Why does SanityCheck evade the Physical Evidence Question?

[SanityCheck]

I have no doubt, given time, either of us could find these jews. Problem is, you aren't, and haven't been, looking.

Incorrect. I've been looking for over a quarter of a century, one way or another. In the Greater German Reich (where the 1944-45 KZs and subcamps were), in Poland, in the occupied Soviet Union.

As a historian, you have an ethical responsibility to insure that what educators feed the children is true. Instead, our history books are full of lies, deceptions and misrepresentations. This leads directly to people like me.

I don't agree that all history books are "full of lies, deceptions and misrepresentations". Critically assessing different histories is the job in teaching and studying history at tertiary level.

It's not my job to devise history curricula for Key Stage 4 in the run-up to GCSEs, that's two whole levels down from where I'm at. I was introduced to critically assessing and comparing histories at the next stage up, A Levels (= Key Stage 5), at school, when I was no longer a child but a teenager. Current sixth formers seem to be getting that as well today, even though university is still a big leap up.

I've certainly had no input into curricula in whatever US state you went to school, blame someone else.

You also don't address the legal enforcement of these lies. Free inquiry is an imperative in a civilized society. The totalitarian state of affairs that currently exists is incompatible with the basic human freedom to think.

There's no 'legal enforcement' in your society or mine. You can think what you like and make all the enquiries you like ('do your own research'). As you know, that's now even easier, because of digitisation; it certainly makes teaching and studying easier.

It's true that revisionism hasn't been accepted in fact-finding venues (academic disciplines, journalism, courts, government and parliamentary inquiries), but it turns out that saying something didn't happen is a lot less helpful that saying something did happen, and proving it.

[Stubble]

Nick,

If you keep showing kids pictures of Nordhausen and videos of the showers at Majdanek and footage of Bergen Belsen as proof of 'the nazi genocide of 6,000,000 jews', you are going to keep seeing people like me. In the information superage, you are going to see more of us.

I still argue that knowing better you have an ethical obligation to see that the some semblance of truth is told.

I'm going to go grab a link for a pdf to the first textbook that was shown to me that covered this subject, and if you find some time, I'd like you to read the few pages. It's surprising the number of lies that managed to shoe horn into so few words Sir.

Perhaps you and I are looking in different spots. I keep finding jews. The problem I have is demonstrating where a particular cohort came from and if I am 'double counting'. I need to find a way to filter my aggregate.

[SanityCheck]

Nick,

If you keep showing kids pictures of Nordhausen and videos of the showers at Majdanek and footage of Bergen Belsen as proof of 'the nazi genocide of 6,000,000 jews', you are going to keep seeing people like me. In the information superage, you are going to see more of us.

You're confusing me with your high school teacher, and also muddling up parts and whole, which is apparently what your high school teacher was doing.

I still argue that knowing better you have an ethical obligation to see that the some semblance of truth is told.

Well, duh, yes, that is why we work up to engage with the sources in history, in a framework of studying more than one theme, with tutors moderating each other's coursework, and thus seeing how evidence varies over time and space.

I evidently need to elaborate on why the 'Holocaust Handbooks' are so irrelevant to this process. Firstly, they say nothing about other genocides or outbreaks of mass violence in the modern era, much less earlier. Yet I supervise research projects on these themes all the time, or advise on them as a consultant. In the past few weeks I've discussed the Holodomor, Vietnam, the Russian Civil War, and will be discussing the Armenian genocide, with students; in previous years, Rwanda, the Irish famine, the Great Leap Forward and much else.

Secondly, they're irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of NS/Holocaust topics that come up on my courses or with research projects and dissertations. This year's class have picked 54 topics for source essays and source presentations; 26 concern Poland, 28 concern the Soviet Union, 20 of these in all looked at Poles, Soviet POWs or non-Jewish Soviet civilians, 34 at Holocaust themes. Of those most of the themes and places still aren't addressed in the 'Holocaust Handbooks'.

