No one to debate?

[joshk246]

So, supposedly 4 historians have pulled out of the Germar Rudolf debate on the Jake Shields podcast. We know how much time the exterminationist's spend on this forum so why have none of you decided to put your money where your mouth is?... On camera.

[TlsMS93]

The argument is that they should not throw pearls before swine or give vent to revisionism and that it would be a waste of time to debate since in their understanding revisionists are politically motivated and do not accept any evidence.

So it is a playbook that they follow.

[Archie]

Let's get Nessie on there

The argument is that they should not throw pearls before swine or give vent to revisionism and that it would be a waste of time to debate since in their understanding revisionists are politically motivated and do not accept any evidence.

So it is a playbook that they follow.

According to Shields, the first three had initially agreed but pulled out when they found it was going to be against Germar.

[Callafangers]

Let's get Nessie on there

The argument is that they should not throw pearls before swine or give vent to revisionism and that it would be a waste of time to debate since in their understanding revisionists are politically motivated and do not accept any evidence.

So it is a playbook that they follow.

According to Shields, the first three had initially agreed but pulled out when they found it was going to be against Germar.

This is especially interesting, given that no one can claim Germar is a "neo-Nazi" or any of the other labels they would otherwise use to defame their way out of situations like this. The only rational conclusion seems to be they felt the revisionist views would have more appeal, so they backed out to prevent (1) embarrassment for themselves, and/or (2) promotion for revisionism.

[Archie]

Angry Jews in the replies

[Callafangers]

Angry Jews in the replies

The comments are... interesting. I remember some 12-13 years ago, debating with Dr. Terry (SanityCheck) at JREF, he argued that revisionism was on its way out, that it had no appeal to anyone, and basically wouldn't exist but in the smallest, most isolated pockets of society within just a few years.

Dr. Terry, how is that working out for you?

[Archie]

There don't seem to be any active anti-revisionists on Twitter to speak of.

The only one I've seen on there so far who has any clue about the subject is Jeff (from Skeptics) and he seems distracted with politics. The others are all like "parker" who rely exclusively on substance-free ad hominem and well poisoning tactics. I have seen a few who do a very low-effort debating style where they have some basic point which they just keep repeating while ignoring counterpoints, almost like a bot.

[fireofice]

Nick Terry is willing to debate on here. He seems to be the best candidate for it. If he won't agree to it, I can't imagine any other historians would. If we're expanding it to non-historians, then I'm sure there are plenty out there willing to debate, it's just a matter of finding them.

[Callafangers]

Nick Terry is willing to debate on here. He seems to be the best candidate for it. If he won't agree to it, I can't imagine any other historians would. If we're expanding it to non-historians, then I'm sure there are plenty out there willing to debate, it's just a matter of finding them.

Agreed, him as the ideal candidate goes without saying.

I get the slight impression that Nick doesn't have as much confidence when he lacks the ability to overwhelm his opponents with word count and impressive density/quantity of information (quality, relevance, etc. aside). That is his chief MO, from what I have seen here and at RODOH. Beyond being an historian, he is easily one of the most prolific internet forum contributors I have ever seen, perhaps even #1. I calculated his forum contributions at RODOH over a period of 3-4 days, and also made an attempt to estimate his 'lifetime' internet forum contributions focused on the 'Holocaust' (from RODOH: https://rodoh.info/thread/659/carlo-mat ... ist-batman). The relevant portion is here, tied into my broader point about how the Holocaust industry in academia enjoys infinite resources and that this condition severely (and unjustifiably) manipulates the debate against revisionism:

[Posted on April 26, 2024]
On that note, I have added-up how much content SanityCheck (Terry) has posted on this forum within the last few days. Since April 22nd, SanityCheck has written 23,485 words on this forum. That is 147,970 characters. This does not include text from posts or other excerpts that he's quoted; it only includes the text he has actually typed on his keyboard.

That is about 80-100 pages of text (12-point font, 1-inch margins, double-spaced). It would take the average person about 90-120 minutes to read.

By comparison, bombsaway appears to have written about 1,747 words in that same period (7% of SanityCheck by volume).

In the same period (excluding the current post), I have written 2,686 words (11% of SanityCheck by volume).

Without spending another 20 minutes or so to count the other contributors here, I think it is looking quite clear that SanityCheck alone has been adding as much (or more) text to this forum over the last week or so as all other members here, combined.

But it doesn't stop there -- SanityCheck (Dr. Terry) has spent his entire adult life researching the orthodox narrative of the Holocaust, being paid/funded and fully accommodated to do so throughout that time. That is a minimum of some 8-10 hours per every weekday where he has the full support of his employer, his government, and his society to immerse himself in libraries, engage with colleagues, and visit archives of his choice, with the full support and warm welcome of any government or institution he comes across, and likely with his travel expenses fully reimbursed.

