A Few Thoughts on Scholarship and Holocaust Denial
Since this issue has obviously been a bit controversial, I spent some time and read the tract at hand, Eric D. Williams; “The Puzzle of Auschwitz”. Some have argued that questioning the number of Jews who died in World War II does not qualify someone as a “Holocaust Denier”, as legitimate Holocaust historians have weighed in on this subject. This is true, as so far that legitimate research is done on this. One may argue whether it is even a significant point, but scholars can debate whether 6 million, or merely 5 million Jews died in the Holocaust, without bearing this rather unfavorable title of "Holocaust Denier". But that is not what Williams is doing here.
First of all, Holocaust denial is not about arguing that no Jews died in World War II, even the most hardcore Nazi will not argue that. Holocaust denial is about arguing how they died. The deniers claim that there was no systematic effort to exterminate Jews and other undesirables, and that the millions who died were just unfortunate victims of war. This is what Williams argues. He argues that the Jews were well-treated laborers, and not victims of mass murder, he even goes so far as to mention the “open and caring nature of the camp”, while discussing Auschwitz.
Secondly, this is not a serious attempt at research. Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on the history of the Holocaust, beyond just having an interest in history in general, but as I mentioned previously, I did get my degree in Russian Studies from the Jackson School, so I have more than a passing familiarity with how to conduct research in the realm of European history, and this is certainly not it.
Poor spelling (he apparently doesn’t own a spellchecker), and malapropisms aside, Williams bases much of his book on photographs he took as a tourist, 60 years after the fact, other Holocaust Deniers, and his repeated disbelieving assertions that the Nazis simply would not have done this. One only needs to take a look at the footnotes to find a rogues gallery of other Holocaust Deniers, the Institute for Historical Review, Fred Leuchter, Jewwatch.com (gee, you think the name would be a clue), David Cole, David Icke, the Barnes Review, and “Dr Arthur Butz of Northwest [sic] University". Williams, who admitted he doesn't even speak German, and most likely not Polish or Russian either, brings nothing to the table other than these repeated myths. Cherry-picking a couple of sources in order to allege that the camps were not that bad, is not scholarship, it is offensive.
Much like the 9/11 deniers, Williams makes no attempt at a legitimate historical look at an issue, he starts with a political point, and goes shopping for fringe sources to back him up. This is not scholarship, it is offensive propaganda.
Labels: Eric D. Williams, Holocaust Denial
posted by James B. @ 11:38 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
First of all, Holocaust denial is not about arguing that no Jews died in World War II, even the most hardcore Nazi will not argue that. Holocaust denial is about arguing how they died.
This is a very good point. I disagree, however, with your conclusions reguarding 911 research--they are not comparable to Holocaust denial.
To begin with 911Truth does not deny 911 happened; 911Truth wants to expose HOW it happened. Holocaust denial, on the other hand, wants to cover up how the Holocaust happened. If anything it is 911Skeptics who have more parralels with Holocaust denial.
Not saying people at this blog are--I'm just saying the parralels are stronger on the 911skeptic side than on the 911Truth side.
Do you not see how your wrong ewing?
Original quote:
Holocaust denial is not about arguing that no Jews died in World War II, even the most hardcore Nazi will not argue that. Holocaust denial is about arguing how they died.
You then go on to say:
911Truth does not deny 911 happened; 911Truth wants to expose HOW it happened.
Let me spell it out again:
Holocaust Denial:
It happened but the numbers and how it happened is different than the what history says.
9/11 Denial
Sept. 11 happened but how it happened and why is different than what history says.
Can you not see the similarities? We are also FAR DIFFERENT than troofers or holocaust deniers. You guys have a preconceived notion of what happened based on emotion then cherry pick evidence to fit what you want to believe and ignore any evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. We let the evidence speak for itself. It doesn't make any difference how we feel about it.
I see your point--but please leave the troofer snarks at the playground where they belong.
Back to your point--I have to admit your logic is not bad; thank you for a thoughtful response. But while you say 911skeptics "let the evidence speak for itself" few if any question how the evidence was handled. Or the fact that, at the very least, Bush and his administration should be removed from office for reasons of sheer incompetence--considering the number of warnings that were known. Condellezza Rice herself knew of the document "Bin laden plans to attack US".
