Oh, I get it Pilgrim, I still can't stop laughing about the Flaws. It's comedy gold Sir.pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 20, 2026 4:05 pmHe also does the stationmaster Zabecki took a photograph of Treblinka during the revolt with citation to Zabecki's Polish memoirs directly.
But those dead horses are still recovering from their most recent beatings.
I paid money for Flaws's book, read it, and got some good info and sources from it, so it's not a total loss. This thread is clearly labeled hyperbolic insults.
Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock
Re: Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock
If I were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
Re: Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock
Historians make mistakes. Holocaust revisionists make many more.
Sanity Check - "Thus, currently revisionists can console themselves by affirming their incredulity..."
- pilgrimofdark
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2025 7:46 pm
Re: Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock
Dick de Mildt, in a mass conspiracy with Kluwer Law International and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers to write, edit, and publish a book.
This paroxysm of shrieking will set you back $312 for the PDF version.
He is confident diesel exhaust is a tested, verified, and generally reliable way to kill millions of people, and that the Nazis decided on it after numerous experimentation phases.
A sixth grader could tell him why this is dumb. If he does not see why that is wrong on so many levels, he is worse than a phlogistonist.
When a so-called Holocaustophiliac, really untrained Freudian psychoanalyst, succeeds in providing a fake history, they are not a genuine historian, and this causes them to be celebrated and charge $312 for a book.
That means the so-called Holocaustophiliac trope of suggesting the Holocaust was all down to diesel gassings is incorrect.
de Mildt is determined to rely on the logical fallacy of argument from gullibility. He can work out, from a huge number of judicial decisions, how it was possible for millions of people to have been gassed with diesel engines. He is convinced by "exterminationist" interpretations. Therefore, he illogically concludes that means there were homicidal diesel engines at Chelmno and every AR camp.
AI Overview: The fallacy of argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock argues that a claim must be true simply because a person (often the arguer themselves) is willing to believe it, or because it would be nice if it were true. Accepting a claim solely because one is personally inclined to believe it is a fallacy.
What is the evidential value of de Mildt's willingness to believe in "The Holocaust by Stinky Diesel Fumes"? His gullibility is not evidence, yet his methodology relies on it, which is a logical fallacy. Maybe he could explain the evidential value of his fanatical conviction upon which he bases the entire historical narrative in his $312 book.
Because "the Holocaust" is a term which lacks any analytical value but has religious connotations, de Mildt can only be termed a sycophantic zealot. He should consider seeing a Freudian psychoanalyst to treat him for his paranoid conspiracy theorizing, possibly one specializing in Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, a common affliction among those who rely on the fallacy of argument from gullibility.
This midwit's methodology is appalling. I have never called de Mildt a midwit. That is a lie that you just made up. Some people claim this term is hate speech and that people who engage in hate speech should be investigated by the police and lose their jobs. I disagree with that. This kind of bullying shouldn't be allowed.
My descriptive term for this is lying, and I have used my unlicensed and untrained lack of knowledge and experience in Freudian psychoanalysis to diagnose him with Penis Envy. I am certainly not projecting which is something I would never do. I know this because I am better than him, and I know that because I do not use logical fallacies.
Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people who take this thread way too seriously have denounced such argumentation style as being something only losers would use.
This paroxysm of shrieking will set you back $312 for the PDF version.
De Mildt has worked out to his satisfaction that the Holocaust at Chelmno and the Action Reinhardt camps was primarily perpetrated through the use of diesel exhaust fumes, a non-homicidal gas.Wirth, a man with ample experience in the field of mass gassings through his work at the 'mercy killing' centres in Germany, decided, after some experimenting, to apply the exhaust fumes of a diesel engine for his killing purposes. As we saw, this was the method used by the gas van units of the Einsatzgruppen and by Wirth's colleague Herbert Lange at the Chelmno centre.
- Mildt, Dick de. In the Name of the People: Perpetrators of Genocide in the Reflection of Their Post-War Prosecution in West Germany the “Euthanasia” and “Aktion Reinhard” Trial Cases. p. 240.
He is confident diesel exhaust is a tested, verified, and generally reliable way to kill millions of people, and that the Nazis decided on it after numerous experimentation phases.
A sixth grader could tell him why this is dumb. If he does not see why that is wrong on so many levels, he is worse than a phlogistonist.
When a so-called Holocaustophiliac, really untrained Freudian psychoanalyst, succeeds in providing a fake history, they are not a genuine historian, and this causes them to be celebrated and charge $312 for a book.
That means the so-called Holocaustophiliac trope of suggesting the Holocaust was all down to diesel gassings is incorrect.
de Mildt is determined to rely on the logical fallacy of argument from gullibility. He can work out, from a huge number of judicial decisions, how it was possible for millions of people to have been gassed with diesel engines. He is convinced by "exterminationist" interpretations. Therefore, he illogically concludes that means there were homicidal diesel engines at Chelmno and every AR camp.
AI Overview: The fallacy of argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock argues that a claim must be true simply because a person (often the arguer themselves) is willing to believe it, or because it would be nice if it were true. Accepting a claim solely because one is personally inclined to believe it is a fallacy.
What is the evidential value of de Mildt's willingness to believe in "The Holocaust by Stinky Diesel Fumes"? His gullibility is not evidence, yet his methodology relies on it, which is a logical fallacy. Maybe he could explain the evidential value of his fanatical conviction upon which he bases the entire historical narrative in his $312 book.
Because "the Holocaust" is a term which lacks any analytical value but has religious connotations, de Mildt can only be termed a sycophantic zealot. He should consider seeing a Freudian psychoanalyst to treat him for his paranoid conspiracy theorizing, possibly one specializing in Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, a common affliction among those who rely on the fallacy of argument from gullibility.
