1. Comment #182520 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 10:20 am

The esteemed professors on the possibility / desirability of human eugenic breeding (08:00):

Prof. Sulston: "I think it's a mistake to mix it up too much with the Holocaust, because that was, ah, eugenic slaughter of grown human beings."

Prof. Dawkins: "Yes of course it was [...]."

So here is, at last, a new attempt at defining the magic word, other than simply voiding it of any semantic meaning. But odd news, nevertheless. I thought the meaning up to now was more or less the following:

The "Holocaust": The vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race -- naturally including the zygotes, embryos and phoetuses, as well as the children and the grown-ups -- in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it. And naturally, with no procedural plan, no written orders at any level, no assigned method of mass murder or bureaucratic control, leaving it to the imagination of a whole bunch of telepathic improvisers who came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide etc., and left not the slightest remaining -- or at least accessible to examination -- vestige of such a carnage in any of its precisely located alleged sites. And, of course, leaving survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz to exhuberatingly manifest themselves everywhere more than 60 years later.

Well, maybe we should try yet another definition, one that may well translate how all those marvelous humanities and post-humanities will look at the silly foibles of our times. Maybe the concept will be best understood thus:

The "Holocaust": One of the greatest hoaxes in human history, and one of the ways reputedly wise old professors, in the 20th and early 21th centuries, found out to set themselves as the laughing-stock of the future, a great reminder of the terrible enduring power of totalitarian war propaganda over the feeble human mind.

Other Comments by ASMarques

2. Comment #182632 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 5:22 pm

The esteemed professors on the possibility / desirability of human eugenic breeding (08:00):

Prof. Sulston: "I think it's a mistake to mix it up too much with the Holocaust, because that was, ah, eugenic slaughter of grown human beings."

Prof. Dawkins: "Yes of course it was [...]."

So here is, at last, a new attempt at defining the magic word, other than simply voiding it of any semantic meaning. But odd news, nevertheless. I thought the meaning up to now was more or less the following:

The "Holocaust": The vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate an entire race -- naturally including the zygotes, embryos and phoetuses, as well as the children and the grown-ups -- in the hope future historians would be at a loss to determine what had happened to it. And naturally, with no procedural plan, no written orders at any level, no assigned method of mass murder or bureaucratic control, leaving it to the imagination of a whole bunch of telepathic improvisers who came up with mass execution by steam, electrocution, non-toxic Diesel exhaust, Zyklon B insecticide etc., and left not the slightest remaining -- or at least accessible to examination -- vestige of such a carnage in any of its precisely located alleged sites. And, of course, leaving survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz to exhuberatingly manifest themselves everywhere more than 60 years later.

Well, maybe we should try yet another definition, one that may predict how all those marvelous humanities and post-humanities will look at the silly foibles of our times. Maybe the concept will be best understood thus:

The "Holocaust": One of the greatest hoaxes in human history, and one of the ways found out by reputedly wise old professors, in the 20th and early 21th centuries, to set themselves as the laughing-stock of the future, a great reminder of the terrible enduring power of totalitarian war propaganda over the feeble human mind.
____________________________

And, may I add in rememberance of Prof. Dawkins's comment that first made me write a comment on this forum, also a reminder that the true liars are the ones who avoid confrontation and know the only way they can get away with their lies is shuting off the opposition.

Religion: plus ça change...

Other Comments by ASMarques

3. Comment #182645 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Said Elli:

ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?

That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!

And that, by the way, is why you were, and will be, able to interview so many of them, even though more than 60 years have gone by, and many more must necessarily have died between 1945 and 2008.

Out of interest, what is your alternative hypothesis to account for the 6 million dead?

My alternative to the 6 million oracular wisdom tumbling down from the clouds is as follows:

1) HARD DATA OF JEWISH ORIGIN:

Whenever it's possible to peek into the Kadosh Hakadashim without having to pass by the censoring high and not-so-high priests, since no other real data exists:

http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/revu/TI97/TI971122.html
[Scroll further down after the Israeli estimate to the commentaries by Faurisson and Nordling.]

2) DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS:

Here are the very few book studies you'll be able to find:

-- The only meticulous book-length study from the viewpoint of population statistics ever done is The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by Walter Sanning (1983). Sanning uses Jewish originated data and estimates at 3.500.000 the total number of Jews in the German sphere of influence for the duration of the War, and at 2.400.000 the number of Jews alive at the end of the War in the countries previously occupied by Germany (with the exclusion of the USSR). His conclusions are confirmed by Carl Nordling -- a Finnish demographer, applying statistical inference to samples of known individual histories -- who places the total of Jewish victims of the concentration camps at between 300.000 and 600.000 (see articles by Nordling below).

-- For your reference, an anthology titled Dimension des Völkermords was edited in 1991 for the Institut für Zeitgeschichte by Wolfgang Benz, obviously as an attempt to fill the obvious vacuum. It's a weak pot-pourri of recycled extermination allegations with no connecting rationale other than the 6 million necessary figure (even though Benz denies this).

-- You'll find an interesting comparison of those two books by Germar Rudolf, who doesn't exactly follow any of them, here (Rudolf was deported from the "land of the brave and the free" where he had taken refuge, and is currently in jail in Germany for crimethought):

http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

-- I also found convincing Richard Korherr and his Reports by Stephen Challen (1993), a translation of, and commentary on, the secret reports sent by Richard Korherr (who had the post of "Inspector of Statistics for the Reichsfuehrer-SS") to Himmler on the Jewish deportations. Challen reaches the following figures: 1.200.000 Jews dead for the whole of Europe during the War, 450.000 of them in parts of European Russia not occupied by the Germans, and 750.000 in the area of German direct or indirect responsibility. According to him, out of 2.300.000 deported Jews, 360.000 died, and a total of 200.000 of those died in the concentration camps. He considers the Jewish losses "heavy", but in proportion to the German or Soviet ones, and no more than about 20 % of what is usually believed.

A few more references:

'The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry': An Exchange
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p367_Rubenstein.html

Critique of John S. Conway's Review of Walter Sanning's Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, From The International History Review, August, 1985
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p375_Desjardins.html

John S. Conway's review previously criticised (quoted)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p379_Conway.html

How Many Jews Were Eliminated by the Nazis?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p-61_Hankins.html

3) STATISTICAL INFERENCE BASED ON RELEVANT SAMPLES:

The Jewish Establishment under Nazi-Threat and Domination 1938-1945
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p195_Nordling.html

How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p335_Nordling.html
____________________________

And that's goddbye for now, Elli, for your messages as well as mine, by design or accident, have begun to disappear from view. I hope mine may have been of some use to you folks still under the spell.

Other Comments by ASMarques

4. Comment #182701 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Said Styrer:

Can you edge slightly closer towards a reason for my silence?

Sure I can. You sound pissed off probably because you're smart enough to have noticed the dismal performance of the "erudite" faithful you mention (maybe you can quote one of those erudite bits, by the way). I guess newcomers to this discussion may feel tempted to investigate the said level of "erudition" and be at least as bemused with it as I've been all along. In spite of everything, the level of brainwashed belief in a silly hoax cannot completely blunt one's sense of humour...

I suspect that your self-imposed cut-and-paste policy of posting unoriginal thoughts here prevents you, on your own, from making such a connection as I've tried to spell out for you above.

Let me see. Does your "no cut-and-paste policy of posting unoriginal thoughts" mean that anyone defending a given viewpoint should not be able to use other people's, as well as his own, ideas and formulations that may be entirely relevant to the matter in debate, if that's an accurate way of making the point he wishes to make and due crediting is made?

