Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 8143
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Huntinger »

We are discussing what the Germans allegedly did or did not do, not the status of the alleged victims. It can only be antisemitic if the intention is to suggest that the victims were liars or somehow involved in the alleged actions of the Germans, by complicity, fraud or whatever.

Why does the alleged Holocaust need to have Nazis and Germans, gaskammer, burning pyres etc?; the death of hundreds of thousands whether it be by Reich, Allies or disease is a tragedy.

This war may have been a tragedy for the Ashkenazi, but for the world it was a Calamity. A holocaust doesn't need Germans or Soviets, but it does need deaths. How many deaths does it take to to make a holocaust? perhaps this question is the same as asking "how long is a piece of string"?.
What is clear is that the deportations to the East away from medical supplies, proper heating, poor food and congenital medical conditions made these people very susceptible to the onslaught that nature in cold winters can bring.

They did not need gaskammer to perish, or need a holocaust of bullets to die, nature would do the dirty work if that was the intention. This is the distinction between manslaughter and murder in some democracies or in the US 1st and 2nd degree murder. The intention of the Reich was to rid themselves of these people, the Untermensch; sadly war and cold weather got in the way of health and well-being.
If these people perished in no war then the Reich would and should be culpable; the intent was not to murder but many died anyhow of typhus, hypothermia, depression and malnutrition. This is testified by Sam Pivnik who went to visit a girl he knew a fellow prisoner in a hunting lodge. He found them frozen to death inside the lodge, probably typhus.

This scenario is bad enough and probably closer to reality, but the hoaxers wish it to be "murder" which implies intent, despite no orders etc. This is where the gaskammer and the rest of the nonsense appears. This is pure hate; vengeance, blind retribution at any cost..screaming at the world. Any nonsense would do, which is where the shrunken heads, lampshades, soap, headbangers, lobstering and atom bombings comes to play.

The fact is it should not make any difference how thousands died. Investigating reality is not hate.

Die soziale Heimatpartei
π•΄π–ˆπ– π–‡π–Šπ–—π–Šπ–šπ–Š π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ–π–™π–˜...π•Ύπ–”π–Ÿπ–Žπ–†π–‘ π–Œπ–Šπ–π–™ π–“π–šπ–— π•Ήπ–†π–™π–Žπ–”π–“π–†π–‘

Amt IV

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by been-there »

Huntinger wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:23 pm
We are discussing what the Germans allegedly did or did not do, not the status of the alleged victims. It can only be antisemitic if the intention is to suggest that the victims were liars or somehow involved in the alleged actions of the Germans, by complicity, fraud or whatever.

Why does the alleged Holocaust need to have Nazis and Germans, gaskammer, burning pyres etc?; the death of hundreds of thousands whether it be by Reich, Allies or disease is a tragedy.

This war may have been a tragedy for the Ashkenazi, but for the world it was a Calamity. A holocaust doesn't need Germans or Soviets, but it does need deaths. How many deaths does it take to to make a holocaust? perhaps this question is the same as asking "how long is a piece of string"?.
What is clear is that the deportations to the East away from medical supplies, proper heating, poor food and congenital medical conditions made these people very susceptible to the onslaught that nature in cold winters can bring.

They did not need gaskammer to perish, or need a holocaust of bullets to die, nature would do the dirty work if that was the intention. This is the distinction between manslaughter and murder in some democracies or in the US 1st and 2nd degree murder. The intention of the Reich was to rid themselves of these people, the Untermensch; sadly war and cold weather got in the way of health and well-being.
If these people perished in no war then the Reich would and should be culpable; the intent was not to murder but many died anyhow of typhus, hypothermia, depression and malnutrition. This is testified by Sam Pivnik who went to visit a girl he knew a fellow prisoner in a hunting lodge. He found them frozen to death inside the lodge, probably typhus.

This scenario is bad enough and probably closer to reality, but the hoaxers wish it to be "murder" which implies intent, despite no orders etc. This is where the gaskammer and the rest of the nonsense appears. This is pure hate; vengeance, blind retribution at any cost..screaming at the world. Any nonsense would do, which is where the shrunken heads, lampshades, soap, headbangers, lobstering and atom bombings comes to play.

