Denying the holocaust

Page 6 of 12 [ 177 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12 Next

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

31 Mar 2009, 3:46 pm

I'm too tired to reply to your rather barbed dissection right now Gromit; it will have to wait until tomorrow there is rather a lot to cover.

As guess in terms of your first caveat, I'll have to attempt to source the allied aerial photographs of the camps and we can go from there.

But in terms of the Israeli state, I suggest you refer to Diamond book yourself and have a look again at the actual accepted definition of genocide - you will find that their actions fall well within the definition. Which means you're patently wrong, as it goes. There's a statistic that the IDF on average has slain 1 Palestinian child every 3 days since 2000 - cut and paste that and put it into your search bar - that should take you to the source, I imagine - I handy way of doing quick sourcing, I find :idea:

The Third Chimpanzee happens to be amongst my favourite books -and an important investigation of genocide - that's why I have already cited it in this thread already :roll:

You interpret what you think I've interpreted Dussel to mean - what he said I've heard countless times here in Germany pretty much verbatim - sorry, I just assumed I had a pretty good handle on what the 'responsibility' comment meant. I'd say he might think it is the 'responsibility' of Germans to whatever//blah (I'm tired) - I disagree - I want to be able to freely disabuse the sentiment I've heard here so many times - it's stifling tbh and I know to an extent the effect it has sociologically this holocaust guilt that is state sanctioned - I know varied generations here - I can perceive the effect potentially in some ways better than a native - having that detachment from it.

I would appreciate it if you could keep it solely or as much as possible confined to the issues rather than your somewhat arrogant observations as to how you think I tick - I'm not so interested in your negative personal opinion of me as a human being tbh

If your desire is too strong and you need to be engage presumption and as said be somewhat arrogant - unnecessarily so :twisted: in your address of me then I will simply follow suit - but I can't help thinking that wouldn't be very sensible of us imo

I am more concerned about discussing the topic at hand.

Yes, I can back up everything I have said but it will take a little time to retrace all the data.

The Wannsee document is pretty famous - I'm not going to do ALL the legwork for those interested - it can be found

In regards to the proportion of Jewish commisars (sp) and high ranking officers in the NKVD - that is easily found to but I will look for you - the article I posted was more to point out that 3 million people can die in 2 years through an orchestrated genocide and it's hardly mentioned comparatively - that those delegating the process where often Jewish IS of consequence imsho - you can claim it is not *shrug* we would have to agree to differ on that point.

As said, I'll write at more length after I am rested from this day.

Oh, and by the way - yes, I am a 'conspiracy theorist' if that's the label your prefer to use - it is not my problem that you have a pejorative view of the term - I haven't demonised the term nor find it derogatory - like you obviously intended it - I suppose then if we are using such you would be then qualified as a 'sheep' *shrugs*

ttys

oh, I need to say also - that if you are intent that we explore this then it is going to at times necessitate you being able to handle links coming from revisionist sources - ie sites which have extracts of books posted for east reference - nothing to do with having to listen to nazis or anything like that.

I probably would have sourced some things already but I know how reactionary some people can be about that sort of thing - they get morally flustered and can't think - not saying that you fit that bill but it happens *shrugs* Also a piece like Danile Coles' film is VERY arduous for me to quote from as I have to basically type the audio out for you - I don't think I can be bothered to indulge you to that extent - you haven't exaclty been very friendly, after all - I suggest you just go and watch it instead rabbiting on at me for facts all the time when it's there and accessible to you - ie you have to put in a bit of effort too.

ttys

Last edited by Concenik on 31 Mar 2009, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

31 Mar 2009, 4:10 pm

Concenik wrote:

Ok, for a start my 3 year old bears NO RESPONSIBILITY for what happened in Germany during the NSDAP regime. NONE. Maybe that is your guilt talking?

You still confuse "responsibility" and "guilt": Guilt is some per definition something individually. Responsibility not. It was the German state how killed this people - against all international and national law.

It is in International Law the case that you had pay for your the action of your sovereign; independent on your personal involvement. This may not appear as "justice", but so the international law stands. It was was the German state how did this atrocities, so his subjects had to pay. Independently of personal involvement. This is "responsibility".

Concenik wrote:

Did you happen to watch the film I suggested by the Jewish man David Cole - who asserts that the 6,000,000 figure is a myth?

