What Would You Deny?

[Star Crossed 33]

Have any DLers got anything they'd like to deny? I have a few things...

 

My overly-long nose. "No, I think you'll find, upon measurement, that it's SMALLER than average."

My 2nd-class degree. "No, I believe you have mistaken my first-class for a 2:1"

My lack of regional accent. "No, in actual fact I have an easily-discernable, salt-of-the-earth Geordie accent."

Creationists/Intelligunt Deziners. "No, I think you'll find that everyone accepts evolution as a law of the natural world."

Embarrassing rants/comments I've made on the DL. "No, no, NO! I think you'll find, upon careful examination of my collective postings, that I am always erudite, polite, factually correct and of course highly, highly amusing. You bunch of sick, boring, loathesome f**ks."

[Boudicca 702]

Have any DLers got anything they'd like to deny? I have a few things...

 

My overly-long nose. "No, I think you'll find, upon measurement, that it's SMALLER than average."

My 2nd-class degree. "No, I believe you have mistaken my first-class for a 2:1"

My lack of regional accent. "No, in actual fact I have an easily-discernable Geordie accent."

Creationists/Intelligunt Deziners. "No, I think you'll find that everyone accepts evolution as a law of the natural world."

Embarrassing rants/comments I've made on the DL. "No, no, NO! I think you'll find, upon careful examination of my collective postings, that I am always erudite, polite, factually correct and of course highly, highly amusing. You bunch of sick f**ks."

 

I've been denying the Norman Conquest for years.

[Tempus Fugit 213]

Have any DLers got anything they'd like to deny? I have a few things...

 

My overly-long nose. "No, I think you'll find, upon measurement, that it's SMALLER than average."

My 2nd-class degree. "No, I believe you have mistaken my first-class for a 2:1"

My lack of regional accent. "No, in actual fact I have an easily-discernable, salt-of-the-earth Geordie accent."

Creationists/Intelligunt Deziners. "No, I think you'll find that everyone accepts evolution as a law of the natural world."

Embarrassing rants/comments I've made on the DL. "No, no, NO! I think you'll find, upon careful examination of my collective postings, that I am always erudite, polite, factually correct and of course highly, highly amusing. You bunch of sick, boring, loathesome f**ks."

Confession is good for the soul,

 

denial is good for staying out of prison, except if you're David Irving.

 

I deny that I have denied anything.

[scsibear 4]

I've been denying the ball ever crossed that line waaaayy back in the year of our lord Nineteen Hundred and Sixty Six...you know I'm right dontcha...!!! Eh! Eh ! hahahaha

[BrunoBrimley 85]

I deny that I have denied anything which would, could or should be termed as a denial.

[BrunoBrimley 85]

...................I also catgegorically deny that last post.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I think many deny smaller than average penis size

[Geronimo 3]

I've seen a crocodile in denial

[Magere Hein 1,398]

I've seen a crocodile in denial

No, you haven't.

 

regards,

Hein

[Life Begins at 5 o'clock 7]

To this day I deny having sex with that woman.

[millwall32 114]

Have any DLers got anything they'd like to deny? I have a few things...

 

My overly-long nose. "No, I think you'll find, upon measurement, that it's SMALLER than average."

My 2nd-class degree. "No, I believe you have mistaken my first-class for a 2:1"

My lack of regional accent. "No, in actual fact I have an easily-discernable, salt-of-the-earth Geordie accent."

Creationists/Intelligunt Deziners. "No, I think you'll find that everyone accepts evolution as a law of the natural world."

Embarrassing rants/comments I've made on the DL. "No, no, NO! I think you'll find, upon careful examination of my collective postings, that I am always erudite, polite, factually correct and of course highly, highly amusing. You bunch of sick, boring, loathesome f**ks."

 

Many things about which I am in denial but I do not believe that the aforementioned David Irving has ever denied the holocaust. Merely the scale of death involved, which he has questioned by using original documents in a rather warped way. Is there anyone at all who actually questions the fact that there was a holocaust?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Is there anyone at all who actually questions the fact that there was a holocaust?

Nick Griffin is the most familiar to the UK but there is an organisation called Institute For Historical Review (IHR). Founded in 1979 it's the world's largest centre for holocaust denial propaganda.