[...]

SC (Terry) admits he has been teaching the Holocaust since 2009, which suggests he's been deeply immersed in learning about it since at least the early-mid 00s. This suggests a minimum of two decades being deeply immersed (and fully funded/supported) in his education on this topic. But again, this understates it, since his 'extracurricular' activities in frequent engagement in online forums and the like, in addition to massive projects like his rebuttals to MGK, likely compares to the amount of time he's spent learning about these topics formally or within his profession.

SC says he has "only 3,173 posts since December 2006". LOL. Given his posts seem to average about 3,000 words or so apiece (occasionally much higher), this suggests some ten million words written on JREF, alone. That's about 32,000 pages of text (12 point font, single-spaced). That would take the average person about three months of non-stop reading (8 hours per day, no days off) to finish entirely.

Granted, not all of those were strictly about "Holocaust denial". In the four mega-threads exclusively about this topic, though, SC has 1,200 posts there (some 13,000 pages of text, would take about a month of non-stop reading to finish).

SC adds that he has had two accounts on Skeptics Forum Society, adding 2,851 more posts to his total since 2006. SC indicates 12% of the more recent posts there are unrelated to the Holocaust and quite brief, so let's subtract 6% from that figure of total posts, bringing us to 2,680. That's another 8 million or so words, or some 25,000 pages.

In total, that's roughly some 50,000 pages of text about the Holocaust written into online forums by SC (Terry) since circa 2006. That's about 170 books' worth of text (at some 300 pages apiece).

Of course, these posts are derived from research of their own, not all of which could be derived directly from curriculae Terry/SC was already working on or immediately familiar with. And we add to this his voluminous and more intensive work on the responses to MGK.

Altogether, Terry has spent many thousands of hours in addition to his regular, academic engagement with the 'Holocaust', in directly engaging with "deniers". His career, lifestyle, community, society, academic institution, colleagues, students, family, neighbors, etc., fully support his endeavors, financially, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, etc. His wealth of resources to pursue his interests are abundant in ways that Revisionists in no part of Western society can possibly imagine or fathom for themselves.

The table is tilted.

The notion that this same individual would sit at a table face-to-face with a leader in revisionist thought seems very much "out of his element". I.e. it will not be possible in live debate to:

• Throw out 20 lengthy paragraphs in response to an argument only a couple paragraphs long.
• Bounce around topics of document records in eastern Europe and simultaneously avoid questions of conflicting interests, chains of custody, patterns of behavior and deception, murder weapons, physical remains, cremation procedures, etc.

It doesn't matter who the moderator is nor what the debate rules are (so long as within reason). There are questions you must answer, in these situations (fairly and concisely), and it is these questions which SC/Terry is compelled to avoid. The establishment narrative cannot survive in an open debate environment.

But didn't we already know this? Isn't this the implicit message of this very forum (and its parent organization) since circa 2002?

[Nessie]

Germar Rudolf is a chemist. Why would a debate be set up between a chemist and a historian? Why not find a chemist he can debate with? Rudolf does not produce a contemporaneously evidenced chronological history of what happened inside the Kremas 1943-4, to discuss with a historian. Instead, he produces his opinion on the chemistry of the residue in the walls and why he thinks it is too low for there to have been mass gassings. A chemist would be the better person to have a discussion with about that. Jake Shields, who as far as I can make out has no academic background and instead was a MMA fighter clearly does not understand that.

[joshk246]

Nick Terry is willing to debate on here. He seems to be the best candidate for it. If he won't agree to it, I can't imagine any other historians would. If we're expanding it to non-historians, then I'm sure there are plenty out there willing to debate, it's just a matter of finding them.

I did mention Nick Terry in the post I'm sure he's seen it, and I'm sure he's creeping around on here . Cmon Nick what's stopping you? The shekels?

[joshk246]

Germar Rudolf is a chemist. Why would a debate be set up between a chemist and a historian? Why not find a chemist he can debate with? Rudolf does not produce a contemporaneously evidenced chronological history of what happened inside the Kremas 1943-4, to discuss with a historian. Instead, he produces his opinion on the chemistry of the residue in the walls and why he thinks it is too low for there to have been mass gassings. A chemist would be the better person to have a discussion with about that. Jake Shields, who as far as I can make out has no academic background and instead was a MMA fighter clearly does not understand that.