What kind of debating rule is that? Are you by any chance confusing a debate made of short exchanges and extremely important reference materials on comments columns such as these, with the writing of original novels? How silly -- or desperate -- can you get when you have no arguments left to protect the big hoax?

You say you were very much interested in the debate and only my posting of "unoriginal thoughts" put you off. Well, your ranting at the collective CODOH forum and those who post there seem to indicate that the debunking of the hoax, rather than the style, is what you can't stand.

Perhaps you would have preferred the no-facts, no-ideas, style of the "erudite" posters: yes it's a hoax, no it ain't, yes it is, no it ain't. That would have been great, wouldn't it? Sorry to disappoint you: I'm looking for those holes and the prodigious disappearing gas chambers, not for pointless childish games.

It really is important to think for yourself.

Oh? And if that precious autonomy of thought leads you to agree with, say, Darwin's theory of Evolution, that means you cannot quote him, or Dawkins, or anyone else whom you feel deserves to be pressed into service -- and naturally credited -- in any given debate?

Or maybe the theory is already taken and you must devise a different one for yourself? Well, I guess you must have a brilliant future as an all-around original genius...

But you shouldn't be unkind to "Holocaust" revisionists and deniers. They all started from scrap, every bit as convinced or oblivious of the hoax as you are, and they all had to go through a difficult self-recentering effort. Maybe you should try a little individual effort at thinking for yourself too, instead of requiring more "original thoughts" from others.

Start with the holes in Krema II (in the conditional form to avoid immediate mental paralysis): what does it mean if they are not there? What are the implications? Now, why isn't that a valid question deserving your attention? And why do you wish I couldn't or wouldn't link to sites where one can see how deep and shameless the Gas chambers sham has been? Any opinion on the photos and documents on the Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg or Dachau gas chambers I showed you? How about the Auschwitz "reconstruction"? Unable to say anything original about that too? Why so?

Have a go. You might like it.

So will you, if you try. Here is the first step: look for the truth. Not for the ideologies, or the morals, or the convenient excuses. The facts and nothing but the facts. The rest will come by itself.

****** A NOTE TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS SITE ******

I understand your dilemma. You don't like censoring and these columns are hardly the place for this sort of debate, but please note the following: I have never posted a single "Holocaust" comment in any thread where the subject had not been mentioned in a disreputable way on the video. And I have never posted a message on the same thread after that, except in reply to other posters. So the question you must eventually ask yourselves is not why I don't give up [*], but why so many speakers speaking of everything under the sun always insist in saying the mass against the heretics, while at the same time paying soft -- very, very soft -- lip service to the anti-inquisition side of the heresy debate that finds itself in jail or at the stake. What kind of people are these speakers that cannot put up or shut up? Don't they have any shame left? Can't they at least shut up if they can't come up with anything better and more informed? Why the absolute need to broach the subject every 15 minutes or so, if they have nothing more to say but repeat the big lie without daring to debate it?

Thanks for your attention and precious time. I too have other thing to do, though right now none better or more urgent.
_______________________

[*] I will instantly stop posting the moment the administrator informs me that "Holocaust" comments to "Holocaust" mentions by the speakers are no longer welcomed, but naturally I won't be dismissed to any "alternate thread" and go on posting there or anywhere else.

Other Comments by ASMarques

5. Comment #182748 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Said Mbee:

My parents went through WWII and after the event there was never any denial (apart from those involved trying to save their own necks) about the holocaust and what happened, or any doubt that it happened - there was plenty of evidence to support it.

Some of that evidence concerned soap made from Jewish victims, shrunken heads, human skin lampshades, gas chambers at the camps of Dachau, Ravensbrück, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof (near Strasbourg), Stuttof (near Danzig), Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen etc.

Now you're told that in spite of the evidence -- and indeed in spite of the executed people for many of those alleged crimes -- they were, after all, only an April 1st joke, so to say.

In some of those places you'll be shown the alleged gas chambers with faked showers and all, but you won't any longer be required to believe in that trash. How come? How come if both the eyewitnesses swore under oath it was true and the guilty parties confessed their crimes?

This is a mystery for you to ponder. I suggest you read a few short pamphlets on the subject and start asking yourself questions:

http://www.ihr.org/main/leaflets.shtml

There were plenty of witnesses to the events and apart from those involved nobody, until recently, was trying to make a case that it didn't happen.

Wrong again. One of the first revisionists was Paul Rassinier and he spent all of his life making just that case, in spite of persecution and violent hostility from all quarters. He was an ex-prisonner of Buchenwald and Dora who one day, shortly after the war, was writing a book about the camps he had been in, and caught himself telling his readers about the Buchenwald gas chamber he had... read about. He paused and thought to himself: "Wait a minute, what am I doing? I was there and never saw any gas chamber!" And that was the beginning for that remarkable man who kept fighting all his life on behalf of his own jailers whom he felt had been the victims of a great lie and injustice, much as himself had been.

You should keep in mind that it is hardly surprising that the real big lies are always the ones least doubted. How many people with no religion do you know?

From what I have seen there is no overwhelming evidence to contradict the evidence that the holocaust did happen.

You cannot see without looking first. The heart of the "Holocaust" myth is the so-called extermination camp of Auschwitz and its gas chambers. Start there. You have at your disposal a prodigious medium that frustrates all forms of censorship. Use it. I cannot obviously explain a world of data in a few words, nor do I wish to act as an used car salesman à la "Holocaust scholar." I can only point you in a direction you may never have tried before.

So unless some good reliable evidence to contradict history comes along the holocaust did happen!

Good point -- evidence is all you'll get -- but it's the other way around. It's the incredible and miraculous claims that need exceptionally good evidence. What you should say is not "show me there is no orbiting teapot"; but rather "show me the orbiting teapot you claim there is."

For the same reasons, don't go about saying "show me there are no magic holes in the roof of Krema II," but rather "show me where the non-magic holes you claim are."

Other Comments by ASMarques

6. Comment #182776 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 12:49 am

Said Styrer:

And so the Holocaust denier dings his final ding.

Never ding other folk's final dings, or they may write yet more rings around your dingbats.

You failed my little test.

Ohmygod. I was afraid of that. Makes me so sad...

*snif*

The answer was: I wanted to listen and learn, not speak. [...] I suspect that the above is a concept you really will never understand.

Well, and what were you expecting me to do? Perhaps project magnetic "Holocaust" debunking energy in your general direction? If all of your folks refuse arguing such simple stuff as the holes / no holes consequences for the future of the mythical gas chamber, and if you personally refuse "unoriginal thoughts" and think the many references I indicated were not even worth looking over, much less debating, because "only 400 people post there," or whatever your reasons were, what in heaven were you expecting me to do to enlighten you on the subject? Send you some original poetry? Or say "fa fe fi fo fun, deniers have more fun" and, presto!, turn you into the highest-IQ member of Mensa?

You really are the most despicable of denying cunts.

Thanks a lot, but I deny that as well. Anyway, dear fellow, silly name calling -- obviously at a safe distance -- only shows who is desperate for arguments. Believe me, it doesn't make you look brave, only silly and well, yes, somewhat cuntish (no sexist slur on my part; your boomerang is free to fly on on its own).

Here you are. You have been here for a month. You have tried your dodgy ideas out on some of the most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web.

We may disagree over that one. Indeed one of the surprises I had -- I usually listen to the Bright stars, as they modestly like to call themselves, but hardly used to read their fan mail -- was the rather modest level of the comments columns.

