No one to debate? [Rudolf vs Vann on Jake Shields]

[HansHill]

No, stop being disingenuous.

The WMD hoax shows that hoaxes happen. And furthermore, they happen regularly.

I know international, political hoaxes happen, Katyn is another example of that. That such hoaxes happen, does not therefore mean it is possible to pull off a hoax the size of the Holocaust. Iraqi WMDs and Katyn were hoaxes limited to one country, with few people involved. Iraqi WMDs merely involved a few government officials and politicians, creating so-called "dodgy dossiers" accusing the Iraqis of having WMDs. It also likely included the murder of one scientist who was about to blow the whistle. Katyn involved some Soviet officials denying blind that they were responsible and the setting up of some Nazis to take responsibility, which only worked because the Allies were initially inclined to believe the Soviets.

The Holocaust as a hoax involves millions of people, across every single country in Europe, lying, falsifying documents, forensic and archaeological evidence and creating a fake circumstantial narrative, that has held together, despite it being in so many individual and national interests for it to be exposed. It is off the scale in terms of resources needed, compared to Iraqi WMDs and Katyn.

Thank you for acknowledging that international hoaxes exist, it will save me the trouble of regurgitating the dozen others I have open on my other tab.

"Iraqi WMDs were limited to one country"

Wrong again. Here is a list of all the countries, major and minor, that deployed as part of the Iraq war coalition:

USA - 150,000 Troops
United Kingdom - 46,000 troops
Australia - 2,000 Troops
Poland - 2,000 Troops
South Korea - 3,600
Georgia - 2,000
Ukraine - 1,650
Romania - 730
Denmark - 545
Bulgaria - 485
El Salvador - 380
Azerbaijan - 250
ALbania - 240
Mongolia - 180
Singapore - 175
Latvia - 136
Bosnia & Herz - 85
North macendonia - 77
Tonga - 55
Armenia - 46
Estonia - 40
Kazakhstan 29
Moldova - 24

We also know, that other countries who were not in a position to commit personel (such as Norway and a few others) committed military hardware.

So you're being absolutely disingenuous in your attempts to localise this to "just one country".

"With a few people involved" - Wrong yet again.

While the US and its Clean Break policy makers were indeed the ones dictating the policy, each of the countries listed above had governments, military, media outlets, technology, industry and intelligence, who were in lock step with the invasion, and additionally the UN Weapons Inspection Division, The Middle East Forum, an array of international media outlets, think tanks, NGOs, and other international bodies.

So no, you don't just get away with saying it was only a few people.

Now that we've cleared all of that up, and you understand the scale of this hoax and how it was coordinated, i'll ask you to explain to me:

Seeing as human life is the most valuable thing on the planet, why would not one of the above countries or agencies speak up against this hoax to save lives?

I'm wondering will you say "well its not as simple as that!" or "they had legal incentives to go along with it" or "they had specific policy objectives they wanted to gain" or "perhaps they were persuaded by dubious evidence and simply believed in it because it was their naivety" or "with all the propaganda it was too difficult to ascertain fact from fiction", or "not everybody you listed had all the evidence to hand so they were just going with the prevailing opinions"

I would be very interested if you were to cite any of those reasons why they wouldn't expose the hoax.

[Archie]

What logical fallacy am I committing?

Funny enough, you could call it an argument from incredulity.

Just because you can't imagine or can't believe that such a hoax does not mean it didn't happen.

Just because you "can't work out" how such a hoax might have happened does not mean it can't happen.

---

Here is the implicit argument (it's the bog standard anti-conspiracy argument)

-Large scale hoaxes involve a large number of people
-Something large scale will necessarily create evidence and (at a certain point) it will not be possible to suppress
-Therefore sufficiently large hoaxes are impossible (or nearly so) [The Holocaust would then be a special case of this general principle]

I would say the above is logically valid so far as it goes, but the conclusion that large scale hoaxes are impossible is dubious. For one thing, the terms used ("large scale") are imprecise, and the second premise is questionable/simplistic. Often there are whistleblowers and other evidence for a hoax/conspiracy, it's just that the whistleblowers etc get dismissed and/or attacked by those who have an interest in maintaining the hoax (usually those in power).