The fact is it should not make any difference how thousands died. Investigating reality is not hate.
Yes. Well put.

And the purpose of this topic is to discuss whether making the point you have just made is somehow a sign of an irrational prejudice against all Jews simply because they are Jewish.
The answer is an obvious, NO!!
And that most people can not understand this I regard as a sign of the mass-hysteria around this topic.
As Scott recently observed, historical truth and factual accuracy is no defence against this charge of 'anti-semitism'.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29884
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Nessie »

been-there wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:49 am
...

And the purpose of this topic is to discuss whether making the point you have just made is somehow a sign of an irrational prejudice against all Jews simply because they are Jewish.
The answer is an obvious, NO!!
Claiming that every single Jewish person who states he saw a gassing at an AR camp or A-B krema is a liar and that the non-Jews who also said they saw gassings were coerced into lying, is anti-Semitic
And that most people can not understand this I regard as a sign of the mass-hysteria around this topic.
As Scott recently observed, historical truth and factual accuracy is no defence against this charge of 'anti-semitism'.
Denial uses an unevidenced, illogical method of enquiry that is clearly trying to promote fake history, not establish the truth of what happened. To allege the Holocaust is a mass hoax plotted by some Jewish people, is anti-Semitic.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8813
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Turnagain »

How many witnesses actually claimed to have seen a gassing, Nessie? Hundreds? Thousands? How about naming a few.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 8143
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Huntinger »

Nessie wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:02 am
  1. Claiming that every single Jewish person who states he saw a gassing at an AR camp or A-B krema is a liar and that the non-Jews who also said they saw gassings were coerced into lying, is anti-Semitic
  2. Denial uses an unevidenced, illogical method of enquiry that is clearly trying to promote fake history, not establish the truth of what happened. To allege the Holocaust is a mass hoax plotted by some Jewish people, is anti-Semitic.
No one has seen a gassing event; no one has been called liars because of this. The impossibilities in the stories makes it certain that either the witnesses are liars or mistaken; to call out liars is not antisemitic, being of a particular ethno religious group does not make anyone immune from criticism when they are mistaken or indeed do lie.

No one is promoting anything. It is just said that the evidence presented to the claim is not sufficient to warrant belief. It has been mentioned numerous times that if the evidence was there, this forum would not exist. Screaming something is true without evidence does not make it true. Wanting something to be true does not make it happen either. Bringing in the antisemitic canard to deflect criticism doesn't make it true either.
As Wiesel said: Some stories are true that never happened; those true stories are only in the minds of some.
Antimsemitic or otherwise, the intent is to bring down this house of cards; they can either love it or lump it, we certainly don't care; we know the truth of their sensibilities. They have a wailing wall they can flagellate on for all we care.

Die soziale Heimatpartei
π•΄π–ˆπ– π–‡π–Šπ–—π–Šπ–šπ–Š π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ–π–™π–˜...π•Ύπ–”π–Ÿπ–Žπ–†π–‘ π–Œπ–Šπ–π–™ π–“π–šπ–— π•Ήπ–†π–™π–Žπ–”π–“π–†π–‘

Amt IV

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Scott »

been-there wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:40 am
Scott wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:31 am

[... on the content of Dr. King's character trumping his skin color at his canonization ...]

You can't make this stuff up. ;)

C'mon Scott, think a bit more skeptically. Of course You can make this stuff up!!
OF COURSE someone can!

And without the wire-taps available to the public, NO-ONE can contest what has been made-up/ exaggerated/skewed/spiced-up/distorted IF they have done that.

So ask yourself, why would the FBI leak extremely damaging snippets of what they claim was recorded, while making any chance of verifying the accuracy of them unavailable??

Qui bono?

[...]

Okay, fair enough. I'm just a bigot.

Theyze just hates 'im cuz he wuz Black.

