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.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

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.

So we can say that it's a tie in this debate. And that more information is needed to determine who the winner is here. This demonstrates the historiographical interest of revisionism, because it forces us to go further in our understanding. I could compare it to a grindstone and a sword, because pressing the sword against the grindstone sharpens it

[Monsieur Sceptique]

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.

A quick note on La France Insoumise: they are not being attacked for revisionism, but rather because they denounce Israeli policy in Palestine. Some media outlets consider La France Insoumise's anti-Zionist positions to be a hidden form of anti-Semitism. This has nothing to do with revisionism. You say that some leftists have been revisionist, I would refute your argument by pointing out that Noam Chomsky (who is used as proof of left-wing anti-Semitism) was previously a libertarian socialist and that his defence of revisionism stems more from his libertarian ideology than from a pro-revisionist stance, even though in France he was presented as a defender of revisionism. It is important to understand that in France, the idea of total freedom of expression is contrary to society's concept of freedom, which is that ‘freedom ends where that of others begins’ and that freedom cannot be used to ‘justify’ hatred. Only historians theoretically have complete freedom of expression, but even that is debatable.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

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.

Don't worry, it's not such bad. But i'm not totally sure to have understand you answer totally. You say "Le gars fait beaucoup de très peu" i think you wanted to say that "The guy does a lot with very little thing' if it's the case you must write "Le gars fait beaucoup de conclusions avec très peu d'éléments". On that basis, I would respond as I have already responded: the form is indeed inappropriate, but is the substance equally so? You say that there is little to say. Could you elaborate on your point, please?

[Eye of Zyclone]

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.

A quick note on La France Insoumise: they are not being attacked for revisionism, but rather because they denounce Israeli policy in Palestine. Some media outlets consider La France Insoumise's anti-Zionist positions to be a hidden form of anti-Semitism. This has nothing to do with revisionism. You say that some leftists have been revisionist, I would refute your argument by pointing out that Noam Chomsky (who is used as proof of left-wing anti-Semitism) was previously a libertarian socialist and that his defence of revisionism stems more from his libertarian ideology than from a pro-revisionist stance, even though in France he was presented as a defender of revisionism. It is important to understand that in France, the idea of total freedom of expression is contrary to society's concept of freedom, which is that ‘freedom ends where that of others begins’ and that freedom cannot be used to ‘justify’ hatred. Only historians theoretically have complete freedom of expression, but even that is debatable.

The leading antirevisionist jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet listed Gabriel Cohn-Bendit as a Leftist Holocaust revisionnist ("révisionniste gauchiste") :

Pierre Vidal-Naquet:
Thèses sur le révisionnisme
in Les assassins de la mémoire Points Seuil, 1995 © La Découverte 1987

1. D'un révisionnisme l'autre

[...]

Affaire Dreyfus, lutte contre les versions nationalistes de la guerre de 1914-1918[15], lutte contre les « mensonges » de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et contre le plus gros de tous les « mensonges », le génocide hitlérien, cette « escroquerie du xxe siède[16] », voilà les trois éléments qui permettent de rendre compte de la « bonne conscience » des révisionnistes et tout particulièrement des révisionnistes « radicaux » ou « gauchistes », de Paul Rassinier à Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit[17].

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet87b/

Translation:

Pierre Vidal-Naquet: Thesis on Revisionism
in The Assassins of Memory

1. From one revisionism to another

The Dreyfus Affair, the fight against nationalist versions of the 1914-1918 war[15], the fight against the "lies" of the Second World War, and against the biggest of all "lies", the Hitlerian genocide, this "20th century scam[16]", these are the three elements which make it possible to account for the "good conscience" of the revisionists and especially the "radical" or "leftist" revisionists, from Paul Rassinier to Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit.

And the revisionnist opinions and public statements of the Leftist priest named L'Abbé Pierre are notorious. The antirevisionist writer Jacques Baynac even called him "the old abbot whom they (i.e. Holocaust revisionists) have worn to a frazzle" ("le vieil abbé qu'ils ont usé jusqu'à la corde"). And a French magazine even called the public expression of his revisionist opinions "The Victory of Revisionists" ("La Victoire des Révisionnistes"). The opinion-makers of France couldn't take the public endorsement of the revisionist truths by a very popular celebrity like l'Abbé Pierre (the favorite character of the French people in every poll back then).





