Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

reply to post by D377MC


concerning
Verdict BVerfG, Jan. 11, 1994, Ref. 1 BvR 434/87, pp. 16f.
Are you in possession of a digital copy of this Verdict? I'd be very interested. This is the second time I have encountered it. I feel kind of clumsy commenting on it without having read it entirely and quite honestly I wouldn't trust you with the veracity of quotes as quote mining is a very big problem within the revisionist repertoire of arguments. (Not that I label you a revisionist, it's just a very common thing with such material)

“The protection of the fundamental right to a free science does neither depend on the correctness of its methods or results nor on the soundness of the
argumentation and logical reasoning or the completeness of the points of view and the evidence lying on the base of a scientific work. Only science itself
can determine what is good or bad science and which results are true or false. […] It is not permissible to deny a work to be scientific just because it has a bias and gaps or because it does not consider opposing viewpoints adequately. […] It is removed from the realm of science only if it fails the
claim to be scientific […] systematically. […] An indicator of this can be the systematic neglect of facts, sources, views, and results that oppose the author’s view.”

I see no contradiction to what I wrote. I know the arguments runs like this:
Verdict BVerfG, Jan. 11, 1994, Ref. 1 BvR 434/87, pp. 16f. says that only science can determine what science is, and therefore a jurisdictional body may not determine what science is not.

But I find the argument misplaced for the simple reason that the science of the publication is always the most prominent part in these trials.
Why do you think Zundel asked Irving to be a witness of the defense? Because Irving was a respected historian and his opinion on the scientific merit of the prosecuted publication was relevant to the trial. These trials - in practice are, in the most cases, real battles between contrary historical views. The defense and the prosecution rely on Historians and experts to give testimony in order to establish if said publication is "scientific" or not. They do this by examining methodology, use of sources, use of quotes etc. - just like the normal (closed/academic) scientific community would do and has done regarding these questions.

Think about it: If you would publish a paper and be indicted but your paper was so waterproof that you could convince any and all historians of the world to act as witnesses in your favor - what do you think the judge's ruling would be as to whether your publication meets scientific standards? It seems pretty clear to me. IMO, the fact that something along these lines has not happened yet does say something about the merit of these kind of arguments when scrutinized. In the end, in these kind of trials, it is science that decides.

And yes, I acknowledge that even that is problematic. Because saying only science can determine if something is scientific or not is a no-brainer. There is no "science", there's just lots of scientists all with differing opinions. But the scientific method is the - up to now- only and best protection against such predicaments since there are certain standards that every scientist can agree on (mostly methodological ones).

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I hope W. E. Mosse will do as a main source for you, he is after all a Jewish scholar.

www.jewishtribalreview.org...

What you call 'extraordinary claims' others call well known facts. You are really not up to this are you?

You might also read 'The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi economic war against the Jews' .

Interesting how you have someone running behind you starring all your posts as soon as you post them, 'teamwork' is always a joy to behold.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

Think about it: If you would publish a paper and be indicted but your paper was so waterproof that you could convince any and all historians of the world to act as witnesses in your favor - what do you think the judge's ruling would be as to whether your publication meets scientific standards?

You are quite correct, it is for this very reason that judicial 'chicanery' is used to avoid proof which would stand uncontested if presented. Sorry, but in practice this is what is going on.

As for the digital copy of the ruling you asked for, somewhere yes, otherwise I will dig it out for you, simply not now, I really need some sleep. The quote you say does not disagree with what you said... does not in fact disagree with what you said. The Court has recognized the logic of that argument (how not to?), sadly it then disregards it in practice, which was my point.






[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

But I find the argument misplaced for the simple reason that the science of the publication is always the most prominent part in these trials. Why do you think Zundel asked Irving to be a witness of the defense? Because Irving was a respected historian and his opinion on the scientific merit of the prosecuted publication was relevant to the trial. These trials - in practice are, in the most cases, real battles between contrary historical views. The defense and the prosecution rely on Historians and experts to give testimony in order to establish if said publication is "scientific" or not. They do this by examining methodology, use of sources, use of quotes etc. - just like the normal (closed/academic) scientific community would do and has done regarding these questions.

