Footer Pages

climatechang

In Denial – the politics of global warming

climatechang

The term “holocaust denial” is defined as follows by the American Anti-Defamation League:

Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy. It was this doctrine that was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust. What is on the surface a denial of the reality of genocide is, at its core, an appeal to genocidal hatred. (ADL 1996).

In other words, if you are unconvinced of the official view of the Nazi holocaust, you are complicit in it. Note that the party line changes. Thirty years ago, someone who refused to believe that Jews were made into soap, glue and lampshades by the Nazis, was allegedly party to murder. That is no longer the case. But today, if you question cattle trucks, gas chambers, or a number of Jewish fatalities less than about five million, you are still, by the above definition, someone who is trying to replay that genocide. Note that I don’t reject the latest version of the official story; I reject the idea that rejecting it is a crime. But that doesn’t satisfy the thought police; it just makes me an “apologist” rather than a “denier”.

The acceptance of the concept “holocaust denier” is the result of a successful assault on the highest principles of Western civilization – sceptical enquiry and presumption of innocence. It was unlikely it would stop there. Legislators, activists and journalists have tried to extend the term “denier” to protect another sacred tablet: the belief that there is irrefutable evidence that human activity is causing the earth’s climate to enter a period of unprecedented, irreversible warming.

Like the high priests of the holocaust, when the warm-mongers change their tune, they expect us all to march in step. Once it was “global warming”; today it’s “climate change”. Scientific theories usually get more precise, but this isn’t normal science. Once they said Britain was bound to get hotter. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” complained Charles Onians of The Independent in March 2000. Several record winters later, the theory is as strong as ever; when their predictions fail, they change them. The current “consensus” is that the melting of Greenland will cut off the Gulf Stream, and Britain will shiver. And it’s not just this sceptred isle: “Global warming is making the world colder”, a recent headline announced. I’m not making this up.

Anthony Watts runs the world’s most popular “climate sceptic” site. He uses sound scientific arguments to counteract the official view that global warming is certain. But he is incredibly politically naïve. In March 2010, he wrote an article about moves in Germany to imprison “climate change deniers”. He immediately drew a connection – this reminded him of the Nazis. “This is what the allies fought for: freedom of speech and freedom from tyranny”. German politicians want to put people in prison. For “denying” something. The obvious continuity, is not with Hitler’s regime, but with Germany’s post-war government, which jails people for “denying the holocaust”.

The similarities don’t end there. The official holocaust religion, and the party line on climate change, both depend on ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, circular reasoning, and the assumption that the other guy’s arguments need a psychological explanation, not a reasoned reply. Naomi Klein recently argued in The Nation that “conservative white men” tend to disbelieve the theory of global warming “because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview” (Klein 2011). The warm-mongers claim to understand the motives of climate change “deniers”. But you can’t read someone else’s mind, particularly someone you’ve only met via their writing. The Anti-Defamation League is being less than candid when it says it knows the motives of holocaust doubters; the same is true of someone who claims to have ascertained the intentions of climate change sceptics.

Instead of fighting for freedom, the climate sceptic community pleaded that the term “denier” should be reserved for “holocaust deniers”. The commissars, scenting cowardice, responded by barking louder.

First they came for the holocaust deniers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a holocaust denier

Then they came for the climate change deniers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a climate change denier

Then… well, you know the rest

 

References

Anti-Defamation League (1996). Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda.

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/theory.asp

Klein, N. (2011, November). Capitalism vs. the Climate. Naomi Klein. The Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=full

Onians, C. (2000, March 20). Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. The Independent, London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Watts, A. (2010, November 11). Germany’s Greens get ugly with climate skeptics.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/11/germany-gets-ugly-with-skeptics/

73 Responses to In Denial – the politics of global warming

  1. aemathisphd March 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    “Thirty years ago, someone who refused to believe that Jews were made into soap, glue and lampshades by the Nazis, was allegedly party to murder.”

    Please provide a single example of this having happened. Any example will do. I will wait.

    • pgg804 March 21, 2012 at 5:31 am #

      In my junior or senior year in high school (1974 or 1975) I remember spending several weeks during which my Jewish english teacher (aided by another younger Jewish instructor who was present only for this segment of the semester) spent several weeks teaching us about the “holocaust” and how the Germans made soap from the Jews fat and lampshades from their skin. We recited Sylvia Plath poems about these “crimes”.