I'm going to go grab a link for a pdf to the first textbook that was shown to me that covered this subject, and if you find some time, I'd like you to read the few pages. It's surprising the number of lies that managed to shoe horn into so few words Sir.

Please do, letting me know the year/level it was aimed at. I've seen mostly sixth form/A Level textbooks from the UK, which often annoy me with simplifications about the Third Reich and Holocaust, but they haven't contained gross errors as far as I could see.

Perhaps you and I are looking in different spots. I keep finding jews. The problem I have is demonstrating where a particular cohort came from and if I am 'double counting'. I need to find a way to filter my aggregate.

I await your results. Let's see if you misinterpreted, double-counted, came across something already known and accounted for, or found something genuinely new.

[Stubble]

No Nick,

I confused you with someone who cared about history, and how it is imparted to people. That's obviously my mistake. Apologies.

Regarding the textbook, I may have to go to a library and scan the relevant pages. It doesn't seem to be preserved online in a pdf format.

It seems a better thing to do may be to just post up the k-5 curriculum in a new thread, good lord. I'll go through and highlight the highlights. Apparently the state had decided not to show atrocity pornography to 4th graders anymore (the first naked woman I ever saw, was in a pile of corpses in 4th grade). Apparently, they hold that till grade 6 now... k-5 has some, interesting choices.

Some food for thought;



The miseducation is discussed in this interview at some length and its inappropriateness is touched on.

Some more media. Eric Hunt's 'Questioning The Holocaust'. In my opinion, one of his best.

https://odysee.com/@thisworldworks:1/d1jw4HMJKGluV7lJ:e

Regarding my project, it will take time Boss. For one thing, I'm not done with 'phase 1' research yet. You might be aware, there's, a lot to go through...

[curioussoul]

Matt Cockerill's strategy was I suspect more frowned upon because he was trying to popularize anti-denial content for a wider audience. That I don't think they want at all since it will surely backfire. No surprise he's not doing it anymore.

Cockerill's mistake was walking into the revisionist debate thinking it would be another easy flat earth-style dunk. I see a lot of YouTube/Reddit science types take on this approach at the very outset, just assuming that Holocaust revisionism hinges on absurdly ridiculous conspiracy theories, anti-semitism and "denial". Only later did Cockerill realize that revisionism is well-researched, nuanced and based on sound historiography with an enormous body of primary research. That's when he quit, knowing that continuing that battle would bog him down for possibly decades. There's no winning going 'public' or 'high-profile' with anti-revisionist polemics, it just attracts more people to revisionism.

[curioussoul]

There's no 'legal enforcement' in your society or mine. You can think what you like and make all the enquiries you like ('do your own research'). As you know, that's now even easier, because of digitisation; it certainly makes teaching and studying easier.

Do you never get tired of lying, Nick?

[SanityCheck]

There's no 'legal enforcement' in your society or mine. You can think what you like and make all the enquiries you like ('do your own research'). As you know, that's now even easier, because of digitisation; it certainly makes teaching and studying easier.

Do you never get tired of lying, Nick?

What 'legal enforcement' is there in the US or UK?

[Stubble]

I take it 'commonwealth' don't count, eh?

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ ... ust-denial

Just to add, it ain't illegal to be skeptical, yet, but that ain't for lack of trying.

I also wouldn't say that Fred Leuchter was exactly 'treated fairly' for his study. Honestly more people should have paid heed back then. I know of some people who have no access to payment processing, bank accounts, or even many online services, because of their opinions in 'The Home of the Free'.

[Wahrheitssucher]

You also don't address the legal enforcement of these lies. Free inquiry is an imperative in a civilized society. The totalitarian state of affairs that currently exists is incompatible with the basic human freedom to think.

There's no 'legal enforcement' in your society or mine.

This is either:
a.) deeply ignorant
or
b.) deeply dishonest,
of you Nick.
Which do you plead?