How? A 25 year old dis "research"? He went to Bundesarchive ("Federal Archives") in Koblenz or worked through the other archives - e.g. the collection of the Reichsbank or of Degusa regrading gold delivers? Or of the "Wirtschaftsbetriebe SS" or through the files of Frankfurt Auschwitz Prozess? This man even does not speak proper German, how he can male research on such an issue?

Concenik wrote:

In terms of basing TRUTH and FACT solely on court judgements is ludicrous. As Oscar Wilde said ' the law is an ass'

You live in Germany - than shall know that German courts, following the tradition of the Roman Law do not rely in criminal cases on the evidence brought forward by defence and prosecution, but are obliged to start their own investigation if it may can help to assess the facts. Following an other Roman lagal tradtion ("da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius") the court had to diver very exactly between the facts, as far can be established, and the legal reasoning and the application of the law.

In no case any court denied the facts of the mass murder of Jews. Even in the Revision the the BGH, the Federal Court of Germany, the defence did not questioned in any way the facts as they could established, but the legal reasoning in interpretation of the law (and in some case the defence was successful). If those fact would be weak or the court would oversaw any evidences in favour of the accused the defence would go this way - it didn't.

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

31 Mar 2009, 4:23 pm

Dussel wrote:

Concenik wrote:

Ok, for a start my 3 year old bears NO RESPONSIBILITY for what happened in Germany during the NSDAP regime. NONE. Maybe that is your guilt talking?

Concenik wrote:

Did you happen to watch the film I suggested by the Jewish man David Cole - who asserts that the 6,000,000 figure is a myth?

Concenik wrote:

In terms of basing TRUTH and FACT solely on court judgements is ludicrous. As Oscar Wilde said ' the law is an ass'

it's difficult for me to understand right now. I'll get back to it tomorrow.

I'd just like to say though that although you might consider my child a property of the German state and thus bound to bear partiall 'responsibility/guilt' I do not - to me he is a human being and I will raise him with this concept - I don't even recognise your concepts of states anymore really. I would throw away my EU citizenship today if only I wouldn't have to leave Europe - that would be ok but I want to be near my child. 'Tomorrow' if there's still a chance I will. Nothing has changed simce way back when it's still feudal in disguise with robber barons and severly inbred monarchical elites - screw that, I don't understand why people accept it *shrugs*
I am sick of being a commodity on the stock market. aren't you? I don't recognise the authority of international law as it is deliberated either - when it is free from hypocrisy and endemic corruption - I will - it is not the concept here that I reject but the reality of it's application. I wish more people would stand to this but it's wishful thinking. I am not as trusting as you of these systems potentially.

I've already told you what i think about the impartiality and integrity of courts. Tbh they serve the man and they are full of crap :roll:

shame - but that's how it is imho

This debate will get going soon when I start delivering what you all think I can't haha (ie strong evidence) :twisted:

It's going to be tiring for me, I predict but a lot of fun :twisted:

ps - I disagree with you there is no such a thing as collective guilt - it's a very debilitating social phenomena and it relates to confusion of cultural identity - German exemplifies this to a relatively severe extent under the surface - I think it's silly to pretend it's not true *shrugs* - but that's jmo well, not just mine of course.

You shouldn't (a word I use not so much) be prejudicial because someone is 'only' 25 - how old is acceptable to look into history? cough Mozart cough I think it's possible to hire a translator if your not a native speaker for sifting through bureucracy - just watch the film before you judge it so harshly :wink:

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

31 Mar 2009, 5:07 pm

Concenik wrote:

"Guilt" and "responsibility" are two totally different concepts. "Guilt" can be only raised by actual doing or not doing; via an act of will.

"Responsibility" is often independent of your act.

Concenik wrote:

I don't even recognise your concepts of states anymore really.

It is not "my" concept of state, but the concept as it has been established during the centuries and still stands. You may can see a citizenship of a state as a "Club membership" born with and difficult to get rip off. If you "club" makes nonsense, you had to pay too, if the club is successful, you benefit too.

If do not say it is just or good, but that's the way the world is organized today.

Concenik wrote:

I am sick of being a commodity on the stock market. aren't you?

Prior the capitalist society to majority of people were the commodity of the land. The current system is not perfect, but still better than previous systems.