Ask yourself why the Reverend Doctah gets a pass for his lewdness and borderline, or actual criminal conduct?

But Conservative Blacks like Justice Clarence Thomas get the Two-Minutes Hate treatment for supposedly telling lewd jokes.

How personally disgusting the smiling Nobel Prize-winning martyr really was, is not even the most interesting thing that is going on here.

When Congress passed a veto-proof bill to canonize the Rev. Dr. King in 1983, President Reagan protested wanly as the staunch fiscal-conservative about how much big-government this new MLK Civil Rights Martyr holiday would cost the taxpayer.

The most important thing for Ronnie was that he not LOOK racist. That in a nutshell is why the GOP is controlled-opposition, but it's a little off-topic here.

After objecting to the MLK canonization, the President then meekly announced that he would sign the veto-proof bill into law because King had become the establishment SYMBOL for the supposed higher concept of "colorblind" Civil Rights.

The problem here, of course, is that nobody but White people believe in a color-BLIND character-content to begin with. And maybe least of all do Jews, who are smart enough to get it.

People of Color cannot be shamed, and therefore, they just cannot function the way in civil society that White people would. Any organizing principle--whether we are talking about crime or poverty--that cannot look at Race honestly is bound to FAIL.

White people's general idealized conception of equity and empathy is what gets them into huge problems in the area of race relations.

Whites just don't think in a prejudiced, let alone bigoted, way for the most part, which means that their own indiscriminate and unrealistic morality can be (and is) exploited against them like a group Achilles heel.

Just as the Holocaust "Waves the Bloody Shirt," the whole Racism angle is really just a clever poison pill meant for minorities to bludgeon White people.

As I said earlier, when Whites organize in their own interests, it is by definition Racism, and probably even Genocide.

The Big-H proves it. Never Again !

The Joos--or at least the ADL, the SPLC, the Civil Rights and whatever equality police--plus, the corporate media in aggregate that is owned overwhelmingly by Jews, etc. --yeah, they all KNOW the fact that Racism only means Whites.

(((They))) understand how this works, and what its purpose is meant for. Ignore Race at your peril, Whitey, because reality will not ignore you.

One last point about the historical TRUTH, and whether it should be guarded by what Winston Churchill would call "a Bodyguard of Lies" ---

When Reagan announced that he would sign the King canonization bill, a reporter asked him if Doctah King was really a Communist.

Reagan's pithy reply was, "we'll know in about 35 years."

That is because the FBI's smoking gun where the Nobel Prize-winning role model's "sexcapades" are recorded on tapes, complete with King's raunchy ghetto mouth, were sealed for fifty years back in 1977 in the fallout from the 1975 Senate Frank Church Committee ... which was investigating government spying, dirty tricks, and secret files about assassinations.

My take on these hijinks is that the FBI were just whores who were mostly concerned about whether King's shenanigans might somehow become public, thus foiling the plans of their masters who were forcibly ushering in Camelot and the Great Society. Exposing King was the last thing they would have wanted to happen.

King was a security risk that could have been easily destroyed had that really been the intention.

In 1983 at the time of King's canonization, Sen. Jesse Helms unsuccessfully tried to get the King-FBI files released to the public, but he was unsuccessful. This seems to be a familiar pattern...

The only upshot of having the FBI records sealed for fifty years (1977-2027) is that presumably they will be preserved instead of destroyed, although the same can't necessarily be said for other corroborative evidence over the years, only some of which has been released--notably in 1992 after the debut of the 1991 Oliver Stone film JFK.

President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992

So now, come 2027, almost sixty years since the Doctah was assassinated, the National Archives will publicly release the FBI's sealed smoking-gun--the audio recordings themselves--and we can judge the man on the content of his actual character. Not that this coming historian's debate will actually matter. The transparency was needed over fifty years ago.

Dr. King was a Nobel Prize winner who talked the talk about the "non-violent Civil Rights" agitation, and this was the best that the Great Society could get to promote its official colorblind narrative.

The elephant in the room with this doctrinaire notion of racial colorblindness is that ONLY White people believe it, except maybe Jews.