Basically the issue with "conspiracies" is that because of powerful interests, the evidence may initially be very slight or only suggestive. But if you always give the benefit of the doubt and only call hoax once it has been 100% proved then you will systematically under-detect hoaxes and conspiracies. The reason hoaxes and conspiracies get exposed is usually somebody suspects something and then starts looking into it. And if people took your advice of not questioning anything then hoaxes would actually be incredibly easy to fake (since nobody's checking). Your argument would only hold if people DISREGARD your advice.

[Stubble]

I can 'imagine' people being run, naked, up the tube to a gas chamber being beaten with rubber hoses and bitten on the breast and groin by the dogs to keep them running. That's not the problem.

When I go listen to the interviews from the shoah foundation that's not what I hear. I hear about 'what passes for German coffee'.

The only place the holocaust exists is in the imagination.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gY9CzlpGwSv8/

[Nessie]

No, stop being disingenuous.

The WMD hoax shows that hoaxes happen. And furthermore, they happen regularly.

I know international, political hoaxes happen, Katyn is another example of that. That such hoaxes happen, does not therefore mean it is possible to pull off a hoax the size of the Holocaust. Iraqi WMDs and Katyn were hoaxes limited to one country, with few people involved. Iraqi WMDs merely involved a few government officials and politicians, creating so-called "dodgy dossiers" accusing the Iraqis of having WMDs. It also likely included the murder of one scientist who was about to blow the whistle. Katyn involved some Soviet officials denying blind that they were responsible and the setting up of some Nazis to take responsibility, which only worked because the Allies were initially inclined to believe the Soviets.

The Holocaust as a hoax involves millions of people, across every single country in Europe, lying, falsifying documents, forensic and archaeological evidence and creating a fake circumstantial narrative, that has held together, despite it being in so many individual and national interests for it to be exposed. It is off the scale in terms of resources needed, compared to Iraqi WMDs and Katyn.

Thank you for acknowledging that international hoaxes exist, it will save me the trouble of regurgitating the dozen others I have open on my other tab.

"Iraqi WMDs were limited to one country"

Wrong again. Here is a list of all the countries, major and minor, that deployed as part of the Iraq war coalition:

USA - 150,000 Troops
United Kingdom - 46,000 troops
Australia - 2,000 Troops
Poland - 2,000 Troops
South Korea - 3,600
Georgia - 2,000
Ukraine - 1,650
Romania - 730
Denmark - 545
Bulgaria - 485
El Salvador - 380
Azerbaijan - 250
ALbania - 240
Mongolia - 180
Singapore - 175
Latvia - 136
Bosnia & Herz - 85
North macendonia - 77
Tonga - 55
Armenia - 46
Estonia - 40
Kazakhstan 29
Moldova - 24

We also know, that other countries who were not in a position to commit personel (such as Norway and a few others) committed military hardware.

So you're being absolutely disingenuous in your attempts to localise this to "just one country".

"With a few people involved" - Wrong yet again.

While the US and its Clean Break policy makers were indeed the ones dictating the policy, each of the countries listed above had governments, military, media outlets, technology, industry and intelligence, who were in lock step with the invasion, and additionally the UN Weapons Inspection Division, The Middle East Forum, an array of international media outlets, think tanks, NGOs, and other international bodies.

So no, you don't just get away with saying it was only a few people.

The hoax came from the evidence provided by the UK and USA that Iraq was developing WMDs. You are now listing all the countries and agencies who decided to go with the hoax. But they are not the source of the hoax, which did not need many people for it to work. That is unlike the Holocaust, as it needed millions of people to cooperate, to make it work.

For the Holocaust to be the equivalent to Iraqi WMDs, it would need to only consist of Polish intelligence reports of gas chambers, that subsequent enquiry finds no evidence for.