Actually the only way to defend oneself is to completely avoid discussing the historical facts because that is paramount to complete suicide, as most cases have shown. The best defense in my opinion, and please note I am simply postulating the approach I would adopt if I wanted to keep myself out of jail, would be the following:

thetruthseeker.co.uk...

We will see how that line of argumentation fares quite soon in the coming years no doubt. I think the courts will manipulate anything else, including publication issues, to satisfy their agenda.

I find it interesting that 'holocaust denial laws' are a necessary pre-requisite to joining NATO. Sick world indeed....

[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

reply to post by Jim Scott


Are you pretending to not understand the points people are making or do you actually lack the required brain power?
Eisenhower wanted to establish evidence for the reality of a holocaust or to establish evidence for a Jewish holocaust? They are not the same thing.
While those who object to the term Jewish holocaust are usually termed the deniers, the actual denial comes from those who support the Jewish holocaust fairy-tale as they are denying the Gypsy holocaust, the Gay holocaust, the Christian holocaust etc.
Why do so many pretend to be unable to see that evidence of a holocaust is not evidence of a Jewish holocaust?

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by D377MC

 

therefore monopolized all positions of influence and power to the detriment of Germany itself and to their own benefit?

I wholeheartedly reject the permise that the "Jews monopolized all positions of influence and power".

This is a statement that can be materially and empirically proven. Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence. Please provide me with a convincing argument that the "Jews monopolized all positions of influence and power". I doubt that you can.

are you familiar with the history of the Rothschilds?

www.iamthewitness.com...

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by SeaWind

 

Seawind; the confusion about the 4 million and the 1 million stems from the Auschwitz plaque and is a favorite of revisionists.

The old plaque (pre early 90s) mentioned 4 million victims. (Not Jews, no qualification).

The new plaque (post 90s) mentions 1 (? correct me, don't remember) million JEWISH victims. (for Auschwitz).

Only after the archives of the Soviet Bloc were opened did it become clear that the Soviets systematically misrepresented the numbers (they started with 8 million)....

As you can see, the first plaque, the older one, states 4 million people died.

The second plaque, the updated one, states that 1.5 million men, women, and children, MAINLY Jews were murdered.

So, as NichirasuKenshin is trying to get you to believe, the first plaque mentioned total deaths, whereas the second mentioned Jewish deaths, but this is wrong. The second plaque specifically states that the 1.5 M were mainly Jews, not entirely Jewish, this would indicate that the total number dead at Auschwitz, under the revised numbers, were 1.5 million, when it used to be 4 million.

This means that the Auschwitz museum itself REVISED their total numbers from 4 million to 1.5 million. Who are the real holocaust revisionists?

Really the bottom line is this: The holocaust museums, the Anti-Defamation League, the laws against holocaust denial, the swift action of the media to ostracize recognized identities who reveal anything that can be construed to be anti-Semitic expression, all exist for one purpose - because white non-Jews cannot be trusted. Because it appears than inside every such person is a storm- trooper gene just waiting to be activated should the right environment manifest. There is no way to remove this gene (yet) so therefore the environment itself must be carefully policed, fashioned and controlled to prevent this larval form from hatching, pupating and metamorphosing into monstrum albus.

