In the same month, Julius Streicher wrote, "The war the German people are fighting today is a holy war. It is a war against the devil. The German people must win this war if the devil is to die and humanity is to live."Who Should Die — Germans or Jews?
Here a modest point may be permitted: There are about 20 million Jews in the world.
How would it be if one wanted to treat 20 million Jews according to the proposal of their racial comrade Kaufman rather than 80 million Germans? Then peace would certainly be assured. For the Jew is the troublemaker, the warmonger, everywhere in the world.
On November 16th, 1941, Goebbels connected Kaufman to Hitler's prophecy:
The Jews wanted war, and now they have it. But the Führer’s prophecy of 30 January 1939 to the German Reichstag is also being fulfilled: If international finance Jewry should succeed in plunging the world into war once again, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the world and thereby the victory of the Jews, but rather the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.Goebbels, Streicher and Diewerge were unequivocally stating that the goal of Nazi anti-Jewish policy should be the same end product as they read in Kaufman: total biological extermination. However, whereas Kaufman was a lone crank with no influence in American politics or civil society, Goebbels et al were echoing the views of Hitler himself, who would repeat the same formula in speeches throughout 1942, such as here.
We are seeing the fulfillment of the prophecy. The Jews are receiving a penalty that is certainly hard, but more than deserved. World Jewry erred in adding up the forces available to it for this war, and now is gradually experiencing the destructon that it planned for us, and would have carried out without a second thought if it had possessed the ability. It is perishing according its own law: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
So this was just an "obscure tract", eh? Not blatant, Jewish racism, calling for the extermination of a whole people?
ReplyDeleteNo, Kaufman wasn't a "lone crank" - he represented a hatred against Germans that was common amongst Jews at that time. Samuel Untermeyer, who most certainly wasn't a lone crank, called it a "war" 8 years before Streicher did. Similarly, the Jew Weizmann wrote letters to Churchill saying the Jews could get America into the war.
The Germans saw this as the Jews plotting behind the scenes to destroy them - and rightly so.
But you deny that senior Nazis were calling for the extermination of Jews when they cited Kaufman's tract? Cuckoo.
ReplyDeleteBytwerk discusses Kaufman's insignificance in the US here:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGermany_Must_Perish!
"Extermination", from Latin 'ex' - 'outside' and 'terminus' - 'border'?
ReplyDeleteI'm simply pointing out that Kaufman was one of many Jews who wanted to destroy Germany.
Your quoting of low-level nazi newspaper editors doesn't show anything. I haven't seen any proof that Jews were to be sterilized either, although we may speculate that it might have been a plan for the future.
Well Goebbels (in Bytwerk's translation) uses the verb "to perish" about what Germany is doing to Jews, and Kaufman's book was called "Germany Must Perish", which called for total sterilization of Germans. Goebbels then uses the term "eye for an eye". Thus you have two cases of equivalence in how Goebbels on 16/11/41 relates to Kaufman's book.
ReplyDeleteI see a false equivalence here being made between what Kaufman wrote and actual policy in Nazi Germany. Kaufman wrote what I would consider to be something akin to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, while amusing maybe to those who enjoy black comedy or gallows humor (even though Kaufman didn't intend for it to be satirical), people in charge of policy in the allied nations and especially in the United States didn't take any of the suggestions in the book seriously. To use this as an example that there was truly a conspiracy to wipe out the German people in their entirety (whether or not they supported the regime) is really scraping at the bottom of the barrel. There was nothing equivalent in the polices of the allied nations with regard to the Nuremberg Laws, but often when I converse with Holocaust deniers/"revisionists" about this, they'll then say things like "Well, the United States interned Japanese-Americans!" with the implication that we don't find such a thing wrong with that. It's nothing but endless hoopla.
ReplyDelete"An eye for an eye" - so using your literal interpretation the Jews should have been sterilized altogether.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any such program of mass sterilization of all Jews, so all you've actually done here is to show that Goebbels' "an eye for an eye" references cannot be taken literally.
Goebbels uses the expressions "geht zugrunde" and "Vernichtung", so again by your own logic you have also shown that those words don't necessarily mean murder.
Kevin: As I have pointed out already, that Kaufman alone was the reason for the belief that Germans were to be wiped out is a strawman. It's just one of the more extreme, explicit examples of the Jewish hatred that existed towards Germans at that time.
ReplyDeleteThat the Jews wanted to destroy the Germans is a well-documented fact, not only from their own speeches where highly prominent Jews used words such as "war", but also from the fact that this process of destruction actually happened in the form of a *real* Holocaust - namely the burning alive of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans through the firebombing campaign against German cities.
Sterilization results in extermination. Goebbels was advocating extermination of Jews as a supposedly equivalent measure but by any means
ReplyDelete"Supposedly equivalent but by any means"... Hm, not sure what that's supposed to mean, but in any case sterilization is a far different method than mass murder in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. So what you have is some speculation that Goebbels advocated something that was never done in practice and a confirmation that his "an eye for an eye" was just hollow rhetorics.
ReplyDeleteAdding on to what Kevin said, I think a similar analogy of "scraping at the bottom of the barrel" is the claim that 'Judea' declared "war" on Nazi Germany, in 1933, citing an article in the front page of the Daily Express newspaper . An economic boycott by Jews = formal declaration of "war" according to Holocaust deniers.
ReplyDeleteThere were violent attacks on Jews (and others) by the SA long before Hitler became Chancellor. There was a surge in violence after the March 5 elections, in 1933.
It's not surprising Jews banded together when they did. I'm sure the boycott would of happened sooner had Hitler been elected before 1933. I think they should have organized a boycott soon after Nazis appeared on the ballot in federal elections.
«That the Jews wanted to destroy the Germans is a well-documented fact, not only from their own speeches where highly prominent Jews used words such as "war", but also from the fact that this process of destruction actually happened in the form of a *real* Holocaust - namely the burning alive of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans through the firebombing campaign against German cities.»
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a real true believer in the bullshit religion that calls itself "Revisionism", bravo!
First of all, what our friend calls the "real" Holocaust killed a maximum of 635,000 inhabitants of Germany in its borders as of 31.12.1942, see here. That's less than the number of people murdered by starvation in his beloved Führer's siege of Leningrad alone, even taking the lowest count for that siege's death toll. One doesn't even have to look at the well-documented figures of the genocide our friend fanatically denies to see the area bombing of German cities, horrible though it was, as a comparatively lesser evil.
Second, while the area bombing of German cities was a criminal way of trying to bring about Germany's surrender, it ended as soon as that surrender had been achieved (mostly by means other than bombing). Whereas the Nazi Hunger Plan for the occupied eastern territories, which could be executed only to a limited extent because the war went wrong for our friend's Nazi heroes, would have caused the starvation death of tens of millions if Operation Barbarossa had been successful - as was pointed out by American historian Timothy Snyder. Even the genocide of the Jews was but a redux version of what would have happened if Nazi Germany had won the war.
Third, it's not true that all or even the majority of air raid victims in Germany were burned alive, as our friend would have it. Of every 100 air raid victims in German cities, 15 were killed by explosions, 15 were burned and 70 died of suffocation and/or carbon monoxide poisoning (like the Jews in the gas vans of Chelmno and the gas chambers of Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka, by the way). Source of the above figures is Schwan/Steininger, Besiegt, besetzt, geteilt, p. 157.
Fourth, I didn't know that Jews - let alone "the" Jews - had much to do with the area bombing of German cities, which was mostly the work of the British RAF. Was Arthur Harris a Jew?
Fifth, isn't it funny to see a denier of the irrefutably proven Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews (and presumably other Nazi crimes as well) babble about «hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans» supposedly burned alive due to the evil machinations of "the Jews"? Our friend's standard of evidence seems to be a double standard - just like that of his coreligionist "Thomas Dalton, PhD".
Please keep on the self-caricature, Mr. "Tesla".
"Spoken like a real true believer in the bullshit religion that calls itself "Revisionism", bravo!"
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one designating opponents of my theory as *deniers*. Who's the religious one here, eh?
Your figures use the 20.000 figure for Dresden, which is enough to not take it very seriously.
"Third, it's not true that all or even the majority of air raid victims in Germany were burned alive, as our friend would have it. Of every 100 air raid victims in German cities, 15 were killed by explosions, 15 were burned and 70 died of suffocation and/or carbon monoxide poisoning"
Yes, unlike the phony gas chamber "holocaust", we actually have real, provable examples of people being burned alive.
"Fourth, I didn't know that Jews - let alone "the" Jews - had much to do with the area bombing of German cities, which was mostly the work of the British RAF. Was Arthur Harris a Jew? "
ReplyDeleteOf course they had - Europeans had no reason to kill their own kinsmen in that war. The RAF didn't want to start the bombing campaign against civilians. In fact, they warned Churchill strongly against it as it would lead to significant casualties for the bomber pilots and little damage to the enemy - AND it would most certainly cause Hitler to bomb the shit out of London. Churchill, who was bought by the Jewish 'Focus' group, gave the order anyway.
Ronobi,
ReplyDeleteThe expression "holy war" was used by prominent Jews themselves, such as Samuel Untermeyer. This isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel - this is just scraping the surface. The Jews proposed concrete plans to destroy Germany not once, but in fact *three* times prior to and during the war: The Kaufman plan, the Morgenthau plan and the Hooton plan. The Morgenthau plan in particular was just plain wickedness that would have starved millions of Germans to death.
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;".
And the Jews of course, have been heavily involved in the leftist multiculturalist movements. Some of them even admit to being behind it themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ
«"Spoken like a real true believer in the bullshit religion that calls itself "Revisionism", bravo!"
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one designating opponents of my theory as *deniers*. Who's the religious one here, eh?»
The term "denial", as I understand it, designates the unreasonable negation of facts. We’re not talking about any "theories" or beliefs here, unless you mean stuff like the "transit camp" theory that Mattogno, Graf and Kues are so fond of. Got any names for me, as we’re at it?
«Your figures use the 20.000 figure for Dresden, which is enough to not take it very seriously.»
You’re one lousy reader, pal. The 635,000 figure assumes 60,000 dead for Dresden, which is well above the mark, as a detailed historical investigation has proven correct the contemporary police estimate whereby about 25,000 people were killed in the air attack on 13/14 February 1945. I gather from your remark that this is way too low for your taste and you maintain a six-digit number of Dresden bombing victims, which again shows that a) your notion of historical events is guided by ideology, not by proven facts, and b) your standard of evidence is a double standard.
«"Third, it's not true that all or even the majority of air raid victims in Germany were burned alive, as our friend would have it. Of every 100 air raid victims in German cities, 15 were killed by explosions, 15 were burned and 70 died of suffocation and/or carbon monoxide poisoning"
Yes, unlike the phony gas chamber "holocaust", we actually have real, provable examples of people being burned alive.»
Depends on what you mean by "real, provable examples" (as opposed to what your double standards of evidence do not accept as "real, provable examples"), and I didn't know that your Nazi heroes tended to burn their victims alive. Well, sometimes they did – Reich Commissar Hinrich Lohse is known to have expressed his concerns about such practices regarding the (non-Jewish) inhabitants of villages destroyed in the course of anti-partisan operations in what today is Belarus. You’ll find more about these operation in the reference thread The Nazi struggle against Soviet partisans.