This midwit's methodology is appalling. I have never called de Mildt a midwit. That is a lie that you just made up. Some people claim this term is hate speech and that people who engage in hate speech should be investigated by the police and lose their jobs. I disagree with that. This kind of bullying shouldn't be allowed.
My descriptive term for this is lying, and I have used my unlicensed and untrained lack of knowledge and experience in Freudian psychoanalysis to diagnose him with Penis Envy. I am certainly not projecting which is something I would never do. I know this because I am better than him, and I know that because I do not use logical fallacies.
Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people who take this thread way too seriously have denounced such argumentation style as being something only losers would use.
Last edited by pilgrimofdark on Sun Mar 22, 2026 10:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock
Both historians and revisionists have made the mistake of thinking that diesel was the engine type claimed by all the eyewitnesses.
Sanity Check - "Thus, currently revisionists can console themselves by affirming their incredulity..."
- pilgrimofdark
- Posts: 389
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2025 7:46 pm
Re: Examples of the argument from gullibility to plagiarized schlock
Abakumov's SMERSH conducts the only investigation of Treblinka by trained, experienced, law enforcement agents:
You guys and SMERSH are censoring and bullying me. This is a textbook conspiracy theory that you guys and SMERSH believe, and it's not surprising you've censored me. I didn't get therapy for Self-Defeating Personality Disorder just to be bullied by you guys.
Rejecting Wiernik's book stating "approximately 3.5 million corpses," Bronia Teperman's account that Germans shot off a salvo "in honor of the extermination of 3.5 million Jews," and Tanhum Grinberg's "rough estimate" of 3.5 million people, SMERSH has discovered a new high count of victims at Treblinka during the Soviet Union's only investigation of the camp conducted by a trained law enforcement agency.
I've diagnosed SMERSH and you guys with Paranoid Personality Disorder. You guys need to stop censoring me. SMERSH's nonstop campaign of exaggerating death counts only confirms your methodology is based on logical fallacies. My assessment isn't an insult -- it's a descriptive framework for you guys who are working with SMERSH to bully me. You guys keep following me around the internet and in real life. Stop bullying me and trying to censor me.
SMERSH relies on the logical fallacy of the argument from gullibility, believing their own lies. SMERSH's conspiracy brain allows them to work out to their satisfaction that 5 million Jews were killed at Treblinka based on no witness testimony at all mentioning that figure. You guys are deep in the conspiracy brain and can only be described as suffering from clinical fanaticism.
SMERSH's paranoia makes them insane as you guys engage in a vast, secret plan dedicated to censoring me. Why are you guys allowed to bully? Your methodology is flawed.
You guys and SMERSH are involved in a plot with elderly Hitler worshippers, and you are out to misrepresent me. You guys are truly paranoid and SMERSH is out to get me.
Confirmation of 5 million Jewish victims is the consequence of SMERSH's relevant training and experience in law enforcement. SMERSH knows what they are doing, and this is not their first day on the job.
Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people who take this thread way too seriously have denounced such argumentation style as being something only losers would use.
You guys have worked out to your satisfaction that 5 million Jews were killed at Treblinka, based on a Ukrainian guard telling you 2 million. Combined with 4 million at Auschwitz and 1.5 million at Majdanek, SMERSH has worked out exactly how 6 million Jews died utilizing their training and law enforcement experience.Thus, in the Treblinka "death camp" up to five million Jews, brought there by the Germans from France, Belgium, Holland and other European countries they occupied, were exterminated in various ways.
- Special message No. 8186/SO
You guys and SMERSH are censoring and bullying me. This is a textbook conspiracy theory that you guys and SMERSH believe, and it's not surprising you've censored me. I didn't get therapy for Self-Defeating Personality Disorder just to be bullied by you guys.
Rejecting Wiernik's book stating "approximately 3.5 million corpses," Bronia Teperman's account that Germans shot off a salvo "in honor of the extermination of 3.5 million Jews," and Tanhum Grinberg's "rough estimate" of 3.5 million people, SMERSH has discovered a new high count of victims at Treblinka during the Soviet Union's only investigation of the camp conducted by a trained law enforcement agency.
I've diagnosed SMERSH and you guys with Paranoid Personality Disorder. You guys need to stop censoring me. SMERSH's nonstop campaign of exaggerating death counts only confirms your methodology is based on logical fallacies. My assessment isn't an insult -- it's a descriptive framework for you guys who are working with SMERSH to bully me. You guys keep following me around the internet and in real life. Stop bullying me and trying to censor me.
SMERSH relies on the logical fallacy of the argument from gullibility, believing their own lies. SMERSH's conspiracy brain allows them to work out to their satisfaction that 5 million Jews were killed at Treblinka based on no witness testimony at all mentioning that figure. You guys are deep in the conspiracy brain and can only be described as suffering from clinical fanaticism.
SMERSH's paranoia makes them insane as you guys engage in a vast, secret plan dedicated to censoring me. Why are you guys allowed to bully? Your methodology is flawed.
You guys and SMERSH are involved in a plot with elderly Hitler worshippers, and you are out to misrepresent me. You guys are truly paranoid and SMERSH is out to get me.
Confirmation of 5 million Jewish victims is the consequence of SMERSH's relevant training and experience in law enforcement. SMERSH knows what they are doing, and this is not their first day on the job.
Disclaimer: the point of this thread is to highlight mistakes/misconceptions of mainstream works with the same lack of charity, hyperbolic insults, and non sequitor mischaracterizations as directed at revisionist writings. The citations are real, the tone is satirical. If it looks unhinged, insane, and paranoid -- that's because it is. Some people who take this thread way too seriously have denounced such argumentation style as being something only losers would use.