[in eternum+ 20]

Many things about which I am in denial but I do not believe that the aforementioned David Irving has ever denied the holocaust. Merely the scale of death involved, which he has questioned by using original documents in a rather warped way. Is there anyone at all who actually questions the fact that there was a holocaust?

Oh yes. When I was growing up in Alberta there was a teacher named James Keengstra, who was a holocaust denier. He was subsequently tried and convicted of being a total prat. This is the same part of the province, I believe, where there were a number of cross burnings around the same time. Ah, memories of redneck Alberta.

[Canadian Paul 93]

Ah, memories of redneck Alberta.

 

"The Texas of the North" as it's called, if that helps anyone here visualize it.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

"The Texas of the North" as it's called, if that helps anyone here visualize it.

I can almost see the lynchings!

[in eternum+ 20]

"The Texas of the North" as it's called.

I wish I could deny that!

[millwall32 114]

Is there anyone at all who actually questions the fact that there was a holocaust?

Nick Griffin is the most familiar to the UK but there is an organisation called Institute For Historical Review (IHR). Founded in 1979 it's the world's largest centre for holocaust denial propaganda.

 

That's my point. Was he actually denying that it happened or the scale of death involved. No one, including the pre-last minute conversion David Irving, is arguing that there was no Holocaust rather there are people putting forth counter -arguments for the death toll. I for one have heard it placed ,by both Jews and Gentiles, at anything between 100'000 and 10'000'000.

Holocaust review and Holocausty denial are completely different.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

That's my point. Was he actually denying that it happened or the scale of death involved. No one, including the pre-last minute conversion David Irving, is arguing that there was no Holocaust rather there are people putting forth counter -arguments for the death toll. I for one have heard it placed ,by both Jews and Gentiles, at anything between 100'000 and 10'000'000.

Holocaust review and Holocausty denial are completely different.

Irving has denied the holocaust and is quoted as calling it baloney and legend. He wrote a book called "Hitler's War". A book which took him 13 years to write after compiling a huge series of unexploited Nazi documents. He commented that Hitler knew nothing, of the extermination camps and murders, until 1943 and that he never ordered the genocide. He even offered a financial bounty to anyone that could produce evidence to contradict his work. Years later he reviewed his work and stated that the gas chambers didn't exist and that six million jews didn't die.

 

What he said that contravened the Austrian law, I don't know. I think it's silly but it does demonstrate a double standard in western 'free speech' ideology.

 

As for the IHR they don't offically deny the holocaust. Taken from their site, they state

 

"The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II."

 

However they do go as far as saying "These individuals (listed next - HoS) did not decide to publicly reject the orthodox Holocaust story — thereby risking public censure, and worse — because they are fools, or because their motives are evil, but rather on the basis of a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence."

 

These "revisionist" (a term the IHR themselves refer to as skeptical) individuals DO deny the holocaust. Some outright. Some question the methods and others the death toll.

 

Fred Leucter is dubbed the American gas chamber specialist. His investigation (dubbed "The Leucter Report") concluded that the gas chambers and resulting executions didn't exist.

 

Robert Faurisson is a university professor. In his article for the IHR (entitled End Of A Myth) he follows Leucters work and has been "absolutely sure" that no gas chambers were used to kill jews since 1974.

 

Arthur Butz is also a university professor. He is the author of "The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century: The Case Against The Presumed Extermination of European Jewry", in which he thoroughly debunks the holocaust.

 

Roger Garaudy is a historian. In his book entitled "The Founding Myths Of Modern Israel" he states that the final solution wasn't mass extermination but a resettlement program and the the holocaust was a myth.

 

Paul Rassinier, a former concentration camp inmate wrote a book entitled "Debunking the Genocide Myth" in which he refers to the 30th January 1946 as being "that day that, in the world press, the gas chambers mythology began its dance to every tune and diabolical rhythm; that unrestrained saraband full of missteps has not stopped since."

 

So while the organisation doesn't officially deny the holocaust, does it endorse those that do? It certainly offers their work in it's pages and reviews them throughout. It even invites them to speak at their seminars and quotes a few post-humously. In doing so how am I supposed to feel about the content of their website? I read the British National Party website too. They're not racist just patriotic championing the cause of the downtrodden Briton.

 

I'm sure the readers can make up their own opinion. Are they hateful jew bashers or is it part of a massive jewish conspiracy to discredit them?

