They are longer, but that's not the same thing. The basic method is unchanged: you state something as a fact, quote this or that, and conclude that irrefutable proof has now been presented.
I do not. I state something as fact, provide a few arguments and give links where you can find irrefutable evidence for the arguments I made.
Another method is to misrepresent facts--the 15,000,000 population counts before and after the war comprise a typical "argument" in that respect.
While it is a fact that both before and after the war the total number of Jews approximated 15,000,000, you're right about the fact that these statistics don't prove a thing. The article I posted right before your post mentions this. It also mentions, however, many stronger arguments against the 6 million figure.
So yes, I choose to ignore those, in most cases, because there just isn't any substance to it.
Feel free to counterargument the arguments of Graf as provided in the article posted right before your post.
Apart from him deliberately hiding the fact that Rudolf invented the character, including his academic title, without telling the reader?
Rudolf admitted the use of pseudonyms and explained why he used them. Although I agree with you that he would have seemed far more reliable if he hadn't used pseudonyms and quotes them in works published under his own name, that doesn't discredit his actual research nor the research of all the Holocaust Revisionists who never used pseudonyms. You're using character assassination to avoid counterargumenting Rudolf's arguments.
By the way, what do you think of Simon Wiesenthal and Elie Wiesel? Both are/were propagandists for the ancient alien cause as well as the Holocaust myth and both are proven liars with regards to their WW2 experience.
There you go again, using the method I was talking about. "Proven liars...", "propagandists for the ancient alien cause..."
Just because you're so utterly ignorant, that doesn't mean there is no proof. Jewish critic Finkelstein deals quite extensively with Elie "Weasel" Wiesel in his book "The Holocaust Industry". I'm not sure if he also mentions Wiesenthal, but his lies are dissected
here.
You do know that you yourself are a proven liar, don't you?
A liar is someone who tells things he knows are false. Even if I somehow got my facts wrong (which I don't), the fact that I'm convinced I'm right means I'm not a liar.
In one of your statements, you said that you regarded censoring Holocaust Revisionism in the light of preventing genocide, even though I haven't heard of a single Holocaust Revisionist who supports any form of genocide whatsoever.
Yes, but where did I equal "questioning history books" with "supporting genocide"?
If that's not what you meant, then please explain why you regard Holocaust Revisionism in the light of preventing genocide? How does not believing there ever was a Jewish genocide make a genocide more plausible in the future?
Please note that there have been many genocides in the past that are undisputed. If you need the Holocaust myth as an example of the evil man can do to man, you can just as well replace it by a genocide that is not disputed on historical grounds. For example, you can refer to the millions of people murdered in the name of communism by supporters of Trotsky, Stalin, Pol Pot or others.
From Wikipedia:
The Roman-Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism[3]:
* Political and economic antisemitism, giving as examples Cicero and Charles Lindbergh;
* Theological or religious antisemitism, sometimes known as anti-Judaism;
* Nationalistic antisemitism, citing Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers, who attacked Jews for supposedly having certain characteristics, such as greed and arrogance, and for observing customs such as kashrut and shabbat;
* Racial antisemitism, which culminated in the Holocaust unleashed by the Nazis.
And this is all their own fault?
First of all, how does a user-edited encyclopedia compare with academic literature that deals specific on this particular issue?
Anyway, I'll address them point by point :
* ) "Political and economic antisemitism" is antisemitism caused by Jews using usury, prostitution, political manipulation or other activities regarded as immoral by gentile society and defending their perceived immorallity towards gentiles in Jewish literature.
* ) "Theological or religious antisemitism" might have been catalysed by the idea that Jews murdered Jesus, but when you actually look at the writings of Catholic authorities from the eras when Jews were persecuted in Catholic countries you find Jews using usury, prostitution, political manipulation or other activities regarded as immoral by gentile society and defending their perceived immorallity towards gentiles in Jewish literature regarded as the main cause for the outlash against the Jewish community. The same is true for Luther's criticism of the Jews.
* ) "Nationalistic antisemitism" : the idea that Jews had certain characteristics such as greed and arrogance was derived from Jews using usury, prostitution, political manipulation or other activities regarded as immoral by gentile society and defending their perceived immorallity towards gentiles in Jewish literature.
* ) "Racial antisemitism" is exactly the same as "nationalistic antisemitism", however fitted within a racialist worldview.
As such, the four different types of antisemitism are not different at all.
BTW, how is it "a historical fact" that "antisemitism is nothing but a typical response to the malign behavior of (a part of) the Jewish community"? Presumably the names you list support that notion, but how, exactly, do those names make it "a historical fact"?
Because the names I listed have written several works of academic quality where they prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. Read their books if you want to know more.
But then, this is the method you use. It's all "historical facts", "irrefutable truths", all "proven beyond any doubt", isn't it? You should try a scientifically more viable method.
I'm only mentioning that something is "historical fact", "irrefutable truth" or all "proven beyond any doubt" when I've stumbled on literature that proves this beyond any doubt. I have referenced to such literature on various occasions. Your ignorance of this literature does not change the fact that their conclusions are irrefutable.
