Rewriting American History

[Science Fan]

WTF: I'm not a leftist. In fact, you are far more of a lefty than I am, and certainly Gustav is. Hitler, his idol, was a socialist.

I'm a rational person, and it is irrational to waste time engaging with people, leftists, like Harbal and Vegetarian, who take the position that personal insults are an actual substantive argument. I refuse to deal with such childishness. It is also rational to not engage with people like Gustav, also a leftist, although he calls himself an alt-right advocate, this is false, since he is advocating for an elimination of free-trade and for socialism, which is a leftist position. Gustav denies the Holocaust, specifically the use of gas chambers, despite the fact the evidence is overwhelming on this issue. Gustav clings to the claims of a high-school kid who claimed that because there was greater discoloration, due to the gas used in the delousing chambers, than on the walls of the gas chambers used to murder Jews, that no Jews must have been murdered. This is nonsense and a denial of basic facts and science. The gas used to kill both Jews and lice, required a much greater concentration to kill lice than humans. Thus, one would expect a greater discoloration on the walls of the delousing chambers than in the gas chambers. Moreover, the gas chambers had a high-powered ventilation system that was used to suck out the gas to clear the chambers quickly to murder off more Jews. Thus, this also would have resulted in the gas having less contact with the walls in the gas chambers than in the delousing chambers. However, even then, besides the fact the gas chambers were exposed to the weather, and even flooding, chemical residue from the gas was still found in the gas chambers and their ventilation systems, which shows that a hell of a lot of gassings must have occurred in those so-called shower rooms ---- shower rooms where no water pipes were ever hooked up to the shower heads. The fact Gustav refuses to acknowledge the most basic facts of history and science makes him a waste of time to engage with. By engaging with him, all anyone does is gives him a sense of credibility for his insane positions.

I'll answer any question regarding Holocaust-denial claims any sane person wants to ask me, but I will not give a platform to Gustav.

[Science Fan]

WTF: Go ahead and explain to all of us here how the doctrine of free-speech requires me, or anyone else, to have an actual discussion with Gustav, Harbal, or Vegetarian? What is it about free-speech that denies people the freedom to stop listening to people who only respond with personal insults and delusions regarding the most basic facts of science and history? Unlike you, I believe in individual freedom, which means that I can stop dealing directly with people who act like children or have delusional beliefs, such that they refuse to listen to reason.

When you take the position that I am required to give up my freedom to respond to idiocy, it is you who has taken a stance against freedom, as well as free speech, not me. You are a hypocrite, nothing less than that.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I regard the Shoa as real, but tend to believe the overall numbers have been exaggerated. I am 'largely convinced' that the gas chamber narrative is part of a propaganda narrative but that, still, many millions of Jews were killed. I do tend to believe that the 'real total' of killed is less that the emblematic 6 million figure I grew up with.

And I also believe that there is a tremendous amount of control exercised to keep the 'established narrative' intact. It seems to me that the whole issue should be let out into the open completely. The fact that it isn't, is suspect to me. And the fact that many people spend time in prison because they do not bend to the 'standard narrative' has some bearing on how I view the issue in a larger sense.

I do see the policing of the narrative as bizarre and suspect, and I also notice that the defence of the standard narrative is one connected to many other issues and problems. I grew up in a non-religious culturally-Jewish home and my neighbourhood and many of my better friends were Jewish. I do not have a precise anti-Jewish position as such.

The problem with Science Fan's method is that it cannot state the facts in simple terms (as I just did) but that they are fantastically embellished and my stance, even if he disagrees with it or (as is the case) finds it morally reprehensible, which I accept, emphasise with and certainly understand, there is no good reason to add lies to simple descriptions.

I have to mention some level of sympathy for Science Fan's stance and his noted tendency to broadcast his distain for one who holds to tentative views like mine. We are now entering a late phase of the postwar era and, obviously, historians are pushing their way in to reexamine the documents, the events, and to do what historians always do: revise their views. WW2 is just particularly intense and there is an intense psychological mechanism and barrier against this revisionism. This must be understood and emphasised with. And yet scrutiny will continue. So, either way, one must get used to it.

The unraveling of the 'constructs' of our present is intense and demanding spiritual work.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Another ignorant yank blowarse handing out labels without having a clue what they actually mean as if we don't already have enough bob evensons to do that on here.
Same old. Poor things couldn't cope without their pathetic labels.
And yes. Hitler was a true 'socialist'. That's why the first thing he did was make unions illegal American meaning of socialist: fascist dictator. Another American meaning of socialist: anyone who isn't a 'Conservative'. Another American meaning of socialist: anyone who is Politically Correct or 'Progressive' (regressive). (Yet) Another American meaning of 'socialist': anyone who disagrees with you (if you are an arrogant American blowarse). You can take your pick depending on the 'context' and what your agenda is. In other words meaningless, but useful to those who can't debate rationally, so they have to resort to absurd labels that only serve to highlight their ignorance.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Gustav: I refuse to respond to your comment, as you have shown yourself to be a science-denier, a history-denier, and basically, a person who substitutes conspiracy theories and bigotry for the most basic of facts. Since you have continued to address comments to me, and I don't have any desire to see any of your comments ever again, I shall now place you on the "foe" list along with two others, a user named veg something and another named herbal, I think, so that your comments shall never appear to me in the future.

You represent the contemporary left well. You're not interested in debate or argument. If someone has an opinion different than yours, you simply prefer to silence them. Since you can't "no platform" Gustav, you choose to not see his posts.

As someone who prizes free speech and rational discourse, I would consider it an honor if you would block me too.

You are confusing so-called 'left' with Political Correctness. American ignorance and illiteracy has sullied everything with their bloody irritating ignorant mis-use of every label under the sun. That user only proves the point that I keep trying to make that Political Correctness has nothing to do with 'wings'. It's a movement unto itself. A philosophy of phoniness.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I regard the Shoa as real, but tend to believe the overall numbers have been exaggerated. I am 'largely convinced' that the gas chamber narrative is part of a propaganda narrative but that, still, many millions of Jews were killed. I do tend to believe that the 'real total' of killed is less that the emblematic 6 million figure I grew up with.

And I also believe that there is a tremendous amount of control exercised to keep the 'established narrative' intact. It seems to me that the whole issue should be let out into the open completely. The fact that it isn't, is suspect to me. And the fact that many people spend time in prison because they do not bend to the 'standard narrative' has some bearing on how I view the issue in a larger sense.

I do see the policing of the narrative as bizarre and suspect, and I also notice that the defence of the standard narrative is one connected to many other issues and problems. I grew up in a non-religious culturally-Jewish home and my neighbourhood and many of my better friends were Jewish. I do not have a precise anti-Jewish position as such.

The problem with Science Fan's method is that it cannot state the facts in simple terms (as I just did) but that they are fantastically embellished and my stance, even if he disagrees with it or (as is the case) finds it morally reprehensible, which I accept, emphasise with and certainly understand, there is no good reason to add lies to simple descriptions.

I have to mention some level of sympathy for Science Fan's stance and his noted tendency to broadcast his distain for one who holds to tentative views like mine. We are now entering a late phase of the postwar era and, obviously, historians are pushing their way in to reexamine the documents, the events, and to do what historians always do: revise their views. WW2 is just particularly intense and there is an intense psychological mechanism and barrier against this revisionism. This must be understood and emphasised with. And yet scrutiny will continue. So, either way, one must get used to it.

The unraveling of the 'constructs' of our present is intense and demanding spiritual work.

Now you are claiming to be Jewish? Well that really takes the cake. And why do you only mention Jews? You do realise that people other than Jews were gassed don't you? Gypsies, the mentally defective, homosexuals, Poles.... The mentally defective were the first victims of the nazi gassing experiments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx4pUKF7I1E

I suppose you think this is 'fake' too.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

As I said at the beginning (more or less) of the thread to discuss the New European Right I was raised in a Jewish family and have a Jewish parent. No one was religious at any level and my Jewish parent did not seem to have the slightest interest in Judaism. It is the other side of my family that is European ('of European descent').

Many millions (50-60?) are said to have died all-told in this era. I have not ever 'denied' the mass killing of many Jews --- millions I am sure (from what I can know). My crime is to doubt strongly that gas-chambers at Auschwitz really existed and were used. Yet I assume Germans used many different methods to kill, including exhaust from cars. The evil David Irving, who I rather trust as a historian (despite his legal misfortune(s), does not minimise the destruction of the European Jews, but only qualifies certain portions of it. I do not notice moral wrong or evil in him or what he does.

Denial of the Holocaust event, for me, is to say that no such thing happened. And I certainly do not support that (or believe such a thing).

But I would still fall foul in your view because I do define Jewish criticism. Jews are problematic to themselves and always have been! And Jewish culture is bound up with tragedy. Again, I tend to agree with Hilaire Belloc in his analysis. But the reason is likely that his perspective is Catholic and I also tend to that level of Christian definition.

Please do clearly point out to me my egregious moral evil. You are only sort of poking at something that has not been clearly brought out into the light. If you want to know what I think, ask. I tend to be free and honest with my ideas.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So you would be happier if car exhaust fumes had been used. I'm glad that's clear up now.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Happy to oblige, I suppose, but I am neither happy nor sad nor am I having any emotional reaction or experience in relation to any part of this.

What a strange comment you make!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And yours aren't strange at all. You are insane Gustav. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Of course you think you are completely rational.

[Science Fan]

David Irving has been busted lying so many times, that at the Deborah Lipstadt trial, where Irving sued her and her publishing company for calling him a Holocaust-denier, expert historians wrote extensive reports to the British court documenting the numerous lies Irving told. To the point that historians testifying stated that they were shocked about the amount of lying he engaged in and would not rely on anything he writes. Irving, for example, claimed that Germans were murdering Jews by mass shootings, and that all of these shootings were done without Hitler's knowledge or approval. The problem for Irving was that these supposedly rogue Nazi soldiers were sending reports to the German high-command documenting these mass shootings. If these were rogue acts, then why would they document the shootings for the leaders in Germany, including Hitler? Irving had no answer. Moreover, Irving even admitted that Hitler saw these reports of thousands of Jews being shot dead in mass graves and did nothing to stop the shootings. Irving's explanation? Hitler probably didn't read the reports carefully. That was the "explanation" and is one reason among many that outside rabid Jew-haters, people recognize Irving for the liar he is.

One can review the trial testimony from the defense expert witnesses to see how over and over again Irving distorted history to support Hitler and Holocaust-denial. There was a reason he lost that trial ---- it's because the facts were against him.

[Science Fan]

Gustav, since you, along with Harbal and Veggie, have refused to leave me alone, despite me stating to you quite clearly that I wanted nothing to do with you, and had you on my foe list so your comments would not show up, I decided to remove all of you from the foe list. This way I can see your pathetic comments and confront you on each and every lie and irrational argument you make, in support of your delusional bullshit about white-European supremacy. If white Europeans actually did identify themselves naturally as white Europeans, then WWI and WWII never would have happened. Not to mention the numerous wars between France, Germany and Britain. That's because they never thought of themselves as white Europeans, but rather as Brits, French, or Germans. In fact, the Germans are a recent made-up invention. Go back 1,000 years in history and, unlike the Jews, there are no Germans in existence. A group of disparate people came together under a myth of being German.

By the way, the ancients did not even know racism. Racism is also a modern invention, and not something that is biologically natural for humans. While people in ancient history may not have always liked one another, they never based that dislike on racism --- the concept was entirely foreign to them.

Your beliefs are simply modern-day delusions.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I respond to whatever I feel like responding to. I don't block people, so I see everything. If I see someone writing shit I will point it out. Anyone else can read it. I don't see any comments addressing you here after you 'blocked' me, only comments I made to Gustav. Do you think it's normal to make formal announcements of who you are 'blocking' or 'deblocking' on here? Do you really believe anyone on here cares?

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

SF: Each of them have their reasons, certainly for 'not leaving you alone'. I continue to comment on your posts because you represent and interesting 'case' for me. That is the purpose of a forum you buffoon!

In respect to Irving, and though I appreciate your declarations about Irving, other things, and all things, yet I say that all these conclusions of yours are matters of opinion. Despite what you say or think I say this sincerely. To get to the bottom of the network of lies, distortions, partial-truths and overt lies of the day, is a daunting task. I submit as Exhibit No. 1: You!

My effort, just so you know, is not to create lies or support lies, but rather to get to the bottom of them. I do this in good faith and always remind myself that my perception, or undertanding, may not be the truth. One problem in dealing with you is that you employ a shotgun approach: you blast out so many things at once in the hope that something sticks (I assume). But each thing requires a carefuly analysis and explication.

It is true that Europe identified itself in some part of its history as 'superior' to other cultures, and that this has been part of its 'anthropology'. But this idea or attitude 1) can be corrected and 2) has been corrected among those I admre. It is not the best attitude to have given that every person and culture has its own special gifts and talents.

So, when I speak of Eurocentrism I do not necessarily speak of superior traditions, not the least because I can and do admire other cultural accomplishments. But they are not mine. And the essence of my effort in writing as I do is to succeed in defining a morally and ethically defensible self-identification posture to confront and reverse what I discern as its opposite. You perhaps have heard: Anti-racist is code for anti-White? That is how it actually works, in fact. Now, I am not alone in my view, and I certainly did not invent these perspectives. As you know they are rather fresh and new on the landscape of discourse. But I suggest to you that they are deveoping and increasing, not diminishing, and again: they are morally and ethically defensible.

You are right about these 2 astoundingly destructive European wars. There is a line from a Robinson Jeffers poem that has always struck me. Something to the effect that Europe, the crown jewel of the world, reduced to ruins and beggary. It is I think precisely that which now is being dealt with, you see. The reconstruction of identity and self-valuation, the recovery from a profound shame and recognition of stupidity and of course of evil. To recover Identity, to establish it correctly and morally, is a part of this process, and it is serious moral and ethical work. You cannot of course understand what I am saying and you 'will not to hear'.

You are really stuck on the term 'race' and 'racism'. I have already explained that I do not think the term adequate. Yet I do not reject some aspects of it. All this has been explained and can be explained.

As far as I am concerned if there is to be a White European Identity movement it will be something worked toward. Part of what I am interested in is beginning to arrive at the proper definitions. And as you may have noticed I see Greco-Christian culture within the pan-European context as being the domain of concern that call my attention.

I accept that you see this and anything else as 'delusional'. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. Though I will say that I notice a kind of 'mechanism' in you. On one hand it is deliberate deafness and inability to read/hear correctly (you distort everything) and then you blurt out intensely skewed opinions and seem not able to see yourself. Usually, that indicates a personal blind-spot and something that needs to be addressed.

[Science Fan]

Nope, with respect to Irving, it is a fact. Gustav, you believe that reality does not matter, but it does. While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. This is why there is not a single publication by a university like Oxford, in any book, or journal article, that supports your Holocaust-denial. The Holocaust has been studied more than any other event in history, and if there was any evidence to support your absurd claims about the Holocaust, surely at least one major western university, like Oxford, Bristol, Harvard, Yale, would have published at least one supporting article. Yet, no such articles exist. Instead, what we have is nonsense from places like the Institute for Historical Review, which initially claimed six million Jews secretly moved from Eastern Europe, to the state of Florida, in the USA. Of course, when the deniers had no such evidence, then they started relying on such things as the psychic mind-reading ability of Arthur Butz, a man who is so demented he publicly stated it should be a crime for any employer to hire a woman. There is simply nothing to Holocaust-denial, but one lie after another. Leuchter, the deniers so-called expert on the gas chambers was caught lying about his credentials, he even claimed to be a professional engineer while only having a four-year degree in history. He was also busted lying about having consulted with prison officials regarding the use of killing methods to carry out their executions, as well as lying about being an advisor to the chemical company, Du Pont. In other words, the deniers' leading "expert" on the gas chambers can't even tell the truth about his own employment history, educational background, and certifications. Not to mention, he's publicly on record, admitting while being cross-examined at trial, that he was unqualified to offer opinions on the gas chambers.

That's the thing about trials, and why they are beneficial for exposing the lies of people like Leuchter and Irving -- lies typically fall apart under cross-examination.