You have been repeatedly and fixedly and robustly condemned for subscribing to beliefs which fly in the face of modern historical inquiry, and in the face of massive amounts of evidence showing that your ideas hold no water whatsoever.

Could you quote the evidence, any evidence, that may have slipped by me throughout this longish, but quite agreeable, exchange? Thanks.

Or is your expression "massive amount" strictly equal to zero? "Nicles batatóides" as we say on this side of the Iberian Peninsula...

And yet you cling, ever more desperately, to your pre-conceived notions of unevidenced negationism.

Desperation is the name of the game. That's why I cannot stand your cruel taunts, boo hoo hoo...

Fuck off.

Ohmygod, you're making me wet my pants again, bwa ha ha ha!

:^D

Other Comments by ASMarques

7. Comment #182855 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 3:49 am

Said Teratornis still smoking from his Dresden tripe, er, trip:

There is a lot less doubt that the Earth moves than there is doubt that the Holocaust occurred.

How silly can you get? The movement of the Earth is a matter of physical convention (absolute movement makes no physical sense), not an absolute ontological description of an alleged event in history that either happened or didn't happen.

1) "The Earth moves" is the same kind of statement as "the Milky Way moves."

2) "The Second World War happened" -- let's choose a well-defined set of events as a provisional stand-in for the Big H, in order to avoid the permanent shape-changing of the conceptual propaganda amoeba that goes from "extermination / gas chambers / approx. 6 million" to "oh lots and lots of Jewish suffering" quicker than you can bat an eye -- is quite differerent. It's the same kind of statement as "yesterday I broke my leg." It either happened or didn't happen. It's an absolute assertion, ontological in character. For instance, the burning down of New York in 2007 is false, but the burning down of Dresden in 1945 is true. And so on and so forth.

By your principle of doubt being inversely proportional to the size of a lie, what does that imply about the size of the lie that the Earth moves?

You didn't get it. It's not a scientific principle. It's a rule of thumb applied to political / religious propaganda such as the "Holocaust" hoax. I assumed most people would even be familiar with the character who first formulated it, and get the joke. You may have heard of his magnum opus: This Struggle of Mine. Or something like that, can't remember exactly.

By the way, you should keep in mind that the Ptolemaic system (immobile Earth at the center) was a perfectly sound scientific theory that accounted for the known facts until more data was forthcoming or more ingenious experiments were devised. And, of course, relativity brings an even better insight to the whole problem than the Tycho Brae or Copernican systems do, since the notion of an absolute frame of reference for the universe with the Sun at its center is every bit as absurd as one for the Earth or indeed any other "absolute" frame.

A formulation that you may find useful is as follows: if new data concerning an alleged historical event demands a new theory on sound rational grounds, you don't insist in the previous theory on the grounds that many folks swear by it, or that it has "already been proved" by the courts of law, or the high-priests of your favourite religion, or the many interests congregated around it, or whatever. You simply call in the facts and re-examine what every stubborn idiot who refuses to discuss them thinks is the truth ("revisionism," get it?).

Example:

-- Once upon a time, many eyewitnesses swore an alleged gas chamber roof had holes in it through which Zyklon B was poured as a means of mass murder.

-- Then an amazing discovery is made: there are no significant traces of cyanide in the gas chamber, where every known law of physics told you there should have been.

-- Then a further even more amazing discovery is made: there are no holes in the said roof of the alleged gas chamber.

-- And then the folks who have been investigating the matter get thrown in jail and new laws are passed to avoid public discussion of the facts.

You cannot simply say that the new facts shouldn't be considered because the court of law said so, or the eyewitnesses swore on their scout's honour, right?

How then would you feel about discussing this little matter and its implications, instead of moving away from it at all costs?

I mean, how would you feel about the "Holocaust" if none of the alleged gas chamber had ever existed? Would you be tempted to investigate a little deeper into the allegation of 6 million dead? After all, 4, oops, I mean 1.5, of those 6 million were supposed to have occurred in Auschwitz alone and no demographic study leading to the figure exists. And how about the extermination plan? If no gas chambers, how about the Treblinka steam chambers and the non-toxic Diesel chambers and all the other crazy devices? Couldn't they be mythical as well?

If it was possible for the massive historical evidence for the Holocaust to be completely fabricated with such apparent authenticity,

Again you don't seem to get the fact that the "Holocaust" is not a "free form" event, and there is no evidence at all of either an extermination intent (it was supposed to be a telepathic hush hush business that left only secret coded signs), or of any gas chambers (quite the opposite!), or any 6 million, but for... alleged eyewitnesses and oracles, with strong personal interests in the matter...

You cannot talk about any "massive evidence" consisting of human testimony, if contradictory hard facts exist. If a hundred eyewitnesses swear they have seen you swallow an entire truck, that means a hundred false witnesses, not that you were hungry.

then there is no historical evidence which we can trust, including all the historical evidence you present as being somehow authoritative.

Wrong. You have, for instance, the famous taboo holes that can never be mentioned except by the naugthy deniers.

If we can doubt all this other evidence, what makes yours better?

Physicality. It's there in physical space, not in mental "eyewitness" or "confession" space.

And if your evidence looks better, wouldn't that suggest by your reasoning that it had only been that much more skillfully faked?

No. All things are not equal in the world of our common experience.

In what way could the non-existence of the holes be faked other than by magical means? Even if you manage to pour cement into a hole in a reinforced concrete roof with internal rebars etc. without the stupid patch falling to the ground, the filled place will remain perfectly detectable. Not the case according even to a "Holocaust scholar" such as Van Pelt.

Why not then debating the implications of the Krema II case, comparing it with the history of so many "plenty of evidence" claims now abandoned?

Other Comments by ASMarques

8. Comment #182906 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 5:40 am

Said AfraidToDie:

You seem to be driven by a single issue that consumes you, that the Holocaust did not really happen, that it is a conspiracy.

Please note that you're the one who seems to believe the "Holocaust" was an unbelievable conspiracy. I believe it was simply a convergence of interests in a common lie, together with the nearly inexhaustible human capacity to believe in fairy tales. My conspiracy requires only a common will to believe in fairy tales, while yours requires a fairy tale proper, complete with devils, ogres and monsters: Adolf Hitler and the branch of humanity known as "the Nazis," regardless of any statistical evidence for such an uniformly diabolical large group of people secretly sworn to monstrous deeds. You should reread your Goldhagen with your eyes open.

And I really hate having to repeat this à la Clockwork Orange to shock you into deconditioning, but, well... could you go back to (use Search within page): "a vast German conspiracy to secretly exterminate [...] survivors galore from such alleged "extermination centers" as Auschwitz exhuberatingly manifesting themselves everywhere more than 60 years later?"

Ouch.

As "whacky" as conspiracy theories can be, you still put together some very rational statements. My image of you is one of a potentially brilliant madman (sorry, but perhaps delusional too). Am I wrong?

You don't need to be sorry, but does that question of yours make any sense at all, given the premise? I mean lying Cretans and all that stuff...

how do you feel about Jewish people?

I've answered that one already: I feel Jews are ordinary people, often with big noses and very nice IQs, under the curse of the worst religion ever invented.

I have a feeling you are very anti-semtic, which may be the source of your delusions.

You're wrong. Some of my best friends are Palestinians.

Oh yes, do you "buy in" to any of the other major conspiracy theories, such as the one claiming that we never landed anyone on the moon, or is Holocaust Denial the only one?

Yes, I firmly believe the Nazis made it to the far side of the moon. See here with your own eyes if you don't believe it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80

Other Comments by ASMarques

9. Comment #182988 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 7:34 am

Said uncle tungsten (great name! I like it.)

