Thursday, May 15, 2014

Germar Rudolf's True Feelings about Jews

Can be read on page 39 of this report, which quotes Germar thus:
If the Holocaust is seen as a unique collection of lies, then the sole pillar supporting international Judaism's legitimacy will collapse. The idol of substitute religion will disintegrate. The possibility of extorting more billions from Germany on account of its alleged obligation will likewise collapse. The possibility of obligating America to eternally rescue the Jews from new Holocausts through endless donations of money will likewise collapse. World sympathy for the greatest liars and swindlers in the history of mankind will likewise collapse. Europe's second attempt to establish a lasting enclave in Palestine against the will of the Arabs, similar to the crusades, will likewise collapse. And finally, the future Arabia, which will be unified and self ruling without Jewish, American or European occupiers and colonial powers, will develop irresistibly. This explains why the Jews and Jewish dominated media and politicians everywhere defend these (Holocaust) lies and repress the prophets of truth by all means possible.

139 comments:

Tesla said...

A very interesting look into the details of a modern day witch trial.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Except that the witches weren't caught out repeatedly lying. Nor were they vicious antisemites. That doesn't mean I condone Rudolf's imprisonment. Our policy at HC is against criminalization of HD.

Tesla said...

Sure they were. They were caught "lying", "kidnapping small children", "worshipping the devil" and all sorts of "vicious" things. If the similarity escapes you, I can only wonder why.

Every time I debate the Holocaust with a believer that person tells me "...but I'm completely against the imprisonment". But still thousands are persecuted in Western countries every year. Funny, isn't? I wonder who is actually the liar here.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Another essential difference is that the witches weren't sentenced on account of a behavior they had actually engaged in (for the obvious reason that such behavior was physically impossible). Not so Rudolf, who was sentenced on account of actual and proven actions/statements of his, which happened to be criminalized in the country in which he was tried for them.

Yet another difference is that the trial against Rudolf was conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural laws which forbid coercing a defendant, give a defendant the right to defend himself with the help of an attorney, and require the crime that the defendant is accused of to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant to be convicted, among other benefits that people accused of witchcraft never enjoyed.

So while one may rightly criticize the existence of laws that criminalize hate speech in certain countries, comparing Rudolf's trial with a witchcraft trial is just silly polemyzing.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Every time I debate the Holocaust with a believer that person tells me "...but I'm completely against the imprisonment". But still thousands are persecuted in Western countries every year. Funny, isn't? I wonder who is actually the liar here.»

Quite a hysteric we have here, and I wonder where he/she got those "thousands" from, already because I didn't know there were nearly that many "Revisionists" around.

I also wonder what opponents of "Revisionism" are supposed to do against hate speech laws that criminalize Holocaust denial in certain countries, other than manifest their disagreement with such laws. Should they petition against such laws?

Talk about petitions, I have circulated one against German laws criminalizing Holocaust denial on this blog, which I intend to submit to the Bundestag's petition committee as soon as it has at least 100 signatures.

I'm sure our new guest will be glad to help me by putting his or her name under that petition, which he or she may find under this link.

Nathan said...

-"thousands"are persecuted in Western countries every year-
The last I heard of was that dumbass, Toben. And that was last year. Some idiot also waxed on about Proven liar Nick Kollestrom being "persecuted", but IIRC that was more of his colleagues getting sick of his stupidity and wanting nothing more to do with him. Something that is perfectly within their rights. Also last year.
And people accuse Jews of "whining" about antisemitism.

- I wonder who is actually the liar here.-
Given the above drama, you.

Tesla said...

So how many have signed this petition?

Considering the fact that you frequently reveal the identities of holocaust revisionists as part of your debating techniques, obviously as a means to threaten and discourage them from further debate, this petition is just as deceitful as the rest of the crap you post on your blog.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So how many have signed this petition?»

Follow the link and you'll see.

«Considering the fact that you frequently reveal the identities of holocaust revisionists as part of your debating techniques, obviously as a means to threaten and discourage them from further debate, this petition is just as deceitful as the rest of the crap you post on your blog.»

Trying to chicken out behind a smokescreen of baseless accusations and invective?

How typical for a "brave" defender of the "Revisionist" faith.

Don't be afraid to put your name under the petition. Disagreeing with hate speech laws is not a crime in Germany.

Come on, what are you waiting for?

Tesla said...

Baseless accusations - so you actually deny *that*? What a filthy liar you are.

Speaking of hysterical - how is that bipolar disorder of yours going? Still up and down?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Baseless accusations - so you actually deny *that*? What a filthy liar you are.

Speaking of hysterical - how is that bipolar disorder of yours going? Still up and down?»

I must have hit some raw nerve, judging by the reaction.

And there's no substantiation of the "filthy liar" accusation, which is no surprise.

Could I please have the name of the anonymous coward who is trying to insult me?

Tesla said...

"Could I please have the name of the anonymous coward who is trying to insult me?"

Oh, I wasn't trying to insult you. I just thought you wanted to talk about psychiatry, since you mentioned hysteria...

Tesla said...

"Yet another difference is that the trial against Rudolf was conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural laws which forbid coercing a defendant, give a defendant the right to defend himself with the help of an attorney,"

What a bunch of baloney. Neither the defendant nor his attorney can defend holocaust denial in Germany, since that would lead to yet another prosecution for holocaust denial. The German attorney Sylvia Stolz had to spend several years in prison simply for defending her clients. And this is the kind of legal justice you defend.

So stop pretending you are against this, will you, since we all know you would prefer having "holocaust deniers" in jail or shot, just like in previous times(I see one of your contributors has the communist flag on his youtube account - what a surprise). You obviously can't debate them, therefore your only means of defense is to out their names to make sure the corrupt legal systems of the Western regimes take care of the rest.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Yet another difference is that the trial against Rudolf was conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural laws which forbid coercing a defendant, give a defendant the right to defend himself with the help of an attorney,"

What a bunch of baloney. Neither the defendant nor his attorney can defend holocaust denial in Germany, since that would lead to yet another prosecution for holocaust denial. The German attorney Sylvia Stolz had to spend several years in prison simply for defending her clients. And this is the kind of legal justice you defend.»

You're mixing up the judiciary and the legislative. The German legislative has made Holocaust denial a criminal offense. The judiciary has to follow the law of the land, and decide whether someone accused of having engaged in Holocaust denial as defined by law is actually guilty of this offense. Rudolf had all the means offered by German procedural law to defend himself against the accusation that he had engaged in Holocaust denial as defined by German law. Unfortunately for him, the proof that his writings and statements constituted Holocaust denial in the sense of the legal definition was overwhelming.

«So stop pretending you are against this, will you, since we all know you would prefer having "holocaust deniers" in jail or shot, just like in previous times(I see one of your contributors has the communist flag on his youtube account - what a surprise). You obviously can't debate them, therefore your only means of defense is to out their names to make sure the corrupt legal systems of the Western regimes take care of the rest.»

Actually debating hollering hysterics like you is a piece of cake and can be great fun. And yes, I would like to see laws against Holocaust denial revoked, for two reasons. One is that, as the German legal scholar I quoted in my petition text pointed out, stupidity (which is what Holocaust denial essentially amounts to) should not be a criminal offense. The other is that I don't want stupidity to be given a chance to gain notoriety by whining about "persecution". Being duly ridiculed is all the faithful followers of the "Revisionist" religion deserve, and their behavior (just look at your own) makes that a rather easy task.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Could I please have the name of the anonymous coward who is trying to insult me?"

Oh, I wasn't trying to insult you. I just thought you wanted to talk about psychiatry, since you mentioned hysteria...»

An anonymous coward, as I said.

Tesla said...

"You're mixing up the judiciary and the legislative. "

No, I'm not mixing up the judiciary and the legislative - I'm stating the simple fact that you can't defend yourself against charges of "holocaust denial" in Germany, because then your lawyer will be charged with "holocaust denial" as well. Thus your statement was false. Again, it's you who mix things up here, as your downplaying of this seems to indicate that you are unable to distinguish right from wrong.

Your labeling of me as a "hysteric" just fits the pattern of psychological pathologization you marxists are so famous for(yes, that is what you are). That your own history of psychological illness is posted all over the Internet just makes it more funny.

Have a nice day, Donkeykamp, and be careful with that Moclobemide.

Tesla said...

"An anonymous coward, as I said."

Maybe if you had some arguments to defend your case, you wouldn't be so obsessed with my person.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"An anonymous coward, as I said."

Maybe if you had some arguments to defend your case, you wouldn't be so obsessed with my person.»

Actually my arguments are way better than my opponent's, and as my opponent well knows, my interest in his person is related to his personal attacks. If my opponent doesn't want his treasured anonymity challenged, all he has to do is refrain from such attacks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"You're mixing up the judiciary and the legislative. "

No, I'm not mixing up the judiciary and the legislative -»

Of course you are, by attacking the judiciary for enforcing the law of the land.

«I'm stating the simple fact that you can't defend yourself against charges of "holocaust denial" in Germany, because then your lawyer will be charged with "holocaust denial" as well.»

Nonsense. You can defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that you didn't make statements or publish writings that qualify as Holocaust denial according to German law. What you cannot do is defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that there is no such thing as Holocaust denial because there was no Holocaust. Just as you cannot defend yourself against charges of theft or murder by arguing that there is no such thing as theft or murder.

«Thus your statement was false.»

Nope, I made an appropriate distinction you were unable or unwilling to make.

«Again, it's you who mix things up here, as your downplaying of this seems to indicate that you are unable to distinguish right from wrong.»

I'm not downplaying anything, but you are a) blaming the wrong people (the judiciary for enforcing the law of the land, instead of the legislative for making the law) and b) blowing the issue out of proportion (by making an big bloody fuss about something no worse than a cynical propagandist's misfortune in running afoul of overdone hate speech legislation, which doesn't exactly move me to tears). People shouldn't face criminal charges for being deluded fools or lying skunks, that much we can agree on. But it doesn't change the contempt I feel for such people.

«Your labeling of me as a "hysteric" just fits the pattern of psychological pathologization you marxists are so famous for(yes, that is what you are).»

So now I'm a supposed to be a marxist because I pointed out the hysterical nature of your behavior (which must have hit one of your raw nerves, considering how you still go on about it). You're becoming increasingly amusing, genius.

«That your own history of psychological illness is posted all over the Internet just makes it more funny.

Have a nice day, Donkeykamp, and be careful with that Moclobemide.»

And here our fine friend is getting personal again. From the safety of an alias, as befits the cowardly piece of trash he has amply shown to be.

Tesla said...

"Nonsense. You can defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that you didn't make statements or publish writings that qualify as Holocaust denial according to German law."

I guess your ignorance of this matter is at the same level as your arrogance. You obviously haven't studied the case of lawyers such as Syliva Stolz. In any case, your argumentation constitutes a side point that can be likened to saying the witch can defend herself by proving she isn't a witch. It is interesting to note that that was exactly what happened in many cases of witch trials. No matter how absurd these cases were, the inquisitors managed to put some apparent justice to it with their bizarre beliefs. Your ramblings about "legislative" versus "judiciary" is just that.

"And here our fine friend is getting personal again. From the safety of an alias, as befits the cowardly piece of trash he has amply shown to be."

The problem with you people is that you never understand it when your proclaimed enemies are answering you with your own language. Which is why you always end up getting mowed into pits.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Nonsense. You can defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that you didn't make statements or publish writings that qualify as Holocaust denial according to German law."

I guess your ignorance of this matter is at the same level as your arrogance. You obviously haven't studied the case of lawyers such as Syliva Stolz. In any case, your argumentation constitutes a side point that can be likened to saying the witch can defend herself by proving she isn't a witch. It is interesting to note that that was exactly what happened in many cases of witch trials. No matter how absurd these cases were, the inquisitors managed to put some apparent justice to it with their bizarre beliefs. Your ramblings about "legislative" versus "judiciary" is just that.»

What's wrong with your "witchcraft" comparison is that there's no such thing as witchcraft in the real world, whereas there is such a thing as the behavior described in Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code:

"(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine."

I suggest you make your comparisons less far-fetched (to put it politely) by trying to liken Rudolf to someone tried for heresy by the Inquisition on account of a scientific theory that ran against the beliefs of the day. The problem with that comparison would be that Rudolf did exactly the opposite of what such heretic had done: instead of trying to counter religious/ideological nonsense with reason, he tried to counter reason with ideologically motivated nonsense. But at least it would be marginally less silly than your "witchcraft trial" parallel.

«"And here our fine friend is getting personal again. From the safety of an alias, as befits the cowardly piece of trash he has amply shown to be."

The problem with you people is that you never understand it when your proclaimed enemies are answering you with your own language.»

Did I attack you by bringing up a health problem of yours that you once mentioned on the internet? Not that I remember.

And if I had sunk to such lowliness, I would have done it writing under my own name, and you would have the opportunity to seek satisfaction if you felt like doing so.

See the difference?

«Which is why you always end up getting mowed into pits.»

Interesting imagery you use in your wishful thinking - "mowed into pits". It evokes the image of people being mowed into pits with automatic weapons, doesn't it?

Tesla said...

"What's wrong with your "witchcraft" comparison is that there's no such thing as witchcraft in the real world, whereas there is such a thing as the behavior described in Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code: "

There is nothing wrong with my comparison. That it isn't similar to witchcraft trials in all aspects doesn't make it wrong.

You seem to completely fail to grasp the point that trials against someone for their beliefs in history, science or whatnot, is wrong - whether that person is right or wrong, rational or irrational, or whether it is a judicial or legislative matter, is irrelevant.

"Did I attack you by bringing up a health problem of yours that you once mentioned on the internet? Not that I remember."

No, of course not, since I don't have any mental health problems, and if I did, I wouldn't be so careless as to post them under my full name - especially if I had the habit of being an Internet loudmouth like you.

"Interesting imagery you use in your wishful thinking - "mowed into pits". It evokes the image of people being mowed into pits with automatic weapons, doesn't it?"

Yes, of course.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"What's wrong with your "witchcraft" comparison is that there's no such thing as witchcraft in the real world, whereas there is such a thing as the behavior described in Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code: "

There is nothing wrong with my comparison.»

Let's see: Witchcraft doesn't exist, Holocaust denial does. Witchcraft trials involved the most brutal forms of coercion, trials before German courts are conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural rules, which among other things rule out any form of coercion. Two things wrong already, where are the right ones?

«That it isn't similar to witchcraft trials in all aspects doesn't make it wrong.»

I still have to see the right parts of the comparison. Care to point them out?

«You seem to completely fail to grasp the point that trials against someone for their beliefs in history, science or whatnot, is wrong»

Of course it's wrong, and I never said anything to the contrary. But there's a difference between pointing out the wrong of such trials and the silly hyperbole of your "witchcraft trials" parallel.

«- whether that person is right or wrong, rational or irrational, or whether it is a judicial or legislative matter, is irrelevant.»

It may be irrelevant to you whether a court of justice is not guided by or violating defendant-friendly procedural rules or trying someone in accordance with such rules for having violated a legal hate speech provision that should not exist. It's not irrelevant to me.

«"Did I attack you by bringing up a health problem of yours that you once mentioned on the internet? Not that I remember."

No, of course not, since I don't have any mental health problems, and if I did,»

I wouldn't hold that against you, as I'm not a lowly character like you are.

«I wouldn't be so careless as to post them under my full name -»

Wise precaution as the internet is full of lowly skunks of the "Tesla" variety, who will go as low as attacking a person on account of that person's having suffered from what is arguably one of the most unpleasant ailments around.

«especially if I had the habit of being an Internet loudmouth like you.»

The forum conversation about my depression took place in 1999, well before I have my first internet encounter with one of Hitler's willing defense attorneys. And as to the "Internet loudmouth", it's hard to miss the obvious self-projection.

«"Interesting imagery you use in your wishful thinking - "mowed into pits". It evokes the image of people being mowed into pits with automatic weapons, doesn't it?"

Yes, of course.»

Thanks, it fits the profile you have been presenting.

Tesla said...

"Let's see: Witchcraft doesn't exist, Holocaust denial does. Witchcraft trials involved the most brutal forms of coercion, trials before German courts are conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural rules, which among other things rule out any form of coercion. Two things wrong already, where are the right ones? "

I have seen "right-wing extremists" being dragged naked into the street by the secret, state police in Germany, who then proceeded to beat them with sticks. Have you? Your "defendant-friendly procedural rules" is just hogwash. Their treatment is only surpassed by Guantanamo Bay, but my guess is it won't be long before we have similar camps for nationalists also. The Jews are relentless in their persecution of anyone who opposes them.

"I still have to see the right parts of the comparison. Care to point them out?"

I have done that many times already.

"I wouldn't hold that against you, as I'm not a lowly character like you are."

I don't "hold that against you" - I simply point out the laughable in your typical, Marxist usage of psychiatric terms when your own diagnoses are all over the Internet.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Let's see: Witchcraft doesn't exist, Holocaust denial does. Witchcraft trials involved the most brutal forms of coercion, trials before German courts are conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural rules, which among other things rule out any form of coercion. Two things wrong already, where are the right ones? "

I have seen "right-wing extremists" being dragged naked into the street by the secret, state police in Germany, who then proceeded to beat them with sticks.»

In one of your nightmares, or in actual fact? In the latter case, where in Germany and when is that supposed to have happened, and what's the name of that "secret, state police" you are talking about?

«Have you?»

No, but I'm amused to see one of Hitler's willing defense attorney's waxing indignant about what would have been no more than a case of police brutality, if it happened.

«Your "defendant-friendly procedural rules" is just hogwash.»

Police brutality may hit extremists of the right and left, and also non-extremist citizens, even in a constitutional state of law. It doesn't imply that the courts of justice in such state don't give defendants a fair trial according to defendant-friendly procedural laws. You'll have to do better than mixing apples with oranges if you want to demonstrate German procedural laws don't protect the defendant or that German courts don't abide by such laws.

«Their treatment is only surpassed by Guantanamo Bay, but my guess is it won't be long before we have similar camps for nationalists also. The Jews are relentless in their persecution of anyone who opposes them.»

Shall we take that as just some more of your rhetorical hyperbole, or shall we assume that you're paranoid? You seem to be obsessed with "the Jews" and their supposed evil doings.

«"I still have to see the right parts of the comparison. Care to point them out?"

I have done that many times already.»

I didn't notice, and I don't think I missed something.

«"I wouldn't hold that against you, as I'm not a lowly character like you are."

I don't "hold that against you" - I simply point out the laughable in your typical, Marxist usage of psychiatric terms when your own diagnoses are all over the Internet.»

So because I had a case of MDD (which I sincerely hope you'll never have, as it's one of the worst things that can happen to you), I'm supposed to refrain from pointing out your obviously hysterical behavior?

Ah, and please keep repeating the "Marxist" BS. It further illustrates the cloud-cuckoo-land you live in. Marxists and Jews in every corner, threatening the Aryan race, right? :-)

Tesla said...

Your fishing around my identity is beginning to become tiresome. I am of course never going to give you the slightest bit of information in that regard, as I am sure it will be passed on to the local Antifa/authorities in no time.

According to your own posts on Usenet, you suffer from a recurrent mental illness that is associated with such serious symptoms as psychosis and mania. So to your continued allusions to my claims and beliefs being a result of mental illness, I can only point out that this is coming from someone who is potentially psychotic himself. And one who, in the same Usenet post, attacks his doctor - the very hallmark of that patient group.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Your fishing around my identity is beginning to become tiresome. I am of course never going to give you the slightest bit of information in that regard, as I am sure it will be passed on to the local Antifa/authorities in no time.»

You seem to be suffering from paranoia, my friend. And I'm not "fishing around" your identity by asking you to sign my petition. I want more signatures on the petition, that's all. I happen to know who you are and where you live. But relax, there's no Antifa that I have any contact with, and reporting you to authorities would be against my principles.

«According to your own posts on Usenet, you suffer from a recurrent mental illness that is associated with such serious symptoms as psychosis and mania.»

It may but need not be associated with that, and in my case it was just associated with feeling miserable to the point of wanting to die.

«So to your continued allusions to my claims and beliefs being a result of mental illness,»

... don't exist anywhere outside your own fantasies. One doesn't have to suffer from a mental illness to stick with "Revisionism". Hating Jews and/or admiring Nazi Germany and/or being a white supremacist or the like will do nicely.

«I can only point out that this is coming from someone who is potentially psychotic himself. And one who, in the same Usenet post, attacks his doctor - the very hallmark of that patient group.»

Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real. Which is not my problem, but what you have written might lead one to suspect that it is yours. I hope for you that this is not the case.

Tesla said...

So, let's see, for some reason you've found out where I live, but you're not going to use it for anything. And you say my opinions on Jews etc. lead you to believe I am psychotic, but then you suddenly turn around and say that is just part of my fantasies. Hm.

This isn't very logical, is it?

Sounds to me like you're on the verge of something, but can't quite figure out which leg to stand on.

"Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real."

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Psychosis is a state of mind where the patient confuses his own emotions with the real world. His emotions *become* what he senses, and this leads to a form of logical incoherence whereby everything the patient thinks, says or writes is tailored to his emotions at that particular moment. It can be quite hard to spot, but can usually be triggered if you know which buttons to push.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So, let's see, for some reason you've found out where I live, but you're not going to use it for anything.»

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that I happen to know who you are and where you live but do not intend to use that information for the purposes you fear I might use it for.

«And you say my opinions on Jews etc. lead you to believe I am psychotic, but then you suddenly turn around and say that is just part of my fantasies. Hm.»

Again, that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was this:

«Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real. Which is not my problem, but what you have written might lead one to suspect that it is yours. I hope for you that this is not the case.»

«This isn't very logical, is it?»

What exactly does not seem logical to you?

«Sounds to me like you're on the verge of something, but can't quite figure out which leg to stand on.»

Actually I’m making clear points. One is that contempt for "Revisionism" doesn't necessarily imply favoring the criminalization thereof, rather the contrary. The other is that bringing up an opponent's medical history as a negative, as you have done, is a behavior that suggests a lowly kind of character.

«"Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real."
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Psychosis is a state of mind where the patient confuses his own emotions with the real world. His emotions *become* what he senses, and this leads to a form of logical incoherence whereby everything the patient thinks, says or writes is tailored to his emotions at that particular moment. It can be quite hard to spot, but can usually be triggered if you know which buttons to push.»

Why, you seem to know more about psychosis than I do. Congratulations on your superior knowledge, and I hope for you that it is not based on personal experience.

Tesla said...

So you just happen to know who I am and where I live...right. Your dancing around with ambigious threats is becoming tiresome.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So you just happen to know who I am and where I live...right. Your dancing around with ambigious threats is becoming tiresome.»

As you know more about psychosis than I do - isn't feeling threatened for no reason also one of its characteristics?

Tesla said...

Who says I'm feeling threatened? I've had crazy skimask-wearing communists running after me with a fireaxe. I know the difference between the dangerous ones and the ones who just can't argue without making ambiguous threats.

Arthur Crump said...

Tesla I was just going to advise you to give up, but on second thoughts please carry on, as I'm really enjoying watching you get humiliated.
It's like watching Oscar Wilde debating with Benny from Crossroads !!!

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Who says I'm feeling threatened? I've had crazy skimask-wearing communists running after me with a fireaxe.»

Like you saw the "secret" German police taking naked Nazis into the street and beating them there, I suppose. You seem to keep mixing up your nightmares with reality.

«I know the difference between the dangerous ones and the ones who just can't argue without making ambiguous threats.»

He doesn't feel threatened but sees "ambiguous threats" in my stating this:

«And I'm not "fishing around" your identity by asking you to sign my petition. I want more signatures on the petition, that's all. I happen to know who you are and where you live. But relax, there's no Antifa that I have any contact with, and reporting you to authorities would be against my principles.»

Alles klar. :-)

Tesla said...

Arthur Crump, thanks for joining in. I'm sure Oscar Wilde needs all the male cheerleaders he can get. He was, after all, a homosexual pederast. Some people also believe he suffered from various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, but that comparison was possibly not intentional from your side?

Tesla said...

"Alles klar. :-)"

"I know who you are and where you live" is the hallmark sentence of people who make online threats, yes. That doesn't mean I actually feel threatened by you. You seem to be too much of a coward.

bhigr said...

Lot's of name calling here. The real question is: Is anything that Rudolph says actually true or not? Let's analyze his statement.

"If the Holocaust is seen as a unique collection of lies, then the sole pillar supporting international Judaism's legitimacy will collapse."

I don't think the holocaust is the sole pillar for supporting Judaism, but it is the most important pillar. This pillar will surely collapse, if and only if the Holocaust turns out to be false. Who would disagree? At some point people will find out - regardless of laws prohibiting the dissemination of this information.

