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!

The Holocaust: The great taboo.

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
It's been a while since we had one of these, and I think it fits in this forum best. Such as it's considered a conspiracy theory by most of society.

With the arrest and incarceration of David Irving the age old questions come to mind once again.

Did six million Jews die at the hands of the Nazis during WWII?

It's a question, a short one too. Nonetheless it's complexity and sheer dividing nature has caused it to become a taboo subject not to be discussed no matter the cost. so here it is, the history topic and discussion that is frowned apon by so many. What the hell is the dealy-o, yo, anyway?

I guess I will post some articles from different sources to get some light reading underway...
 
The Jewish Holocaust is one of the few remaining taboos of western society, on par with incest and pedophilia. Most people will react with very strong feelings ranging from anger to fear, shock and disgust, when exposed to any perceived threat to beliefs relating to the Holocaust. Even discussing its taboo nature causes considerable levels of discomfort. Unbeknown to most people, its continued existence serves a number of powerful interests and comes at a terrible cost to society.


The taboo quality of the Jewish Holocaust in Western society is being enforced no differently from taboos in Polynesia: failure to comply results in social and economic ruin, incarceration, physical attack, sometimes even loss of life. Believing that the Jewish Holocaust as we know it - as the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators through the use of gas and other methods - actually occurred, determines whether a person is considered a Nazi and Anti-Semite (in other words utterly evil and a danger to society) or not.

A political/historical taboo like this wouldn't exist if it didn't serve very powerful interests. The most obvious is support for Israel. Reports of the murder of six million Jews understandably generated considerable sympathy and support for the idea of the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine and still helps deflecting criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestine people and its neighbors. Less obvious is the interest of the political left in gaining moral superiority over the political right. And last, but not least, there is the interest of the Allied powers, especially the US and the UK, of justifying their war crimes committed against the German people during World War II. Who worries about the deliberate destruction of 90% of German civilian buildings resulting in the killing of 600,000 civilians when hearing about the gassing of six millions Jews?

The continued existence of the Holocaust taboo, 60 years after the end of World War II, comes at a terrible price. For one, it makes it virtually impossible for world opinion to hold Israel responsible for its treatment of the Palestine people. Any criticism of Israel's policies is stifled by wholesale claims of Anti-Semitism, implying that the critic is trying to 'finish off' Hitler's job of exterminating the Jewish people. This doesn't necessarily occur intentionally. In many cases it's simply the result of a Holocaust induced paranoia. For two, it makes it easier for the US government to continue its use of aerial bombing against civilians as a means of warfare. The killing of more than 3000-4000 civilians per month in Iraq pre-dominantly through US air strikes wouldn't be possible without the belief in US military and political circles that the killing of civilians in air warfare ('collateral damage') is not a war crime, a belief that has its roots in the unpunished strategic bombing of Germany and Japan during World War II.

Historical revisionism is not about denying the truth. It's about establishing the truth, regardless of the outcome. The failure of the political left to embrace Holocaust revisionism is depriving it of the potentially most powerful weapon against its political enemies. It should stop fighting against its political enemy of 60 years ago and start using all available means to fight today's battles.​


.
 
2-18-6

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland's Foreign Minister Stefan Meller on Friday ruled out allowing any Iranian researchers to examine the scale of the Holocaust committed by the German Nazis on Polish soil during World War Two.

Meller's remarks came after repeated denials of the Jewish Holocaust by Iranian officials and their suggestions that more research is needed to establish the truth about what happened to European Jews. "Under no circumstances we should allow something like that to take place in Poland," Meller told Polish news agency PAP. "It goes beyond all imaginable norms to question, even discuss or negotiate the issue."
Polish daily Rzeczpospolita reported on Friday that Iran wants to send researchers to Poland to examine the scale of the Nazi crimes during the war.

Some 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust, with an estimated 1.1 million killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz- Birkenau, a death camp set up in German-occupied Poland.

Last week Iran's ambassador to Lisbon, who in the past served as a diplomat in Poland, said in an interview on Portuguese radio that according to his calculations based on a visit to the camp, now a museum, it would have taken the Nazis 15 years to burn the corpses of 6 million people.


.
 
As the article above points out, but I'll put it more succintly: The only reason to go to such lengths to silence skepticism is because skepticism is warranted and would impose loss of power. Same story with religion, same story with the Holocaust.
 
I am too paranoid and cautious to even post in this thread.

I will be reading it, however.
 
The only reason to go to such lengths to silence skepticism is because skepticism is warranted and would impose loss of power.

You make the fallacious assumption that governments only censor arguments that are true. Go back to your conspiracy theories, Danny, this "logic" business isn't your strong suit.
 
WordInterrupted said:
You make the fallacious assumption that governments only censor arguments that are true.

Maybe you missed "go to such great lengths". Scientologists, for example, get ridiculed, but they don't get blacklisted or character-assassinated.

Go back to your conspiracy theories, Danny, this "logic" business isn't your strong suit.

Obviously, much more my forte than yours, Fauntleroy.
 
Nah. Has less to do with the Holocaust than it does to do with people treating something stupid as if it's holy. Same thing that drives me up the fucking wall about "Creation Science". Fucking ludicrous that adult human beings could willingly buy into that rancid bullshit -- either variety.
 
Why wouldn't they have killed 6 million? They also killed 5 million who weren't Jews. And why? Scopes Monkey Trial and all of that. Darwin was still radical, even then. It took Mendel ( ironically a clergyman) to put the pieces together. Let's just say, though most of the anscestrial fossils were found in Africa, one wasn't, and that hit a little too close to home. They wanted to take out anything in the gene pool that could tie them to the Neanderthals.
 
NeonMercuryASH said:
Why wouldn't they have killed 6 million?

Because they didn't have to. There was an epidemic right there in their laps that would do it for them, with zero unnecessary expenditure of fuel or ammunition. There was no need for them to kill people when all they had to do (if that were their aim) was simply allow them to die.

They also killed 5 million who weren't Jews.

Probably also an inflated number. That would make 11 million corpses unaccounted for, not to mention the resources it would take to dispose of those 11 million corpses, or at the very least reduce that mass to a concealable volume. That's a lot of fuel the military couldn't spare and a lot of manpower and time they simply didn't have available for that purpose.
 
Murder is fun. Ask any sociopath. They got pleasure from it. Why shoot someone in the head in front of others as a "warning" otherwise? Why devise the most gruesome tortures in the guise of the advancement of medical science? Because they were deviant. Racial purity? Sociopathy is a much better explanation for the actual madness that took place. The homogenized safety of the event is a lie. It's much worse than what's supposed.

Hitler was working on a way to channel that energy, but failed, because he was an idiot, too.
 
jack said:
Murder is fun. Ask any sociopath. They got pleasure from it. Why shoot someone in the head in front of others as a "warning" otherwise? Why devise the most gruesome tortures in the guise of the advancement of medical science?

Instead of asking why as a rhetorical question, try examining the root question. Don't start with "Why did they?" Start with "Did they?" and only after you answer that question should you move on to the next. And simply accepting an answer someone has handed you is not the same as answering the question yourself.

Because they were deviant. Racial purity? Sociopathy is a much better explanation for the actual madness that took place. The homogenized safety of the event is a lie. It's much worse than what's supposed.

Or maybe the "event" itself is a lie, which new puzzle the pieces still fit, and in fact fit better, because they then don't create an entirely new tier of problems to be solved.
 
Maybe you missed "go to such great lengths". Scientologists, for example, get ridiculed, but they don't get blacklisted or character-assassinated.

There is no necessary relationship between the extent of government censorship and the truth of the speech censored. As usual, you are incapable of making a logicaly coherent argument.
 
WordInterrupted said:
There is no necessary relationship between the extent of government censorship and the truth of the speech censored.

Necessary? No. Prevalent, based on historical precedent? Yes.

As usual, you are incapable of making a logicaly coherent argument.

As usual, you wouldn't know a logically coherent argument if it gave you a reacharound.
 
jack said:
Since when is it illegal in America to deny the Holocaust?

It's not illegal, strictly speaking -- at least, not yet. Career, academic and/or social suicide, though -- most definitely. But changes, they are a-comin'.
 
Here's an interesting article in which Mel Gibson has been pressured into going on record regarding the Holocaust, and the aftermath of his affirmative statement regarding same:

Article.

It's not enough, obviously, to affirm that atrocities were committed against Jews during World War 2 -- Rabbi Hier and Mr. Foxman of the ADL appear to insist that the Holocaust story must be held up as the worst atrocity of WW2 -- perhaps the only real atrocity of that hellish war. It isn't about remembrance for men such as these. It isn't about reverence for the dead. It's about dominance. "He who defines, controls." is the quote that comes to mind.
 
Top