Now that we've cleared all of that up, and you understand the scale of this hoax and how it was coordinated, i'll ask you to explain to me:

Seeing as human life is the most valuable thing on the planet, why would not one of the above countries or agencies speak up against this hoax to save lives?

Because they, for various reasons, decided not to challenge and go with the hoax.

You have failed to differentiate between how many it takes to create a hoax and how many fall for it. Iraqi WMDs does not need many to create the hoax, the mass gassing and shooting of millions and disposal of their corpses does.

I'm wondering will you say "well its not as simple as that!" or "they had legal incentives to go along with it" or "they had specific policy objectives they wanted to gain" or "perhaps they were persuaded by dubious evidence and simply believed in it because it was their naivety" or "with all the propaganda it was too difficult to ascertain fact from fiction", or "not everybody you listed had all the evidence to hand so they were just going with the prevailing opinions"

I would be very interested if you were to cite any of those reasons why they wouldn't expose the hoax.

I suspect no country that supported or participated in the Iraqi War, that now knows the WMD claims were bogus, is going to admit they were duped and criticise the UK and USA. It is not in their interests to admit their mistake and take on the USA and UK.

That is unlike the Holocaust, where it is very much in the interests of every country that assisted in one way or another, with the killing of its Jewish citizens, to blow a hoax and they were not killed.

[Nessie]

What logical fallacy am I committing?

Funny enough, you could call it an argument from incredulity.

Just because you can't imagine or can't believe that such a hoax does not mean it didn't happen.

Just because you "can't work out" how such a hoax might have happened does not mean it can't happen.

---

You yet again miss out the evidence!!!! Remember you criticised me for constantly using my favourite word, evidence, as if somehow, that is wrong!

My actual argument is, if millions were not gassed or shot and instead they were resettled in the east 1941-4, and liberated in 1945, that would leave a lot of evidence. There is no evidence that happened. There is evidence they were killed. Therefore, the evidence is they were not resettled, they were killed.

I use the incredibility argument about resettlement, to show you that your incredibility argument about gassings, also applies to resettlement. You are happy to dismiss gassings as too incredible to believe, but you then flip and accept the incredibility of resettlement.

Here is the implicit argument (it's the bog standard anti-conspiracy argument)

-Large scale hoaxes involve a large number of people
-Something large scale will necessarily create evidence and (at a certain point) it will not be possible to suppress
-Therefore sufficiently large hoaxes are impossible (or nearly so) [The Holocaust would then be a special case of this general principle]

I would say the above is logically valid so far as it goes, but the conclusion that large scale hoaxes are impossible is dubious. For one thing, the terms used ("large scale") are imprecise, and the second premise is questionable/simplistic. Often there are whistleblowers and other evidence for a hoax/conspiracy, it's just that the whistleblowers etc get dismissed and/or attacked by those who have an interest in maintaining the hoax (usually those in power).

The Holocaust as a conspiracy is off the scale, in terms of size. It needs millions of Jews to play dead. The Nazis to cooperate and accept the blame for a horrific crime they did not commit, whilst the war was ongoing and post-war, Germany, West, East and unified, to continue to accept the blame. It needs every single occupied country to accept their role in the murder of at least some of their Jewish citizens. Every university needs to be careful with its history, that they do not blow the hoax. All the archives need to ensure no evidence to the contrary gets out. Journalists have to be careful not to make mistakes and reveal the hoax. The Arab world, with its strong motive to blow the hoax and irreparably damage Israel, has to keep quiet.

Basically the issue with "conspiracies" is that because of powerful interests, the evidence may initially be very slight or only suggestive. But if you always give the benefit of the doubt and only call hoax once it has been 100% proved then you will systematically under-detect hoaxes and conspiracies. The reason hoaxes and conspiracies get exposed is usually somebody suspects something and then starts looking into it. And if people took your advice of not questioning anything then hoaxes would actually be incredibly easy to fake (since nobody's checking). Your argument would only hold if people DISREGARD your advice.

You are lying when you say that my advice is not to question anything. My actual advice is to question everything, but do so accurately, using a methodology that is not logically and evidentially flawed, as revisionism is.

