Dr. Michael Shermer, specifically pages 188 through 241 which is Chapter 13 "Who says the Holocaust never happened, and why do they say it?" and Chapter 14 "How we know the Holocaust happened".

I have. Shermer is profoundly ignorant of the subject, and the book you mention is a terrible one. Like most "Holocaust" peddlers anxious to stick to their faith, but quite out of their depth when it comes to real knowledge of the issues involved, he concentrates not on the positive facts themselves (i.e. how he knows what he claims he knows), but rather on his adversaries' "motives for denial," and, of course, gets even that generally wrong...

Since I have read both sides and you probably haven't, here are a couple of articles that may come handy to you:

-- A review of Shermer's "skeptical" masterpieces:
http://vho.org/GB/c/PG/111200.html

-- An account of the Weber-Shermer debate you probably have never heard about, et pour cause:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p22_Weber.html

I suppose this small series of 5 clips of Shermer, the "Holocaust scholar" (as he styles himself in the clips), meeting Smith & Cole, the evil revisionist unbelievers, on the Donahue Show, will bring to you the true nature of the man. It also has the advantage of letting you meet some of the proverbial "survivor eyewitnesses," you know, the ones we are supposed to empathize with at all times and show extreme respect in all circumstances, because they are supposed to have the sensitive minds of retarded children, unable to recover from their traumas, even after more than 60 years have passed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7S8zDDzPNI
(1st of 5: look for the others on the "Related Videos" column)

Would you please provide the evidence of which countries in the western world ban Holocaust denial?

For that, of course, you'd have to list which countries you believe make up the "western world" and then identify (with authoritative links) which have bans, their fines and prison sentences -- so that we can evaluate whether they are "extremely harsh" or even exist at all in any way other than anecdotally, and whether they make up a majority (to validate your claim of "most").

In practice, most western countries ban "Holocaust" denial by specifically legislating that "anti-semitic" speech is illegal, and then punishing "Holocaust" denial as a form of "anti-semitic" speech. Of course, "anti-semitic" means, in the Newspeak parlance of the western world, "anti-Jewish."

Just to give you an example of this, consider Romania, a country that doesn't ban "Holocaust denial" outright but... Law nr 51 of June 29, 1991, Article 3 (my italics): "The following actions constitute threats to the national security of Romania... [...] actions of a racist, anti-Semitic, revisionist or separatist nature [...]"

Many western countries have recent laws like that. I'm not going to do a laborious search that you may do yourself, but I will cite further examples of this kind of legislation explicitly against anti-semitism in Spain, Mexico, Sweden and Latvia, for instance.

Anyway, if legislation explicitly against "Holocaust" denial is what you're looking for, here are a few countries, reputed to be paragons of free speech and democratic virtue, that have it, and you don't even have to leave Europe. I did simply a fast search and included Spain because it's an interesting exception: it's the first country to have had a full anti-denial law and to have seen it struck down by a Constitutional Court decision. Nevertheless, Spain still recently deported to Austria, Gerd Honsick, a revisionist author who had been in exile for 15 years, which shows you how elastic the ordinary notions of civil rights become when the victims are deniers of the Faith.

From:
http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/Legislation Against Antisemitism and Denial of the Holocaust
_______________________________

Austria

In Austria, the law against denying the Holocaust has been on the books since 1992. Law No. 148 is an amendment to a law from 1945 which had illegalized the Nazi Party. The 1992 law states that denying the Holocaust and denying the committing of crimes against humanity by the Nazis, their public endorsement or justification are a criminal offense if they are of a political or propaganda nature. In the event that the offense is not of this nature, or is of little influence, it is defined as an Administrative offense. [10]

Article 3h:

'A person shall also be liable to a penalty under Art. 3g if, in print or in broadcast or in some other medium, or otherwise publicly in any manner accessible to a large number of people, if he denies the National Social genocide or the National Socialist crimes against humanity, or seeks to minimize them in a coarse manner or consents thereto to justify them'.