I didn’t want to further intervene in our friend's discussions with other posters, but with this hoot:
«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.»
I couldn’t resist.
As I said in another discussion, our friend sees Marxists and Jews in every corner, threatening the Aryan race.
I hope for him that he never has the idea of telling, say, the owner of a Turkish restaurant or supermarket in Berlin or Hamburg that he was sent there "with the aim to destroy the European race" (whatever that is) by "the Jews". If his interlocutor has a sense of humor, he'll just be laughed out of his interlocutor’s establishment. If not, such remark might be bad for our friend’s health.
Keep on the self-caricature, Mr. "European Race". I’m sure some of our readers are enjoying another lesson about what kind of people it is that "Revisionism" appeals to. And don’t be surprised if your picturesque theories lead some fellow "Revisionists" to suspect that you’re actually an agent provocateur sent by the Mossad to discredit "Revisionism".:-)
«"Fourth, I didn't know that Jews - let alone "the" Jews - had much to do with the area bombing of German cities, which was mostly the work of the British RAF. Was Arthur Harris a Jew? "
ReplyDeleteOf course they had - Europeans had no reason to kill their own kinsmen in that war.»
People usually have no reason to kill other people in a war, if you look at it. And yet it used to happen all the time throughout world history (there's been much less of it in recent years), usually among kindred peoples.
«The RAF didn't want to start the bombing campaign against civilians. In fact, they warned Churchill strongly against it as it would lead to significant casualties for the bomber pilots and little damage to the enemy - AND it would most certainly cause Hitler to bomb the shit out of London.»
What, really? Who is supposed to have said that, and when? Maybe you should read the memoirs of Sir Arthur Harris, who justified his terror bombing strategy as follows (Bomber Command, pp. 147 ff.):
«In spite of all that had happened at Hamburg, bombing proved a comparatively humane method. For on thing, it saved the flower of the youth of this country and of our allies from being mown down by the military in the field, as it was in Flanders in the war of 1914-1918. But the point is often made that bombing is specially wicked because it causes casualties among civilians. This is true, but then all wars have caused casualties among civilians. For instance, after the last war the British Government issued a White Paper in which it was estimated that our blockade of Germany had caused nearly 800,000 deaths - naturally these were mainly of women and children and old people because at all costs the enemy had to keep his fighting men adequately fed, so that most of what food there was went to them. This was a death-rate much in excess of even the most ruthless exponents of air frightfulness. It is not easy to estimate what in effect were the casualties caused by allied bombing in Germany because the German records were incomplete and often unreliable, but the Americans have put the number of deaths at 305,000. There is no estimate of how many of these were women and children, but there was no reason why bombing, like the blockade, should fall most heavily on women and children; on the contrary, the Germans carried out large schemes of evacuation, principally of children, from the main industrial cities.
Whenever the fact that our aircraft occasionally killed women and children is cast in my teeth I always produce this example of the blockade, although there are endless others to be got from the wars of the past. I never forget, as so many do, that in all normal warfare of the past, and of the not distant past, it was the common practice to besiege cities and, if they refused to surrender when called upon with due formality to do so, every living thing in them was in the end put to the sword. Even in the more civilised times of to-day the siege of cities, accompanied by the bombardment of the city as a whole, is still a normal practice; in no circumstances were women and children allowed to pass out of the city, because their presence in it and their consumption of food would inevitably hasten the end of the siege. And as to bombardment, what city in what war has ever failed to receive the maximum bombardment from all enemy artillery within range so long as it has continued resistance?»
«Churchill, who was bought by the Jewish 'Focus' group, gave the order anyway.»
So now Churchill is supposed to have been bought by some sinister Jewish "group" that I'm reading about for the first time. Please tell us more about that conspiracy theory, pal. It might be as entertaining as your concerns about "the Jews" sending in non-white foreigners to bang blonde Aryan girls and thereby «destroy the European race».:-)
Still more longwinded replies from Roberto "I know who you are and where you live" Muehlenkamp to my supposedly hollow arguments.
ReplyDelete1. Conspiracy theory = any theory, true or false, that criticizes the current system and its underlying ideology(capitalism mixed with Frankfurter-school Marxism, also known as "Humanism"). That is the reason why "skeptics" pretend to be against it - they are defenders of the system and of orthodoxy, but not of science(the real conspiracy theory here is the theory that the National-Socialists conspired to murder 6 million Jews in a top-secret operation). Additionally, conspiracy theories are linked to mental illness - paranoid schizophrenia in particular - and Marxists have a long history of shutting down opponents by diagnosing them.
2. I have several muslim friends. None of them Turks, but two from Iran + several Pakistani acquaintances. They all - and I mean all - agree with me that the Jews are at least partly responsible for multiculturalism, and that Jews are hypocrites for demanding race-mixing in Europe and the US while being the most bigoted racists at home. Which is a really comforting thing, because if we (humanity) are ever going to solve the Jewish problem, we´re going to need muslims as friends, not as enemies. In a sense, the Jewish plan to destroy us with liberalism and immigration has backfired on them (which is probably the reason why they're now rallying to create yet new intellectual movements such as the one behind the terrorist Anders Breivik, creating yet more chaos and destruction with their fear driven minds).
3. Re.: Dresden. The real number is not know, but is probably well above 100K (see: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/images/decodes/1945_03_24decode_600.jpg ). Science 101: You never prove a theory - your "irrefutably proven" and lecturing on evidence standards just shows you are talking about religion, not science, and that you have never been given an education in this field. The numbers you cite actually use both the ~20.000 figure *and* the ~60.000 figure. Read it again, pal, because it shows just how unreliable they are. Then you cite a source that says the records were "incomplete and unreliable" and puts the total figure at 305,000...
4. The comment about RAF was about *starting* the campaign. Obviously, the RAF wanted to continue doing this once the Luftwaffe was out of the game.
5. On Churchill and the Jews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbO3_vHpehM
Hey Tesla, this guy owns you. You're looking ridiculous.
Delete>>> The real proof of Jewish genocidal intent however...
ReplyDeleteSo Tesla wants us to believe that the Jews had genocidal intent, which the Nazis responded to, but that the Nazi response did not include genocide. Go figure.
"So Tesla wants us to believe that the Jews had genocidal intent, which the Nazis responded to, but that the Nazi response did not include genocide. Go figure."
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you approve my recent post instead of making yet another (illogical) argument against me? (yes, I know Mr. "I know where you live" is typing frantically)
My belief is that the nazis punished the Jews by taking away their wealth and deporting them in a process which lead to many deaths. I also believe they more or less had a policy to execute Jews who were deliberately working against the German state/war effort as communist agitators, saboteurs etc.(and as Jews had a leading role in communism at that time, it must have been a significant amount of Jews), and that stronger means were taken in this regard than for non-Jews. No doubt this was a terrible fate for them, but it wasn't in any way a "final solution", which Hitler stated that he wanted to postpone to *after the war*: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/DocItself0342.html
Well that doc was referring to half-Jews and Jews in mixed marriages, whose fate was indeed postponed. The doc also pre-dates the escalation of extermination that started in April-May 1942.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that "deporting them in a process which lead (sic) to many deaths" without total extermination was the policy as of early 1942, as Peter Longerich argues, and that escalation to gas chambers as the main (but not only) means of killing was not implemented until the spring, after Hitler gave a signal to that effect (which Longerich thinks occurred in April, on the basis that the gassing of German Jews at Chelmno started that month).
«Still more longwinded replies»
ReplyDeleteWhen Mr. “Tesla” feels cornered, he squeals about his opponent’s replies to his junk being "longwinded".
«from Roberto "I know who you are and where you live" Muehlenkamp»
Why, one might think the poor fellow feels threatened by my knowing who he is and where he lives, even though I have neither uttered nor insinuated any threats.
«to my supposedly hollow arguments.»
No, your arguments are hollow indeed, and I take advantage of them to make fun of you and, as we’re at it, provide some information to our readers.
«1. Conspiracy theory = any theory, true or false, that criticizes the current system and its underlying ideology (capitalism mixed with Frankfurter-school Marxism, also known as "Humanism").»
Wrong. In the context of our discussion, the term "conspiracy theory" it refers to any theory that explains features of the "current system" that Mr. "Tesla" has a grievance against or is otherwise dissatisfied with (e.g. the historical record of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, the influx of foreigners in Europe) as having been brought about with sinister intent by a (preferably "Jewish") conspiracy, for which he has no evidence whatsoever.
«That is the reason why "skeptics" pretend to be against it - they are defenders of the system and of orthodoxy, but not of science(the real conspiracy theory here is the theory that the National-Socialists conspired to murder 6 million Jews in a top-secret operation).»
Don’t know what "skeptics" our friend is babbling about here, and I don’t think I’m missing anything. As to the historical record our friend dislikes being a "conspiracy theory", that’s utter nonsense because there's ample evidence not only for the results of Nazi anti-Jewish policies in their most radical form but also for the top-level decisions that lead to the final stage of radicalization, which wasn’t as "top secret" as our friend would like it to be. A conspiracy theory is characterized by the utter absence of evidence to any actual conspiracy while evidence points to explanations not involving any conspiracy for certain circumstances or phenomena.
«Additionally, conspiracy theories are linked to mental illness - paranoid schizophrenia in particular -»
An ailment also characterized by a lack of insight into one's own state, I’ve been told. Which would explain why our friend furiously denies adhering to conspiracy theories.
«and Marxists have a long history of shutting down opponents by diagnosing them.»
Oh, the "Marxists" again. Seems to be a general term for everyone who doesn’t share our friend’s ideology, or then our friend is fond of self-caricature indeed.
«2. I have several muslim friends. [...].»
So Muslim immigrants are not counted among the foreigners sent in by "the Jews" to "destroy the European race", because they happen to share our friend's pathological hatred for Jews (or at least so our friend would like to believe). I see. Does that also apply when procreate with blonde Aryan women?
«3. Re.: Dresden. The real number is not know, but is probably well above 100K (see: http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Dresden/images/decodes/1945_03_24decode_600.jpg ).»
ReplyDeleteBecause Irving said so and presented some inconclusive evidence in support of his claim, which IIRC was duly shredded at the Irving-Lipstadt trial? Not a very good argument, considering that a historian’s commission examined all related evidence for five years and reached a conclusion matching the Dresden authorities' estimate shortly after the raids.
«Science 101: You never prove a theory - your "irrefutably proven" and lecturing on evidence standards just shows you are talking about religion, not science, and that you have never been given an education in this field.»
What’s that supposed to mean? I didn’t know there were no standards of evidence in science, or that a scientific theory is not something to be proven or disproven. Religion doesn’t require irrefutable proof, that’s for sure. It actually requires no proof at all, which is why you adhere to the "Revisionist" religion despite the absence of any evidence supporting your articles of faith.
«The numbers you cite actually use both the ~20.000 figure *and* the ~60.000 figure. Read it again, pal, because it shows just how unreliable they are.»
