Another try at defining "Holocaust Denier" Part II

[R.M. Schultz]

Again and again and again I have asked the crypto-fascists, Holocaust Deniers, and Hitler fans on this forum to help in defining Holocaust Denier …!

On second thought, that might have been a mystake — kind of like asking the Devil to help define "Sin."

[Erik]

R.M. Schultz wrote:

Again and again and again I have asked the crypto-fascists, Holocaust Deniers, and Hitler fans on this forum to help in defining Holocaust Denier

…!


On second thought, that might have been a mystake — kind of like asking the Devil to help define "Sin."

So you haven’t made sure that the Devil was kept at bay first, but let him define himself in and out of your net!!!

That can be compared to letting Liberalism define Liberal Catholicism, letting it sneak in and infect the Faith with its uncleanness.

Evil is in the thought of the thinker, just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. You have just confessed of your attempt to deal with the Devil, asking for his help. OK, you have had “second thought” afterwards, but the harm may already have been done.

You asked “again and again and again”…right?

By being a “Denier Refiner” you have unwittingly committed the sin of “Definitionalism”, in itself a sort of “denial”:

Definitionalism refers to a form of maddening resistance to acknowledging a known genocide that is common to academics who enter into definitional battles over whether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide. So much energy goes into the definitional struggle, and so much emphasis is put on words that minimize the extent of the event, that first the significance of the event and its enormous human tragedy are written out of existence, and then the event itself becomes as if something else. A caveat may be appended that the subject should be considered, but in some other context like discussions of human rights, wars, or civilian disasters, but it is not to be reckoned with as a case of a government-ordered systematic destruction of a people. (See Charny, 1994a for an extensive discussion of this pattern of obfuscation and the epistemology of definition.)

http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=27


“…so much emphasis is put on words that minimize the extent of the event, that first the significance of the event and its enormous human tragedy are written out of existence, and then the event itself becomes as if something else.”

Can you with clear conscience swear yourself free from this sin?

By trying to find a “lowest common denominator” of “sin”, by “again and again and again” begging the Devil to vomit the sinners out of the Jaws of Hell for your perusal and “diversion” (Mr. Mills' designation), you have actually deflected attention from “the significance of the event and its enormous human tragedy”(Charny) --- unwittingly, perhaps, but nevertheless assisting to a “form of maddening resistance to acknowledging a known genocide that is common to academics who enter into definitional battles over whether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide”.

Ultimately, I guess, we have three choices of what to do with the term "Holocaust Denier":

— Define it so that we can use it in a useful way.

— Not define it, so that we can use it as a handy epithet to throw at our enemies.

— Not define it, not use it, and pretend that no one denies the Holocaust.

Which of these three do you advocate?

“….and then the event itself becomes as if something else”.

Let the Devil define himself, turn your back to his followers, think positive Holo things instead of negatively and Denially on Sin and its Master.

Prof. Charny again:

Most of all, we need to link the battles against denials to civilization's obligation to recommit itself to the cardinal principle, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," for that is the real issue underlying denials of genocide.

IOW : Live and let live, definately and Ultimately!!!

[Penn44]

By being a “Denier Refiner” you have unwittingly committed the sin of “Definitionalism”, in itself a sort of “denial”:

Definitionalism refers to a form of maddening resistance to acknowledging a known genocide that is common to academics who enter into definitional battles over whether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide. So much energy goes into the definitional struggle, and so much emphasis is put on words that minimize the extent of the event, that first the significance of the event and its enormous human tragedy are written out of existence, and then the event itself becomes as if something else. A caveat may be appended that the subject should be considered, but in some other context like discussions of human rights, wars, or civilian disasters, but it is not to be reckoned with as a case of a government-ordered systematic destruction of a people. (See Charny, 1994a for an extensive discussion of this pattern of obfuscation and the epistemology of definition.)

http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=27

This does not fit the efforts of RM Schultz and others to define what is a Holocaust Denier. The above situation concerns arguments between academics regarding what constitutes genocide. In general, our struggle regarding this thread has been between those who want to bring the Holocaust into perspective versus many who wants to obstruct the process for political or psychological reasons. In our definition, we have set certain criteria and threshholds regarding what constitutes Holocaust Denial, but in general, we have been inclusive, not exclusive in our definition.

Ultimately, I guess, we have three choices of what to do with the term "Holocaust Denier":

— Define it so that we can use it in a useful way.

— Not define it, so that we can use it as a handy epithet to throw at our enemies.

— Not define it, not use it, and pretend that no one denies the Holocaust.

Which of these three do you advocate?

Unquestionably the first one.

[Rob - wssob2]

Here are some other sites' definitions of Holocaust denial:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html

Holocaust denial is a propaganda movement active in the United States, Canada and Western Europe which seeks to deny the reality of the Nazi regime's systematic mass murder of 6 million Jews in Europe during World War II

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

The Deniers real goal is not about telling the truth. It is about promoting hateful political goals. Most are the philosophical heirs of the Nazis. They are really not concerned with the past as much as with shaping the future. As Harold Covington of the National Socialist White People's Party admitted, "The real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again."...

A: The Holocaust denial movement is driven primarily by antisemites, neo-Nazis and white supremacists, who want to build a world in which minorities have secondary rights, if permitted to live at all. It is no coincidence that these Holocaust deniers are also vehemently against non-white immigration. One of the most important lessons of the Holocaust was the need for countries to provide safe haven to people fleeing political or religious persecution (many Jews could have been saved, but were turned away by other countries). Skinheads (who are Holocaust deniers) have attacked non-whites living in Germany, the United States and elsewhere. This is not coincidence. Holocaust denial helps white supremacists feel empowered: they believe they have uncovered a "secret truth" about how the world really works - that the Holocaust was a lie and that the lessons learned from it are therefore false. Feeling themselves victims of a "hoax" created by devilish Jews, they believe that the Nazis and other fascists and racists have not gotten fair treatment in the history books, and that it would be in white people's best interest to revive aspects of Nazism today. But while Holocaust denial is a political engine driven primarily by the far-right, there are also deniers on the political left and among vehemently anti-Israel groups and movements in the Islamic world who find this type of antisemitic conspiracy theory attractive...

Yes. Holocaust denial, by definition, is conspiracy theory. Deniers profess that Jews have somehow conspired to create a "hoax" that the Holocaust happened, and that all credible historians, whether in the US, Britain, Israel, Germany and elsewhere, are either victims of, or part of, this great conspiracy. Holocaust denial fits neatly into the historic
pattern of antisemitism, which sees Jews as conspiring to harm non-Jews. Holocaust denial is but the latest libel of antisemites, following historic charges that Jews poisoned wells, kill Christian children, secretly control the government, etc. And it is no coincidence that Holocaust deniers are regularly associated with well-known antisemitic and white supremacist groups.

[Erik]

This does not fit the efforts of RM Schultz and others to define what is a Holocaust Denier. The above situation concerns arguments between academics regarding what constitutes genocide. In general, our struggle regarding this thread has been between those who want to bring the Holocaust into perspective versus many who wants to obstruct the process for political or psychological reasons. In our definition, we have set certain criteria and threshholds regarding what constitutes Holocaust Denial, but in general, we have been inclusive, not exclusive in our definition.

Charny chastises:

…definitional battles over whether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide...

To say either “The Holocaust didn’t happen” or to say “The Jews deserved the Holocaust” have the same moral weight. The same mind-set would believe either statement (or perhaps even both!). Both statements deny the essence of the immense moral enormity committed against the Jews.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 573#328573


Those who say that Jews deserved the Holocaust deny the Holocaust.

That is, whether the “given event” of Holocaust Denial “really fits the pure form of definition of genocide...”, for example the allegation that HD is “to be weighed morally” with asserting that the Jews “deserved the Holocaust”!!

That’s fitting to a degree, if you ask me!

And this!!!

Karl wrote:
We must also define genocide: Oxford concise says… ‘the mass extermination of human beings, esp. of a particular race or nation.’

This is a serviceable definition, but we should also differentiate it from Democide, the killing of a non-biological group (e.g. political, religious, economic, residency). Thus, the Soviet action against the Kulaks was Democide, as was the Nazi persecution of communists, while the Nazi action against the "Jewish Race" was genocide.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 422#323422

How about some "moral weighing in" here?

michael mills wrote: But is R M Schultz seriously meaning to say that the Jews do/did have a mandate from God …

Dan wrote:
… Was the extermination of all the people in a small kindom better (thanks to David Moderator) than the Spanish Inquisition. …

You're both a little mixed up here. The Bible is a book of theology not history! The question of whether the Jews had a right to slaughter those people is a theological, not historical, question.

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 944#325944

I would be happy to comment on any genocide that does not involve Divine Sanction

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 304#326304


What did Prof Charny chastise?

…definitional battles over whether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide...

Penn44 has a solution:

R.M. Schultz:

Please add comparing Biblical events to the Holocaust as another indicator of a Holocaust Denier.

If you accuse a people of Genocide you are a Genocide denier.

Why not, if you are a Holocaust denier if you say that the victims deserved it??

Is that’s the way to avoid the “definitional battles” (Charny), perhaps? Making the definition a “fit-all”, even to a wannabe promoter, if s/he is making uncomfortable comparisons?

One way to “deny”, is making the victims non-human:

Erik wrote:


Here is an assessment of the “gynocide” of the Witch Hunt:

Quote:
It has been estimated by Dr. Marija Gimbutas, professor of archaeology at the University of California, that as many as 9 million people, overwhelmingly women, were burned or hanged during the witch-craze.

WHAT!!! 9 MILLION WITCHES KILLED AND THEY STILL MISSED MY EX-WIFE!!!

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 903#328903

That’s what Prof Charny called the “sloppy, virulent” form of Denial that “celebrates” the violence.

“Asserting desert of a Holocaust” is Denial. “Belief in the Genocides of the Bible” is Denial.

Then why not a “Definitionalism”, that excludes Democide and Gynocide since the victims are not “people” enough?

Definitionalism refers to a form of maddening resistance to acknowledging a known genocide that is common to academics who enter into definitional battles over whether or not a given event really fits the pure form of definition of genocide.

Can't it be weighed in, morally at least?

[R.M. Schultz]

So you haven’t made sure that the Devil was kept at bay first, but let him define himself in and out of your net!!! … Evil is in the thought of the thinker, just as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. You have just confessed of your attempt to deal with the Devil, asking for his help. OK, you have had “second thought” afterwards, but the harm may already have been done.

I see at last the problem with which we are dealing with in its true ontological frankness and must refrain from concurring with your use of "Devil" as per:

"Diabolus enim et alii dæmones a Deo quidem naturâ creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali."

And must instead point up that my meaning was "Advocatus Diaboli!"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm

Even advocacy is in the details, is it not?

You asked “again and again and again”…right?

By being a “Denier Refiner” you have unwittingly committed the sin of “Definitionalism”, in itself a sort of “denial”

“…so much emphasis is put on words that minimize the extent of the event, that first the significance of the event and its enormous human tragedy are written out of existence, and then the event itself becomes as if something else.”

Can you with clear conscience swear yourself free from this sin?

So by indirections do we find directions out, eh? Let us assume that this is categorical imperative unless we chose not to at our peril! For indeed:

Along with the intellectual cause just noted, another has been what one might call the automatic influence proceeding from the existence of many religions side by side in the same country. This condition has given rise to the political indifferentism referred to in the opening of this article. Where this state of affairs prevails, when men of various creeds meet one another in political, commercial, and social life, in order that they may carry on their relations harmoniously they will not demand any special recognition of their own respective denominations. Personal intercourse fosters the spirit of tolerance …

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm

Personal intercourse? Indeed! I think we see through the bracken clearly now, don't we? Having lived as we do amongst the existential continuum of meanings, who among us is not a "Wanderer into the Void?"

We shall do everything so that men like Schlageter, who were ready to encounter death for a common cause, shall not be wanderers into nothingness, but travellers towards a better future for all of humanity.

Let the Devil define himself, turn your back to his followers, think positive Holo things instead of negatively and Denially on Sin and its Master.

Again we see the smoke of indifferentism as it creeps slowly upon the stones of the cathedral! Was it the Devil's friend Alistair Crowley himself who said "cavêre canis?" Yet indeed the hounds of Hell dare not nip at his heels while he runs Beelzebub's errands — No?

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.21 When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"22 is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

http://www.refugeofsinners.com/review/e ... riVos.html

Let the Devil define himself, turn your back to his followers, think positive Holo things instead of negatively and Denially on Sin and its Master.

But how can this be reconsiled with the transmigration of values?

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/nietzsche.html

Who is to say that behind it all was not indeed the Trilateral Commission? Those cognosenti familliar with the crime of Czolgosz would certainly agree:

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/h ... 01jba.html

[ritterkreuz1945]

Hello,
I am very new to the whole Third reich forum here, but as read this thread I want to add a couple of things that have always bothered me personally. I don't even know if that is permented here, or if I will be banned, but here it goes. I think that whatever happened in Germany or German occupied countries between 1933 and 1945 concerning the Jews, they themselves must have something to do with it by the very nature that it takes two parties in any action.( one the attacker, one the victim) But what we don't talk about much is "why" and does the victim bear ANY burdern at all??? Much like a abused housewife that we would ALL tell to leave if beaten by their spouse, why then in the face of such overt hate, dislike , or what ever adj. you would like to use, do we not lay some of the burden of their( the Jews)[ own doorstep? I think know the more I study the Jews lack of self presevation during that time by force of arms, the more I understand their mindset today in Israel vis a vis the Arab states. I think it is much like I have seen men in the past who have been beaten in a bar fight never sit with their back to a door, or a man whose wife cheated on him, will never "trust" women again... But on a GRAND SCALE. Thanks for letting me say my peace.

Semper Fidelies
Sgt. Michael Gray[/b]

[David Thompson]

ritterkreuz1945 -- In regard to your questions and observations, you might find these threads of interest:

Nazi Attacks on US Citizens Mar 1933
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15133

An American Diplomat in Germany 1929-1939
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14954

[John W]

Hey Rob, I have a small question:

Most of these definitions give exclusiveness to jewish suffering. I thought that the holocaust was the systematic murder of millions of people by the Nazi government, not just those 6 million Jews.

I'd like to know if I am right or wrong.

[Nagelfar]

Holocaust Denier is anyone who asserts at least three of the following propositions:

— That fewer than the generally accepted numbers of a minimum of 4.5 million Jews perished during WW2.
— That an small number, fewer than one million, Jews perished during WW2.
— That an insignificant number, fewer than one hundred thousand, Jews perished during WW2.
— That gas chambers were never used to execute prisoners
— That gas vans were never used to execute prisoners
— That there was no intention of democide or genocide
— That the massive die-off of Jews was due to "wartime conditions"
— That Germany was "forced into war."
— That "the Jews" had "declared war" on Germany.
— That Western Allied "war crimes" are in any way on par with the Holocaust.
— That Soviet crimes in some way "balanced" the Holocaust.

the final four of these examples are the purposeful stereotyping of two unrelated definitions. denying an action and describing an impetus for it are two completely seperate affairs. only when there is an agenda for having no impetus for an action to reoccur would there be reason to stereotype certain impetus with belief in or denial of the outcome.

for example, that "...Soviet crimes in some way "balanced" the Holocaust" should define one as a denier of the Holocaust is oxymoronical as within it's stipulation a Soviet crime can be related to it existing. this is like saying the Holocaust must be worse than Soviet expendable excess & democide, but to say otherwise makes it not exist? what if one agreed that Soviet 'crime' did not balance the Holocaust, and therefore the Holocaust was Better an achievement than the suffering incured by Soviets, and the Holocaust was therefore 'Great'? to say it was "Great" cannot then deny it. one who says "the Holocaust was Great" or "Good", "Amazing", "Wondering" obviously does not deny it exists. whether one is completely immoral or not can be contended, but whether they deny the Holocaust or not can not be. they do not deny it if they exult it. simply because a feeling is expressed on the matter does not diminish how much one believes in the matter to hold true on an objective level. this is like confusing the prefixes 'un-' & 'non-', 'un-' reverses or inverts a concept, where the original concept must still exist, 'non-' negates it completely, where it denies the original concept

[R.M. Schultz]

Most of these definitions give exclusiveness to jewish suffering. I thought that the holocaust was the systematic murder of millions of people by the Nazi government, not just those 6 million Jews.

Quite true, and the reason for that is that I've really never known anyone to deny the rest of the Holocaust. The main thrust of denial seems to be against the existence of the Final Solution. If you feel that there should be additional criterion (as for instance about the notorious "Commissar Order" or the Holocaust of the Romany People, etc.) then by all means suggest them! We want a definition that is as precise and comprehensive as possible.

Holocaust Denier is anyone who asserts at least three of the following propositions …

— That Germany was "forced into war."
— That "the Jews" had "declared war" on Germany.
— That Western Allied "war crimes" are in any way on par with the Holocaust.
— That Soviet crimes in some way "balanced" the Holocaust.

the final four of these examples are the purposeful stereotyping of two unrelated definitions. denying an action and describing an impetus for it are two completely separate affairs. only when there is an agenda for having no impetus for an action to reoccur would there be reason to stereotype certain impetus with belief in or denial of the outcome.

What we're looking for here is a pattern and both the denial of the facts and the shifting of the blame for these facts are part of it.

For example, while someone might (though in the face of a great deal of evidence to the contrary) assert in good faith that "the massive die-off of Jews was due to 'wartime conditions'," when we couple this factual assertion with the causual assertions that "there was no intention of democide or genocide" and that Germany was "forced into war," we now have a pattern of factual and moral denial that adds up to Holocaust Denial.

for example, that "...Soviet crimes in some way "balanced" the Holocaust" should define one as a denier of the Holocaust is oxymoronical as within it's stipulation a Soviet crime can be related to it existing. this is like saying the Holocaust must be worse than Soviet expendable excess & democide, but to say otherwise makes it not exist?

The idea here is that genocide, no matter who commits it, is always immoral. The claim that Soviet genocide (or democide) can "balance" or excuse the Holocaust is a denial of the suffering and human dignity of both sets of victims. Soviet excesses have no bearing on the moral culpability of the Nazi regime and to bring this into the discussion is nothing more than an attempt to deflect this culpability.

[Nagelfar]

What we're looking for here is a pattern and both the denial of the facts and the shifting of the blame for these facts are part of it.

denial of the facts is just that, but rearranging blame doesn't figure into whether denial exists or not. that is finding a contributing factor for why it exists which runs in opposite to flat out denying. one may articulate the other, but blame is not a measure by which we can define it, since needing blame itself assumes the opposite.

The idea here is that genocide, no matter who commits it, is always immoral. The claim that Soviet genocide (or democide) can "balance" or excuse the Holocaust is a denial of the suffering and human dignity of both sets of victims. Soviet excesses have no bearing on the moral culpability of the Nazi regime and to bring this into the discussion is nothing more than an attempt to deflect this culpability.

then that is belief in the eternal immorality of taking human life, if one cannot believe the Holocaust can be excused then that is an argument on its own, but it is not proper argument against denying the actual Holocaust having happened.

[Penn44]

Hey Rob, I have a small question:

Most of these definitions give exclusiveness to jewish suffering. I thought that the holocaust was the systematic murder of millions of people by the Nazi government, not just those 6 million Jews.

I'd like to know if I am right or wrong.

I do not think it is a "right or wrong" issue, but simply one of definition or opinion that exposes the challenge of the problem - how to acknowledge that the Jews were to targets of genocide while simultaneously expressing that others were murdered and suffered as well.


.

[Tyrian]

So, if a historian puts the 6 million figure in doubt, he is automatically a denier. If he actually puts anything about it in doubt, he is a denier. So the holocaust is a dogma, a religion which we have to follow, because it was written in stone (who wrote it?). I think this topic should be removed, because there cannot be useful discussion of an event, if someone is not free to discuss it. The holocaust is the last great tabboo in european culture, if someone wants to look at it in detail, that person is automatically insulted and vilified. There is no freedom of speech when holocaust is involved. And that is tragic.

[Dan]

Was it really two whole years ago that we had that discussion?