I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, July 03, 2009

Darwinist troll gossips about my religion

In a comment on The Intersection blog, "Mel" told me,

"apparently when you decided you weren’t Jewish any more you also decided to get rid of the Jewish tradition of learning"

The jerk is an anti-Semitic scumbag who thinks he has "outed" me as a former Jew. The dunghill thinks he is like the "informers" that the Nazis supposedly relied upon to identify Jews. The two biggest hoaxes in history: Darwinism and the "systematic" Jewish holocaust.

Gossiping about people's religious affiliations or beliefs is beyond the pale and I have asked The Intersection's bloggers to delete the comment immediately.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought you were against censorhip.

And what do you mean the the "systematic holocaust" being myth?


Goldstein's Student

Saturday, July 04, 2009 4:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

By "systematic" Jewish holocaust, I mean a holocaust where there is objective and reliable identification of all Jews and all non-Jews. I assert that such identification is impossible.

Saturday, July 04, 2009 6:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And since no historian claims that particular viewpoint, I don't see how that is relevant.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

WHAT particular viewpoint? And why can't a particular viewpoint be relevant without being claimed by a historian?

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No historian believes that there was completely objective or completely reliable identification of Jews, nor do they believe all the Jews were identified.

You seem to base your claim of being a Holocaust Revisionist on a strawman.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:54:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> No historian believes that there was completely objective or completely reliable identification of Jews, nor do they believe all the Jews were identified. <<<<<<<

Wrong -- they call the holocaust "systematic," and a "systematic holocaust" by definition requires objective and reliable identification of both all Jews and all non-Jews. Otherwise, how would you define "systematic"? 90% reliability? 80% reliability? 50% reliability?

The Nazis often just rounded up people en masse and there was no time for individual identification.

The issue of identification of Jews and non-Jews is fundamental to holocaust studies but has been almost completely ignored. Even Edwin Black, author of "IBM and the Holocaust," says, "few have asked."

Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wrong. They call the holocaust systematic, not "systematic", and unlike a "systematic" holocaust, a systematic holocaust by definition requires a thorough and consistent effort to identify what the Nazi's defined as Jews. It does not have to be objective or reliable in order to be systematic. Those are just bonus traits (in the eyes of the Nazis).

For example, a census that includes questions regarding current and ancestral religious affiliations is a consistent but not necessarily reliable method of identifying Jews. Coupled with the thoroughness of its administration, such a census meets the definition of systematic.

How the data was gathered to identify the Jews has been well studied. However, few have tried to figure out what the Nazi's did with the data after it was gathered.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:41:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> They call the holocaust systematic, not "systematic", <<<<<<<

I used the quote marks for emphasis, not because I thought that the word was being used in a way that the intended meaning was different from the correct meaning.

>>>>>> a systematic holocaust by definition requires a thorough and consistent effort to identify what the Nazi's defined as Jews. It does not have to be objective or reliable in order to be systematic <<<<<<<

Then the word "systematic" is meaningless -- it can mean anywhere between a 1 percent success rate and a 100 percent success rate in identifying Jews and non-Jews. Actually, identifying Jews and non-Jews is virtually impossible because we have no objective definition of the word "Jew." And If the Nazis had attempted to carry out a "systematic" Jewish holocaust, then we would have heard more complaints from people who believed that they were mistakenly identified as Jews.

>>>>>> For example, a census that includes questions regarding current and ancestral religious affiliations is a consistent but not necessarily reliable method of identifying Jews. Coupled with the thoroughness of its administration, such a census meets the definition of systematic. <<<<<<

The Nazis could control census-taking only in Germany, and that was only after they came to power. And the Nazis made no attempt to conceal their anti-Semitism, so Germans had a strong incentive against self-identifying themselves as Jews. Also, supposedly many "Jewish" victims of the holocaust did not even think of themselves as Jews.

Also, there is something I have wondered about -- why weren't Jews tattooed as soon as they were identified? Why did the Nazis wait until the Jews were in concentration camps to identify them with tattoos?

>>>>>> How the data was gathered to identify the Jews has been well studied. <<<<<<

Then where are the studies? Even Edwin Black, author of "IBM and the Holocaust," said that "few have asked" about how the Jews were identified.

>>>>>> However, few have tried to figure out what the Nazi's did with the data after it was gathered. <<<<<<

A stunning admission.

Thursday, July 09, 2009 7:07:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home