      Sylvia Plath wrote poems of how the Germans made lampshades and soap from the Jews skin and fat and she was awarded the Pulitzer prize for this. Years after she committed suicide (by putting her head in an oven and turning the gas on), these Jewish accusations were exposed as complete lies. As the son of Germans, I’m well aware of the affect this Jewish propaganda and hatred has on people (particularly Germans). I personally believe Plath (whose parents were German) killed herself out of guilt.

      Can you provide a single example of where the holocaust promoters said people who didn’t believe the soap and lampshade’s accusations were “not” holocaust deniers, only the people who don’t believe the gassing accusation are “holocaust deniers”? I will wait.

      • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

        So Sylvia Plath is your example? Really?

        Are you aware my doctorate is in English literature? You want to go here with me?

        • fool me once... March 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

          “So Sylvia Plath is your example? Really?
          Are you aware my doctorate is in English literature? You want to go here with me?”
          Ha ha ha, that’s it Doc, I told you you’d feel better if you loosened up a bit.
          I think we’re getting there.
          Well funny! Attempting to intimidate someone with a “doctorate in English literature”, ha ha.
          Er, I hope it was a joke.

          • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

            I ask for proof of something. This guy goes on a rant about his childhood — as if I care, but he evokes the name Sylvia Plath, a person about whom I know a few things. My post was merely a warning that he might not want to pursue that particular line.

            And my question remains unanswered, as usual.

            PATHETIC.

          • fool me once... March 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

            It’s alright Doc, every thing’s ok, you’re safe, I feel your pain, I hear you man – how was pgg804 to know, the name Sylvia Plath, was gonna trigger some god awful memory for you.
            Everyone could see you were only trying to help with your warning. But ppg804 likes to live on the edge. He’s been like that since the fateful encounter, back in the 70’s, with that, well you know, that teacher. The one who traumatised him with the, you know, the…the
            “jew soap stories” etc.
            Look as a treat, here’s another little video to help you focus on yer new job. Watch and listen all the way through, there’s even a star at the end, that kind of reflects your vocation. Happy Trekkin:)

          • solar March 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

            Unable to even come close to addressing your point, they’re reduced to empty clowning. This site isn’t even two months old yet and it’s already done the full Indymedia.

          • fool me once... March 22, 2012 at 1:20 am #

            Not so fast Sunbeam. It’s all in context. I offered your buddy some good career advice in the Jesus thread.
            Is it not true that your friend is on a journey, a Trek?
            Is it not also true, a Star plays an important role in his Mission?
            Is it not true, the Dr feels he is “boldly going, where no man has gone before”?
            And remember that Spock’s famous Vulcan hand salute was based on the jewish letter shin > Shaddai > God
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_salute
            With all that, I’d say the Doc would feel mighty comfortable on the Starship Business, I mean Enterprise.
            solar wrote;
            “…they’re reduced to empty clowning.”
            Seen as though you brought up clowning, what do you make of the unreleased Jerry Lewis film;
            The Day The Clown Cried.
            Do you reckon the account on the video, of Helmut Doork leading children to the gas chambers, Pied Piper style, dressed as a clown is true? It seems a bit OTT.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2nUgPvgO18&feature=related

          • solar March 22, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

            More empty clowning.

          • fool me once... March 22, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

            Hey, just because I’m touching on areas about jewish life that are unfamiliar to you, does not mean my observations are not serious.
            I read your replies, then give you a considered, detailed answer, please repay the courtesy with a reply that reflects your prestigious position as a man of learning.
            Please, lead by example and answer the questions;
            Do you believe the Helmut Doork story to be accurate?
            Is Krusty the Clown an anti-semitic caricature?
            Are Dr Spock’s ears intentionally the shape of israel?
            http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/greater-israel-map5.jpg|||

          • ariadna March 22, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

            This made me laugh out loud, fool me once:

            “Are Dr Spock’s ears intentionally the shape of israel?
            http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/greater-israel-map5.jpg|||

  2. Jonathon Blakeley March 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    And I thought we were going to talk about the weather. Just for the record, I am a well known notorious denier. I deny SATAN and SANTA, the Easter Bunny, God the Devil, Climate Change (accepted dogma), 911, 777, Israel, Celebrity Culture, Supremacy (in all its forms) and Quantitive Easing. I also have reason to believe that much of History has been manipulated to favour the ruling regimes.

