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.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Germar Rudolf's True Feelings about Jews
Can be read on page 39 of this report, which quotes Germar thus:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
«and since this mental disorder fits the facts just as well as our friend's alleged sociopathy,»
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn’t. Even if I had been right about my depression being an agitated depression/mixed state/dysphoric mania, and even if the manic features of that depression included high energy and euphoria (which they do not), the essential feature missing would be a tendency for the kind of recklessly offensive and compulsively mendacious behavior that characterizes a sociopath.
«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.»
That I suffered from severe depression with symptoms of agitation and anxiety is a fact, but one that has no bearing whatsoever on the subject matter of this discussion – whereas Lisciotto's sociopathic behavior and Webb's concurring lies are the very reason why this discussion is taking place.
«"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.»
Let's call them references to observed behavior and to what that observed behavior suggests. And I didn’t know hysteria was a pathology.
«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.»
The day I dig up a report about someone's physical or mental ailment and publish it as an argument against an opponent, Tesla can accuse me of "double standards". Until then, he's obviously and rather pathetically comparing apples with oranges.
«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.»
Why, the "Jewish supremacists" again, followed by a condescending remark obviously meant to be humiliating. No comments required, as our friend is clearly condemning himself through his own words.
«"“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:
ReplyDelete"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.»
The accusation of "self-pity" is as silly as can be considering that a) we wouldn't be discussing my depression if my opponent had not brought it up and b) the above quote was meant to highlight our self-appointed psychiatry expert's ignorance about depression, and not to elicit any pity (which I hope no one will ever feel for me, as I consider being pitied humiliating). Another telling characteristic that my interlocutor displays in his comment is his apparent willingness to make mocking comments about accounts of human suffering, which is further evidence that he's just the kind of moral rat or cockroach I consider him to be. Last but not least, the "hardcore crook" gave me a big laugh, not only because it's such an accurate self-description and revealing of my interlocutor’s hatred, but also because a) it belies his earlier "should be pitied rather than disparaged" hypocrisy and b) being furiously called a "crook" by a mendacious hate propagandist, moreover one with a name containing these five letters, is at least as much of a compliment as being called a "Jewish supremacist" (whatever that is supposed to be) by the same individual.
«"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."
ReplyDelete"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".»
What utter nonsense. My rabid interlocutor obviously missed (or conveniently ignored) the statement in the quoted source whereby “Depression is psychological pain, and a severe depressive illness is arguably the most unpleasant disease in the Western world bar rabies”, which was what I was referring to.
«Our friend's self-pity does not invoke the slightest empathy,»
Self-pity is something I'm alien to, and I'm glad that my rabid interlocutor gave up his hypocritical "empathy" pretense. Being empathized by someone with the ethical and moral values of a cockroach would be an insult far worse than the ridiculous "Jewish supremacist" and "hardcore crook" baloney my opponent has thrown at me in what seems to be a fit of carpet-biting rage.
«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»
Yawn. As explained above, those supposed "parts" of my disorder wouldn't explain any "vindictive and obsessive" behavior (both terms, incidentally, are an accurate description of my opponent’s behavior but not of mine) even if they had existed.
«"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."
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?»
For the reason I explained in the first two sentences of the above-quoted paragraph, and I note with some amusement that my opponent’s fit of rage has not yet subsided.
«And can our friend show us where I have supposedly used his "depression" as a negative against him?»
ReplyDeleteFirst time here:
«Speaking of hysterical - how is that bipolar disorder of yours going? Still up and down?»
And on various occasions ever since.
«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.»
So now our word-playing sophist tells us that he was only addressing the "agitated" part of "agitated depression", which is truly pathetic. As to his "more plausible explanation", he obviously forgot to switch on his brain once again, for even if my disease had included euphoric mania (as opposed to the dysphoric mania that characterizes agitated depression), an essential ingredient to my involvement in "said events" as per Webb/Lisciotto's accusations (namely the recklessness, absence of moral values and compulsive mendacity that characterizes a sociopath) would still be missing. Try to think before hitting the keyboard next time.
«"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?»
Tesla has claimed that serious scholars keep their distance to me, IIRC. Which is demonstrably not the case.
«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?»
ReplyDeleteNot at all, but it renders those descriptions (born from the rage and frustration of bested opponents and/or the hateful mendacity of two self-aggrandizing individuals) even more irrelevant than they are anyway. And before idiotically claiming that the endorsement by HC "could be the workings of our friend and his blogger associates", my rabid interlocutor should have informed himself about The Holocaust History Project and its creators and active members. He might have learned that THHP is one of the oldest anti-denial sites on the web, probably second only to Nizkor, and was around long before ARC came into being and much longer before the Holocaust Controversies blog was created.
«"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"?»
Already mentioned, look up their names here. Scholars who proofread or otherwise assisted in the making of the critique obviously did so because they endorsed the undertaking and its authors.
«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.»
What other "anti-denial" sites exactly would those be, besides the ARC and H.E.A.R.T. sites of Webb and Lisciotto and the vulgar smear sites and blogs created by these individuals? Please list them all and provide links. After that you can explain why ARC was removed from THHP's list of links, and why anti-denial posters like this gentleman, who I first met on the SSF, easily recognized the smear campaign for what it was. The obvious explanation is that they either have more brains than Tesla and/or their reasoning is not hindered by obsessive hatred for the "Jewish supremacist" and "hardcore crook", but I’m open to alternative interpretations.
«"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."
ReplyDeleteWhat Tesla has done is simply to look at the undeniable facts, rather than what our friend or his adversaries have claimed happened.»
If Tesla had done what he claims to have done, he would have recognized from Webb's and Lisciotto's documented words and behavior (and not from what we claimed about that behavior) that anything coming from Webb and/or Lisciotto must be taken with a big grain of salt. But obviously facts are the last thing that Tesla, a true "Revisionist" in this respect, is interested in.
«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.»
A "conclusion" that, as amply demonstrated above, is as piss-poor and full of holes as can be, and thus must be assumed to serve no other purpose than what Tesla hypocritically claims not to be his intention, which is to denigrate his opponent.
«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.»
Actually "our friend" is not angry at all (as opposed to what his interlocutor's rabid utterances suggest about that interlocutor’s emotional state), but simply amused by Tesla's amazing capacity for self-delusion, plain and simple lying, or both.
«"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.»
And how exactly am I supposed to recognize "Oscar Wilde mode" if I have never read anything from that author (unlike my interlocutor, who seems to be quite familiar with Wilde’s writings)?
From what I have gathered from the report which you cite, it appears that Rudolf drafted that statement for another holocaust denier, Ahmed Rami.
ReplyDeleteIf that is all true, it seriously undermines his credibility, doesn't it?It destroys that innocent persecution complex he tries to hide under. I know this post is 4 years old and therefore considered old, but I just couldn't help myself from commenting on this gem.