The number I was referring to – 635,000 – is in the first table on this page, under which you read the note "Losses of Dresden estimated at 60 000 dead", regarding the figures in that table. Below the third table, "Monthly Distribution of Civilians Killed", there is a note that reads as follows:
«d) Losses in the air raids on Dresden (13-15.2.1945) are overestimated (60000 dead). Based on 18375 bodies found until 10.3.45 the police estimated a total of 25000 killed in the air raids. 22096 dead were counted until 31.3.45 (BAR 19/341).»
So no, the numbers I cited, namely the 635,000 total, do not use both figures. The tables reproduced from 1956 and 1963 sources use only the 60,000 figure. The author of the webpage added the clarification that this figure is an overestimate as the actual Dresden death toll was 25,000. At the same time he pointed out that the figures for Hamburg in the table are underestimated, and adds a graph comparing the Hamburg and Dresden death tolls and the time by which they established.
Thanks for showing once more that you cannot read, Mr. "Tesla". Your related lecturing makes you look all the worse.
«Then you cite a source that says the records were "incomplete and unreliable" and puts the total figure at 305,000...»
The 305,000 number is an estimate for the whole of Germany in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, and I don’t remember having said anything about the accuracy of this number, which later German research (see again this page) suggests to have been an undercount. The figure just happened to be part of a quote I produced to show how Sir Arthur Harris tried to justify his terror bombing policy.
«4. The comment about RAF was about *starting* the campaign. Obviously, the RAF wanted to continue doing this once the Luftwaffe was out of the game.»
ReplyDeleteYou didn’t answer my question, and I didn’t know the Luftwaffe was out of the game at the time of «Operation Gomorrah» in July/August 1943. In that attack the German air defense was temporarily neutralized by dropping the "windows" aluminum strips that upset the German radar, but Harris is full of admiration for how quickly the German air defense recovered (as his bombers were to learn later that year when they were shot down in large numbers over Berlin).
My recommendation is that you do some reading about the air war against Germany before entering an argument about it.
«5. On Churchill and the Jews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbO3_vHpehM »
Looks like one of David Irving’s pep-talks for audiences consisting of specimens like you. Got nothing better?
«Why don't you approve my recent post instead of making yet another (illogical) argument against me? (yes, I know Mr. "I know where you live" is typing frantically)»
ReplyDeleteMr. "I know where you live" (which seems to be giving you sleepless nights) doesn’t look up his inbox every day, so publication of your "wisdom" has to wait until he does.
«My belief is that the nazis punished the Jews by taking away their wealth and deporting them in a process which lead to many deaths. I also believe they more or less had a policy to execute Jews who were deliberately working against the German state/war effort as communist agitators, saboteurs etc.(and as Jews had a leading role in communism at that time, it must have been a significant amount of Jews), and that stronger means were taken in this regard than for non-Jews.»
I see. And how do you believe that, say, the Jewish children bumped off at the orders of Mr. Jäger were «deliberately working against the German state/war effort as communist agitators, saboteurs etc.»?
"Belief" is an appropriate term for you to use, actually. With no evidence to support your ideological articles of faith, you have little if anything besides belief to cling to.
Tesla never says the "punishment" was disproportionate or unjust, I see, nor even that any victims were innocent, perhaps because he would not like to put a figure on it. Were 50% of killed Jews innocent, or maybe only 5%, or maybe only 0%.
ReplyDeleteOf course many innocent Germans died in bombings but these were not "punishment" killings inflicted on Germans as a race, but as bystanders in a war to defeat a belligerent power.
I point out that your arguments are long-winded because of the logical inconsistency that lies in pretending your opponents are mentally ill and at the same time spending so much space and effort trying to counter them. This whole blog is a paradox in that regard.
ReplyDeleteYour continued stereotyping of me just shows how prejudiced you are, and indeed, that you are doing exactly what anti-anti-Semites often accuse anti-Semites of doing, that is portraying Jews in a monolithic way and not as individuals. Say, you wouldn't happen to harbor a *hatred* for "neo-nazis" like me, would you?
A conspiracy theory is just that - a theory that seeks to explain an event by pointing to a conspiracy, i.e. a covert plot. The theory that the Holocaust didn't happen as alleged - insofar as you can have a theory about the nonexistence of something - is not a conspiracy theory. The so-called eyewitnesses to the Holocaust can't even agree to the methods of murder and the shape of the graves and contradict each other in many other regards as well - showing that there is no conspiracy going on at all. They might read each other's books, adjust their stories and so on, but there is no behind the scenes, covert plot by a group of people to hide anything. It's all rather obvious and going on in full daylight.
My point about the air-raid numbers was that they were unreliable, which is shown full well by your own citations. You respond to this by pointing to the latest research and so on, but ignore evidence that contradict your assumptions. Again you're doing exactly what you so often accuse others of doing. It seems to be a habit of yours.
The Luftwaffe was out of the game in 1943, but it was severely weakened. And at that point Hitler had long since retaliated with his own air-raids against civilian targets, so there was little reason for the RAF to oppose Churchill's diabolical tactics.
"Mr. "I know where you live" (which seems to be giving you sleepless nights) doesn’t look up his inbox every day, so publication of your "wisdom" has to wait until he does."
Interesting that you're now so obsessed with my person that you're recording my sleep cycles.
""Belief" is an appropriate term for you to use, actually. With no evidence to support your ideological articles of faith, you have little if anything besides belief to cling to."
You ignoring my evidence is not the same as me not having any evidence. Again your projection is fascinating - you're talking about my "faith", my "lack of evidence" and yet you're the one trying to defend a theory of mass-murder of 12 million people without having a single, confirmed and autopsied body and no murder weapon. And with GPR showing that there are no gigantic massgraves at the alleged sites... A story that is subsequently defended by longwinded ad-hoc explanations of documents and imprisonment of "deniers"(heretics) who are opposing your views... Yup, I'm the one with the faith here.
"I didn’t know [...] that a scientific theory is not something to be proven or disproven"
Of course you didn't, as this is something you learn during your first year at a university, not on Usenet or Internet blogs.
"Well that doc was referring to half-Jews and Jews in mixed marriages, whose fate was indeed postponed"
ReplyDeleteThere is no talk about Mischlinge in that document at all, as far as I can tell. If Schlegelberger wanted to talk about a solution wrt. half-Jews, then the memo would have specified that, and not talked about the final solution in a general sense.
"Tesla never says the "punishment" was disproportionate or unjust, I see, nor even that any victims were innocent, perhaps because he would not like to put a figure on it. Were 50% of killed Jews innocent, or maybe only 5%, or maybe only 0%."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there were many innocent Jews; I have no problem admitting that. Your "bystanders", on the other hand, seems to be an attempt to downplay the fact that the Jew-controlled Allies deliberately firebombed women and children.
"Tesla said... Wednesday, June 04, 2014 9:16:00 pm"
ReplyDelete"Kevin: As I have pointed out already, that Kaufman alone was the reason for the belief that Germans were to be wiped out is a strawman. It's just one of the more extreme, explicit examples of the Jewish hatred that existed towards Germans at that time."
No. If anything (provided you can provide evidence of this from non-Holocaust denier/"revisionist" and Neo-Nazi sources) it would show their dislike for the regime that pitted Jews as subhuman and undeserving of life even long before Machtergreifung. A cursory overview of the material in the German Propaganda Archive will show even to those ignorant of this history why some Jewish people and related groups would want something done about the regime in Germany at the time.
Like I said before, this is just more scraping at the bottom of the barrel. Germany after occupation was split into two countries and reunified ~41 years later. If outrageous offers like Kaufman's were actually followed through then why does the Federal Republic of Germany exist today? Clearly Kaufman's suggestion was discarded, if it was even considered at all.
"Ronobi said... Friday, June 06, 2014 9:43:00 am"
"Adding on to what Kevin said, I think a similar analogy of "scraping at the bottom of the barrel" is the claim that 'Judea' declared "war" on Nazi Germany, in 1933, citing an article in the front page of the Daily Express newspaper . An economic boycott by Jews = formal declaration of "war" according to Holocaust deniers."
Similar to this and this. I call it the old newspaper argument. Deniers use it as a red herring to say, "Hey, look! Mentions of the word "Holocaust" and "six million"! Before, during and after the second world war!" not realizing that the word "Holocaust" predates the Jewish genocide under Nazi Germany and its occupied territories, and the fact that sporadic pogroms and massacres happened to the Jewish communities of Europe decades and centuries before the Nazis came to power. A few of those articles mention six million in Russia. The Russian Empire consisted of more than just present-day Russia and Wikipedia shows a figure of 5,250,000 for 1897 which may be a lower estimate, not to mention Russia has a history of pogroms against Jews, especially in the aftermath of the Beilis affair.
Ronobi: As for the Daily Express article, I don't like this guy dissing on Chomsky, but he picks it apart here (archived version) to which I quote the relevant section:
ReplyDelete>One of Faurisson's basic claims is that Hitler's actions against the Jews were of the same order as Jewish actions against Hitler, one provoking the other as it were (p. 15). To prove that there had been a Jewish "war" against Hitler as early as March of 1933, Faurisson devotes his one and only pictorial illustration in this pamphlet to a reproduction of the front page of the Daily Express of London, dated March 24, 1933, which indeed bore a main headline "Judea Declares War on Germany." Sub-heads read "Jews of All the World Unite Boycott of German Goods."
Now Faurisson claims as his particular specialty the analysis of disputed documents and sources. (As Nadine Fresco has shown, these claims add a touch of lunacy to his malice. (22)). Here he uses the Daily Express as his Crucial Source, and, I suppose, the reader who is likely to be impressed by his propaganda may not ask about the nature of this newspaper in those days.
In 1933, the Daily Express was a sensationalist mass circulation paper run by Lord Beaverbrook, a man of often eccentric views who felt no compunction about using his headlines to promote favorite causes or to denounce pet peeves.(23) During the early years of the Hitler regime he thought that Britain should avoid alliances with France and other threatened European countries. In a private letter in 1938, he expressed the fear that "The Jews may drive us into war." (24) But his most famous pronouncement of the period, delivered in the very same front-page headline style as the "Judea Declares War" item of 1933, came on September 30, 1938: "The Daily Express declares that Britain will not be involved in a European war this year, or next year either. Peace agreement signed at 12:30 a.m. today." (25)
To Faurisson, nevertheless, Daily Express headlines represent the most weighty proof of what happened in history. And so important is this Crucial Source to the "revisionists" that Faurisson's California outlet, the "Institute for Historical Review," sees fit to use it with just a bit of embroidery of its own: "Is it true that Jewish circles 'declared war on Germany?' Yes it did. The media the world over carried headlines such as 'Judea Declares War on Germany.'" (26)
So basically, this would be like if the Nazis gained power today and there was an economic boycott by Jewish groups, a trashy online tabloid could use such a headline as easy clickbait.
«I point out that your arguments are long-winded because of the logical inconsistency that lies in pretending your opponents are mentally ill and at the same time spending so much space and effort trying to counter them. This whole blog is a paradox in that regard.»
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I don't remember having claimed that you are mentally ill, and I don't think you are. You are a characterless and sometimes hysterical piece of garbage, that's all.
Second, even a specimen like you can be of some use, in that it provides opportunities to convey information to interested readers and show them what "Revisionism" is all about and what kind of people it appeals to. That's not an effort to counter what such specimen produces. That's fun, as long as you do it just once in a while (otherwise it becomes boring).