  3. Chester March 20, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    “Global warming is making the world colder”, a recent headline announced. I’m not making this up.

    Mr Knott, if I put my hand down the back of my fridge, it will get burned. “Heating is making my fridge cold.” I’m not making this up!

    This article will do much harm to the blog’s credibility.

    The greenhouse effect is causing AVERAGE temperatures to rise.

    At the same time, the extremes are getting worse i.e. we are experiencing colder winters as well as hotter summers.

    Moreover, if temperatures rise significantly more, it is likely that this will impact Gulf Stream flows which will certainly make large parts of the world much colder.

    I am really surprised that the editors published this trash.

    • Paul Eisen March 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

      I haven’t read the article in question but, in my view, publishing is what deLiberation is all about.

      • Chester March 21, 2012 at 9:48 am #

        Fair point Paul.

        While I think the evidence in support of global warming/climate change/greenhouse effect is overwhelming, it should not be treated as a religion either.

        Both sides of the argument do this. The use of the term “denier” is inappropriate. Arguing “it’s cold outside, so much for global warming” is equally inappropriate.

        The argument should turn on the science not on semantics/rhetoric.

        Scientists have a responsiblity to state the scientific/material issues clearly. We the public have a responsibility to base our response on the material issues as stated and not on political, religious and economic prejudices.

        Cheers.

    • Deliberation March 20, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

      deLiberation does not necessarily agree or endorse all the articles, comments and reports that are submitted to this site. deLiberation is a multi-faith site with many different religious and political points of view. We allow and encourage a wide range of expression in the name of free speech…

  4. ariadna March 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    I happen to believe the reports and conclusions on global warming/climate change. I am convinced by the shrinkage of the ice of the poles, the thinning of the permafrost, etc. But I am not scientifically trained to evaluate the controversy and so I believe that which seems convincing to me. Some people do not believe it and that’s fine with me.
    What I object to in this article is the factitious comparison between ‘climate change deniers” and “holocaust deniers.”
    We can make fun of the compulsion of some people to occupy lexical territory and declare it “unique” and of single use only: there is only one ‘holocaust” and one kind of “denier.”
    The comparison is, however, inappropriate because no “climate change denier” risks going to jail, losing tenure or one’s livelihood, being pilloried as a ‘racist,’ a “fascist,” an “anti-semite” for refusing to accept the climate change narrative verbatim and in toto.

  5. aemathisphd March 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Just curious: Who lost tenure? Certainly not Arthur Butz or Kaukab Siddique, both tenured professors and both Holocaust deniers.

    • pgg804 March 21, 2012 at 4:58 am #

      Norman Finkelstein whose own parents were Polish Jews that were in concentration camps in WW II, the French professor Robert Faurrison and Germar Rudolf who was fired by the Max Planck Institute (not a university, but a research center – at one time the leading scientific center in the world). There are other people as well.

      And everyone else knows what they can’t say, or else they will lose their jobs.

      • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

        Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier.

        Rudolf never had tenure at an academic institution. Nor did he “work” for the Planck Institute; he was taking a degree there.

        I’m also pretty sure Faurisson never had tenure either; the French academic system is different from that of the U.S.

        Again, Arthur Butz and Kaukab Siddique are both active Holocaust deniers. Neither has ever come close to losing their tenure.

        • ariadna March 21, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

          “Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier.”
          Correct. He is only a Holocaust® denier and a fierce holocaustonist™ (e.g., Wiesel) critic.
          It is a tough taxonomy job to sort out all these denials: full blown, denial interruptus, etc.
          His mother, however, was rather suspect. She said (according to him): “If there are so many ‘survivors’ who died in the Holocaust?”

          • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

            Yes, and she was also in Majdanek.

            She never denied Jews were exterminated. She objected to so many who had not lived through what she had claiming survivor status.

            I can draw a picture to clarify, if you like.

          • pgg804 March 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

            None of this prevented certain Jews from calling Finkelstein a “holocaust denier”. At least one (Alan Dershowitz) said his mother worked for the NAZIS. And those are the same kind of lies thrown at all “holocaust deniers”.

            I would like to hear more about the 135,000 Germans burned alive in Dresden in two nights of bombing.