 

Death toll? Nazi records place the figure at 5.7 million but various figures are used depending on which slant the articles are written from. Who knows? As time heals the wounds and old age claims the remaining survivors maybe history will be gradually re-written in favour of the revisionist?

 

As for Irving, I don't really know the man. As much as he's offended people I think a prison sentence for having an opinion is ridiculous but it's the price of living in the 21st century where freedom and democracy are an ideology and where a bastardised version has been dictated to us by our financial betters. A place where the revisionism of our rights and freedoms have left us in a state where we're not allowed to think for ourselves and any form of alternative viewpoint is brutally crushed.

 

Lest We Forget...

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Jailed British historian David Irving has again said he does not believe Hitler presided over a systematic attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe.

[millwall32 114]

That's my point. Was he actually denying that it happened or the scale of death involved. No one, including the pre-last minute conversion David Irving, is arguing that there was no Holocaust rather there are people putting forth counter -arguments for the death toll. I for one have heard it placed ,by both Jews and Gentiles, at anything between 100'000 and 10'000'000.

Holocaust review and Holocausty denial are completely different.

Irving has denied the holocaust and is quoted as calling it baloney and legend. He wrote a book called "Hitler's War". A book which took him 13 years to write after compiling a huge series of unexploited Nazi documents. He commented that Hitler knew nothing, of the extermination camps and murders, until 1943 and that he never ordered the genocide. He even offered a financial bounty to anyone that could produce evidence to contradict his work. Years later he reviewed his work and stated that the gas chambers didn't exist and that six million jews didn't die.

 

What he said that contravened the Austrian law, I don't know. I think it's silly but it does demonstrate a double standard in western 'free speech' ideology.

 

As for the IHR they don't offically deny the holocaust. Taken from their site, they state

 

"The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II."

 

However they do go as far as saying "These individuals (listed next - HoS) did not decide to publicly reject the orthodox Holocaust story — thereby risking public censure, and worse — because they are fools, or because their motives are evil, but rather on the basis of a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence."

 

These "revisionist" (a term the IHR themselves refer to as skeptical) individuals DO deny the holocaust. Some outright. Some question the methods and others the death toll.

 

Fred Leucter is dubbed the American gas chamber specialist. His investigation (dubbed "The Leucter Report") concluded that the gas chambers and resulting executions didn't exist.

 

Robert Faurisson is a university professor. In his article for the IHR (entitled End Of A Myth) he follows Leucters work and has been "absolutely sure" that no gas chambers were used to kill jews since 1974.

 

Arthur Butz is also a university professor. He is the author of "The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century: The Case Against The Presumed Extermination of European Jewry", in which he thoroughly debunks the holocaust.

 

Roger Garaudy is a historian. In his book entitled "The Founding Myths Of Modern Israel" he states that the final solution wasn't mass extermination but a resettlement program and the the holocaust was a myth.

 

Paul Rassinier, a former concentration camp inmate wrote a book entitled "Debunking the Genocide Myth" in which he refers to the 30th January 1946 as being "that day that, in the world press, the gas chambers mythology began its dance to every tune and diabolical rhythm; that unrestrained saraband full of missteps has not stopped since."

 

So while the organisation doesn't officially deny the holocaust, does it endorse those that do? It certainly offers their work in it's pages and reviews them throughout. It even invites them to speak at their seminars and quotes a few post-humously. In doing so how am I supposed to feel about the content of their website? I read the British National Party website too. They're not racist just patriotic championing the cause of the downtrodden Briton.

 

I'm sure the readers can make up their own opinion. Are they hateful jew bashers or is it part of a massive jewish conspiracy to discredit them?

 

Death toll? Nazi records place the figure at 5.7 million but various figures are used depending on which slant the articles are written from. Who knows? As time heals the wounds and old age claims the remaining survivors maybe history will be gradually re-written in favour of the revisionist?

 

As for Irving, I don't really know the man. As much as he's offended people I think a prison sentence for having an opinion is ridiculous but it's the price of living in the 21st century where freedom and democracy are an ideology and where a bastardised version has been dictated to us by our financial betters. A place where the revisionism of our rights and freedoms have left us in a state where we're not allowed to think for ourselves and any form of alternative viewpoint is brutally crushed.

