Gilles Karmasyn critique of Rudolf

[Stubble]

Le gars fait beaucoup de très peu. Ajoutez à son article son cadrage malhonnête et son langage vitriolique, et vous en avez moins. Personnellement, je considère ce fleuret comme plutôt faible, et je ne le considère pas du tout comme un « score ».

If I butchered that, apologies. I'm no Francophone.

[Callafangers]

So yes, I have to say that the tone of the article is disgusting and very insulting (it is, incidentally, a French speciality to be insulting in debates, and this is not the only insulting article by PHDN from the same author https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/). However, although the tone leaves something to be desired (which I fully agree with), one cannot criticise a message solely on the basis of its tone or the messenger; the substance remains paramount.

I agree with this but only so long as the 'substance' stands for itself. We often see people who are apparently quite insecure with their understanding and belief in their position, so they attempt to bolster that position via ad hominem attacks and bitter polemics. I don't care if anyone gets their feelings hurt, my concern is whether the person making the argument is using legitimate facts and valid reasoning -- but these things tend to speak for themselves, so it draws suspicion insofar as (1) that person's confidence in their arguments, and/or (2) whether there is an attempt to distract from these arguments, when they clearly try to bolster their position with mud-throwing.

Maybe it's just a French cultural thing but there's probably good reason why this sort of behavior/tactic is less common globally.

Regarding the actual substance, Rudolf's position remains much stronger, here. Rudolf admits that Karmasyn's critique justifies additional experiments (high-temp/humidity) but the data/evidence, as it stands, strongly favors the revisionist position.

[Eye of Zyclone]

As a bit of advice to any Holocaust apologists reading: the over-the-top bluster and overtly hostile language is not the best approach, imo. By the time someone is familiar enough with revisionism to know who Germar Rudolf is and is looking for rebuttals, it's too late for well poisoning to work. That works okay in the mainstream media where you can assume people have not heard any revisionist arguments. But it doesn't work on people who are at least someone informed. It will backfire, more often than not. If I read Germar's coolheaded analysis and then read some hysterical and obviously very emotional response, it's hard to take it seriously.

In countries with old antirevisionist laws like France (the Gayssot Act is 35 years old), the use of the very disparaging name "négationniste" (in France, almost worse than being called a rapist) justifies overtly hostile language and even murder attempts (see below) and is way enough to deter most people from even listening to those foul beasts called négationnistes, which is the only thing the defenders of the Holohoax want in France. Why address your enemies' arguments when you can just silence them and prevent most people from knowing their arguments (portrayed as crazy ramblings anyway) ?



Most French people agree with Serge Klarsfeld on this, but few of them would openly admit it (and fewer of them would openly condemn it).

[Hektor]

As a bit of advice to any Holocaust apologists reading: the over-the-top bluster and overtly hostile language is not the best approach, imo. By the time someone is familiar enough with revisionism to know who Germar Rudolf is and is looking for rebuttals, it's too late for well poisoning to work. That works okay in the mainstream media where you can assume people have not heard any revisionist arguments. But it doesn't work on people who are at least someone informed. It will backfire, more often than not. If I read Germar's coolheaded analysis and then read some hysterical and obviously very emotional response, it's hard to take it seriously.

In countries with old antirevisionist laws like France (the Gayssot Act is 35 years old), the use of the very disparaging name "négationniste" (in France, almost worse than being called a rapist) justifies overtly hostile language and even murder attempts (see below) and is way enough to deter most people from even listening to those foul beasts called négationnistes, which is the only thing the defenders of the Holohoax want in France. Why address your enemies' arguments when you can just silence them and prevent most people from knowing their arguments (portrayed as crazy ramblings anyway) ?



Most French people agree with Serge Klarsfeld on this, but few of them would openly admit it (and fewer of them would openly condemn it).

Did the Holocaust Lobby have that much influence to manipulate public opinions and attitudes in France?
Or was that by proxy the narrative and political culture being pushed by the local leftists for examples, with cucks falling in by that...

[Eye of Zyclone]

As a bit of advice to any Holocaust apologists reading: the over-the-top bluster and overtly hostile language is not the best approach, imo. By the time someone is familiar enough with revisionism to know who Germar Rudolf is and is looking for rebuttals, it's too late for well poisoning to work. That works okay in the mainstream media where you can assume people have not heard any revisionist arguments. But it doesn't work on people who are at least someone informed. It will backfire, more often than not. If I read Germar's coolheaded analysis and then read some hysterical and obviously very emotional response, it's hard to take it seriously.

In countries with old antirevisionist laws like France (the Gayssot Act is 35 years old), the use of the very disparaging name "négationniste" (in France, almost worse than being called a rapist) justifies overtly hostile language and even murder attempts (see below) and is way enough to deter most people from even listening to those foul beasts called négationnistes, which is the only thing the defenders of the Holohoax want in France. Why address your enemies' arguments when you can just silence them and prevent most people from knowing their arguments (portrayed as crazy ramblings anyway) ?



Most French people agree with Serge Klarsfeld on this, but few of them would openly admit it (and fewer of them would openly condemn it).

Did the Holocaust Lobby have that much influence to manipulate public opinions and attitudes in France?
Or was that by proxy the narrative and political culture being pushed by the local leftists for examples, with cucks falling in by that...

It's mostly the Zionist lobby that manipulated (and still manipulates) public opinion regarding the Holocaust in France. There are even Leftist Holocaust "deniers" in France. In the 1980s, some famous French people who were attacked for their public Holocaust-related skepticism were Gabriel Cohn-Bendit and L'Abbé Pierre for instance. And these days, the Leftist politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his political party ("La France Insoumise") are often attacked by pro-Israel patriotards for Holocaust-related skepticism and minimization as well as for anti-Israel statements. Mélenchon and La France Insoumise of course say such things for electoral purposes (there are many, many Muslims in France), but still.

[Hektor]

....

It's mostly the Zionist lobby that manipulated (and still manipulates) public opinion regarding the Holocaust in France. There are even Leftist Holocaust "deniers" in France. In the 1980s, some famous French people who were attacked for their public Holocaust-related skepticism were Gabriel Cohn-Bendit and L'Abbé Pierre for instance. And these days, the Leftist politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his political party ("La France Insoumise") are often attacked by pro-Israel patriotards for Holocaust-related skepticism and minimization as well as for anti-Israel statements. Mélenchon and La France Insoumise of course say such things for electoral purposes (there are many, many Muslims in France), but still.

I thought the Antifascist left was stronger in France with them essentially trying to demonize any ethno-nationalist, conservative or authoritarian group. Their interests with that just happened to coincide with Jewish interests in the matter. The behaviour of cucks is indeed strange. But there is that phenomenon of essentially boomers and fans of Adenauer and de Gaulle to be great fans of Israel at the same time who rejects of course any authoritarian, corporatist ethno-nationalism, especially Hitler. And while one can differ in opinion on those matters. In effect that demonisation is part of those to the right of social democratic labor movement. Who don't even realize that they have neutralized themselves that way.