«Your continued stereotyping of me just shows how prejudiced you are, and indeed, that you are doing exactly what anti-anti-Semites often accuse anti-Semites of doing, that is portraying Jews in a monolithic way and not as individuals. Say, you wouldn't happen to harbor a *hatred* for "neo-nazis" like me, would you?»
I'm just drawing conclusions that seem warranted by your own assertions, actually. Your concern with the "destruction" of the "European race" by foreign immigrants, for instance, suggests that you are a "White" racist who is concerned about the future of what you call the "European race", presumably in order to avoid the term "White race". You blaming this supposed "destruction" endeavor on "the" Jews suggests that you hate Jews. And I don't think it matters what particular variety of Jew-hating white supremacist (or is that "White Nationalist"?) you belong to, because none is any better than the other.
As to hatred, I'll have to disappoint you, because I don’t hate deplorable creatures of your persuasion. I despise them and pity them, but I don't consider them worth hating.
«A conspiracy theory is just that - a theory that seeks to explain an event by pointing to a conspiracy, i.e. a covert plot.»
In the pejorative sense in which the term is usually employed, a conspiracy theory is not "just that". The attempt to explain an event or phenomenon by hypothesizing a conspiracy must be far-fetched, bereft of evidence and at odds with known evidence that points to a more banal explanation.
«The theory that the Holocaust didn't happen as alleged - insofar as you can have a theory about the nonexistence of something - is not a conspiracy theory.»
If you think so, then please tell me how the related evidence of various categories (eyewitnesses, documents, physical traces, demographic data), which has convinced historians and criminal investigators throughout the world over almost seven decades, is supposed to have come into being, if not through the sinister workings of a gigantic and enormously powerful and influential conspiracy of evidence manipulation.
«The so-called eyewitnesses to the Holocaust can't even agree to the methods of murder and the shape of the graves and contradict each other in many other regards as well - showing that there is no conspiracy going on at all.»
ReplyDeleteAnd also that they gave their accounts independently of each other, with no coordination whatsoever, which renders them more credible. The differences between and errors in eyewitness testimonies are comparatively minor and such as one would expect in eyewitness accounts of any traumatic event or set of events, and even in eyewitness accounts of non-traumatic events or phenomena. Sent 40 people into a building and then ask them to describe the features of that building, and you'll get 40 different descriptions.
Now, if no conspiracy was going on, how are these "so-called" eyewitness testimonies – the term "so-called" implying that they are fake – supposed to have come about? How do you explain that much in these eyewitness testimonies matches not only with other eyewitness testimonies from the victims' side, but also with depositions from the perpetrator side and with documentary and physical evidence? How can all this convergence be explained, except by either a) fantasizing that some sinister entity or entities were pulling evil strings to denigrate your heroes or b) accepting that things happened as becomes apparent from all known evidence?
«They might read each other's books, adjust their stories and so on, but there is no behind the scenes, covert plot by a group of people to hide anything. It's all rather obvious and going on in full daylight.»
So who is supposed to have read whose books? Whose book are former SS-men like Karl Alfred Schluch, Gustav Münzberger, Hubert Gomerski, Kurt Bolender and Oswald Kaduk supposed to have read prior to their depositions before German courts? Whose books are inmate eyewitnesses like Henryk Tauber and Rudolf Reder supposed to have read prior to their first depositions in 1945 before Polish criminal investigators? How is Tauber supposed to have known, say, that the Zyklon B introduction devices he described were mentioned in a German document that his interrogators were not aware of and whose significance was only realized by a French researcher in the 1980s?
I could go on like this for hours, but I don't expect to even receive a consistent answer to these few questions.
«My point about the air-raid numbers was that they were unreliable, which is shown full well by your own citations.»
ReplyDelete"Unreliable" meaning what exactly? A possible variation by some thousands, or the possibility of a wholly different order of magnitude? If the latter, please explain why. Numbers are usually hard to establish when it comes to large-scale catastrophes, but this doesn't mean that it's impossible to at least establish the order of magnitude with a considerable degree of precision over time. As concerns Dresden, that has been done. And as concerns the bombing of German cities as a whole, the highest number ever to be put together by a serious research effort is the 635,000 mentioned in the first table on this page. What arguments do you have against this order of magnitude, other than those already presented by the author of said page (Dresden figure too high, Hamburg figure too low)?
«You respond to this by pointing to the latest research and so on, but ignore evidence that contradict your assumptions.»
Such as?
And on what basis are you referring to the results of five years work by a historian’s commission as mere "assumptions", other than because those results don't fit your beliefs?
«Again you're doing exactly what you so often accuse others of doing. It seems to be a habit of yours.»
Actually that's a habit of folks like yourself, who I do not intend to emulate.
«The Luftwaffe was out of the game in 1943, but it was severely weakened. And at that point Hitler had long since retaliated with his own air-raids against civilian targets, so there was little reason for the RAF to oppose Churchill's diabolical tactics.»
Please tell me when was the first time that Churchill proposed those "diabolical tactics" and the RAF opposed them. With evidence.
As to the Luftwaffe being "severely weakened", you should have followed my advice and read about, say, the RAF’s disastrous bombing campaign against Berlin and other German cities from November 1943 to March 1944:
«The RAF lost 1,047 bombers, with a further 1,682 damaged, and well over 7,000 aircrew, culminating in the raid on Nuremberg on 30 March 1944, when 94 bombers were shot down and 71 were damaged, out of 795 aircraft.».
With no significant results achieved.
Amazing how badly the "severely weakened" Luftwaffe could sting, isn’t it?
Even more impressive are the overall casualty ratios of the RAF Bomber Command, mostly incurred in missions against German cities:
ReplyDelete«Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes.[clarification needed][25] A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I;[25] more people were killed serving in Bomber Command than in the entire Blitz, or in the bombings of Hamburg or Dresden. By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe had 350,000 aircrew during the war and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs.[25] Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders. [26]
Taking an example of 100 airmen:[27]
55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
two shot down and evaded capture
27 survived a tour of operations
In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action.»
Contrary to what you may want to believe (and quite unlike the far more lethal mass killing operations carried out by your heroes), murdering German civilians by bombing was not a comparatively safe job for the killers, except perhaps in 1945. The RAF Bomber Command had the highest casualty rate of all Allied services. Even on the German side, the only ones who suffered a comparable casualty rate were the U-boat crews.
«"Mr. "I know where you live" (which seems to be giving you sleepless nights) doesn’t look up his inbox every day, so publication of your "wisdom" has to wait until he does."
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you're now so obsessed with my person that you're recording my sleep cycles.»
Actually I'm just joking about your obvious obsession with my knowing your name and whereabouts.
«""Belief" is an appropriate term for you to use, actually. With no evidence to support your ideological articles of faith, you have little if anything besides belief to cling to."
You ignoring my evidence is not the same as me not having any evidence.»
What «evidence» of yours am I supposed to have ignored so far?
«Again your projection is fascinating - you're talking about my "faith", my "lack of evidence" and yet you're the one trying to defend a theory of mass-murder of 12 million people without having a single, confirmed and autopsied body and no murder weapon.»
Quite a whopper of a straw-man, unless you are really that ignorant.
The figure of about 12-13 million victims of Nazi crimes includes both Jews and non-Jews, more of the latter than of the former. The latter were mostly killed by having them die of starvation, exposure and disease (also Stalin’s favorite method), especially the inhabitants of Leningrad and other Soviet cities and the Soviet POWs. You heroes' second most used killing method was shooting, as pointed out by Timothy Snyder. Shooting massacres are amply documented by Soviet crime site investigation and exhumation reports, matched by documentary and eyewitness evidence largely from the German side and collected mostly by West German investigators and historians. Gassing in extermination or dual-purpose camps, which is what you are obsessed with, ranks last as concerns the number of victims, having killed "only" about 2.5 million mostly Jewish people. Contrary to what you believe, there are autopsy reports about and also photos of people (largely handicapped children from a sanatorium in the Krasnodar region) who were killed in German gas vans, see this article. But that’s not very important, unless of course you can
a) Show me any rules of criminal procedure whereby autopsied bodies and the physical presence of the murder weapon is required to sustain a conviction for murder; and
b) Explain why all related evidence known points to mass murder by gassing whereas no evidence points to an alternative scenario (which is the reason why, among other things, "Revisionists" haven’t yet come up with a single name of a "transited" Jew even though they would be wading in such names if their "transit camp" theory were not just hollow humbug).
«And with GPR showing that there are no gigantic massgraves at the alleged sites...»
ReplyDeleteWhose GPR was that? The GPR of Mr. Richard Craigie from Australia, who unwittingly shot "Revisionism" in the foot by finding what he had hoped not to find, as mentioned here (no wonder the poor soul never published a report about his oh-so-spectacular finds)? Or that of forensic archaeologist Caroline Sturdy Colls, whose initial research identified quite a few (though by far not all) mass grave areas at Treblinka, as addressed here and here ? Not to mention the archaeological finds made until 2004 at Chełmno, Bełżec and Sobibór, plus the ongoing archaeological work at the last of these places. Time for you to drop the Craigie fiasco, and inform yourself about the results of serious archaeological research, which you seem to know as little about as you do about the RAF Bomber Command and its (failed) attempt to win the war by bombing German cities.
«A story that is subsequently defended by longwinded ad-hoc explanations of documents»
Such as? My explanation for terms like "liquidated" in Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942 is plain, simple and substantiated. The alternative explanation proposed by "Thomas Dalton, PhD", is not only longwinded and ad hoc but also bereft of substance to the point of being ridiculous.
«and imprisonment of "deniers"(heretics) who are opposing your views...»
Not the right thing to do, but hardly an argument in favor of those "heretics" (a term that insults actual heretics, who tried to counter dogmatic nonsense with reason and science whereas "Revisionists" do the exact opposite, trying to counter reason and science with dogmatic nonsense), unless you can demonstrate that hate speech laws are motivated not by concerns of public order, protection of ethnic minorities and/or international image but by what you would like to believe is behind them. Which you can’t.
«Yup, I'm the one with the faith here.»
With just the staple "Revisionist" mantras to offer by way of arguments, you definitely are.
«"I didn’t know [...] that a scientific theory is not something to be proven or disproven"
Of course you didn't, as this is something you learn during your first year at a university, not on Usenet or Internet blogs.»
At what university did they tell you that a theory need not be falsifiable to be scientific? Just curious …
«I'm sure there were many innocent Jews; I have no problem admitting that.»
ReplyDeleteSo let’s look again at the example of SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger. Of the 135,391 Jews whose killing he recorded, how may were innocent and how many were «deliberately working against the German state/war effort as communist agitators, saboteurs etc.»?
«Your "bystanders", on the other hand, seems to be an attempt to downplay the fact that the Jew-controlled Allies deliberately firebombed women and children.»
Actually I have no problem at all with the fact that the Allies deliberately firebombed women and children. What I do have a problem with, besides attempts to blow up the magnitude of such firebombing beyond what is supported by evidence, is the «Jew-controlled» BS. And, of course, the fact that the whining about the Allies' bombing crimes comes from one of Hitler’s willing defense attorneys, who at the same time denies the Nazis' largely successful attempt to wipe out Europe’s Jewish population.
Yet more essays from Oscar Wilde.