            But just as important, I would like to see an open discussion of how Jewish leaders paid Winston Churchill to start WW II that resulted if 50 million dead Europeans.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jc9ltEIwpo&feature=related

          • ariadna March 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

            It is a bit mean-spirited of you, pgg804, to rub it in that there is sadly some confusion and lack of organization in the Lexical Department of the Taxonomy Division of the Zioprop Abteilung Bureau.
            After all this time it is still not clear whose task it is to examine and decide upon the Denier status of various suspects whose cases are brought to their attention.
            Finkelstein remains suspended like Schroedinger’s cat in an undetermined status: he is and is not a Denier.
            There are Deniers, quasi-Deniers, non-deniers incautiously veering toward becoming Deniers. Chaos, in short.
            But you should not have brought it up anyway as it is bound to upset whatchamacallit? ah, yes, jewish sensitivies.

          • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm #

            I asked for tenured Holocaust deniers who lost their jobs.

            You couldn’t name any.

            Do you admit you’re wrong or just keep changing the subject?

          • ariadna March 21, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

            You have a dishonest way of debating. Quibbling, shifting and falsely presenting facts.
            First you say nobody lost their job. You are given Finkelstein’s example and you say he is not a holocaust denier.

            Who died and made you denier status officer? Dershowitz? MEMRI?

            http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/how-memri-doctored-finkelsteins-interview-to-portray-him-as-a-holocaust-denier/

            the Middle-East reached a new low—quite a feat considering some of the old lows—when the notorious Jewish anti-Semite and Holocaust-justice denier Norman Finkelstein…
            archive.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ ReadArticle.asp?ID=23995

            http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2012/02/omg-holocaust-denier-norman-finkelstein.html

            What are you going to say next, that he didn’t really have tenure?
            Pathetic.

          • Paul Eisen March 21, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

            Ariadna,

            He will just go on and on, round and round and round. It will never end.

            The real horror of it is that he doesn’t even know he’s doing it.

          • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

            Says the man who will believe anything so long as it reflects badly on his own people but refuses to debate the evidence against such a position.

            Pathetic.

          • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

            I said nothing of the kind, as anyone going up screen can see.

            Further, I find it a little silly that you’re going to cite Frontpage magazine as “proof” of Finkelstein being a denier.

            He isn’t one by anyone’s reasonable estimation.

          • aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

            Oh, and by the way, Finkelstein didn’t have tenure. He was up for review for tenure, and that’s why Dershowitz launched his attack on him.

            Notably, both his department and chair approved him for tenure. It was his dean who ultimately sank him, probably at Dershowitz’s behest.

            You should really try to establish facts before making an argument. It would make you less God-damned stupid.

          • solar March 21, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

            My vote is that she’ll just keep changing the subject. I think she’s going for the Joe Bellinger Award for Intelligent Discourse.

          • fool me once... March 22, 2012 at 12:07 am #

            My vote is that he’ll just keep changing the subject. I think he’s going for the Joe Bellender Award for Intelligent Discourse.

          • aemathisphd March 22, 2012 at 12:33 am #

            Izzat you PM?

          • solar March 22, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

            Shall I compare thee to a whooping loon?

          • aemathisphd March 23, 2012 at 1:18 am #

            Gimme a clue; clearly, we know each other.

          • Paul Eisen March 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

            We’re asked to name one – Go on name one! Go on! Go on!

            And while we struggle to ‘name one’ we do not name the Holocaust revisionists who have been harassed, cashiered, impoverished, beaten, threatened, pilloried, driven to suicide and imprisoned – simply for questioning the Jewish narrative of special suffering.

          • solar March 24, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

            Please do, Eisen – please name even one living anti-Semite. Do you consider David Irving an anti-Semite, for example?

          • Paul Eisen March 24, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

            I’ll try if you’ll say what you mean by ‘anti-Semite’?

          • solar March 24, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

            And while I’m at it –

            ‘simply for questioning the Jewish narrative of special suffering.’

            Oh dear, utterly mendacious euphemism alert.

          • solar March 24, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

            And I’m very sorry to learn that the Eisen household does not contain a dictionary, and if it does, it doesn’t contain the word ‘anti-Semite.’

            And I find myself contrained to note that, no, this is not an invitation to replay that old threadbare gag about ‘anti-Semite’ meaning ‘against Semites.’ Really, Eisen you’re too old for that kind of thing.

          • Paul Eisen March 24, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

            Solar

            For some reason your last comwent did not allow for a reply so I’ve replied to your previous comment.