 

Lest We Forget...

 

No one you have mentioned appears, given what you have said, to have denied the Holocaust. Questioned it-Yes. Doubted that Hitler knew about it-Yes. Claimed that teh figures have been exagerated -Yes. Claimed the

daeths have been used for propaganda purposes-Yes. Doubted that the gas chamber was the prefered method of murder-Yes. Played around with the exact definition of the term "systematic slaughter"-Yes

But no one seems to have denied that there was a Holocaust. Rather they would seem to have questioned the figures involved using very varied methods of academic investigation.

The term "Holocaust denier/denial" seems to be both alzy and inacurate, covering a wide range of opinion some bigoted, some curious, some concerned.

Where is their someone arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen rather than someone fitting into the very broad category Holocaust denier.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Where is their someone arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen rather than someone fitting into the very broad category Holocaust denier.

In court, Irving admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. Whether he or any of the above have used the phrase "I deny the Holocaust" I honestly can't tell you but the IHR have stated that the listed experts have rejected the orthodox view of the Holocaust. I suppose that paragraph is dependant on how you perceive it.

[millwall32 114]

Where is their someone arguing that the Holocaust didn't happen rather than someone fitting into the very broad category Holocaust denier.

In court, Irving admitted that in 1989 he had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews. Whether he or any of the above have used the phrase "I deny the Holocaust" I honestly can't tell you but the IHR have stated that the listed experts have rejected the orthodox view of the Holocaust. I suppose that paragraph is dependant on how you perceive it.

 

So Irving would seem to be one of those who has criticised the numbers said to have been killed while IHR would seem to be a group who have questioned the 2orthodox interpretations". Both of which ,I would, suggest are more accurate and informative descriptions than "Holocaust Deniers".

[Star Crossed 33]

I wish to deny having started this thread, which I thought might end up fairly light-hearted and not as a discussion regarding the semantic values of the concept of holocaust, or it's connotations.

 

 

Does this mean I'll be accused of being anti-semantic?

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

So Irving would seem to be one of those who has criticised the numbers said to have been killed while IHR would seem to be a group who have questioned the 2orthodox interpretations". Both of which ,I would, suggest are more accurate and informative descriptions than "Holocaust Deniers".

According the trial in Austria, Irving admitted denying that the murder of the jews took place (during his lecture in '89). I would class that denial.

 

However I wasn't there so I can't spin the exact phrasing he used.

 

I interpret the holocaust as a persecution and systematic attempt, by the Nazis, to eradicate European jewry. As all of the various professors and historians listed disagree with me I class that as holocaust denial. Several of these authors have wrote books saying it didn't happen others dispute the number and the methodology. Some say that the final solution wasn't an extermination program and the a couple seem to believe that because Hitler didn't know about it it couldn't be a systematic attempt to eradicate the jews.

 

Like I said it all depends on your personal interpretation of the holocaust. I suppose if you reckon the murders weren't based on ethnic cleansing, and were based purely on defeating the insurgents and enemies, within the Fatherland, then there was no holocaust. It was just a really unfortunate time to be jewish in Europe.

[M Busby Airlines 7]

So Irving would seem to be one of those who has criticised the numbers said to have been killed while IHR would seem to be a group who have questioned the 2orthodox interpretations". Both of which ,I would, suggest are more accurate and informative descriptions than "Holocaust Deniers".

According the trial in Austria, Irving admitted denying that the murder of the jews took place (during his lecture in '89). I would class that denial.

 

However I wasn't there so I can't spin the exact phrasing he used.

 

I interpret the holocaust as a persecution and systematic attempt, by the Nazis, to eradicate European jewry. As all of the various professors and historians listed disagree with me I class that as holocaust denial. Several of these authors have wrote books saying it didn't happen others dispute the number and the methodology. Some say that the final solution wasn't an extermination program and the a couple seem to believe that because Hitler didn't know about it it couldn't be a systematic attempt to eradicate the jews.

 

Like I said it all depends on your personal interpretation of the holocaust. I suppose if you reckon the murders weren't based on ethnic cleansing, and were based purely on defeating the insurgents and enemies, within the Fatherland, then there was no holocaust. It was just a really unfortunate time to be jewish in Europe.

 

Or not Blonde & Pure - just like the greasy Austrian painter & decorator.