The commonly accepted figure for the number of extermination victims is 6 million.

Where does this figure come from?

Hmmm, could it be straight out of the cabalistic night of times?

You know, six days to create the World, six pointed stars, six extermination camps...

Have you noticed this earlier instance of the 6 million figure dating from 1919 (yes, that's nineteen hundred nineteen) in The American Hebrew, October 31, 1919 (page 582), The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of N.Y.?

http://www.historiography-project.com/images/091031crucifixion.gif

"From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter's cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers. In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand. Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life (...)"

Holocaust of human life? Six million calling for help? Bigoted lust for Jewish blood? In 1919? Crucifixion of Jews when a lot of people were being starved all over Germany and Northern Europe?

Does that sound familiar?

Equally intriguing, how come the figure of 6 million was already known to the US Congress in March 1945, at a time when the war was still on, no German top officials or camp administrators had been captured, and no confessions had been obtained, 3 weeks before the Americans took over Dachau and the British took over Belsen, and 6 weeks before the Soviets released their Special Comission Report on Auschwitz? See clip at (08:46):

http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/nazishrunkenheads/nshrunkenheads.wmv

[There is a small error in there: the idiotic "atrocity display" we see in the photos was mounted near Buchenwald, not Nuremberg, but the atrocity bric-à -brac itself was indeed presented and accepted as evidence at a variety of trials, including the ones at Dachau and Nuremberg. The short movie on the whole is accurate and perceptive]

See you soon, uncle tungsten. I must go get a couple of kosher sandwiches now. This running business already made me faint twice.

Other Comments by ASMarques

10. Comment #183045 by ASMarques on May 21, 2008 at 9:13 am

ASM,

Because your posts are quite long, I can only claim to have read one or two without skipping bits.

I'm awfully sorry if I'm not the Reader's Digest. I must think of those who have been protesting because I don't throw in enough original stuff for their taste. You know, the "just links to the devilish sites I'll never even peek into!" sort of protest. Sorry if I fail you on the excess side. Can't satisfy all customers.

The fact that there might never have been a lampshade made out of human skin does not in itself prove that the Holocaust didn't happen.

That's what I call a king-size red herring. I never said it did, as you well know. Obviously a single ridiculous allegedly human lampshade doesn't count for any "Holocaust" falsifiability, whatever your definition of the Big H amoeba may be (however I expect you to agree that the non-existence of the chain-murdering gas chambers is quite a different matter).

What the lampshades, the shrunken heads and the humans soap idiotic stories show you is the standards of the evidence concocted at the trials you base your knowledge of the German war crimes on, including the "Holocaust" gigantic hoax. And I don't mean exclusively the main Nuremberg IMT. I mean the smaller camp trials as well.

I'm not sure that even the most callous person would call 300,000 dead 'a hoax'. There surely comes a point when the number of dead ceases to have an affect on how we view a crime.

If 300,000, the hoax is not the 300,000. The hoax is the 6 million.

Is 300,000 really so much less serious than 6 million?

As an immediate matter of fact, it's 5,700,000 deaths less serious. I hope the life or death of 5,700,000 Jews doesn't leave you indifferent.

As a deeper reading, if the choice you imagine is between 6 million under (obviously intentional) industrial chain-murder in gas chambers as described by the exterminationist camp, or 300,000 from every sort of unwarranted causes, mainly under the disastrous conditions at the end of the war, as most revisionists assume, yes, absolutely, there is a radical difference to it.

Said Elli:

ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?

That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!

I don't know if Elli had been particularly nasty to you, but this kind of taunting is just vile. Could you not have just answered the question and left the spitefulness to one side?

Don't be silly. Where do you read any spitefulness? I, for one, would think less Jewish victims should be good, not bad, news.

If you want spitefulness follow the "Nazi hunters" on the prowl looking for more innocent old men to nail, in order to gain a few extra mileage for their despicable propaganda. That's real spitefulness, I assure you.

Other Comments by ASMarques

11. Comment #183361 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 1:09 am

Said Teratornis:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/deniers_06.shtml
"Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.

There is much additional evidence affirming Auschwitz/Birkenau's role as a killing centre. There is no reputable evidence that affirms the deniers' claims."

Let's see, who should I trust. The BBC, or some anonymous person on the Internet who routinely commits logical fallacies that I easily recognize? Boy, that's a tough one.

Teratornis, your trust in the broadcasting media as the Voice of Our Lord, channeled by no other angelic medium than Deborah Lipstadt, deeply touches me, and frankly I don't know what to say about that, other than to point out that the same Voice used to say the ashes of some 4 million people -- yup, the old figure we are now (falsely) told that only the crazy commies used to believe in and immortalise in stone -- had been flushed to a small backyard pond in Auschwitz. And it did so, not through the hilarious Deborah "No Debate" Lipstadt spokesperson, but through no less a figure than Jacob "Have Some Hair" Bronowski in the BBC documentary series The Ascent of Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

The Voice is well known for feeding the faithful convenient pseudo-history that always transubstantiates in, or consubstantiates with (the matter is disputed, much like the Funcionalist vs Intentationalist approach to Hilberg's Holy Problem of the Vast Extermination by Telepathic Consensus), different versions of pseudo-history, according to the necessity of the moment. See, for instance, the case of BBC producer Lawrence Rees, the falsifier that I myself caught in flagrante delicto:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Marques_150405.html

Then an interesting exchange followed in an exterminationist blog. Warning: you won't be able to understand the (very common) subtle logic of the falsification and how one alleged gas chamber (the industrial "epicenter" in Krema II) is magically turned into another (the "little cottage," maybe near Bronowski's "little pond," who knows...) if you don't read my own messages to the end, in the comments columns:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/when-deniers-are-right.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/i-have-seen-gas-chambers-i-have-seen.html

Back to the Krema II epicenter.

Certainly the Lipstadt lines you point out make it seem as if it's only "the deniers" who deny the holes. Not so. Unlike Lipstadt, who is a sort of hillbilly professor of Jewish Uniqueness who likes to talk off the cuff, and generally doesn't even know what she is talking about, Robert Van Pelt has been to Auschwitz and he was recognised as an expert witness for the defense -- i.e. Lipstadt's own exterminationist side -- during the Irving vs Lipstadt & Penguin trial.

Now here is what Van Pelt says:

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the hole and thus restore the slab."

In other words, what the expert witness under Irving's cross-examination is admitting is the alleged Birkenau Krema II holes are not there, maybe because they have been refilled like the ones drilled after the war in the ceiling of the Auschwitz I alleged gas chamber are now, after revisionists discovered and publicized the original blueprints, mumbled by the Museum authorities to have been, but careful close inspection -- not to speak of modern science -- is not deemed capable of finding these odd refilled holes in the concrete slab, even when their precise location is well known!

Now, I am not implying that Van Pelt was actually conceding the non-existence of the holes as an ordinary fact devoid of contorted metaphysical implications of a religious nature, i.e. as a straight fact that indeed did prove in a very, very simple way that the gassing tales were false.

Of course he would never have done that. That's not the way the religious believing mind operates, and definitely not what the sponsors of Deborah Lipstadt, the "Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies" taken to court by David Irving, were paying him £109,000 to say.

What Van Pelt did do, as a true peddler of the "Holocaust" religion, was:

1) To admit that he had gone to Birkenau to see the holes in the alleged gas chamber's roof for himself and not having found them, he had concluded they must have been refilled by the wicked Germans (before their own blowing-up of the "gas chamber" (!) that fractured but didn't destroy the massive reinforced concrete slab that formed the roof), in some extremely clever way that can no longer be observed, even though the precise locations of the holes are known.