Originally posted by duality90

Come on, stop being a tool for the sake of it and be objective for once. Obviously, palestinians don't enjoy the same civil liberties as Israelis do; you can tell I was plainly referring to Israeli society

i know "good" german were having the same rhetoric during the 30's germany is a largeley free society... as long as you are german, christian, white...

what's the difference with israel ? none.

get a grip, israel laws are based on discrimination; israel actions on intimidation and non-respect of lives of those non-jews. israel is a fascist state and this is just not debatable as it is fact (that you are admitting ! you just have difficulties to connect the dots)

reply to post by duality90


this blaming of palestinian for resisting invasion, occupation, killing of their children, confiscation of water, free movement etc etc etc is just not tolerable.

you 're indeed, in FACT, no different than other nazi monsters,

i met so many of those zionist/israeli in my life talking about love, freedom, respect, democracy etc while at the next moment comparing palestinian to animal that shall be crushed

disgusting

i'm putting you on ignore list (as i did to those little wankers in the physical world)

ciao, good luck to your lost soul

To anyone of Jewish Blood answer why the number of 6 Million is used ? My accountant says to never believe numbers ending in zero's.

www.ety.com...

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Two References of the 6 Million Figure even before WW2, so if the figure had to be 6 Million to bring about the State of Israel according to Torah prophecy then if that number didn't die Israel is by its own definition of ancient Prophecy illegitimate.

THIS IS WHY THEY MUST AT ALL COST'S UPHOLD THE LIE!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by SeaWind

 

Seawind; the confusion about the 4 million and the 1 million stems from the Auschwitz plaque and is a favorite of revisionists.

The old plaque (pre early 90s) mentioned 4 million victims. (Not Jews, no qualification).

The new plaque (post 90s) mentions 1 (? correct me, don't remember) million JEWISH victims. (for Auschwitz).

Only after the archives of the Soviet Bloc were opened did it become clear that the Soviets systematically misrepresented the numbers (they started with 8 million)....

Thanks, NichirasuKenshin, for the updated figures.

SeaWind

Originally posted by D377MC


What you call 'extraordinary claims' others call well known facts. You are really not up to this are you?

The link you provided does not establish that "Jews monopolized all positions of power".... It established that all in all, the Jews as a group were well off in Germany before the Nazis.

I could compose a list with statesmen, bankers, officers, nobility, industrialists that weren't Jewish.
How is that possible if "all positions of power" were "monopolized by the Jews?

Come on. Get serious man.

You might also read 'The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi economic war against the Jews' .

Is there also serious work to be read?
Because Adam Tooze and Nial Ferguson have beoth extensively written about the econonomic situation of the Jews before the Nazis took power. They, come to totally different conclusions - but (other than your link) they provide sources and statistics to prove it :-)

And it will take some time to study the bibliography and the varacity of every quote in that link. Have some patience.

Interesting how you have someone running behind you starring all your posts as soon as you post them, 'teamwork' is always a joy to behold.

Funny how you guys are always so paranoid. That answering such garbage would even be worth a payment from anyone is beyond me.

Funny too, how most of your posts get a star even if you're lying through your teeth. Yet you don't see me making these kind of juvenile accusations.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by mazzroth
To anyone of Jewish Blood answer why the number of 6 Million is used ? My accountant says to never believe numbers ending in zero's.

www.ety.com...

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Two References of the 6 Million Figure even before WW2, so if the figure had to be 6 Million to bring about the State of Israel according to Torah prophecy then if that number didn't die Israel is by its own definition of ancient Prophecy illegitimate.

THIS IS WHY THEY MUST AT ALL COST'S UPHOLD THE LIE!!!!!!!!!

Ah.. Is that so.

Funny how the 6 million number, when it relates to the Holocaust, was not brought up by a Jew.

Doesn't that like completely ruin your argument? Look through this thread - it is documented a few pages back. It was not "the Jews" that came up with the number. It was a rough estimate that was uttered in the NMT.

Originally posted by filosophia


So, as NichirasuKenshin is trying to get you to believe, the first plaque mentioned total deaths, whereas the second mentioned Jewish deaths, but this is wrong. The second plaque specifically states that the 1.5 M were mainly Jews, not entirely Jewish, this would indicate that the total number dead at Auschwitz, under the revised numbers, were 1.5 million, when it used to be 4 million.

This means that the Auschwitz museum itself REVISED their total numbers from 4 million to 1.5 million. Who are the real holocaust revisionists?

Let's bury this one once and for all, will we. FIlosophia maintains that the plaque is definitive proof that something is fishy.