"The idol of substitute religion will disintegrate. The possibility of extorting more billions from Germany on account of its alleged obligation will likewise collapse."

If the Holocaust is false, this surely will happen, since the holocaust is the justification for this, right?

"World sympathy for the greatest liars and swindlers in the history of mankind will likewise collapse."

If the most unique and vicious crime of mankind, the holocaust, turns out to be wrong, well then the holocaust originators are going to be the most vicious liars of mankind, right? But, since most Jews truly believe in the Holocaust, they cannot be called liars. But, possibly, sympathies for Jews as a whole would diminish as well, ... just like sympathies and support for all Germans - both guilty and innocent Germans - has been affected by the holocaust.

Did I miss anything?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Alles klar. :-)"

"I know who you are and where you live" is the hallmark sentence of people who make online threats, yes.»

That may be so in your world. It is not so in mine.

«That doesn't mean I actually feel threatened by you. You seem to be too much of a coward.»

... says a fellow who hides in safe anonymity to someone who writes under his own name and makes no secret of where he can be found. The self-projection is obvious.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«At some point people will find out - regardless of laws prohibiting the dissemination of this information.»

Those laws shouldn't exist because no one should be punished for being a deluded fool or an inveterate liar, but since when does ideologically motivated garbage qualify as information?

«Did I miss anything?»

You mean, apart from the fact that the assumptions underlying Rudolf's predictions (e.g. the «extorting more billions from Germany» - BS) are utter nonsense outside Rudolf's fantasy world, and that his musings reveal the fellow's true feelings about Jews? Nothing at all.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Arthur Crump, thanks for joining in. I'm sure Oscar Wilde needs all the male cheerleaders he can get. He was, after all, a homosexual pederast. Some people also believe he suffered from various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, but that comparison was possibly not intentional from your side?»

Not that I’m interested in our anonymous coward's private life, but could it be that the associations he made reveal something about his secret wishes and tendencies?

Tesla said...

"Not that I’m interested in our anonymous coward's private life, but could it be that the associations he made reveal something about his secret wishes and tendencies?"

As in the theories of dr. Freud? Yet another sign that you believe in unscientific, Jewish bullshit.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Not that I’m interested in our anonymous coward's private life, but could it be that the associations he made reveal something about his secret wishes and tendencies?"

As in the theories of dr. Freud? Yet another sign that you believe in unscientific, Jewish bullshit.»

Actually I believe in nothing, and thanks for yet another of your self-portraying comments.

Kevin said...

A bit off-topic, but still important.

Roberto Muehlenkamp: In the blog post regarding the petition the link to the RODOH forum where you can ask questions/comment on the petition itself that links here redirects to Yuku's homepage. Is there a thread on the new RODOH forum (rodoh.info) that it can be linked to to fix this? Thanks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Kevin,

The petition blog was written at the time of the old RODOH forum, which was eventually deleted by Yuku. That's why the link no longer works. On the current RODOH forum there is no thread about the petition, as far as I know.

Tesla said...

"Actually I believe in nothing"

Of course. Like most uneducated people you think science is about proofs. That is the authoritarian, Jewish "science" of the Freudian sect in a nutshell.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Of course. Like most uneducated people you think science is about proofs. That is the authoritarian, Jewish "science" of the Freudian sect in a nutshell.»

Whereas "educated" people not subscribing to the "Jewish" notion of science apparently hold that science is not about checking a theory against evidence, but about non-testable speculations. And that's called "Aryan" science, I guess.

Tesla said...

"Whereas "educated" people not subscribing to the "Jewish" notion of science apparently hold that science is not about checking a theory against evidence, but about non-testable speculations. And that's called "Aryan" science, I guess."

I don't know where you get this fantasy from. Your own uneducated guesses, I presume.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Whereas "educated" people not subscribing to the "Jewish" notion of science apparently hold that science is not about checking a theory against evidence, but about non-testable speculations. And that's called "Aryan" science, I guess."

I don't know where you get this fantasy from. Your own uneducated guesses, I presume.»

Looks like my friend means to tell me that the correct term is not "Aryan" science. Must be "White" science, then.

Tesla said...

Science as we understand it today (most of us anyway) arose in Europe among people who were predominantly White, yes. It's mostly based on the negative epistemology of the old Greeks (often summed up with Socrates' "I know one thing: that I know nothing") who were a 100% Indo-European (White) people.

What's your point?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Science as we understand it today (most of us anyway) arose in Europe among people who were predominantly White, yes. It's mostly based on the negative epistemology of the old Greeks (often summed up with Socrates' "I know one thing: that I know nothing") who were a 100% Indo-European (White) people.

What's your point?»

The one you just helped me to make, especially with the «100% Indo-European (White) people».

Thank you.:-)

Tesla said...

You mean the point that it shocks your ideological roots to be confronted with the astounding fact that modern science was developed by Whites?

I think we're getting closer to finding out who you are, Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«You mean the point that it shocks your ideological roots to be confronted with the astounding fact that modern science was developed by Whites?»

I'm not shocked at all, actually. It's just a matter of utter indifference to me what race or ethnicity developed modern science. Whereas it seems to be very important to my interlocutor that it was the White race, which in turn speaks volumes about my interlocutor.

«I think we're getting closer to finding out who you are, Mr. Muehlenkamp.»

No mystery there at all. Unlike my White Supremacist interlocutor, who believes in the superiority of the White race (as he defines it) and wants to keep it from mingling with races he apparently holds to be inferior, I'm a person who doesn't give a damn about anyone's racial or ethnic background.

Tesla said...

Of course you are indifferent to racial background; the thesis that race is not important to anything is one of the central parts of the Frankfurt school's line of marxism. Today it is usually followed up by calling anyone who disagrees a "nazi" or a "White supremacist".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Oh, the good old "anyone who disagrees" mantra.

Not anyone who disagrees, but Tesla's professed concerns about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", which I recall having read in one or more of his posts, clearly shows where the fellow comes from.

Tesla said...

"Not anyone who disagrees, but Tesla's professed concerns about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", which I recall having read in one or more of his posts, clearly shows where the fellow comes from."

None of those points make me a "White supremacist" nor a National-Socialist. In any case your name-calling started long before I made any points regarding the Jewish role in multiculturalism.

Maybe if you had been more concerned with facts and knowledge rather than throwing your smears, you would have known what National-Socialism actually was. But like most ignorant marxists, you simply throw words like "nazi" and "fascist" around because of their connotative value.

Another a clear sign that you people aren't interested in the truth.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

So what (besides the screwball and asshole suggested by his "ignorant marxists" and "interested in the truth" blather, besides other utterances and behavior) should one call the indignant Mr. Tesla on account of his professed concern about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", if not a White Supremacist or a National Socialist?

A "White Nationalist" and hater of Jews, perhaps?

Tesla said...

"So what [...] should one call the indignant Mr. Tesla on account of his professed concern about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", if not a White Supremacist or a National Socialist?"

Maybe you simply shouldn't be so dependent on namecalling.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Maybe you simply shouldn't be so dependent on namecalling.»

I'm not «dependent on namecalling», it's just that I like to call a spade a spade, and that specimens like you invite expressions of contempt.

Now, do you define yourself as a "White Nationalist" and a hater of Jews, or do you not?

Tesla said...

"I'm not «dependent on namecalling», it's just that I like to call a spade a spade, and that specimens like you invite expressions of contempt."

Be careful so that that "contempt" doesn't evolve into, *gulp*, HATRED. You might turn into a fascist!

"Now, do you define yourself as a "White Nationalist" and a hater of Jews, or do you not?"

No, I don't define myself as that, and I don't hate the Jews. The reasons for that is that, first of all, hating the Jews will do nothing to stop Jewish behaviour. Second of all, the Jews, and the ideologies and philosophical doctrines they create to further their cause - like Einstein accurately pointed out - feeds upon hatred and grows on it. The Jews *want* people to hate them, insofar as they can control that hatred, because they gain sympathy from it. That sympathy was the primary force behind the erection of Israel and the primary reason why people are persecuted for criticizing the Jews and their doctrines today.

So no, I don't hate the Jews, because hating the Jews will simply make them even more powerful and create even more space for them to commit their crimes against the peoples who are now under their control.

This, of course, doesn't mean I am afraid to point out their historical record as one of the most vicious peoples on earth.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"I'm not «dependent on namecalling», it's just that I like to call a spade a spade, and that specimens like you invite expressions of contempt."

Be careful so that that "contempt" doesn't evolve into, *gulp*, HATRED. You might turn into a fascist!»

Don't worry. All that specimens like you evoke in me is feelings of contempt and pity.

«"Now, do you define yourself as a "White Nationalist" and a hater of Jews, or do you not?"

No, I don't define myself as that,»

Then why this concern about foreign immigrants "destroying" (IIRC) what you call the "European race" (or races)? What would be so bad about European nations becoming multi-racial? If you look at the low birthrates of certain European countries, you may gain the impression that foreign immigration is the only way to avoid a slow extinction of such countries' populations. Germany seems to have finally realized that she needs immigants to keep her population from overaging and plummeting.

«and I don't hate the Jews. The reasons for that is that, first of all, hating the Jews will do nothing to stop Jewish behaviour. Second of all, the Jews, and the ideologies and philosophical doctrines they create to further their cause - like Einstein accurately pointed out - feeds upon hatred and grows on it. The Jews *want* people to hate them, insofar as they can control that hatred, because they gain sympathy from it. That sympathy was the primary force behind the erection of Israel and the primary reason why people are persecuted for criticizing the Jews and their doctrines today.

So no, I don't hate the Jews, because hating the Jews will simply make them even more powerful and create even more space for them to commit their crimes against the peoples who are now under their control.

This, of course, doesn't mean I am afraid to point out their historical record as one of the most vicious peoples on earth.»

I see. Our friend considers Jews "one of the most vicious peoples on earth", but he avoids hating them because he thinks hatred would be counterproductive to his struggle against this "most vicious" people. Never hate your enemy, as Don Vito Corleone said. Understood.

Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as a vicious people on the planet. Individuals can be and often are vicious, whole peoples can't be.

Tesla said...

"Don't worry. All that specimens like you evoke in me is feelings of contempt and pity. "

Contempt AND pity? In my experience, people who claim to pity someone are often harbouring a great deal of aggression against that person. Kind of like saying someone is "pathetic" - a word which meaning has been completely distorted.

"Then why this concern about foreign immigrants "destroying" (IIRC) what you call the "European race" (or races)?"

These are your twisted words, not mine. That the European peoples are in peril because of foreign immigration does not mean that those foreign immigrants are destroying them. The immigrants are a rather innocent piece of this game. The problem is the ideology behind it.

You seem to yet again confuse me with the simple-minded people of the anti-immigration movements in Europe. Funnily enough, these movements are almost entirely being souped up by Jewish propagandists who attack muslims.

"Never hate your enemy, as Don Vito Corleone said. Understood."

"Never hate your enemy. It affects your judgement" is the full quote. That was obviously not the point I was making, but this is a fine point too. People who hate tend to not think very rationally. You seem to be a great example of that.

More demons you would want to compare me to?

"Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as a vicious people on the planet. Individuals can be and often are vicious, whole peoples can't be."

We are a product of our genes, and whether you like it or not, genetic clustering is a fact. Like most traits, viciousness is not something that has been handed out equally, and there would be no reason for it to be so.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Don't worry. All that specimens like you evoke in me is feelings of contempt and pity. "

Contempt AND pity? In my experience, people who claim to pity someone are often harbouring a great deal of aggression against that person. Kind of like saying someone is "pathetic" - a word which meaning has been completely distorted.»

Some bizarre "experience" you claim to have. Must be like those "experiences" of seeing a right-wing fellow dragged out naked into the street by the German "secret police" (or something like that), or of having some masked left-wing fellow run after you with a fireaxe.

«"Then why this concern about foreign immigrants "destroying" (IIRC) what you call the "European race" (or races)?"

These are your twisted words, not mine.»

The "IIRC" reservation precludes the "twisted words" accusation. Now, let’s have your hallowed words verbatim:

«The real proof of Jewish genocidal intent however, is what has *in fact* happened after the war: namely the introduction of millions of third world foreigners to Germany and other European countries, purposefully with the aim to destroy the European race. That is genocide according to the UN 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' which defined genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:" and where one of those acts is given as: "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;".»

«That the European peoples are in peril because of foreign immigration does not mean that those foreign immigrants are destroying them. The immigrants are a rather innocent piece of this game. The problem is the ideology behind it.»

Quite the "slippery eel" (or something like that) exercise you falsely accuse me of, as I'm obviously not arguing that you infer any malicious intent on the part of those "third world foreigners" supposedly being introduced with "Jewish genocidal intent" into Germany and other European countries "purposefully with the aim to destroy the European race".

Now tell me, how are those "third world foreigners", if only as innocent tools of those "genocidal" Jews, supposed to "destroy the European race", other than by producing, with "European" mates of the opposite sex, descendants who have somewhat-less-than-"European" physical features?

And why, if you’re not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist", does it bother you that the next generation in "Germany and other European countries" might not be quite as "European"-looking as the current one?

«You seem to yet again confuse me with the simple-minded people of the anti-immigration movements in Europe. Funnily enough, these movements are almost entirely being souped up by Jewish propagandists who attack muslims.»

So now the Le Pens in France and the "Ausländer raus" fellows in Germany and other countries are supposed to be "souped up by Jewish propagandists who attack muslims"? You better don’t tell them that, for they might take offense.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Never hate your enemy, as Don Vito Corleone said. Understood."

"Never hate your enemy. It affects your judgement" is the full quote. That was obviously not the point I was making, but this is a fine point too.»

And just the point I was trying to make, namely that you see Jews as your enemy. Thanks for the confirmation.

«People who hate tend to not think very rationally. You seem to be a great example of that.»

Why, now look who is talking – the fellow who sees the "European race" threatened by destruction from those "third world foreigners" introduced into Europe as innocent tools of "Jewish genocidal intent".

«More demons you would want to compare me to?»

Besides whom, Don Vito Corleone? Quite a sympathetic character, if you ask me, especially as played by Marlon Brando. And if you aspire to being a "demon", you’ll have to get up much earlier. Right now you're just a nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo -pick the Leo translation of the German word Spinner that you like best) with a head full of occasionally hilarious garbage.

«"Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as a vicious people on the planet. Individuals can be and often are vicious, whole peoples can't be."

We are a product of our genes, and whether you like it or not, genetic clustering is a fact. Like most traits, viciousness is not something that has been handed out equally, and there would be no reason for it to be so.»

So what’s that supposed to mean?

That assholes are more thickly sown among some peoples than among other?

I don’t think that's the case, and also don’t see why it should be.

Tesla said...

"I'm obviously not arguing that you infer any malicious intent on the part of those "third world foreigners"."

Of course you are. That's why you said I had claimed it was *they* who were destroying Europe, when in fact I have repeatedly stated that I blame the Jews and the ideologies they have created for it; in this instance the ideology of the Frankfurter school.

In fact, I try to reach my hand out to muslims and other non-European people whenever I meet them, explaining that I have no bad feelings against them and their culture, and even that I would like to see an alliance between the Islamic world and Europe in the future.

This, of course, completely destroys your kind's notion of me being a "White supremacist" and a "racist" and so you must pretend that I put the immigrants in the position of the destroyers, rather than then Jews. This tactic of framing their narrow interests as something that concerns a much wider group is incidentally a typical Jewish tactic that has been used for centuries, finely illustrated by the very word "anti-Semitic" itself.

"nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo"

Time to calm down?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"I'm obviously not arguing that you infer any malicious intent on the part of those "third world foreigners"."

Of course you are. That's why you said I had claimed it was *they* who were destroying Europe, when in fact I have repeatedly stated that I blame the Jews and the ideologies they have created for it; in this instance the ideology of the Frankfurter school.»

Here we see my somewhat-less-than-honest interlocutor persisting in his detraction of the issue, which is why (if he's not some sort of White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") he is concerned about third world foreigners supposedly having a destructive impact (whether intentionally or not is completely irrelevant to my question, as he well knows) on what he calls the "European race".

As we're at it, and please forgive my ignorance: wtf is the "Frankfurter school" you're so obsessed with?

«In fact, I try to reach my hand out to muslims and other non-European people whenever I meet them, explaining that I have no bad feelings against them and their culture, and even that I would like to see an alliance between the Islamic world and Europe in the future.»

And if your sister got pregnant from one of those non-European muslim Palestinians you like so much, would you welcome that as something in the sense of such "alliance"? Or you would see either or both as innocent victims of Jewish "genocidal intent" against the "European race"?

«This, of course, completely destroys your kind's notion of me being a "White supremacist" and a "racist" and so you must pretend that I put the immigrants in the position of the destroyers, rather than then Jews.»

The question is not about who you consider to be the mastermind and who a mere (innocent) tool of your supposed "destruction", but why (if you are not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") you consider the admixture of third world foreigners to the "European race" to be a "destruction" (you even used the word "genocide", IIRC) of that race.

«This tactic of framing their narrow interests as something that concerns a much wider group is incidentally a typical Jewish tactic that has been used for centuries, finely illustrated by the very word "anti-Semitic" itself.»

Oh, those awful Jews! :-)

«"nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo"

Time to calm down?»

Time you mind the context of my quote-mined remark, actually. Which was the following:

«And if you aspire to being a "demon", you’ll have to get up much earlier. Right now you're just a nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo -pick the Leo translation of the German word Spinner that you like best) with a head full of occasionally hilarious garbage.»

Tesla said...

"interlocutor persisting in his detraction of the issue"

Like I have explained to you, "White supremacism" is something that exists in your head. It is not in any way rationally linked to anything I have written.

"As we're at it, and please forgive my ignorance: wtf is the "Frankfurter school" you're so obsessed with?"

You mean to tell me you are so helpless you do not know how to google or look something up on Wikipedia? That is ignorance that cannot be forgiven, sorry.

"And if your sister got pregnant from one of those non-European muslim Palestinians you like so much, would you welcome that as something in the sense of such "alliance"? Or you would see either or both as innocent victims of Jewish "genocidal intent" against the "European race"? "

What a nice false dilemma from the master of fallacies.

"why (if you are not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") you consider the admixture of third world foreigners to the "European race" to be a "destruction" (you even used the word "genocide", IIRC) of that race."

I really don't see what you are having trouble understanding. I want to preserve the European peoples, therefore I am against mixing with other peoples - what is so hard to understand about that?

Well, actually I do think I know what your problem is, because after I while it has dawned on me that the main cause of your many odd rhetorical circumventions and tricks is that you are hopelessly poor at thinking logically. You actually think that since being a White supremacist or White nationalist implies being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc., then being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc. must imply being a White supremacist/nationalist. Well, in logic this is called 'affirming the consequent' and is a common logical fallacy, but explaining logical errors to someone who has been using them for so long is probably pointless, so I won't.

"Oh, those awful Jews! :-)"

Indeed.

"Time you mind the context of my quote-mined remark, actually. Which was the following:"

Again, if I were to quote everything you said, then not only would the readers (if any) have to go through your multiple posts, but they would also have to go through multiple posts of me quoting your obsession with every little detail I write. Consequently, I do not do that. If you think the full quote of that passage somehow removes the fact that angry people tend to namecall instead of arguing rationally, then so be it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"interlocutor persisting in his detraction of the issue"
Like I have explained to you, "White supremacism" is something that exists in your head. It is not in any way rationally linked to anything I have written.»

How about answering my question instead of dodging it with "explanations"?

The question is: why (if you’re not some sort of White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") are you concerned about third world foreigners supposedly having a destructive impact (whether intentionally or not) on what you call the "European race"?

«"As we're at it, and please forgive my ignorance: wtf is the "Frankfurter school" you're so obsessed with?"

You mean to tell me you are so helpless you do not know how to google or look something up on Wikipedia? That is ignorance that cannot be forgiven, sorry.»

"Cannot be forgiven", the idiot blabbers. Googling is no problem for me, but the point I made (with some help from my interlocutor's predictable remark, thanks) is that I had no knowledge prior to our conversation of the "Frankfurter school", which I'm apparently supposed to be an adept of.

«"And if your sister got pregnant from one of those non-European muslim Palestinians you like so much, would you welcome that as something in the sense of such "alliance"? Or you would see either or both as innocent victims of Jewish "genocidal intent" against the "European race"? "

What a nice false dilemma from the master of fallacies.»

What an obvious attempt to avoid a pertinent question with hollow rhetoric, which doesn’t even fit the occasion.

How about cutting the crap and answering the question?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"why (if you are not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") you consider the admixture of third world foreigners to the "European race" to be a "destruction" (you even used the word "genocide", IIRC) of that race."

I really don't see what you are having trouble understanding. I want to preserve the European peoples, therefore I am against mixing with other peoples - what is so hard to understand about that?»

So "mixing with other peoples" threatens the "preservation" of the (White) European peoples, in our friend's book. Which suggests that our friend is a racist of the "I have nothing against other races as long as they don’t mix with mine" variety. OK.

«Well, actually I do think I know what your problem is, because after I while it has dawned on me that the main cause of your many odd rhetorical circumventions and tricks is that you are hopelessly poor at thinking logically.»

Look who's talking about "odd rhetorical circumventions" and being "hopelessly poor at thinking logically". Our friend is describing himself as accurately as ever.

«You actually think that since being a White supremacist or White nationalist implies being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc., then being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc. must imply being a White supremacist/nationalist.»

Well, let's say that it's at least a strong indication in that direction. But I'm open to an alternative explanation if you can provide one, hence my question. Answer provided doesn't point to such alternative explanation, however. It rather reinforces the indication.

«Well, in logic this is called 'affirming the consequent' and is a common logical fallacy, but explaining logical errors to someone who has been using them for so long is probably pointless, so I won't.»

Actually I wasn't "affirming the consequent" but asking a question based on the "consequent" but allowing for a non-"consequent" answer. Which hasn't yet been provided, however.

«"Oh, those awful Jews! :-)"
Indeed.»

Thanks, though further confirmation of what you're all about was hardly necessary.

«"Time you mind the context of my quote-mined remark, actually. Which was the following:"

Again, if I were to quote everything you said, then not only would the readers (if any) have to go through your multiple posts, but they would also have to go through multiple posts of me quoting your obsession with every little detail I write. Consequently, I do not do that. If you think the full quote of that passage somehow removes the fact that angry people tend to name-call instead of arguing rationally, then so be it.»

Angry, me? My interlocutor must be having delusions of adequacy if he thinks that his tirades make me angry.

Name-calling? Calling a Spinner a Spinner is not name-calling, actually. It's calling a spade a spade.

And as to "arguing rationally", that's the last thing someone obsessed with the supposed awfulness of "Jews" and their "genocidal" intentions against the "European race" should be lecturing about.

Tesla said...

"How about answering my question instead of dodging it with "explanations"?"

I have answered your questions many times already, but since my answers don't fit in with your preconceived notions of 'racists' and 'white supremacists', you keep ignoring them.

"Angry, me?"

Of course you are angry - that is why you keep writing your essays to me instead of simply approving my comments (some 'free speech' you practice btw., when your censorship process takes five days for each post).

Your main problem is that you harbor so much anger and hate towards others and at the same time realize that you are everything you accuse those people of being. If I were to guess, then I would say this realization was what made you tick in the first place. The Internet is full of pages describing you as a nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc. - and this from independent sources, deniers and believers alike - even from yourself.

In short, it must suck to be you.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"How about answering my question instead of dodging it with "explanations"?"

I have answered your questions many times already, but since my answers don't fit in with your preconceived notions of 'racists' and 'white supremacists', you keep ignoring them.»

So now the fellow claims he has answered "many times" but I "ignored" his answers because they don't fit into some "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have. A classic charlatan's retort. I doubt he can quote all those "answers" he provided let alone demonstrate that the are at odds with "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have, but he is welcome to give it a try.

«"Angry, me?"

Of course you are angry - that is why you keep writing your essays to me instead of simply approving my comments (some 'free speech' you practice btw., when your censorship process takes five days for each post).»

So now I'm supposed to be "angry" at the fellow because I have the courtesy of responding to his utterances, instead of just ignoring them? Another of those bizarre ideas running wild in a confused mind, it seems. And as to "censorship", he can complain about that the day some his "wisdom" fails to be published, which hasn't happened yet and will not happen. If his posts don't get published as fast as he would like them to, that's just because I don't exactly check my inbox every day, least of all to see if "Tesla" has produced some more BS. "Tesla" should get used to the idea that he's not exactly one of my priorities.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Your main problem is that you harbor so much anger and hate towards others and at the same time realize that you are everything you accuse those people of being.»