ReplyDeleteKevin: Declaring evidence that comes from opponents of your theory("deniers") as invalid - what a fascinating and, I'm sure, very useful method of confirming your own views.
Roberto: You ignore evidence all the time, among other things the document I linked to from Irving's site, which you simply dismissed with "because Irving said so?" and a reference to the Lipstadt-trial, showing that you didn't even bother looking at it or its origins (the document was found years after the Lipstadt trial). Instead you proceed to talk about a bunch of unrelated points, citing evidence from Jews and communist-controlled Poland etc.(putting our faith in the Filibuster-tactic, are we?)
You speak of proof and falsification as if these were equivalent - again showing that you're clueless when it comes to science. And again telling me that I shouldn't waste my time replying to you. Nobody is going to read your essays anyway.
"Actually I have no problem at all with the fact that the Allies deliberately firebombed women and children"
I see you post this (rather vicious and telling) answer to me as if you and poster Jonathan Harrison were the same person. Nice to see where all your cheerleaders come from. Das Blog ist Roberto?
My full quote was "these were not "punishment" killings inflicted on Germans as a race, but as bystanders in a war to defeat a belligerent power", which you have snipped down to just one word. Germans were not bombed because they were Germans but in order to make them less likely to continue the war. The innocent Germans were the ones who did not support the Nazis.
ReplyDelete«Roberto: You ignore evidence all the time, among other things»
ReplyDeleteWhat «other things» exactly?
«the document I linked to from Irving's site, which you simply dismissed with "because Irving said so?" and a reference to the Lipstadt-trial, showing that you didn't even bother looking at it or its origins (the document was found years after the Lipstadt trial).»
Actually what I wrote was this:
«Because Irving said so and presented some inconclusive evidence in support of his claim, which IIRC was duly shredded at the Irving-Lipstadt trial? Not a very good argument, considering that a historian’s commission examined all related evidence for five years and reached a conclusion matching the Dresden authorities' estimate shortly after the raids.»
You conveniently omitted the second sentence, which refers to the work of a historian’s commission that published its report 10 years after the Irving-Lipstadt trial, meaning that they probably also took Irving’s scrap of paper into consideration. As you seem to put so much stock in that scrap of paper, please tell me what it is supposed to contain that might invalidate the order of magnitude established by said commission on the basis of the evidence it looked into.
«Instead you proceed to talk about a bunch of unrelated points, citing evidence from Jews and communist-controlled Poland etc.(putting our faith in the Filibuster-tactic, are we?)»
What evidence from (how frightfully shocking!) «Jews and communist-controlled Poland» exactly do you have in mind (especially as concerns the area bombing of German cities), and what arguments against such evidence do you have, other than squealing «Jews and communist-controlled Poland»?
«You speak of proof and falsification as if these were equivalent - again showing that you're clueless when it comes to science.»
The good old "you know nothing about xyz" – rhetoric that charlatans come up with when out of arguments. How about explaining instead why a scientific theory cannot be proven right or proven wrong (i.e. falsified) by evidence?
«And again telling me that I shouldn't waste my time replying to you. Nobody is going to read your essays anyway.»
A classic charlatan's pretext to withdraw from a discussion in which he’s not faring well.
«"Actually I have no problem at all with the fact that the Allies deliberately firebombed women and children"
ReplyDeleteI see you post this (rather vicious and telling) answer to me»
Apparently my interlocutor took the above-quoted statement out of the context in which it was made, in order to misrepresent it as one of my being in agreement with the Allies' having deliberately firebombed women and children.
What I meant to say, of course, was that I have no problem with accepting as a fact that the Allies deliberately firebombed women and children, as the context of my statement shows:
«Actually I have no problem at all with the fact that the Allies deliberately firebombed women and children. What I do have a problem with, besides attempts to blow up the magnitude of such firebombing beyond what is supported by evidence, is the «Jew-controlled» BS. And, of course, the fact that the whining about the Allies' bombing crimes comes from one of Hitler’s willing defense attorneys, who at the same time denies the Nazis' largely successful attempt to wipe out Europe’s Jewish population.»
So here my interlocutor seems to have engaged in what is known as quote-mining, IIRC. Which nicely fits the self-portrayal he has been providing throughout this discussion.
«as if you and poster Jonathan Harrison were the same person.»
Which is not the case, as a comparison of writing styles might have told you if you had not been too caught up in your wishful thinking. I just took the liberty of replying to a comment addressed to JH.
«Nice to see where all your cheerleaders come from. Das Blog ist Roberto?»
Here my fantasy-prone friend seems to be accusing me of sock-puppetry, which is something that I would not put behind him but has never been one of my habits.
Actually I haven’t written a blog here since last October. But I currently have one in preparation, to commemorate an important milestone in the demise of Nazi Germany. Stay tuned.
"Tesla said... Monday, June 16, 2014 4:00:00 am"
ReplyDelete"Kevin: Declaring evidence that comes from opponents of your theory("deniers") as invalid - what a fascinating and, I'm sure, very useful method of confirming your own views."
You're more accurately describing what "revisionists" do. If you can find such "hatred" for Germans beyond being against the regime they were under at the time (that isn't from "revisionist" or Neo-Nazi sources) I'm all ears. Though, even if you do, history doesn't bear out that Germany was eliminated as a country, as you can see the Federal Republic of Germany exists today and prior to that, was split in two countries after allied occupation.
And personally, I wouldn't blame some Jewish people's dislike for Hitler and his party, after all, they were propagating hateful propaganda against Jews for at least 13 years before gaining power.
I have pointed to several pieces of evidence both in this thread and others threads. Evidence you have conveniently ignored or dismissed out of hand. Your tactic now seems to simply be denial and pretending you don't know anything ("what evidence?"). Can't argue against that, so I'm not even going to try.
ReplyDeleteNo, I didn't "omit" or "quote mine" anything. If I were to quote your essays in full every time I replied to you, I wouldn't have space for my own reply.
No withdrawal here, but since you seem to take longer and longer to approve my posts (or to write your essays which have to be attached to them every time, apparently), it's kind of hard to keep my interest in the "debate".
«I have pointed to several pieces of evidence both in this thread and others threads. Evidence you have conveniently ignored or dismissed out of hand. Your tactic now seems to simply be denial and pretending you don't know anything ("what evidence?"). Can't argue against that, so I'm not even going to try.»
ReplyDeleteI'm not denying anything, just considering the possibility that I might have not remembered the "evidence" you claim to have presented, though that seems unlikely.
«No, I didn't "omit" or "quote mine" anything. If I were to quote your essays in full every time I replied to you, I wouldn't have space for my own reply.»
I wouldn't have suspected quote-mining if it had not been for that «rather vicious and telling» remark of yours, which I understood as meaning that I'm a vicious fellow who would condone the firebombing of women and children.
«No withdrawal here, but since you seem to take longer and longer to approve my posts (or to write your essays which have to be attached to them every time, apparently), it's kind of hard to keep my interest in the "debate".»
I check my private e-mail inbox once or twice a week, rarely thrice. Resulting delays in approval affect you as they do every other poster. And I don't intend to change my habits for you. You're not that important, to put it politely.
Accusing me of "quote-mining" based on that is absurd. That full sentence could be found less than 500 pixels above where I quoted parts of it. "Quote-mining", "cherry picking" and all these terms you throw around seems to just be flummery used to give your rhetorics an aura of science, something you clearly have no understanding of at all.
ReplyDeleteIf it isn't important for you to stick your comments to mine everytime I post something, then put me on the whitelist, then. I know Blogger has that feature. Unless you think I am a spammer or something similar.
«Accusing me of "quote-mining" based on that is absurd. That full sentence could be found less than 500 pixels above where I quoted parts of it. "Quote-mining", "cherry picking" and all these terms you throw around seems to just be flummery used to give your rhetorics an aura of science, something you clearly have no understanding of at all.
ReplyDeleteIf it isn't important for you to stick your comments to mine everytime I post something, then put me on the whitelist, then. I know Blogger has that feature. Unless you think I am a spammer or something similar.»
Freaking out again, are we?
Not everyone takes the trouble of scrolling back, and as I said before, I wouldn't have suspected quote-mining if it had not been for that «rather vicious and telling» remark of yours, which I understood as meaning that I'm a vicious fellow who would condone the firebombing of women and children.
Scrolling back? Not even an iPhone would need to do that at that distance.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, you are a vicious fellow. Not only because you promote the holohoax story despite having the intelligence to know that it is false, but also because you desperately try to downplay the *real* holocaust of that war, calling it "whining" when someone talks about it and link to articles which calls people who don't believe in the low numbers of a totalitarian government "right-wing extremists", etc. And your and this blog's conduct against its opponents and even fellow holo-believers is a chapter by itself.
You're a vicious ideologist, Roberto, and it shows in everything you write.
Oh, and of course you ignored my request ;)
ReplyDeleteA bit insecure, are we?
«Scrolling back? Not even an iPhone would need to do that at that distance.»
ReplyDeleteI don’t see much of previous posts as I look up my interlocutor’s latest utterances, so he must be exaggerating.
«In any case, you are a vicious fellow. Not only because you promote the holohoax story despite having the intelligence to know that it is false, but also because you desperately try to downplay the *real* holocaust of that war, calling it "whining" when someone talks about it and link to articles which calls people who don't believe in the low numbers of a totalitarian government "right-wing extremists", etc. And your and this blog's conduct against its opponents and even fellow holo-believers is a chapter by itself.»
Don't know what's more amusing about the above ravings. Is it the obvious self-projection, of which I especially appreciate my interlocutor's admission that he knows his "Revisionist" fantasies about a "holohoax" to be a load of baseless, ideologically motivated manure? Is it the hypocrisy of one of Hitler’s willing defense attorneys in calling a democratic state of law "totalitarian", obviously based on nothing other than its applying stupid hate speech laws against Hitler’s willing defense attorneys? Is it the hollow conspiracy theory that accuses said "totalitarian" state of downplaying the "real holocaust" so dear to my interlocutor's heart? The fellow’s dishonesty in taking my use of the expression "whining" out of the context in which it was made? Or the sensitive flower’s complaints about my and this blog’s "conduct" against "Revisionists" and somewhat-less-than-recommendable "holo-believers" (note again the self-projection contained in the "believers")? Hard to say which it is, but I had a good laugh at yet another of poor Tesla's self-caritcatures. More, please.
«You're a vicious ideologist, Roberto, and it shows in everything you write.»
Actually I subscribe to no ideology, as my again self-projecting opponent should have understood by now. And to be called "vicious" (meaning "deliberately cruel or violent" or "immoral" by a hate-filled propagandist – why, I might even consider that a compliment :-)
«Oh, and of course you ignored my request ;)»
Didn’t quite understand that "request", and what made my interlocutor think that I should care for his "requests"?
«A bit insecure, are we? »
Well, my interlocutor surely seems to be. Whereas I have no such problem.
No, you don't seem to be able to see much at all. And if your readers can't see that much, I really pity them.
ReplyDeleteThis "sensitive flower" happens to be appalled by the mass bombing/burning alive of of hundreds of thousands of human beings, yes, just as he is appalled by totalitarianism and the imprisonment of people for their views. It's not whining in any way - it's a perfectly normal reaction among people with a conscience. And no whining about quotes taken out of context can remove the impression you make of yourself by calling this whining.