2) To allege that this material absence of the holes essential to the "Zyklon B through the roof" tale was not a simple matter of crucial sine qua non evidence that would establish the truth or falsehood of the eyewitness allegations and ought to be investigated by forensic science as normal criminal matters are, but instead that the sacred holes themselves should be promoted to the higher semi-metaphysical heights of "moral certainty" as defined by Bishop John Wilkins in his "Of the Principles and Duties of Natural Religion" (1660).

Unbelievable? Yes. Untrue? Not. See my post #174561:

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

Now, also missing is the cyanide that should have reacted chemically with the iron rich walls producing extremely durable compounds, as indeed happened in the other gas chambers, the ones everybody now, after revisionists brought them into the open in the 70s, agrees were only used for the disinfestation of clothes, mattresses etc., where cyanide compounds (like ferric ferrocyanide or "Prussian blue") make their presence visible even to the naked eye.

And my question to you is:

PREMISE 1 -- Since the holes are not there and no refilling can be detected,...

PREMISE 2 -- ... and the cyanide that should have been there is also absent,...

PREMISE 3 -- ... and the Voice venerated by the faithful Teratornis, through people like broadcasting producer Lawrence Rees, feels the need to establish new trends in Nazi pseudo-gassing, by taking them by stealth out of the clearly visible "epicenter" into the alleged dark small cottage (of candy?) in the deeps of the unknown forest (see the exchange in the exterminationist blog linked above),...

CONCLUSION? -- ... which way does the "convergence of evidence" point: Krema II gassings true, or Krema II gassings false?

Other Comments by ASMarques

12. Comment #183405 by ASMarques on May 22, 2008 at 4:08 am

Dear Brights,

I'll be away for a while on a business trip to Acapulco, probably until some new clip mentions again the H hoax. This shouldn't take too long, if past experience is a guide. During the meanwhilst, you may satisfy your fascination with matters holocaustic by studying the fine messages I lovingly created with your best interests in mind. They link to many hidden treasures of wisdom and are generously sprinkled all over these five threads:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-Richard-Dawkins-Michael-Shermer
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2472,Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss,RichardDawkinsnet
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2527,Shaw-TV-Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins,Shaw-TV-Richard-Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2604,What-is-science-for,Sir-John-Sulston-John-Harris-Richard-Dawkins

Jot down your main observations or doubts, and we'll discuss them later.

Now, you Bright folks don't seem to get the idea that "evidence" is not the same as "claim of evidence." This is quite excusable because your best source to the silly "Holocaust" hoax seems to be the Wikipedia. But if it vanishes in front of your eyes the instant you invoke it, it's not evidence, it's simply a false claim of evidence, much like the genius inside that lamp on your desk. If you rub the lamp and nothing happens, and then you break it and still nothing happens, except your dad and mom getting mad at you, what that means is there was simply a claim of a genius, not a real genius. Same for a million geniuses if that is what the claim is. But you must do the rubbing. It's not enough to point to the lamp and say "see this genius here" or "see this million geniuses here."

So, as I have repeatedly told you, I will be glad to present a short report to you on any eyewitness, confession or speech you may believe constitute "good evidence." Shouldn't be too difficult if there is so much of it. So why not choose some good evidence and send it over?

Tell you what: since my free time, alas, is not infinite, I propose you choose one real good trustful eyewitness, one real good sincere confession, and one real good murderous speech.

I will then take a little while to appreciate each of the three and send you my opinion on them. If they crumble before your eyes, well, you should consider the probability of having picked up precisely the bad apples when the good ones were allegedly so abundant. And in that way you'll be able to start to appreciate how vacuous is the so-called evidence on record. How about it?

It's really in your interest, not mine. Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn.

See you.

Yours Truly

Other Comments by ASMarques

13. Comment #184187 by ASMarques on May 23, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Said MaxD

Cute avatar by the way.

Thank you. I find it amusing to change avatars every now and then, according to campaign developments. Blake121666's comments inspired me this time, but I don't expect cultural anglos to get it. Will change it again in a couple of weeks.

I suspect ASM buys into this protocols of Zion business as well. He has said more than once that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the Jews in order to swindle the rest of world out of money, land and power.

Yup, both are hoaxes. One anti-Jewish, the other anti-Aryan. Or anti-non-Jewish, or whatever you want to call it, since it sems everybody is actively or passively guilty of it, except for the Jews, even those who actively cooperated with the Axis, such as the terrorist Yitzhak Shamir, who sided with the pro-totalitarian Stern group, was interned by the British, and later became no less than prime-minister of Israel (he has not yet been brought to justice or deported, like poor Demjanjuk is going to be).

See Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of Dictators:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zizad/zizad26.html

********************************************************************

Said al-rawadi (two messages):

I am curious as to whether ASM is in fact David Irving, David Duke, Israel Shamer, or some other whackjob.

Ouch. Finally exposed, all three of us. Only Ahmadinejad managed to escape.

The cartoons of hook nosed Jews, riding Uncle Sam like a horse. Bah.

Well, some of them have hook noses. So what? Are you a nosist?

For example Ernst Zundel was exposed precisely as a fraud, in a Canadian court.

Thanks to Zundel, the medieval law he had been charged under, "reporting false news," was ruled unconstitutional and his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Hardly a defeat, is it?

Not only was he shown to be a denier of the Holocaust (bad enough)

That must have been difficult indeed to prove in court. Maybe they asked him. Some hard work for the prosecution... (hahaha)~~ :^D

Seriously, I think I can see where your hate for Zundel comes from. His 1988 trial was a landmark event that sent the "Holocaust" mythologists reeling and whining for censorship and repressive laws. It was really history in the making:
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.html

If the Holocaust is a myth, hoax and fabrication, how come the only people to discover this have been bigots, discredited non-scholars, the mentally deranged, Islamic militants, and other assorted whackos?

The answer is simple and has often been repeated to you: your "how come" premise is false. The only fraction of truth is the "discredit" part, but given the irrational religious significance of the matter, that's hardly astonishing, is it? I understand how difficult it is to part with long-held convictions you were taught to worship as sacred, but I've already tried to explain how the mechanism of "discredit" functions. Here is how:

-- 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, not because it has been proven false, but because deniers got discredited.

-- Your conclusion:

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

If you don't see the perverse absence of logic, I'm afraid I can't do anything more for you. You're beyond repair.

Eagerly awaiting reply.

I wouldn't if I were you, but, well, I don't presume to be the only patient person on this planet.

Back to my lemonade. See you in a few weeks, short of revolutionary developments or old Dawkins again implanting his foot on his mouth, H-wise.

Other Comments by ASMarques

14. Comment #184222 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 2:18 am

Said MaxD:

I grow tired of asking this so it will be the last time.

Excellent sign. The pursuit of truth is a a harduous task. But you shouldn't give up.

How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)? Eh? Seriously.

You mean simply because you don't believe in conspiracies, you don't believe the Jews of post WWII Europe managed to pull of this feat of land (to the point of taking over Palestine), power (to the point of being in control of US foreign policy), and money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H)? Eh? Seriouly.

You remind me of Butz's excellent summary of the Krakow report (see #184118): "they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don't understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don't drown."

I've got to go now. See you.