And I hadn't mentioned Roger Garaudy and Paul Rassinier themselves in my previous post about French Leftist Holocaust revisionists !!!

Regarding La France Insoumise, ambiguous statements like that about a Jewish polician "camping in Tel Aviv" (as Jean-Luc Mélenchon said) sound much like a trivialization if not a mockery of Jewry's sacred cow if I'm asked.

[HansHill]

So we can say that it's a tie in this debate. And that more information is needed to determine who the winner is here. This demonstrates the historiographical interest of revisionism, because it forces us to go further in our understanding. I could compare it to a grindstone and a sword, because pressing the sword against the grindstone sharpens it

Hard disagree Monsieur Sceptique. The forensics are consistent with the Revisionist position: The lack of Prussian Blue is consistent with absence of homicidal gassings, not the other way around. You can argue for more experimentation to be done, fine - but as it stands, the Orthodox position requires some explanation to account for the lack of residues. There has been an 80 year window for Orthodoxy to produce something of note, but this has yet to be forthcoming.

Until Orthodoxy can offer something substantial here, Rudolf's position will remain the stronger of the two.

[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.

Don't worry, it's not such bad. But i'm not totally sure to have understand you answer totally. You say "Le gars fait beaucoup de très peu" i think you wanted to say that "The guy does a lot with very little thing' if it's the case you must write "Le gars fait beaucoup de conclusions avec très peu d'éléments". On that basis, I would respond as I have already responded: the form is indeed inappropriate, but is the substance equally so? You say that there is little to say. Could you elaborate on your point, please?

My point, is that the paper consists of the smallest of points, and there are so few of them. From these germs, the author tries to grow an impeachment of Mr Rudolf's work.

It is my opinion that he falls far short of refutation, and his strong language doesn't make the myriad of baseless accusations leveled ring in my ear, rather the shrill shrieking of the fellow and ad hominem attacks, to me, fall rather flat.

He makes a couple of mountains from some molehills, and shouts from them. As castles made from sand though, they are brought down by the slightest breeze.

Hopefully this is more clear. I tried to be concise in my other post. Unfortunately, I seem to have lacked sufficient clarity. For that, I apologize.

With regard to the misunderstood first line, Le gars fait beaucoup de très peu, perhaps this is a better way for me to put it;

L'auteur essaie de faire quelque chose à partir de rien.

Again, my French, it's, not so good.

[Callafangers]

So we can say that it's a tie in this debate. And that more information is needed to determine who the winner is here. This demonstrates the historiographical interest of revisionism, because it forces us to go further in our understanding. I could compare it to a grindstone and a sword, because pressing the sword against the grindstone sharpens it

We cannot call it a "tie" -- that is absurd. Rudolf's position is backed by real data and relevant modeling; Karmasyn's is not (only his own assumptions/conjecture). This alone establishes Rudolf's position as superior. It is upon Karmasyn to produce relevant data or experimentation to support his argument against Rudolf's application of the verified Irmscher data.

[EDIT: Just noticed HansHill already replied to this but it appears we are on the same page regarding a supposed "tie".]

[Monsieur Sceptique]

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.

A quick note on La France Insoumise: they are not being attacked for revisionism, but rather because they denounce Israeli policy in Palestine. Some media outlets consider La France Insoumise's anti-Zionist positions to be a hidden form of anti-Semitism. This has nothing to do with revisionism. You say that some leftists have been revisionist, I would refute your argument by pointing out that Noam Chomsky (who is used as proof of left-wing anti-Semitism) was previously a libertarian socialist and that his defence of revisionism stems more from his libertarian ideology than from a pro-revisionist stance, even though in France he was presented as a defender of revisionism. It is important to understand that in France, the idea of total freedom of expression is contrary to society's concept of freedom, which is that ‘freedom ends where that of others begins’ and that freedom cannot be used to ‘justify’ hatred. Only historians theoretically have complete freedom of expression, but even that is debatable.

The leading antirevisionist jewish historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet listed Gabriel Cohn-Bendit as a Leftist Holocaust revisionnist ("révisionniste gauchiste") :

Pierre Vidal-Naquet:
Thèses sur le révisionnisme
in Les assassins de la mémoire Points Seuil, 1995 © La Découverte 1987

1. D'un révisionnisme l'autre

[...]

