Israel urges UNESCO to promote holocaust education
An article in the Jerusalem Post says,
We need more tolerance of holocaust revisionists, not more teaching of official holocaust history. Holocaust revisionists have been imprisoned and fined.
A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way(s) of identifying Jews and non-Jews. We don't even know exactly what a Jew is. Also, despite claims that the Nazis kept "meticulous" records of the holocaust, there have been wild variations in the official death count for Auschwitz, from one million to four million.
More than 60 years after the Holocaust, the Foreign Ministry is working to keep the Nazi genocide at the forefront of international consciousness.
The ministry submitted a resolution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization this week calling for the creation of a UNESCO-sponsored curriculum to teach students around the world about the Holocaust and its role in history.
The ministry submitted a resolution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization this week calling for the creation of a UNESCO-sponsored curriculum to teach students around the world about the Holocaust and its role in history. . . . .
. . . . .In 2005, the UN established International Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27, the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp. In 2006, the international body passed a resolution condemning Holocaust denial.
We need more tolerance of holocaust revisionists, not more teaching of official holocaust history. Holocaust revisionists have been imprisoned and fined.
A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way(s) of identifying Jews and non-Jews. We don't even know exactly what a Jew is. Also, despite claims that the Nazis kept "meticulous" records of the holocaust, there have been wild variations in the official death count for Auschwitz, from one million to four million.
Labels: Holocaust revisionism (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/24/2007 07:57:00 PM
25 Comments:
A "systematic" Holocaust may not have been possible. However, a systematic Holocaust was indeed quite possible, and only by denying the existence of millions of documents and eyewitness reports can Larry assert otherwise
>>>>> It was not difficult to identify Jews although the results may not have been perfect. <<<<<<
"May not have been perfect"? Think of all the Holocaust victims who must have been non-Jews who were mistaken for Jews! And think of all the Jews who were mistaken for non-Jews! And we don't even know exactly what a Jew is!
>>>>> Certainly those who regularly attended synagogues could be considered Jews. <<<<<<
The Nazis didn't just raid synagogues during services. And smart Jews learned to stay away from synagogues in Nazi Europe.
>>>>>> Few Jews accused of being such denied it. <<<<<<
Wrong. In Nazi Europe, plenty of Jews denied being Jewish. And plenty of non-Jews denied being Jewish, too.
>>>>>> Some people, such as yourself, have a distinctly Jewish appearance. <<<<<<<
When you don't identify yourself, you have no evidence that you know what I look like. And what is a "distinctly Jewish appearance"?
>>>>>> Most, but not all, Jews have Jewish names. <<<<<<
Many Jewish names are also common German and East-European names of non-Jews. Many of the top Nazis had Jewish-sounding names.
W. Kevin Vicklund said...
>>>>>> A "systematic" Holocaust may not have been possible. However, a systematic Holocaust was indeed quite possible,<<<<<<<
What?
>>>>>> and only by denying the existence of millions of documents and eyewitness reports can Larry assert otherwise <<<<<<
They can't even get straight the number of deaths at Auschwitz. Official figures have varied from one million to four million.
> Think of all the Holocaust victims who must have been non-Jews who were mistaken for Jews! <
I am sure that there were a few.
> And think of all the Jews who were mistaken for non-Jews! <
Again, a few.
> And we don't even know exactly what a Jew is! <
Do you have a frog in your pocket?
> The Nazis didn't just raid synagogues during services. <
Nor did I say they did.
> And smart Jews learned to stay away from synagogues in Nazi Europe. <
Unfortunately no matter how smart they were, they could not do this retroactivly.
> In Nazi Europe, plenty of Jews denied being Jewish. And plenty of non-Jews denied being Jewish, too. <
And this you know how?
> When you don't identify yourself, you have no evidence that you know what I look like. <
I have known you most of your life. Besides you deny the existence of people who have known you even longer, like your brother, Dave.
> And what is a "distinctly Jewish appearance"? <
Look in the mirror. While you don't have the nose of many, your other features are quite "Jewish".
> Many Jewish names are also common German and East-European names of non-Jews. <
And many are not.
> Official figures have varied from one million to four million. <
What are "official" figures? Suppose it was only a half million of your relatives? Would it not therefore be a crime?
> When you don't identify yourself, you have no evidence that you know what I look like. <
We all know what you look like as I have described you previously.
You are of medium height, highly overweight, once dark but now greying hair (that is what is left of it). You grow your hair long on one side and comb it over the top. It doesn't stay down and you usually look like a one eared dog who has been startled. You used to wear a belt that was too large and pull it in tight with the excess hanging down in front. With your current diet it may be impossible for you to get a belt large enough to continue this habit.
And yes. You do look Jewish.
I expect this post to be. It will serve as an example. It is in answer to Larry's absurd claim that I don't know how he looks.