Interesting "analysis", except of course that it's only basis is self-projection, a frustrated individual's urge to attack his opponent, or a combination of both.

«If I were to guess, then I would say this realization was what made you tick in the first place.»

Err, what "realization"? Outside the cloud-cuckoo-land of Mr. "Tesla", I mean.

«The Internet is full of pages describing you as a nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc. - and this from independent sources, deniers and believers alike - even from yourself.»

Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here. Meanwhile, the site co-hosted by said sociopath has been removed from the list of links on the THHP site, which instead recommends the HC blog, especially our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. What is more, that critique is referred to on several occasions in a recent work about the AR camps by German historian Sara Berger, which I mention here and here.
Serious researchers are obviously not as gullible as "Tesla" (or, for that matter, as Mattogno, Graf and Kues, who also disgraced themselves by taking Lisciotto's smear at face value, as pointed out here).

«In short, it must suck to be you.»

Funny, that's what I think of poor "Tesla" every time I chuckle about one of his tirades. And of course remarks like these show the fellow to be as angry as he would like me to be.

Keep on fuming, Mr. "Tesla". I'm enjoying the show.

Tesla said...

"So now the fellow claims he has answered "many times" but I "ignored" his answers because they don't fit into some "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have. A classic charlatan's retort."

And how is this supposed to be a 'charlatan's retort'? Perhaps my dear friend would, for a moment, try to back up and explain his accusations rather than simply throw them around?

"I doubt he can quote all those "answers" he provided let alone demonstrate that the are at odds with "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have, but he is welcome to give it a try."

Now, why would I do such a thing when it has been firmly established that my dear friend is, in fact, simply ignoring my answers - perhaps because he thinks this is a viable tactic? Certainly, my dear friend would have simply denied the quotations I would have provided also, and this "debate" would remain in the same positition it is currently at (which is perhaps what my dear friend wants, since he does not feel he is making much progress).

Tesla said...

"Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here."

So my "interlocutor" again defends himself by making accusations of mental pathology in his adversaries - and this we are supposed to take at face value rather than see as part of my "interlocutor"'s longstanding history of making such accusations, from which we may deduce that it is indeed part of my dear interlocuting friend's debating techniques, or modus operandi if you will, or even perhaps of his personality, from which we again may deduce that said accusations are unlikely to have any merit other than to discredit our dear "interlocutor" himself. Or perhaps when my friend uses the words 'sociopath', "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land" (a particular phrase which he has used against this writer also) it is not to be taken literally, but rather, as my friend has explained earlier, simply as words of denigration that have no intentional reference to real mental illness of any kind?

Furthermore, I cannot see that evidence of any kind has been provided by my dear friend to show that the amount of "dirt" existing on him (from widely different and independent sources, as pointed out) is the result of the workings of "sociopaths" (I assume here that Dear Friend also sees dirt coming from revisionists as coming from "sociopaths", in either of the two meanings which Dear Friend usually ascribes to such words) other than accusations of "hatred", which do not seem logically valid unless we, a priori, assume that Dear Friend has in reality been the victim of such an attack as he describes. Without this assumption, it would seem that our dear friend's accusations against the person he mentions could just as well be described as "hatred", and that, rather than being the victim of, our dear friend is indeed the instigator of such hatred. Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence linking the mentioned person to the blogs mentioned in the summary, and such a connection seems unlikely when we look at the web pages which we know the person accused by our friend has authored, since these pages appear far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition. A more likely explanation is that these blogs are simply the creations of a person who has noticed our dear friend's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to accusations of "hatred", and has thus, with a minimum of effort, established a few blogs to make fun of our dear friend after he himself rightfully was accused of "hatred" by his peers. Or perhaps these blogs are the creations of our dear friend himself, as a means to escape the no doubt bothersome accusation of document tampering, puth forth by his peers, by putting himself in the place of the victim? Such acts are by no means farfetched, and seem to be quite common among our dear friend's ilk in their crusade against evil "anti-Semites": http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs . The vitriolic postings which are spewed on these blogs, apparently created by an individual calling himself "blogbuster", seem to be very familiar in the way they use various mental characteristics and psychiatric diagnoses as part of their rhetorics: http://holocaustcalamities.blogspot.no/2012_06_01_archive.html . Very familiar, indeed.

Tesla said...

This summary you present to me also seems to contradict your original claim that we are dealing with the workings of *one* sociopath, in that it mentions a second person by name and furthermore a website that certainly does not appear to be the work of a single mind (but perhaps it only appears so while it is in reality part of a grand, "Stalinist" conspiracy against Dear Friend). By looking at this website, we can find an article signed by a third, hitherto unmentioned individual with interesting quotes such as "if you think the Holocaust Deniers seemed kooky or paranoid in their methods, then the "Debunkers" can be simply downright psychotic in the way they approach the debate" and "Often we find when one is exposed to the level of vitriol spewed by "Deniers" they are shocked to see the equivalent or worse form of diatribes disgorged by the "Debunkers" on the controversy blogs, hate forums, email bulletins, and YouTube videos". So unless we assume this is some form of grand conspiracy against our dear friend, it seems clear that we have several of Dear Friend's peers making critical remarks about him which are very similar to the critical remarks coming from revisionists, and so the claim made by this writer that convergence of independent opinion seems to go in our dear friends disfavour is, to a high degree, true. That our dear friend is indeed the perpetrator and not the victim here, is also substantiated by looking at certain Wikipedia talk pages where it becomes clear that our "interlocutor" and his friends attempted to overthrow the legitimate deathcamps.org website by creating an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org, which was incidentally linked to by this blog. The level of dishonesty displayed by such acts is perhaps something that deserves to be referred to by the same name our friend so easily threw out, namely that of charlatanism?

Of course, our dear friend is going to respond to this by reassuring us that it is all the work of a single "sociopath", but there is no hard evidence showing that this alleged "sociopath" suffers from any kind of mental illness. Rather, he seems quite clearly to be a victim of our friend's mendacious ways. The only hard facts concerning mental illness that can be ascertained here are the facts presented by our dear friend himself regarding his own "recurrent agitated depression", which is no doubt of such a serious nature that it could render him capable of committing such acts as he his accused of by this merely alleged "sociopath": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry)

"agitated depression [...] is a condition during which features of mania and depression, such as agitation, anxiety, fatigue, guilt, impulsiveness, irritability, morbid or suicidal ideation, panic, paranoia, pressured speech and rage, occur simultaneously. [...] Typical examples include tearfulness during a manic episode or racing thoughts during a depressive episode [...] irritability to full blown rage, are the most common symptoms of dysphoric mania [...] Symptoms may also include auditory hallucinations [...]"

These are descriptions of our "interlocutor"'s behaviour, no doubt, and 'tearful' is likely going to be a proper word to describe his whining and wailing when he complains that psychiatry is being used unfairly against him.

Tesla said...

"Meanwhile, the site co-hosted by said sociopath has been removed from the list of links on the THHP site, which instead recommends the HC blog, especially our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. What is more, that critique is referred to on several occasions in a recent work about the AR camps by German historian Sara Berger, which I mention here and here.
Serious researchers are obviously not as gullible as "Tesla" (or, for that matter, as Mattogno, Graf and Kues, who also disgraced themselves by taking Lisciotto's smear at face value, as pointed out here)."

And this is supposed to show what? Getting a bit defensive, are we?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here."
So my "interlocutor" again defends himself by making accusations of mental pathology in his adversaries - and this we are supposed to take at face value rather than see as part of my "interlocutor"'s longstanding history of making such accusations, from which we may deduce that it is indeed part of my dear interlocuting friend's debating techniques, or modus operandi if you will, or even perhaps of his personality, from which we again may deduce that said accusations are unlikely to have any merit other than to discredit our dear "interlocutor" himself. Or perhaps when my friend uses the words 'sociopath', "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land" (a particular phrase which he has used against this writer also) it is not to be taken literally, but rather, as my friend has explained earlier, simply as words of denigration that have no intentional reference to real mental illness of any kind?»

Here we see Tesla clinging to my use of the term "sociopath" (which I consider an appropriate characterization of the orchestrator of an internet smear campaign against me and other HC bloggers) to detract from my essential argument, which is that, where Tesla would like to have a multitude of "believers" independent of each other ("independent sources") calling me a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc.", there is actually only one individual who for some reason has undertaken to fill the internet with mendacious smear against me and two other HC bloggers.

«Furthermore, I cannot see that evidence of any kind has been provided by my dear friend to show that the amount of "dirt" existing on him (from widely different and independent sources, as pointed out) is the result of the workings of "sociopaths" (I assume here that Dear Friend also sees dirt coming from revisionists as coming from "sociopaths", in either of the two meanings which Dear Friend usually ascribes to such words) other than accusations of "hatred", which do not seem logically valid unless we, a priori, assume that Dear Friend has in reality been the victim of such an attack as he describes.»

It is duly noted that Tesla is either gullible enough to take the smear produced by one individual writing under a number of aliases as coming from "widely different and independent sources", or dishonest enough to claim the existence of such "widely different and independent sources" against better knowledge. And evidence seems to be the last thing he’s interested in, for if he were looking for evidence that the smear campaign in question emanates from a single individual previously known for similar behaviors, he would have to go no further than the articles linked to in the last two paragraphs of my summary.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Without this assumption, it would seem that our dear friend's accusations against the person he mentions could just as well be described as "hatred", and that, rather than being the victim of, our dear friend is indeed the instigator of such hatred.»

Actually the "instigator of such hatred" was just caught up in the fray, like another fellow blogger, due to his association to the author of this article, which was what unleashed a smear campaign emanating from someone who a) felt vexed by this article's contents, namely the accusations of incompetence against a friend of his, and b) had been noted for similar behaviors on past occasions.

«Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence linking the mentioned person to the blogs mentioned in the summary, and such a connection seems unlikely when we look at the web pages which we know the person accused by our friend has authored, since these pages appear far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition.»

If Tesla is referring to the ARC web pages, these were the creation of a research group including, besides researchers of note like the late Robert Kuwalek, an individual by the name of Carmelo Lisciotto, who appears to have been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict", and the group's "secretary" Chris Webb, whose bumbling and reaction to the revelation of that bumbling, as documented here, led to the 2006 breakup of what used to be a great undertaking.

That aside, Tesla seems to labor under the false conviction that dishonest individuals inclined to mendacious smear are not capable of producing writings that "appear professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition". One wonders where he picked up that idea.

«A more likely explanation is that these blogs are simply the creations of a person who has noticed our dear friend's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to accusations of "hatred", and has thus, with a minimum of effort, established a few blogs to make fun of our dear friend after he himself rightfully was accused of "hatred" by his peers.»

That may be a "more likely explanation" in Tesla’s wishful thinking, but in actual fact the endeavor to "make fun" of certain HC bloggers was obviously born out of someone's feeling vexed by this article. It is hardly a coincidence that the "few blogs to make fun" (which Tesla seems to consider OK, thereby revealing further traits of his "personality") started to appear in the immediate aftermath of said article.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Or perhaps these blogs are the creations of our dear friend himself, as a means to escape the no doubt bothersome accusation of document tampering, puth forth by his peers, by putting himself in the place of the victim?»

As the "bothersome accusation of document tampering" is contained in these very blogs as well as a forum created by their author to smear three HC bloggers (and other people he doesn't like), the only explanation for the above remark is that Tesla's meager thinking capacities left him alone when writing these lines.

«Such acts are by no means farfetched, and seem to be quite common among our dear friend's ilk in their crusade against evil "anti-Semites": http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs. The vitriolic postings which are spewed on these blogs, apparently created by an individual calling himself "blogbuster", seem to be very familiar in the way they use various mental characteristics and psychiatric diagnoses as part of their rhetorics: http://holocaustcalamities.blogspot.no/2012_06_01_archive.html . Very familiar, indeed.»

The individual calling himself "blogbuster", aka Carmelo Lisciotto, is living proof that unfortunately there are disgusting characters also among those who oppose the falsification of history known as "Revisionism".

As to Tesla's comparison, his meager thinking capacities seem to again have deserted him.
If I understood the article under his first link correctly, it is about agents provocateurs who create fake "anti-Semitic" personalities. While I don’t approve this kind of behavior, to the extent it actually exists outside the claims of Tesla's source (contrary to what Tesla would like to believe, his opponents are not one monolithic "ilk" but include a wide range of characters with widely differing motivations, goals and approaches), it would have a productive purpose from the point of view of those engaging in it, which is to discredit/ridicule the anti-Semitic scene. Now, what could possibly be the productive purpose of an opponent of "Revisionism" (obviously interested in presenting his "side" as consisting of integer and reasonable people), assuming he is inclined to falsehoods (which I of course am not), inventing a smear campaign against himself (among others) by another opponent of "Revisionism"? Would Tesla (who I don’t consider to be above falsehoods) see a productive purpose in inventing a smear campaign against himself by a fellow "White Nationalist" (or however else it is that Tesla defines his racist concern about the preservation of the "European race" being threatened by an influx of third world foreigners)? Get a brain, fellow.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«This summary you present to me also seems to contradict your original claim that we are dealing with the workings of *one* sociopath, in that it mentions a second person by name and furthermore a website that certainly does not appear to be the work of a single mind (but perhaps it only appears so while it is in reality part of a grand, "Stalinist" conspiracy against Dear Friend).»

The "second person" you are referring to is former ARC "secretary" Chris Webb. While he might, if he's a small-minded vindictive character, be motivated to "get even" with who exposed his bumbling (and anyone he holds to be associated to that person), he has not displayed (unlike his associate Carmelo Lisciotto) the kind of behavior that mirrors the "Blogbuster" smear campaign. So I'm giving him the benefit of assuming he's not involved in that smear campaign, at least not directly (though he obviously tolerates it).

As to the ARC website (or, for that matter, the H.E.A.R.T. website), of course the articles contained therein are not the work of a single person. But how does that change the fact that the smear which, among other things, disfigures some of the ARC pages, is the work of a single obsessively vindictive mind?

«By looking at this website, we can find an article signed by a third, hitherto unmentioned individual with interesting quotes such as "if you think the Holocaust Deniers seemed kooky or paranoid in their methods, then the "Debunkers" can be simply downright psychotic in the way they approach the debate" and "Often we find when one is exposed to the level of vitriol spewed by "Deniers" they are shocked to see the equivalent or worse form of diatribes disgorged by the "Debunkers" on the controversy blogs, hate forums, email bulletins, and YouTube videos". So unless we assume this is some form of grand conspiracy against our dear friend, it seems clear that we have several of Dear Friend's peers making critical remarks about him which are very similar to the critical remarks coming from revisionists, and so the claim made by this writer that convergence of independent opinion seems to go in our dear friends disfavour is, to a high degree, true.»

Who said anything about the smear campaign in question being specifically directed at my humble person? It is directed against three founding members of the HC blog, and it accordingly includes baselessly calling that blog a "hate blog". As to the article in question, what's the link, and what’s the name of the author? If the author is someone not known in the anti-"Revisionist" community, there's a good chance that it's an alias of Carmelo Lisciotto.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«That our dear friend is indeed the perpetrator and not the victim here, is also substantiated by looking at certain Wikipedia talk pages where it becomes clear that our "interlocutor" and his friends attempted to overthrow the legitimate deathcamps.org website by creating an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org, which was incidentally linked to by this blog. The level of dishonesty displayed by such acts is perhaps something that deserves to be referred to by the same name our friend so easily threw out, namely that of charlatanism?»

Actually there was no dishonesty at all in trying to create what the usurpers of the ARC site falsely claimed to be "an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org". For the people behind that version (which did not include me, though I linked to that version in several articles) were the authors of most articles on the dissolved ARC site, who had a better copyright claim to the contents of these articles than the "secretary" who, taking advantage of his owning the internet domain, illegally appropriated a site mostly consisting of other people's intellectual creations. So this accusation of "dishonesty", which my interlocutor gratefully parrots, is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Of course, our dear friend is going to respond to this by reassuring us that it is all the work of a single "sociopath", but there is no hard evidence showing that this alleged "sociopath" suffers from any kind of mental illness.»

What "hard evidence" did you have in mind? A psychiatrist’s diagnosis of this gentleman would be interesting but is of course hard to obtain. So the evidence consists of the good old "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" argument, which a late lawyer friend told me is accepted by US courts. We are talking about someone who harbors an obsessive hatred for other persons and expresses that obsessive hatred by filling the internet with smear blogs and smear forums dedicated to nothing else than defamatory accusations against such persons. If that behavior is not indicative of a sociopath, then what does else does it indicate?

«Rather, he seems quite clearly to be a victim of our friend's mendacious ways.»

What «mendacious ways» exactly, outside my mendacious opponent’s fantasies? Please be specific and provide evidence.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«The only hard facts concerning mental illness that can be ascertained here are the facts presented by our dear friend himself regarding his own "recurrent agitated depression", which is no doubt of such a serious nature that it could render him capable of committing such acts as he his accused of by this merely alleged "sociopath": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry)

"agitated depression [...] is a condition during which features of mania and depression, such as agitation, anxiety, fatigue, guilt, impulsiveness, irritability, morbid or suicidal ideation, panic, paranoia, pressured speech and rage, occur simultaneously. [...] Typical examples include tearfulness during a manic episode or racing thoughts during a depressive episode [...] irritability to full blown rage, are the most common symptoms of dysphoric mania [...] Symptoms may also include auditory hallucinations [...]"»

Why, it looks like my self-diagnosis of "agitated depression" back in 1999 (at a time when I was barely aware that "Revisionism" even existed, by the way) was not exactly accurate, for the "only" symptoms I had were agitation/anxiety and feeling so miserably sad and empty that death seemed a welcome relief.

That aside, it's hard to understand whence Tesla got the idea that the pathology described by his source could prompt the sufferer to organize a systematic internet defamation campaign against certain persons he bears an obsessive grudge against in connection with a clearly identifiable set of events. A person in the condition described on this site (or in my own condition in 1999, which was far less severe but still extremely painful) can barely master everyday life. A sociopath, on the other hand, is "characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior". Antisocial and disinhibited behavior (filling the internet with mendacious smear, lying shamelessly under a number of aliases), as well as diminished empathy and remorse (in this case a pathological hatred and vindictiveness) are exactly what Lisciotto’s smear campaign is all about.

«These are descriptions of our "interlocutor"'s behaviour, no doubt, and 'tearful' is likely going to be a proper word to describe his whining and wailing when he complains that psychiatry is being used unfairly against him.»

Except, of course, that the supposed "whining and wailing" exists nowhere outside my interlocutor’s fantasies. Pointing out that bringing up someone's medical history as a negative is a despicable behavior has nothing to do with "whining and wailing". It's just calling a spade a spade – or, in this case, calling a piece of manure a piece of manure. And if the disease in question is depression (an ailment that affected great personalities like Abraham Lincoln, George S. Patton and Ernest Hemingway, among many others), the "argument" is also quite ridiculous - about as ridiculous as it would be to bring up someone’s diabetes, cancer or heart disease as a negative.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Meanwhile, the site co-hosted by said sociopath has been removed from the list of links on the THHP site, which instead recommends the HC blog, especially our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. What is more, that critique is referred to on several occasions in a recent work about the AR camps by German historian Sara Berger, which I mention here and here.
Serious researchers are obviously not as gullible as "Tesla" (or, for that matter, as Mattogno, Graf and Kues, who also disgraced themselves by taking Lisciotto's smear at face value, as pointed out here)."
And this is supposed to show what? Getting a bit defensive, are we?»

No, just making the point that endorsement by a major "believer" internet source like The Holocaust History Project and by a German historian is hardly compatible with being considered a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc." by the "independent sources, deniers and believers alike" that Tesla is eager to believe in. So eager that he even switched off his tiny brain, to give him the benefit of assuming that he was not giving free rein to his mendacity.

Tesla said...

"Here we see Tesla clinging to my use of the term "sociopath" (which I consider an appropriate characterization of the orchestrator of an internet smear campaign against me and other HC bloggers) [...]"

And how is this supposed to be "clinging" to that term when I quite clearly quoted our dear friend's full repertoire of mendacious smears, including phrases such as "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land"?

"to detract from my essential argument, which is that, where Tesla would like to have a multitude of "believers" independent of each other ("independent sources") calling me a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc.", there is actually only one individual who for some reason has undertaken to fill the internet with mendacious smear against me and two other HC bloggers."

Our friend is of course lying when he claims I detracted from his "essential argument", which was that he was the victim of "one sociopath". Quite clearly, my post addressed this argument in great detail. What seems to escape our dear friend, is that his history of throwing unsubstantiated accusations of mental illness makes this particular accusation rather unconvincing as we are forced to believe either that our dear friend's opponents actually are mentally ill in such numbers and to such a degree that our dear friend wants them to be or that our dear friend in this particular case just happens to have come across a real sociopath - both scenarios being highly unlikely, especially considering the fact that our dear friend has stressed that he does not allude to any actual mental illness with remarks such as "cloud-cuckoo-land".

"It is duly noted that Tesla is either gullible enough to take the smear produced by one individual writing under a number of aliases as coming from "widely different and independent sources", or dishonest enough to claim the existence of such "widely different and independent sources" against better knowledge."

And here we have, as predicted, the claim that our friend's shattered reputation is the result of "one sociopath" repeated without a shred of evidence to support it, and in contradiction to the information provided by the links our dear friend posted to his defense himself, which clearly imply several individuals. Our dear friend does not seem to quite know what he is posting, or perhaps he speculates that his readers will not bother to read the longwinded articles he provides? "Widely different independent sources" seems to be an apt description of the sources of the accusations that are leveled against our friend. After all, there is hardly any scene of debate that is so divided as the debate between "deniers" and mainstream holocaust bloggers. Therefore, it would seem like an unusually good case of 'convergene of evidence', or of opinion rather, when individuals from these two widely disjunct groups come to the same conclusion independently of each other.

Tesla said...

"And evidence seems to be the last thing he’s interested in, for if he were looking for evidence that the smear campaign in question emanates from a single individual previously known for similar behaviors, he would have to go no further than the articles linked to in the last two paragraphs of my summary."

The evidence which our dear friend refers to (and which he repeatedly makes references to in his last posts, perhaps because he hopes to fool his readers into believing there is more of it?) are the two following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-demise-of-deathcampsorg-how-fakes.html

and

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Carmelo%20Lisciotto

The first link contains references to an alleged email exchange, which apparently shows how our friend and his blogger friends get expelled by the board of a fellow holocaust website, a decision that seems entirely reasonable considering our dear friend's behaviour and habit of using namecalling and derogatory terms as part of his debating techniques. Surely, noboby who wants to inform the world of what "hate" can do against humanity would want to be associated with a person who frequently uses epithets to describe his opponents and whose emotional temperature cannot be explained by anything other than hate. What it does not contain, however, is one shred of evidence for Dear Friend's claims about his "one sociopath" - in fact, the name of our friend's alleged sociopath is not mentioned in the article at all! We must therefore assume that our dear friend again specualtes that his readers will not actually bother to read the evidence that our dear friend lays on the table.

The second link provided by our friend is a link to a list of articles posted on this blog concerning the person which our friend obsesses about and accuses of being a "sociopath", all of which seem to begin with the assumption that the person in question is, in fact, a sociopath, without actually providing any evidence to back up this claim. After reading what our friend has provided in his defense then, it seems clear that our friend believes his accusations will stand on their own feet as long as they are repeated a sufficient number of times. Clearly, our friend believes he has the moral right to make very serious accusations against other people without providing anything but circumstantial evidence to back up his claims, while if the same thing is done against him, he is immdediately the victim of a "smear campaign".

"Actually the "instigator of such hatred" was just caught up in the fray, like another fellow blogger, due to his association to the author of this article, which was what unleashed a smear campaign emanating from someone who a) felt vexed by this article's contents, namely the accusations of incompetence against a friend of his, and b) had been noted for similar behaviors on past occasions."

I would seem very unlikely, as Dear Friend here suggests, that he was simply "caught up in the fray", given the very specific accusations that have been put forth against him, such as that of tampering with documents and behaving in a rather uncivilised fashion. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence for our friend's "caught up in the fray" theory either.

"If Tesla is referring to the ARC web pages [...]"

I am referring to the multitude of blogs and websites which have published rather unpleasant accusations and facts against our dear friend. Let us stop pretending that this is only one website, or one person, shall we? The fact that our friend must even ask this question at all, clearly illustrates that we are indeed dealing with multiple sources, no?

Tesla said...

"[...] an individual by the name of Carmelo Lisciotto, who appears to have been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict [...]"