Affaire Dreyfus, lutte contre les versions nationalistes de la guerre de 1914-1918[15], lutte contre les « mensonges » de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et contre le plus gros de tous les « mensonges », le génocide hitlérien, cette « escroquerie du xxe siède[16] », voilà les trois éléments qui permettent de rendre compte de la « bonne conscience » des révisionnistes et tout particulièrement des révisionnistes « radicaux » ou « gauchistes », de Paul Rassinier à Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit[17].

http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet87b/

Translation:

Pierre Vidal-Naquet: Thesis on Revisionism
in The Assassins of Memory

1. From one revisionism to another

The Dreyfus Affair, the fight against nationalist versions of the 1914-1918 war[15], the fight against the "lies" of the Second World War, and against the biggest of all "lies", the Hitlerian genocide, this "20th century scam[16]", these are the three elements which make it possible to account for the "good conscience" of the revisionists and especially the "radical" or "leftist" revisionists, from Paul Rassinier to Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit.

And the revisionnist opinions and public statements of the Leftist priest named L'Abbé Pierre are notorious. The antirevisionist writer Jacques Baynac even called him "the old abbot whom they (i.e. Holocaust revisionists) have worn to a frazzle" ("le vieil abbé qu'ils ont usé jusqu'à la corde"). And a French magazine even called the public expression of his revisionist opinions "The Victory of Revisionists" ("La Victoire des Révisionnistes"). The opinion-makers of France couldn't take the public endorsement of the revisionist truths by a very popular celebrity like l'Abbé Pierre (the favorite character of the French people in every poll back then).





And I hadn't mentioned Roger Garaudy and Paul Rassinier themselves in my previous post about French Leftist Holocaust revisionists !!!

Regarding La France Insoumise, ambiguous statements like that about a Jewish polician "camping in Tel Aviv" (as Jean-Luc Mélenchon said) sound much like a trivialization if not a mockery of Jewry's sacred cow if I'm asked.

I don't care about the opinion of Pierre Vidal Naquet, i'm talking about the opinion of Noam Chomsky and Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Gabriel Cohn-Bendit have said in Liberation in his 1979 article "Question de Principe" i quote "Ce que je me refuse à faire, y compris aux néo-nazis, je ne suis pas prêt à accepter qu'on le fasse à des hommes comme Rassinier ou Faurisson dont je sais qu'ils n'ont rien à voir avec eux, et le procès intenté à ce dernier me rappelle plus l'Inquisition qu'une lutte contre le retour du pire". Antisemitism was clearly not the base of his opinion(and he was jew).This proves that one can be a revisionist without being anti-Semitic; the two things are not equivalent, but it must be understood that for people in France, Holocaust denial is motivated by hatred of Jews. It is not surprising that he(Vidal Naquet) interprets everything in this way. Abbé Pierre's closest friend was Garaudy. Abbé Pierre is now a controversial figure in France, particularly due to scandals that broke out a few years ago where he was accused of rape(true or not true i don't know). Some leftist were révisionnist but some were just motivated to protect free speech (libertarian)

[Monsieur Sceptique]

So we can say that it's a tie in this debate. And that more information is needed to determine who the winner is here. This demonstrates the historiographical interest of revisionism, because it forces us to go further in our understanding. I could compare it to a grindstone and a sword, because pressing the sword against the grindstone sharpens it

Hard disagree Monsieur Sceptique. The forensics are consistent with the Revisionist position: The lack of Prussian Blue is consistent with absence of homicidal gassings, not the other way around. You can argue for more experimentation to be done, fine - but as it stands, the Orthodox position requires some explanation to account for the lack of residues. There has been an 80 year window for Orthodoxy to produce something of note, but this has yet to be forthcoming.

Until Orthodoxy can offer something substantial here, Rudolf's position will remain the stronger of the two.

Thank's for the answer, i agree with you.I have not found a convincing answer from PHDN regarding Prussian blue; the idea of rinsing is impossible, and the idea of low penetration has been answered by Germar Rudolf. You quickly understand that I am caught between two stools and that I am searching for the truth. I think that more experimentation could provide factual answers, but unfortunately people need to be willing to debate freely without judging each other's positions.