Concenik wrote:

I don't recognise the authority of international ...

The law does not ask for your recognition - making laws is part of what is in legal theory still called "Imperium": The right to rule.

Concenik wrote:

I wish more people would stand to this but it's wishful thinking.

The power lies at the end, independent of what law and constitution say, with the people; but why they should make a revolution? Historical evidence shows that revolution is risky game. For the English Revolution 1642/49 the dead toll is given any figure between 200'000 and 1 Mio. and ended in a regime even worst than the Stuart Kings. The French Revolution, on the long best think which happened to Europe, ruined Europe with war of Napoleon for decades.

The current system provides, at least in the "Rich Club of the West" the population with wealth unseen in history and a stable society. Only a very small minority is interested to change this.

So: Why shall people "stand up"? The potential price is much to high and it is to much to loose.

Concenik wrote:

ps - I disagree with you there is no such a thing as collective guilt

I did not say this: There a collective responsibility, but never a collective guilt. As I said this are totally different issues.

Concenik wrote:

- it's a very debilitating social phenomena and it relates to confusion of cultural identity - German exemplifies this to a relatively severe extent under the surface - I think it's silly to pretend it's not true *shrugs* - but that's jmo well, not just mine of course.

Germany is a problem his self since Napoleon. What Germany did to a vast extent is to back to older structure and idea. The modern Federal Republic of Germany has more to do with roughly 1000 years of German history than any other regime since 1806. Look into the pattern of endless compromise findings, talks, not moving to fast, even minor reforms take ages and are never really consequent, overcareful considerations, the formalization and extensive regulations etc. etc. of the modern Federal Republic of Germany, and you see the again the structures of Holy Roman Empire; with all its strengths and weaknesses.

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

31 Mar 2009, 5:18 pm

Concenik wrote:

I'm too tired to reply to your rather barbed dissection right now

Fair point. I fell below the standards I aim for several times. Sorry about that.

Concenik wrote:

The Third Chimpanzee happens to be amongst my favourite books -and an important investigation of genocide - that's why I have already cited it in this thread already :roll:

I didn't see that.

Concenik wrote:

You interpret what you think I've interpreted Dussel to mean

Again, fair point, but in this case I still don't see how your reaction makes sense unless my interpretation of you was right. If I was wrong, I will find it interesting to see how I went wrong.

Concenik wrote:

I would appreciate it if you could keep it solely or as much as possible confined to the issues

I'll try. If I fail again, remind me. If you explain what you mean, I can decide whether I agree. I may not, but as you saw, it is also possible that I do.

Concenik wrote:

rather than your somewhat arrogant observations as to how you think I tick

I'll be pedantic here. Asserting how you think is arrogant. That is how I formulated my comment, and that was stupid, because it wasn't my intention. I still think my interpretation is plausible, but I will be interested to read an alternative explanation if you want to offer one. Asserting how I think you tick is stating an opinion, without asserting it to be truth. That is what I should have done. If presenting an opinion is arrogant, I can't engage in debate without being arrogant.

Concenik wrote:

oh, I need to say also - that if you are intent that we explore this then it is going to at times necessitate you being able to handle links coming from revisionist sources

I noticed that already, trying to find sources relevant to your claims.

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

31 Mar 2009, 8:18 pm

Hector wrote:

Should denying the holocaust be legal?

yes, but why be so stupid about it? i mean the evidence is overwelming!

_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

31 Mar 2009, 8:49 pm

Well, it depends on who's doing it and why. If it's an important influential person denying because they have some sort of an agenda then it's more serious.
If it's a judge denying, that has A LOT more influence, certainly more than a random person on the street.
Like I said, it depends on who and their motives for denying.
It should be illegal for judges and people like that to deny in court? Yes.

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

01 Apr 2009, 9:25 am

richardbenson wrote:

Hector wrote:

Should denying the holocaust be legal?

yes, but why be so stupid about it? i mean the evidence is overwelming!

yawn. watch out organ grinder thy monkey hath done a runner :nerdy:

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

01 Apr 2009, 9:57 am

Quote:

Dussel wrote:

Concenik wrote:

"Guilt" and "responsibility" are two totally different concepts. "Guilt" can be only raised by actual doing or not doing; via an act of will.

"Responsibility" is often independent of your act.

