It's just a Roman salute, says school in 'Nazi' matric photograph furore

[STS]

You claimed you were pro-life in the context of having right wing beliefs. There's only one context in which being pro-life can be considered to be a right wing belief, and that's the one area you are actually pro-choice on.

So I don't know wtf is going on in your head, but I want no part of it. Insofar as I respond to you, it's merely to entertain myself and to draw your crazy to the attention of others.


Kafka sends his regards.

"I refuse to answer your question about Hitler because you aren't pro-life." Thanks for showing everyone your real character

 

[Gingerbeardman]

"I refuse to answer your question about Hitler because you aren't pro-life." Thanks for showing everyone your real character

Thanks for showing everyone how deluded you are, and how you judge them for refusing to virtue signal on demand.

And don't try and pretend that you haven't been tediously pulling this crap for weeks.

 

[Cray]

Except for the fact that the judgement you invoked to declare him a holocaust denier did so because of his ideological motivations. What non-Nazi ideological motivations would drive someone to deny the holocaust?

I cited Irving as an example of someone who is a holocaust denier, you are the one getting hung up on his ideolo? He might very well be a Nazi, I honestly don't care. He certainly seems to enjoy their company but maybe it's just a good way for him to make to make a living now that no serious historical publishers will touch him with a 10 foot pole.

As for the judgement I referenced, it is the most well-known one, not the only one. Irving has been found to be a holocaust denier in multiple jurisdictions, feel free to read up about them, but am done with this.

 

[Cray]

If someone is an actual denier then no one has a problem with him being called such, the problem is where the term gets expanded disingenuously.

Example? And I agree, it's not a term that should be used lightly.

 

[STS]

Thanks for showing everyone how deluded you are, and how you judge them for refusing to virtue signal on demand.

And don't try and pretend that you haven't been tediously pulling this crap for weeks.

Xarog: this is it, I can finally put that wanker STS in his place, make him stfu for good and show others I am not a Nazi

Also Xarog: Haha I am secret nazi man, me no talky

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I cited Irving as an example of someone who is a holocaust denier, you are the one getting hung up on his ideolo?

You cited him as an example of a non-Nazi holocaust denier. His Naziness is therefore germane to your point because it shows that your example is a bad one.

He might very well be a Nazi, I honestly don't care. He certainly seems to enjoy their company but maybe it's just a good way for him to make to make a living now that no serious historical publishers will touch him with a 10 foot pole.

Cool beans. So you don't actually dispute that the judge found that his dishonesty existed because of his ideological reasons, and it's not clear that a judgement of dishonesty can be made without adding that motivation/intent to the picture.

As for the judgement I referenced, it is the most well-known one, not the only one. Irving has been found to be a holocaust denier in multiple jurisdictions, feel free to read up about them, but am done with this.

 

[buka001]

OK, so if they just starved the poor fsckers over time or something, then it wouldn't be as bad?

No. Le Strawman.

Address the fact that the Nazis were the only ones to industrialise the Genocide.

No other genocide was organised in this manner and that is why the Holocaust receives greater review, analysis and promotion.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Xarog: this is it, I can finally put that wanker STS in his place, make him stfu for good and show others I am not a Nazi

Also Xarog: Haha I am secret nazi man, me no talky

Cultural Marxism is a bigger danger than Nazism. I'm not going to serve the worse agenda in the cause of proving myself to not be part of the less dangerous agenda.

You're just a demoralised confused useful idiot. Stop bothering me.

 

[buka001]

Except for the fact that the judgement you invoked to declare him a holocaust denier did so because of his ideological motivations. What non-Nazi ideological motivations would drive someone to deny the holocaust?

Did the Nazis use gas chambers?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

No. Le Strawman.

Address the fact that the Nazis were the only ones to industrialise the Genocide.

No other genocide was organised in this manner and that is why the Holocaust receives greater review, analysis and promotion.

How is that a straw man?

I'm saying, if for example, there was just an explicit starvation project that was employed, would that be less bad? In other words...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Robert Conquest, author of The Harvest of Sorrow, has stated that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide.[89] R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft believe that if industrialisation had been abandoned, the famine could have been "prevented" or at least significantly alleviated. They see the leadership under Stalin as making significant errors in planning for the industrialisation of agriculture:

[W]e regard the policy of rapid industrialisation as an underlying cause of the agricultural troubles of the early 1930s, and we do not believe that the Chinese or NEP versions of industrialisation were viable in Soviet national and international circumstances.[90]:626​

Michael Ellman argues that, in addition to deportations, internment in the Gulag camps and shootings (see the law of spikelets), there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry.[91] He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 that many of those starving to death were "counter-revolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate.

This is less bad than the Nazi extermination camps, despite the fact that it is intentional killing on a systemic level?

 

[Cray]

You cited him as an example of a non-Nazi holocaust denier. His Naziness is therefore germane to your point because it shows that your example is a bad one.

Fair enough, although the judge called him anti-semitic and racist, not a Nazi. Do you have any evidence that he subscribes to any of the other tenants of Nazism besides anti-semitism?

Cool beans. So you don't actually dispute that the judge found that his dishonesty existed because of his ideological reasons, and it's not clear that a judgement of dishonesty can be made without adding that motivation/intent to the picture.

So the idea that he could just be anti-semitic and not a Nazi is out of the question? Do you think that those Palestinians that deny the holocaust due to hatred of Israel are also secret Nazi followers?

 

[Cray]

Dunno. Probably, but that's no reason to accuse someone who believes otherwise of being dishonest.

If the deliberately miss-represent historical evidence, then yes, it is.

 

[buka001]

How is that a straw man?

I'm saying, if for example, there was just an explicit starvation project that was employed, would that be less bad? In other words...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

This is less bad than the Nazi extermination camps, despite the fact that it is intentional killing on a systemic level?