            Anyway, I do have a dictionary but the phrase means many different things to different people and it would be useful to learn what it means to you.

            Perhaps you’d be more confident if I first said what it means to me.

            For me, the phrase has two possible meanings: The first is someone who hates all Jews simply because they are Jews. The second is someone who opposes ‘Semitism’ i.e. some kind of Jewish ideology or spirit.

            Do either of those ring any bells with you?

          • Paul Eisen March 24, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

            To add to my definitions…

            Of course it gets complicated if you think that a Jew is someone who adheres to and exhibits ‘Semitism’.

            I do think that, but in so many Jews their ‘semitism’ is contained and often quite creative, so I certainly don’t oppose them.

            The problems begin when the ‘Semitism’ gets out of hand – as is happening nowadays and has happened so often in the past.

          • aemathisphd March 24, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

            Don’t expect an answer, Solar. You won’t get one. He lacks the courage to defend his ugly convictions.

  6. Eldon March 20, 2012 at 9:55 pm #

    Makes me wonder why were “Jonathan Azaziah” articles taken out one by one and suddenly all his articles Disappeared and his name has been taken out from the author list…….

  7. Deliberation March 20, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    “Jonathan Azaziah” decided deLiberation was not for him…but he can be found here Mask of Zion

    • solar March 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

      But his mountains of pure anti-Semitic bullshit – the editors had no problem with that, apparently.

  8. aemathisphd March 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Am I being censored now entirely?

  9. Jay Knott March 24, 2012 at 1:19 am #

    Thanks for all the comments. I’ll briefly reply to some of them.

    AEMathisPhD parodies pedantry. The ADL’s position logically condemns deniers of any part of the holocaust story current in their time. The Norman Finkelstein example illustrates the opposite of what he seems to think – even though he’s not a denier, just a critic of the industry, he still lost tenure. Oh – he never got tenure. OK, Doctor, my thesis falls to the ground, and I don’t get tenure either.

    Chester questions my arguments re. the science of global warming. My article is not a discussion of that question. For that, I’d recommend Joanne Nova’s Sceptics Handbook and Jeremy Jacquot’s response on behalf of the warm-mongers. To really nail the question you need to study Mann et. al.’s original ‘hockey stick’ paper and McKitrick and McIntyre’s rebuttal.

    Ariadna also focuses on her particular concerns, missing the whole picture. I know that climate change ‘deniers’ have not been imprisoned. She could just as well point out that I rewrote Niemöller’s ‘first they came for the…’ poem for ‘holocaust deniers’, though they have not suffered anywhere near as much as the people he was writing about.

    The point of the article is to argue we must oppose groupthink. All groupthink, not just the variety that tries to suppress your particular opinions. It’s not about global warming. It’s not about the holocaust. It’s about defending freedom for sceptical enquiry against all its opponents.

  10. aemathisphd March 24, 2012 at 2:13 am #

    “he ADL’s position logically condemns deniers of any part of the holocaust story current in their time.”

    Your point being?

    “The Norman Finkelstein example illustrates the opposite of what he seems to think – even though he’s not a denier, just a critic of the industry, he still lost tenure. Oh – he never got tenure.”

    He didn’t get tenure. I never claimed he had it. Try to keep up.

    “OK, Doctor, my thesis falls to the ground, and I don’t get tenure either.”

    Apparently not.

    • Paul Eisen March 24, 2012 at 8:25 am #

      So, our professional Talmudic nit-picker has exposed yet another error. Norman Finkelstein did not lose tenure. Why? Because he never had any tenure to lose. Brilliant.

      And, while we all gasp at his dazzling footwork, his fellow activists get on with the real business of robbing us blind.

      Why would anyone want to engage with such a creature?

      • solar March 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

        ‘Why would anyone want to engage with such a creature?’

        Maybe because he gets right the facts you get wrong? And you know it, and so does everyone reading this thread?

  11. ariadna March 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    They don’t come here to debate, persuade or justify but to throw a monkey wrench in the comment section.
    Their ‘debating’ style is based on attacking the messenger, not only because they make no headway attacking the message but also because the abusive and rude insults they hurl (look at their Knesset-level vocabulary) are compatible with their mean-spiritedness and because that’s the only hope they have of provoking someone sufficiently to engage them.

    • Paul Eisen March 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

      True, but I believe it’s much worse than that.