«No, you don't seem to be able to see much at all. And if your readers can't see that much, I really pity them.»
ReplyDeleteIf you freak out that's your problem, but kindly leave our readers alone.
«This "sensitive flower" happens to be appalled by the mass bombing/burning alive of of hundreds of thousands of human beings, yes,»
... whereas millions of people deliberately starved to death, shot or gassed by his Nazi heroes leave him cold, to the point of his disputing against better knowledge that these mass crimes (or at least the gassing part thereof) happened. A rather selective "sensitive flower" we have here.
«just as he is appalled by totalitarianism and the imprisonment of people for their views.»
If our friend really had a problem with totalitarianism, he would be appalled by the system he tries to whitewash of its crimes against better knowledge. Instead he indulges in the hypocritical hyperbole of calling a democratic system "totalitarian" just because it criminalizes public expression of the hate-filled "views" of folks like him if such public expression is likely to disturb the public order. Our friend obviously has got it all upside down.
«It's not whining in any way - it's a perfectly normal reaction among people with a conscience.»
Coming from my esteemed intelocutor, the word "conscience" sounds like "human rights" coming from the likes of Mr. Assad.
«And no whining about quotes taken out of context can remove the impression you make of yourself by calling this whining.»
And what impression would that be, and in the eyes of whom exactly, other than a piece of white supremacist (or is that "white nationalist"?) scum?
The context of the quote taken out of context reads as follows, by the way:
«Actually I have no problem at all with the fact that the Allies deliberately firebombed women and children. What I do have a problem with, besides attempts to blow up the magnitude of such firebombing beyond what is supported by evidence, is the «Jew-controlled» BS. And, of course, the fact that the whining about the Allies' bombing crimes comes from one of Hitler’s willing defense attorneys, who at the same time denies the Nazis' largely successful attempt to wipe out Europe’s Jewish population.»
Were it not for the simultaneous denial of crimes larger and more heinous than the area bombing of German cities, I wouldn't use the term "whining". As it is, the term hits the nail on the head.
I'm so surprised you're anti-Assad. What at shocker.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is is that those millions of people you like to have dead never died in my book, so even if it did in fact happen, my moral conscience is clean. After all, I can't be blamed for supporting something I never believed happened. You trying to portray me as "cold" for this is just baseless projection. I notice you simply copy my own points and try to use them against me. How childish.
Your explicit dowplaying of a totalitarian regime's persecution of people for their beliefs, on the other hand, is well-documented on this blog. You don't deny any of this, you simply pretend it's not a big deal. What does this tell us about you, when you call this "democracy"? That you're an extremist with a large sack of ideological bias.
Drawing attention to people being burned alive with phosphorous bombs is never "whining". Period. You must have some sick and twisted morality if you think a person's reluctance to believe in some other mass murder changes that fact.
Or maybe you just have a problem with the Jews not being victims, but instead perpetrators? Perhaps because you are one yourself, Mr. Anti-Assad? It's not the last time phosphorous bombs were used, you know: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3660/4553478993_c40273310d_z.jpg
«I'm so surprised you're anti-Assad. What at shocker.»
ReplyDeleteWhy that?
«The difference is is that those millions of people you like to have dead never died in my book, so even if it did in fact happen, my moral conscience is clean. After all, I can't be blamed for supporting something I never believed happened.»
Did our friend really switch off an underdeveloped brain to the remarkable extent required to genuinely believe that those millions of people "never died"? Or is he - whose writing suggests that he's not as unintelligent as his "book" would require - just an inveterate and cynical liar? Readers may decide.
As we're at it, which of the millions of Nazi victims I have mentioned throughout our discussion did you have in mind? All of them, just the Jews, or just the Jews killed in gas chambers?
«You trying to portray me as "cold" for this is just baseless projection.»
No projection at all, actually. I'm just giving you the benefit of assuming that you are not a hopeless imbecile and thus know very well that you are denying proven facts in support of your ideological bias. Would you rather have it the other way round?
«I notice you simply copy my own points and try to use them against me. How childish.»
What "point" of his exactly did Mr. "childish" have in mind?
«Your explicit dowplaying of a totalitarian regime's persecution of people for their beliefs, on the other hand, is well-documented on this blog.»
No, what is well-documented on this blog is an ivory-tower fanatic's hyperbolic exaggeration of what is actually nothing worse than a democratic state's misguided legislation meant to protect public order and ethnic minorities against ideologically motivated hate speech. And the hopelessly over-the-top accusation of "totalitarianism", coming as it does from who is obviously an admirer of a regime that was actually totalitarian, is the height of hypocrisy.
«You don't deny any of this, you simply pretend it's not a big deal.»
It's not that it's not a big deal. It's just that it's not a deal as big as your imbecilic and hypocritical hyperbole makes it to be.
«What does this tell us about you, when you call this "democracy"? That you're an extremist with a large sack of ideological bias.»
No, what this tells reasonable people (as opposed to the benighted fanatics that go under your "us") is that I reasonably consider a democracy with some undemocratic flaws (certain restrictions of free speech, in this case) to still be essentially a democracy, and not a totalitarian state, let alone one of the kind that our friend passionately defends.
«Drawing attention to people being burned alive with phosphorous bombs is never "whining". Period.»
Except that you are not "drawing attention" to the crimes of Allied area bombing, but using them as an argument in support of your ideological agenda. And that, especially if coupled with denial of larger and worse crimes that don't fit your ideological beliefs, certainly deserves the epithet "whining".
«You must have some sick and twisted morality if you think a person's reluctance to believe in some other mass murder changes that fact.»
Actually using mass crimes as an argument in support of a ideological agenda is reproachable independently of such professed "reluctance", especially if that ideology is one of racist intolerance, as in your case. Coupled with what you call "reluctance" (i.e. willful blindness and stupidity at best, but more probably a cynical propaganda act), it absolutely sucks.
«Or maybe you just have a problem with the Jews not being victims, but instead perpetrators?»
ReplyDeleteNo, I have no such problem at all. Jews have been both victims and perpetrators throughout history. The latter to a much lesser extent than the former, but that doesn't excuse crimes like those committed by Israel over the past decades against Palestinians and other Arabs.
«Perhaps because you are one yourself, Mr. Anti-Assad?»
One what? One Jew? No, I'm not Jewish. But if I were, so what?
«It's not the last time phosphorous bombs were used, you know: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3660/4553478993_c40273310d_z.jpg»
Apparently this poor soul thinks that accepting as factual Nazi mass crimes against Jews and others implies endorsing the use of phosphorous bombs and other crimes committed by Israel. What a sorry little jerk.
"No, I have no such problem at all. Jews have been both victims and perpetrators throughout history. The latter to a much lesser extent than the former, but that doesn't excuse crimes like those committed by Israel over the past decades against Palestinians and other Arabs."
ReplyDeleteYou mean the taking over of their country, deportations, apartheid and genocidal politics in general? Or is it that your stance is the conventional "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, but we do not condone..."? You don't have to be honest simply because you admit some truth, you know.
"Apparently this poor soul thinks that accepting as factual Nazi mass crimes against Jews and others implies endorsing the use of phosphorous bombs and other crimes committed by Israel. What a sorry little jerk."
I think you are smart enough to know that endorsing that would mean the end of your credibility as a holocaust promoter. Let's leave it at that.
«"No, I have no such problem at all. Jews have been both victims and perpetrators throughout history. The latter to a much lesser extent than the former, but that doesn't excuse crimes like those committed by Israel over the past decades against Palestinians and other Arabs."
ReplyDeleteYou mean the taking over of their country, deportations, apartheid and genocidal politics in general? Or is it that your stance is the conventional "Israel has the right to exist and defend itself, but we do not condone..."? You don't have to be honest simply because you admit some truth, you know.»
Taking over of their country, agree.
Deportations and apartheid, also agree.
As to "genocidal policies in general", this would make the supposed "genocide" the most inefficient in history, if one considers the comparatively low number of Palestinian casualties of war, and that the Palestinian population grew 8-fold since 1948.
Of course Israel has a right to defend itself. But procedures like dropping 400 tons of bombs on Gaza in exchange for a number of inaccurate rockets fired from the other side, as happened these days, far exceed the limits of self-defense.
Funny to see a dishonest propagandist like Tesla lecture about honesty, by the way.
«"Apparently this poor soul thinks that accepting as factual Nazi mass crimes against Jews and others implies endorsing the use of phosphorous bombs and other crimes committed by Israel. What a sorry little jerk."
I think you are smart enough to know that endorsing that would mean the end of your credibility as a holocaust promoter. Let's leave it at that.»
Thanks for letting our readers know what your reasoning would be if your position where what you believe mine to be. It would surely fit what you have shown of your "character" so far. But you shouldn't project it only your opponent.
"Taking over of their country, agree."
ReplyDeleteAnd does this include the immoral overtaking of that area by Jews as a whole, or is it the usual tactic of limiting oneself to a select few "occupied areas as stated by the UN" while the main issue is forgotten about? I'm going to take a wild guess that it is the latter, but feel free to surprise me.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/14/08/images/20140731_obama.jpg
"As to "genocidal policies in general", this would make the supposed "genocide" the most inefficient in history, if one considers the comparatively low number of Palestinian casualties of war, and that the Palestinian population grew 8-fold since 1948. "
Again, according to the U.N 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', Article 2, genocide is defined as follows:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
"
Note in particular point C.
Now, you may say that the Palestinian population has multiplied, as has most other Middle-Eastern and African groups after they received the benefits of modern medicine and food-production, and so eradicating them physically has proven quite a challenge for the Jews. But the *intent* seems nonetheless very clear to me.
"Funny to see a dishonest propagandist like Tesla lecture about honesty, by the way"
Still putting your money on that age-old projection, eh?
«"Taking over of their country, agree."
ReplyDeleteAnd does this include the immoral overtaking of that area by Jews as a whole, or is it the usual tactic of limiting oneself to a select few "occupied areas as stated by the UN" while the main issue is forgotten about? I'm going to take a wild guess that it is the latter, but feel free to surprise me.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/14/08/images/20140731_obama.jpg»
Don't understand what you're talking about. Kicking people out of their homes to take them over is a criminal act, whatever the context.
«"As to "genocidal policies in general", this would make the supposed "genocide" the most inefficient in history, if one considers the comparatively low number of Palestinian casualties of war, and that the Palestinian population grew 8-fold since 1948. "
Again, according to the U.N 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', Article 2, genocide is defined as follows:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
"
Note in particular point C.
Now, you may say that the Palestinian population has multiplied, as has most other Middle-Eastern and African groups after they received the benefits of modern medicine and food-production, and so eradicating them physically has proven quite a challenge for the Jews. But the *intent* seems nonetheless very clear to me.»
This would make every ethnic cleansing operation a genocide, and every marginalizing and disenfranchising of a population (including violent repression of any form of resistance against such marginalizing and disenfranchising) a genocidal endeavor as well. Which is hardly what the convention had in mind. And I also doubt that only «the benefits of modern medicine and food-production» (which a genocide-minded Israel would have done its utmost to withhold from the poor Palestinians) are the main reason for their population having surged instead of going down. Mind that countries with fast population growth are usually not those where «the benefits of modern medicine and food production» are enjoyed to a sufficient extent by most inhabitants.