There was intention. Not the point, all Genocides had intention. Industrialisation is the point. Departments, reporting structures, statistics, medical bureau set up all of these things encapsulate the scale, and directness of any Genocide.

Nazis also purposefully starved people.

Stalin semi-industrialised it, but starvation tactics are broad based. The Nazis were very direct and discriminant with the purposeful targeting.

Address this point? Or are you gonna keep deflecting this obvious difference between the Nazis and all other Genocides?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Fair enough, although the judge called him anti-semitic and racist, not a Nazi.

As if those aren't the essentially disturbing features of Nazism, the whole reason people demonise it?

So the idea that he could just be anti-semitic and not a Nazi is out of the question? Do you think that those Palestinians that deny the holocaust due to hatred of Israel are also secretly Nazi followers.

No, it's just not evidence that supports your attempt to discredit Rambo's point about the fact that these labels are used to discredit questioning into the official account.

FWIW, I think Irving is sincere in his beliefs, so they are not dishonest even if they are wrong.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

There was intention. Not the point, all Genocides had intention. Industrialisation is the point. Departments, reporting structures, statistics, medical bureau set up all of these things encapsulate the scale, and directness of any Genocide.

Right, so starving people is not an industrialised execution process, even if it achieves exactly the same ends.

Hence it is valid to ask you if a less industrialised operation is not as bad, even if it is intentionally carried out and achieves the same outcome, for more or less the same kinds of prejudiced reasons.

Nazis also purposefully starved people.

Stalin semi-industrialised it, but starvation tactics are broad based. The Nazis were very direct and discriminant with the purposeful targeting.

Not seeing the relevance.

Address this point? Or are you gonna keep deflecting this obvious difference between the Nazis and all other Genocides?

Lol, how am I not addressing it? I try to investigate it and you call it a straw man.

 

[rambo919]

OK, fair enough. Out of interest can you provide your evidence to substantiate your view of what you think the actual death toll of the Holocaust was?

My best guess is somewhere between 2m and 4m, the 6m figure has actually been officially lowered by a few places though I forget the details now. It's probably impossible to get an exact figure because of all the records that were destroyed and the soviets having taken over many of the areas that had camps.... soviets tended to grossely spin everything to the point that even they themselves barely believed any of it at the end.

Personally I find the reliance on "6m 6m 6m" as if it is a proven fact purely of propagandic nature especially since any criticism of it gets you tarred and feathered.

Can you show how Marxists are doing this? Denialists always claim that the pro-Israel or Zionists are the ones pushing this and playing this tactic. Is Israel now Marxist?

You go on to talk about the Marxist ANC. What do they have to do with this?

That deals with a variety of points:
Saying "group soandso says this about zionists/jews" is a by now useless "just shut up" smear, completely over-used.

Yes there are large Marxist groups politically active within Israel, many of the original migrants (as opposed to those that were native) were from eastern Europe and they would obviously have brought Marxism in with them..... and there is the fact that Marx himself was a Jew.

Semantic Warfare is a common Marxist tactic, it has never stopped being in use since the russian revolution was incited. At best/worst it's appearance changed when marxists had to start going into hiding during the cold war. In the radical Marxist's mind all is fair in his/her war on everything that is not Marxist, they don't care about honesty because the ends justify the means.... something incedentally often attributed to all other kinds of fanatical fundamentalists.

Zionism itself though is closer in nature to Nazism than Communism.... both of which comes from Marxism.

The ANC after a few years of mostly fruitless lobbying became Marxist dominated with the SACP seducing their leadership or whatever you wish to call it. Most of it's leadership eventually (including Nelson Mandela) also belonged to the SACP.

Can you show a comparative analysis of this claim? I don't deny the Armenian Genocide. I would like to see your proof that the evidence for the Holocaust is somewhat less?

Any study can be twisted to mean anything, blind faith in statistics is ignorance of human nature. Also I see you clearly assumed I was ignorant enough to believe that the holocaust never happened. I never dismissed it, I am simply not convinced that the currently parroted narrative is honest, in fact it contains many obvious embellishments depending on who you speak to. I have no problem with condemning Nazism, my problem is with dishonest self-righteous condemnations that only serve to fuel it's inevitable resurgence which once again will rise up to meet the communist problem.

 

[STS]

Cultural Marxism is a bigger danger than Nazism. I'm not going to serve the worse agenda in the cause of proving myself to not be part of the less dangerous agenda.

You're just a demoralised confused useful idiot. Stop bothering me.

Lol.

 

[Cray]

As if those aren't the essentially disturbing features of Nazism, the whole reason people demonise it?

No, it's just not evidence that supports your attempt to discredit Rambo's point about the fact that these labels are used to discredit questioning into the official account.

FWIW, I think Irving is sincere in his beliefs, so they are not dishonest even if they are wrong.

I have stated that the term should not be used lightly and if the official account is questioned and backed up by hard evidence then I think it should be entertained or at least examined to get a more accurate picture of history. Irving has been found to ignore evidence that doesn't suit his narrative, most specifically the testimony of actual Nazi's (e.g. http://www.auschwitz.dk/Gerstein.htm )
who testified to the existence of the gas chambers so yeah, I think he is pretty dishonest.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Zionism itself though is closer in nature to Nazism than Communism.... both of which comes from Marxism.

Nitpick: Marxism is left Hegelianism. Nazism is right Hegelianism.

They are nevertheless closely related.

 

[Jabulani22]

Lol, maybe you should do some research on the topic. Nobody is going to arrest you or fine you for reading up on history. The answer is easy, google can help

i never said reading up on it , i said investigation into it as in going to sites anddigging or whatever is required , maybe wait for the friday threads.