Let us again have a look at what the links our dear friend provides actually say. There is one sentence only in the page linked to that deals with the claim that our friend's alleged "sociopath" had been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict". That sentence reads as follows: "Lisciotto is a former ARC member, who, according to my conversations with one "neutral" (i.e., not taking sides) ARC member, was forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict". Quite unimpressive, one must say, but as I have noted, our dear friend apparently thinks his accusations stand on their own feet as long as he provides a sufficient number of them.

"[...] and the group's "secretary" Chris Webb, whose bumbling and reaction to the revelation of that bumbling, as documented here, led to the 2006 breakup of what used to be a great undertaking. "

This is the same article our friend has linked to before, and as I have noted, it does not contain the slightest bit of evidence for our friend's theories.

"That aside, Tesla seems to labor under the false conviction that dishonest individuals inclined to mendacious smear are not capable of producing writings that "appear professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition"."

Certainly, I have never written such a thing. One wonders if our dear friend can actually read, because what I wrote was not even slightly close to what he managed to distort it into: "Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence linking the mentioned person to the blogs mentioned in the summary, and such a connection seems unlikely when we look at the web pages which we know the person accused by our friend has authored, since these pages appear far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition". In other words, the "duck" does neither talk nor walk like one, a point which I shall return to later.

"That may be a "more likely explanation" in Tesla’s wishful thinking, but in actual fact the endeavor to "make fun" of certain HC bloggers was obviously born out of someone's feeling vexed by this article."

And how is that, in any way, as obvious as our dear friend would want it to be? What seems like a more plausible theory is that someone found themselves in a bit of trouble after having been ousted for their hateful behaviour and, what is worse, accused of forging documents - not by the "nutty" revisionists, but by their own holocaust believing peers - a turn of events which perhaps forced them to write such a self-serving article accusing the accusers of exactly the same crime they had themselves been accused of.

Tesla said...

"It is hardly a coincidence that the "few blogs to make fun" (which Tesla seems to consider OK, thereby revealing further traits of his "personality") started to appear in the immediate aftermath of said article."

In the immediate aftermath of said article, which again was in the immediate aftermath of our friend and his friend's being expelled from a holocaust believer website, apparently because they had produced "countless fakes and forgeries" which were then inserted into it and mixed with genuine documents, and also, more importantly, because they had been accused of spewing "hate". Now, if our dear friend does not see the humorous part in the fact that someone who dedicates himself to fighing the untruths of wicked and hateful anti-Semites and holocaust "deniers" is accused of "hate", not by these wicked deniers, but by his own anti-hate peers, then one can only assume that our dear friend does not quite understand how his own writings could fall into the category of hate, perhaps because he is too preoccupied with it.

"As the "bothersome accusation of document tampering" is contained in these very blogs as well as a forum created by their author to smear three HC bloggers (and other people he doesn't like), the only explanation for the above remark is that Tesla's meager thinking capacities left him alone when writing these lines."

Well, of course they would have had to be part of the smear blogs, which I simply speculate that could have been the creation of our friend himself - the goal being to conflate accusations with merit with simple smears and ad hominem attacks.

"The individual calling himself "blogbuster", aka Carmelo Lisciotto, is living proof that unfortunately there are disgusting characters also among those who oppose the falsification of history known as "Revisionism"."

And where is the proof that this individual is such a "disgusting character" as our friend would want him to be, and where is the proof that he is indeed the same individual as the one calling himself "blogbuster"? There does not seem to exist anything even close to being called evidence for these claims - rather what seems to exist is a plethora of accusations against our dear friend himself, calling him a liar, a forger and a hater among other things - accusations that quite clearly come from several sources in both camps of the holocaust debate. One cannot help but be convinced then, that it is our dear friend who is the disgusting character who frequently lies, spreads vicious smears and attacks his opponents with epithets.

"Now, what could possibly be the productive purpose of an opponent of "Revisionism" (obviously interested in presenting his "side" as consisting of integer and reasonable people), assuming he is inclined to falsehoods (which I of course am not), inventing a smear campaign against himself (among others) by another opponent of "Revisionism"?"

This should be obvious for any thinking individual who has followed this "debate" and read our friends links. The potential double agent would in this case have an interest in portraying his peer as a vicious instigator and thus illustrating that the accusations coming from that particular peer are without merit, and, in the process, portray himself as the noble one who criticises and exposes even his own.

Tesla said...

"The "second person" you are referring to is former ARC "secretary" Chris Webb. While he might, if he's a small-minded vindictive character, be motivated to "get even" with who exposed his bumbling (and anyone he holds to be associated to that person), he has not displayed (unlike his associate Carmelo Lisciotto) the kind of behavior that mirrors the "Blogbuster" smear campaign. So I'm giving him the benefit of assuming he's not involved in that smear campaign, at least not directly (though he obviously tolerates it)."

So now our dear friend pretends that what this particular individual (Mr. Webb) has written about our dear friend is not part of the allegations put forth against him (which he dubiously has tried to convince us are the results of the actions of "one sociopath"), including allegations of bad behaviour, "hate", document forging and tampering and the illicit takeover of Mr. Webb's website. Let us then, simply for the sake of it, reproduce here a small portion of what our friend is accused of by this Mr. Webb: "They were responsible for producing countless fakes and forgeries, which they tried to implant on the www.deathcamps.org website. They did this over a number of years, long before they applied for membership to our team, courtesy of Michael Peters, and later during their probationary membership period. Even going so far as to mastermind a devious approach of mixing fakes and forgeries with genuine items, in a way that would be difficult to detect." ( http://www.deathcamps.org/editorial2013.html ).

"As to the ARC website (or, for that matter, the H.E.A.R.T. website), of course the articles contained therein are not the work of a single person. But how does that change the fact that the smear which, among other things, disfigures some of the ARC pages, is the work of a single obsessively vindictive mind?"

Well, it does not change this "fact", simply because this is no fact at all. Rather it seems to be a part of our friend's attempt to restore the shattered remains of his online reputation.

"Who said anything about the smear campaign in question being specifically directed at my humble person? It is directed against three founding members of the HC blog, and it accordingly includes baselessly calling that blog a "hate blog"."

Yes, who said that? Certainly not this author, but that does not change the fact that it is our friend's person which is the one in question here. Am I to understand our friend's reply as an objection to the point that this is a piece of text directed against him specifically, and that the authors of that text would somehow exclude him specifically from the "vitriol" and "diatribes disgorged by the "Debunkers" on the controversy blogs"?

"As to the article in question, what's the link, and what’s the name of the author?"

Again our dear friend displays a staggering amount of helplessness when it comes to information which goes against him. Apparently, he is unable to do a simple search on a website which he himself has talked about and as such must know exists. http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/essays&editorials/memorial-debunk-debate-debauged.html

"If the author is someone not known in the anti-"Revisionist" community, there's a good chance that it's an alias of Carmelo Lisciotto."

And here is yet another example of our friend's fantastic sense of logic. If someone is not part of our friend's "anti-"Revisionist"" community then, he must, if he makes accusations against that community, be presumed to be an evil "sociopath" who stalks our friend.

Tesla said...

"Actually there was no dishonesty at all in trying to create what the usurpers of the ARC site falsely claimed to be "an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org". For the people behind that version (which did not include me, though I linked to that version in several articles) were the authors of most articles on the dissolved ARC site, who had a better copyright claim to the contents of these articles than the "secretary" who, taking advantage of his owning the internet domain, illegally appropriated a site mostly consisting of other people's intellectual creations. So this accusation of "dishonesty", which my interlocutor gratefully parrots, is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black."

Which is our friend's version of the events, it would seem. The owners of deathcamps.org claim they had the right to the material and that they won that right through legal means - which would seem to be the true account, since the only material present on death-camps.org at present are links to pregnancy tests and testosteron pills, while the original deathcamps.org is intact - including its rather telling articles about our dear friend and his behaviour. The fate of this website is of course not very relevant to the original point which I made at the start of this very longwinded digression, which was not to pass any judgement on who is right and who isn't when it comes to the internal laundry of holocaust conformists, but rather to point out that our dear friend has a rather poor reputation of dishonesty, even among his own, and that this is the likely source of his angry posts.

"What "hard evidence" did you have in mind? A psychiatrist’s diagnosis of this gentleman would be interesting but is of course hard to obtain. So the evidence consists of the good old "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" argument, which a late lawyer friend told me is accepted by US courts."

Another fantastic admission from our friend. Apparently he thinks he has the moral right to start smear campagins against people who have crossed him based solely on this flimsy logical fallacy. I guess no further comment is necessary here.

"We are talking about someone who harbors an obsessive hatred for other persons and expresses that obsessive hatred by filling the internet with smear blogs and smear forums dedicated to nothing else than defamatory accusations against such persons. If that behavior is not indicative of a sociopath, then what does else does it indicate?"

Clearly, what we are talking about by now, is a person who invents attacks against himself based on flimsy idioms, who harbours an obsessive hatred for his opponents which he seeks to denigrate with epithets and references to mental diagnoses.

"What «mendacious ways» exactly, outside my mendacious opponent’s fantasies? Please be specific and provide evidence."

I think I have pointed out my "interlocutor"'s mendacious ways on more than one occasion. If this has escaped him, one can only assume that he is not capable of absorbing criticism, but would rather have his obsessive and hateful nature left in peace.

Tesla said...

"Why, it looks like my self-diagnosis of "agitated depression" back in 1999 (at a time when I was barely aware that "Revisionism" even existed, by the way) was not exactly accurate, for the "only" symptoms I had were agitation/anxiety and feeling so miserably sad and empty that death seemed a welcome relief. "

So now our friend's admitted mental illness is suddenly the result of an erroneous "self-diagnosis". How convenient. However, how can it then be that our dear friend accused his doctor of providing him with medication which was contraindicated with his diagnosis, if this diagnosis was not given by our friend's doctor? It seems like our friend is spinning his lies out of control.

"That aside, it's hard to understand whence Tesla got the idea that the pathology described by his source could prompt the sufferer to organize a systematic internet defamation campaign against certain persons he bears an obsessive grudge against in connection with a clearly identifiable set of events."

And yet again our friend posts this same link which in no part deals with the accusations and claims put forth by our dear friend regarding him being the victim of a single "sociopath". Apparently, our friend thinks repetition is going to save him. And if our dear friend does not understand how a person who suffers from a mixture of simultaneous "mania", "agitation", "impulsiveness", "irritability", "panic", "rage" and "persecutory delusions" could possibly have an online persona which posts hatefilled lies, and at the same time claims to be a victim of a "campaign", then perhaps this is a result of our friend's denial rather than a poor understanding of psychiatry.

"Except, of course, that the supposed "whining and wailing" exists nowhere outside my interlocutor’s fantasies. Pointing out that bringing up someone's medical history as a negative is a despicable behavior has nothing to do with "whining and wailing". It's just calling a spade a spade – or, in this case, calling a piece of manure a piece of manure."

Of course, what my "interlocutor" means to say here is that it is only despicable to bring up medical characteristics when it is our friend himself who is the "victim" of it, and not when our friend does it himself, which of course was the reason why I called our friend's behaviour whining and wailing.

Tesla said...

"And if the disease in question is depression (an ailment that affected great personalities like Abraham Lincoln, George S. Patton and Ernest Hemingway, among many others), the "argument" is also quite ridiculous - about as ridiculous as it would be to bring up someone’s diabetes, cancer or heart disease as a negative."

Our friend desperately tries to reduce his confessed mental illness to mere depression, which of course is not true. As I have pointed out, the mental illness our friend has claimed to suffer from includes far more than a state of depression - in fact it seems to be quite good a description of our friend's obsessive online behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry) One also cannot fail to note here the extremely narcisstic attitude displayed by our friend when he compares himself to Abraham Lincoln and Ernest Hemmingway.

"No, just making the point that endorsement by a major "believer" internet source like The Holocaust History Project and by a German historian is hardly compatible with being considered a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc." by the "independent sources, deniers and believers alike" that Tesla is eager to believe in. So eager that he even switched off his tiny brain, to give him the benefit of assuming that he was not giving free rein to his mendacity.""

Now, why on earth would the endorsement by one "believer" internet source and one historian, whom possibly is not even aware of our friend's despicable behaviour and online reputation, be enough to preclude the existence of individuals and sites which view our friend quite disfavourably? It would seem that our friend's logic is not quite with him again, or he is grasping at straws.

[/Oscar Wilde Mode]

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Here we see Tesla clinging to my use of the term "sociopath" (which I consider an appropriate characterization of the orchestrator of an internet smear campaign against me and other HC bloggers) [...]"

And how is this supposed to be "clinging" to that term when I quite clearly quoted our dear friend's full repertoire of mendacious smears, including phrases such as "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land"?»

I note with some amusement that Tesla is childishly (and quite inappropriately) parroting my (spot-on) assessment of CL's accusations as mendacious smear. What he quoted was just this:

«"Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here."»

Maybe he’s referring to his insinuation that «perhaps when my friend uses the words 'sociopath', "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land" (a particular phrase which he has used against this writer also) it is not to be taken literally, but rather, as my friend has explained earlier, simply as words of denigration that have no intentional reference to real mental illness of any kind».

Which is just wishful thinking on his part, as CL's behavior suggests a mental problem of the sociopathic variety (for sociopaths tend to be characterized by offensive and reckless behavior and an utter absence of remorse or ethical/moral considerations) and my interlocutor himself obviously lives in a world of delusions that is appropriately characterized as a cloud-cuckoo-land. As to the "my friend has explained earlier", Tesla is deliberately misrepresenting my argument, which is that I don’t consider Spinner (crackpots) like himself to necessarily have mental health problems.

«"to detract from my essential argument, which is that, where Tesla would like to have a multitude of "believers" independent of each other ("independent sources") calling me a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc.", there is actually only one individual who for some reason has undertaken to fill the internet with mendacious smear against me and two other HC bloggers."

Our friend is of course lying when he claims I detracted from his "essential argument", which was that he was the victim of "one sociopath". Quite clearly, my post addressed this argument in great detail.»

Friend was referring to the specific remark commented, which did not contain such addressing "in great detail".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«What seems to escape our dear friend, is that his history of throwing unsubstantiated accusations of mental illness makes this particular accusation rather unconvincing as we are forced to believe either that our dear friend's opponents actually are mentally ill in such numbers and to such a degree that our dear friend wants them to be or that our dear friend in this particular case just happens to have come across a real sociopath - both scenarios being highly unlikely, especially considering the fact that our dear friend has stressed that he does not allude to any actual mental illness with remarks such as "cloud-cuckoo-land"»

First he accuses me of «throwing unsubstantiated accusations of mental illness» (note the term “accusations”, which suggests that Tesla considers mental illness something to be ashamed of), then he mentions my stressing that I do not allude to any actual mental illness with remarks such as "cloud-cuckoo-land", obviously oblivious of the contradiction between both propositions. And he fails to explain why the latter approach is supposed to render it unlikely that the one person in this context I consider a sociopath (i.e. to have an actual mental pathology) is actually a sociopath.

«"It is duly noted that Tesla is either gullible enough to take the smear produced by one individual writing under a number of aliases as coming from "widely different and independent sources", or dishonest enough to claim the existence of such "widely different and independent sources" against better knowledge."

And here we have, as predicted, the claim that our friend's shattered reputation is the result of "one sociopath" repeated without a shred of evidence to support it, and in contradiction to the information provided by the links our dear friend posted to his defense himself, which clearly imply several individuals.»

Wishful thinking led my friend to babble about my "shattered reputation", as if smear shattered the reputation of anyone other than the author of such smear himself. "Without a shred of evidence" suggests that Tesla either reads the sources provided with thick tomato slices covering his eyes or mendaciously ignores the evidence presented there, which shows that the smear campaign is a) closely connected with the breakup of the ARC group due to revelations about the "secretary" being sloppy as concerns historical evidence and b) directed against the author of these revelations (Sergey Romanov) and two persons seen as connected to that author (Dr. Nick Terry and myself). As to the "several individuals", I have pointed out that, of the exactly two individuals who would have a motive to unleash such smear campaign (Chris Webb and Carmelo Lisciotto), only the latter has a previous behavior profile that would fit with posting mendacious accusations all over the internet, and that the former is thus given the benefit of doubt in this respect.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Our dear friend does not seem to quite know what he is posting, or perhaps he speculates that his readers will not bother to read the longwinded articles he provides?»

On the contrary, I expect readers to read every word of these "longwinded" (actually quite concise) articles. Whereas Tesla apparently expects readers to be so dumb as to take his claims at face value.

«"Widely different independent sources" seems to be an apt description of the sources of the accusations that are leveled against our friend.»

On what basis, if I may ask? "Revisionist" sources, as far as I remember, have not indulged in or participated in a smear campaign of the CL variety. That leaves as "independent sources" CL as himself, CL as "Blogbuster" and CL under one of the many aliases ("Sophie Scholl", "Eric Greenberg", etc.) that he uses in his smear monologues on the "hateblogwatch" forum. Apparently Tesla is naïve enough to believe that a variety of characters suddenly appeared out of nowhere with no other purpose in mind than that of slandering a) the HC blogger who had revealed the incompetence of "great researcher" Chris Webb and b) the two HC bloggers (Dr. Nick Terry and myself) seen as associated to Sergey Romanov.

«After all, there is hardly any scene of debate that is so divided as the debate between "deniers" and mainstream holocaust bloggers. Therefore, it would seem like an unusually good case of 'convergene of evidence', or of opinion rather, when individuals from these two widely disjunct groups come to the same conclusion independently of each other.»

Except that there are no «individuals from these two widely disjunct groups» coming to «the same conclusion independently of each other». The smear campaign wholly emanates (or emanated in its origin – maybe "Revisionists" have joined the party in the meantime) from a source that claims to have a better approach to documenting Holocaust history and fighting Holocaust denial than that which is practiced by the bloggers who write on HC. And the only similarity between «these two widely disjunct groups» that the smear campaign in question shows is that, unfortunately, somewhat-less-than-recommendable characters are to be found not only in the cesspit of Hitler-kissers, Jew-haters and "it’s cool to be politically incorrect" malcontents that is known as "Revisionism", but also among those who oppose the ideologically motivated falsification of history that characterizes "Revisionism".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"And evidence seems to be the last thing he’s interested in, for if he were looking for evidence that the smear campaign in question emanates from a single individual previously known for similar behaviors, he would have to go no further than the articles linked to in the last two paragraphs of my summary."

The evidence which our dear friend refers to (and which he repeatedly makes references to in his last posts, perhaps because he hopes to fool his readers into believing there is more of it?) are the two following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-demise-of-deathcampsorg-how-fakes.html
and

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Carmelo%20Lisciotto

The first link contains references to an alleged email exchange, which apparently shows how our friend and his blogger friends get expelled by the board of a fellow holocaust website, a decision that seems entirely reasonable considering our dear friend's behaviour and habit of using namecalling and derogatory terms as part of his debating techniques. Surely, noboby who wants to inform the world of what "hate" can do against humanity would want to be associated with a person who frequently uses epithets to describe his opponents and whose emotional temperature cannot be explained by anything other than hate.»

Tesla obviously expects his readers to either be too lazy to follow the links he mentioned and read what is written there, or gullible enough to uncritically swallow his contentions. Or then he's simply a sloppy reader and/or forgot to think. For the supposed reasons for the sudden "expulsion" of Sergey Romanov, Nick Terry and me are not stated in the "expulsion" decision, and the reasons for that decision that Tesla would like to believe in fails to explain why these three individuals (two of whom had a previous long record of debating "Revisionists" on internet forums) were admitted to ARC in the first place. It neither explains why the "expulsion" decision was followed by a breakup of the ARC group and the freezing of the site by the "secretary". Last but not least, it doesn't explain why the "expulsion" followed suit, as duly documented by Sergey Romanov, upon Sergey's politely voicing his concerns about Chris Webb having acquired, or even placed on the website, "evidence" provided by a person of his confidence (one "Andy Schmidt", who seems to have also co-authored a book with Webb) that had obviously been faked with the intention of discrediting the ARC research group.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

As to utterances that "cannot be explained by anything other than hate", it's noteworthy that Tesla refrains from using this epithet (which in this case would be appropriate) to the utterances of Carmelo Lisciotto quoted in one of the articles collected under the link http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Carmelo%20Lisciotto , namely the article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2006/11/heart-defenders-and-their-methods.html , which I also mentioned in previous posts. Apparently utterances such as “I think your daddy must have stuck his finger up your ass way too many times when you were a child.”, ”You, Nick terry and the other blogging faggots need to cut the shit and get on with your lives.”, ”Hey Sergey, do you ever spend time with a cock up your ass?”, or ”The three of you should combine your IQ's and come up as a single idiot and stead of three. It would be more economical, and the cock would then be in all your asses :)" (all vintage Lisciotto), besides childishly primitive lies such as ”It should be fairly obvious as to the reason that Nick Terry Sergey Romanov were kicked out of the a r c webgroup, they were exposed for being deniers, and holding memberships in revisionist organizations against the charter of the arc board." (also from Lisciotto) are perfectly OK with Tesla if they come from someone he apparently considers a bird of a feather, whereas comparatively polite (and never mendacious) utterances by Sergey, Nick or myself on discussion forums or in HC blogs he sees as "epithets" that "whose emotional temperature cannot be explained by anything other than hate". Which, of course, speaks volumes about Mr. Tesla’s double-standards and hypocrisy, besides the poverty of his reasoning.

«What it does not contain, however, is one shred of evidence for Dear Friend's claims about his "one sociopath" - in fact, the name of our friend's alleged sociopath is not mentioned in the article at all! We must therefore assume that our dear friend again specualtes that his readers will not actually bother to read the evidence that our dear friend lays on the table.»

Actually that seems to be exactly Tesla's assumption, for I referred not to one article but to a series of articles, the links to which he mentioned himself. Whereas Lisciotto is not yet mentioned in the article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-demise-of-deathcampsorg-how-fakes.html (for the simple reason that he had not yet entered the scene at Webb’s side at that time), he figures prominently in other articles collected under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Carmelo%20Lisciotto , including but not limited to this one and this one, which readers are encouraged to read in order to gain their own impression of the gentleman I'm supposed to be unjustly accusing of being the orchestrator of an internet smear campaign against three HC bloggers including myself.

«The second link provided by our friend is a link to a list of articles posted on this blog concerning the person which our friend obsesses about and accuses of being a "sociopath", all of which seem to begin with the assumption that the person in question is, in fact, a sociopath, without actually providing any evidence to back up this claim.»

Actually the articles in question, especially those linked to above, document Lisciotto’s behavior (as himself, as “Blogbuster” or under other aliases), which Tesla apparently considers perfectly gentlemanlike and not indicative at all of a sociopathic individual. This in turn speaks volumes about what kind of individual our good friend Tesla is.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«After reading what our friend has provided in his defense then, it seems clear that our friend believes his accusations will stand on their own feet as long as they are repeated a sufficient number of times.»

Actually the "accusations" are reasonable assessments warranted by the assessed individual's own documented behavior, as our readers are encouraged to find out by following the links in question. Tesla is obviously doing exactly what he accuses me of doing – expecting readers to take at face value his blatantly dishonest "assessment" of the articles in question.

«Clearly, our friend believes he has the moral right to make very serious accusations against other people without providing anything but circumstantial evidence to back up his claims, while if the same thing is done against him, he is immdediately the victim of a "smear campaign".»

First of all, circumstantial evidence can be very good evidence, and in this case it certainly is. Whereas the poor darling I'm supposed to be making "very serious accusations" against has no evidence at all, which is why his accusations are properly characterized as a smear campaign. If Tesla thinks that the gentleman he refers to as "other people" has any evidence to support his smear, he is hereby invited to make a list of that supposed evidence, with links to where it can supposedly be found, and explain why he accepts that evidence as plausible while dismissing my evidence against the defamer.

Second, I don’t consider myself to be a “victim” of anything, for the simple reason that I don’t think in the category of being a “victim”. A hate-filled liar spreading smear on the internet bothers me about as much as a dog barking at me.

«"Actually the "instigator of such hatred" was just caught up in the fray, like another fellow blogger, due to his association to the author of this article, which was what unleashed a smear campaign emanating from someone who a) felt vexed by this article's contents, namely the accusations of incompetence against a friend of his, and b) had been noted for similar behaviors on past occasions."

I would seem very unlikely, as Dear Friend here suggests, that he was simply "caught up in the fray", given the very specific accusations that have been put forth against him, such as that of tampering with documents and behaving in a rather uncivilised fashion.»

Not a very logical proposition, insofar as a defaming sociopath bereft of any ethics and morality will make “very specific accusations” against anyone he doesn’t like, if only due to that someone’s being (actually or in the mind of such sociopath) associated with a person said sociopath has felt affronted by.