Other Comments by ASMarques

15. Comment #184261 by ASMarques on May 24, 2008 at 8:17 am

Said Brian English:

Head count. Who here calls themselves a bright? Paula, you're excused. :)

Ah, yes. The face. I used to only read the comments very rarely, but I noticed her and saw her interviewing Dawkins. Very nice presence and clearly a (real) bright person that doesn't go around peddling idiotic hoaxes. So, she's entitled to any title she wishes, and to my apologies as well. My quarrel is not really with the bright people in general, but with the fringe that takes a special delight in shamelessly propagating the "Holocaust" blood libel, while refusing to examine the historical record.

Okay, boys and girls. I've got to fly now. Don't be bad to your dogs and cats and local anti-semites. Ciao.

Other Comments by ASMarques

16. Comment #184419 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 5:13 am

From several messages (sorry, no time to go into details):

Said MaxD:

You did not answer my question simply impugned my character by claiming I was victim of the argument from incredulity.

MaxD, I didn't "impugn your character," and I'm sorry if I cannot expose the greatest hoax of all times to you in every phase of its development and organizing detail, for the very simple reason that I've not been a part of it. All I can do is to point out that its claims are false and Jews, as an international group, are doing their best -- we should really say worst -- to prohibit digging into it.

And, excuse me, but you're the one who refuses to answer questions. You first ask me "how did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)"?

Hoping to show you that the Jews, as an international group, are not powerless, poor, unimaginative, and incapable of conspiring, as you apparently make them, I then ask you to explain your question that sounds as if you had any doubts about facts such as the Jewish grabbing of land (Palestine), the power Jews wield (to the point of being in complete control of US foreign policy and having the US fight their wars for them), and the Jewish money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H, and I may even add blackmailing Switzerland and holding up its banks).

You simply do not answer, but how then can you demand answers to questions that are in themselves unintelligible?

Said epeeist:

Looks like a failure of relevance, evasion and ad hominem to me.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the latin expression. Do look it up, please.

Said blake121666:

The Holocaust is the religion in that it is based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them.

Excellent way of putting it. A quick example follows, if I may.

Said keith:

After all, you'd have to say that Holocaust conspirators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are.

Here is the example. Trying to argue the truth of the facts without regard for the facts themselves, simply out of one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators," is not a rational attitude. Let me put it this way: how does Keith account for this sort of thing (please take a while to go through the "evidence" listed here):

http://www.cwporter.com/partone.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/parttwo.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partthre.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/partfour.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/pg368.htm

That sort of "evidence" is from the Allied Nuremberg trials, and many people were hanged (mainly, but not exclusively, in Eastern and Central Europe) on its account. Does the plainly ridiculous level of such "evidence" mean it didn't exist and wasn't recognised by the shamefully one-sided standards of the tribunal? And does that make the conspirators that obviously fabricated the ridiculous "evidence" any less inept?

Said blake121666:

Elie Wiesel never mentions any homicidal gas chambers in "Night". Is Elie Wiesel a Holocaust denier?

True. Elie Wiesel is an interesting example of false literary testimony, because at the time he wrote Night, the big thing were the almost biblical flame pits, not yet the chain-murdering gas chambers. So, that's the lie he adopted, not the gassing one.

Quote: "Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes)." He describes a ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames," and says he himself was led by the Germans to within two steps of it. And then "two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks." Same in Buchenwald, his survival was a miracle: "In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?"

Wiesel is a natural born liar and his "Holocaust" idiocies are no exception. Take his interview in the NY Times (5 March 1997, sec. C, p. 1), where he claims that in 1956 he was hit by a taxi in Times Square in Manhattan: "I flew an entire block [...] I was hit at 45th Street and Broadway, and the ambulance picked me up at 44th. It sounds crazy. But I was totally messed up."

And there you have a very common "Holocaust" line: yes, it was impossible, but yes, it did happen. Well, if it was impossible, sorry, but no, it didn't happen...

Still blake121666:

But on a purely personal note, yes, I do find many of those labeled holocaust deniers as unsavory. But my personal opinions don't matter on the truth value of an event. A religious person would say that he finds atheists unsavory, wouldn't he?

Correct. You see, "Holocaust" revisionists / deniers come in all sizes and political flavours. How could it be otherwise? I like some and I don't like others. Politically I agree with some and don't agree with others. But what has that to do with the reality of the alleged "Holocaust" facts? Nothing!

Gotta go. My lemonade is getting warm. See you in a few weeks.

Other Comments by ASMarques

17. Comment #184434 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 7:15 am

Said epeeist:

I note you never mentioned the evasion and failure of relevance.

I was pointing out your apparent ignorance of a particular meaning, not every instance where you had gone wrong.

I think you understand what you mean by "evasion" and "failure of relevance," even though I don't think those descriptions should apply to what I've been saying or leaving out, and even though I have no time to systematically deal with every wrong accusation.

But I don't think you understand what an "ad hominem argument" means. Obviously, an intentionally false accusation that someone used an "ad hominem" argument is in itself ad hominem and worse than accusations of "evasion" and "failure of relevance," that do not aim at the character of the accused, but rather at his alleged incompetence. Hence my advice to you. Here is its context:

MaxD had asked:

QUESTION: "How did the Jews of post WWII Europe manage to pull off this feat (land, power, money grab)?"

I had replied:

REPLY: "You mean simply because you don't believe in conspiracies [this is not remotely an ad hominem claim, since the reluctance to believe in conspiracies, other than the claimed secret conspiracy to remove by stealth an entire race off the face of the planet, had been often implied], you don't believe the Jews of post WWII Europe managed to pull of this feat of land (to the point of taking over Palestine) [this is not remotely an ad hominem claim, since it simply quotes the question and provides a fact], power (to the point of being in control of US foreign policy) [same], and money grab (to the point, for instance, of extracting colossal amounts of money from the German and US taxpayers on account of the big H)[same]?

Mentioning the other part's beliefs -- or indeed statements -- relevant to the discussion, is not resorting to ad hominem argument. Ad hominem means addressing the person making the argument, instead of the argument itself, i.e. if it is done in a way irrelevant to the argument.

For instance, "this man is wrong about the sky being green because he is blind" is not ad hominem (provided the man is indeed blind). But "this man is wrong about the sky being green because he is a Nazi" is.

And so is "this man is wrong about the sky being blue because he is a Nazi." And that's the sort of argument much resorted to by your side of the debate, when it comes to the prodigious gas chambers of WWII Jewish & Allied folklore, that Israel and international Jewry -- an obviously different thing from "every individual Jew" -- want to impose forever on all of us.

Must go now. See you in a couple of months.
_________________________

Post Scriptum:

Said epeeist:

Ignorance isn't a problem, we are all ignorant of most of human knowledge, however "I don't know what "Blood Libel" means and I'm not interested in looking it up." betrays a singular lack of interest in remedying at least part of that ignorance.

You mean you have decided to go read the diabolical revisionist works? Wow.

Let me help you. Here is a fast choice of sites:

IHR
Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/index.html

CODOH
The Comitee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
(large site, maintains a forum where you can debate, search or ask for specific information)
http://www.codoh.com/index.shtml

Aaargh
L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes
(multilingual site with a vast archive of revisionism in its main section in French, including Faurisson and Rassinier)
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/fran.html

VHO
The Holocaust Controversy
(multilingual site)
http://vho.org/

Air Photo Evidence
(useful maps and air photos)
http://www.air-photo.com/

And here is an introduction to acquaint you with the alleged "vast body of evidence:"

IHR set of leaflets (short and accurate)
http://www.ihr.org/main/leaflets.shtml

A searchable directory, useful for reference by name, concentration camp etc.
http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml

A name dictionary in French, equally useful for the same purpose
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/dicbio/dicbiogOancres.html

A short introduction to the study of Holocaust revisionism
http://www.codoh.com/butz/di/intro.html

Context and Perspective in the 'Holocaust' Controversy
(in English, French and German)
http://www.codoh.com/butz/di/context/context.html

The Lüftl Report
An Austrian Engineer's Report on the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Mauthausen
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

I don't know if you're posting from a country where "Holocaust" revisionism is censored, such as Germany, Austria or France, so let me give you a couple of URLs that you and other readers may find useful.