[HansHill]

The hoax came from the evidence provided by the UK and USA that Iraq was developing WMDs. You are now listing all the countries and agencies who decided to go with the hoax. But they are not the source of the hoax, which did not need many people for it to work. That is unlike the Holocaust, as it needed millions of people to cooperate, to make it work.

For the Holocaust to be the equivalent to Iraqi WMDs, it would need to only consist of Polish intelligence reports of gas chambers, that subsequent enquiry finds no evidence for.

Now that we've cleared all of that up, and you understand the scale of this hoax and how it was coordinated, i'll ask you to explain to me:

Seeing as human life is the most valuable thing on the planet, why would not one of the above countries or agencies speak up against this hoax to save lives?

Because they, for various reasons, decided not to challenge and go with the hoax.

You have failed to differentiate between how many it takes to create a hoax and how many fall for it. Iraqi WMDs does not need many to create the hoax, the mass gassing and shooting of millions and disposal of their corpses does.

I'm wondering will you say "well its not as simple as that!" or "they had legal incentives to go along with it" or "they had specific policy objectives they wanted to gain" or "perhaps they were persuaded by dubious evidence and simply believed in it because it was their naivety" or "with all the propaganda it was too difficult to ascertain fact from fiction", or "not everybody you listed had all the evidence to hand so they were just going with the prevailing opinions"

I would be very interested if you were to cite any of those reasons why they wouldn't expose the hoax.

I suspect no country that supported or participated in the Iraqi War, that now knows the WMD claims were bogus, is going to admit they were duped and criticise the UK and USA. It is not in their interests to admit their mistake and take on the USA and UK.

That is unlike the Holocaust, where it is very much in the interests of every country that assisted in one way or another, with the killing of its Jewish citizens, to blow a hoax and they were not killed.

You've hilariously decided to focus on 1) Scope and 2) Origin of the Hoax as distinguishing features, and failed to recognise the one difference that would have been a good argument should you have made it (that is, the Iraqis never formally offered confessions to bolster the hoax).

One hoax can be mapped directly onto the other, which is why you look like you're clutching at straws. Here is the mapping:

Small inner circle of direct conspirators, numbering in the 10,000s - these include centralised decision makers, incl policy makers, high ranking gov officials, and military personnel, along with legal practitioners, forensics professionals, and technology agency all to "create" the hoax as you would say. I would also add the words "design", "direct", "fabricate" and "co-ordinate" the hoax, too.

Secondarily, you have a slightly wider circle, numbering in the 100,000s who are perhaps not direct originators of the hoax, but are nonetheless involved with the hoax via their actions to support, bolster and carry out the hoax as intended. These include mid ranking gov officials, legal practitioners, forensics experts, media personnel, arrays of NGOs, Think Tanks, international agencies and military staff to plan, stage, develop and execute the hoax. For the reasons you've already agreed to, its very likely this support network will go along with the hoax for various reasons.

Then you have the wider outer circle, numbering in the millions. These aren't necessary to create or support the hoax, but the are still acting in alignment with it by their actions too. This includes, the widest net of gov officials, media reporters, management of tech, industry, support networks, transport, logistics, administration, and so on and so forth. Its very likely at this aspect that some will not fully support the hoax, but their actions are immediately tied into executing the hoax regardless. Think of a maverick grunt who doesn't actually buy the WMD story but is still happy to go defend muh freedom.

The very widest circle then, numbering in the 100s of millions is you and me, the public (including academics) who are witnessing all of the above and either go along with it, or reject it.

Now with all of this said, you will understand why a non-originator country (lets say Ireland) who were not involved in Nuremburg, or the war, who did not create the hoax, but would still seek to introduce hate speech laws to prosecute Holocaust Denial. The reasons why Ireland doesn't "expose the hoax" is the same reason why, lets say Moldova, didn't expose the WMD hoax.

[Nessie]

....
You've hilariously decided to focus on 1) Scope and 2) Origin of the Hoax as distinguishing features, and failed to recognise the one difference that would have been a good argument should you have made it (that is, the Iraqis never formally offered confessions to bolster the hoax).