Even if I agreed with your position entirely about the evidence of 911, that would still not absolve the administration from charges of gross negligence and incompentence. Which, in most jobs, IS sufficent for removal.
Do you know of anyone who was fired, demoted or in any tangable way held responsible for dropping the ball in any agency on 911? If you do, I'd appreciate a link.
Thank you.
Not saying people at this blog are--I'm just saying the parralels are stronger on the 911skeptic side than on the 911Truth side.
God, you people are fucking morons.
You deny what 9/11 actually was (a terror attack by religious zealots), not that some event happened on that day. You don't use logic or evidence to come to your conclusions, we do.
How you think we're like the Holocaut deniers is beyond any reasoning.
It's funny that the one time you don't spam moron links you come across as even dumber than before.
Or the fact that, at the very least, Bush and his administration should be removed from office for reasons of sheer incompetence--considering the number of warnings that were known. Condellezza Rice herself knew of the document "Bin laden plans to attack US".
Any enemy of the United States who had already attacked it before had plans to attack again?! No fucking way!
If Bush is at fault, so is Clinton - since 9/11 wasn't just nine months in the making.
Do you know of anyone who was fired, demoted or in any tangable way held responsible for dropping the ball in any agency on 911? If you do, I'd appreciate a link.
Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, isn't it?
JamesB Very excellent use of highlighting 'half' of the resouces that William's used. I suspected you would do this to fit your agenda: label Williams as an anti-semitie in order to discredit the conference on 9/11. In truth, he is Anti-Zionist, which of course I'm sure you and probably few of your readers realize are totally different catagories of labels.
This is really a very sad state of your blog and speaking of scholarship, a very sad treatise indeed. I hope your professor reads this post because, James, you do the same exact thing you accuse 9/11 truthers of doing and you offer poor scholarship in review of William's work. Of course you did absolutely nothing to discredit the information he used, you simply did the same thing you have done over and over when dealing with 9/11 truthers: you attack the character.
Many other sources you forgot to mention that William's cite's in his book to support his thesis which of course I knew you would not mention at all. You sir are becoming quite the master at propaganda. Are you sure you aren't working for CENTCOM or some other alphabet agency? ;)
Lets examine the other sources of Williams that you purposely left out.
1. You list David Cole but you fail to mention in what context. The context was an interview with the Aushwitz Museum Director.
Strike 1, James. What you should do now is attempt to attack the character of the director of the museum rather than attacking his interviewer. The Director's own statments contradict every 'account' of gassing at Aushwitz and the numbers themselves.
2. The Numberg Trial Logs and especially the confession/s obtained by torture.
3. The Reader's Digest of Feb. 1943 which apparently where the magical number 6 million was first mentioned. A number that most scholars have now listed as a fabrication, including the budding professor, Shawn. But actually began much earlier as shown below.
4.The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The author, the foremost expert on Gas Chamber technology in America. Stangely enough you do mention this man, James, but you failed to mention the Krakow Institute and their test results which matched what Leuchter arrived at: minute trace ammounts in the 'gas chambers' but huge ammounts in the delousing chamber. Strage that you failed to mention the Krakow source, James. Why is that? Lack of space on the blog? ;)
4. Of course you failed to mention the ICRC findings and activities that of course mention no mass killings, gas chambers, or systematic killings. An apology 60 years later doesn't change the reports contents. Now that is the conspiracy. Why did the Red Cross cover up this mass killing of Jews for the Germans???
5.The camps tour guides and the maps which leave off parts of the camp including what appears to be a swimming pool,a water treatment facility, and admitted reconstructions.
6. You left out testimony of surviviors that mention no mass killings or death chambers; one also stated water came out of the 'shower heads' instead of gas.
7. You list several 'HD myths' that William's uses but fail to educate us on what those myths are and how William's uses them.
8.The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!
By Martin H. Glynn (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.) Who tried to sell the public on 6 million Jewish deaths during WW 1. That didn't take of course.
9. William's spelling? Sure there are a few, but then that is a style over substance fallacy, James, as you are probably aware. Tsk Tsk.
10. There are numerous other sources that are used in his research that James fails to mention because of his agenda; that is fine, it is his blog but it is dishonest and a fraudlent representation of the 'truth'.
Well I could go on but I think you get the gist of my critique of your post.
Do I deny the holocaust? Nope. Anti-Semite? Nope. I don't know any Jews or Arabs for that matter.
