Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-FPY- · 06-30-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus
Given that it is not my position, I can't imagine why I would make any effort to prove its accuracy. My point is simple: the testimony of a single eyewitness or even a small group of them cannot counter the basic premises of Holocaust revisionists. There is a mountain of other evidence, however, that can and does.

And that is why I am against the "I knew people that were gassed; therefore the Nazis wanted to kill all of Europe's Jews."

Arken · 06-30-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by -FPY-
And that is why I am against the "I knew people that were gassed; therefore the Nazis wanted to kill all of Europe's Jews."

Yes, but you also seem to be against "I've read plenty of documents from top-level Nazis describing in great detail the 'final solution; therefore the Nazis wanted to kill all of Europe's Jews."

nj_heathens · 06-30-2003, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tristan Scott
Wrong on all three counts.

Prove that you are correct.

Please clarify what three counts of LD's post you contend are wrong. Are you suggesting his list of the three basic tenets of Holocaust revisionism is wrong?

Mrs. Heathen

Evangelion · 06-30-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

I said the so-called scholarly sources make no particular religious claims either way.

That was not the post to which I was referring.

livius drusus · 06-30-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
That was not the post to which I was referring.

To which post were you referring?

livius drusus · 06-30-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nj_heathens
Please clarify what three counts of LD's post you contend are wrong. Are you suggesting his list of the three basic tenets of Holocaust revisionism is wrong?

I believe Tristan Scott originally misconstrued my listing of those tenets as a defense of them but has since realized my position was not one of advocacy.

nogods4me · 06-30-2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
Yes. It proves that this statement by nogods4me...

9snip)

...is demonstrably false.

Uhm, exsqueeze me?

my claim was that the holocaust deniers that I have read and talked to espose a virulent form of xtianity. what bearing does the other statement have at all on what I said?

Born Free · 06-30-2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus
My point is simple: the testimony of a single eyewitness or even a small group of them cannot counter the basic premises of Holocaust revisionists.

This is where it goes all wrong. I think a small number should be fine to counter the basic premises I can't help thinking that this panders to the revisionist.

We all know the main target was the Jewish race. The revisionsist's basic aim is to discredit this predominantly jewish claim nay I'll rephrase that it is not a claim it is fact, already noted as such for a lot of years, it is the revisionist making the claim.

Anyway in their eyes the testimony of one jew is not worth a toss ergo the mistaken demand for large numbers of witnesses, not 50 nor even 100 but preferably thousands.

Basically we're all wasting our time arguing with them anyway it does not matter to them hearing jewish eye witness accounts, they turn a blind eye to German eyewitness accounts, they hear and see nothing that can convince them. A bit like the fundies in fact.

heartsonfire · 06-30-2003, 01:19 PM

FPY posted this:

Francis Parker Yockey was the greatest philosopher ever. I can highly recommend his works and essays. Of course, Google would find results that call him a neo-fascist and an anti-Semite - he remains one of the most under-rated, mysterious and misunderstood visionaries of the post-war period. His opposition towards Jews was on the grounds of cultural vitalism, and not a petty, personal hatred.

First off, as somebody who has read Imperium and a fair number of Yockey's essays I can say with the utmost confidence that Frances was NOT "the greatest philosopher ever." He had a peculiar interpretation of Spengler, who in turn had a unique take on Nietzsche (I happen to have great respect for these two thinkers). Yockey fell into the same trap that many ideologically motivated individuals do; he had a conclusion in mind before he even began the process of crafting a philosophical system. Good philosophy is guided by reason and ultimately discovers Truth and creates theory. Although he definitely had some points (his opposition to American consumer capitalism, his rejection of strict biological racism), he was, ultimately, not worthy of comparison to greats like Heraclitus, Socrates, Seneca, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and (I grudgingly admit this) Marx. He was, however, a more impressive thinker than Hitler or Rosenberg.

Calling Yockey "the greatest philosopher ever" is like saying that Savitri Devi (I'm sure you're familiar with her) was the greatest Hindu priestess ever.

Additionally, your constant linking to the IHR makes very little sense. You affirm the reality of the Holocaust, yet continually refer to historically bankrupt and idiosyncratic denials. Aside from the mountains of physical evidence and pre-1945 sources that call into question revisionist histories of Nazi racial hygiene practices, the IHR's links to Neo-Nazi groups makes any reasonable person question the veracity of their claims. Using the IHR as a source for information about the Holocaust is akin to using a Christian website (or even Internet Infidels!) as evidence in an evolution argument.

That said, it would be nice if the users of this forum would be kind enough to produce arguments that do not rely on anecdotal evidence or appeals to emotion. There are plenty on them out there and they are condsiderably more effective.