I did point that difference out, by pointing out the Nazis strangely supported the hoax, even during the war! I like the way you gloss over that and try and flip it to the Iraqis offered no support for the hoax. What you allege, is like the Iraqis supporting the WMD hoax, even now. Why would they do that? Why did the Nazis actively support the hoax, during the war, by hiding millions of Jews and then destroying all the evidence of that, just as they started to be put on trial and convicted?

One hoax can be mapped directly onto the other, which is why you look like you're clutching at straws.

Except, you have just admitted there is at least one major area in which they are opposite!

Here is the mapping:

Small inner circle of direct conspirators, numbering in the 10,000s - these include centralised decision makers, incl policy makers, high ranking gov officials, and military personnel, along with legal practitioners, forensics professionals, and technology agency all to "create" the hoax as you would say. I would also add the words "design", "direct", "fabricate" and "co-ordinate" the hoax, too.

In your comparison, there are the Polish intelligence services gathering evidence, to be sent to the government in exile in London, against the US and UK governments, with highly restricted access to Iraq, making up reports to suggest the presence of WMDs. The numbers in both cases are in the thousands.

Secondarily, you have a slightly wider circle, numbering in the 100,000s who are perhaps not direct originators of the hoax, but are nonetheless involved with the hoax via their actions to support, bolster and carry out the hoax as intended. These include mid ranking gov officials, legal practitioners, forensics experts, media personnel, arrays of NGOs, Think Tanks, international agencies and military staff to plan, stage, develop and execute the hoax. For the reasons you've already agreed to, its very likely this support network will go along with the hoax for various reasons.

I have not agreed with the specifics you claim. I see you are being theoretical, rather than evidencing what happened, but revisionists prefer opinion over evidence. The Polish reports of mass murder were treated with scepticism, till 1944, by which time it was clear that millions of Jews had been removed from their homes and they had disappeared. The evidence for mass murder was apparent, with details, such as what was killing people inside the chambers, still not certain. The evidence for WMDs remained poor and never improved. There was a huge split at the time, as to who believed and who did not believe it. The evidence and doubts about WMDs were higher than they were for mass gassings.

Then you have the wider outer circle, numbering in the millions. These aren't necessary to create or support the hoax, but the are still acting in alignment with it by their actions too. This includes, the widest net of gov officials, media reporters, management of tech, industry, support networks, transport, logistics, administration, and so on and so forth. Its very likely at this aspect that some will not fully support the hoax, but their actions are immediately tied into executing the hoax regardless. Think of a maverick grunt who doesn't actually buy the WMD story but is still happy to go defend muh freedom.

You do not need an outer circle of millions for the WMD hoax. You just need enough people, in high places, to believe it. There was a need for millions to work a gassing hoax, as millions of Jews needed to be hidden.

The very widest circle then, numbering in the 100s of millions is you and me, the public (including academics) who are witnessing all of the above and either go along with it, or reject it.

WMDs in Iraq has been rejected and may do feel duped. The hoax is blown and only those who were in power in the UK and USA, who were responsible for the subsequent invasion, still insist there was evidence to believe WMDs existed, whilst accepting they did not.

The Holocaust of mass gassings and shootings remains as the history of the Jews during WWII. Only a few reject it and they cannot evidence what happened.

Now with all of this said, you will understand why a non-originator country (lets say Ireland) who were not involved in Nuremburg, or the war, who did not create the hoax, but would still seek to introduce hate speech laws to prosecute Holocaust Denial. The reasons why Ireland doesn't "expose the hoax" is the same reason why, lets say Moldova, didn't expose the WMD hoax.

Ireland does not expose the Holocaust as a hoax, because they do not have the evidence needed to expose it. Iraqi WMDs as a hoax has been exposed.

If you go into greater specifics, there are few similarities between the two. It does not help your cause, to use a hoax that has been exposed, to somehow evidence the Holocaust is a hoax. It really does not help you, to accept the major difference of the Iraqi's denied the hoax, the Nazis did not.

[HansHill]

What the WMD hoax (and indeed other hoaxes) shows us is:

- Hoaxes happen
- Hoaxes can be planned from a multinational array of "insiders", spanning thousands or tens of thousands of people.
- Hoaxes can have hundreds of thousand, or even millions, of "auxiliaries" who either actively or passively support the hoax via their actions.
- Hoaxes are not required to be "exposed" at any level, and yet sometimes they are.

WMDs and the Holocaust share all of these details.

Regarding false confessions, the WMD hoax does indeed not feature false confessions, however many hoaxes do. I'll give two examples - one somewhat overlapping with the Holocaust, and one completely unrelated:

1) The Doctors plot in the Soviet Union, this hoax involved a plot of scores of Jewish doctors who would "assassinate" Stalin, scores of false confessions were obtained to underscore credibility for this via various means, mostly under coercion, torture, duress, but indeed some were voluntary.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen ... trials.htm

2) In Ireland, there was a hoax involving the Irish government and Catholic Church, whereby 800 babies were alleged to have been killed and disposed of in septic tanks. The government of Ireland formally apologised for this, set up a compensation fund for those affected, even though this was exposed as a hoax as you'll read below

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfing ... edia-hoax/

[Nessie]

Hoaxes happen, therefore the Holocaust is a hoax, is clearly not a logical argument.

[HansHill]

No revisionist thinks through the geopolitical implications of their hoax claim and the extent to which it would benefit so many to expose it.

I was addressing this ridiculous assertion you made. The hoax, and its implications are accounted for.

[Nessie]

No revisionist thinks through the geopolitical implications of their hoax claim and the extent to which it would benefit so many to expose it.

I was addressing this ridiculous assertion you made. The hoax, and its implications are accounted for.

Since Germany, and every country occupied by them, or aligned to them, during WWII to one extent or another, organised or otherwise cooperated in the persecution of their Jewish population, from deportations to killing people, it is in all of their interests that mass gassings or shootings are exposed as a hoax. No one wants to be tarnished with that memory.

[HansHill]

Utterly amazing!

[Nessie]

Utterly amazing!

Agreed, despite it being an obvious fallacy, revisionists use implausibility as one of their main arguments that gassings, mass graves and cremations did not happen.

[AreYouSirius]

Utterly amazing!

Agreed, despite it being an obvious fallacy, revisionists use implausibility as one of their main arguments that gassings, mass graves and cremations did not happen.

Revisionists do not “use implausibility as one of their main arguments.” Revisionist arguments are bolstered by the absence of forensic evidence, spotty documentary evidence, and by cursory analysis of a bevy of near-worthless, cartoonishly embellished eyewitness accounts.

Revisionist argumentation is much more scientifically and academically sound than what Exterminationists offer—even taking into account the massive disparity of funding, access to historical records, and lack of social acceptability in being neutrally inquisitive about this supposed systemic mass extermination.

Implausibility is fundamental to the ever-changing, inconsistent, and embellished mainstream Holocaust narrative, and implausibility is often pointed out by Revisionists in discourse—however it doesn’t serve as a “main” argument.

[Hektor]

....

Revisionists do not “use implausibility as one of their main arguments.” Revisionist arguments are bolstered by the absence of forensic evidence, spotty documentary evidence, and by cursory analysis of a bevy of near-worthless, cartoonishly embellished eyewitness accounts.

Revisionist argumentation is much more scientifically and academically sound than what Exterminationists offer—even taking into account the massive disparity of funding, access to historical records, and lack of social acceptability in being neutrally inquisitive about this supposed systemic mass extermination.

Implausibility is fundamental to the ever-changing, inconsistent, and embellished mainstream Holocaust narrative, and implausibility is often pointed out by Revisionists in discourse—however it doesn’t serve as a “main” argument.

The Holocaust narrative is implausible, but it's the lack of evidence that should be there however isn't that affirms the falsity of the narrative/thesis.

You summarize the issue very well here, while the exterminationist tactic seems to be to conflate the issue by turning it into endless debate....