Sentences according to the law:

A criminal offencse: one to twenty years in prison (the maximum under Austrian law)

An administrative offence: a fine of between 3000-30,000 Schillings (about 180 �" 1800 Dollars).
_______________________________

Belgium

A law against denying the Holocaust has existed in Belgium since 1995. According to the law, denying the Holocaust and being contemptuous of it are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment for from eight days to one year and a fine of 26 to 5,000 Belgian francs (between half-a-dollar to 100 dollars).

"Law of Holocaust Denial" of March 1995 [11]

Article 1:

'Whoever, in one of the circumstances indicated by Article 444 of the Penal Code, denies, grossly minimizes, tries to justify or approves of the genocide committed by the German National-Socialist regime during the Second World War will be punished by imprisonment of eight days to one year and a fine of twenty six to five thousand francs…".
_______________________________

Switzerland

There is an article in the Swiss Penal Code which defines as criminal offenses public denial of the Holocaust or an attitude of contempt for genocide or any other crime against humanity which may in certain circumstances be construed as denial of the Holocaust.

Article 261 bis [12]

"… he who publicly, by word of mouth, in writing, by image, by gesture, by assault or in any other way, belittles or discriminates in a way which affects the human dignity of a person or a group of persons because of their race, their ethnic belonging to their religion or who, for the same reason, denies, grossly minimizes or tries to justify a genocide or other crime against humanity".

Punishment according to the law:

A maximum of three years in prison and/or a fine of 40 Swiss francs (about 2,300 dollars)
_______________________________

Germany

Legislation against denying the Holocaust has been on the books in Germany since 1985, and in 1994 this law was amended. The 1985 law (Article 194, 21st) states that denying the Holocaust is an impingement of human dignity, and is defined as an offense. However, pressing charges against the offenders requires the victim's agreement.

The 1994 law (Amendment to Article 130) states that denying the Holocaust is a criminal offence according to the law against incitement. This law also broadens the prohibition from the previous law, and in addition to denying the crimes of the Nazi regime and agreeing with its objectives it includes the prohibition of the use of Nazi symbols and slogans.

Article 130: [13]

(3) Whoever publicly, or at a meeting, denies, diminishes, or approves an act committed under the regime of National Socialism, of the kind described in Article 220A, paragraph 2, in a way likely to disturb the public peace…."

Punishment according to the law:

The 1985 Law: Up to one year in prison or a fine

The 1994 Law: Up to five years in prison or a fine
_______________________________

France

The Law stating that denying the Holocaust is an offense was passed in 1990. This is an amendment to a law from 1881 that related to freedom of the press. This law prohibits both anti-Semitism (Law 90-615) and denying the Holocaust (Article 24b, la loi Gayssot). Another law adopted in 2003 sets stiffer punishments for offenses against an anti-Semitic or racist background. (Law no. 2003-88 of February 2003).

In addition, in 2003, the French Government established a permanent inter-ministerial commission to coordinate the activities of the Government in combating anti-Semitism and racism which discusses, inter-alia, possible legislative measures on the subject. [14]
_______________________________

Spain

A law prohibiting denial of the Holocaust has been on the books since 1996 (New Penal Code: Section 607). The denial of the existence of genocide is a criminal offense in Spain which carries a sentence of between one and two years. [Abolished]

Article 607: [15]

(2) 'Spreading, by any means, ideas or doctrines that deny or justify the crimes typified in the former Section of this Article, or pretend the rehabilitation of regimes or institutions which promote the same…' ["that deny" Abolished]
_______________________________

Slovakia

In November 2001, the Slovak Parliament passed an amendment to the Penal Code according to which denying the Holocaust and minimizing the importance of its crimes, are defined as criminal offenses. The Slovak Minister of Justice claimed in opposition to the amendment that a free society should not punish people for expressing an opinion, even if it arouses opposition. [16]
_______________________________

