Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Motives of a Holocaust Revisionist

The Question

Eternal
"My interest is in the ideals of free inquiry, an open society and, if you will, my own moral being. As a writer, how do I stand aside from the issues that I see corrupting public discourse, and thus the lives of my friends and neighbors? As a man, how do I stand aside from them? It's pointless to talk about motive. You can never get to the bottom of it.

Almost thirty years ago, the night I got the word that a bookseller on Hollywood Boulevard was going to be arrested and prosecuted for selling Miller's Tropic, my first reaction was to take the book out of my store window. When I went to the window to take it out, something caused me to pause. I already had a couple of the books in my hands. There was something about what I was doing that I didn't like. I wasn't sure what it was.

The next morning I took a walk along Hollywood Boulevard and looked over the display windows in the other book shops. Tropic wasn't in any of their windows any longer. That was good enough for me. I went back to my own shop and climbed into the display window but I couldn't bring myself to take out the books. Later that morning I tried it again but I couldn't make myself do it. That afternoon I was arrested by a couple of L.A.'s finest in plain clothes and the stage was set for the longest civil trial to have taken place in Los Angeles up to that time.

It wasn't First Amendment idealism that made it impossible for me to remove Miller's book from my window. It wasn't professionalism or dedication to the book industry. It was shame. It made me feel ashamed to think of removing a book from my displays that I respected and that I had gotten so much pleasure and encouragement from. I had read Miller at a particularly tumultuous time in my life—there was a ruined marriage and a few other matters—and Tropic had been a wonderfully liberating experience for me, and I loved Henry Miller for having written it. It was the thought of betraying that love, I suppose, by denying it publicly if I should remove Tropic from my window, that made me feel the shame.

I have never thought of it just this way before, but when the State put me to the test to declare myself publicly, I chose my heart's desire hands down and told the State to shove it along. I feel something similar for revisionist scholarship. While I have no love for the work, to not stand up for it now that I know what it is would make me feel ashamed. That's why I can't "just drop the subject." Hostility is easy to face when the alternative is shame. "
--Bradley Smith
 
This is pretty cagey and only barely refers to Holocaust revisionism. Smith is talking about defying censorship in the form of a book labelled pornographic (Much like Larry Flynt did with his Hustler trial) and further he describes said book as one he "respected and got great pleasure" from. His statement re: revisionism was akin to the argument in favor of allowing KKK rallies. Even those things that are repugnant must be allowed to see the light of day. His motives are to prevent censorship in scholarly works, which I'd argue are not the motives of Holocaust revisionists at all. Revisionists seek to downplay a horrific chapter in our history by obfuscating facts, clouding details and misdirecting various aspects over time. Their object is not to reveal truths but to alter them so that the victims are more to blame and the perpetrators less so.

I am all in favor of allowing holocaust revisionists to have their say, especially since idiocy tends to wilt under direct light. But to pretend their only motive is to seek truth; well, that's quite an imaginative stretch.
 
Not bias. I read your post carefully, and even looked up the work he was referencing because I wasn't familiar with it. Miller's Tropic of Cancer was a work that was banned for sexual references, some graphic. The author mentions that while he has "no love" for holocaust revisionist scholarly works he recognizes they must be allowed to exist. The tone is that of someone accepting a necessary evil for the sake of free speech, not of someone defending a repugnant viewpoint.

You act as if the above quote somehow portrays people who try to revise the official version of the Holocaust as champions of truth and information, when they are really purveyors of misinformation and obfuscation. Further, your analogy paints them as ersatz 'victims' of some vast government conspiracy, which is ironically hilarious given the subject matter they try to revise.

I don't think anyone has tried to censor your thoughts or ask that they be removed from public forums. But that "right to question" you demand also gives me right to question the validity of your argument...which I will continue to do.
 
On further review, I have to revise my above statements. The auther, Bradley Smith, has a website dedicated to debunking the Holocaust in the guise of a nonbiased intellectual. However, after reading most of his treatises I found his arguments to be thinly veiled and deliberately mocking in tone, while disguising themselves as valid points. I haven't read all the way through; but the man clearly has an agenda and should not be considered an unbiased source, since most of his "evidence" consists of saying the other side has no evidence and repeating the arguments he knows people will say about his own views.

His statement on the website is that the Holocaust defenders must now prove the holocaust happened in the widely accepted version. However, the burden of proof lies with the deniers, since it is them who wish to revise events. From what I saw, Smith's main arguement is that the Holocaust museum has a bomb door they call a gas chamber door, and that world leaders like Churchill and FDR don't speak on the chambers.

I'd have to read more of this website to be sure, but much of it I can dismiss as rhetoric since it tends to be condescending and mocking when discussing its opposite number, throwing "quotes" around every fact presented by opposing views and using mocking turns of phrase ("It's wrong to bear false witness. MOST of us learn this as children" is one example I read).

I'm not adverse to discussing the truths, half-truths and urban legends surrounding the WWII campaign. But you have to present as evidence some truly unbiased sources, not this Faux-news style pretend scholar...
 
You make two mistakes in reasoning here: first, the burden of proof always rests upon the party or parties presenting a positive assertion, and not on the party or parties denying the positive assertion. "it happened," just like "it exists," is a positive assertion; it must be proven, and no, consensus and a tradition of popular acceptance are not alone proof of the literal truth of the holocaust story any more than they are proof of the parting of the Red Sea, alien technology salvaged from Roswell, or the Jersey Devil. Acceptance is not proof.

Your second mistake is in thinking that you can refute Smith's claims by simply dismissing them, especially on the basis that you don't like the way they're presented. If it's night time and I tell you it's night time but say something vile about your mother in the process. The sun is not going to shoot up over the horizon to make you feel better. I can be the biggest prick in the world and still be correct; so can Smith, or anyone else.

Donovan said:
On further review, I have to revise my above statements. The auther, Bradley Smith, has a website dedicated to debunking the Holocaust in the guise of a nonbiased intellectual. However, after reading most of his treatises I found his arguments to be thinly veiled and deliberately mocking in tone, while disguising themselves as valid points. I haven't read all the way through; but the man clearly has an agenda and should not be considered an unbiased source, since most of his "evidence" consists of saying the other side has no evidence and repeating the arguments he knows people will say about his own views.

His statement on the website is that the Holocaust defenders must now prove the holocaust happened in the widely accepted version. However, the burden of proof lies with the deniers, since it is them who wish to revise events. From what I saw, Smith's main arguement is that the Holocaust museum has a bomb door they call a gas chamber door, and that world leaders like Churchill and FDR don't speak on the chambers.

I'd have to read more of this website to be sure, but much of it I can dismiss as rhetoric since it tends to be condescending and mocking when discussing its opposite number, throwing "quotes" around every fact presented by opposing views and using mocking turns of phrase ("It's wrong to bear false witness. MOST of us learn this as children" is one example I read).

I'm not adverse to discussing the truths, half-truths and urban legends surrounding the WWII campaign. But you have to present as evidence some truly unbiased sources, not this Faux-news style pretend scholar...
 
"You make two mistakes in reasoning here: first, the burden of proof always rests upon the party or parties presenting a positive assertion, and not on the party or parties denying the positive assertion"

False. You are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. So far no one has PROVEN that the Holocaust as presented is a myth. There is overwhelming physical evidence to prove it wasn't however.
 
Smith has made no claims to anything other than his opinion on his website, as far as I can tell from the reading. Not one document.

Lots of Hollerith punchcards that match up to those tattoos though, and that weird "code 6" on 9 million of the cards...brrrrrrrr
 
jack said:
False. You are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Which is how our justice system works, as I understand it. And the reason it works that way is that that is the reasonable -- read: logical -- procession of thought.

Innocent until proven guilty.

So, yes, that is absofuckinglutely how I'm proceeding with regard to the Holocaust, which is an accusation of colossal guilt. I have reasonable doubts as to the validity of the accusation as it currently stands.

So far no one has PROVEN that the Holocaust as presented is a myth.

It isn't a myth; it's an accusation. As an accusation, it must be proven.

There is overwhelming physical evidence to prove it wasn't however.

No, there simply isn't. What there is, is a surplus of accusation which is purported to support the larger accusation. Accusations are not evidence of their own verity.
 
jack said:
Smith has made no claims to anything other than his opinion on his website, as far as I can tell from the reading. Not one document.

Lots of Hollerith punchcards that match up to those tattoos though, and that weird "code 6" on 9 million of the cards...brrrrrrrr

9 million, now?
 
Cranky Bastard said:
There's more "Holocaust survivors" alive today than the total number of Jews alive in Germany before WW2. :meh:

That's what happens when you give a whole group a winning lottery ticket. It just grows... and grows... and grows...
 
Cranky Bastard said:
There's more "Holocaust survivors" alive today than the total number of Jews alive in Germany before WW2. :meh:

All those Jewish survivors can't be wrong.

My mom is a Holocaust survivor too.

So is everyone else alive today that was alive at the time.

I am a survivor of Huricane Katrina.

I want t-shirts made.
 
So, yes, that is absofuckinglutely how I'm proceeding with regard to the Holocaust, which is an accusation of colossal guilt. I have reasonable doubts as to the validity of the accusation as it currently stands.

It's not an accusation of anything. It's a statement of fact. Stopped being an accusation after the trials proved what happened.

Trials, pictures, cards, tattoos endless records. The bodies themselves.

Where'd they all go? Jewish Population of Poland prewar was over 2 million alone. Just 40,000 these days. Prove they emigrated. There's evidence to show they didn't. Take the evidence that shows they didn't, and directly disprove it.
 
Cranky Bastard said:
There's more "Holocaust survivors" alive today than the total number of Jews alive in Germany before WW2. :meh:

All those Jewish survivors can't be wrong.

Prove it.
 
Blindgroping said:
Oh good. TQ has his mind working again.
Where's Imperium?

Oh, that's right, he's attempting greatness in the SC arcade.

You gonna vouch for me so I can finally play? ;)
 
The Saint said:
9 million, now?

Yep.

You forgot the russians, the mental defectives, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the italians, and the criminals. About three million of them too.
 
Top