The debate isn't down to your ridiculous rules Nessie its pretty simple, Holocaust denier Vs Holocaust exterminationist.
Jake will be moderating the debate so he's not involved, so again don't know why him not being an academic is relevant to this. You're mentioning how Rudolf is only going to mention chemistry, that's not true you know his knowledge is much broader than that and he could argue on any topic holocaust related.

[Nessie]

Germar Rudolf is a chemist. Why would a debate be set up between a chemist and a historian? Why not find a chemist he can debate with? Rudolf does not produce a contemporaneously evidenced chronological history of what happened inside the Kremas 1943-4, to discuss with a historian. Instead, he produces his opinion on the chemistry of the residue in the walls and why he thinks it is too low for there to have been mass gassings. A chemist would be the better person to have a discussion with about that. Jake Shields, who as far as I can make out has no academic background and instead was a MMA fighter clearly does not understand that.

The debate isn't down to your ridiculous rules Nessie its pretty simple, Holocaust denier Vs Holocaust exterminationist.
Jake will be moderating the debate so he's not involved, so again don't know why him not being an academic is relevant to this. You're mentioning how Rudolf is only going to mention chemistry, that's not true you know his knowledge is much broader than that and he could argue on any topic holocaust related.

Rudolf, the chemist, argues that the residue of HCN in the walls is too low for them to have been exposed to repeated gassings as alleged. A historian cannot technically argue against that. As you have seen, they are also not prepared to debate a chemist on the subject of the history of the Kremas. Rudolf is certainly knowledgeable on the history, but the bottom line is that he is not a historian. There are no rules, but academics prefer to remain within their field of expertise. The historian already knows, from Rudolf's books, that he cannot produce an evidenced narrative of what did happen inside the Kremas, and what happened to the people he claims were not gassed. He spend a lot of time at the camp, and in camp archives, but he still failed to find anything that evidences the actual events 1943-4 and hundreds of thousands not being gassed and leaving the camp.

It is interesting that the aim is not to find a chemist to, in effect, peer review Rudolf's chemistry. Do revisionists not think his findings will stand up to expert scrutiny?

[joshk246]

Germar Rudolf is a chemist. Why would a debate be set up between a chemist and a historian? Why not find a chemist he can debate with? Rudolf does not produce a contemporaneously evidenced chronological history of what happened inside the Kremas 1943-4, to discuss with a historian. Instead, he produces his opinion on the chemistry of the residue in the walls and why he thinks it is too low for there to have been mass gassings. A chemist would be the better person to have a discussion with about that. Jake Shields, who as far as I can make out has no academic background and instead was a MMA fighter clearly does not understand that.

The debate isn't down to your ridiculous rules Nessie its pretty simple, Holocaust denier Vs Holocaust exterminationist.
Jake will be moderating the debate so he's not involved, so again don't know why him not being an academic is relevant to this. You're mentioning how Rudolf is only going to mention chemistry, that's not true you know his knowledge is much broader than that and he could argue on any topic holocaust related.

Rudolf, the chemist, argues that the residue of HCN in the walls is too low for them to have been exposed to repeated gassings as alleged. A historian cannot technically argue against that. As you have seen, they are also not prepared to debate a chemist on the subject of the history of the Kremas. Rudolf is certainly knowledgeable on the history, but the bottom line is that he is not a historian. There are no rules, but academics prefer to remain within their field of expertise. The historian already knows, from Rudolf's books, that he cannot produce an evidenced narrative of what did happen inside the Kremas, and what happened to the people he claims were not gassed. He spend a lot of time at the camp, and in camp archives, but he still failed to find anything that evidences the actual events 1943-4 and hundreds of thousands not being gassed and leaving the camp.

It is interesting that the aim is not to find a chemist to, in effect, peer review Rudolf's chemistry. Do revisionists not think his findings will stand up to expert scrutiny?

Not really, no exterminationist chemist would take this debate either as we all know there would be massive reprocussions for them if they did. One historian has already been threatened. The burden of proof isn't for us to prove they weren't gassed, its on them to prove they were, no autopsies have ever indicated HCN.
Germar is well versed on the whole holocaust, including AR camps where he can't possibly argue about chemical analysis because no 'gas chambers' were found post war, we argue against the ridiculous cremations methods and techniques, also lack of millions kg of wood, no wood storage, open air cremation pyres right next to flammable fences, frozen ground at Belzec during the supposed digging up of bodies, millions of teeth missing.

[Archie]

Sounds like Cockerill was one of the guys who backed out. He claims he's getting bullied by other Holocaust historians not to debate us anymore.



This is going to be a general Holocaust debate on a podcast for general audience. It's not going to be a PhD-level deep-dive into the chemistry.