Corona688 · 06-30-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by -FPY-
And that is why I am against the "I knew people that were gassed; therefore the Nazis wanted to kill all of Europe's Jews."

Quote:

Speech by Adolf Hitler, January 31, 1939.
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol XIII, p. 131:

Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

Quote:

Speeches by Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler before senior SS officers in Poznan, October 4 and 6, 1943.
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. XIII, p. 323, and Himmler, Reichsfuehrer-SS - P. Padfield, Henry Holt and Co, NY, 1990, p. 469:

I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It's one of those things it is easy to talk about, "the Jewish race is being exterminated", says one party member, "that's quite clear, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, and we're doing it, exterminating them". And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Not one of those who talk this way has watched it, not one of them has gone through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500, or 1,000. To have stuck it out and at the same time - apart from exceptions caused by human weakness - to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written.

Note the italicized part... you can't get more ironic than that. There are audio tapes preserved of him saying this, btw; check it out Here. like I said, the best documented crime in human history.

Quote:

The Goebbels [Reich Propaganda Minister] Diaries, February 14 1942.
The Goebbels Diaries 1942-1943 - L.P. Lochner, Doubleday & Co., 1948, p. 86:

World Jewry will suffer a great catastrophe at the same time as Bolshevism. The F�hrer once more expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will now go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

Quote:

The Goebbels [Reich Propaganda Minister] diaries, March 27, 1942.
The Goebbels Diaries 1942-1943 - L.P. Lochner, Doubleday & Co., 1948, p. 147-148:

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government [Nazi occupied Poland] are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 percent can be used for forced labor.

Quote:

Memorandum from Gestapo Headquarters, 15 June 1944.
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. IV, p. 1166:

In amending my directive of June 20 1944, I request that those people subject to special treatment be sent to a crematorium to be cremated if possible.

And many more. Look Here

This is simply the very tip of the iceberg, the juicy quotes; these quotes are supported by a vast ocean of evididence, ranging from survivor testimonies, to the intact extermination facilites capable of processing the stated 6 million people in the required timeframe, to photographs of the piles of dead bodies taken when allied soldiers made it to the deathcamps, to piles and piles of the Nazi's own documents, to some still-remaining piles of clothing, shoes, and jewelery that the Nazis took from the Jews before killing them - intending to redistribute them to 'worthy aryans'. And on, and on, and on.

There is simply too much evidence to rationally think the Holocaust was anything but what it was.

06-30-2003, 01:19 PM	#139
heartsonfire Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 16	Francis Parker Yockey, the Holocaust, and idiosyncrasy FPY posted this: Francis Parker Yockey was the greatest philosopher ever. I can highly recommend his works and essays. Of course, Google would find results that call him a neo-fascist and an anti-Semite - he remains one of the most under-rated, mysterious and misunderstood visionaries of the post-war period. His opposition towards Jews was on the grounds of cultural vitalism, and not a petty, personal hatred. First off, as somebody who has read Imperium and a fair number of Yockey's essays I can say with the utmost confidence that Frances was NOT "the greatest philosopher ever." He had a peculiar interpretation of Spengler, who in turn had a unique take on Nietzsche (I happen to have great respect for these two thinkers). Yockey fell into the same trap that many ideologically motivated individuals do; he had a conclusion in mind before he even began the process of crafting a philosophical system. Good philosophy is guided by reason and ultimately discovers Truth and creates theory. Although he definitely had some points (his opposition to American consumer capitalism, his rejection of strict biological racism), he was, ultimately, not worthy of comparison to greats like Heraclitus, Socrates, Seneca, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and (I grudgingly admit this) Marx. He was, however, a more impressive thinker than Hitler or Rosenberg. Calling Yockey "the greatest philosopher ever" is like saying that Savitri Devi (I'm sure you're familiar with her) was the greatest Hindu priestess ever. Additionally, your constant linking to the IHR makes very little sense. You affirm the reality of the Holocaust, yet continually refer to historically bankrupt and idiosyncratic denials. Aside from the mountains of physical evidence and pre-1945 sources that call into question revisionist histories of Nazi racial hygiene practices, the IHR's links to Neo-Nazi groups makes any reasonable person question the veracity of their claims. Using the IHR as a source for information about the Holocaust is akin to using a Christian website (or even Internet Infidels!) as evidence in an evolution argument. That said, it would be nice if the users of this forum would be kind enough to produce arguments that do not rely on anecdotal evidence or appeals to emotion. There are plenty on them out there and they are condsiderably more effective.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.