Important: If you live in a country where your government demands that Internet service providers forbid you to look up the evidence, you may access the blocked sites through anonymizers. Here is a good one (all you have to do is place the URL you want to access in the slot, click enter, and you'll be navigating the forbidden waters with no further trouble):

Anonymouse:
http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html

A useful list of anonymizers:
http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm

Other Comments by ASMarques

18. Comment #184457 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:28 am

Said Keith:

Now, from the above exchange you derive the following:

ASM: Here is the example [that the Holocaust is a religion based on no empirical facts and is in fact averse to them [Note by ASM: the bold type is my completion of your quote of Blake's claim].]. Trying to argue the truth of the facts without regard for the facts themselves, simply out of one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators," is not a rational attitude.

Now how, precisely, did you get from my comment that the Holocaust conspirators must be an inept lot if they make such bad fakes (Blake's claim) to your conclusion?

Seems to me pretty obvious that your important implication was not simply "if conspirators make bad fakes, then conspirators must be an inept lot," but rather along the lines of "if conspirators make bad fakes (and thus are an inept lot), then the conspiracy should be falling apart quicker than a cheap suit" (my words to explain the implication as I understood it). Let me quote you: "After all, you'd have to say that Holocaust conspirators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are," i.e. you were implying that "Holocaust conspirators" are assumed not to be inept by your opposition, whereas no one else -- neither I, nor, as far as I could see, Blake himself -- was necessarily assuming anything of the sort.

And, of course, the point I was making through the example (rather than "conclusion," as you called it) was that people who try to argue alleged facts they have little information on, without regard for the facts themselves and further inquiring into them, are not showing a rational attitude. Your implication, as I understood it, forgot the fact that large, but well-succeeded, intrinsically ridiculous claims are not easily debunkable, otherwise established religions would have gone away a long time ago.

Concerning your global comment, note that you were concentrating on the "blatantly faked poster" -- while ignoring everything else Blake was telling you about disinfestation and homicidal gas chambers, negligible cyanide traces, lampshades, soap, Schindler's List as fiction, the 6 million figure etc. -- and trying to make the (in Blake's own words) "blatantly faked poster" look like maybe not such an intended fake after all, but "perhaps, instead, [...] a deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage," without considering that that was precisely what Blake was telling you, namely that "anyone would recognize it as such on close inspection" and "a quick look at it [shocked] you," i.e. that such an offensive picture -- a small German child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies -- is revealing of the bottomless evil of the "Holocaust" propaganda and the absence of scruples shown by the proponents of the anti-German (or anti-Goy, since more or less everyone but Jews seem to be guilty of the suffering of the Jews) blood libel.

If you have difficulty understanding his point, possibly due to the unrelenting "Jewish uniqueness" propaganda you are submitted to in your everyday life, please try to imagine your reaction to a poster showing, through a deliberate montage, a small Jewish child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies, say, in an Ukrainian exhibition of the great famine of 1932-33.

Would you still be using the words "deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage" in an exculpating sense? Or would you still be invoking "the guy in the Prado who objects to Guernica, not because he thinks the painting is shit, but because horses don't really have three eyes so it can't be true"? Or calling the montage "artistic license," just "trying to make a point in a very heavy-handed way," because "the curator had made a bad error of judgement"?

You add: "What it would not signify is that millions of Jews hadn't, in fact, died in concentration camps." Well, did you by any chance read the rest of Blake's message? Nothing of interest there that might have caught your eye relative to the "millions of Jews," other than the "deliberate montage"? Like, for instance, "Where did the 6 million figure come from -- no one ever gives any rational derivation"?...

I guess I must go now. See you.

Other Comments by ASMarques

19. Comment #184643 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Said MaxD:

I am not denying that currently Jews have an enourmous political clout.

Er... are you an anti-semite?

( ohmygod! )~~ :^O

I am saying that at the time they did not, and didn't have much influence over US foreign policy at the time. EDIT: I suppose I should have said, though I thought it was obvious, immediately post WWII. You are telling me that immediately after WWII the Jews could pull this off?

Okay, I'm getting you now. I didn't care very much because I couldn't believe your, er, anti-anti-semitism was only valid for the immediate post-war period...

I assume, then, that you believe Jews were not in positions susceptible of influencing US policy towards them, or interfering in the US handling of the Jewish issue in the immediate post-war period. I suggest that you consider what the following not-exactly powerless names have in common:

* Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- Secretary of the Treasury; "unofficial" presidential adviser; father of the Morgenthau Plan to re-structure Germany and Europe after WWII. [What was the Morgenthau Plan? See:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Morgenthau.html ]

* Harry Dexter White (Weiss) -- Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; key founder of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; adviser, close friend of Henry Morgenthau. Co-authored the Morgenthau Plan. Soviet spy.

* Bernard M. Baruch -- Financier and adviser to FDR; close friend of Winston Churchill.

* Rabbi Stephen Wise -- Close friend of FDR, spokesman for the American Zionist movement, President of the American Jewish Congress (WJC). In 1933, two years before the Nuremberg racial laws, he led the efforts for a commercial boycott of Germany. On March 27th, the American Jewish Congress and its allies convened simultaneous protest rallies in New York (an overflow crowd of 55,000 in the Madison Square Garden), Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations). In April 1st, the Nazis replied with a one-day boycott directed at Jewish businesses, in reprisal of "the Jewish atrocity propaganda abroad." In June 1938, Wise told a rally: "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race." The history of the soap allegation can be traced back to September 1942, when he announced that he had received a message from an official of the WJC in Europe reporting on the manufacture of soap and artificial fertilizer from Jewish bodies.

* Herbert H. Lehman -- Governor of New York, 1933-1942; Director of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations for the State Department, 1942-1943; Director-General of UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, 1943-1946, created to repatriate the refugees who would come under Allied control. UNRRA assisted in the repatriation of millions of refugees in 1945 and managed hundreds of displaced persons camps in Germany, Italy, and Austria during that year. It administered the work of 23 separate voluntary welfare agencies, including the Joint Distribution Committee, the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training (ORT), and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS).

* James Paul Warburg -- Banker and adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt (his father was the Jewish-German-American banker Paul Moritz Warburg); Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information, William Joseph Donovan. In 1942, when propaganda responsibilities were transferred to the Office of War Information, he became its Overseas Branch Deputy Director. The following quote is attributed to him: "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." (Feb. 17, 1950, to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations).

* David Weintraub -- became head of the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Operations; helped create the United Nations; joined the UNRRA; Secretary, Committee on Supplies, 1944-1946.

* Nathan Gregory Silvermaster -- Head of the Near East Division of the Board of Economic Warfare; helped create the United Nations. Soviet spy [see the Wikipedia for the names in the Silvermaster spy ring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gregory_Silvermaster ]

* Harold Glasser -- Treasury Department director of the division of monetary research; Treasury representative to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. Soviet spy, member of the Perlo spy ring.

* Benjamin V. Cohen -- State Department official; adviser to FDR; counsel for the American Zionist Movement.

* Herbert Feis -- U.S. State Department official; economist, adviser on international economic affairs.