      Their function (not their intention, because I don’t think they have a conscious intention) is to distract and befuddle the poor old goy so they can continue to achieve what they see as their aims.

      In the end of course, the ‘poor old goy’ gets fed up and splits their heads open with an axe.

      That’s why I keep on begging them to mend their ways ‘…before it’s too late’

      • solar March 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

        Your paranoia is quite unbecoming.

        The science on climate change is quite clear. Yes, greenhouse gases are leading to changes in the climate — warming in some places, cooling in others – and the effects are going to increase dramatically over this century.

        The history on the Holocaust is equally clear. Yes, a guy named Hitler ordered the Nazis to kill as many Jews as they could, and they did so, reaching about six million, using not only standard military weapons of the shoot-‘em-in-trenches variety but also industrial scale gas chambers.

        In both cases, there are some wingnut and fringe characters who, for their own personal reasons, choose not to buy it.

        • fool me once... March 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm #

          “The history on the Holocaust…..choose not to buy it.”
          So, the history on the holocaust is for sale? Are you willing to haggle then? What about guarantees?
          I heard about someone who bought a lampshade and a bar of soap from the holocaust stall, believing them to be the genuine article, only to find out decades later they were fake! Apparently, it’s not the only case of false representation. Word is going around that the “stall owners” aren’t to be trusted.
          What say you?

          • Paul Eisen March 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

            You’re dead right. These Holocaust-peddlars are not to be trusted. First they decide on a story – the usual Jewish Oy-have-we-suffered stuff – then they scrabble around for evidence to fit. And if anyone thinks different, well, there’s always public pillorying or a nice fat jail sentence.

            What kind of ‘truth’ is that?

          • aemathisphd March 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

            Public pillorying is quite different from a jail sentence.

        • fool me once... March 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

          @solar
          “The history on the Holocaust is equally clear.”
          Ok solar, can you answer this question, as Tony Greenstein didn’t get round to replying. If you can provide a good reason for the “confusion”, I think it’ll go a long way, with respect, to giving your views some credence on this site.
          .
          Greenstein wrote:
          “No one has suggested that anyone was gassed at Dachau”
          .
          This is a rough repost, but you’ll get the drift;
          “Ok, here’s the footage that causes the confusion, as it contradicts what you are saying. Yes, it’s terrible to watch, but watch it I did….. And yes, to see anybody, and that means any human being on this earth, in that state sickens and upsets me, to the my core.
          For anyone interested in viewing the film, the relevant footage starts at 3.38 mins and finishes at 4.55 mins.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evnx4oWle20&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4B099787AEC20C37

          Please explain the contradiction in what Greenstein said and what I’ve just watched.”

          • aemathisphd March 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

            Well, I think Greenstein overstated the point a bit. There was a gas chamber at Dachau, but it was apparently never used. There’s an informative essay on the Web site with which I’m affiliated:

            http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/

          • ariadna March 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm #

            There are never LIES, just “overstatements.”
            –Prisoners were gassed at Dachau. No, nobody was gassed there but it was not a lie, because there was a gas chamber, there really was, it was just never used… so we can just say the word “gas chamber’..
            –Four million Jews died at Auschwitz. No, less than a million but if we say 1 million people died there then we have to subtract several hundred non-Jews and the number is not round any more, so the number is haggled up to arrive at 1 million Jews. Not a lie, just a snafu.
            How many Jews needed to die for it to be a big enough tragedy for exploitation? 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,00,000 clearly not enough. It had to be a special number?
            Can’t you really see? Can’t you see at all that through this exploitation of death, the lies, deceit and the relentless persecution of historians, the Holocaust® enterprise is truly and profoundly –your fav word– “anti-semitic”?

          • Paul Eisen March 27, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

            I just watched that extract and I couldn’t see any evidence of gassing. what I saw was an American propaganda film.

          • Paul Eisen March 27, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

            The best bit were the pictures of clothing hanging up. Rather like the piles of eye-glasses and shoes and other iconic Holocaust images.

          • aemathisphd March 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

            Yes, that’s precisely what it was.

  12. aemathisphd March 27, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    “There are never LIES, just “overstatements.””

    Well, occasionally there are lies, although I struggle to think of actual examples. Most of the time, there is misunderstanding. History is like that; you tend to know more as time goes on because greater analysis has been conducted of the events.