I have given the scenario as it happen and tried to give an explanation. But let's not speculate. Let's look at it from a different side, which will show the total irrelevance of the argument.

www.nizkor.org...

Deniers often use the 'Four Million Variant' as a stepping stone to leap from an apparent contradiction to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax, again perpetrated by a conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. If they can't keep their numbers straight, their reasoning goes, how can we say that their evidence for the Holocaust is credible? One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead... Few (if any) historians ever believed the Museum's four million figure, having arrived at their own estimates independently. The museum's inflated figures were never part of the estimated five to six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, so there is no need to revise this figure.

Originally posted by filosophia


are you familiar with the history of the Rothschilds?

www.iamthewitness.com...

Yes I am. Are you interested in the History of the Rothschilds?

There's only one source on them worth mentioning.

www.buch.ch... ID3355236.html?jumpId=6105860

www.buch.ch... 18.html?jumpId=6105860


Funny how scholars that have actually studied the archives and the sources on the Rothschild seem to laugh at the idea that "they controlled everything". Also you will find very informative sections of the "Jewishness" of the Rothschilds.

But I know you won't.

Originally posted by D377MC


We will see how that line of argumentation fares quite soon in the coming years no doubt. I think the courts will manipulate anything else, including publication issues, to satisfy their agenda.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by D377MC]

Yes we will. Up to now all we can observe is that they have been applied fairly and were not grossly misused.

I find it funny that you expect this scenario when this thread consistently fails in demonstrating any wrongdoing by any court.

Originally posted by Puck 22

Why do so many pretend to be unable to see that evidence of a holocaust is not evidence of a Jewish holocaust?

It has already been demonstrated that the Jews held a singular place in the Ideology and actions of the Nazis.

Yes, it was part of an overall campaign. But the Jew was the central enemy of Germany in the Nazi world view, this can be discerned from most Nazi writings.

Again, if your point is that "it happened to all groups" then why don't you provide us with an example of another group that was systematically identifyed throught the census and that was defined by a newly created law and then wholely deported?

Since the first page people say "what happened to the Jews isn't different to the other groups" yet NO ONE of you can point to a group that was persecuted in the same manner as the Jews (By census, law and wholesale deportation.)

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

The museum's inflated figures were never part of the estimated five to six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, so there is no need to revise this figure.

Sorry i have to take issue with this,

The figure of 6 million which you admit was the result of the Nuremberg trials,
Along with the original Auschwitz Plaque stating 4 million people died there stood acceptable to everyone for FORTY years.

But now when people do the maths and adjust accordingly for the numbers of deaths that have been reduced at Auschwitz people are crying foul.

And then you wonder why people question the details of the holocaust

Originally posted by ken10


Sorry i have to take issue with this,

The figure of 6 million which you admit was the result of the Nuremberg trials,
Along with the original Auschwitz Plaque stating 4 million people died there stood acceptable to everyone for FORTY years.

But now when people do the maths and adjust accordingly for the numbers of deaths that have been reduced at Auschwitz people are crying foul.

And then you wonder why people question the details of the holocaust

It was not "the result" of the NMT; it was one number that was mentioned- not by a Jew, by a German. And yes, the prosecution preferred that number but this does not mean that they believed it to be the most accurate.
Jacksons and Taylors writings on the number question are very enlightening in order to learn the stance that the prosecution at the NMT took.

But this point is moot anyway, because the 6 million number was never scientifically established. No historian ever claimed that 6 million is the absolute or the most correct number. As this thread has repeatedly established, for many reasons the 6 million number just stuck.
And yes, there were Zionists who had every interest in making the Holocaust look as bad as possible. But note that even the Zionists didn't referr to the even more inflated Soviets numbers... (The Soviets started with an 8 million claim if I remember correctly). If the Zinonists as a group wanted to make the Holocaust to look as bad as possible why didn't they follow the numbers that Stalin laid out and that were only debunkable after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Seems they really missed a chance.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]