«Of course, there is not a shred of evidence for our friend's "caught up in the fray" theory either.»

Or then Tesla is a very inattentive reader, for it he were not he would have noticed that Lisciotto’s early tirades were directed only against Sergey Romanov, whereas my name wasn’t even mentioned (see above quotes referring to “You, Nick terry and the other blogging faggots”, or to "The three of you". So at that time I was just part of a hated collective. Lisciotto’s pique against me as an individual came later, when I undertook to defend my fellow bloggers against his accusations on an earlier (and no longer available) version of the RODOH forum.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"If Tesla is referring to the ARC web pages [...]"

I am referring to the multitude of blogs and websites which have published rather unpleasant accusations and facts against our dear friend.»

Which "accusations" Tesla seems to be all too prepared to accept as "facts", without even asking what evidence, if any, they are based on. And it rather speaks against Tesla that he praises that "multitude of blogs and websites" as "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition" (besides illogically seeing that as an indication against their being the work of a single hate-filled individual).

«Let us stop pretending that this is only one website, or one person, shall we?»

Where am I supposed to have pretended that "this is only one website"? My not calling in question that the smear was all over the internet makes that insinuation look rather stupid, and actually the smear that disfigures some pages of the ARC website is but the least offensive part of the smear campaign. As to all the smear on several blogs, websites and forums being the work of a single person, what is supposed to be implausible about that? What's supposed to keep a hate-filled individual bent on smearing people he hates, who has a certain knowledge of IT and much time on his hands, from creating a multitude of smear blogs and websites, besides an (already mentioned) forum where he indulges in smear monologues among various sockpuppets?

«The fact that our friend must even ask this question at all, clearly illustrates that we are indeed dealing with multiple sources, no?»

No, "our friend" was induced by Tesla's remarks about "these pages" looking "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition" into assuming that Tesla was referring to the pages of the ARC website, which indeed (insofar as they contain historical information) can be called "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition" (if you ignore the smear written on top of some of them, which was added later by Lisciotto). I was giving Tesla the benefit of assuming that he has certain reasonable standards as to what is "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition". However, it seems that anything that Tesla likes to read because it fits his stance is worth such favorable assessment to Tesla, and that his standards are accordingly abysmal.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"[...] an individual by the name of Carmelo Lisciotto, who appears to have been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict [...]"

Let us again have a look at what the links our dear friend provides actually say. There is one sentence only in the page linked to that deals with the claim that our friend's alleged "sociopath" had been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict". That sentence reads as follows: "Lisciotto is a former ARC member, who, according to my conversations with one "neutral" (i.e., not taking sides) ARC member, was forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict". Quite unimpressive, one must say, but as I have noted, our dear friend apparently thinks his accusations stand on their own feet as long as he provides a sufficient number of them.»

It is duly noted that Tesla considers the evidence to Lisciotto’s history on the scene "unimpressive" while obviously being impressed by accusations against me and others that are based on nothing but thin air. And of course he misses the point of my introduction, which is the identification of Lisciotto as the author of the verbiage documented here. This verbiage, which together with his obvious rage about Sergey Romanov's demonstration that his friend Chris Webb (who he looks up to and frequently refers to as a great researcher or historian) make him the prime suspect (to say the least) as the author of the smear campaign against Sergey Romanov, Dr. Nick Terry and myself.

«"[...] and the group's "secretary" Chris Webb, whose bumbling and reaction to the revelation of that bumbling, as documented here, led to the 2006 breakup of what used to be a great undertaking. "

This is the same article our friend has linked to before, and as I have noted, it does not contain the slightest bit of evidence for our friend's theories.»

Only if you read it with eyes shut tight, as Tesla seems wont to do when it comes to any information that doesn't fit his bubble. It he had read the
article in question with due attention (as our readers are encouraged to do), he would have seen that it documents
a) Webb’s acquiring evidence of dubious authenticity (including a supposed deposition by Treblinka SS-man Gustav Münzberger and a purported photo of the "tube" through which people were led to the gas chambers) from a person of his confidence;
b) Sergey Romanov warning him about this supposed evidence;
c) Webb failing to listen, and
d) Webb, in the sequence of his exchanges with Sergey, all of a sudden and with no reason stated, requesting another member to "draw up a new list excluding Sergey Romanov Nick Terry, Roberto Muhlenkamp" (the last of these three, incidentally, had joined ARC just a short while before).

The connection is rather obvious from the sequence of events: Sergey pissed off Webb by pointing out that some evidence Webb intended to put on the website was obviously fake, and by insisting on his demand despite Webb's dismissive answers. So he decided to kick Sergey out. Nick and myself were associated to Sergey as fellow bloggers of HC, so they also had to go. Webb didn't want to be bothered by people who have a more careful and critical approach to evidence than his own. So he got rid of these people.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"That aside, Tesla seems to labor under the false conviction that dishonest individuals inclined to mendacious smear are not capable of producing writings that "appear professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition"."

Certainly, I have never written such a thing.»

Hence the expression "seems« to", which signals a supposition as opposed to a conviction.

«One wonders if our dear friend can actually read, because what I wrote was not even slightly close to what he managed to distort it into: "Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence linking the mentioned person to the blogs mentioned in the summary, and such a connection seems unlikely when we look at the web pages which we know the person accused by our friend has authored, since these pages appear far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition". In other words, the "duck" does neither talk nor walk like one, a point which I shall return to later.»

Poor Tesla amazingly reiterates his conviction that a character with Lisciotto’s characteristics is unlikely to produce something "far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition", after accusing me of "distorting" his words when I read such apparent conviction in them. Readers may decide for themselves what that reveals about Tesla’s character and intelligence.

«"That may be a "more likely explanation" in Tesla’s wishful thinking, but in actual fact the endeavor to "make fun" of certain HC bloggers was obviously born out of someone's feeling vexed by this article."

And how is that, in any way, as obvious as our dear friend would want it to be?»

In that Lisciotto’s initial verbiage followed suit upon Sergey Romanov's article, even referring to it if you look at some of Lisciotto’s utterances quoted in this article, e.g. this one:
«If you wish to knock on another website fine, when you start publishing peoples names and copies of emails that were never meant for public circulation you've crossed the line.»
The accusation for Sergey’s wanting to «knock on another website» (which Sergey did as a last resort after having tried to keep the ARC website from being discredited by false evidence peddled to a gullible Chris Webb by some shady acquaintance of his) is an obvious reference to what Sergey wrote in article.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«What seems like a more plausible theory»

… in Tesla’s twisted (or shall we say "crooked"?) mind is usually the least plausible of theories, as we shall again see below.

« is that someone found themselves in a bit of trouble after having been ousted for their hateful behaviour and, what is worse, accused of forging documents - not by the "nutty" revisionists, but by their own holocaust believing peers»

Again we note that Tesla is all too willing to take at face value unsubstantiated claims that fit his bubble while unreasonably dismissing all evidence that speaks against it.

«- a turn of events which perhaps forced them to write such a self-serving article accusing the accusers of exactly the same crime they had themselves been accused of.»

First of all, there had been no accusations of "hateful behavior" let alone of "forging documents" prior to Sergey's altercations with Webb and Lisciotto. The accusations of "forging documents", IIRC, only appeared years later on Lisciotto's smear blogs and his "hateblogwatch" forum. Second, nobody accused Chris Webb of forging documents, as this article clearly shows. The accusation (which, unlike the smear leveled against three HC bloggers, is well-substantiated by evidence) was that Webb accepted purported evidence from an acquaintance of his without checking the authenticity of such purported evidence and even despite Sergey's well-substantiated warning that this purported evidence carried a strong smell of fish, the kind of stuff that "Revisionists" would like to see planted on a historical documentation website to then decry that website's sloppy research and unreliability. So the accusation was not one of Webb having forged documents or committed some other crime, but of his being sloppy and arrogant enough to persist in his sloppy behavior.

As we can see, wishful thinking again got the better of Tesla’s meager capacity for logic – which is all the more amusing as Tesla apparently considers himself entitled to lecture his opponent on logical thinking.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"It is hardly a coincidence that the "few blogs to make fun" (which Tesla seems to consider OK, thereby revealing further traits of his "personality") started to appear in the immediate aftermath of said article."

In the immediate aftermath of said article, which again was in the immediate aftermath of our friend and his friend's being expelled from a holocaust believer website, apparently because they had produced "countless fakes and forgeries" which were then inserted into it and mixed with genuine documents, and also, more importantly, because they had been accused of spewing "hate".»

… as Tesla is desperate to believe, despite the utter absence of evidence in support of his theory and abundant evidence to the contrary. Evidence shows that the only fakes and forgeries to ever appear in this context was those that "great researcher" (as Lisciotto likes to call him) Chris Webb enthusiastically acquired from some shady acquaintance of his, against whom he had even been warned by ARC members other than Sergey (though not as insistently as Sergey had done).

«Now, if our dear friend does not see the humorous part in the fact that someone who dedicates himself to fighing the untruths of wicked and hateful anti-Semites and holocaust "deniers" is accused of "hate", not by these wicked deniers, but by his own anti-hate peers, then one can only assume that our dear friend does not quite understand how his own writings could fall into the category of hate, perhaps because he is too preoccupied with it.»

Actually I do find it quite amusing that someone like Lisciotto, who harbors an obsessive, pathological hatred against several individuals (besides the three mentioned HC – bloggers he also hates an elderly German gentleman who was one of the founding members of ARC) should accuse his black beasts of being hateful. As I do find it amusing that an individual like Tesla, with his obvious and rather unconvincingly denied hatred of Jews and his racist attitude towards "third world foreigners" (who he has nothing against as long as they don’t procreate with members of the "European race" and make that race’s skin color a bit darker over time), claims or suggests that my own writings "could fall into the category of hate", the supposed objects of such "hate" apparently being poor deluded ideologists like himself.

«"As the "bothersome accusation of document tampering" is contained in these very blogs as well as a forum created by their author to smear three HC bloggers (and other people he doesn't like), the only explanation for the above remark is that Tesla's meager thinking capacities left him alone when writing these lines."

Well, of course they would have had to be part of the smear blogs, which I simply speculate that could have been the creation of our friend himself - the goal being to conflate accusations with merit with simple smears and ad hominem attacks.»

For that to be a remotely plausible speculation outside the twisted thinking of Tesla, there would have to be "accusations with merit" in the first place. Maybe Tesla can tell us where exactly he thinks he found "accusations with merit", and according to what criteria (other than convenience to his stance) he assessed their "merit". Please fire away, Tesla. Tell us which accusations against me and others you consider to have "merit" and why.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"The individual calling himself "blogbuster", aka Carmelo Lisciotto, is living proof that unfortunately there are disgusting characters also among those who oppose the falsification of history known as "Revisionism"."

And where is the proof that this individual is such a "disgusting character" as our friend would want him to be,»

In his own words and some other information about him, which readers can find in this article, among others. Lisciotto's behavior towards people he doesn't like (consisting of childishly mendacious accusations and vulgar invective that, as evidence about certain intimate practices of his shows, carries a strong element of self-projection) is well documented.

«and where is the proof that he is indeed the same individual as the one calling himself "blogbuster"?»

In the striking similarity of obsessions with accusations against former members of the ARC group, including me and two other HC bloggers, which for some time got "blogbuster" restricted to the "Siberian Exile" section of the RODOH forum. And in the occasional eulogies of "great researcher" Chris Webb, which, IIRC, can also be found there.

«There does not seem to exist anything even close to being called evidence for these claims»

Tesla must again have done his reading with tomato slices covering his eyes, and/or switched of his tiny brain.

«- rather what seems to exist is a plethora of accusations against our dear friend himself, calling him a liar, a forger and a hater among other things -»

There are plenty of those, for sure. And as they are obviously false and put on way too thickly, they bother me as much as it bothers an oak tree when a swine rubs its back against it. What is more, I even welcome them as free publicity for HC.

«accusations that quite clearly come from several sources in both camps of the holocaust debate.»

“Quite clearly”, he says, without having produced any evidence that would preclude the smear campaign’s being the work of a single individual with an obsessive hatred of me an certain other persons. As to "several source in both camps of the holocaust debate", perhaps my esteemed interlocutor can tell us what "Revisionist" sources of such accusations he has in mind. I know one fellow who is in the habit of calling an opponent a "liar", a "dodger" and other epithets (which perfectly apply to himself) over and over again in forum discussions. I would be quite amused if Tesla told me that he has this fellow in mind.

«One cannot help but be convinced then, that it is our dear friend who is the disgusting character who frequently lies, spreads vicious smears and attacks his opponents with epithets.»

Sure, one cannot help but believe what one is all too eager to believe despite evidence to the contrary and the absence of any supporting evidence, if one switches of one’s brain and indulges in wishful thinking the way "Revisionists" in general and pitiable Tesla in particular are wont to do.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Now, what could possibly be the productive purpose of an opponent of "Revisionism" (obviously interested in presenting his "side" as consisting of integer and reasonable people), assuming he is inclined to falsehoods (which I of course am not), inventing a smear campaign against himself (among others) by another opponent of "Revisionism"?"

This should be obvious for any thinking individual who has followed this "debate" and read our friends links. The potential double agent would in this case have an interest in portraying his peer as a vicious instigator and thus illustrating that the accusations coming from that particular peer are without merit, and, in the process, portray himself as the noble one who criticises and exposes even his own.»

I see. And why would an opponent of "Revisionism" try to make believe that he has a "vicious instigator" among his peers in the first place, considering that the existence of such "vicious instigator" is detrimental to the prestige of the cause of anti-"Revisionism"?

Apparently aware of the absurdity of his speculation but not willing to admit it, Tesla quicklu put together a convoluted non-explanation.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So now our dear friend pretends that what this particular individual (Mr. Webb) has written about our dear friend is not part of the allegations put forth against him (which he dubiously has tried to convince us are the results of the actions of "one sociopath"), including allegations of bad behaviour, "hate", document forging and tampering and the illicit takeover of Mr. Webb's website. Let us then, simply for the sake of it, reproduce here a small portion of what our friend is accused of by this Mr. Webb: "They were responsible for producing countless fakes and forgeries, which they tried to implant on the www.deathcamps.org website. They did this over a number of years, long before they applied for membership to our team, courtesy of Michael Peters, and later during their probationary membership period. Even going so far as to mastermind a devious approach of mixing fakes and forgeries with genuine items, in a way that would be difficult to detect." ( http://www.deathcamps.org/editorial2013.html )»

So Tesla believes that the cited "editorial" (which I was not previously aware of, and which Tesla is all too glad to swallow hook, line and sinker) was written by Webb himself? Well, he certainly tolerated it, even though the piece is signed "ARC Trustees" – which alone looks bad enough on Mr. Webb. And if he took part in the production of that mendacious junk, there goes the benefit of doubt, and the conclusion is that Webb and Lisciotto are birds of a feather (or better, manure from the same cesspit). Now, it seems that Tesla considers the cited "editorial" to contain "accusations with merit", including the accusation that Sergey Romanov, Dr. Nick Terry and myself "produced a number of high quality fakes and forgeries" (the author(s) go(es) as far as claiming that "It took several months of hard work recreating ARC, days spent weeding through thousands of articles and photos to ensure that all the tainted material supplied by Sergey Romanov and fraudulently planted by Michael Peters were identified and expunged, and all references to HC removed"), the accusation that "They later went on to launch a counterfeit version of ARC in violation of international Copyright law" and the claim that "one of their members has since apologised and said how he bitterly regrets his actions". Now, if Tesla considers this filth to have "merit", I would like him to explain on what basis (namely on the basis of what evidence produced by the author(s) of the "editorial") he reached the conclusion that these accusations/claims have "merit". I submit that the only "merit" to these accusations that Tesla will be able to demonstrate is that they contain what he is eager to read and believe regarding an opponent whose guts he hates on account of the kicks that opponent has administered to his pompous behind. Or maybe he considered the accusations meritorious because they are authored or co-authored by the same individual who oh-so-credibly accused my fellow bloggers Sergey Romanov and Dr. Nick Terry of "being deniers, and holding memberships in revisionist organizations against the charter of the arc board". Particularly amusing is the claim about the "days spent weeding through thousands of articles and photos to ensure that all the tainted material supplied by Sergey Romanov and fraudulently planted by Michael Peters were identified and expunged", considering that most pages were last edited some time in 2005 or 2006 whereas the accusations of "tainted material" came up only much later and the "editorial" is dated October 2013. What explanation does Tesla propose for this delay?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"As to the ARC website (or, for that matter, the H.E.A.R.T. website), of course the articles contained therein are not the work of a single person. But how does that change the fact that the smear which, among other things, disfigures some of the ARC pages, is the work of a single obsessively vindictive mind?"
Well, it does not change this "fact", simply because this is no fact at all.»

Maybe my esteemed interlocutor has a tiny point here, in that there are possibly two minds (Lisciotto’s and Webb's) instead of one mind (Lisciotto's) behind the smear campaign. After all "great researcher" Webb was the one exposed as a bumbling fool who fell for the faked material fed to him by his acquaintance "Andy Schmidt". Mind that the only reason for the benefit of doubt was Webb's not having been previously noted for the kind of behavior that characterizes the smear campaign.

«Rather it seems to be a part of our friend's attempt to restore the shattered remains of his online reputation.»

Apparently Tesla labors under the conviction that filling the internet with mendacious smear affects the reputation of anyone other than the author of such smear.

«"Who said anything about the smear campaign in question being specifically directed at my humble person? It is directed against three founding members of the HC blog, and it accordingly includes baselessly calling that blog a "hate blog"."

Yes, who said that? Certainly not this author, but that does not change the fact that it is our friend's person which is the one in question here. Am I to understand our friend's reply as an objection to the point that this is a piece of text directed against him specifically, and that the authors of that text would somehow exclude him specifically from the "vitriol" and "diatribes disgorged by the "Debunkers" on the controversy blogs"?»

Tesla is as slow on the uptake as ever. He quoted some ARC rambling against "controversy blogs, hate forums, email bulletins, and YouTube videos", so I pointed out that such rambling, especially the "controversy blogs" part, is related to its author bearing a grudge not against just one HC blogger, but against three founding members of the HC blog and hence against their joint creation, the HC blog. This in turn means that the author of such rambling is not at all concerned about "controversy blogs", but attacks such venues of anti-"Revisionist" activity for no other reason than his grudge against the founding members of the "controversy blog".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"As to the article in question, what's the link, and what’s the name of the author?"

Again our dear friend displays a staggering amount of helplessness when it comes to information which goes against him. Apparently, he is unable to do a simple search on a website which he himself has talked about and as such must know exists.»

Our patronizing bigmouth should get used to the idea that it is his encumbrance to respond to questions about the source of his information, and not his opponent's encumbrance to go searching for that source.

« http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/essays&editorials/memorial-debunk-debate-debauged.html »

As I suspected, the author is one previously unknown "Dr. Martin Friedhaus". Readers are encouraged to read this article about the "Dr. Martin Friedhaus" farce that our gullible little Tesla was so glad to be taken in by. The article also mentions other interesting facts about the methods of "Renowned Holocaust Scholar Chris Webb", and is therefore highly recommended.

«"If the author is someone not known in the anti-"Revisionist" community, there's a good chance that it's an alias of Carmelo Lisciotto."

And here is yet another example of our friend's fantastic sense of logic. If someone is not part of our friend's "anti-"Revisionist"" community then, he must, if he makes accusations against that community, be presumed to be an evil "sociopath" who stalks our friend.»

Actually I’m putting forward a sound theory that is fully borne out by the "Friedhaus" article's contents discussed in this article. Outside Tesla's confused mind (which would like to work logically but doesn’t manage), it's quite logical to suppose that a purported scholar who suddenly crops up out of nowhere to parrot the Webb/Lisciotto stance is in all probability a Webb/Lisciotto fake. Whether "Friedhaus" is Webb's creature Lisciotto or Webb himself (as I said before, Tesla probably has a point in that there are two assholes on ARC and not just one) doesn't really matter.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Actually there was no dishonesty at all in trying to create what the usurpers of the ARC site falsely claimed to be "an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org". For the people behind that version (which did not include me, though I linked to that version in several articles) were the authors of most articles on the dissolved ARC site, who had a better copyright claim to the contents of these articles than the "secretary" who, taking advantage of his owning the internet domain, illegally appropriated a site mostly consisting of other people's intellectual creations. So this accusation of "dishonesty", which my interlocutor gratefully parrots, is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black."

Which is our friend's version of the events, it would seem. The owners of deathcamps.org claim they had the right to the material and that they won that right through legal means - which would seem to be the true account, since the only material present on death-camps.org at present are links to pregnancy tests and testosteron pills, while the original deathcamps.org is intact - including its rather telling articles about our dear friend and his behaviour.»

So the disappearance of death-camps.org was sufficient for our gullible Tesla to swallow the claim in the "editorial" that the site was "removed through legal action". Actually no such thing happened, as is mentioned here and here (two more articles our readers are encouraged to read, as the former discusses the merits of Webb/Lisciotto’s copyright claim and the latter shows that "1&1", the German Internet provider on whose server death-camps.org was hosted, didn’t care much about these claims (to the dismay of poor Chris Webb, who whined that "We are very disappointed in 1and1de stance, but not surprised". IIRC the reason why death-camps.org was eventually taken down was that the owner of the web domain, a German former member of the ARC research group, didn't consider the little traffic on the site worth the expense of keeping it alive.

«The fate of this website is of course not very relevant to the original point which I made at the start of this very longwinded digression, which was not to pass any judgement on who is right and who isn't when it comes to the internal laundry of holocaust conformists, but rather to point out that our dear friend has a rather poor reputation of dishonesty, even among his own, and that this is the likely source of his angry posts.»

Readers will have noted that Tesla keeps repeating this "poor reputation" claim with no evidence at all to show for it (the baseless accusations of Webb/Lisciotto, needless to say, don't count as evidence). He obviously believes that his accusations will stand on their own feet as long as they are repeated a sufficient number of times – i.e. exactly what he accuses me of. Accusing their opponents of what are actually their own fallacies is a standard debating tactic among "Revisionist" charlatans, to which Tesla is obviously no stranger.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"What "hard evidence" did you have in mind? A psychiatrist’s diagnosis of this gentleman would be interesting but is of course hard to obtain. So the evidence consists of the good old "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" argument, which a late lawyer friend told me is accepted by US courts."

Another fantastic admission from our friend. Apparently he thinks he has the moral right to start smear campagins against people who have crossed him based solely on this flimsy logical fallacy. I guess no further comment is necessary here.»

Readers may note that in Tesla's upside-down world setting the record straight in the face of a smear campaign is called "to start smear campagins against people who have crossed him", and an argument logical enough to be accepted by US courts is a "flimsy logical fallacy". Of course I don't expect Tesla to be able to explain what exactly is supposed to be illogical about this "flimsy logical fallacy".

«"We are talking about someone who harbors an obsessive hatred for other persons and expresses that obsessive hatred by filling the internet with smear blogs and smear forums dedicated to nothing else than defamatory accusations against such persons. If that behavior is not indicative of a sociopath, then what does else does it indicate?"

Clearly, what we are talking about by now, is a person who invents attacks against himself based on flimsy idioms,»

Here we see Tesla swiftly converting a somewhat-less-than-reasonable speculation into a statement of fact. Quite a conjuring trick.:-)

«who harbours an obsessive hatred for his opponents which he seeks to denigrate with epithets and references to mental diagnoses»

And here we see a classic case of self-projection, besides an accurate description of the smear campaign's author(s) who, just like my opponent, has or have used the depressive disease I suffered from in 1999 as an argument against me. Birds of a feather fly together.

«"What «mendacious ways» exactly, outside my mendacious opponent’s fantasies? Please be specific and provide evidence."

I think I have pointed out my "interlocutor"'s mendacious ways on more than one occasion. If this has escaped him, one can only assume that he is not capable of absorbing criticism, but would rather have his obsessive and hateful nature left in peace.»

A more likely scenario (in the real world, as opposed to Tesla’s cloud-cuckoo-land) is that what attempts Tesla undertook to point out my "mendacious ways" were so pathetic that he made a bloody fool of himself. It's quite understandable that he now tries to excuse himself from repeating these self-defeating attempts.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Why, it looks like my self-diagnosis of "agitated depression" back in 1999 (at a time when I was barely aware that "Revisionism" even existed, by the way) was not exactly accurate, for the "only" symptoms I had were agitation/anxiety and feeling so miserably sad and empty that death seemed a welcome relief."

So now our friend's admitted mental illness is suddenly the result of an erroneous "self-diagnosis". How convenient. However, how can it then be that our dear friend accused his doctor of providing him with medication which was contraindicated with his diagnosis, if this diagnosis was not given by our friend's doctor? It seems like our friend is spinning his lies out of control.»