Vincent Reynouard is just one example of “'legal enforcement' in your society” the UK.
He was arrested as a French teacher in Scotland and extradited to France to face trial.
His ‘crime’?
It was expressing his well-researched opinions that cast doubt on core features of the holocaust ‘mass-gassing’ belief-system.
You surely know of this, don’t you?

[The JOOISH, falsely named organisation calling itself the] ‘Campaign Against Antisemitism’ spokesman said: "For him to have evaded justice (?) only to settle in the UK as a private tutor teaching children, is intolerable, which is why we worked with French Jewish organisations to secure his extradition so that he faces the consequences of his abhorrent incitement."

That’s the BBC spreading the idea that rigorous historical analysis of this legally protected mythology is somehow “abhorrent incitement”.


See here:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-ed ... e-63647612

You can think what you like and make all the enquiries you like…

Yes. That is correct. But that is a deceitful dodge, Nick and I think you know it.
You can do that — research and form opinions in your mind — sure: but as soon as you express them publicly, there are jews who will report you to jewish organisations who see to it you are ostracised in society, lose your job, and are even criminalised and imprisoned.

E.g. Alison Chabloz.



https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/ ... ld-120065/

[SanityCheck]

I take it 'commonwealth' don't count, eh?

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ ... ust-denial

ummm...

Paulin’s posts included claims that Jews are “demons,” “the greatest mass murderers in human history,” “to blame for every American who falls” and responsible for “almost 100 per cent” of the world’s problems. He also expressed support for a “Worldwide ‘Jew Hunt'” and declared that “antisemitism is the only thing that can save the world,” among countless other hateful posts and videos.

So clearly Kenneth Paulin, 51, wasn't prosecuted for simply tweeting about Carlo Mattogno or arranging an interview with Germar Rudolf on his podcast.

Canada has very harsh policies because of the 'human rights' tribunals in addition to whatever law was used to convict this guy for incitement to racial hatred, but it isn't the US, and is worse than the UK by most metrics - in general.

[Stubble]

'He said not nice things!'.

I don't care. People say all kinds of detesteble things all the time. Look at our cheeto in chief for example. The guy before him had some zingers during the blood red speech as well. There are politicians that talk about how I need to be 'removed' as well and Debbie lipshitz seems to use nazi rhetoric just to be particularly grating.

In the UK your politicians talk about people having 'no place in society' because of opinions about abortion or about child rape. When the rape of a child is forgiven but talking about that will land you in jail, I'd say you have thoroughly lost the plot.

Some media;

[SanityCheck]

UK case law is pretty clear: convictions under incitement to racial hatred have involved pushing leaflets through doors (a Nick Griffin case in the 1980s, IIRC; he was acquitted in a different 1990s case), making antisemitic cartoons (Simon Sheppard, also ex-BNP), and writing antisemitic songs (Alison Chabloz).

The Chabloz case is interesting for the appeal judgement, noting that neither Holocaust denial nor antisemitism are formally defined crimes in UK law, but Chabloz's conviction was upheld because she wove in "grossly offensive" content to her songs.
https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... -Court.pdf

Vincent Reynouard was extradited to France in a post-Brexit case, contrasting with the refusal in the 2000s to extradite Frederick Toeben from the UK to Germany on an European arrest warrant.

By contrast, none of the revisionist authors from the UK - Richard Harwood, David Irving, Alexander Baron, Nicholas Kollerstrom - have ever been charged under British law for their revisionist writings. Nor have any revisionists who are US citizens been charged in the US for publications.

That is quite different to Canada trying to prosecute Zundel in the 1980s for publishing pamphlets, or Germany convicting Germar Rudolf for things in Lectures on the Holocaust.

Most of the reported cases around the world involve expressions falling far short of publishing a book. The late Ursula Haverbeck kept on being convicted for other statements, and even Faurisson was generally prosecuted after 1990 for public statements in radio interviews and the like, rather than for his writings. German case law (Walendy etc) stands out as the major exception, although I believe Reynouard was also convicted in the 1990s for a publication, unlike Faurisson.