Whether we are talking about manhandling hookers or parking illegally in handicapped parking spaces, ONLY White people can be shamed. And this kind civic virtue just does not apply to People of Color.

What they call White Privilege is the biggest cultural subversion strategy ever devised.

It allows billionaire Jews like Michael Bloomberg or pandered Hollywood elites like David Schwimmer to pontificate about their "White privilege," and therefore to best those hardworking White simpletons voting at places like Iowa.

And then it is howling bloody murder if one of those ignorant Gentiles notices that the Government Gay-Op or mass-media slander campaign actually came from a "rootless cosmopolitan" instead of a "Deplorable."

Because, if you noticed, then you must be an anti-Semite.

Unlike the English, Scots, Irish, whatever kind of Christians, or even Slavs, the Jews can always be selectively White--finding a oppression figleaf whenever and wherever it suits them.

This is why there are Holocaust memorials literally everywhere. They are for YOUR benefit as a Gentile, not theirs--and this, regardless of what is meant by the Holocaust.

Jews are always "Holocaust Survivors."

This is true as well for Jews who were not even born yet.

Yes, such phenomena are exactly what ORWELL warned against.

Hope it doesn't sound too anti-Semitic.

:-)

β€œSo people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”

~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse
(Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)

Jeffk1970
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Jeffk1970 »

Reagan...the fiscal conservative....
:lol:

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 8143
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Huntinger »

Jeffk1970 wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:20 am
Reagan...the fiscal conservative....
:lol:
Could the poster explain to the world the meaning of this post and how it relates to the topic. Was Reagan a revisonist? was he antisemitic?. People outside of your own zone of comfort have no idea what a fiscal conservative means, let alone what this has to do with the topic.

It is assumed you are replying to Scott, but you are giving an opinion it seems like with no structure behind it. :|

Remember to most of the world US politiks are like double dutch and have no meaning. Speak to an audience and assume they do not know (or care) what it is you are talking about.

Die soziale Heimatpartei
π•΄π–ˆπ– π–‡π–Šπ–—π–Šπ–šπ–Š π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ–π–™π–˜...π•Ύπ–”π–Ÿπ–Žπ–†π–‘ π–Œπ–Šπ–π–™ π–“π–šπ–— π•Ήπ–†π–™π–Žπ–”π–“π–†π–‘

Amt IV

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by been-there »

Scott wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:35 pm
been-there wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:40 am
Scott wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 04, 2020 6:31 am

[... on the content of Dr. King's character trumping his skin color at his canonization ...]

You can't make this stuff up. ;)

C'mon Scott, think a bit more skeptically. Of course You can make this stuff up!!
OF COURSE someone can!

And without the wire-taps available to the public, NO-ONE can contest what has been made-up/ exaggerated/skewed/spiced-up/distorted IF they have done that.

So ask yourself, why would the FBI leak extremely damaging snippets of what they claim was recorded, while making any chance of verifying the accuracy of them unavailable??

Qui bono?

[...]

Okay, fair enough. I'm just a bigot...

Ask yourself why the Reverend Doctah gets a pass for his lewdness and borderline, or actual criminal conduct?
Maybe because its GREATLY EXAGGERATED?
Remember this is 'leaked notes' of something 'supposed' to be secret until 2027!
And it's from illegal FBI wiretaps that are then archived so that nobody is able to verify and substantiate the accuracy of the 'leaked' notes. It's all very convenient.
Plus... And then even if it is not exaggerated, spiced up, ask yourself why they never spilled the beans AT THE TIME on the same type of evidence of JFK's serial philandering and 'me-too' sexual exploitation of women in the white house?