What actually seems to have happened is that Tesla again forgot to think before hitting the keyboard. Otherwise it might have occurred to him that "our friend" was accusing his doctor of not having recognized what "our friend" (in his own opinion at the time) was actually suffering from and therefore having given him the wrong medication. Duh!

«"That aside, it's hard to understand whence Tesla got the idea that the pathology described by his source could prompt the sufferer to organize a systematic internet defamation campaign against certain persons he bears an obsessive grudge against in connection with a clearly identifiable set of events."

And yet again our friend posts this same link which in no part deals with the accusations and claims put forth by our dear friend regarding him being the victim of a single "sociopath". Apparently, our friend thinks repetition is going to save him.»

As we have just seen, that's exactly self-projecting Tesla’s approach. The link in question was mentioned in the following context:

«That aside, it's hard to understand whence Tesla got the idea that the pathology described by his source could prompt the sufferer to organize a systematic internet defamation campaign against certain persons he bears an obsessive grudge against in connection with a clearly identifiable set of events. A person in the condition described on this site (or in my own condition in 1999, which was far less severe but still extremely painful) can barely master everyday life.»

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«And if our dear friend does not understand how a person who suffers from a mixture of simultaneous "mania", "agitation", "impulsiveness", "irritability", "panic", "rage" and "persecutory delusions" could possibly have an online persona which posts hatefilled lies, and at the same time claims to be a victim of a "campaign", then perhaps this is a result of our friend's denial rather than a poor understanding of psychiatry.»

So our self-appointed expert in psychiatry believes that a person with even more serious symptoms than those I had in 1999 would have the energy and motivation to organize an internet smear campaign if he were so inclined. If I were a mean fellow, I would wish my friend a 24-hour experience of such ailment, after which I'm sure he would never again repeat such rubbish.

It is also duly noted that our self-appointed psychiatrist dodged the following argument, obviously for lack of a counterargument:

«A sociopath, on the other hand, is "characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior". Antisocial and disinhibited behavior (filling the internet with mendacious smear, lying shamelessly under a number of aliases), as well as diminished empathy and remorse (in this case a pathological hatred and vindictiveness) are exactly what Lisciotto’s smear campaign is all about.»

The bottom line is that someone suffering from depression, especially such with aggravated symptoms as described by Tesla's source, is too absorbed in his suffering and suicidal ideation to find an interest in any activity. A sociopath, on the other hand, is not suffering at all. He feels great about himself, and he takes pleasure in attacking whoever he holds to have "crossed" him or failed to pay due homage to his perceived greatness. As he is also bereft of any feeling of empathy or remorse as well as moral or ethical considerations, he is exactly the kind of person who would delight in trying to attack someone else's reputation by internet smear.

«"Except, of course, that the supposed "whining and wailing" exists nowhere outside my interlocutor’s fantasies. Pointing out that bringing up someone's medical history as a negative is a despicable behavior has nothing to do with "whining and wailing". It's just calling a spade a spade – or, in this case, calling a piece of manure a piece of manure."

Of course, what my "interlocutor" means to say here is that it is only despicable to bring up medical characteristics when it is our friend himself who is the "victim" of it, and not when our friend does it himself, which of course was the reason why I called our friend's behaviour whining and wailing.»

Not exactly a logical argument by Mr. "logical", and there's a big difference between calling someone a hysteric or a sociopath on account of that someone’s hysterical or sociopathic behavior and bringing up an actual report about an opponent’s illness (moreover one unrelated to either the subject matter of the discussion or the opponent's behavior) as an argument to denigrate that opponent. My interlocutor's having done the latter doesn't exactly bother me, which is why is accusation of "whining and wailing" is as silly as so much else he has produced. But it is interesting in that it shows my interlocutor to be a small, vindictive and altogether disgusting person.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"And if the disease in question is depression (an ailment that affected great personalities like Abraham Lincoln, George S. Patton and Ernest Hemingway, among many others), the "argument" is also quite ridiculous - about as ridiculous as it would be to bring up someone’s diabetes, cancer or heart disease as a negative."

Our friend desperately tries to reduce his confessed mental illness to mere depression, which of course is not true.»

“Mere” depression, the cretin says. Obviously he knows as much about psychiatry in general and depression in particular as a pig does about Sunday. So let's try to do something about the fellow's ignorance by letting an informed source tell him what "mere" depression is all about:

"Every week a doctor commits suicide in North America, and each one knew that depression is potentially treatable or self-limiting; insight goes faster in depression than in any other illness. Depression is psychological pain, and a severe depressive illness is arguably the most unpleasant disease in the Western world bar rabies. Samuel Johnson once said he'd suffer a limb to be amputated to recover his spirits. An old clergyman who had recovered from a severe depression later badly scalded his genitals, thighs, and abdomen. When asked which type of pain was worse, he said, 'I would suffer the scalding a hundred times rather than have a depression again. Every night I pray to God to let me die before the depression returns. When I was scaled I prayed for relief and I was heard, but during the depression I lost my faith. There is no comparison between those two kinds of pain.'"

«As I have pointed out, the mental illness our friend has claimed to suffer from includes far more than a state of depression - in fact it seems to be quite good a description of our friend's obsessive online behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry)»

Says the bigmouthed dilettante who calls one of the most unpleasant diseases on the planet a "mere" depression, obviously unaware that, if I had (as I presumed at the time) suffered from the aggravated symptoms described by his source besides those I actually had, I would have been even less capable of any "online behavior" than I was at the time. As to the "obsessive" thing, I’d say the "Freudian" projection theory comes into play here again, considering how my interlocutor obsessively fills this blog's comments section with garbage, especially now that he deluded himself into thinking that he had found something he could use to get even for my having burst some of his bubbles.

«One also cannot fail to note here the extremely narcisstic attitude displayed by our friend when he compares himself to Abraham Lincoln and Ernest Hemmingway.»

Actually there’s nothing "narcisstic" about pointing out that depression, contrary to a popular perception apparently shared by our ignorant self-appointed expert in psychiatry, has nothing to do with any weakness or character flaw but is rather a serious ailment that people with very strong personalities have suffered from. It’s just setting the record straight and highlighting the utter imbecility of bringing up someone’s depression as a negative against that person. The "narcisstic" BS, besides smacking of self-projection, is one of the most pathetic "arguments" Tesla has come up with so far – and that is saying something.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"No, just making the point that endorsement by a major "believer" internet source like The Holocaust History Project and by a German historian is hardly compatible with being considered a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc." by the "independent sources, deniers and believers alike" that Tesla is eager to believe in. So eager that he even switched off his tiny brain, to give him the benefit of assuming that he was not giving free rein to his mendacity.""

Now, why on earth would the endorsement by one "believer" internet source and one historian, whom possibly is not even aware of our friend's despicable behaviour and online reputation, be enough to preclude the existence of individuals and sites which view our friend quite disfavourably? It would seem that our friend's logic is not quite with him again, or he is grasping at straws.»

Unfortunately for poor Tesla and his repetitive stance about my "despicable behaviour and online reputation", The Holocaust History Project is not only one of the two or three most important "believer" sources on the internet, but was also well aware of the smear campaign launched against me and other HC bloggers by the ARC "trustees". That is why their adding HC to their list of links happened at the same time as their removal of the ARC site from that list. If Tesla has any doubts about THHP having previously included ARC in their list of links, he is free to check with the wayback machine.

So on the one hand there is endorsement by historians (besides Sara Berger, there are historians who reviewed our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues) and by one of the internet's main anti-denial sites, the latter at least in full awareness of the Webb/Lisciotto smear campaign, besides abundant evidence that Webb and Lisciotto are a bunch of lying sick puppies. And on the other hand there are the wholly unsubstantiated accusations of those very sick puppies, which Tesla chose to uncritically take at face value (to give him the benefit of doubt instead of assuming that he's an even lowlier skunk than I thought) for no apparent reason other than convenience to his stance. A proper choice for an inhabitant of the fantasy world that is the "Revisionist” religion.

«[/Oscar Wilde Mode]»

Tesla apparently considers himself to have been writing in Oscar Wilde mode, which suggests his liking of this author. I for my part must confess that I never read anything from Wilde. Is there any of his works that Tesla would recommend?

Tesla said...

"I note with some amusement that Tesla is childishly (and quite inappropriately) parroting my (spot-on) assessment of CL's accusations as mendacious smear. What he quoted was just this: "

And ?

"Maybe he’s referring to his insinuation that «perhaps when my friend uses the words 'sociopath', "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land" (a particular phrase which he has used against this writer also) it is not to be taken literally, but rather, as my friend has explained earlier, simply as words of denigration that have no intentional reference to real mental illness of any kind».

Which is just wishful thinking on his part, as CL's behavior suggests a mental problem of the sociopathic variety (for sociopaths tend to be characterized by offensive and reckless behavior and an utter absence of remorse or ethical/moral considerations) and my interlocutor himself obviously lives in a world of delusions that is appropriately characterized as a cloud-cuckoo-land. As to the "my friend has explained earlier", Tesla is deliberately misrepresenting my argument, which is that I don’t consider Spinner (crackpots) like himself to necessarily have mental health problems. "

And how am I, or any reader with sufficient patience to read through our friend's lengthy, mendacious smears, supposed to distinguish between our friend's accusations of real mental illness and his regular, uncivilised behviour, when our friend demonstrably uses the same words and phrases, such as "cloud-cuckoo-land" and "delusions" in both instances? Rather than "wishful thinking" and "misrepresenting", my reply was simply (somewhat sarcastically one might say) referring to the fact that there is no such distinction, because our friend's accusations are, whether he finds it appropriate to characterise them as such or not, nothing more than mendacious smear with the simple aim to denigrate his opponents.

Tesla said...

"Wishful thinking led my friend to babble about my "shattered reputation", as if smear shattered the reputation of anyone other than the author of such smear himself. "Without a shred of evidence" suggests that Tesla either reads the sources provided with thick tomato slices covering his eyes or mendaciously ignores the evidence presented there, which shows that the smear campaign is a) closely connected with the breakup of the ARC group due to revelations about the "secretary" being sloppy as concerns historical evidence and b) directed against the author of these revelations (Sergey Romanov) and two persons seen as connected to that author (Dr. Nick Terry and myself). As to the "several individuals", I have pointed out that, of the exactly two individuals who would have a motive to unleash such smear campaign (Chris Webb and Carmelo Lisciotto), only the latter has a previous behavior profile that would fit with posting mendacious accusations all over the internet, and that the former is thus given the benefit of doubt in this respect."

Our dear friend's links showed no such thing. Our friend's first link showed a list of our friend's mendacious smears on this blog against a person whom is obviously a target of our friend's obsessive hatred, while his second link referred to parts of a supposed email exchange where our friend and his friends are expelled from a fellow Holocaust website. Are we to understand this as another example of our friend's flimsy logic, whereby he assumes that since two events happen at the same time it must necessarily mean that one event led to the other? This of course, is on the premise that such an email exchange did, in fact, occur in the order and manner which our friend claims, which also seems to be quite doubtful, since our friend has provided no hard evidence such as IP adresses or timestamps - indeed, what our friend calls "evidence" is simply a few selected pieces of text with no context at all. Note also that our friend desperately tries to exclude the second person mentioned from this alleged "smear campaign"; the reason being, of course, that our friend wants us to believe that the ugly words written about him stem from "one sociopath". However, the person which our friend so kindly here gives "the benefit of doubt", has written several articles and posts about "hate bloggers", clearly referring to our friend among others, accused our friend of forging documents and in general not written very positively about our dear friend. Shall we take it in such a way then, that the words from this particular author is not part of the "smear campaign" against our dear friend? One also cannot help but notice our friend referring to "reputation" and "behaviour profile" - which seems quite odd since the only negative "reputation" and "behaviour profile" of this person seems to come from our friend's blog or blogs written by associates of our friend, contrary to our friend's horrible reputation which can be traced to individuals and websites with widely different positions and connections. It is quite amusing then, to see our friend's double standard of evidence in full action, whereby he is the victim of "mendacious smear" and justifies this with his very own smear campaign.

"On the contrary, I expect readers to read every word of these "longwinded" (actually quite concise) articles. Whereas Tesla apparently expects readers to be so dumb as to take his claims at face value."

Obviously, Tesla does not expect that. If he had, he would not have refuted our friend's rather flimsy attempt at garnering evidence for his case on a point-by-point basis.

Tesla said...

"On what basis, if I may ask? "Revisionist" sources, as far as I remember, have not indulged in or participated in a smear campaign of the CL variety."

I cannot remember ever having claimed that our friend is factually the victim of a "smear campaign" - perhaps our friend should stop mixing his own fantasies with the actual facts and points made by this author? Again our friend attempts to dodge the fact that there are several sources to his horrible reputation - this time by pretending, again, that the alleged "smear campaign" against him is actually of different varieties. By using this double meaning, our friend can claim his horrible reputation is the result of a "smear campaign" from "one sociopath", while, when confronted with the multitude of sources, he can suddenly exclude them from the discussion. Such "tricks" quite clearly demonstrate the level of dishonesty in our friend.

"That leaves as "independent sources" CL as himself, CL as "Blogbuster" and CL under one of the many aliases ("Sophie Scholl", "Eric Greenberg", etc.) [...]"

And the evidence that Mr. CL is, in fact, the person posting under these aliases is where?

"Apparently Tesla is naïve enough to believe that a variety of characters suddenly appeared out of nowhere with no other purpose in mind than that of slandering a) the HC blogger who had revealed the incompetence of "great researcher" Chris Webb and b) the two HC bloggers (Dr. Nick Terry and myself) seen as associated to Sergey Romanov."

Tesla has not "believed" anything in this regard. Tesla has simply noted that there is no credible evidence to support the very specific accusations our dear friend makes, other than our friend's flimsy "walks like a duck" argument and his (illogical) belief that since two events happen at the same time, it must be that one event led to the other. Whether or not these aliases, which our friend obsessively wants to focus on, are the creations of a single individual is also quite irrelevant when we know that our friend's horrible reputation is not the result of this single individual's actions, but rather stems from a multitude of individuals who seem to think our friend is a "hateblogger", a "document forgerer" and "mentally ill".

"The smear campaign wholly emanates (or emanated in its origin – maybe "Revisionists" have joined the party in the meantime) from a source that claims to have a better approach to documenting Holocaust history and fighting Holocaust denial than that which is practiced by the bloggers who write on HC."

Again our friend repeats this claim as if it were his mantra, and again without a shred of evidence to support it. A simple google search or visit to the many Holocaust discussion forums would be enough for the intelligent reader to ascertain where our friend's reputation stems from, which is of course, our friend's, among other things, horrible behaviour and practice of labelling those who disagree with him as mentally ill. Our friend's hateful postings are tapestried all over the Internet, yet our friend wants us to believe his reputation is the result of "one sociopath", or rather "a source that claims to have a better approach to documenting Holocaust history" as our friend puts it now (is our friend learning to behave..?).

Tesla said...

"And the only similarity between «these two widely disjunct groups» that the smear campaign in question shows is that, unfortunately, somewhat-less-than-recommendable characters are to be found not only in the cesspit of Hitler-kissers, Jew-haters and "it’s cool to be politically incorrect" malcontents that is known as "Revisionism", but also among those who oppose the ideologically motivated falsification of history that characterizes "Revisionism"."

But no - here we have yet another vindictive smear from our friend, this time in the direction of revisionists. It would seem that our friend is unable to sit down by his keyboard without typing his hate-filled rants in one direction or another.

"Tesla obviously expects his readers to either be too lazy to follow the links he mentioned and read what is written there, or gullible enough to uncritically swallow his contentions. Or then he's simply a sloppy reader and/or forgot to think. For the supposed reasons for the sudden "expulsion" of Sergey Romanov, Nick Terry and me are not stated in the "expulsion" decision, and the reasons for that decision that Tesla would like to believe in fails to explain why these three individuals (two of whom had a previous long record of debating "Revisionists" on internet forums) were admitted to ARC in the first place. It neither explains why the "expulsion" decision was followed by a breakup of the ARC group and the freezing of the site by the "secretary". Last but not least, it doesn't explain why the "expulsion" followed suit, as duly documented by Sergey Romanov, upon Sergey's politely voicing his concerns about Chris Webb having acquired, or even placed on the website, "evidence" provided by a person of his confidence (one "Andy Schmidt", who seems to have also co-authored a book with Webb) that had obviously been faked with the intention of discrediting the ARC research group."

No, Tesla simply notes the lack of evidence provided by our friend, and makes a reasonable alternative interpretation which is based, not only on the accusations made by our friend and his friends, but also on facts and the statements of the other side to this (rather silly) Holocaust believer infighting, in which it is our friend who is accused of inserting forged documents and behaving in a thoroughly obnoxious and hate-filled way. And, when taking such a perspective, the facts seem to go in our friend's disfavour, particularly since our friend has demonstrated the troll-like behaviour which is described by the members of the ARC site in his decade long career as an Internet hate blogger and vicious forum troll - a behaviour which of course is documented by the thousands of posts which our friend has generated during this time. Furthermore, Tesla could not care less who is right regarding the laundry of the Holocaust believers - he simply states the rather obvious fact that several individuals, blogs and websites are saying the same, ugly things about or dear friend - thus illustrating our dear friend's horrible reputation as, as one commenter put it, an "Internet extremist".

Tesla said...

"As to utterances that "cannot be explained by anything other than hate", it's noteworthy that Tesla refrains from using this epithet (which in this case would be appropriate) to the utterances of Carmelo Lisciotto quoted in one of the articles collected under the link http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Carmelo%20Lisciotto , namely the article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2006/11/heart-defenders-and-their-methods.html , which I also mentioned in previous posts."

The reason Tesla does not use epithets concerning the utterances of this person is obviously because 1. Tesla strives to not use such descriptions against presumably innocent individuals 2. Tesla does not know the person in question and has never seen objective evidence which show that this person is worthy of such epithets. This, of course, does not mean that the person in question did not write the sentences he is accused of writing by our friend, however, even if he did, in fact, write such sentences, it would not seem to prove anything except that our friend is not alone among the Holocaust conformists when it comes to using foul language. Rather, it would only confirm Tesla's prejudices that Holocaust conformists are not able to discuss the matter of Holocaust calmly without employing personal attacks, whether it be against revisionists or their own conformist peers.

"Apparently utterances such as [...] are perfectly OK with Tesla if they come from someone he apparently considers a bird of a feather, whereas comparatively polite (and never mendacious) utterances by Sergey, Nick or myself on discussion forums or in HC blogs he sees as "epithets" that "whose emotional temperature cannot be explained by anything other than hate". Which, of course, speaks volumes about Mr. Tesla’s double-standards and hypocrisy, besides the poverty of his reasoning."

One can again only be amused by our friend's attempt at portraying himself as the innocent victim, while his decade long career of ranting has left evidence of his character to be found all over the Internet in the form of thousands of forum and blog posts. What our friend does not seem to understand is that for the objective observer, it does not matter "who started it" - what matters is the general impression one gets from observing our friend's recorded behaviour, and certainly this is the reason why our friend's writings is confined to the darkest corners of the Internet, while serious scholars seem to keep their distance to him. Our friend thinks he can remedy this by posting "evidence" of his accuser's behaviour, but does not understand that this only leaves yet another mark of his trollish and quarrelsome character, from which serious individuals are going to judge him.

"Actually that seems to be exactly Tesla's assumption, for I referred not to one article but to a series of articles, the links to which he mentioned himself. Whereas Lisciotto is not yet mentioned in the article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/on-demise-of-deathcampsorg-how-fakes.html (for the simple reason that he had not yet entered the scene at Webb’s side at that time), he figures prominently in other articles collected under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/search/label/Carmelo%20Lisciotto , including but not limited to this one and this one, which readers are encouraged to read in order to gain their own impression of the gentleman I'm supposed to be unjustly accusing of being the orchestrator of an internet smear campaign against three HC bloggers including myself."

It would seem that our friend is again lying about my replies, and accomplishes this by only quoting me in part. Here is the (relevant) part of the paragraph which our friend here has responded to (but not quoted in full):

Tesla said...

"The first link contains references to an alleged email exchange, [...] What it does not contain, however, is one shred of evidence for Dear Friend's claims about his "one sociopath" - in fact, the name of our friend's alleged sociopath is not mentioned in the article at all! We must therefore assume that our dear friend again specualtes that his readers will not actually bother to read the evidence that our dear friend lays on the table."

Clearly, I am talking about our friend's first link (the second link, which our friend recycles here, is simply a link to articles tagged with the name of the individual our friend is so obsessive about), yet our liar friend is pretending I was not exclusively talking about the first link in this particular paragraph. It is quite amusing to see how our desperate friend will employ every trick in his book to distort the accusations made against him. If one looks at the article in question, an article which our friend tried to pose as "evidence" for among other things his claims about "one sociopath" being behind all the ugly words written about our friend, it does, in fact, not contain a single reference to this person!

"Actually the articles in question, especially those linked to above, document Lisciotto’s behavior (as himself, as “Blogbuster” or under other aliases), which Tesla apparently considers perfectly gentlemanlike and not indicative at all of a sociopathic individual. This in turn speaks volumes about what kind of individual our good friend Tesla is."

One can only assume here that for our friend, "documentation" is as good as "accusation", because most of the articles our friend refers to do not even attempt to provide any kind of "documentation", let alone evidence, but are mere slander against a person who has obviously crossed our friend at some point in the past.

"Actually the "accusations" are reasonable assessments warranted by the assessed individual's own documented behavior, as our readers are encouraged to find out by following the links in question."

Of course, our friend is not going to provide such a link where "the assessed individual"'s "own documented behaviour" is shown, rather our friend is giving a vague source reference to the articles tagged with this person's name on his blog, hoping that his readers will not notice that none of those articles actually provide such a documentation.

"Tesla is obviously doing exactly what he accuses me of doing – expecting readers to take at face value his blatantly dishonest "assessment" of the articles in question."

Tesla actually assumes most of our friend's readers will not bother, as those that have by now not assessed our friend's character are unlikely to be sufficiently critical of him and his claims to do anything but take his writings at face value.

Tesla said...

"First of all, circumstantial evidence can be very good evidence, and in this case it certainly is. Whereas the poor darling I'm supposed to be making "very serious accusations" against has no evidence at all, which is why his accusations are properly characterized as a smear campaign. If Tesla thinks that the gentleman he refers to as "other people" has any evidence to support his smear, he is hereby invited to make a list of that supposed evidence, with links to where it can supposedly be found, and explain why he accepts that evidence as plausible while dismissing my evidence against the defamer. "

As explained earlier, Tesla thinks our friend's "sociopath" and his alleged behaviour is rather irrelevant when there are a multitude of other personalities who seem to hold similar perspectives on our friend's notorious behaviour. One can understand, however, why our friend wants to talk about this "one sociopath", because it distracts from the rather embarrassing fact that our friend is known as a hatemonger, document forger and distorter of evidence, not only among revisionists, but also among individuals and organizations in his own "camp". Tesla would think, however, that the fact that the accused person does not engage in the same kind of hate posting against our friend as our friend does against him, but rather chooses to be silent, is something that speaks in favour, rather than disfavour, of our friend's adversary. But perhaps this is inconceivable for a person who has been accused of being a troll? Perhaps our friend would rather have a situation where Holocaust websites engage in attacks against each other, of the kind our friend is so famous for, rather than posting articles on the Holocaust?

"Second, I don’t consider myself to be a “victim” of anything, for the simple reason that I don’t think in the category of being a “victim”. A hate-filled liar spreading smear on the internet bothers me about as much as a dog barking at me."

And this, I am sure, is why our friend has a whole section dedicated to this person on his blog, which he conveniently refers to whenever someone brings up the accusations leveled against our friend.

"Not a very logical proposition, insofar as a defaming sociopath bereft of any ethics and morality will make “very specific accusations” against anyone he doesn’t like, if only due to that someone’s being (actually or in the mind of such sociopath) associated with a person said sociopath has felt affronted by. "

And again our friend pretends these accusations come from "one sociopath", even though they are posted under the name of, among many others, a person which our friend himself has been so kind as to give "the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to having "unleashed such smear campaign".

"Or then Tesla is a very inattentive reader, for it he were not he would have noticed that Lisciotto’s early tirades were directed only against Sergey Romanov, whereas my name wasn’t even mentioned (see above quotes referring to “You, Nick terry and the other blogging faggots”, or to "The three of you". So at that time I was just part of a hated collective. Lisciotto’s pique against me as an individual came later, when I undertook to defend my fellow bloggers against his accusations on an earlier (and no longer available) version of the RODOH forum."

