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: 388
- 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..."