Does Williams raise serious questions about Aushwitz? Yep. Do I agree with all of his findings? Nope
But trying to 'link' William's single book on Aushwitz to discredit his conference on 9/11 is sad display of your logic and has been exposed as what it is: Screwloosechange propaganda that has just been debunked.
If you want to impress us all James, don't cherry pick the sources William's uses to support your position as you accuse him of doing. The kettle is black is it not? To get a better grade on your blog, bring to light all of his sources and then support or discredit those sources with your own reasoning.
Happy Superbowl Sunday, and Go Colts!
In truth, he is Anti-Zionist, which of course I'm sure you and probably few of your readers realize are totally different catagories of labels.
Eh, not really. One of the oddest semantic games I ever come across is that anti-Zionism isn't antisemitic. Being against a group's self-determination is being against that group itself.
2. The Numberg Trial Logs and especially the confession/s obtained by torture.
It's funny someone who says he knows more about the Holocaust than me would bring up the word "torture". Tell me which confessions were obtained through torture.
3. The Reader's Digest of Feb. 1943 which apparently where the magical number 6 million was first mentioned. A number that most scholars have now listed as a fabrication, including the budding professor, Shawn. But actually began much earlier as shown below.
Are you retarded? Did you read any of my replies? Every rational, informed person agrees somewhere around six million Jews died in the entire Holocaust. What I was pointing out was that over 4 million died in the camps, not six million. The Holocaust was more than just the gas chambers. Also, Eichmann makes an estimation in a document that puts the total deaths at about 6 million.
4.The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The author, the foremost expert on Gas Chamber technology in America.
The problem is his tested samples found cyanide and he just dismissed them. Also, our friend Leuchter did not inform the lab what he was looking for and from where he got his samples - so they mixed the masonry up before testing which dilutes the cyanide a great deal. It is true that some samples showed no cyanide, but the chamber from which he got his sample was partially reconstructed and he didn't know this.
He also made many statements from ignorance, and how no idea how the ventilation systems worked nor was he familiar with primary source documents from the Nazis. These documents showed his estimated death rate to be insanely low and that it was possible to operate the chambers without harming the executionors themselves.
When tests were redone by other parties cyanide was found in the gas chambers (which actually had happened with the original tests), which is proof positive they were used as execution chambers - exposure for fifty years tends to decrease residue.
4...Why did the Red Cross cover up this mass killing of Jews for the Germans???
It was a massive failure on their part not to report their findings (which there were doing the war) - they had no ability to investigate in Nazi-occupied areas and thus bad the wrong judgment call.
5.The camps tour guides and the maps which leave off parts of the camp including what appears to be a swimming pool,a water treatment facility, and admitted reconstructions.
I know when I go to learn about the history of the Holocaust I want to see how the Nazis spent their leisure time (and you do see the reconstructions, even your "expert" went into one).
6. You left out testimony of survivors that mention no mass killings or death chambers; one also stated water came out of the 'shower heads' instead of gas.
...there actually were showers, you know. (Seen Schindler's List?) I'd find it hard to believe someone who was in the chamber when gas came down would be able to testify later. And you keep showing how you don't think logically - saying "look at who didn't say anything" is illogical. When you hear about eyewitnesses for an event you don't then say "well some people didn't see this". Not everyone was in a position to see mass gassings, you know that, right?
8.The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!
By Martin H. Glynn (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.) Who tried to sell the public on 6 million Jewish deaths during WW 1. That didn't take of course.
Actually, he said they were dying - not that they were dead. First, European antisemitism didn't start in 1933 - nor does this "point" make any difference in a discussion of the Holocaust.
10. There are numerous other sources that are used in his research that James fails to mention because of his agenda; that is fine, it is his blog but it is dishonest and a fraudulent representation of the 'truth'.
Boy, I do love irony.
Happy Superbowl Sunday, and Go Colts!
Man, even your choice of football teams is retarded.
I think it's funny you said you knew more about the Holocaust than me. Not only do I know far more about it than you (I already knew that, this just showcased it fully), I know more about Holocaust denial and it's proponents. For some reason I knew this supposed "expert" would be Leuchter - even though his report has been discredited for quite some time.
Are you sure you aren't working for CENTCOM or some other alphabet agency? ;)
CENTCOM isn't an agency moron. Would you truthers please learn about what your talking about, it makes you look stupid when you throw around words like CENTCOM and have no idea what they mean.
Fred A Leuchter is America's foremost authority on gas chambers? Wow! I was under the impression that he was an unqualified layman who designed a new electric chair, then became convinced that he was an expert on everything and made a ridiculous, self-evidently flawed study of Auschwitz that was laughed out of court by every scientist in the country. You learn something new every day. In my case, I have learned that "foremost authority" is trutherese for "some halfwit with no qualifications who does, nevertheless, say exactly what I want to hear".
Swing Dangler: "I suspected you would do this to fit your agenda: label Williams as an anti-semitie in order to discredit the conference on 9/11."
It discredits itself. All the SLC people need to do is stand back and watch it self-destruct.
You, moreover, are not helping by trying to DEFEND Williams' Holocaust denial. The other woowoo posters here are at least complaining about 'smears' and trying to put clear blue water between Williams and their heroes.
"In truth, he is Anti-Zionist, which of course I'm sure you and probably few of your readers realize are totally different catagories of labels."
Yeah right. Anti-zionists are nigh on invariably anti-semites. And pray tell, what does 'anti-Zionism' have to gain from doubting the Holocaust? The Holocaust did not lead to the foundation of the state of Israel, that was in the works for decades before the 1940s, because of something called the Balfour Declaration in 1917. A full quarter-century before the death-camps started operating.
"This is really a very sad state of your blog and speaking of scholarship, a very sad treatise indeed. I hope your professor reads this post because, James, you do the same exact thing you accuse 9/11 truthers of doing and you offer poor scholarship in review of William's work. Of course you did absolutely nothing to discredit the information he used, you simply did the same thing you have done over and over when dealing with 9/11 truthers: you attack the character."
Actually, the post pointed out some major intellectual failings on the part of Williams. Inability to read the relevant languages in which the sources for the events are written is fairly fatal.
"Many other sources you forgot to mention that William's cite's in his book to support his thesis which of course I knew you would not mention at all. You sir are becoming quite the master at propaganda. Are you sure you aren't working for CENTCOM or some other alphabet agency? ;)"
There's no reason to take anyone seriously who cited the range of 'sources' mentioned in the blog post. They have all been discredited and exposed as fraudulent.
"Lets examine the other sources of Williams that you purposely left out."
Yes, let's, shall we?
"1. You list David Cole but you fail to mention in what context. The context was an interview with the Aushwitz Museum Director.
Strike 1, James. What you should do now is attempt to attack the character of the director of the museum rather than attacking his interviewer. The Director's own statments contradict every 'account' of gassing at Aushwitz and the numbers themselves."
The fact that Krematorium I at Auschwitz was reconstructed after the war was known before Cole 'found out'.
"2. The Numberg Trial Logs and especially the confession/s obtained by torture."
There were no such confessions obtained by torture. You are citing Faurisson's claims, who is yet another proven LIAR.
"3. The Reader's Digest of Feb. 1943 which apparently where the magical number 6 million was first mentioned. A number that most scholars have now listed as a fabrication, including the budding professor, Shawn. But actually began much earlier as shown below."
You seem not to realise that anyone with a copy of the American Jewish Yearbook could come up with an accurate estimate of how many Jews would be affected by German extermination policies.
The first actual calculation of the death-toll was done in June 1945, at a time when most occupied territories had been liberated for six to nine months, and came up with a *demographic* loss of 5.7 million people.
The first academic calculations came up with 4.2 and 5.1 million people.
"4.The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The author, the foremost expert on Gas Chamber technology in America. Stangely enough you do mention this man, James, but you failed to mention the Krakow Institute and their test results which matched what Leuchter arrived at: minute trace ammounts in the 'gas chambers' but huge ammounts in the delousing chamber. Strage that you failed to mention the Krakow source, James. Why is that? Lack of space on the blog? ;)"
Leuchter's own test results confirm the use of cyanide in those buildings. That corroborates the witnesses, much as when a police department forensics expert finds GSR residues on the hand of someone who has thrown away his gun, and this confirms what the witnesses said happened: that he shot someone.
"4. Of course you failed to mention the ICRC findings and activities that of course mention no mass killings, gas chambers, or systematic killings. An apology 60 years later doesn't change the reports contents. Now that is the conspiracy. Why did the Red Cross cover up this mass killing of Jews for the Germans???"
Try reading a book by Favez, the Red Cross and the Holocaust. The ICRC enquired about the whereabouts of deportees and was in violation of all civilised norms refused information. There was an ominous silence from 1942 onwards. The ICRC REPEATEDLY enquired as to their whereabouts.
The ICRC was after all ALSO responsible for coordinating the protection of vast numbers of POWs and other internees on all sides. The ICRC could only push so far publicly without jeopardising the lives of 100s of 1000s of people who might be exposed to reprisals. It was also contrary to ICRC tradition - and the event was unprecedented.
As for the vaunted ICRC visit to Auschwitz, that was (a) to Auschwitz I and not Birkenau, and (b) the inspectors were told about the gassings by British POWs, while (c) the visit took place finally in SEPTEMBER 1944. That was two months before the end of gassings at the camp.
Anyone with half a brain would realise that the ICRC was led through a dog-and-pony show around a Potemkin Village. How the hell were they supposed to secure access to Birkenau? This wasn't the UN doing weapons inspections in Iraq in 1998.
"5.The camps tour guides and the maps which leave off parts of the camp including what appears to be a swimming pool,a water treatment facility, and admitted reconstructions."
Nope. You just have to ask about the reconstructions and you will be told. The swimming pool was in Auschwitz I and NOT Birkenau; it was also reserved for Germans and privileged prisoners, the Kapos.
"6. You left out testimony of surviviors that mention no mass killings or death chambers; one also stated water came out of the 'shower heads' instead of gas."
Gee, that's because most survivors didn't see the gas chambers, moron.
"7. You list several 'HD myths' that William's uses but fail to educate us on what those myths are and how William's uses them."
So now SLC is supposed to turn into Nizkor?
Your entire comment is based around the idea that unless SLC demolishes every last word in Williams' screed, then it stands as unrefuted. What a surprise, even though every last word in Loose Change has been examined by multiple debunkers, you and your CTist ilk refuse to accept any of the criticisms.
The fact is this argument can be reversed wholesale onto Williams. Williams is making an argument from ignorance. He has not even apparently read the official camp histories of Auschwitz, never mind any other aspects of the Holocaust.
So let me know when you or Williams have anything to say about the following small - very very small - sample of recent works on the Holocaust
Dlugoborski, Waclaw and Piper, Franciszek (ed), Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp. Oswiecim, 2000 (5 vols)
Friedler, Erich, Siebert, Barbara, Kilian, Andreas, Zeugen aus der Todeszone. Das jüdische Sonderkommando in Auschwitz. Lüneberg, 2002 (paperback Munich 2005)
Gerlach, Christian, Kalkulierte Morde. Die deutsche Wirtschafts- und Vernichtungspolitik in Weissrussland 1941 bis 1944. Hamburg, 1999
Steinbacher, Sybille, ‘Musterstadt’ Auschwitz: Germanisierungspolitik und Judenmord in Ostoberschlesien. Munich, 2000
Akcja Reinhardt. Zagłada Żydów w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie / pod red. Dariusza Libionki. – Warszawa, 2004
"8.The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!
By Martin H. Glynn (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.) Who tried to sell the public on 6 million Jewish deaths during WW 1. That didn't take of course."
Taken from Don Heddesheimer's worthless screed.
The facts are these: over 1 million Jews were deported from behind the Tsarist Russian frontline in 1915. There were indeed six million Jews in the Tsarist Russian Empire at this time. Moreover, this was at the same time as the Armenian genocide, and the story got infinitely less play in the NYT than did the massacres of Armenians. Jews in New York contributed massively to relief efforts for the Armenians, which also garnered more charitable funds than were provided for the destitute Jews of Lithuania, Poland and Belorussia who had been deported as 'German spies' by antisemitic Tsarist generals.
"9. William's spelling? Sure there are a few, but then that is a style over substance fallacy, James, as you are probably aware. Tsk Tsk."
The point being that if someone is willing to put out shoddy work with spelling mistakes and typos, then this is a good indicator that their critical thinking skills might not be up to snuff. Book reviewers do this all the time, with justification.
"10. There are numerous other sources that are used in his research that James fails to mention because of his agenda; that is fine, it is his blog but it is dishonest and a fraudlent representation of the 'truth'."
Again, you labour under the delusion that James has to debunk every last word in Williams' screed. He does not. He merely has to make a representative sample of points about the sourcing (biased), ignorance of the author (lack of linguistic ability) and the repetition of already-refuted arguments to suggest to the readership of SLC that if they wish to read through Williams' screed they will have a poor time of it.
"Well I could go on but I think you get the gist of my critique of your post."
What critique? You're just another woowoo. You wouldn't know what a critique was if it bit you on the ass.
"Do I deny the holocaust? Nope."
Endorsing any of the above examples is Holocaust denial
"Anti-Semite? Nope. I don't know any Jews or Arabs for that matter."
No, you're just a CTist woowoo with an axe to grind. You don't realise when you're being played. You're that dumb you don't know when you cross the line.
"Does Williams raise serious questions about Aushwitz? Yep."
No, he does not.
"Do I agree with all of his findings? Nope"
WHAT findings? Williams is unoriginal even by denier standards. He is fifth-rate even by denier standards. He is not only a Holocaust denier (despite his feeble protests), but an INCOMPETENT Holocaust denier.
"But trying to 'link' William's single book on Aushwitz to discredit his conference on 9/11 is sad display of your logic and has been exposed as what it is: Screwloosechange propaganda that has just been debunked."
It's simply a fact that there are Holocaust deniers within the 9/11 Truth movement. Hufschmid, Bollyn, the American Free Press. These are thoroughly tainted sources of information.
You guys are too stupid to realise you've been played by an organisation, the Liberty Lobby, that has been peddling conspiracy theories since the 1950s for Christ's sake:
Mintz, Frank P., The Liberty Lobby and the American Right. Race, Conspiracy, and Culture. Westport, CT, 1985
"If you want to impress us all James, don't cherry pick the sources William's uses to support your position as you accuse him of doing. The kettle is black is it not?"
Actually, yes, it's very black, because WILLIAMS cherry-picks his sources. Moron.
"To get a better grade on your blog, bring to light all of his sources and then support or discredit those sources with your own reasoning."
Why don't you flush your head down the toilet, looser?
LOL. Nick, that was a stellar performance. I get the feeling that me and you might disagree quite a bit politically, but you've definitely earned my respect. It's been a while since anyone's reamed the wanker quite that thoroughly.
Thanks, Alex.
I just blogged a brief summary of the contretemps.
Let's see if our I'm-not-a-denier chum visits and complains that I didn't post a 300 page evisceration of Williams' screed.
I could, easily, but life is too short. Too much Woo, too little time...
Swing Dangler I'm just asking questions but how come all of the lies you're repeating are ...well, lies which come from Holocaust deniers? The stuff about torture at the Nuremberg trials, the notion that 'most historians' have somehow turned their back on 6 million as a reasonable figure (when most reasonable scholars do indeed put it at 5.5-5.8 million Jews murdered; disputes tend to place the numbers higher, not lower), that the fake shower heads at Auschwitz were actually real, the idea that Leuchter is an expert on anything, etc. This is such bizarrely old and thoroughly debunked stuff.
You are denying the number of those killed and lying about (or are simply grossly ignorant of and incapable of sorting through resources) reality to do it. I don't know if you're an antisemite. But yes, in your ignorance, you're promulgating Holocaust denial.
I find it massively ironic that the first response to this blog - ewing - argues that skeptics are more like Holocaust deniers than 9/11 conspiracy theorists. When a) you guys actually have honest to God Holocaust deniers in fairly prominent positions in your ranks, b) as James points out in the actual blogpost, they use identical rhetorical tactics - even identical arguments - recycling old memes continuously, no matter how thoroughly debunked and c) cling desperately to nonexperts and ridiculous parodies of investigation in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion. Disagreeing with the experts is fine, as long as you're also sufficiently knowledgeable enough to actually know how the consensus formed.
Some clown imposters as "ewing2001blogspot.com"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2724
So Seig_Heiler has come goose-stepping out of the aryan closet in full glory?
Color me unsuprised.
Thanks, Seig, for proving SLCs point about the substantial links between nazi apologism and 9-11 denial.
Some clown imposters as "ewing2001blogspot.com"
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2724
and how different is this from what we did to dz, making a blog pretending to be his?
i know which one you are. you will not have access to the old accounts for long. stop these lies and let it be.
Post a Comment
<< Home