And again our friend tries to confine the issue to this Lisciotto character, while referring to this author's alleged inattentiveness, and expecting that we take his "evidence" at face value. How pitiful.

Tesla said...

""I am referring to the multitude of blogs and websites which have published rather unpleasant accusations and facts against our dear friend."

Which "accusations" Tesla seems to be all too prepared to accept as "facts", without even asking what evidence, if any, they are based on."

Clearly not, since Tesla was careful to emphasise that there are both facts and accusations. Again our friend reads only what he believes to be true and fails to deal with the actual charges leveled against him. As Tesla has stated numerous times by now, it is rather irrelevant who is "right" in our friend's childish infighting with his peers. What is relevant - relevant to the point that started this discourse, which has become overly lengthy because of our friend's constant dodging, distortions and rather slimy attempts at avoiding the facts - is that the charges against our friend, be they of bad behaviour or worse, are of a very similar nature while coming from very dissimilar sources. Clearly then, our friend has a bit of a credibility problem, which is no doubt part of the reason why he is so angry and chooses to continue to lash out and display his hateful behaviour against those who disagree with him (and again, to remind possible readers, this was the point which started this particular sub-discourse with our friend).

"And it rather speaks against Tesla that he praises that "multitude of blogs and websites" as "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition" (besides illogically seeing that as an indication against their being the work of a single hate-filled individual)."

I was simply comparing certain blogs which our friend accuses of being the start of the "smear campaign" against him against the websites alleged to be run by the person our friend claims is behind these blogs, and noticing that they were of a very different character, and thus suggesting that the person who is supposedly behind the blogs is probably not the same person who made the more professionally looking websites. What I did then, was simply to use our friend's own "logic", namely the logic which begins with the words "if it walks like a duck...", a particular form of "logic" which our friend himself has stated is the core of his accusations, and which he justifies with a reference to a claim made by a friend of his, in which such "logic" is supposedly admissible as evidence in a court of law. The difference is, of course, that unlike our friend, I never claimed any form of certainty even close to that which our friend wants to have for his rather weak form of argument - rather, I was simply suggesting an alternate explanation to the "circumstantial evidence" which our friend has provided. When our friend accuses me of being "illogical" then, it is nothing more than another own goal from our friend, of which we are sure to see more, since our friend seems to have trouble remembering even his own statements and the rules and premises which he requires of others when debating with him.

"«Let us stop pretending that this is only one website, or one person, shall we?»

Where am I supposed to have pretended that "this is only one website"? My not calling in question that the smear was all over the internet makes that insinuation look rather stupid [...]"

Tesla said...

It does, indeed, but then again, much of what our dear friend writes looks stupid, or rather incongruent, in that our friend is trying to ride several horses at the same time - in this particular instance our friend was trying to confine the issue to the ARC website, thus my following remark about "one website". In other instances, our friend of course tries to maximise the damage done to him by this alleged "smear campaign" by stating that the smear is "all over Internet" (to which I, of course, agree), with the important addition that it is somehow the work of "one person", a particular form of his argument which our friend then proceeds to repeat in the rest of his paragraph:

"and actually the smear that disfigures some pages of the ARC website is but the least offensive part of the smear campaign. As to all the smear on several blogs, websites and forums being the work of a single person, what is supposed to be implausible about that? What's supposed to keep a hate-filled individual bent on smearing people he hates, who has a certain knowledge of IT and much time on his hands, from creating a multitude of smear blogs and websites, besides an (already mentioned) forum where he indulges in smear monologues among various sockpuppets?"

Note that our friend here unwillingly includes "some pages of the ARC website" as part of "the smear campaign", yet he has "given the benefit of doubt" to the owner of that website with regards to the "smear campaign" itself! Our friend is peddling so many different explanations now that he cannot even remember half of them. One need not even comment on our friend's claim that all these websites are created by his "one" alleged "sociopath", since the implausibility is rather self-evident and since the claim is incompatbile with our friend's very own explanation itself.

"No, "our friend" was induced by Tesla's remarks about "these pages" looking "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition" into assuming that Tesla was referring to the pages of the ARC website, which indeed (insofar as they contain historical information) can be called "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition [...]"

Of which our friend wanted to imply that there is only one such website which is "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition" and which contain ugly words about our friend, an implication which, of course, is not true.

"(if you ignore the smear written on top of some of them, which was added later by Lisciotto)"

Another baseless claim made by our friend, to make it look as if his "one sociopath" is behind the ugly words written about him. And perhaps our friend would have it that the multitude of articles posted there about our friend and his colleagues is also the work of this "sociopath", while the person which our friend has given "the benefit of doubt" with regards to the alleged "smear campaign" allows it and at the same time writes similar ugly words on yet another website? Perhaps this "one sociopath" is in reality the same person our friend so foolishly gave the "benefit of doubt"? Or perhaps every person our friend has accused of various mental illnesses in his decade long career of ranting on the Internet, are in reality the same person out to get our friend and smear him? Are we seeing a convergence of evidence against our friend's adversaries here?

Tesla said...

"I was giving Tesla the benefit of assuming that he has certain reasonable standards as to what is "professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition". However, it seems that anything that Tesla likes to read because it fits his stance is worth such favorable assessment to Tesla, and that his standards are accordingly abysmal."

Clearly, our friend is trying to make a joke here, or does our friend actually believe that such Holocaust conformist websites "fit my stance"? Our friend is apparently having hangups on a specific remark I gave where I used the fact that certain websites looked "professional", while certain blogs did not, to illustrate the point that if a "duck" does not walk like one, it is probably not a duck. Why, it would almost seem as if our friend has a bit of an inferiority complex here, perhaps because the websites which contain such ugly words against our friend are in general also more professional looking than our friend's rather amateurish looking Holocaust blog?

""Let us again have a look at what the links our dear friend provides actually say. There is one sentence only in the page linked to that deals with the claim that our friend's alleged "sociopath" had been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict". That sentence reads as follows: "Lisciotto is a former ARC member, who, according to my conversations with one "neutral" (i.e., not taking sides) ARC member, was forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict". Quite unimpressive, one must say, but as I have noted, our dear friend apparently thinks his accusations stand on their own feet as long as he provides a sufficient number of them."

It is duly noted that Tesla considers the evidence to Lisciotto’s history on the scene "unimpressive" while obviously being impressed by accusations against me and others that are based on nothing but thin air."

What else should one call this particular piece of "evidence" which simply consists of yet another claim by one of our friend's associates? It is painfully obvious here, that our friend actually believes that him and his associates' claims must be taken at face value. When our friend claims that his adversaries' accusations are based on thin air, that is of course not true; as I have pointed out many times, our friend's hate-filled behaviour and constant use of namecalling and accusation of mental illness, among other things, speaks for itself, and as such, our friend's adversaries' accusations of "hate" are rather not accusations but statements of simple facts which everyone can see. As for the accusations concerning forgery and hostile takeover of a website which our friend was invited to be a member of, I have never stated anything with certainty (and, in fact, I have stated numerous times that I consider the actual truth here to be rather irrelevant to the point which started this particular sub-discourse), but again that the evidence, such as the Wikipedia talk pages, and again the obvious nature of our friend's character, points to the truthfulness of our friend's adversaries' version of the events rather than to our friend's version.

Tesla said...

"And of course he misses the point of my introduction, which is the identification of Lisciotto as the author of the verbiage documented here. "

Your "introduction" then, is simply based on claims made by your associates, from which you induce that certain verbiage which looks similar to certain other verbiage, and which is not documented in any form other than the verbiage itself, is written by the same author. I am sorry, but this standard of evidence, if it can even be called that, is too low to be taken seriously. Simply because something looks similar to something else, does not mean that the first is identical to the second, and just because two events happen at the same time does not mean the first event is causally linked to the second. If this is the "standard of evidence" our friend is using in his Holocaust "research", one can see why he has come to the conclusions he has.

"This verbiage, which together with his obvious rage about Sergey Romanov's demonstration that his friend Chris Webb (who he looks up to and frequently refers to as a great researcher or historian) make him the prime suspect (to say the least) as the author of the smear campaign against Sergey Romanov, Dr. Nick Terry and myself. "

Well, it seems that our friend has somewhat moderated himself, in that he now refers to the "alleged sociopath" as a mere "suspect". Would it be too much to ask that our friend also employ the principle that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, and that our friend therefore remove the smears he has posted against the alleged "sociopath" on his blog?

"Only if you read it with eyes shut tight, as Tesla seems wont to do when it comes to any information that doesn't fit his bubble. It he had read the
article in question with due attention (as our readers are encouraged to do), he would have seen that it documents
a) Webb’s acquiring evidence of dubious authenticity (including a supposed deposition by Treblinka SS-man Gustav Münzberger and a purported photo of the "tube" through which people were led to the gas chambers) from a person of his confidence;
b) Sergey Romanov warning him about this supposed evidence;
c) Webb failing to listen, and
d) Webb, in the sequence of his exchanges with Sergey, all of a sudden and with no reason stated, requesting another member to "draw up a new list excluding Sergey Romanov Nick Terry, Roberto Muhlenkamp" (the last of these three, incidentally, had joined ARC just a short while before). "

Even if we give our friend the benefit of doubt and assume that the pieces of text which he refers to - of which we have no way of authenticating, since hard evidence such as IP adresses, timestamps and email headers is curiously missing, and of which we have absolutely no way of knowing were written in the same order and at the same time as our friend alleges - are genuine and complete, then our friend has not "documented" anything but his own dismissal from a Holocaust website he was invited to partake in. Quite unremarkable, in other words.

Tesla said...

"The connection is rather obvious from the sequence of events: Sergey pissed off Webb by pointing out that some evidence Webb intended to put on the website was obviously fake, and by insisting on his demand despite Webb's dismissive answers. So he decided to kick Sergey out. Nick and myself were associated to Sergey as fellow bloggers of HC, so they also had to go. Webb didn't want to be bothered by people who have a more careful and critical approach to evidence than his own. So he got rid of these people."

Yes, well, this is not a terribly unreasonable interpretation from our friend, I suppose, but since our friend's adversaries have a quite different story, I see no reason to assume, from a neutral standpoint, that our friend's interpretation is necessarily true. Particularly not since the facts, such as the Wikipedia talk pages on the deathcamps.org URL seem to support our friend's adversaries' version, in that our friend and his friends obviously tried to hijack a website which was not theirs and to which they had been invited to be members of. Again I might note to our readers that our friend's guilt is rather not relevant to the point I made which started this particular discourse, but rather his reputation is. Our friend defends himself by throwing accusations, but apparently is so ignorant that he does not understand that his reputation is simply smeared even further because of the constant association to controversy and Internet trolling which he creates.

"Hence the expression "seems« to", which signals a supposition as opposed to a conviction. "

One can only wonder what conclusions our friend would reach if he would only follow his own rules, particularly in our second "debate" where our friend has chosen to play word games where the opposite rule of the one which our friend desires here, is the basis of his distortions. And certainly, I have not written anything that would make it "seem" like I have such a conviction as mentioned by our friend either.

"Poor Tesla amazingly reiterates his conviction that a character with Lisciotto’s characteristics is unlikely to produce something "far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition", after accusing me of "distorting" his words when I read such apparent conviction in them. Readers may decide for themselves what that reveals about Tesla’s character and intelligence. "

"Poor Tesla" does not have any "convictions" based on the characteristics of the person mentioned, obviously because Tesla does not know the person in question and is not inclined to rely on our friend's smears alone. And furthermore, the supposition put forth by Tesla was that it was "unlikely" that such a person would be the author of such pages, not that it was impossible. Again, Tesla is simply using the "walks like a duck"-logic employed by our friend (albeit with an appropriate amount of certainty) and also his rules concerning "distortions" (see our parallel "debate").

"In that Lisciotto’s initial verbiage followed suit upon Sergey Romanov's article, even referring to it if you look at some of Lisciotto’s utterances quoted in this article, e.g. this one:
«If you wish to knock on another website fine, when you start publishing peoples names and copies of emails that were never meant for public circulation you've crossed the line.»
The accusation for Sergey’s wanting to «knock on another website» (which Sergey did as a last resort after having tried to keep the ARC website from being discredited by false evidence peddled to a gullible Chris Webb by some shady acquaintance of his) is an obvious reference to what Sergey wrote in article."

Tesla said...

Yet another "this happened when that happened, so this led to that"-type of argument from our friend. I am sorry, but these headerless pieces of text do not prove anything, or even document anything but our friend's desire to see "obvious" patterns where there are none, and again with the same links which our friend posts over and over again, presumably in the hope that they will be taken more seriously then.

"Again we note that Tesla is all too willing to take at face value unsubstantiated claims that fit his bubble while unreasonably dismissing all evidence that speaks against it. "

Not at all - Tesla has been rather clear about the uncertainty of our "interlocutor"'s unfortunate case. Rather, what Tesla has done is provide alternate explanations that just as well fit the facts presented as our friend's accusations and hypotheses, but our friend is of course insistent upon describing his speculations as facts, which Tesla has amply shown they are not. It is therefore quite clear that it is our "interlocutor" who is desperately trying to fit the facts in his bubble, an endeavor which is quite amusing to watch.

"First of all, there had been no accusations of "hateful behavior" let alone of "forging documents" prior to Sergey's altercations with Webb and Lisciotto. The accusations of "forging documents", IIRC, only appeared years later on Lisciotto's smear blogs and his "hateblogwatch" forum."

Again we are forced to take our friend's claims at face value - and apparently that is what our friend expects us to do, while disparaging Tesla for taking "at face value unsubstantiated claims that fit his bubble". It is again quite amusing to see how our friend automatically assumes one rule for himself and one rule for his adversaries. Quite clearly, our friend is not a seeker of truth, but a rather blatant demagogue.

"Second, nobody accused Chris Webb of forging documents, as this article clearly shows. The accusation (which, unlike the smear leveled against three HC bloggers, is well-substantiated by evidence) was that Webb accepted purported evidence from an acquaintance of his without checking the authenticity of such purported evidence and even despite Sergey's well-substantiated warning that this purported evidence carried a strong smell of fish, the kind of stuff that "Revisionists" would like to see planted on a historical documentation website to then decry that website's sloppy research and unreliability. So the accusation was not one of Webb having forged documents or committed some other crime, but of his being sloppy and arrogant enough to persist in his sloppy behavior. "

So now our friend spins the story into an accusation against revisionists - that they would somehow need to insert forged documents into our friend's website - of course without any foundation to his claims. One can only sit back and enjoy our friend's ever more fanciful theories.

"As we can see, wishful thinking again got the better of Tesla’s meager capacity for logic – which is all the more amusing as Tesla apparently considers himself entitled to lecture his opponent on logical thinking."

One might wonder what our friend means when he writes "we"; does our friend really believe that his helpless and groundless speculation and theories about revisionists inserting forged documents to a website can be considered "documentation" or "evidence" that impresses the intelligent readers of his blog, when the accusations against our friend is almost of the same nature? Does our friend really believe his credibility is any better after making such unfounded attacks? Is this what our friend thinks will save him from the embarrassment of the accusations leveled against him - to lash out and make even more baseless attacks against his opponents?

Tesla said...

"as Tesla is desperate to believe, despite the utter absence of evidence in support of his theory and abundant evidence to the contrary. Evidence shows that the only fakes and forgeries to ever appear in this context was those that "great researcher" (as Lisciotto likes to call him) Chris Webb enthusiastically acquired from some shady acquaintance of his, against whom he had even been warned by ARC members other than Sergey (though not as insistently as Sergey had done)."

I have seen no such "abundant evidence"; our friend's strategy now seems to simply be to overstate his case by using phrases such as "utter absence" and "abundant evidence", quite clearly because he does not have any real evidence.

"Actually I do find it quite amusing that someone like Lisciotto, who harbors an obsessive, pathological hatred against several individuals (besides the three mentioned HC – bloggers he also hates an elderly German gentleman who was one of the founding members of ARC) should accuse his black beasts of being hateful. As I do find it amusing that an individual like Tesla, with his obvious and rather unconvincingly denied hatred of Jews and his racist attitude towards "third world foreigners" (who he has nothing against as long as they don’t procreate with members of the "European race" and make that race’s skin color a bit darker over time), claims or suggests that my own writings "could fall into the category of hate", the supposed objects of such "hate" apparently being poor deluded ideologists like himself."

Yes, our friend continues to tell us that he is "amused", but quite clearly our friend's behaviour suggests he is furious and, indeed, driven by hate himself. Why else would he be so vicious to anyone who crosses his path? Why else would our friend accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a "nutter", "delusional", a "sociopath" and similar terms, if it weren't for our friend's own emotional nature? Does our friend really believe that intelligent readers of his blog can imagine our friend smiling while he writes his vindictive posts against "sociopaths", "Neo-Nazis", "anti-Semites" and "crackpots" in "cloud-cuckoo-land"?. It would seem that our friend only fools himself. Our friend's conflation of hate with the mere desire to preserve one's own people, is of course also indicative of his distorted views and his inability to see hate where it is and where it is not. To our friend, who is no doubt a Jewish supremacist, the European peoples do not even exist - they are merely people with a slightly lighter skin tone, and as such, the massive immigration we see today is a non-problem which will simply "make that race’s skin color a bit darker over time". Our friend's hatred for the European peoples is of course central to his clever argument that they are simply people with a different skin color, since a people that does not exist cannot be destroyed, just as his Holocaust convictions are central to the guilt which he wishes to impose on those peoples to ferment their destruction.

"For that to be a remotely plausible speculation outside the twisted thinking of Tesla, there would have to be "accusations with merit" in the first place. Maybe Tesla can tell us where exactly he thinks he found "accusations with merit", and according to what criteria (other than convenience to his stance) he assessed their "merit". Please fire away, Tesla. Tell us which accusations against me and others you consider to have "merit" and why."

Obviously, Tesla has done that several times already, or is our friend so feebleminded that he has not paid the slightest attention to our debate? Shall I take our friend's request in such a way that he wants me to restate everything I have said concerning the unfortunate accusations against our poor friend?

Tesla said...

"In his own words and some other information about him, which readers can find in this article, among others. Lisciotto's behavior towards people he doesn't like (consisting of childishly mendacious accusations and vulgar invective that, as evidence about certain intimate practices of his shows, carries a strong element of self-projection) is well documented."

Again our friend posts the same link he has posted a dozen times by now, presumably hoping that naive readers are going to fall for his trick of presenting yet more unsubstantiated claims in a link as "documentation".

"In the striking similarity of obsessions with accusations against former members of the ARC group, including me and two other HC bloggers, which for some time got "blogbuster" restricted to the "Siberian Exile" section of the RODOH forum. And in the occasional eulogies of "great researcher" Chris Webb, which, IIRC, can also be found there. "

By that logic we must also assume that our friend and and his colleagues are the same person, since they employ the same kind of rhetoric which consists of repeatedly calling their opponents "nutters" and "conspiracy theorists", making accusations of mental illness and "anti-Semitism" and generally rude and uncivilised behaviour. Consider for instance this article by our friend's associate, Sergey Romanov: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.no/2006/09/who-is-this-bum.html . The striking similarity between these two Jewish supremacists is rather difficult to not see, I would think, so by our friend's logic we have here clear proof that our friend alone is indeed the source behind all the mendacious and vindictive smearing which occurs on his blog.

"There are plenty of those, for sure. And as they are obviously false and put on way too thickly, they bother me as much as it bothers an oak tree when a swine rubs its back against it. What is more, I even welcome them as free publicity for HC. "

Our friend claims these accusations do not bother him, yet he seems to be obsessively defending himself against. One can only wonder at the contradictory nature of our friend's mind.

"“Quite clearly”, he says, without having produced any evidence that would preclude the smear campaign’s being the work of a single individual with an obsessive hatred of me an certain other persons."

Now, why on Earth should I be required to provide evidence that precludes our friend's silly theories? Clearly, the burden of proof is upon our friend.

"As to "several source in both camps of the holocaust debate", perhaps my esteemed interlocutor can tell us what "Revisionist" sources of such accusations he has in mind. I know one fellow who is in the habit of calling an opponent a "liar", a "dodger" and other epithets (which perfectly apply to himself) over and over again in forum discussions. I would be quite amused if Tesla told me that he has this fellow in mind."

Why would our friend be amused by that? Does our friend actually deny that his reputation among revisionists is also somewhat tarnished, to state it mildly? Perhaps I should simply list the revisionist sources which have stated a positive or neutral opinion of our friend and his blogger associates, which would amount to exactly nil.

"Sure, one cannot help but believe what one is all too eager to believe despite evidence to the contrary and the absence of any supporting evidence, if one switches of one’s brain and indulges in wishful thinking the way "Revisionists" in general and pitiable Tesla in particular are wont to do."

Tesla said...

No, "pitiable Tesla" refuses to acknowledge "evidence" which our friend has admitted is based on simple idioms such as "if it walks like a duck..." and which our friend states as if it were mathematical proof. "Pitiable" Tesla requires a certain standard to the evidence he will accept, which seems to anger our dear friend, apparently since he is used to convincing the readers of his amateur blog with mere conjecture.

"I see. And why would an opponent of "Revisionism" try to make believe that he has a "vicious instigator" among his peers in the first place, considering that the existence of such "vicious instigator" is detrimental to the prestige of the cause of anti-"Revisionism"?"

Why, didn't I just explain that to our friend? Is it so hard for our friend to see that the sociopathy which he accuses his peers of can just as likely be attributed to our friend himself?

"Apparently aware of the absurdity of his speculation but not willing to admit it, Tesla quicklu put together a convoluted non-explanation."

The absurdity of an explanation that consists of a Holocaust believer instigating a smear campaign? Why, I seem to remember someone else putting forth a similar explanation, but perhaps this explanation is also "absurd"?

"So Tesla believes that the cited "editorial" (which I was not previously aware of, and which Tesla is all too glad to swallow hook, line and sinker) was written by Webb himself?"

So our friend was not "aware" of this article - how convenient. No, Tesla simply notes that the editorial appears on Mr. Webb's website and is signed "ARC Trustees", which again would imply that we have several people writing ugly words about our friend, which predictably causes our friend to enter his usual mode of denial and mudslinging.

"Well, he certainly tolerated it, even though the piece is signed "ARC Trustees" – which alone looks bad enough on Mr. Webb."

Now, why on Earth wouldn't Mr. Webb tolerate such an editorial when Mr. Webb himself has written about the "hate bloggers" in an article which I provided for our friend's perusal, but which he apparently did not read, or which he perhaps thought would be smart to ignore?

"And if he took part in the production of that mendacious junk, there goes the benefit of doubt, and the conclusion is that Webb and Lisciotto are birds of a feather (or better, manure from the same cesspit)"

Why, it would seem as if we have yet another demostration of our friend's anger and hateful nature here.

"Now, it seems that Tesla considers the cited "editorial" to contain "accusations with merit", including the accusation that Sergey Romanov, Dr. Nick Terry and myself "produced a number of high quality fakes and forgeries" (the author(s) go(es) as far as claiming that "It took several months of hard work recreating ARC, days spent weeding through thousands of articles and photos to ensure that all the tainted material supplied by Sergey Romanov and fraudulently planted by Michael Peters were identified and expunged, and all references to HC removed"), the accusation that "They later went on to launch a counterfeit version of ARC in violation of international Copyright law" and the claim that "one of their members has since apologised and said how he bitterly regrets his actions". Now, if Tesla considers this filth to have "merit", I would like him to explain on what basis (namely on the basis of what evidence produced by the author(s) of the "editorial") he reached the conclusion that these accusations/claims have "merit". "

Tesla said...

As Tesla has explained to our friend many times now, I consider the accusations to have merit simply because they fit very well with our friend and his associates' observed behaviour, particularly the accusation of "spreadning hate" and "poison" and of using "foul language". As to the accusations of forgery, it would, as I have stated before, be impossible for an outsider like me to make any form of assessment regarding the truthfulness of this other than noting that word stands against word. And as I have also noted to our friend and to any possible readers out there many times now, I find it rather uninteresting who is the document forger among the Holocaust believers. My point has simply been to show that our friend has a rather shoddy reputation and that accusations are leveled against him from many different directions, which probably causes him a great deal of distress, as was demonstrated by his very noticable rise in emotional temperature in his last paragraph, and which no doubt plays a large role in forming his hate-filled Internet persona.

"I submit that the only "merit" to these accusations that Tesla will be able to demonstrate is that they contain what he is eager to read and believe regarding an opponent whose guts he hates on account of the kicks that opponent has administered to his pompous behind."