According to Gore Vidal, John Kennedy used to tell the following story about Truman's re-election in 1948:
http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionhist.html

"Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics."

Could be true or just gossip, but it certainly shows you how high-placed people within the US political system saw Jewish clout, even before the time you yourself agree it became "enormous."

The following quotes may help you figure out the Jewish role in the War Crimes trials and the concession of unprecedented reparations both to Jewish survivors and Israel, a state that didn't even exist during the war.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
(see the linked page for the references)

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added. (note 8)

The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings. Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany's persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process. (note 9)

Two Jewish officers in the US Army -- Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus -- played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise. In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial. (note 10)

Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the "number three man in making American policy" in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government's War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. (He later became a commander of Zionist "Haganah" military forces in Palestine.) (note 11)

Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business. One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. "If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here," he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. "The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident," he added. (note 12)

Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process. "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. "Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case." He concluded that "the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors." Wennerstrum left Nuremberg "with a feeling that justice has been denied."

[...]

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." (note 14) Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States." (note 15)

In Nahum Goldmann's own words, in "The Jewish Paradox" (1978):

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/reparations/quotes_from_books/index.html

Apart from my encounter with the survivors of the concentration camps after the liberation, I only returned officially to Germany in order to meet Chancellor Adenauer and open negotiations about reparations. These reparations constitute an extraordinary innovation in terms of international law. Until then, when a country lost a war it paid damages to the victor, but it was a matter between states, between governments. Now for the first time a nation was to give reparations either to ordinary individuals or to Israel, which did not legally exist at the time of Hitler's crimes. All the same I must admit that the idea did not come from me.

During the war the WJC had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations.

The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders. It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When he began to canvas it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court they took him for a fool. 'What did these Nazi officers do that was so unprecedented?' they asked. 'You can imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers.' We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did not play any great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. The Institute's other idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat. [...] According to the Institute's conclusions, the German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore.

Once the Nuremberg trials were over, this reparations problem received further consideration. Several Jewish leaders then attempted to establish relations with Adenauer, but their proposals were often ridiculous. One organization suggested a payment of twenty million Deutschmarks -- "and at the conclusion of the agreement I obtained, the Germans will have paid out a total of eighty billion!

[...]

Without the German reparations [...] Israel would not have half of its present [1978] infrastructure: all the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industry ... and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today received hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. [...] In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany have been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the principle -- even some members of Herut draw reparations.

But I don't want to give you the idea that the "Holocaust" was propped up exclusively by the Jews, or that their efforts were opposed by the Allied countries. Indeed what we have is a convergence of interests among all the winners. The British, for instance, were actively fabricating atrocity stories, not unlike those spewed out by the Soviet and Jewish propaganda mills. See, for instance, this article, based on declassified files reported by the British press:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n5p15_propaganda.html

During the Second World War, Britain's main "dirty tricks" propaganda agency was the Political Warfare Executive (PWE), a unit of the British Foreign Office. This psychological warfare agency invented and distributed "black" propaganda disinformation to boost morale among anti-German British and Americans, and to promote anti-German sentiment in neutral countries. Its work also included manufacturing and distributing bogus German documents.

Some of the PWE's most bizarre falsehoods were distributed on phonograph records as part of a secret "Special (Venom)" campaign directed to Arabs. These fables included reports that Hitler hated Arabs, and that a Jewish doctor had cut off the German leader's testicles. Epithets applied to Hitler in this report included including "pig," "swine" and "bastard." Such exotic propaganda was considered necessary, the PWE advised, because Hitler's prestige was "tremendous in Arab countries."

The Arab-oriented campaign also included stories suggesting that the Germans were using mosques as brothels in Axis-ruled Tripoli. According to another PWE story, "Germans [were] so short of cloth they are training agents to disinter bodies in Muslim cemeteries and seize shrouds for use as machine rugs in Germany."

One of the most malicious PWE "black" reports was this April 1943 story: "On entering Tunis Allied troops found dead children cut up as butchers' meat in the German army store. Portions of them had already been used as pork ration. Typically enough, the Germans had filed their identity cards."

Some British officials were skeptical of this campaign's effectiveness. For example, a PWE story that Goebbels had enriched himself during the war, and had hidden away a private fortune, said one official, "would evoke admiration and envy rather than disapprobation."

This "Special (Venom)" campaign was first made public in 1994 when the relevant files were declassified from Britain's Public Records Office (and then reported in The Guardian newspaper, London, September 8, 1994, p. 22).

During the war years, British agencies produced and disseminated a wide range of anti-German propaganda lies. According to one suggested story, the Germans were using poison gas to secretly kill off their own wounded soldiers. This manufactured "rumor," designed to mislead and demoralize the German public, was proposed by Britain's Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee in October 1941. (A facsimile of the secret wartime document confirming this is published in facsimile in the Sept.-Oct. 1993 Journal, p. 43.)

Even some of the more bizarre propaganda stories have proven remarkably durable over the years. A good example is the wartime fable that the Germans were manufacturing oil and soap from the bodies of murdered Jews, a report that became an important feature of Jewish and Allied war propaganda. Two major Jewish agencies, the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Congress, energetically promoted this lie. (See: M. Weber, "Jewish Soap," Summer 1991 Journal, pp. 218, 234.)

I hope this will help you understand that the venomous lies of totalitarian propaganda are still with us, and still making victims: the ones that fall on the wake of the West's permanent waging of war on the reincarnations of the fallen devil and their always imminent reenactings of the "Holocaust" of the Jews...

Must go now, or I'll miss my plane. See you in a couple of weeks.

Other Comments by ASMarques

20. Comment #184675 by ASMarques on May 26, 2008 at 12:32 am

Said blake121666:

I have to admit that I actually hadn't noticed that ASM uses the term "blood libel" throughout his postings.

We'll agree to disagree on that. I'm a sticker for precision: 6 times in all, in 159 messages, makes once every 26.5 postings. Not exactly "throughout" then, but "rarely."

I scanned through the "blood libel against the jews" wikipedia entry. While I would technically call Holocaust claims a "libel" against the accused, if ASM means "blood libel" as described in that wikipedia entry he's probably joking.

Not joking at all. Why would I be joking?

I mean, why would anyone think that the gas chambers libel held against the Germans (involving even a systematic extermination of children out of some sinister fairy tale!), is not comparable to the blood matzo libel that used do be held against the Jews?

If it's simply because it doesn't involve any gourmet cooking, would the allegation that the SS made sausage out of Jewish flesh in the crematories make you change opinion?

Well, that's what David Olère, the famous eyewitness, told Jean-Claude Pressac (in Pressac, "Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz -- la Machinerie du meurtre de masse," CNRS, Paris 1993, p. 554), and Olère's testimony is supposed to be an important one. Robert Van Pelt, the expert witness for Deborah Lipstadt, produced six of his drawings made in 1945 to the court, during the Irving vs Lipstadt trial.

Biography:
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/ARTS/DOBIO/DOARTS.HTM

Self-portrait of the artist painting a lampshade (what else...):
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Images/484.02.jpg

ASM, why throw garbage such as that term into your postings? I might filter BS too readily when reading things. Honestly, I am interested in empirical facts and not any garbage such as that.

Frankly, I don't get your point. Or maybe you don't get mine. I'm not addressing any blood libel accusation at Jews. I'm saying the "Holocaust" libel against non-Jews is equally offensive.

What's wrong with that? To me, a false claim that the Germans made sausage out of Jews, sounds every bit as offensive as a false claim that the Jews made matzo out of Christians...

Think about it.

Other Comments by ASMarques