    “–Prisoners were gassed at Dachau. No, nobody was gassed there but it was not a lie, because there was a gas chamber, there really was, it was just never used… so we can just say the word “gas chamber’..”

    Except that by the time Dachau was liberated, the Soviets had already found a gas chamber at Majdanek that was still intact, as well as the remains of several more at Auschwitz. They’d found mass graves at Treblinka as well. So it wasn’t a huge stretch to think the gas chamber at Dachau had been used, even though it hadn’t.

    “–Four million Jews died at Auschwitz. No, less than a million but if we say 1 million people died there then we have to subtract several hundred non-Jews and the number is not round any more, so the number is haggled up to arrive at 1 million Jews. Not a lie, just a snafu.”

    If you check and see what year the number was changed, and if you’re old enough to remember why that year was historically significant in Europe, then you’ll understand better why it was changed.

    “How many Jews needed to die for it to be a big enough tragedy for exploitation? 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,00,000 clearly not enough. It had to be a special number?”

    What’s “special” about six million of anyone being murdered?

    “Can’t you really see? Can’t you see at all that through this exploitation of death, the lies, deceit and the relentless persecution of historians, the Holocaust® enterprise is truly and profoundly –your fav word– “anti-semitic”?”

    Exploitation? Sure. Finkelstein was pretty correct. I’d say Novick more so.

    Lies? Again, not as a prevalent matter.

    Persecution? I don’t justify or defend it. Period.

    Of historians? They’re not historians.

    • fool me once... March 27, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

      “Except that by the time Dachau was liberated….it wasn’t a huge stretch to think the gas chamber at Dachau had been used, even though it hadn’t.”
      Thanks for attempting to answer my question. The problem I have with your answer is that the portrayal of events shown in the film are not representative of an innocent mistake in the heat of the moment, but more a contrived,calculated attempt to project onto the trusting viewers a particular narrative.
      We are shown prisoners clothes hanging up as if to suggest people had already entered the chamber. The clothes were a stage prop to give extra gravitas to the narrative.
      The shot in the film of the gas tap being turned on, with the “black glove”, could effortlessly blend into a 1930s Boris Karloff movie.
      The narrator goes on to say:
      “From the gas chamber, the bodies were removed to the crematory, here is what the camera crew found inside.”
      Surprise, surprise, the bones of cremated dead people.
      Back in the 1940s the common people were poorly educated and impressionable, this fact was taken advantage of.
      Now compare the delivery of the Dachau Gas Chamber footage, to this short clip around the same time (1945)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdDd0wmmBCY
      .
      “it wasn’t a huge stretch to think the gas chamber at Dachau had been used, even though it hadn’t.”
      .
      and it wouldn’t stretch the imagination to think this was a quote between a movie maker and government propagandist at the time.
      Mathis and solar, can you see how people today have become suspicious?

      • fool me once... March 28, 2012 at 12:22 am #

        In the link above, the “black glove” makes it’s appearance at 36secs.
        Just finished reading your Dachau link Mathis, but before I go into the discrepancies in the text, I’d like you to give me an answer to my question concerning the above post.
        “Mathis and solar, can you see how people today have become suspicious?”

  13. Paul Eisen March 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    I believe the gas-chamber at Dachau is, like all ‘homicidal gas-chambers’ a fabrication – built probably by the Americans.

    Still, it does bring in the tourists – just like the ‘reconstruction’ at Auschwitz.

    • aemathisphd March 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

      And upon what evidence do you base that statement, Paul?

  14. aemathisphd March 27, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    Again, Paul, you and I can go over the evidence for the gas chambers, but for some reason, you refuse. Why? You complain about free inquiry and poor revisionists rotting in jail, but you clearly lack intellectual curiosity…

  15. Eldon March 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    Paul Eisen intellect, knowledge and revisionism come from his BELIEFE.
    He believes the gas chambers are a fabrication.
    Well that’s a new approach.
    We should all hold a moment and say….. that’s a new approach after thousands of books testimonials, documentaries millions of archive papers.
    We should all put it aside and say. WOW Eisen has a new approach and theory that overcomes everything.
    His believe.
    I always thought I have seen or heard it all.
    I think Deliberation should announce you as their favorite intellectual writer..

  16. Eldon March 27, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?
    By Mark Weber

    A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that — as revisionists acknowledge – Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
    some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.
    But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions,3 there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
    This lack of success is not difficult to understand.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: