Kurt Nimmo: Holocaust Denier
Submitted by gehrig on December 9, 2007 - 6:15pm
On Kurt Nimmo and Holocaust Denial.
1: The term "Holocaust denial"
First, let's make sure we know what we mean by "Holocaust denial." And let's go to the definitive source: let's take a look at the Irving judgment.
What does Irving the Holocaust denier say?
8.9 Amongst the assertions made by Irving which mark him out as a Holocaust denier, [WWII Historian Richard] Evans [expert witness in the trial] noted in particular the following: his claim that the number who "died" in Auschwitz, "most of them from epidemics", was 100,000; his claim made expressly or by implication that the Jews had brought the Holocaust upon themselves; his assertion that that the conduct of the Nazis in exterminating Jews could be excused by the fact that they or their families had suffered in the Allied bombing raids; the manner in which he dismissed the totality of the evidence of eye-witnesses from Auschwitz as unreliable because it is the product of mass hysteria; his claim, often repeated as will be seen, that the gas chambers at Auschwitz are a lie invented by British intelligence; his denunciation the diary of Ann Frank as a forgery or as a novel like Gone With the Wind; his claim that the myth of the Holocaust is the product of a well-financed campaign by Jewry to legitimise the substantial payments made by Germany to the state of Israel since the war. This claim has been made by Irving on several occasions including the launch of the English edition of the Leuchter report. The Defendants contend that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier and that his denial flies in the face of the totality of the evidence.
Did the court agree with the expert witness?
13.94 In addressing the question whether Irving is justifiably described as Holocaust denier, I make allowance for the fact that, when addressing live audiences as opposed to writing history books, Irving needed to hold the attention of his audience by expressing himself in a vivid and colourful style. I agree that it is necessary to take care to ensure that Irving is not quoted out of context. I accept that merely to question aspects of the Holocaust does not make a person a Holocaust denier. I recognise also that Irving came relatively late to the issue of the Holocaust: he claimed to have paid little attention to it before 1989.
13.95 Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. . .
The fact is, the denial of the gas chambers at Auschwitz is one of the core tenets of Holocaust denial. Take a look, if you get the chance, at Errol Morris's documentary "Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter" for an example of someone who used that claim -- that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz -- as his meal ticket in Holocaust denial circles for years. You'll find it in Leuchter, in Faurisson, in Gaurady, in Zündel.
Sometimes you'll hear the argument that, well, someone isn't a Holocaust denier unless they totally deny every facet of the Holocaust, as if none of it happened. Well, there really isn't anybody who goes around saying that the Holocaust simply didn't happen; the evidence is just too clear. Instead the standard denier riff is to try to redefine it the Holocaust by taking away its central features -- the genocidal program, the death toll, and the use of homicidal gas chambers -- and then saying, "Yes, the Nazis were bad people who did bad things to the Jews, but they didn't gas them, didn't kill six million of them, and didn't try to wipe them out genocidally -- but don't call me a Holocaust denier."
Just to give you a sense of scale, in the most used of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, one called Krema II, half a million people were murdered. There is no other single room on earth in which so many have died. The gas chambers of Auschwitz are not just a minor detail of history whose existence or non-existence is a mere quibble in the margins of the story.
So when someone says that the gas chambers of Auschwitz didn't exist, he's embraced a central tenet of the Holocaust denial movement, and can rightly be called a Holocaust denier.
2: Kurt Nimmo
What does Kurt Nimmo have to say about the gas chambers of Auschwitz?
In a piece about the imprisonment of David Irving in Austria, Nimmo says this:
" . . .we can expect triumphant ballyhoos from the Zionists, a screaming and obnoxious declaration of victory for the small outlaw nation of Israel and its endless blackmailing of millions of people who had nothing to do with Auschwitz and its discredited gas chambers."
Welcome aboard the Holocaust denial train, Mr. Nimmo!
3: Kurt Nimmo again
But maybe he misspoke? Maybe he didn't mean it?
No, he meant it. Here it is from the man himself.
The original source for this quote, incidentally, a Wikipedia page, has disappeared. (Apparently Nimmo didn't want to be held accountable for his own words and demanded that his page be taken down.) But there was a big slab of it captured earlier this year by that surely unimpeachable source, a UK Indymedia editor.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-April/0425-ni.html
There are not "numerous" references to "Holocaust denial" in my writings, so this linkage will not be possible. In a blog post (February 20th 2006), in regard to the conviction of David Irving, I wrote that the gas chambers were "discredited." If you bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that "discredited" is defined as "cause to be doubted." Indeed, this is the case with at least one historian, Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar, historian, author, and former chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum (indeed, museum director) and is currently associated with the Państwowe Muzeum, Auschwitz-Birkenau, so I imagine that gives him a bit of credence. It should come as no surprise that people argue about historical facts surrounding the Holocaust and indeed the history of the Second World War. But for those intolerant of discussion, those who dispute the historical record, even in minor fashion, are "Holocaust deniers" and "anti-Semites." I suppose, as well, Lech Walesa is a "Holocasut denier," as he revised number of dead inscribed on the Birkenau monument downward from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000. I see no mention of this in his Wikipedia entry or accusations that he is a "Holoacust denier." But then, far as I can ascertain, he is not a critic of Zionism, so obviously he does not deserve the same treatment. As for the publication of my blog entries on other sites, related to the Holocaust or otherwise, Shrike should realize reposts happen continually, without my permission, so I have no control over where my writing appears. For the record, I do not submit my writing ANYWHERE, although anybody is free to repost it.
Nimmo's defense consists of a retread of standard themes from the Holocaust denial movement. Let's look at his defense, step by step.
Nimmo begins with a word game. Anything that someone doubts, he says, is "discredited." Apparently,by this yardstick, if I can find one person who thinks that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick, then the entire Apollo project must be called "discredited." The vapidity of that word game should be obvious. If we take Nimmo's word game at face value -- as some have done, I remind you -- then there's absolutely nothing in the world that isn't discredited outside maybe math books, and the term "discredited" is utterly meaningless as anything but a signifier for "not a math book."
Nimmo then moves on to an out-and-out lie: he claims that a former leader of the Auschwitz State Museum believes there weren't homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That's simply a straight-out lie. Again, from the Irving judgment: 8.22 ... Research carried out more recently, notably by Raul Hilberg and by Dr Piper of the Auschwitz Museum, has concluded that the true figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz is in the region of 1.1 million of which the vast majority perished in the gas chambers. This figure has, according to the evidence of van Pelt and Longerich, been endorsed by the majority of serious, professional historians concerned in this field.
Nimmo then moves on to one of the Golden Oldies of the Holocaust denial movement: the Auschwitz Plaque gambit. That one had been debunked even before David Irving became a Holocaust denier -- see #43 on this rebuttal of Holocaust denier lies, http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml.
Nimmo then goes on to play the Zionism card, claiming that the outrage he sparked by embracing Holocaust denial wasn't anti-racism but just a bunch of Zionists trying to play thought cops. Well, wrong again. But when an antisemite loses an argument, he blames The Zionists.
So, in summary: when his hand was caught in the Holocaust denial cookie jar, Kurt Nimmo responded with a combination of direct lies and retreads of standard Holocaust denial arguments.
What do you call someone who, when challenged as a Holocaust denier, replies as a Holocaust denier? A Holocaust denier.
@%<
I've put this up
I've put this up in case there's any remaining doubt that Kurt Nimmo has gone over to the dark side, which has relevance to the UK-IMC flap.
@%<
The judge went a bit further I think
Thanks for doing that gehrig:
You seem to have dropped some of the judgement. Fortnunately I can help add the missing bit.
13.95 Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. By way of examples, I cite his story of the Jew climbing into a mobile telephone box-cum-gas chamber; his claim that more people died in the back of Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz; his dismissal of the eye-witnesses en masse as liars or as suffering from a mental problem; his reference to an Association of Auschwitz Survivors and Other Liars or "ASSHOLS" and the question he asked of Mrs Altman how much money she had made from her tattoo. I reject as being untrue the claim made by Irving in his evidence that in his denial of the existence of any gas chambers at Auschwitz, he was referring solely to the gas chamber constructed by the Poles after the war for the benefit of visitors to the site or, as Irving put it, as a "tourist attraction". In this connection I refer to paragraph 9.13 above. Even if Irving had referred to gas chamber in the singular, it would not have been apparent that he was speaking of the reconstructed gas chamber at the camp.
13.96 Irving has also made broader claims which tend to minimise the Holocaust. For example he has claimed that the Jews in the East were shot by individual gangsters and criminals and that there was no direction or policy in place for mass extermination to be carried out. I do, however, accept that Irving expressed himself in more measured language on this topic than in the case of the gas chambers. But he has also minimised the number of those killed by means other than gas at Auschwitz and elsewhere. Having grossly underestimated the number who lost their lives in the camps, Irving is prone to claim that a greater number than that were killed in Allied bombing raids on Dresden and elsewhere. He has, moreover, repeatedly claimed that the British Psychological War Executive ingeniously invented the lie that the Nazis were killing Jews in gas chambers in order to use it as propaganda.
So, the judgement was that the judge "accept(ed) that merely to question aspects of the Holocaust does not make a person a Holocaust denier" and went on to say that
however, Mr. Irving had denied the existence of gas chambers, and the gassing of Jews (although there were others, no?) on frequent occassions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. The judge then went on to refer to Irving having, albeit in more measured terms, minimised the deaths of others elsewhere.
So, he thought that as a whole this indicated that Irving was a Holocaust denier.
It is worth noting that http://www.nizkor.org/ - which was set up to combat Holocaust denial by responding directly to the claims of Holocaust Deniers puts the number of victims at 12 000 000, so it would be hard to argue that Nimmo downplayed the numbers of victims.
Say Nimmo suddenly won the lottery, and moved to Briatain and decided to sue you.
Not only would the judge have to take into consideration the same judgement, which would serve as a legal precedent, but he would be faced with the fact that you have provided as evidence the fact that Nimmo used this sentence "Auschwitz and its discredited gas chambers" and the post from the Wikipedia discussion page which the "Indymedia editor" noted was "seemingly by Kurt Nimmo".
He would then have to balance it with the fact that Nimmo has also put the number of vicitms of "Hitler's Nazi killing spree" at 12,000,000, had referred to people, including Jews being sent to "concentration and death camps", had referred to there being Nazi eugenics and euthenasia programmes, and had talked of "lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps" - specifically Zyklon B
(you have of course seen where this was noted: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-April/0425-i9.html
I put it you gehrig that there would not even be enough evidence for the most conservative minded of judges to come to the conclusion that Kurt Nimmo was indeed a Holocaust denier.
I'm a bit confused by one of your claims, namely that:
"Nimmo then moves on to one of the Golden Oldies of the Holocaust denial movement: the Auschwitz Plaque gambit."
You see, you haven't provided evidence of it in your article.
So, to be frank with you, were Nimmo to win the lottery and move over here, you might end up being quite a poor man.
It is surprising to think that a Judge might have been less eager to convict than an Indymedia activist, if you think about it.
Do you think the judge would convict me too?
Like you have?
BTW - under the IMC UK guidelines your article is "non news - posts which are clearly purely comment, opinion or rants unrelated to a recent event or action etc. " and has therefore been hidden.
And do you wonder, peeps,
And do you wonder, peeps, why I haven't bothered to do up Gilad Atzmon like he deserves?
Because, as you've demonstrated here, it will fall on deaf ears.
Antisemitism, says FTP? What antisemitism? Does anyone see any antisemitism around here?
After all, Nimmo's only saying that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were a fraud, picking up one of the central threads of the rhetoric of Holocaust denial.
But you, in your blindness, in your earnest effort to act as apologist for a Holocaust denier, will say that Nimmo merely "questioned" the gas chambers. Except that he didn't. He denied them. He called the idea that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz "discredited."
And he's not denying just some minor detail in the periphery of the Holocaust history, either, but the murder weapon by which one million people were killed by the Nazis, who now -- thankfully, they must think -- have Nimmo's help in minimizing their crimes, and your help in minimizing Nimmo's moral culpability in doing so.
And any judge with more brain than that of a grapefruit will see that Nimmo's playing transparent word games and you are joining in on them.
That's why I went to the effort to write this up: I wanted to capture the scale of your denial of antisemitism even in as blatant cases as this one.
And you did exactly what I expected you to do: you went to bat for the Holocaust denier, just as you went to bat for the antisemite Gilad Atzmon.
@%<
The inventions of rabid ideologues
Yes. and what you showed is that Nimmo is not Irving, and that you are not impartial enough to be judge, jury and executioner.
You also slipped in a thing about plague, with no evidence to back it up whatsoever, which suggests you made it up.
I can't find a single dictionary which says discredited = fraud , so I guess you made that up as well.
12 000 000 victims is a strange way to minimise crimes.
I prefer informed decisions to kneejerk reactions, and you obviously don't.
Theres a million kneejerk sites out there - Indymedia doesn't need to join them.
No Platform for Racists, unless they're Holocaust Deniers
Theres a million kneejerk sites out there - Indymedia doesn't need to join them.
There are also a million goosesteper sites out there, and with your personal and active help, UK Indymedia *is* joining them. How grateful the goosesteppers must be for your help! How happy they must be to know that Holocaust denial isn't No-Platformed on UK Indymedia.
If you were actually informed about Holocaust denial, rather than simply trying to inexplicably defend a Holocaust denier by pretending to be stupid about what the word "discredited" plainly means in this context, you'd instantly recognize Nimmo's claim that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are "discredited" as unmistakably embracing once of the central tenets of the movement.
But you're so concerned that The Great Zionist Conspiracy is trying to put one over on you, you'd rather make UK Indymedia safe for Holocaust denial instead, just to be extra sure.
I'm not sure you understand, yet, the size of the cliff you've stepped over.
I am sure that you will.
@%<
by the way
You also slipped in a thing about plague
Ha!
Time for better bifocals, peeps?
I mean, not being able to see repeated, plain, in-your-face antisemitism is one thing...
@%<
A discredited reading of discredited?
He denied them. He called the idea that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz "discredited."
Welll, I can't see where he said anything about the 'idea' of them - his actual words were " Auschwitz and its discredited gas chambers"
He also said, (if he did write the wikipedia entry) that "I wrote that the gas chambers were "discredited."
Saying something is discredited doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist.
For example:
The German presidency in the first half of 2007 is playing down Lisbon,
fearing that the process has been discredited by the EU’s failure to meet its targets.
http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-wrong-with-lisbon-by-aurore.html
I don't think that means there is no process.
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al (1998) temperature reconstruction
have recently been discredited by the following peer-reviewed article to appear in the American
Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
This doesn't mean there were no claims.
Cameron's findings, however, are based on two sources: his discredited 1983 ISIS survey and other
studies that ignore random sampling techniques.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/NewRepublic100394_pietrzyk.html
This doesn't mean that the survey doesn't exist.
If you're Valerie Plame, you turn to discredited "journalist" Jason Leopold for
self-hype help as you can see in this video.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2007/11/19/discredited-journalist-jason-leopold-pesters-valerie-plame-his-karl-ro
This doesn't mean that Jason Leopold doesn't exist.
Its one word, without sufficient context to make a clear ruling that the man is a monster who is a
holocaust denier. If someone had come up with more evidence that he was a Holocaust denier, the discussion on the lists back in April might well have turned out differently.
But they didn't. And you haven't.
Thanks again to peeps
.... for giving us a double dose of the lengths (vapid though they are) he's willing to go to circumlocute around the plain and obvious meaning of "the discredited gas chambers of Auschwitz," a clear case of Holocaust denial which Nimmo then sealed by giving standard Holocaust denial arguments to back it up.
Isn't it interesting, folks, the lengths peeps is going to protect the reputation of a Holocaust denier?
Why is that, folks? Why do you think?
Is it because he knows he's on the wrong side of the argument -- trying to exonerate Nazi crimes -- and hopes that he can just bulldoze the argument with bombast until it goes away?
At the end of the day, though, he's still stuck with trying to explain why Kurt Nimmo defends Holocaust denial bullshit -- that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are "discredited," and why Nimmo then defended that position using standard-issue Holocaust denier lies.
And the problem is, he can't. All he has is word games.
@%<
I'm sure
that people can read the thread foir themselves.
"merely to question aspects of the Holocaust does not make a person a Holocaust denier "
That was from your "definitive source".
In order to get a High Court Judge to rule that Nimmo was a Holocaust denier,
you would need to provide more evidence than you have.
Thats what I said in April - its now December - he's written loads since then, - you got anything to offer besides smears?
And I'm sure
... that anyone who reads this thread, and sees Nimmo not merely "questioning" the gas chambers but instead full-out calling them "discredited," followed by using classic Holocaust denial rhetoric like the Auschwitz Plaque (*note spelling*) gambit, is not only going say, "yep, Nimmo's a Holocaust denier," but also "why the fuck is freethepeeps, an alleged anti-racist, spending so much effort defending such an obvious antisemite, using the antisemite's own arguments?"
@%<
Pardon Me
I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it more than a little odd for an Indymedia editor to rely on legal definitions of a corrupt political system to determine what an IMC's edoitorial decisions should be.
peeps, you really are duplictious. The last time I saw anyone dance around questions so much was at a Whitehouse press conference. That's another sorry standard that I'd be embarassed to find myself in comparison to.
Legal definitions
gehrig introduced them as a definitive source.
He hasn't been able to prove the Nimmo would be found to be an Holocaust denier under them.
I'm unaware of any other instances where Nimmo has claimed that there was no holocaust,
nor where he has clearly denied that any aspect of the holocaust didn't happen.
He has talked of death camps, torture camps, euthenasia programmes , Zyklon B and 12 000 000 vicitms as having taken place.
Perhaps someone else can produce more evidence of his beliefs - especially ones which would show that
the Nazis "have Nimmo's help in minimizing their crimes".
For example, would you think that this was Holocaust denial, or helped minimise Nazi crimes?
"I was just following orders, said Adolf Eichmann.
Millions of people were killed on the direct orders of Hitler and his sadistic Nazi crew. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do and not look back in order to get things done, or so the Nazis reasoned. Millions of Germans agreed ......
It wasn't until the very end that the German people were forced to confront what the Nazis had done in their name."
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo03292003.html
So, according to Nimmo 12 000 000 people were killed on direct orders from Hitler -
through the use of euthenasia. torture camps and death camps where Zyklon B was used, by sadistic nazis.
Should everyone who believes these thinghs be baaned from Indymedia?
On the say so of someone who says that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was "not a mistake",
and that Palestinians bear responsibility for their own opprresion?
Who thinks thats the way to achive "social justice"?
I don't.
poor peeps
"I'm unaware of any other instances where Nimmo has claimed that there was no holocaust"
I provided you with exactly that, peeps, when I demonstrated that his defense of his indefensible statement was part and parcel of Holocaust denier rhetoric.
You then went into a denial of your own.
And, yes, follks, that really is peeps blurbling about "social justice." Which, last time I checked, didn't mean "Be kind to Holocaust deniers."
@%<
Correction
I'm unaware of any other instances where Nimmo has claimed that there was no holocaust,
should read:
I'm unaware of ANY instances where Nimmo has claimed that there was no holocaust,
because none have yet been demonstrated.
Nazi standards of justice....
Were the Nazisany less quick to think the worst and order action that gehrig?
We should be told
twisted logic
Wow. Fight antisemitism, be compared to the Nazis. That's what things must look like in the topsy-turvy world of peeps.
Out here in realityland, though, Kurt Nimmo's a Holocaust denier, and peeps his faithful servant.
@%<
Piper
It seems correct to say that Piper has never denied that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz.
From what I can see, deniers cite him as showing, that whilst guides were informing tourists the chamber was in its original state.
Piper confirmed that walls had been knocked down, and the 4 holes through which the zyklon-B was dropped had been re-created.
So, deniers claim the chamber was not in its original state as tourists were told, because parts of it were reconstructed
by Russians and Poles.
The other role of Piper was in the downgrading of the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million.
Nimmo (seemingly) wrote this about about Piper:
"If you bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that "discredited" is defined as "cause to be doubted." Indeed, this is the case with at least one historian, Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar, historian, author, and former chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum (indeed, museum director) and is currently associated with the Państwowe Muzeum, Auschwitz-Birkenau, so I imagine that gives him a bit of credence."
And gehrig noted in response:
" Nimmo then moves on to an out-and-out lie: he claims that a former leader of the Auschwitz State
Museum believes there weren't homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz."
Now, gehrig makes an enormous leap here. Its huuuuge - he presumes that he knows what is inside Nimmo's head
when he (supposedly) writes this. It isn't the text - it is in gehrig's mind that this in Nimmo's mind - its all smoke and mirrors with gehrig
(and apparently some of his mates in UC IMC - Hi ML - hows the kneejerkism going today?)
But maybe I'm wrong. After all I screwed up on plague, so maybe I missed the part where Nimmo (supposedly) says:
Piper "believes there weren't homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz"
Anyone want to show me the text by Nimmo that says this?
Or is yet another gehrig strawman?
I know that gehrig is 100% convinced that he knows what is in Nimmo's mind.
He is, after all, a fabled nazi-fighter (on usenet) and he spends so much of his time suspecting people of being
holocaust deniers and anti-semites that he must find the world a very hateful and sad place.
I have read too much stuff by Nimmo that is perjorative to nazis. and where he states they did kill 12 000 000
victims, on direct orders from Hitler, using euthenasia, torture camps, and death camps -including the use of Zyklon-B to think that
Nimmo must have meant what the obsessional serial smearer, attacker and smoke and mirrors man says that he does.
Nimmo seems to be of the view that nazis are sadistic, evil shits.
gehrig has conviced himself that nazis would feel that Nimmo helps their cause.
IMO Only a very stupid nazi would get any kind of reassurance from a sentence and a paragraph that was (seemingly) written by Nimmo.
in amongst so much stuff that attacks nazis,
Because I like to be clear that someone really is an evil monster before I join the Steve Plauts and gehrigs of this world
in denouncing, hounding and seeking their banishment, gehrig has written an "Open letter" to my collective, who read the exchange in
April, (and some agreed with me) announcing that "Ftp has started aping the arguments of Holocaust deniers."
But in fact all I am doing is asking for real evidence, not what gehrig thinks is there - but what is actually there.
'Nimmo lies because when he says x he really means y' is no more convincing to me as someone who cares passionately about social justice,
than it would be for a conservative judge in the corrupt Britsh state apparatus, whom gehrig introduced as a "definitive source".
If you get what I'm saying thats nice. If you don't, I don't really care what you think.
My guess is gehrig will respond with more smoke and mirrors, rather than showing that Nimmo claimed that Piper denied there were gas chambers.
Having checked back through the thread, I think some of gehrig's answers have been inserted later than when they say they were posted. I may be wrong - but I don't recall seeing them before.........
If I am right, that is dodgy practice. "I guess I could call it the gehrig seal of dodgyness"
"
ya know, peeps
You can insist a dog's really a cat all you'd like, and use lots of bold print stuff, and go on and on and on, and still at the end of the day you have two things: a dog that's really a dog and not a cat, and a reputation as an idiot.
And all your flapping and waving haven't changed two things: Kurt Nimmo went straight for one of the long-standing central claims of Holocaust denial -- that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are fraudulent. In doing so, he's echoing a stance that's been an indivisible part of Holocaust denial for going on forty years. You think it's just coincidence he just happened to hit the same spot on the dartboard David Irving hit, Steady Freddy Leuchter hit, Arthur Butz hit, Ernst Zündel hit, F (don't remember his full name) Töbin hit, Mark Weber hit, David Cole hit? If so, you've got to be one of the most gullible people imaginable.
Especially when you follow it up with the other thing that hasn't changed, even as you've flapped around, in John Lennon's phrase, "like a burning spastic": Nimmo defended himself using even more standard boilerplate Holocaust denial arguments, like the plaque (*note spelling*) gambit. What the flapping and waving has done is demonstrate to anyone with eyes just to what amazing lengths you'll go to to defend antisemites.
Is there a soul, is there a single soul, who believes that if this involved any other kind of prejudice than antisemitism, you would have gone to such lengths to try to wave it away, bury it, redefine it away, powder its nose and pretty it up?
And while I'm handing out clues, genius, here are two more. One -- nope, no backdating of responses. What you see is what you got; can't help it if you hadn't seen them before because your bifocals need fixing. Two -- arguing from incredulity, saying "Nazis could be so stupid as to..." doesn't exactly get you a whole lot, does it, given the kind of brain power it takes to put on the swastika in the first place?
@%<
yes gehrig
I know nothing will change your mind. Nimmo used the word discredited - and even though there is no evidence that it means he denies that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, and there is plenty of evidence that he has accepted 99% of the holocaust narrative - you still see holocaust deniers in your corn flakes.
I am totally unapologetic for wanting to give someone a fair hearing, and the benefit of the doubt until more conclusive evidence is produced. Many months later, there is no new evidence, but not only have you made your mind up, you are quite happy to harrass anybody who doesn't see it your way.
This is why I distrust every pronouncement that you ever make.
Sometimes I have been wrong - and I have taken steps to put things right.
You have (in your own head) never been wrong - and thats enough reason for me to suspect that you are usually wrong.
Your politics stink - you're all smoke and mirrors - and I really, really should do more constructive things with my precious time than get into prolonged discussions with you in the hope of achieving something like reasonableness.
uh, yah, "fair"
I am totally unapologetic for wanting to give someone a fair hearing
Uh, yeah. With that kind of "fair," O. J. Simpson walked away.
you are quite happy to harrass anybody who doesn't see it your way.
I only gave you an opportunity to look like an idiot. It's not my fault that you took it, and it's especially not my fault that you rode it so hard that you looked like you were going for an Olympic equestrian medal.
You have (in your own head) never been wrong - and thats enough reason for me to suspect that you are usually wrong.
Oh, I was certainly wrong about one thing. I thought IMC editors were anti-racist. Turns out that, while all of them claim to be, only most of them are, and the rest go scouring the net for excuses to exonerate a Holocaust denier.
I think you will again find yourself discussing your position defending Kurt Nimmo shortly, even though you won't enjoy it very much.
@%<
More material from antisemites standing on UK
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/388375.html?c=all
And also this from a dubious right-wing site:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/388351.html?c=all
That's Jordan Thornton (both posts)
And as far as anyone can tell, he's just mental. Disagree with him, and he calls you a Mossad "Plant" (which he'll always capitalize). He accuses casino spambots of being Mossad Plants. It's really more about mental health issues than international politics.
@%<
Post new comment