P.S. He drives a wreck of a white Oldsmobile that was painted with a brush. Some paint has even gone over the edges of the windows.
I think this description is what we all expected. Does he come out of his cave enough to drive? Perhaps his need for beer drives him out?
See Heresy/Apostasy/Apikoros.
(Philosophical reflection. Off topic. Somewhat.)
Painful as it is to witness the character faults of family and friends, the worst of it is when one is reminded of one's own.
ViU, we can't get away from the fact that the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. And we don't even know exactly what a Jew is. And the Nazis just rounded up people en masse. So an awful lot of mistakes must have been made.
>>>>>> And smart Jews learned to stay away from synagogues in Nazi Europe. <
Unfortunately no matter how smart they were, they could not do this retroactivly. <<<<<<
But too late for the Nazis to raid synagogues during services.
According to official holocaust history, you were a Jew even if your ancestor attended synagogue.
>>>>>>> Many Jewish names are also common German and East-European names of non-Jews. <
And many are not. <<<<<<<
Many top Nazis had Jewish-sounding names.
>>>>>>> What are "official" figures? Suppose it was only a half million of your relatives? Would it not therefore be a crime? <<<<<<<
So you are admitting that we don't know what the real figures are.
The question is, was it a "systematic" holocaust? And how many of the supposed "Jewish" victims were really Jews?
Plus it is obvious that you don't know me.
> ViU, we can't get away from the fact that the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. <
Larry, you can't get away from the fact that your blather has been completely disproven on this point. Restating this falsehood does not make it true.
> And the Nazis just rounded up people en masse. <
Not really. They didn't just go into a town and say "Let's grab 200 people at random and call them Jews."
> So an awful lot of mistakes must have been made. <
Probably so.
> But too late for the Nazis to raid synagogues during services. <
Did anyone claim that they did? It would be fairly easy to find out who had regularly attended synagogues after the fact.
> According to official holocaust history <
There is no such thing as "official holocaust history".
> So you are admitting that we don't know what the real figures are. <
You missed my point, as usual. Ask a sane person to tell you the meaning of that paragraph and try again.
> Plus it is obvious that you don't know me. <
Although I described you exactly? I didn't give the number of the condo at Village Green at which you currently freeload, nor the license number of the crate that you drive, nor did I mention the American Motors Gremlin that you used to have sitting rusting on Coliseum Street. Or perhaps I could give your phone number that is no longer valid since you couldn't pay your bill.
I could supply these numbers, but you would consider it an invasion of your privacy. Of course I wouldn't know these things if I didn't know you.
Larry,
It looks like ViU knows you quite well and it has already been proven that Dave is your real brother. Don't you realize what your denials do to your already quite limited credibility?
How do you rationalize these denials of the truth? I urge you to discuss this with your therapist.
ViU, without regard to whether your gossip about me is true or not, virtually all recommended comment policies, bloggers' code of ethics, and journalists' code of ethics have a rule against the invasion of privacy. I stopped enforcing that rule on this blog because of unwarranted complaints that I was violating my no-censorship policy by deleting comments. I was asked to re-post censored comments to show that censorship was justified. Though I stopped enforcing this rule, false charges that I am censoring comments are continuing.
For example, the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics says --
Be aware of the differences between private people and public figures, and remember that that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
-- and --
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
I have the same right to privacy as everyone else.
You are a worthless bag of shit.
You too, Sherry D.
> virtually all recommended comment policies, bloggers' code of ethics, and journalists' code of ethics have a rule against the invasion of privacy. <
Neither I, nor anyone else I have seen, has revealed personal information about you except to expose your lies and misrepresentations about yourself. I would suggest that in describing yourself, or things that you claim to have done, you open those things up to discussion.
Starting from square one, you would have a right to keep many things private. Once you have brought them up yourself, and worse yet, lied about them, nobody is being unethical in clarifying the situation with the truth.
> I stopped enforcing that rule on this blog because of unwarranted complaints that I was violating my no-censorship policy by deleting comments. <
The complaints were warranted. You first denied that you were deleting comments, then you admitted that you were, but had stopped. Did you lie when you first said that you did not delete comments, or was the lie when you later said that you did? Posts have disappeared even as recently as Wednesday and ViW, an almost daily contributor, has mysteriously and suddenly disappeared. You claimed that if the missing posts were emailed to you, you would post them yourself. This, like much that you say, turned out to be another lie.
> Though I stopped enforcing this rule, false charges that I am censoring comments are continuing. <
The comments are continuing, but they are not false. If you don't want people to believe that you are censoring comments, stop doing it. Your actions are too transparent for you to get away with this.
> Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy. <
You have a right to privacy in items such as, for example, where you live. If you posted that you lived in New York (which of course, you do not), it would not be a violation of your privacy to correct this by stating that you live in Los Angeles.
> Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. <
Ethical Journalists don't constantly call others "dunghill" or "worthless bag of shit". Since you are not an ethical journalist by any stretch of the imagination, what they do is a moot point.
> I have the same right to privacy as everyone else. <
When you made the absurd statement "it is obvious that you don't know me", I had the right to show that I do, and I have.
You once jumped on ViW for revealing your hopeless record in court. He was quite justified in doing so. Normally it would not be something open to discussion but as he said "If someone is claiming to be Annie Oakley, the fact that they have been unable to hit the ground with a sack of shit in a dozen successive tries is quite admissable".
You worthless dunghill, what in the hell do you think gives you the right to gossip about me on this blog? When I delete your gossip, you ask me to re-post it to prove that my deletion was justified. You shamelessly take advantage of my no-censorship policy while you ridicule my campaign against Internet censorship. You won't even post under your real name. Drop dead and go to hell.
> what in the hell do you think gives you the right to gossip about me on this blog? <
As I pointed out. You opened up the subject and I just corrected your lies.
> When I delete your gossip, you ask me to re-post it to prove that my deletion was justified. <
You once denied deleting anything, then you said that you did and tried to rationalize the reasons.
I did not bring up the idea of reposting it. You offered to repost anything that was sent to your email. Of course when I accepted your offer, you reneged. Why was I not surprised?
> You shamelessly take advantage of my no-censorship policy <
You have no such policy although you don't seem to be as bad as you once were.
> while you ridicule my campaign against Internet censorship. <
You seem to be campaigning against "arbitrary" censorship and yet you complain about people who do not censor arbitrarily. If you don't like censorship, try to live up to your claims. If you don't like people to give personal information, don't lie about yourself. You would not be a subject if you didn't bring it up.
> You won't even post under your real name. <
What difference does it make? You deny the existence of real people, such as your brother Dave.
You have maintained a resounding silence about ViW. Has he/she been banned?
It is time to submit nominations for the October "Holier-Than-Thou" contest. Nominations thus far received include "You are a worthless bag of shit" and "It is none of your god damned business" which appeared in an offline thread but would seem to be more appropriate here. (The latter is also eligible for the "Taking the Lord's Name in Vain" contest.)
It is not necessary to identify individuals for this contest; indeed, it is contrary to its real spirit.
(For November: "The Gossip Contest".)
>>>>>> As I pointed out. You opened up the subject and I just corrected your lies. <<<<<<<
You dunghill, I didn't open the subject. You are so full of crap that it is coming out your ears.
> you have no evidence that you know what I look like. <
> it is obvious that you don't know me. <
To which ViW shows that he does know you. Then you hit the fan with:
> I didn't open the subject. You are so full of crap that it is coming out your ears. <
I would agree that most people would have a right to privacy. If you were an "ethical journalist", you might claim a right to be treated the same. When you bait someone who obviously does know you, you get what you asked for.
I believe that you stirred this up to distract people from the questions you can't answer:
1. If the number murdered were only a thousand, would it still not be a crime? (Please don't lower the intellectual level of this discussion below that of arborial primates by saying that nobody can be sure if it wasn't 999, or 1001.)
2. What is the "official" story?
See Narcissistic Wounding.
> Narcissistic Wounding <
Many of the aspects of this malady seem to fit Larry closely, but he shows no concern for his personal appearance (which is quite bizarre) other than futile attempts to cover his bald head, efforts which only serve to call attention to it.
Come on guys. This has gone too far (even if Larry is mostly to blame for inviting it).
Of course this site has become known as a place where the advanced stages of clinical madness can be observed, but Larry's implosion should be studied passively for the best scientific conclusion. Ruffling his feathers should be limited to pointing out the absurdity of his positions and the failure of his logic. Let's stick to the issues.
Methinks the issue is the tragedy of dwindling compassion.
See the Respect-Contempt Axis of Facework Theory.
I received a set of amusing cartoons via a third party from an unintended offendee (I'd post a sample here but blogger doesn't support graphics in comments). At the bottom was the following adage:
"Be who you are and say what you feel...
Because those that matter... don't mind...
And those that mind... don't matter."
So true.
BTW, hat tips to "Polonius" (similar sentiment) and to Moulton especially for the Facework reference.
Besides Brown and Levinson, another researcher named Robyn Penman has made some interesting contributions to Facework Theory.
Contest Director said...
> It is time to submit nominations for the October "Holier-Than-Thou" contest.<
I would suggest that we also resume the "Lunatic of the Month" contest. This seems to have lost steam as nobody was able to hold a candle to Larry's brayings. I nominate him for a new award based on his statement to Wikipedia, which banned him for his well known Charlie McCarthyism and sock puppetry.
"It is always a problem that people who post persuasive arguments are likely to be mistaken for me." -- Larry Fafarman
In a Race to the Bottom, it hardly matters who wins, as all the runners eventually end up at the same finish line.
Post a Comment
<< Home