Yes but they are in the same constellation eg if you fumbles their responsinility likely there is a following instance of guilt in some form.

Sociologically we can postulate that the intense 'responsibility' as you call it present in the socialisation process of Germans is leading to a backlash simply to the attendant guilt complex which it imbues below the surface leading unfortunately to a resugence of crypto bigotry.

That's been my experience of here thus far anyhow - unless one considers the other extreme in the spectrum where one encounters the 'anti germans' who would as well spit on you rather than debate should you make the hideous mistake of being critical either of Israel in any shape or form or corporations like coca cola or even monsanto halliburton or bechtel even for example - a dangerous development. Ernest mandel would probably turn in his grave. *shrugs*

Concenik wrote:

I don't even recognise your concepts of states anymore really.

Quote:

ergo one should zip up and not contend it's validity in governing every aspect of our existence from cradle to grave?

Concenik wrote:

I am sick of being a commodity on the stock market. aren't you?

Quote:

Prior the capitalist society to majority of people were the commodity of the land. The current system is not perfect, but still better than previous systems.

Oh I don't know, I've been to some rather lovely places that still valiantly attempt to hold the homogeneous onslaught of capital.

I agree the people were a commodity of the land and then they were thrown off to be a commodity in the factory - big deal, change of scenery. Still the same crap. Still the same shackles. Reminds me of the bitter reminisces of the Irish. How the ships were leaving stuffed from port to stern with foodstuffs and drink whilst starvation blighted the land and the managers of the genocide ate pheasent and drank fine wine at a party in the manor house - I paraphrase but essentially it is the same deal ALL the way through whether it be a time of feudalism or industrial expansion.

Quote:

Concenik wrote:

I don't recognise the authority of international ...

The law does not ask for your recognition - making laws is part of what is in legal theory still called "Imperium": The right to rule.

Yes, I know. It's a farm whether you want to opt out or not you are told -sorry, that's not allowed' from Imperium we have Imperious
and it absolutely is.
I think we are fools if we don't see the pattern. They don't even think they are the same species as us. Look into it, please before the next controlled pandemic hits the streets - oh, we're told it's over due by WHO yes WHO? I say 'cull' no need for polite bywords any more

Quote:

Concenik wrote:

I wish more people would stand to this but it's wishful thinking.

Revolution has always been co-opted or a false dialectic anyhow. By God, they laugh at us and openly cite geneology (sp) to ancient monarchs .

Just as the freemasons created the first widely known encyclopedia to show beneficence to man the Jacobites equally capitalised on class frustrations and masqueraded as an answer. Same ruse.
The french revolution was just a change in management - as was the english.

Yes the poor of the rich are too fooled and cosseted to imagine the rug would be whipped out from under them - big mistake - they should giving a flying f*ck at what goes on over the borders. the south is rising time to get onboard really instead of placing trust in sang froid bankers and kings who evidence shows care nought for 'their' people. Yes, I like Chavez.

Quote:

Concenik wrote:

ps - I disagree with you there is no such a thing as collective guilt

I did not say this: There a collective responsibility, but never a collective guilt. As I said this are totally different issues.

[/quote]

This has enough material for a whole discussion in itself - I think they are ultimately entwined as issues in regards to the holocaust; they are not mutually exclusive at all as you claim..

And which ever way the cookie crumbles the wee children of Germany bear NO responsibility as neither do you.

Quote:

Concenik wrote:

[/quote]

Absolutely.

In terms of people not wanting to rise up anymore I am inclined to follow the analysis of Mandel in terms of cycles where the oppositional voice must focus of either agitation or propaganda - I think the cycle is coming round again quite soon.

The problem is it is anticipated and already worked into a far different agenda than emancipation - this is what we need to be fully aware of so as to not be tools to another Jacobian style transfer of management. imho

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Apr 2009, 9:59 am

Concenik wrote:

richardbenson wrote:

Hector wrote:

Should denying the holocaust be legal?

yes, but why be so stupid about it? i mean the evidence is overwelming!

yawn. watch out organ grinder thy monkey hath done a runner :nerdy:

Actually the whole effort lacks a sufficiently grandiose imagination. History is quite plastic with the right authorities. Christ deniers these days seem, if not totally convincing, at least in the area of possibility. Why not deny the whole Nazi episode as a kind of obsolete nightmare. Hitler was dreamed up by Roosevelt to permit the US government to heavily subsidize US industry and pull it out of the depression. In disgust at the success of this maneuver the European populace spontaneously destroyed their obsolete manufacturing infrastructure and the USA with thr Marshall Plan renewed the whole thing. Hitler never existed and was played by Charlie Chaplan. It was done in a secret plan by the predecessor to the CIA under the secret title "Wag the Mustache"

Concenik
Velociraptor

Joined: 27 Mar 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 441
Location: not in average tinfoil fanlnand teeth optional

01 Apr 2009, 10:02 am

Gromit, my boy is staying with me tonight so our discussion will once again have to be postponed until tomorrow.

Thanks for acknowledging the barbs - kudos to you. Don't look down on utilising links to revisionist sources - it's just the raw data that we are trying to find ( as in us not the revisionists - although many of them fit into that bracket too - not all nazis lol)

I might even ask you to watch some audio visual material to - I will reference specific time stamps so you don't have to trawl through the stuff.

Testimony is accepted as valid unless it has been shown to be false... and some in this matter has been.

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

01 Apr 2009, 10:02 am

Sand wrote:

Concenik wrote:

richardbenson wrote:

Hector wrote:

Should denying the holocaust be legal?

yes, but why be so stupid about it? i mean the evidence is overwelming!

yawn. watch out organ grinder thy monkey hath done a runner :nerdy:

Actually the whole effort lacks a sufficiently grandiose imagination. History is quite plastic with the right authorities. Christ deniers these days seem, if not totally convincing, at least in the area of possibility. Why not deny the whole Nazi episode as a kind of obsolete nightmare. Hitler was dreamed up by Roosevelt to permit the US government to heavily subsidize US industry and pull it out of the depression. In disgust at the success of this maneuver the European populace spontaneously destroyed their obsolete manufacturing infrastructure and the USA with thr Marshall Plan renewed the whole thing. Hitler never existed and was played by Charlie Chaplan. It was done in a secret plan by the predecessor to the CIA under the secret title "Wag the Mustache"

_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light

jaymannj
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

01 Apr 2009, 8:20 pm

how can u deny something there is unquestionable proof of. I dont think auchwitz was a day camp who gave tattos. I have family survivors and if anyone came to my house and said it didnt exist, i would probably shoot em.

_________________
Blowin that purp

Hector
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,493

01 Apr 2009, 8:26 pm

Hector wrote:

Disclaimer: I do not deny the holocaust and am not interested in discussing whether or not the holocaust took place. I am interested in discussing whether it should be legal to deny the holocaust.

Since people are quoting my OP again, I feel this needs to be re-asserted.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

01 Apr 2009, 10:01 pm

I hear ya hector, I know what you are asking, but your question isn't too specific. Let's say two people in a bar are drunk and arguing and one denies the holocaust took place. Should he be arrested and fined? No. There would be no point.
Let's say it's a judge in a court case. He decides to deny it took place. Does his denial carry the same weight as the guy in the bar? No. So, should he be allowed to deny it in a court case? No, he should not. He should be held accountable for that. It should be illegal for a judge to deny the holocaust took place.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 02 Apr 2009, 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

vibratetogether
Supporting Member

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: WA, USA

02 Apr 2009, 4:32 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

I hear ya hector, I know you what you are asking, but your question isn't too specific. Let's say two people in a bar are drunk and arguing and one denies the holocaust took place. Should he be arrested and fined? No. There would be no point.
Let's say it's a judge in a court case. He decides to deny it took place. Does his denial carry the same weight as the guy in the bar? No. So, should he be allowed to deny it in a court case? No, he should not. He should be held accountable for that. It should be illegal for a judge to deny the holocaust took place.

Well, there's a fine point to make here. He should have the right to say it, and then be held in contempt of court, or found unfit to serve, or whatever. You are right that the judge should no longer be a judge if he denies it, but the act of denying it should still be his right. In fact, he should be able to hold that view and keep his job, so long as it does not affect his rulings (or if there is a ruling that somehow needs the holocaust to have happened, that he accepts in his role as judge that it did).

Page 6 of 12 [ 177 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12 Next

Jump to:

Denying the holocaust Post Reply New Topic

Denying the holocaust