Poland

In Poland, since 1999 denying the crimes of the Nazis (and the Communists) has been defined as a punishable offense. Anyone breaking that law is facing imprisonment of up to three years. [17]
_______________________________

Italy

Article 8 of the Penal Code of 1967 states that the justification of genocide is an offense and anyone committing it is facing between 3 and 12 years in prison. [18]
_______________________________

Luxembourg

Subsection 3 of Article 475 of the Penal Code of August 1997 states that denying genocide or justifying it are offenses and carry a punishment of between one week and six months in prison and a fine of between 10,000 and 1,000,000 Luxemburg francs. [19]

'…a person who, by one of the means listed in the above paragraph, has disputed, minimized, justified or denied the existence of one or several acts of genocide as defined by the Act of 8 August 1945 making genocide a crime by Luxemburg of international court or authority".

Other Comments by ASMarques

185. Comment #180017 by Tyler Durden on May 14, 2008 at 5:40 am

Comment #180014 by ASMarques

Yawn!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

186. Comment #180126 by gr8hands on May 14, 2008 at 8:45 am

ASMarques, so by listing 10 countries, are you thereby stating that there are only 19 countries in the western world? It would have to be that in order for them to have a majority, and validating your claim that "most" of them have extremely harsh fines and prison sentences.

Of the ones you provided:
Austria's fine is not extremely harsh
Belgium's fine is not extremely harsh
Switzerland's fine is not extremely harsh
Germany doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
France didn't list what the punishments are, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh or even having a prison sentence at all
Slovakia doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
Poland doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
Italy doesn't list what the fine is, so cannot be judged as extremely harsh
Spain, as you acknowledge, doesn't even have anti-denial legislation. Regardless of what they actually do, it is not evidence of your claim.

Only Luxembourg fits the description. So, for your claim to be valid, there can only be 1-1/2 countries in the western world for a majority of them to have extremely harsh fines and prison sentences -- based on the evidence you provided.

It appears you have not proven your point in this instance. You didn't even make the effort to list the countries you personally feel make up the western world (which is the easiest thing for you to do -- not a lot of research required for you to write out what is your opinion)

Of course, for it to even matter were your claim to be true, the laws would have to actually be enforced -- we have laws against spitting here in the U.S., but they're not ever enforced.

Your claim about Shermer being profoundly ignorant on any subject he's written about is not founded in fact. A review on vho.org is not evidence. In light of your poor performance with the answer to my question, I think you need a refresher on what evidence is, but I don't have the time to devote to training you.

I, like many people who read this forum, have read Holocaust denial literature -- it was extremely unpersuasive. I do not speak for others, but in my opinion, and that of every court and legitimate historical society which has expressed an opinion on the subject, it is slipshod research, faulty history, often purposely mistranslated, often deliberate fraud, and laughable due to poor scholarship.

Do not make the mistake of presuming that many of us do not understand a host of languages and have read the documents in their original, from all over Europe. Or that we have not visited the sites ourselves. Or that we do not have close friends who were impacted by their relatives being killed. There are even survivors who read this forum.

No, ASMarques, Holocaust denial is as valid as moon landing denial, as grounded in evidence as the resurrection of jesus, as believable as alien abduction.

Other Comments by gr8hands

187. Comment #180370 by ASMarques on May 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

so by listing 10 countries, are you thereby stating that there are only 19 countries in the western world?

Read again: "most western countries ban 'Holocaust' denial by specifically legislating that 'anti-semitic' speech is illegal, and then punishing 'Holocaust' denial as a form of 'anti-semitic' speech."

[...] not extremely harsh
[...] not extremely harsh
...
[...] not extremely harsh

Sorry, I have no intention of arguing your opinions on the subject. You have yours and I have mine. "Yes it is / no it's not" can go on forever, and frankly I've better things to do than enter discussions at that childish level. I can only suggest you look up the Zundel case and grow up:<