Scott wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:35 pm
After objecting to the MLK canonization, the President then meekly announced that he would sign the veto-proof bill into law because King had become the establishment SYMBOL for the supposed higher concept of colorblind Civil Rights.
The canonisation of MLK is a whitewash that innoculates the black population against violent resistance/struggle and pacifies them with an etoliated, diluted version of the man to be placed on the pedestal.
His criticism of American foreign policy, its immoral arms industry and its white-supremacist neo-imperialism never gets mentioned now. The submissive, Christian, pacifist, preacher of love between ALL races is a better role-model and sell than the real deal. And then you've got the other side-of-the-coin and the leaked 'too-much lurv', lascvivious, black-devil defiler-of-our-white-women story appeal to the racists.
It's not that much different to JFK and the 'new Camelot, hope for the future' positive presentation offset by the 'drugged-up, misogynistic, others'-wives-screwing, intern-abusing, double-dealing son of an anti-semite' narrative.

Scott wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:35 pm
...My take on these hijinks is that the FBI were just whores who were mostly concerned about whether King's shenanigans might somehow become public, thus foiling the plans of their masters who were forcibly ushering in Camelot and the Great Society. Exposing King was the last thing they would have wanted to happen.

...In 1983 at the time of King's canonization, Sen. Jesse Helms unsuccessfully tried to get the King-FBI files released to the public, but he was unsuccessful. This seems to be a familiar pattern...

The only upshot of having the FBI records sealed for fifty years (1977-2027) is that presumably they will be preserved instead of destroyed...
You are more trusting than I, then. :)

Scott wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:35 pm
So now, come 2027, almost sixty years since the Doctah was assassinated, the National Archives will publicly release the FBI sealed smoking gun--the recordings themselves--and we can judge the man on the content of his actual character. Not that this coming historian's debate will actually matter. The transparency was needed over fifty years ago.
Precisely!
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Is Holocaust revisionism antisemitic?

Post by Scott »

Huntinger wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:26 am
Jeffk1970 wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:20 am
Reagan...the fiscal conservative....
:lol:


Could the poster explain to the world the meaning of this post and how it relates to the topic. Was Reagan a revisionist? was he antisemitic?. People outside of your own zone of comfort have no idea what a fiscal conservative means, let alone what this has to do with the topic.

It is assumed you are replying to Scott, but you are giving an opinion it seems like with no structure behind it. :|

Remember to most of the world US politiks are like double dutch and have no meaning. Speak to an audience and assume they do not know (or care) what it is you are talking about.


It is actually a shrewd observation because in 1980 Reagan campaigned during a bad recession on the basis of cutting government spending, and cutting taxes, while still balancing the budget somehow just by promoting growth and cutting bureaucratic red tape.

But because "fiscal-Conservative" Reagan presided over a huge military buildup and a huge simultaneous tax cut, he left office after two-terms with an unprecedented annual budget deficit and a burgeoning national debt. It is pretty hard to balance a budget by increasing military and other spending and cutting taxes (and revenues) to "stimulate growth," plus paying the interest on the debt.

In any case, Keynesian economics matured by the 1960s, but it's principles were misused by its enthusiasts, especially in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and this led to huge inflation and unemployment in the 1970s, which became known as "Stagflation."

In 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office, he brought in people who had these newer Chicago School economic theories promoted by Nobel Prize-winners such as Milton Friedman, who were basically Neoliberals. The so-called "Supply-Side Economics" of the Reaganites worked to some extent, but in short their anti-Keynes practitioners got things wildly wrong too.

I just finished a short book by Bruce Bartlett, who was one of Reagan's economic gurus that helped invent "Reaganomics" (or "Voodoo Economics" as candidate George Bush Sr. called Reagan's plan during the campaign season before he became candidate Reagan's Vice Presidential nominee).

Mr. Bartlett was an official who helped invent Reaganomics in its heyday, and in this book he does a postmortem on the Reagan-Bush "Supply-Side Economics" policies.




Bartlett is interesting because he seems to have revised his economic theories over the years and he basically rehabilitates John Maynard Keynes, who studied the economic consequences of the Versailles Treaty and the Great Depression.

Btw, Hjalmar Schacht of the German Reichsbank in the Nazi era were basically bootstrap Keynesians, which is how they ended the Depression in Germany before the war.

:)

β€œSo people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”

~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse
(Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests