The holocaust and revisionists

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

The only reference to natural law in that article is this:
Nothing there about him seeming to believe in natural law. Did you read it at all?


Look, I am very well aware of the discourse about natural law as I have already said to you. I am asking you for evidence and argument that there is such a thing, not evidence that some people believe in natural law (I already knew this long before you appeared). You have made two claims about this. That natural law exists, and, that natural law was the basis for the Nuremberg process. We have already established that the second claim is false, and we are still waiting to establish the status of the first claim. I am only pressing this issue because you seem to place a lot of importance on it.

[ISAW]
We have not established the second claim is false. The words Natural Law may not have been used but the appels to natural law were made by Jackson. i have provided you withe the references and examples from the official record where Jackson appeals to the natural law.

As to natural law existing here is a journal Called the American Journal of Jurisprudence set up as natural Law forum
http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/ajj/index.html

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

Not convinced of that for a minute...and I'm not really referring to Eriugena here. Willingness to put in time and put up with disapproval does not as a matter of course demonstrate a love for the truth... it could just as likely indicate a hate-driven fanaticism. We do not have access to information on Eriugena's motives, intentions, personality, psychological status etc etc etc and therefore cannot make any claims about his love for the truth or otherwise. Just a thought ... it goes for all of us.

I think you make an interesting observation. Hate is the opposite of love. But I think Eriugena is motivated by a love for truth and not hate-driven fananticism as demonstrated by a concern for fellow human beings.

Originally posted by Eriugena.
However, there is a deeper cause for concern in the moral and political implications. The Anglo-American alliance regularly invokes WWII especially the image of the evil Nazis and Hitler as a justification for their actions. Enemeies are demonised prior to carpet bombing being unleshed on defenceless countries - Milosevich was another Hitler; Saddam was another Hitler, Hitler was evil, therefore we must stop them by whatever means. Its a crude equation that works on a very basic level but it works. Implicit i these appeals is the claim that the US-UK alliance is 'good' because it defeated 'evil' in WWII. The post-war world order is justified by appeal to this defeat of 'evil' by the forces of 'good.' These kinds of claims justify us looking closely at what this reputation for good and evil rests on. The holocaust story is an important part of the post-war justification for the war and for post-war actions aross the world.

Christ said you shall know a tree by the fruit that it bears.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

I asked you to establish the existence of natural law becasue that is your claim. All you do is post evidence of other people's beliefs about natural law. You made the existence claim now back it up.

Demonstrate the existence of natural law.

Do you believe that the Nuremberg trial was a farce and a crime?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

[ISAW]
We have not established the second claim is false. The words Natural Law may not have been used but the appels to natural law were made by Jackson. i have provided you withe the references and examples from the official record where Jackson appeals to the natural law.

As to natural law existing here is a journal Called the American Journal of Jurisprudence set up as natural Law forum
http://www.nd.edu/~ndlaw/ajj/index.html

When are you going to stop giving me evidence that some people believe in natural law and back up your existence claim?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Do you believe that the Nuremberg trial was a farce and a crime?

I have stated my beliefs about Nuremberg numerous times and will continue to do so when you stop messing around.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

[ISAW]
We have not established the second claim is false. The words Natural Law may not have been used but the appels to natural law were made by Jackson.

Not in the piece you provided a link for. There's a lot of empty waffle about the sentiment of the American people but no appeal to "natural law."

i have provided you withe the references and examples from the official record where Jackson appeals to the natural law.

No you haven't.

Like Turley, I am also facinated by this term "generally accepted." Impenetrably opaque from my persepctive.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Not in the piece you provided a link for. There's a lot of empty waffle about the sentiment of the American people but no appeal to "natural law."
No you haven't.

I have. ANd I ahave shown you people who lecture on "Natural Law".
They Lecture in Universities on natural law. They publish in journals on it. Court decisions refer to it. But you claim that this is just people who believe in the natural law and it does not prove natural law exists as a legal entity?

I give up. I am not going any further with this. You disregard standard sources of evidence such as peer reviewed journals and academic experts and publications. If you don't accept that a legal journal is not evidence that a body of law exists as a legal entity then I can't debate with you and I will ignore you.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I have.

You have not.

ANd I ahave shown you people who lecture on "Natural Law".
They Lecture in Universities on natural law. They publish in journals on it. Court decisions refer to it. But you claim that this is just people who believe in the natural law and it does not prove natural law exists as a legal entity?

I have asked you to demonstrate the existence of natural law. People lecture/write and even make court jdugements that refer to the God of Moses. That does not constitute a demonstration of his existence.

I give up. I am not going any further with this. You disregard standard sources of evidence such as peer reviewed journals and academic experts and publications. If you don't accept that a legal journal is not evidence that a body of law exists as a legal entity then I can't debate with you and I will ignore you.

You have claimed that natural law exists prior to and irregardless of whether it is acknowledged or written down. You even likened to it certain physical "laws of nature". So you try to wriggle out of it with this 'legal entity' claim. That is different from the other claim, the existence claim.

Now, you have claimed that natural law exists. So now you have to demonstrate that it exists.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Do you believe that the Nuremberg trial was a farce and a crime?

Tying up the loose ends here because i am not continuing the sub thread. Just explaining myself. The point of asking such a question as this is the following question is "According to what?"

There are NO court decisions that the holocaust didnt happen. If anyone appeals to a general sence of justice not written down but existing anyway they appeal to Natural Law.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Tying up the loose ends here because i am not continuing the sub thread. Just explaining myself. The point of asking such a question as this is the following question is "According to what?"

There are NO court decisions that the holocaust didnt happen. If anyone appeals to a general sence of justice not written down but existing anyway they appeal to Natural Law.

That is a dogmatic pronoucment along with all the other natural law declarations you have made.

When are you going to demonstrate the existence of natural law?

Or else you can always take me up on my very reasonable offer and we can get the discussion moving again.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Natural law is an established entity in jurisprudence. As I state below EGyptian society collapsed in the past. One could assert that the Egyptians either violated some natural law that applied to civilizations, and could therefore have averted the collapse had they been more prudent, or they underwent a change that was "historically necessary" because imposed by some natural law that human ingenuity cannot circumvent. One could assert that that alternative simply states the central problem that a philosophy of history must solve. And since we are subject to the same natural laws, the problem is vital and urgent.

I have nbo idea if Eri copped this one but I am not replying to him and I should point out the source of the above quote in case he is hoist on his own petard. I wonder if he noticed it? it is a quote from the Institute of Historical Review.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p34_Oliver.html
I was wondering if Eri would contradict his own source.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I have nbo idea if Eri copped this one but I am not replying to him and I should point out the source of the above quote in case he is hoist on his own petard. I wonder if he noticed it? it is a quote from the Institute of Historical Review.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p34_Oliver.html
I was wondering if Eri would contradict his own source.

I don't see any argument to support the existence claim about natural law. I have never quoted Revilo P. Oliver (ever) so I don't know what you are talking about. Are you making yet another wild and unsupportable claim?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I have nbo idea if Eri copped this one but I am not replying to him and I should point out the source of the above quote in case he is hoist on his own petard. I wonder if he noticed it? it is a quote from the Institute of Historical Review.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p34_Oliver.html
I was wondering if Eri would contradict his own source.

The two times you quoted this you gave no source thus giving rise to the impression that they were your own words.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2626739&postcount=352
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2626759&postcount=353

In academia that is called plagiarism, that you have now revealed that they are not your words is some other form of dishonesty.

ISAW

Here is an interesting point from a thread Critical Thinking Regarding The Holocaust
im alt.revisionism

The thread has much the same arguments holocaust deniers seem to repeat ad nausiam while they ignoring the answers and evidence given to them.

Very well. Let us start with the obvious question. Why is it
necessary in this *particular* instance to require 'forensic proof'
(a phrase which you are misusing if you think that it means only
*scientific* proof: it doesn't) before the acceptance as historical
fact of the constellation of events known as 'the Holocaust' are
ratinally justified when no such requirement is imposed on any other
event in history? Isn't that, prima facia, a case of *special
pleading*?

Think about it: were you everywhere to require a similar sort of
evidentiary standard would your 'theory of evidence' allow you to
accept the occurance of the American Revolution? The American Civil
War? The English Civil Wars? The 'Fall of Rome?' Alexander'
conquests? The existence of Pharonic Eqypt?

Just asking.
One 'critical thinker' to another.

another allusion is that bodies are necessary to convict someone of homoside.

davros

Time to wind up this thread (and the other one) since it has become little more than accusations of dishonesty and evasion. If the particpants would like to make a closing statement on the topic of the Holocaust and revisionism, go right ahead...

ISAW

QUOTE=ISAW]There is ample evidence the holocaust happened.
There are court decisions acknowledging it did.
There are NONE that it didnt.

Deniers will not post items critical of them.
Those opposed to the deniers will post the deniers source documentation.
Deniers attempts at looking academic usually reveal a few websites and journals which can be traced to the same people.
Sites like nizcor however will refer to the deniers and will post other independent references.

Eriugenia has made claims that there was ground radar used at Babi Yar. He never supported that. He has posted material with odd reference numbers but when pressed did not state the numbers were from a revisionist website.
He posted material about Lachout and Muller being in the Austrian Military Police in 1948 but when pressed could not supply ANY source which even verified the existance of such a force in 1948 nor where records of members of it might be. He claimed that damages were awarded to Lachout in 1998 in the European Court of Human Rights but cant support that either.

So called revisionists are usually holocaust deniers. I state "so called" because I am a revisionist. Though I do not deny the holocaust I have written about revising Irish history in the early twentieth century for example or about revising the popular view of Galileo. So called revisionists only post about the period in and around WWII where it relates to holocaust denial and not about other events in history.

Anyone who claims there is no evidence for the holocaust and then cant tell you the police force their so called evidence comes from, but refuses to deny it, is unsupported and is operating double standards.[/QUOTE]

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

QUOTE=ISAW]There is ample evidence the holocaust happened.
There are court decisions acknowledging it did.

This is how it goies. A Holocaust realted case reaches a court. The court duly takes judicial notice that the holocaust happened as the official history has it then that's it. Judicial notice means it is regarded as a fact. This began with Nuremberg where no attempt was ever made to prove that any of the alleged events took place. All they were concerned about was guilt. As I said befor eand will continue to say and will demonstrate in detail if this discussion is alllowed to become productive again: the Nuremberg trials were an abomination, a "high grade lynching party" as a member of the USSC decsribed them as indeed did many distinguished figures from all walks of life at the time, including JFK.

Deniers will not post items critical of them.

I have done so. I have posted links to Dr. Green's rebuttals of Germar Rudolf's chemical analyses and the counter rebuttals. I have also on a number of ocassions said that anyone approaching this issue should look at the primary sources and the seciodary material both revisionist and exterinationist. A look back through the thread will confim that.

Those opposed to the deniers will post the deniers source documentation.

"Denier" is a polemical smear term devised by the same people who support the criminalisation of any questioning of their holy lie.

Sites like nizcor however will refer to the deniers and will post other independent references.

Nizkor are demonstrable liars on three scores. Misrepresentation of primary sources (e.g. Kurt Gerstein's statement), misrepretsentation of revisionists, and, lies about their sources of funding which prima facie, conflict with Canadian tax law as well as thei connections with Jewish masonic-style organisations like B'nai Brith.

Eriugenia has made claims that there was ground radar used at Babi Yar. He never supported that.

No I have not. I said ground radar was used at the scene of alleged mass graves at Treblinka. I said that the alleged site at Babi Yar has been built over. Do try and get it right for once.

He has posted material with odd reference numbers but when pressed did not state the numbers were from a revisionist website.

The material posted quite obviously came from a Revisionist site as it was sourced as such. The numbers are references to the court transcript from the 1985 Zundel trial in Toronto as anyone who actually read the piece at source could have ascertained for themselves. You are trying to make something out of nothing.

He posted material about Lachout and Muller being in the Austrian Military Police in 1948 but when pressed could not supply ANY source which even verified the existance of such a force in 1948 nor where records of members of it might be.

I posted the articles in which that material is contained and which also contains the references to the sources. You seem to think I should wander around European archives validating everything for you. God only knows how one would then provide proof of such perigrinations! All a bit rich coming from someone who makes wild claims none of which can be supported.

He claimed that damages were awarded to Lachout in 1998 in the European Court of Human Rights but cant support that either.

As I said, I have information on that but I am not going to post it until you demonstrate the existence of natural law or adopt a more reasonable attitude towards this discussion. I ahev demanded that you make this demoinstration because you yourself will not allow anyone to say anythign without some elaborate proof being provided first. Yu are being served your own medicine on this one.

So called revisionists are usually holocaust deniers. I state "so called" because I am a revisionist.

But offer absolutely no poof ofthis. You are resorting to smear again and authoritarian dogmatic gestures.

Though I do not deny the holocaust

No-one "denies the holocaust" the very expression is utterly meaningless.

I have written about revising Irish history in the early twentieth century for example or about revising the popular view of Galileo. So called revisionists only post about the period in and around WWII where it relates to holocaust denial and not about other events in history.

So you think there is something suspcioous about histiorians specialising in some particular area or period? In that case all modern academic historians should arouise your suspicion! That is one of the more foolish criticisms of holocaust revisionism I have seen, I must add it to my collection.

Anyone who claims there is no evidence for the holocaust and then cant tell you the police force their so called evidence comes from, but refuses to deny it, is unsupported and is operating double standards.

The on with double standards is the on who makes claim after claim about a range of topics but never suports them with evdience or argument, but instead resorts to offensive distraction tactics and pettyfogging pedantry.

*************

Now, would you like to support your claim for the existence of natural law?

Eriugena

There has been a lot of smear about what holocaust revisionism is or is not about. The term "holocaust denier" is in itself meaningless because the term holocaust has come to name a very complex series of events spread over a period of time that begins in the early 1930's. "Holocaust denier" is a smear term designed to discredit in the public mind revisonists of the holocaust. It sets up absurd images of people denying an anti-Jewish policy by the Nazis, or denying the existence of concentration camps and other lducrous strawmen argumenst all of which are designed to vilify and demonise anyone who dares question the sacred gas chamber story and the holy 6 million figure.

Let us look at what exactly revisionists claim and do not claim. I have taken this from Germar Rudolf's home page. He is the industrial chemist who orginally as engaged as an expert witness for a retired general in a case in the early 90's in Germnay and was threatened with prosecution if he offered the results of chemical analysis. In a German court truth is no defence in holocaust or other related matters because the terms of the Handover Contract that set up the Federal Republic oblige it to take judicial notice of the findings and judgements of all the allied trials. Thereore no German court may admit evidence that contradicts those findings. In theory then anyone who denies that there were steam chambers at Treblinka could be prosecuted because Nuremberg recorded that steam chambers were used to kill people there. All of this can be shown from the transcripts of Nuremberg which are online. I have included links and extracts for all these claims in this and the other thread.

So this is how Rudolf defines the claims of holocaust revisionism:
http://germarrudolf.com/Denial.html
Claims about "Holocaust Deniers" Fact
They deny that Jews were persecuted WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews were deported WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the Jews were herded into ghettos WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the existence of concentration camps WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews were put to forced labor WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the existence of crematoria in concentration camps WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons: epidemics, malnutrition, diseases, mistreatment WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that other minorities were also persecuted as well, such as gypsies and political dissenters WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny that the treatment of the Jews was unjust WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the victims their dignity WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny the victims to be remembered WRONG. They do NOT deny this
They deny to show compassion for the victims WRONG. They do NOT deny this

They deny that there was a plan to murder all Jews This is what they claim
They deny that Jews were murdered systematically This is what they claim
They deny the existence of gas chambers for mass murder This is what they claim
They deny that six million Jews died in the Holocaust This is what they claim

Turley

davros wrote:

Time to wind up this thread (and the other one) since it has become little more than accusations of dishonesty and evasion. If the particpants would like to make a closing statement on the topic of the Holocaust and revisionism, go right ahead...

Davros:
Thank you for the opportunity to make a closing remark.

Most threads close naturally when people have nothing more to say. Other threads are closed because someone's voice is intolerable.

False reasoning should fall under its own weight and silly ideas should suffer from a lack of interest. But what seems to be most significant about this topic is that it is unpopular and not "generally acceptable" and therefore it is intolerable.

I am dismayed that dissident opinions are unacceptable at ISS. The name of the group led me to think there might be some people who welcomed views that challenged what is "generally accepted" and popular. The majority of people here are skeptical of whatever most people are skeptical of (psychics), and they believe what is "generally acceptable" to most people (9/11 hijackers).

Consistent in their comfortable popular views some have labeled independent thinkers with names like "nazi" or "conspiracy nut" and today on a thread with the heading that included the name "fanatics" I found myself the subject of the discussion and I was called an "anti-semite." This is intolerance of others.

It is as if I am a heretic for not conforming and accepting the popular public opinion as the Voice of God. My crime is failing to think like the majority.

None the less it is unfortunate whenever dialog, the Socratic method, is closed because the majority view is intolerant of a minority voice.

KCF

Turley wrote:

... today on a thread with the heading that included the name "fanatics" I found myself the subject of the discussion and I was called an "anti-semite." This is intolerance of others.

Why not stick to what was written? I wrote "Turley, for his part, might also be an anti-semite." Note the use of the speculative 'might'. Of course, you could let us know whether you are indeed an anti-semite and if your denial is remotely convincing the speculation will be at an end. Complaining about a particular claim is not really very useful if you don't address the small matter of whether it is true or not. You can hardly complain about accurate descriptions, can you?

robindch

> The name of the group led me to think there might be
> some people who welcomed views that challenged
> what is "generally accepted" and popular.

As davros pointed out some weeks ago, you are misunderstanding the term skeptic, which is used around here in the general sense of scientific skepticism, broad explanations of which are here and here. It is explicitly *not* used in the sense that you seem to understand it, namely as a (rather pointless) rationale for allowing you to reject whatever you want to simply because some portion of a population might accept it as 'true', or the 'most likely explanation for a (series of) fact(s)', regardless of the worth of any relevant evidence, or the unlikelihood of the notion proposed.

> None the less it is unfortunate whenever dialog, the Socratic
> method, is closed because the majority view is intolerant of
> a minority voice.

Turley: what you've been posting in this, and other threads, was nothing like a Socratic dialog, or even a simple dialog -- please see my final two postings in the 'generally accepted' thread.

The thread has been closed, quite rightly, because the debate had long since stopped moving forward and in addition to posting poems, long extracts from other websites, screen-long posting quotations, interminable diatribes (etc), most posters spent their time arguing about what they had said, or not said, in earlier postings. This is not intolerance of a minority voice, but simply protection of the standards of a forum. A bit like shutting the door on a roomful of kids, or turning off the telly, in order to have a conversation.

- robin.

Turley

KCF wrote:

You can hardly complain about accurate descriptions, can you?

There is no debate about what you are.

KCF wrote:

Anyway, I admit that I'm a total fool, and your point is?

Turley

robindch wrote:

...allowing you to reject whatever you want to simply because some portion of a population might accept it as 'true', ...

Robin- I have never argued that anything should be rejected "simply because some portion of a population might accept it as true." I have said that popular opinion can be wrong. I never said public opinion is always wrong.

On the contrary, you believe whatever is popular in the polls.

robindch wrote:

Firstly, there's the opinion as gathered by opinion poll researchers, Gallup et al, which I believe is largely accurate in the first instance -- I've seen little enough evidence of any fakery going on in the *reputable* pollsters, and plenty to indicate that they're doing a good job.

robindch wrote:

This is not intolerance of a minority voice, but simply protection of the standards of a forum. A bit like shutting the door on a roomful of kids, or turning off the telly, in order to have a conversation.

Call it "protection of standards" and label others a "roomful of kids" does not change what it is. Men foolishly call fornication ""sexually active" and they think they have changed what it is. God knows what it is. God knows what is reality because God is in charge. I believe God is the source of truth. Some men prefer to believe men are in charge and that men, including the Gallup poll, are the source of truth. Perhaps this is how we are different.

Stabshauptmann

davros wrote:

Time to wind up this thread (and the other one) since it has become little more than accusations of dishonesty and evasion. If the particpants would like to make a closing statement on the topic of the Holocaust and revisionism, go right ahead...

Im amazed the thread went on for so long, very interesting read.

davros

I'm amazed myself. People seem to have plenty to say on the topic despite regarding their opponents as thoroughly slippery customers.

Anyway, thanks for the summing up statements. I doubt there is any more to be said.