«"Funny to see a dishonest propagandist like Tesla lecture about honesty, by the way"
Still putting your money on that age-old projection, eh?»
"Age-old" projection still hits the nail on the head when it comes to the likes of Tesla. One might also call his lectures hypocritical, though.
Don't understand or pretend you don't understand? This is the second time you dodge now, but let me put it even clearer for you: do you think the criminal erection of the state of Israel was right or was it wrong? In other words, was your reference regarding "criminal acts" simply a reference to smaller territorial takeovers, which is the usual tactic your kind uses to dodge this issue? You see, this is an important point, because unless the obviously unlawful and aggressive takeover of that territory - the whole territory - is admitted, there will never be peace there. And so the people who are acting as pro-Palestinians are actually the ones who prolong the war. My guess is that I will now get some sort of explanation that "Israel has the right to...bla bla bla...because the U.N bla bla bla".
ReplyDeleteYou ignore the fact that the genocide definition requires intent do bring about the circumstances mentioned. So the definition is quite clear that the Palestine situation is genocide, given that that intent is present. Incidentally, the definition was created after lobbying by a Jew who also coined the word "genocide". Quite ironic.
«Don't understand or pretend you don't understand? This is the second time you dodge now, but let me put it even clearer for you: do you think the criminal erection of the state of Israel was right or was it wrong? In other words, was your reference regarding "criminal acts" simply a reference to smaller territorial takeovers, which is the usual tactic your kind uses to dodge this issue? You see, this is an important point, because unless the obviously unlawful and aggressive takeover of that territory - the whole territory - is admitted, there will never be peace there. And so the people who are acting as pro-Palestinians are actually the ones who prolong the war. My guess is that I will now get some sort of explanation that "Israel has the right to...bla bla bla...because the U.N bla bla bla".»
ReplyDeleteWhy, just look at the good old "dodging" and "your kind" mantras, which are so characteristic of hysterical fanatics like our friend Tesla (and especially amusing as I have no idea what exactly I'm supposed to have "dodged").
To make it very clear, I consider all of what Palestinians call the Nakba, or catastrophe, a criminal undertaking by Israel.
I also consider the current Israeli operations against Gaza a crime. Israel, as pointed out in an article you may read here, has again shown that it is a militarist, expansionist and criminal state. The picture of Israeli schoolgirls writing "love" messages on Gaza-bound ammunition I consider particularly shocking.
Which means that it's time for even a blockhead like Tesla to understand that accepting as fact and condemning the genocide of Europe's Jews by Tesla's Nazi heroes does not imply endorsing or defending Israel's policies.
«You ignore the fact that the genocide definition requires intent do bring about the circumstances mentioned. So the definition is quite clear that the Palestine situation is genocide, given that that intent is present.»
Intent to bring about what circumstances exactly? Conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, that's what the definition requires. There's no evidence that Israel ever brought about or intended to bring about such conditions on the Palestinians, unless you want every disenfranchisement of a population group to be called genocide (see my previous post). Treating a population like shit doesn't necessarily imply wanting to wholly or partially destroy that population, however stubbornly you refuse to understand that.
«Incidentally, the definition was created after lobbying by a Jew who also coined the
word "genocide". Quite ironic.»
Quite understandable, actually, after that Jew's people had undergone a procedure that fits the definition like few other events have.
Don't know what "nakba" is, but if it only means "catastrophe", then it isn't very specific. If this isn't a big deal for you, then why don't you simply say that you don't think Israel has the right to exist? That is the core of the problem we are discussing, and which you again dodge like a slipperly eel.
ReplyDeleteTo the "mantra" part: if I seem repetitive, then it is only because I am extremely patient with you and answer most of your repeated arguments and attacks against me, the most repeated one being the one where I am either a "hysteric" or suffer from paranoia. Quite funny coming from a person who sees "White Supremacists", "fascists", "Neo-Nazis" and a bunch of other ghosts around every corner. I guess this more accurately falls in the category of paranoia, rather than hysteria - say, that "recurrent agitated depression" wouldn't happen to be recurring again, would it?
An eye for an eye, Roberto.
«Don't know what "nakba" is, but if it only means "catastrophe", then it isn't very specific.»
ReplyDeleteCurious ignorance for a self-appointed champion of the Palestinian cause, but let's explain to this champion what the term "Nakba" refers to:
«The Nakba, or catastrophe, refers to fighting which saw an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled their homes in fighting that would lead to the establishment of the state of Israel.»
Source
«The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة, al-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[2] The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949, and is synonymous in that sense with what is known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut, a term which covers those two events).»
Source
«If this isn't a big deal for you, then why don't you simply say that you don't think Israel has the right to exist? That is the core of the problem we are discussing, and which you again dodge like a slipperly eel.»
Another of your instructive self-descriptions is appreciated. As to the "problem we are discussing", it is true that a major crime (the Nakba) was instrumental to the creation of the Israeli state. But why should this mean that Israel has no right to exist? Many a great nation, including Great Britain and the United States, committed major crimes as part of their constitution and expansion - just think of the enormous famines in India under British rule and the gradual expulsion, decimation or extincion of Native American tribes. Does this mean that the nations built over so much death and suffering have no right to exist?
«To the "mantra" part: if I seem repetitive, then it is only because I am extremely patient with you and answer most of your repeated arguments and attacks against me, the most repeated one being the one where I am either a "hysteric" or suffer from paranoia.»
ReplyDeleteI can understand that you don't like my "attacks" any more than someone with an ugly face likes to see it in a mirror, but they happen to result from my observation of your utterances and general behavior. Maybe you should try to improve on that instead of lashing out against your critics.
«Quite funny coming from a person who sees "White Supremacists", "fascists", "Neo-Nazis" and a bunch of other ghosts around every corner.»
Actually I consider such nuts to be a minority in a generally reasonable society. It just happens that your utterances and general behavior suggest your being part of that deplorable minority.
«I guess this more accurately falls in the category of paranoia, rather than hysteria - say, that "recurrent agitated depression" wouldn't happen to be recurring again, would it?»
Trying to get even for my "attacks" by again bringing up my medical history (moreover as if it were some sort of personal defect - he might as well hold it against a person that such persons suffers or has suffered from diabetes, cancer or heart disease) is further evidence that my interlocutor has a seriously flawed character. Thanks for again showing what lowly specimens tend to subscribe to ideological beliefs such as yours.
«An eye for an eye, Roberto.»
My interlocutor apparently thinks he hurt me with his remarks, which suggests that a) he felt hurt (poor child) by mine, b) he felt compelled to retaliate, and c) he has deluded ideas about his capacity to do so.
"I can understand that you don't like my "attacks""
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't mind. Your constant ad-hominem attacks just show how you are, in your own vitriolic words, such a "flawed character" and "lowly specimen".
"any more than someone with an ugly face likes to see it in a mirror"
That was sort of my point, Roberto. I am holding up the mirror for you.
"Actually I consider such nuts to be a minority in a generally reasonable society."
Clearly, you are the nut here, and we even have your own word for it!
"Trying to get even for my "attacks" by again bringing up my medical history (moreover as if it were some sort of personal defect - he might as well hold it against a person that such persons suffers or has suffered from diabetes, cancer or heart disease) is further evidence that my interlocutor has a seriously flawed character. Thanks for again showing what lowly specimens tend to subscribe to ideological beliefs such as yours."
Yes, try to get sympathy by whining some more and playing the victim - that is the modus operandi of your kind.
"My interlocutor apparently thinks he hurt me with his remarks, which suggests that a) he felt hurt (poor child) by mine"
Your capacity for logic is not very great either.
«"I can understand that you don't like my "attacks""
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't mind. Your constant ad-hominem attacks just show how you are, in your own vitriolic words, such a "flawed character" and "lowly specimen".»
Actually they are just manifestations of contempt for the flawed character and lowly specimen that my opponent has amply shown to be, and he seems to be taking these characterizations to heart. Which is a good thing, for it might lead to his improving a little.
«"any more than someone with an ugly face likes to see it in a mirror"
That was sort of my point, Roberto. I am holding up the mirror for you.»
A rather lame "no, you bad" retort. Got nothing better?
«"Actually I consider such nuts to be a minority in a generally reasonable society."
Clearly, you are the nut here, and we even have your own word for it! »
Same as before, and the "nut" seems to have hit a raw nerve. :-)
«"Trying to get even for my "attacks" by again bringing up my medical history (moreover as if it were some sort of personal defect - he might as well hold it against a person that such persons suffers or has suffered from diabetes, cancer or heart disease) is further evidence that my interlocutor has a seriously flawed character. Thanks for again showing what lowly specimens tend to subscribe to ideological beliefs such as yours."
Yes, try to get sympathy by whining some more and playing the victim - that is the modus operandi of your kind.»
My next remark you partially quoted shows your "playing the victim" accusation to be no more than wishful thinking. You obviously forgot to read it before hitting the keyboard.
«"My interlocutor apparently thinks he hurt me with his remarks, which suggests that a) he felt hurt (poor child) by mine"
Your capacity for logic is not very great either.»
Where exactly is the illogical part in my assessment? Please point it out and explain.
"But why should this mean that Israel has no right to exist? Many a great nation, including Great Britain and the United States, committed major crimes as part of their [- *snip* further apologetic nonsense -]"
ReplyDeleteThanks for finally answering me with the answer we all knew was there.
"Actually they are just manifestations of contempt for the flawed character and lowly specimen that my opponent has amply shown to be"
Yes of course they are. Never denied that - I'm just saying it shows what a lowly character *you* are. This must be the fifth time you use a biological term to characterize me, but keep on hatin', Roberto.
"Same as before, and the "nut" seems to have hit a raw nerve. :-)"
It might have if I didn't know that alluding to psychiatry was your modus operandi whomever it is you "debate" with.
"My next remark you partially quoted shows your "playing the victim" accusation to be no more than wishful thinking. You obviously forgot to read it before hitting the keyboard. "
Not at all. It only shows that you're pretending not to be hurt while at the same time trying to play the victim card. Very typical of you that you never can keep your lies straight.
"Where exactly is the illogical part in my assessment? Please point it out and explain."
I'm sorry, but that assertion was so firmly in the 'non sequitur' category that I doubt an explanation from me will make things any clearer for you. You apparently think every reaction in me is a result of projection, which probably means you have either read too much Freud or you really are that simple of a person.
«"But why should this mean that Israel has no right to exist? Many a great nation, including Great Britain and the United States, committed major crimes as part of their [- *snip* further apologetic nonsense -]"
ReplyDeleteThanks for finally answering me with the answer we all knew was there.»
So what's the poet trying to tell us here? That states whose founding history includes mass crimes have no right to exist on account of such crimes? Such standards would deprive many a state of its right to exist. And who gets to set such standards? Little Tesla, perhaps?
«"Actually they are just manifestations of contempt for the flawed character and lowly specimen that my opponent has amply shown to be"
Yes of course they are. Never denied that - I'm just saying it shows what a lowly character *you* are.»
So now I’m a lowly character because I express my contempt for my opponent's amply demonstrated lowly character? That's a funny idea.
