Revisionism's [Limited?] Role in Modern Politics

[borjastick]

The usual bollocks from this otherwise bright young man who has either been told what to say or is saying it from his heart having never thought about it and questioned anything in his life. Notice the obligatory violin music which always accompanies the nonsense stories of the fake holocaust. Also notice how he brought the chimney into it which I am guessing is the chimney they built after the war!

Given another thirty seconds and no doubt he would have a) brought Mengele into the story or b) talked about the hundreds of members of his family that he never met because they were sent up that there chimney...

[Nessie]

Aaaannnd perhaps I spoke too soon in the OP in this thread...

That video and X in general examples why some people fall for the Holocaust denial hoax. They are predisposed to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, hear what they want to hear and don't bother to, or do not know how to check if claims are true. X is full of people who think the wooden door at Krema I is the original door into the gas chambers, they don't understand why the chimney was rebuilt or why it was not connected to the building, they think a Red Cross report listing the death toll for 11 camps is the entire death toll from every camp, that a US almanac has accurate population figures and that the Nuremberg trials were the only trials. When revisionism is part and parcel of that very low level of thinking, its influence is limited.

[Nazgul]

When revisionism is part and parcel of that very low level of thinking, its influence is limited.

Even low level thinking is superior to blind faith.

[borjastick]

Supreme ducking and diving followed by some lunacy of dot connections by Mrs Nessie there.

Meanwhile back on planet earth...

[HansHill]

Yet "low level thinking" is just fine when it supports the Holocaust I assume? You don't seem in a hurry to correct the untold billions who likely believe that 6 million were gassed at Auschwitz.

That "low level thinking" doesn't matter, it seems. Curious!

[Nessie]

When revisionism is part and parcel of that very low level of thinking, its influence is limited.

Even low level thinking is superior to blind faith.

When there is so much evidence, there is no need for blind faith. Evidence is that think revisionists demand, but then fail to produce.

[Nessie]

Yet "low level thinking" is just fine when it supports the Holocaust I assume? You don't seem in a hurry to correct the untold billions who likely believe that 6 million were gassed at Auschwitz.

That "low level thinking" doesn't matter, it seems. Curious!

I now spend time on X, linking people to evidence, to show them the mistaken beliefs they have gained from inaccurate and often frankly idiotic denier sources, such as thinking 6 million were gassed at A-B and the Red Cross death toll list is the total of all Jewish deaths.

[HansHill]

Send them to Codoh!

[Nazgul]

When there is so much evidence, there is no need for blind faith. Evidence is that think revisionists demand, but then fail to produce.

You claim to have an MA. It is curious that someone with an MA resorts to mere platitudes continually, then resorting to personal attacks like AirFixGeneral used to do. It is the evidence under discussion not the constant demand to produce evidence.

[Nessie]

When there is so much evidence, there is no need for blind faith. Evidence is that think revisionists demand, but then fail to produce.

You claim to have an MA. It is curious that someone with an MA resorts to mere platitudes continually, then resorting to personal attacks like AirFixGeneral used to do. It is the evidence under discussion not the constant demand to produce evidence.

Historians evidence what happened, revisionists cannot.

[Nazgul]

Historians evidence what happened, revisionists cannot.

We discuss the evidence which is often out of constext, misconstrued. Other evidence like Olszuk is ingored by the faithful.

[Nessie]

Historians evidence what happened, revisionists cannot.

We discuss the evidence which is often out of constext, misconstrued. Other evidence like Olszuk is ingored by the faithful.

But you cannot evidence what happened. Olszuk provides little evidence as to what happened at TII. He states nothing about transports, despite all the evidence of regular train movements to and from it. What little he saw does not evidence what function TII had. Faurisson failed to ask key questions, of an elderly man, about what he saw in his youth, meaning Olszuk is a witness to very little. You obsess about him, making out he is a key witness, which just further proves how little you understand about witnesses and evidence in general.

[Nazgul]

But you cannot evidence what happened. Olszuk provides little evidence as to what happened at TII. He states nothing about transports, despite all the evidence of regular train movements to and from it. What little he saw does not evidence what function TII had. Faurisson failed to ask key questions, of an elderly man, about what he saw in his youth, meaning Olszuk is a witness to very little. You obsess about him, making out he is a key witness, which just further proves how little you understand about witnesses and evidence in general.

You are assuming something went on at the place Olszuk observed. Perhaps the murderhouse if there was one was at Kosow lacki as the Town Elders of Wólka Okrąglik mentioned SW of their town, the current spot identified as TII is NW of the town. The CIA report called this Kosow Podlacki, Kosow underlaski. Pod means under in Polish; that is not where the current TII is.

Olszuk went by every day and saw nothing untoward. Of course there were regular transports out as T1 was a quarry. You are well aware of the stops those transports made at the precise locations of Jewish Labour Camps, did not stop at other towns or cities, but railway junctions to other Jewish camps.

Olszuk was not a seer to know the future fabrications of some liars. Transports of all kinds were like buses today, not noted. He noticed Jews working outside the camps, to him it was a Judenlager; there were two Judenlagers at Treblinka. He is a key witness to a non event.

[Archie]

Yet "low level thinking" is just fine when it supports the Holocaust I assume? You don't seem in a hurry to correct the untold billions who likely believe that 6 million were gassed at Auschwitz.

That "low level thinking" doesn't matter, it seems. Curious!

I now spend time on X, linking people to evidence, to show them the mistaken beliefs they have gained from inaccurate and often frankly idiotic denier sources, such as thinking 6 million were gassed at A-B and the Red Cross death toll list is the total of all Jewish deaths.

And what is the typical level of understanding of most Holocaust believers?

[Archie]

When there is so much evidence, there is no need for blind faith. Evidence is that think revisionists demand, but then fail to produce.

You claim to have an MA. It is curious that someone with an MA resorts to mere platitudes continually, then resorting to personal attacks like AirFixGeneral used to do. It is the evidence under discussion not the constant demand to produce evidence.

Historians evidence what happened, revisionists cannot.

Holocaust historians have swallowed (or willingly gone along with) Allied and Zionist war-time propaganda and have supported this with dubious sources.

Revisionists have the job of separating out fact from fiction, to the extent possible after so many decades of lies.