What purpose does Holocaust denial serve ?

[Andrew E. Mathis]

Hi y'all. Just dropping in to make a clarification...

And Intenet discussions are hardly free from heat and provocations.

Except that Berg was saying this not as response to provocation but as response to a post he mostly agreed with anyway. He only wanted to "express it more radically":

"how nice for the Amis - and their real masters, the Jews. If that continues, they will be only Jews and their slaves on the earth."

Again, so what?

Nothing what we wouldn't knew already. Berg is an antisemite.

An anti-Semite, according to Dr. Mathis, is someone who has an irrational fear and hatred of Jews.

I did say this and I do believe this.

Does one find that in any of Berg's essays? I don't think so.

I find his remarks that Eastern European Jews were "dirty" to be anti-Semitic. And I very clearly see his quoted remarks above as anti-Semitic. I believe Berg to be an anti-Semite in every sense of the word

Nevertheless, his views come from experience--and his ideas have seldom been appreciated by the Jewish community. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy then, doesn't it?

Chicken and egg, Scott. Why did Berg begin to deny the Holocaust? Most people begin to deny it because they are already anti-Semitic. Mark Weber is the example par excellence.

Criticize Jews and Israel, you are an anti-Semite.

Depends on the critic and the content of the criticism.

Sack and Finkelstein can only get away with it because they are Jews themselves. No American politician could do it; both Christians and Jews would boot them out instantly. And the rest of the world knows that the USA is what gives racist, militant Israel its backbone--one of the many reasons they hate the proverbial Ugly American.

Actually, Finkelstein gets away with it because his parents are both survivors. Someone like Israel Shahak, however, clearly told huge lies about Judaism and would be the quintessential self-hating Jew, as would Israel Shamir.

Hans, have you ever lost your job because of an essay that you wrote?

Well, Berg has, and so has his wife, who lost her job for translating a German wartime technical report that Berg used in one of his papers.

What was the situation of Berg's firing? And why was Berg's wife translating an article at work?

Berg's wife was shirking. As for Berg, I have never seen the cause and effect relationship between his writings and his firing.

For his own part, Arthur Butz was never fired for what he wrote. Nor, for that matter, were most deniers.

None of this changes that Berg is a Jew-hater. And I strongly suspect that his Jew-hating began before his Holocaust denying.

a.m.

[Scott Smith]

However, as the Holocaust is no fraud, this results in lies, misinterpretation, absurd standards and methodology Berg needs to apply in order to deny it.

Regardless of what the Holocaust™ is, can Berg's essays be attacked on their merits? I say no. Hence labels are tossed like howitzer shells.

[Roberto]

However, as the Holocaust is no fraud, this results in lies, misinterpretation, absurd standards and methodology Berg needs to apply in order to deny it.

Regardless of what the Holocaust™ is, can Berg's essays be attacked on their merits? I say no.

Well, Smith has tried to sell Berg's nonsense ever since he started posting on this forum, without much success, which makes his "I say no" sound rather unconvincing.

But if he isn't yet tired of trying, he may dish up more of Berg's essays so that they can be dissected in search of any "merits" by the audience of this forum.

Hence labels are tossed like howitzer shells.

I haven't seen labels tossed, only Berg's own instuctive statements quoted verbatim and accordingly assessed. And that happened only because Smith tried to sell the fellow as an "unreeducated German idealist".

[Roberto]

But if he isn't yet tired of trying, he may dish up more of Berg's essays so that they can be dissected in search of any "merits" by the audience of this forum.

We can actually start right away, if Smith is interested.

I've prepared an article related to a statement of Berg's that translates as follows:

Speaking of America,

Most of all what Mucke wrote about America is fully correct!. And that is still only a small part of the truth. It is also very important that the Amis have no sentiments of guilt whatsoever – what one sees is exactly the opposite, an enormous moral arrogance.

I would even put it more radically.

Amerika is a criminal state from top to bottom. The worst war criminals in all of history are the Amis. Even if the Holocaust – Hoax were the purest truth, what the Amis did in actual fact, burning millions of civilians to death, is much worse and was done when there was no danger at all for America. Gassings of millions of innocents would have been civilized, humane and painless by comparison. But according to your so-called Basic Law [the German constitution, translator’s note] – or let’s better call it a "Stay Dumb Law" – you may not make comparisons. Oh how nice that is for the Amis – and for their true masters, the Jews.

If thinks go on like this, there will be only Jews and their slaves on the whole of earth

Friedrich Paul Berg

Shall we start going through it, Mr. Smith?

[Hans]

However, as the Holocaust is no fraud, this results in lies, misinterpretation, absurd standards and methodology Berg needs to apply in order to deny it.

Regardless of what the Holocaust™ is, can Berg's essays be attacked on their merits? I say no. Hence labels are tossed like howitzer shells.

Most interesting is what you haven't quoted from my post.

[Roberto]

Besides, Roberto has been known to launch a zinger now and then, such as threatening to kill Ted O'Keefe.

I didn’t merely threaten to kill the fellow. I asked him to give me his name and address so I could look him up and tear his throat out, even if that was the last thing I did. And I meant it.

Does this give you credibility among your peers?

I don't know what Smith is talking about, but I don't see why it shouldn't, considering the part of my post that Smith conveniently omitted:

I would love to so readers can find out about the precedents of a statement I’m quite proud of (O’Keefe, one of the most disgusting pieces of "Revisionist" scum, uttered a lowly insult involving a person close to me and deserved no better, and I’m sure any man with red blood in his veins would have reacted the way I did), but unfortunately Marcus has removed the old Ezboard forum’s archive. Maybe he can place this interesting thread:

Soccer
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 41&stop=60

in the archives of this forum, for the benefit of our audience.

"Credibility", by the way, is another term Smith should refrain from using. His own is approaching zero level, at the very best.

Hmmm, note to self: Curious why Nizkor links do not get deleted as Hate-Site materials...

The reason must be that they document hate-speech like Berg's utterances, but do not promote it.

[Scott Smith]

Hi y'all. Just dropping in to make a clarification...

Except that Berg was saying this not as response to provocation but as response to a post he mostly agreed with anyway. He only wanted to "express it more radically":

"how nice for the Amis - and their real masters, the Jews. If that continues, they will be only Jews and their slaves on the earth."

Again, so what?

Nothing what we wouldn't knew already. Berg is an antisemite.

An anti-Semite, according to Dr. Mathis, is someone who has an irrational fear and hatred of Jews.

I did say this and I do believe this.

I find it a reasonable position.

Does one find that in any of Berg's essays? I don't think so.

I find his remarks that Eastern European Jews were "dirty" to be anti-Semitic. And I very clearly see his quoted remarks above as anti-Semitic. I believe Berg to be an anti-Semite in every sense of the word

Well, it was thought the Oakies were dirty--and maybe they were. My great-grandparents migrated to California under similar circumstances even before the Depression made poverty cool. Even I might be tempted to call them dirty, though dirt-poor is more the case. When the school said the kids were "unclean" and had to be deloused my great-grandmother was outraged because they got the lice from the school. So they cut their hair and bathed in gasoline. None of the adults got it.

I respect your viewpoint, however, and agree that perhaps more diplomacy and sensitivity should be shown regarding cultural contrasts.

Remember the Wendy's commercial about the Soviet fashion models? Or the stereotype about the East German swimteam? And there is an old early-19th century political cartoon about going to Ohio. The dapper young man is going there--the dirty old fool has just been there.

Nevertheless, his views come from experience--and his ideas have seldom been appreciated by the Jewish community. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy then, doesn't it?

Chicken and egg, Scott. Why did Berg begin to deny the Holocaust? Most people begin to deny it because they are already anti-Semitic. Mark Weber is the example par excellence.

I think Berg found the TV movie Holocaust and the increasing waving of the Bloody Shirt in modern society to be anti-German propaganda and he just got sick of it. I'm not German so I don't get so emotional about it. That still doesn't mean that I like it. I am distrustful of Victimology.

Criticize Jews and Israel, you are an anti-Semite.

Depends on the critic and the content of the criticism.

I suppose that is true in an objective sense but probably not politically.

Sack and Finkelstein can only get away with it because they are Jews themselves. No American politician could do it; both Christians and Jews would boot them out instantly. And the rest of the world knows that the USA is what gives racist, militant Israel its backbone--one of the many reasons they hate the proverbial Ugly American.

Actually, Finkelstein gets away with it because his parents are both survivors. Someone like Israel Shahak, however, clearly told huge lies about Judaism and would be the quintessential self-hating Jew, as would Israel Shamir.

Not a bad point. How can you be more Jewish than Jewish? Be a Survivor, or son of Survivors.

But I suppose I would be a self-hating American because I don't think intervention in WWII served American national interests, nor most other Interventions, including the latest GWII.

Hans, have you ever lost your job because of an essay that you wrote?

Well, Berg has, and so has his wife, who lost her job for translating a German wartime technical report that Berg used in one of his papers.

What was the situation of Berg's firing? And why was Berg's wife translating an article at work?

I don't especially know. I find it hard to believe that she was translating the article at work, unless she borrowed the typewriter or something. Big deal.

Berg's wife was shirking. As for Berg, I have never seen the cause and effect relationship between his writings and his firing.

She doesn't seem to me the type that shirks anything. I don't know the exact circumstances of his firing but my Dad was an engineer that was laid-off about every year and they look for excuses to get rid of people. Engineers are supposed to be apolitical technocrats.

For his own part, Arthur Butz was never fired for what he wrote. Nor, for that matter, were most deniers.

He was tenured and this country mostly does have free-speech.

None of this changes that Berg is a Jew-hater. And I strongly suspect that his Jew-hating began before his Holocaust denying.

I don't know the history. I ask him things from time to time but we mostly talk about art and misguided Interventionist politics. He finds Holocaust propaganda outrageous and he is justified in feeling that way.

[David Thompson]

Andrew -- Welcome back.

Scott -- You said "Hmmm, note to self: Curious why Nizkor links do not get deleted as Hate-Site materials..." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.

[Scott Smith]

Stick with Berg's major essays, Roberto. Do you need links?

"Credibility", by the way, is another term Smith should refrain from using. His own is approaching zero level, at the very best.

Well, I certainly do not gain, or attempt to gain, credibility by threatening people with violence--assuming that credibility is what I'm after at all, that is.

[Scott Smith]

Andrew -- Welcome back.

Scott -- You said "Hmmm, note to self: Curious why Nizkor links do not get deleted as Hate-Site materials..." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.

I don't want them deleted.

But I am curious as to why it is not classed as a Hate-Site when Hannover's forum is. Nizkor is as dichotomously orthodox as any. It smacks of cheap desperation that they have even collated heated Internet discussions. Rather one-sidely too. We see the venom but not the provocations. I find it laughable that such scribblers would be saving utterances on harddrives in the first place. I'm sure there is a file on me by now in case I ever became important enough to attack.

[Roberto]

Andrew -- Welcome back.

Scott -- You said "Hmmm, note to self: Curious why Nizkor links do not get deleted as Hate-Site materials..." If you have some evidence that Nizkor is a "Hate-Site," or that Nizkor links posted here contain "Hate-Site materials," let's see it.

I don't want them deleted.

But I am curious as to why it is not classed as a Hate-Site when Hannover's forum is. Nizkor is as dichotomously orthodox as any. It smacks of cheap desperation that they have even collated heated Internet discussions. Rather one-sidely too. We see the venom but not the provocations. I find it laughable that such scribblers would be saving utterances on harddrives in the first place. I'm sure there is a file on me by now in case I ever became important enough to attack.

Is that supposed to be evidence that the Nizkor site contains the incitement to or apology of hate and intolerance that would justify its being labeled a hate site?

Or is it just the meaningless outpouring of a frustration desperate to let off some steam?

[Scott Smith]

Is that supposed to be evidence that the Nizkor site contains the incitement to or apology of hate and intolerance that would justify its being labeled a hate site?

I don't care if it is classed as a Hate-Site or not. But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Or is it just the meaningless outpouring of a frustration desperate to let off some steam?

I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

[witness]

I am curious how Scott Smith defines his favorite word "Victimology"?
"logy'' means science.What particular science does he imply ?
Also does he imply that remembering the victims ( not only the Jews btw )of Nazism is equal to this famous "Victimology" ?
And what is so baaad in remembering them ?
Does Scott Smith negate the fact that remebrance of the victims of bigotry and intolerance might help prevent younger generations from repeating the mistakes of the past ?

[witness]

Or is it just the meaningless outpouring of a frustration desperate to let off some steam?

I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Let me help you to understand.I think that Roberto means that you are unable to defend your own Nazi-apologetic utterances.
So you resort to imaginary evil Zionists mentality; and invented by you (and pretty meaningless ) terms (such as Victimology ) which could be considered as nothing else but "meaningless outpouring of a frustration desperate to let off some steam"
Hope it helps

[Roberto]

Is that supposed to be evidence that the Nizkor site contains the incitement to or apology of hate and intolerance that would justify its being labeled a hate site?

I don't care if it is classed as a Hate-Site or not.

Poor Smith is withdrawing with his tail between his legs ...

But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

... lamely trying to cover his retreat with the usual smokescreen of meaningless phrases.

Or is it just the meaningless outpouring of a frustration desperate to let off some steam?

I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

That's your problem, buddy. Whoever read your dreary utterances is likely to know what I meant to say.