«This must be the fifth time you use a biological term to characterize me, but keep on hatin', Roberto.»
I wouldn’t consider my opponent worth hating even if I had his inclinations. He's too deplorable a specimen for that (sixth time I use a "biological term", go figure).
«"Same as before, and the "nut" seems to have hit a raw nerve. :-)"
It might have if I didn't know that alluding to psychiatry was your modus operandi whomever it is you "debate" with.»
I'm not alluding to psychiatry at all, actually. Terms like "crackpot" or "nut" don't designate someone who has a clinical psychiatric problem, just someone whose holds weird convictions. I dare say that most crackpots are mentally healthy, actually.
«"My next remark you partially quoted shows your "playing the victim" accusation to be no more than wishful thinking. You obviously forgot to read it before hitting the keyboard. "
Not at all. It only shows that you're pretending not to be hurt while at the same time trying to play the victim card.»
No, I'm not pretending. It's a fact that your lowly behavior bothers me as little as, say, the squealing of a pig.
«Very typical of you that you never can keep your lies straight.»
Why, now the poor fellow is pulling the "lies" card, which is what his kind usually does when they are desperate. Maybe he will even try to explain what I’m supposed to have "lied" about, stay tuned.
«"Where exactly is the illogical part in my assessment? Please point it out and explain."
I'm sorry, but that assertion was so firmly in the 'non sequitur' category that I doubt an explanation from me will make things any clearer for you.»
As we’re talking for the benefit of an audience here, my opponent’s attempt to cover up his lack of an explanation is as unconvincing as can be.
«You apparently think every reaction in me is a result of projection, which probably means you have either read too much Freud or you really are that simple of a person.»
I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect. Some of my opponent's reactions are just expressions of the somewhat-less-than-commendable individual (or shall we say "specimen", to up the count of "biological terms" to seven?) he cannot help being.
"So what's the poet trying to tell us here?"
ReplyDeleteJust exposing you as what you are - that is a Jewish supremacist. And according to your cheerleaders, it's you who are supposedly Oscar Wilde, btw.
"So now I’m a lowly character because I express my contempt for my opponent's amply demonstrated lowly character? That's a funny idea."
No, you are a lowly character because you are a hypocrite, and because you are so obviously full of hatred while accusing others of being hateful.
"I'm not alluding to psychiatry at all, actually. Terms like "crackpot" or "nut" don't designate someone who has a clinical psychiatric problem, just someone whose holds weird convictions. I dare say that most crackpots are mentally healthy, actually."
"I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect."
This is why explaining something to, or indeed having any kind of rational debate with you, is pointless. You are not an honest individual, nor will you ever have any desire to be.
«"So what's the poet trying to tell us here?"
ReplyDeleteJust exposing you as what you are - that is a Jewish supremacist.»
Outside my interlocutor's cloud-cuckoo-land, I'm not even Jewish, actually.
«And according to your cheerleaders, it's you who are supposedly Oscar Wilde, btw.»
IIRC that was meant to be a reference to that author’s wit, which my interlocutor turned into a reference to that author’s homosexuality – for reasons presumably related to certain wishes, tendencies or obsessions of his own.
«"So now I’m a lowly character because I express my contempt for my opponent's amply demonstrated lowly character? That's a funny idea."
No, you are a lowly character because you are a hypocrite,»
How so?
«and because you are so obviously full of hatred while accusing others of being hateful.»
What's supposed to make my supposed "hatred" so "obvious"?
«"I'm not alluding to psychiatry at all, actually. Terms like "crackpot" or "nut" don't designate someone who has a clinical psychiatric problem, just someone whose holds weird convictions. I dare say that most crackpots are mentally healthy, actually."
"I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect."
This is why explaining something to, or indeed having any kind of rational debate with you, is pointless. You are not an honest individual, nor will you ever have any desire to be.»
As usual, what my interlocutor accuses me of is an obvious and accurate self-description. This one wasn’t even necessary, but thanks for it anyway.
"IIRC that was meant to be a reference to that author’s wit, which my interlocutor turned into a reference to that author’s homosexuality – for reasons presumably related to certain wishes, tendencies or obsessions of his own."
ReplyDeleteAgain these odd, Freudian projection theories which you denied just a post ago.
"As usual, what my interlocutor accuses me of is an obvious and accurate self-description. This one wasn’t even necessary, but thanks for it anyway."
And again! My "interlocutor" apparently does not understand a word of what he is writing.
«"IIRC that was meant to be a reference to that author’s wit, which my interlocutor turned into a reference to that author’s homosexuality – for reasons presumably related to certain wishes, tendencies or obsessions of his own."
ReplyDeleteAgain these odd, Freudian projection theories which you denied just a post ago.»
My intelocutor cannot read, or then he belongs to the dumber variety of liars. What I wrote "just a post ago" was the following:
"I don’t think every one of my opponent's reactions is a result of projection, and I neither remember having said something to that effect."
(Emphasis added so my interlocutor doesn't misread my statement again).
Now, what, if not some sort of self-projection, is one supposed to see in my interlocutor's uncalled-for references to Oscar Wilde's homosexuality, which suggest a certain obsession with the subject? My opponent is welcome to provide his explanation for this rubbish.
«"As usual, what my interlocutor accuses me of is an obvious and accurate self-description. This one wasn’t even necessary, but thanks for it anyway."
And again! My "interlocutor" apparently does not understand a word of what he is writing.»
Mr. "Tesla" seems to have run out of arguments and be reduced to hollow quips he hopes may be mistaken for an argument.
And why didn't my "interlocutor" emphasize "something to that effect", which indicated that my "interlocutor" denied his Freudian obsessions not only in part, but at least to such a degree that his interlocutor's argument was not entirely without merit? Shall I, perhaps, as my "interlocutor" has been fond of doing in the past for the slightest of mishaps, accuse my "interlocutor" of "quote mining" and thus being a liar?
ReplyDeleteAnd certainly none of this is relevant all the time my "interlocutor"'s obsession with Freudian references remains an integral part of his repertoire (as shown by his repeated, probably subconscious use of such references) and is certain to remain as such in the foreseeable future?
you guys are both fucking morons
ReplyDelete«And why didn't my "interlocutor" emphasize "something to that effect", which indicated that my "interlocutor" denied his Freudian obsessions not only in part, but at least to such a degree that his interlocutor's argument was not entirely without merit? Shall I, perhaps, as my "interlocutor" has been fond of doing in the past for the slightest of mishaps, accuse my "interlocutor" of "quote mining" and thus being a liar?»
ReplyDeleteTesla didn't understand (or is trying to obfuscate) my point, which is that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection.
«And certainly none of this is relevant all the time my "interlocutor"'s obsession with Freudian references remains an integral part of his repertoire (as shown by his repeated, probably subconscious use of such references) and is certain to remain as such in the foreseeable future?»
Projection arguments in response to certain accusations or insinuations do not signal an "obsession", actually. My opponent's hammering the "Freudian" thing is a stronger indicator in that direction.
"Tesla didn't understand (or is trying to obfuscate) my point, which is that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection."
ReplyDeleteQuite clearly it is my "interlocutor" who is trying to obfuscate the facts here, in that he seems to "forget" that he appended his rejection with the partial modifying sentence "something to that effect". Looking the phrase "to that effect" up at dictionary.com we see that it has the following meaning: "With that basic or general meaning". "Something to that effect" therefore, must refer to, not the accurate meaning of that 'something', but rather to something which is similar to it, while still sharing its basic and general characteristics. I find it hard to believe that our friend does not actually know the meaning of such ordinary English phrases, and so it seems more likely that our friend yet again engages in his silly little word games - this time apparently because he felt embarrassed by me pointing out how "canned", scripted and predictable his "retorts" are. In any case, it is a point that is hardly worth bickering about, as our friend surely cannot help his simple-mindedness and is sure to continue with such simple attacks in the future, thus illustrating my initial argument finely.
"Projection arguments in response to certain accusations or insinuations do not signal an "obsession", actually. My opponent's hammering the "Freudian" thing is a stronger indicator in that direction."
Let us see then, if our dear friend can lay his silly word games to rest, or if he continues to obsess about them.
[/Oscar Wilde Mode]
«"Tesla didn't understand (or is trying to obfuscate) my point, which is that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection."
ReplyDeleteQuite clearly it is my "interlocutor" who is trying to obfuscate the facts here, in that he seems to "forget" that he appended his rejection with the partial modifying sentence "something to that effect". Looking the phrase "to that effect" up at dictionary.com we see that it has the following meaning: "With that basic or general meaning". "Something to that effect" therefore, must refer to, not the accurate meaning of that 'something', but rather to something which is similar to it, while still sharing its basic and general characteristics. I find it hard to believe that our friend does not actually know the meaning of such ordinary English phrases, and so it seems more likely that our friend yet again engages in his silly little word games - this time apparently because he felt embarrassed by me pointing out how "canned", scripted and predictable his "retorts" are. In any case, it is a point that is hardly worth bickering about, as our friend surely cannot help his simple-mindedness and is sure to continue with such simple attacks in the future, thus illustrating my initial argument finely.»
And how exactly are these convoluted hysterics supposed to affect the fact that Tesla didn't understand (or was trying to obfuscate) my point, which was that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection?
«"Projection arguments in response to certain accusations or insinuations do not signal an "obsession", actually. My opponent's hammering the "Freudian" thing is a stronger indicator in that direction."
Let us see then, if our dear friend can lay his silly word games to rest, or if he continues to obsess about them.»
If any of our readers understood what "silly word games" my interlocutor is babbling about, an explanation would be appreciated.
«[/Oscar Wilde Mode»
And he does seem to like Oscar Wilde, doesn’t he?
"And how exactly are these convoluted hysterics supposed to affect the fact that Tesla didn't understand (or was trying to obfuscate) my point, which was that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection?"
ReplyDeleteThese "convoluted hysterics" explained how our friend attempted to obfuscate the facts with his silly word games and pretension to not understand simple English phrases. Now, however, our friend seems to simply take the position that he does not understand, which would indicate that he does, in fact, understand, but pretends not to, since understanding in this case would lead to embarrassment.
"And he does seem to like Oscar Wilde, doesn’t he?"
He is indeed a big fan, not of Oscar Wilde, but of one of his more famous prodigies.
[/Oscar Wilde Mode]
«"And how exactly are these convoluted hysterics supposed to affect the fact that Tesla didn't understand (or was trying to obfuscate) my point, which was that (contrary to his claim) I didn't deny having attributed remarks of his to "Freudian" projection, but merely pointed out that I had not attributed all of his remarks/reactions to projection?"
ReplyDeleteThese "convoluted hysterics" explained how our friend attempted to obfuscate the facts with his silly word games and pretension to not understand simple English phrases. Now, however, our friend seems to simply take the position that he does not understand, which would indicate that he does, in fact, understand, but pretends not to, since understanding in this case would lead to embarrassment.»
More convoluted hysterics, and still no results. Yawn …
«"And he does seem to like Oscar Wilde, doesn’t he?"
He is indeed a big fan, not of Oscar Wilde, but of one of his more famous prodigies.»
I didn’t know Adolf Hitler was a prodigy of Oscar Wilde. Or do you mean Dr. Joseph Goebbels?