[SanityCheck]

'He said not nice things!'.

I don't care.

Whether or not you care is irrelevant to the issue of why the conviction in Canada happened. It wasn't just for expressing revisionist views.

You can certainly argue for entirely unrestricted speech, and I'd agree with you, but you cannot use Paulin as an example of revisionism on its own being criminalised. You *can* use Germar Rudolf as such an example, under German law as modified in the 1990s (Lex Deckert).

[Stubble]

The English System has a proud tradition of prosecuting people for speech, we could take it back to Leese with his 'Irrelevant Defense' or further I'm sure. Regardless, when you look at Paulin's case, it's being used as a precedence for prosecuting HD. You are burying the lead with 'among other things'.

In my Congress and Senate for the last decade, they keep trying to shoe horn in legislation to criminalize HD, more properly holocaust skepticism, under the guise of 'hate speech laws' in one form or another.

I personally think gone are the days of the ACLU defending speech unless it has to do with a child's access to pornography.

As fun as this diversion is, I must apologize to 'Fangers for dragging his thread off topic.

We are supposed to be talking about your evasion of physical evidence.

Now, from what I have gathered from the thread up to this point, you consider the mass murders in homicidal gas chambers proven regardless of the evidence. As a bit of a case in point, the 'Oregon Trail' theory of 'Huge Mass Graves'.

I personally consider this pivot to be a game of whack a mole, and a moving goal post. It discards the witnesses and the body of conventional works. I will say that the revisionism is 'novel' however.

[Wahrheitssucher]

UK case law is pretty clear: convictions under incitement to racial hatred …making antisemitic cartoons, and writing antisemitic songs (Alison Chabloz).

The Chabloz case is interesting [because her] …conviction was upheld [as] she wove in "grossly offensive" content to her songs.
https://crimeline.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... -Court.pdf

Vincent Reynouard was extradited to France in a post-Brexit case, contrasting with the refusal in the 2000s to extradite Frederick Toeben from the UK to Germany on an European arrest warrant.

By contrast, none of the revisionist authors from the UK -+ Richard Harwood, David Irving, Alexander Baron, Nicholas Kollerstrom — have ever been charged under British law for their revisionist writings.

… The late Ursula Haverbeck kept on being convicted for other statements,

and even Faurisson was generally prosecuted after 1990 for public statements in radio interviews and the like, rather than for his writings…

That I regard as yet another example of the type of dishonest argument and reply that shows holyH defenders are not interested in mutually ascertaining historical reality through ‘good faith’ debate. Nor are interested in honestly discussing the tyrannical laws now existing that restrict accurate and honest historical revision.

How can you in good faith conduct your argument like this.

The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) spread the lie that Vincent Reynouards historically-verifiable, throughly-researched understanding was “abhorrent incitement”.
You dishonestly dodged that.
Genuine historical analysis and research can not be judged ‘incitement’ nor ‘racism’ in any fair, sane society.

Alison Chabloz’s songs were parody.
They weren’t racist.
They weren’t incitement.
What her lyrics did was they mocked the promoters and promulgators of the ‘mass-gassing’ mythology!
For that she was punished.
It was because the jewish collectives (those who reported her and got the police and courts to punish her) can’t stand either being mocked, nor their sacrosanct, shoah shibboleth being critically analysed.

You KNOW this to be true, I’m sure.

You are correct that there is no ‘holocaust denial’ law yet in the Uk.
But that is to deny the reality that people are persecuted and criminalised under bogus ‘anti-semitism’ and ‘racial incitement’ laws instead. So it’s the same result.

In a fair, free society Vincent Reynouard SHOULD NOT have been extradited from the UK if he had not broken any UK law.

Likewise to argue that Faurisson was “prosecuted” (i.e. persecuted) by making a weak distinction between his public statements and his public writings is laughably lame.