Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

[been-there]

It's racist when it raises the rights of one ethnicity over the rights of another's.

So, I have no right of association. Just curious, been-there, but are you an advocate of open borders?

No, under the current circumstances, I am not. In some utopian ideal situation I would be. But I don't see any possibility of that occurring in my lifetime, nor without radical changes.

BACK ON TRACK:
In my view, genuine historical revision that seeks truth and accuracy will have NOTHING to do with racist prejudice. Because where there is racial prejudice that will inevitably distort the perception and intefere with accurate parsing of historical facts.

Which is ironically why 'THE Holocaust'™ is not accurate history, as it is universally informed by an irrational, racist hatred and prejudice against Germans demonised as 'Nazis'.

[Turnagain]

been-there wrote:

In my view, genuine historical revision that seeks truth and accuracy will have NOTHING to do with racist prejudice.

"Racist" is a made up word. Some say it was coined by Lev Bronstein aka Leon Trotsky. In any event, the correct term is "racialist". Are you of the belief that all men are equal or is there differences, even profound differences between the races? I'm not talking about equality before the law.

[been-there]

In my view, genuine historical revision that seeks truth and accuracy will have NOTHING to do with racist prejudice.

"Racist" is a made up word.

ALL 'words' are “made up”.

Some say it was coined by Lev Bronstein aka Leon Trotsky. In any event, the correct term is "racialist".

Language changes. The current common usage is 'racist'.
Whatever,... I think the common meaning is agreed: prejudice against someone BECAUSE of their ethnicity/skin-colour/etc.

Are you of the belief that all men [humans] are equal or is there differences, even profound differences between the races? I'm not talking about equality before the law.

I don't 'believe' in 'beliefs'!!

It is my current understanding that there DO exist differences between races. Even profound differences. I think these have their basis in numerous factors: social conditioning, cultural conditioning, linguistic advantages/limitations, levels of literacy, access to education, standards of education, climatic conditions, prolonged dietary influences, etc., etc. These cause marked differences to manifest over time, and to be most prominent in correlation to cultural and geographic isolation.
They diminish — and presumably might even eventually disappear — over time within equal, multi-cultural, diverse societies.

[Turnagain]

been-there wrote:

Language changes. The current common usage is 'racist'.

By definition a "racist" is prejudiced. A "racialist" isn't. That's why the "language" changed.

They diminish — and presumably might even eventually disappear — over time within equal, multi-cultural, diverse societies.

Uh-huh, all differences are artificial and would smooth out in "multi-cultural, diverse societies". All living happily under the umbrella of a global government. The only thing I can think is, "Un-effing believable". IIRC, you live in Sweden. The country that decided to turn itself over to the new Caliphate. How "multicultural" of you.

[been-there]

Language changes. The current common usage is 'racist'.

By definition a "racist" is prejudiced. A "racialist" isn't. That's why the "language" changed.

Then these are two different words with different meanings.

I was using a particular word to esteem Historical analysis devoid of prejudice based on race, ethnicity or nationality. My observation is that the pseudo-historical, legally protected, flawed narrative that is now called 'THE Holocaust' is ironically a narrative based upon racist hatred and irrational prejudice against Germans who are demonised as ''Nazis'.
And it is a narrative that NOW deviously and dishonestly attempts to discredit seekers of truth by demonising them with hate-tropes and deliberate hate-terms such as 'neo-Nazi' and deliberate misuse of terms like 'anti-semite'.

They diminish — and presumably might even eventually disappear — over time within equal, multi-cultural, diverse societies.

Uh-huh, all differences are artificial and would smooth out in "multi-cultural, diverse societies". All living happily under the umbrella of a global government. The only thing I can think is, "Un-effing believable". IIRC, you live in Sweden. The country that decided to turn itself over to the new Caliphate. How "multicultural" of you.

I suggest that your own 'beliefs' are distorting your understanding of my position.
I am against enforced multi-culturalism.

I would prefer the natural perpetuation and preservation of diverse cultural traditions and races to be permitted.

I see the current campaign to enfore 'diversity' and encourage miscegenation as predominantly motivated by malevolent self-interest of groups with a sinister motivation. It is my informed opinion that this campaign is being conducted by people sharing a delusional self-identification that I regard as unempirical and abstract.

If a majority of people want and democratically choose to disown and irreversibly destroy their cultural and national heritage by creating a multicultural society, that is their democratic right.
But if it is unwittingly 'chosen' and forced upon them by an outside, undemocratic group who hypocritically base their motivation on an intrinsically racist, elitist ideology, then that needs to be exposed.

[Turnagain]

I think that you've made your position abundantly clear.

[been-there]

I think that you've made your position abundantly clear.

I suspect that you are conflating:
a.) my position in principle,
with
b.) my position in practice based upon the current prevailing conditions.