And which "kicks" could that possibly be? Perhaps our friend has forgotten already where the current discourse started, because it was at the beginning I first made the assertion that, even if our friend's "kicks" had any force to them, it would still be "kicks" from a self-proclaimed mental patient who has a reputation of delivering "kicks" to anyone who dares disagree with his convictions and which "kicks" are simply canned responses which he uses towards every single one of his opponents - a fact that Tesla discovered after making a simple google search on our friend to find out who this odd character was, whereby his decade long career of Internet-trolling was made plain. Clearly, it is impossible to be offended by our friend's "kicks" simply because they cannot be taken to be directed at one's own character personally.

"Or maybe he considered the accusations meritorious because they are authored or co-authored by the same individual who oh-so-credibly accused my fellow bloggers Sergey Romanov and Dr. Nick Terry of "being deniers, and holding memberships in revisionist organizations against the charter of the arc board". Particularly amusing is the claim about the "days spent weeding through thousands of articles and photos to ensure that all the tainted material supplied by Sergey Romanov and fraudulently planted by Michael Peters were identified and expunged", considering that most pages were last edited some time in 2005 or 2006 whereas the accusations of "tainted material" came up only much later and the "editorial" is dated October 2013. What explanation does Tesla propose for this delay?"

Tesla in general does not care to make speculations which require him to take our friend's claims for granted, in particular here the claim that "most pages were last edited some time in 2005 or 2006", or which requires a substantial amount of research into a website he is not very familiar with and an issue which is of very little interest to him. Perhaps our friend should instead consider this as his own project to gather some real documentation for his case, perhaps by using www.waybackmachine.org as an independent source for time stamps, but it is rather unlikely that our friend would be interested in this anymore than Tesla would be. No, my prediction is that our friend is simply going to continue with his baseless speculations based on loose quotes from alleged email conversations and forum threads, for which he will provide no method of authentication.

Tesla said...

"Maybe my esteemed interlocutor has a tiny point here, in that there are possibly two minds (Lisciotto’s and Webb's) instead of one mind (Lisciotto's) behind the smear campaign. After all "great researcher" Webb was the one exposed as a bumbling fool who fell for the faked material fed to him by his acquaintance "Andy Schmidt". Mind that the only reason for the benefit of doubt was Webb's not having been previously noted for the kind of behavior that characterizes the smear campaign."

What seems more likely to be the reason for our friend's given "benefit of doubt" was that our friend did not want it to be too obvious that the alleged "smear campaign" stemmed from several individuals, and so our friend simply denied this person's involvement to the point that it was no longer possible to do so without our friend giving the appearance of a "bumbling fool" himself. But it is of course with great amusement we can now observe our friend spin his theories about "minds" being "behind" the "campaign" to further ludicrousy.

"Apparently Tesla labors under the conviction that filling the internet with mendacious smear affects the reputation of anyone other than the author of such smear."

No, Tesla does not "labor under" such convictions. Rather, Tesla notes that our friend is vehemently trying to defend himself, which would imply that our friend thinks his reputation is important, and furthermore that our friend now spends a week simply to approve of "interlocutor" Tesla's rather factual comments regarding the reputation of our friend.

"Tesla is as slow on the uptake as ever. He quoted some ARC rambling against "controversy blogs, hate forums, email bulletins, and YouTube videos", so I pointed out that such rambling, especially the "controversy blogs" part, is related to its author bearing a grudge not against just one HC blogger, but against three founding members of the HC blog and hence against their joint creation, the HC blog. This in turn means that the author of such rambling is not at all concerned about "controversy blogs", but attacks such venues of anti-"Revisionist" activity for no other reason than his grudge against the founding members of the "controversy blog"."

Our friend calls me slow, but his arguments seem to go in complete circles now, to the point at which our friend is unable to understand what he is actually replying to, and instead chooses to use one of his many repeated and scripted responses. What I quoted was not from ARC, but from http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org , and the point was a reply to our friend's dodging of the accusations leveled against him at that site - the dodging being our friend's pretense that the accusations were somehow not leveled against him personally, but rather at the "HC blog" - in other words, simply another attempt from our friend to minimize the diversity of the accusations leveled against him.

"Our patronizing bigmouth should get used to the idea that it is his encumbrance to respond to questions about the source of his information, and not his opponent's encumbrance to go searching for that source. "

It is duly noted that our friend thinks it is my job to hold his hand, or perhaps our friend was simply pretending to not know about this particular source? Indeed, the latter would seem more likely, as our friend had a link that dealt with this exact article up his sleeve:

"As I suspected, the author is one previously unknown "Dr. Martin Friedhaus". Readers are encouraged to read this article about the "Dr. Martin Friedhaus" farce that our gullible little Tesla was so glad to be taken in by. The article also mentions other interesting facts about the methods of "Renowned Holocaust Scholar Chris Webb", and is therefore highly recommended."

Tesla said...

And here we have yet more unsubstantiated "facts" about the "minds" "behind" the "campaign" against our poor friend, no doubt.

"Actually I’m putting forward a sound theory that is fully borne out by the "Friedhaus" article's contents discussed in this article. Outside Tesla's confused mind (which would like to work logically but doesn’t manage), it's quite logical to suppose that a purported scholar who suddenly crops up out of nowhere to parrot the Webb/Lisciotto stance is in all probability a Webb/Lisciotto fake. Whether "Friedhaus" is Webb's creature Lisciotto or Webb himself (as I said before, Tesla probably has a point in that there are two assholes on ARC and not just one) doesn't really matter."

And here we have the same link repeated again. Our friend's behaviour is becoming increasingly desperate now, it would seem, with his links and unsubstantiated claims about the "minds" - two "minds" now, according two our friend's latest speculation - being repeated at higher and higher frequencies. And note how it is now suddenly of no importance that we are not dealing with "one sociopath". Quite clearly, the amount of "sociopaths" increases as our friend "discovers" that they are writing ugly words about him, because in our friend's convenient thinking it is always "sociopathic minds" that are out to get him.

"So the disappearance of death-camps.org was sufficient for our gullible Tesla to swallow the claim in the "editorial" that the site was "removed through legal action". Actually no such thing happened, as is mentioned here and here (two more articles our readers are encouraged to read, as the former discusses the merits of Webb/Lisciotto’s copyright claim and the latter shows that "1&1", the German Internet provider on whose server death-camps.org was hosted, didn’t care much about these claims (to the dismay of poor Chris Webb, who whined that "We are very disappointed in 1and1de stance, but not surprised". IIRC the reason why death-camps.org was eventually taken down was that the owner of the web domain, a German former member of the ARC research group, didn't consider the little traffic on the site worth the expense of keeping it alive. "

"Gullible" Tesla is simply looking at the hard facts, of which none seem to go in the favour of our friend. Of course our friend would rather want Tesla to simply take his claims about the events for granted, but how Tesla's refusal to do so should make him "gullible" is a bit of a mystery that probably only our friend is able to answer. It is likely that, in our friend's narrow-minded world, the truth is simply what is convenient for him, and so he despises posters who are unwilling to take his accusations and smears for granted, but rather look at the facts.

"Readers will have noted that Tesla keeps repeating this "poor reputation" claim with no evidence at all to show for it (the baseless accusations of Webb/Lisciotto, needless to say, don't count as evidence). He obviously believes that his accusations will stand on their own feet as long as they are repeated a sufficient number of times – i.e. exactly what he accuses me of. Accusing their opponents of what are actually their own fallacies is a standard debating tactic among "Revisionist" charlatans, to which Tesla is obviously no stranger."

Tesla said...

What a fantastic display of our friend's arrogant and narrow-minded nature. Our friend obviously thinks his whim is our command, and as such, any evidence which our friend declares invalid is invalid, without any explanation whatsoever. It is very clear from this statement that our friend indeed believes that he can simply declare evidence as invalid if that suits him, which is very typical of Jewish supremacists of his kind. His overused tactic of simply using my arguments against me and using his canned Freudian projection nonsense is hardly worthy of further comment, as it has been pointed out as part of our friend's weak repertoire of scripted lines in our parallel debate.

"Readers may note that in Tesla's upside-down world setting the record straight in the face of a smear campaign is called "to start smear campagins against people who have crossed him", and an argument logical enough to be accepted by US courts is a "flimsy logical fallacy"."

Insofar as the evidence presented is of such a weak nature that it can hardly be described as anything but a pretense to start such a smear campaign, then yes, your "setting the record straight" is nothing but smears, and would no doubt be recognised as such by a court should it ever end up there. And insofar as this weak form of argument is indeed accepted by US courts, to which we have absolutely no evidence other that our friend claiming to have been told so by a friend, it would only show the weakness of the justice system of that, to put it plainly, rotten country. It would certainly not be the first time that its justice system was shown to be run by hillbillies.

"Of course I don't expect Tesla to be able to explain what exactly is supposed to be illogical about this "flimsy logical fallacy"."

In the way it is used by our friend, in which he claims certainty from it, it is a special form of the fallacy of the converse, whereby one assumes that since some entity has some set of properties, it follows that some other entity must be the same as the first if it also can be shown to have the same properties. In other words, a monitor is not a TV simply because it is flat and has buttons on it, a car is not a wheelchair because it has wheels and brakes and the author who calls our friend a "hate blogger" need not be the same as the author who calls our friend a "dick". It should be simple enough to understand, but to our friend the demagogue, even simple logic must be explained when it goes against his feelings.

"Here we see Tesla swiftly converting a somewhat-less-than-reasonable speculation into a statement of fact. Quite a conjuring trick.:-)"

The conversion seems to have happened when our friend quite frankly admitted that he did not have any evidence other than his flimsy "if it walks like a duck..." idiom. How this is supposed to be a trick rather than a simple conclusion based on our friend's writings, one can only wonder.

"And here we see a classic case of self-projection, besides an accurate description of the smear campaign's author(s) who, just like my opponent, has or have used the depressive disease I suffered from in 1999 as an argument against me. Birds of a feather fly together."

Tesla said...

I have simply noted that insofar as mental illnesses go, the only hard facts we can relate to are the facts concerning our friend's self-proclaimed institutionalization. While our friend has the habit of using mental diagnostication as an argument against his opponents, it remains a fact that the only mental illness which can be documented with any certainty is the mental illness of our friend himself, which he now desperately attempts to downplay by emphasising the depressive aspects of it. And while one might in other cases be cautious about including a person's mental history in a debate, it seems completely appropriate in this case, since our friend seems to not have any qualms when it comes to talking about such mental illness, whether it is his own or the ones which he alleges in his adversaries. That our friend labels such objective investigation of the facts "projection" is quite laughable when one looks at our friends longstanding history of using mental characteristics, not as part of a factual debate, but as simple namecalling and personal attacks against his opponents.

"A more likely scenario (in the real world, as opposed to Tesla’s cloud-cuckoo-land) is that what attempts Tesla undertook to point out my "mendacious ways" were so pathetic that he made a bloody fool of himself. It's quite understandable that he now tries to excuse himself from repeating these self-defeating attempts."

No, it is simply a matter of not letting our friend's mind, with its constant dodging, run the show, as any evidence provided to him is simply forgotten the next time our friend decides to reply to points which have been discussed before. Furthermore, since I have read quite a bit about the "recurrent" mental state which our friend has proclaimed that he suffers from, I would rather not trigger our friend's manic state more than what is necessary to answer his dubious claims, since I do actually empathise quite a bit with our friend after reading his replies, and because I do not have any intention of being wicked. That our friend still suffers from this horrible disease there can be no doubt about, I think, and I have no desire or intention to make it worse.

"What actually seems to have happened is that Tesla again forgot to think before hitting the keyboard. Otherwise it might have occurred to him that "our friend" was accusing his doctor of not having recognized what "our friend" (in his own opinion at the time) was actually suffering from and therefore having given him the wrong medication. Duh!"

So we are to believe that our friend self-diagnosed himself erroneously, then complained that his doctor was a "jerk" because he supplied our friend with pills that were contraindicated for the particular disease which our friend claims to have given himself? And clearly, if one bothers to peruse the thread where our friend discusses his pills, one can see that he attacks his doctor for giving him the wrong medication, not the wrong diagnosis. Our friend's post-rationalization regarding these facts is hardly convincing.

"As we have just seen, that's exactly self-projecting Tesla’s approach. The link in question was mentioned in the following context: "

And where have "just seen" this alleged "self projecting" approach? Rather, what we have just seen is yet more repetition from our friend who desperately posts the same links whenever he finds an occasion.

"So our self-appointed expert in psychiatry believes that a person with even more serious symptoms than those I had in 1999 would have the energy and motivation to organize an internet smear campaign if he were so inclined. If I were a mean fellow, I would wish my friend a 24-hour experience of such ailment, after which I'm sure he would never again repeat such rubbish. "

Tesla said...

I have simply noted that insofar as mental illnesses go, the only hard facts we can relate to are the facts concerning our friend's self-proclaimed institutionalization. While our friend has the habit of using mental diagnostication as an argument against his opponents, it remains a fact that the only mental illness which can be documented with any certainty is the mental illness of our friend himself, which he now desperately attempts to downplay by emphasising the depressive aspects of it. And while one might in other cases be cautious about including a person's mental history in a debate, it seems completely appropriate in this case, since our friend seems to not have any qualms when it comes to talking about such mental illness, whether it is his own or the ones which he alleges in his adversaries. That our friend labels such objective investigation of the facts "projection" is quite laughable when one looks at our friends longstanding history of using mental characteristics, not as part of a factual debate, but as simple namecalling and personal attacks against his opponents.

"A more likely scenario (in the real world, as opposed to Tesla’s cloud-cuckoo-land) is that what attempts Tesla undertook to point out my "mendacious ways" were so pathetic that he made a bloody fool of himself. It's quite understandable that he now tries to excuse himself from repeating these self-defeating attempts."

No, it is simply a matter of not letting our friend's mind, with its constant dodging, run the show, as any evidence provided to him is simply forgotten the next time our friend decides to reply to points which have been discussed before. Furthermore, since I have read quite a bit about the "recurrent" mental state which our friend has proclaimed that he suffers from, I would rather not trigger our friend's manic state more than what is necessary to answer his dubious claims, since I do actually empathise quite a bit with our friend after reading his replies, and because I do not have any intention of being wicked. That our friend still suffers from this horrible disease there can be no doubt about, I think, and I have no desire or intention to make it worse.

"What actually seems to have happened is that Tesla again forgot to think before hitting the keyboard. Otherwise it might have occurred to him that "our friend" was accusing his doctor of not having recognized what "our friend" (in his own opinion at the time) was actually suffering from and therefore having given him the wrong medication. Duh!"

So we are to believe that our friend self-diagnosed himself erroneously, then complained that his doctor was a "jerk" because he supplied our friend with pills that were contraindicated for the particular disease which our friend claims to have given himself? And clearly, if one bothers to peruse the thread where our friend discusses his pills, one can see that he attacks his doctor for giving him the wrong medication, not the wrong diagnosis. Our friend's post-rationalization regarding these facts is hardly convincing.

"As we have just seen, that's exactly self-projecting Tesla’s approach. The link in question was mentioned in the following context: "

And where have "just seen" this alleged "self projecting" approach? Rather, what we have just seen is yet more repetition from our friend who desperately posts the same links whenever he finds an occasion.

"So our self-appointed expert in psychiatry believes that a person with even more serious symptoms than those I had in 1999 would have the energy and motivation to organize an internet smear campaign if he were so inclined. If I were a mean fellow, I would wish my friend a 24-hour experience of such ailment, after which I'm sure he would never again repeat such rubbish. "

Tesla said...

Here we have more self-pity from our friend, which he also seems to insert whenever he can find an occasion. And clearly a person with serious symptoms of agitated depression would have the energy to organize such a campaign during a manic episode, as is made plain by the very description of that disorder.

"It is also duly noted that our self-appointed psychiatrist dodged the following argument, obviously for lack of a counterargument: "

Now, how on Earth is the fact that sociopaths also exhibit characteristics that would allow them to engage in such acts, an argument against anything?

"The bottom line is that someone suffering from depression, especially such with aggravated symptoms as described by Tesla's source, is too absorbed in his suffering and suicidal ideation to find an interest in any activity."

Clearly, this is not the case with the disorder our friend proclaimed to be suffering from at all, which is made plain by Tesla's source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry) . But now our friend seems to pretend that he does not know what "mania" means or that this was not somehow part of the disorder which he allegedly diagnosed himself with. We are to believe then, that our friend is such a feebleminded fool that he completely missed one of the main diagnostic criteria of the disorder which he allegedly decided to give himself, and then decided to call his doctor a "jerk" based on his own erroneous diagnostication.

"A sociopath, on the other hand, is not suffering at all. He feels great about himself, and he takes pleasure in attacking whoever he holds to have "crossed" him or failed to pay due homage to his perceived greatness. As he is also bereft of any feeling of empathy or remorse as well as moral or ethical considerations, he is exactly the kind of person who would delight in trying to attack someone else's reputation by internet smear."

And? Had there been any evidence of sociopathy linked to the persons in question in this case, this might have been a valid argument, but since we can only take as fact the mental illness which our friend has proclaimed to have, and since this mental disorder fits the facts just as well as our friend's alleged sociopathy, it seems much more reasonable to assume that, if any mental illness is involved at all, it is the mental illness of our friend which he so aptly has documented himself.

"Not exactly a logical argument by Mr. "logical", and there's a big difference between calling someone a hysteric or a sociopath on account of that someone’s hysterical or sociopathic behavior and bringing up an actual report about an opponent’s illness (moreover one unrelated to either the subject matter of the discussion or the opponent's behavior) as an argument to denigrate that opponent. My interlocutor's having done the latter doesn't exactly bother me, which is why is accusation of "whining and wailing" is as silly as so much else he has produced. But it is interesting in that it shows my interlocutor to be a small, vindictive and altogether disgusting person."

Our friend is apparently trying to convince us that his longstanding history of using allusions to pathology to denigrate his opponents is not actually denigration, but rather references to fact. One can only gaze at this amazing lack of introspection and display of double standards on part of our friend, where in his mind he has given himself the right to do and say anything he wants, while no one is allowed to cross him. One is tempted to put this in the bin of the usual despicable nature of Jewish supremacists, however, as our friend's behaviour is rather more likely to be induced by his self-proclaimed mental disorder, one can only assume that our friend is helplessly unable to act differently, and as such should be pitied rather than disparaged.

Tesla said...

"“Mere” depression, the cretin says. Obviously he knows as much about psychiatry in general and depression in particular as a pig does about Sunday. So let's try to do something about the fellow's ignorance by letting an informed source tell him what "mere" depression is all about:

"Every week a doctor commits suicide in North America, and each one knew that depression is potentially treatable or self-limiting; insight goes faster in depression than in any other illness. Depression is psychological pain, and a severe depressive illness is arguably the most unpleasant disease in the Western world bar rabies. Samuel Johnson once said he'd suffer a limb to be amputated to recover his spirits. An old clergyman who had recovered from a severe depression later badly scalded his genitals, thighs, and abdomen. When asked which type of pain was worse, he said, 'I would suffer the scalding a hundred times rather than have a depression again. Every night I pray to God to let me die before the depression returns. When I was scaled I prayed for relief and I was heard, but during the depression I lost my faith. There is no comparison between those two kinds of pain.'""

And here we have yet more self-pity from our Jewish supremacist friend, whereby he attempts to produce tears in his readers' eyes by pasting stories of scalded genitals and amputated limbs. One can only marvel at the continued self-victimisation of our friend and his employment of every trick in the book to make himself look like an innocent child, while he is in reality a hardcore crook.

"Says the bigmouthed dilettante who calls one of the most unpleasant diseases on the planet a "mere" depression, obviously unaware that, if I had (as I presumed at the time) suffered from the aggravated symptoms described by his source besides those I actually had, I would have been even less capable of any "online behavior" than I was at the time. As to the "obsessive" thing, I’d say the "Freudian" projection theory comes into play here again, considering how my interlocutor obsessively fills this blog's comments section with garbage, especially now that he deluded himself into thinking that he had found something he could use to get even for my having burst some of his bubbles."

"One of the most unpleasant diseases", no doubt because it is the disease our friend has suffered from. Had our friend suffered from cancer, it would be cancer that was "one of the most unpleasant diseases" and had it been malaria, it would have been malaria that was "one of the most unpleasant diseases". Our friend's self-pity does not invoke the slightest empathy, and his attempt at explaining away the parts of his disorder which no doubt are part of the reason for his vindictive and obsessive online behaviour, is simply pure nonsense.

"Actually there’s nothing "narcisstic" about pointing out that depression, contrary to a popular perception apparently shared by our ignorant self-appointed expert in psychiatry, has nothing to do with any weakness or character flaw but is rather a serious ailment that people with very strong personalities have suffered from. It’s just setting the record straight and highlighting the utter imbecility of bringing up someone’s depression as a negative against that person. The "narcisstic" BS, besides smacking of self-projection, is one of the most pathetic "arguments" Tesla has come up with so far – and that is saying something."

Tesla said...

And how is this argument supposed to be "pathetic" - can our friend please explain without using his scripted references to his silly Freudian projection theories? And can our friend show us where I have supposedly used his "depression" as a negative against him? Rather, what I have done is used some of the very serious symptoms of the disorder which our friend has proclaimed he suffered from - a disorder which also happens to include depression - as a factual explanation of the events which have been described by our friend and his friends on this blog regarding the "campaign", and also to note that such symptoms are in accordance with our friend's observed behaviour, and as such can legitimately be used to provide a more plausible explanation to said events than the mere speculation and baseless accusations which our friend is repeatedly throwing around.

"Unfortunately for poor Tesla and his repetitive stance about my "despicable behaviour and online reputation", The Holocaust History Project is not only one of the two or three most important "believer" sources on the internet, but was also well aware of the smear campaign launched against me and other HC bloggers by the ARC "trustees". That is why their adding HC to their list of links happened at the same time as their removal of the ARC site from that list. If Tesla has any doubts about THHP having previously included ARC in their list of links, he is free to check with the wayback machine."

And what is this supposed to be an argument against? Has Tesla ever challenged the fact that our friend seemingly has someone who supports him also? How on Earth is this one source, which could be the workings of our friend and his blogger associates for all we know, supposed to contradict the fact that our friend is described as a nutter, a hater and a document forger on a multitude of websites, blogs and fora?

"So on the one hand there is endorsement by historians (besides Sara Berger, there are historians who reviewed our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues)"

And which historians might that be, and where do they give you their "endorsement"?

"and by one of the internet's main anti-denial sites, the latter at least in full awareness of the Webb/Lisciotto smear campaign,"

And several other "anti-denial" sites which attack our friend and write the most horrible things about the poor sod. It must be difficult for our friend to relate to this, as his attempts at defense here clearly amounts to mere grasping of straws.

"besides abundant evidence that Webb and Lisciotto are a bunch of lying sick puppies. And on the other hand there are the wholly unsubstantiated accusations of those very sick puppies, which Tesla chose to uncritically take at face value (to give him the benefit of doubt instead of assuming that he's an even lowlier skunk than I thought) for no apparent reason other than convenience to his stance. A proper choice for an inhabitant of the fantasy world that is the "Revisionist” religion."

Tesla said...

What Tesla has done is simply to look at the undeniable facts, rather than what our friend or his adversaries have claimed happened. And in doing that, Tesla has come to the conclusion that the only sickness pointed to by the facts is the sickness of our friend himself, which of course Tesla has not used to simply denigrate our friend as our friend is so fond of doing against those who cross him, but rather as an alternative explanation to the incredible story of "minds" being "behind" a "campaign" put forth by our friend. This of course, has made our friend increasingly angry, as he realises how flimsy his own depiction of the events is, and how easily the facts, the real facts and not our friend's opinions and claims presented as facts, fit Tesla's objective interpretations rather than his own self-serving speculation based on flimsy idioms and our friend's observation of patterns.

"Tesla apparently considers himself to have been writing in Oscar Wilde mode, which suggests his liking of this author. I for my part must confess that I never read anything from Wilde. Is there any of his works that Tesla would recommend?"

Tesla is simply underlining the fact that he is writing in a particular mode which should be easily recogniseable to our friend, but which he perhaps lacks the sufficient amount of introspective ability to actually recognise.

[/Oscar Wilde Mode]

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

I just published the latest collection of Tesla's "wisdom", which I encourage our readers to read whenever they have nothing better to do, for there's a good chance that they'll laugh as much as I did this evening when scanning this wall of text, with its instructive self-portrayals and insights into what it is that a "Revisionist" mind considers "reasonable".

I'm looking forward to more fun starting tomorrow, as I comment my friend's utterances whenever I have time and feel like taking a short chill-out break from work.

Thanks for the entertainment, Tesla.