The two are currently polar opposites.

[been-there]

...feel free to join me at Skeptics.

That forum bans anyone who has any genuine skepticism of the 'holocaust narrative'. It's a forum that relies primarily on logically fallacious ad hominem arguments and permits ONLY 'believers' to discuss there.

The reality is that your post on the Holocaust Cult was locked, Kleon’s response post was locked and my earlier post were all locked. Pyrrho considered them all attempts to attack other members and warned us to stop doing it. Instead you made a post attacking the moderator.!!!!

Here are the posts:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 26#p746626
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 39&t=32075
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 39&t=32078
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 39&t=32004

As for deniers [skeptics] not allowed to post denial [skepticism] on Skeptics, there are two deniers [skeptics] that are currently somewhat active, PrudentRegret and chocolate. We’ve had long term deniers like David, Mary Q and Monstrous that were a lot more active at one point but not now.

It wasn’t your denial skepticism that got you in trouble.

This has already been preserved and detailed here.
The 'offending' topic of discussion attempted to look at an aspect of 'holocaust' belief that was not appreciated and so was quite quickly locked. (And this at a discussion forum ostensibly for SKEPTICAL and CRITICAL thinking. )

Interestingly, only once a genuine dialogue (without the usual insult) had begun to occur was it locked. Presumably that was considered too dangerous.
I was then banned without any discussion for contesting the closing down of the discussion, which I did with a post and a private appeal for impartiality to the administrator of the whole site.

Why would a forum that claims to promote skepticism and genuine, impartial skeptical analysis, feel a need to do that?

Not only was I eventually banned out of sheer spite, but for a couple of weeks prior to my banning I was regularly unable to log in and instead was met with an automatic message –– written in white text on a black background –– informing me that I was unlikely to find what I was seeking and to seek elsewhere. Something that only myself and the moderator/moderators would know about. So again we have a person arguing arrogantly from a position of ignorance.

Sandhurst also get banned on what appeared to me to be bogus reasons. He appeared to have been banned merely for questioning Sergey Romanov's ability in Russian. For that a moderator accused him of attacking someone for their ethnicity!!!?
So it goes there.

Anyway, as Scott recently wrote:

...Some anti-Semites might be Holocaust Deniers, but not all Holocaust Deniers are anti-Semites.

This is such an obvious truth, yet one quite beyond the comprehension of a large majority of the active participants at that ill-named 'skeptics' forum, who regularly falsely accused me of being an anti-semite.

[Jeffk1970]

.feel free to join me at Skeptics.That forum bans anyone who has any genuine skepticism of the 'holocaust narrative'. It's a forum that relies primarily on logically fallacious ad hominem arguments and permits ONLY 'believers' to discuss there.


The reality is that your post on the Holocaust Cult was locked, Kleon’s response post was locked and my earlier post were all locked. Pyrrho considered them all attempts to attack other members and warned us to stop doing it. Instead you made a post attacking the moderator.!!!!

Here are the posts:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 26#p746626
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 39&t=32075
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 39&t=32078
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic ... 39&t=32004

As for deniers [skeptics] not allowed to post denial [skepticism] on Skeptics, there are two deniers [skeptics] that are currently somewhat active, PrudentRegret and chocolate. We’ve had long term deniers like David, Mary Q and Monstrous that were a lot more active at one point but not now.

It wasn’t your denial skepticism that got you in trouble.

This has already been preserved and detailed here.

Hey, isn’t it against forum rules to alter people’s quotes?


Yeah, I saw that. I knew (because of the type of person you are) you wouldn’t allow me to respond. You also neglected to put it into context. Anyone can now see the chain of events that led to your banning. It’s notable that not just you but two other members who are not deniers had posts locked and told not to do that.

It’s also notable that you were not warned about denying the Holocaust but simply for attacking other members. On no other thread that you responded on were you given warnings. As I showed, you then created another post attacking the moderator. No moderator would allow that.

The 'offending' topic of discussion attempted to look at an aspect of 'holocaust' belief that was not appreciated and so was quite quickly locked. (And this at a discussion forum ostensibly for SKEPTICAL and CRITICAL thinking. )

No, it was made to attack members (most of whom you had on ignore). Pyrrho interpreted it as such and you were warned not to do it.

In any case the rest of this post is the same old regurgitated mess. BTW, Sandhurst is not banned:

https://www.skepticforum.com/memberlis ... le&u=21070

Neither is PrudentRegret:

https://www.skepticforum.com/memberlis ... le&u=21228

Etc., etc., etc. All are free to denier away if they do choose. They aren’t going to get a warm reception but neither did I when I first joined here. Or anyone else who isn’t a denier.

[Sandhurst]

BTW, Sandhurst is not banned:

Funny how this message appears

You have been permanently banned from this board.

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

A ban has been issued on your username.