Blog powered by Typepad

« Bored, baby | Main | Ether or ... »


If you think it's okay to play around with revising history to suit some narrow minded political agenda, be assured that some other group will get around to revising it about some thing that personally outrages you, and then you may not look upon it so kindly.

Less so the more successful it is.

Revising history is a nuclear option nobody should use.

I am not Jewish. But I will never forget the WWII movie footage of emaciated dead Jewish bodies piled on top of each other in pits and on the ground.

And I will never excuse it.

I will not play along with the sentiments that make it acceptable for devils like Zarqawi to behead fools who thought they'd help, like Nicholas Berg. Remember that video? Remember the slow torturous beheading of Nicholas Berg, on video for the world to see?

And I will not pretend that no historical precedent for murdering Jews en masse predated Hitler.

Ask the Qurayza Jews. Oh wait. Silly me. There are none left. Muhammad had all the men beheaded in 627 AD. 600 to 700 Nicholas Bergs in one day.

Bruce - we shout down and demonize people who poke soft holes in the painful parts of human the name of intelligent inquiry - because truth, when it's horrible and hurtful - in my view - sort of demands that we do.

Like you - I'm Jewish as well - and based from your web site info - probably a few decades younger.

Yet, I have family remaining who are stamped, scarred and tattooed from Nazi death camps.....and don't find it too hard to wrap my brain around the fact that people get a bit super sensitive to the notion that millions of our anscestors - women, children, babies...... weren't really gassed to death.

I find the idea that just sorta kinda flirting with the idea for shits and giggles that it may not really have jews and non-jews pretty damn offensive.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want, I guess......

But it shouldn't be a surprise that people like Larry and others get a bit bent when they do.

I think it is unwise to try to prevent people from examining the facts of history insofar as they are available. I do not think any events in history are exempt from this. Attempts to prevent it and the demonisation mentioned seem to me counter-productive and hysterical.

The way in which those events are examined and the motivation behind them are another matter. I did not detect any improper motive in Erich's comments.

Excellent comment Felipe.

Felipe, Larry seems to get "bent" over a lot of different topics.

I am glad some readers here actually read and understood what I wrote and did not assign to me opinions and statements I never, and would never, hold or express.

Lectures re; the offensiveness of discussing the topic are not necessary as far as I am concerned.

In the Armenian community I grew up in (Detroit), there was always this black cloud hanging over my grandfather's generation. They could never enjoy life again. They walked around as if haunted by horror. This grim aura impacted the next (my fathers) generation profoundly as well. I saw it. I lived in it.

Yet, for almost a century the Turkish gov't has refused to admit what it did to the Armenians and the US govt has been complicit not only in their ability to continue to deny, but to arrest anyone who wishes to discuss the topic in alight unfavorable to the Turks.

Almost worse, to me and some others that I know, is the near hero worship of the Kurds that has cropped up in the media from time to time in recent history. When the Turks were too busy slaughtering Armenians in the North they (essentially) hired the Kurds to do their butchery in the South. The Kurds were all to glad to help. My grandmother's village, like many others, was raped, pillaged and massacred by Kurds. If you go to Urfa (or Orfa) today, the home of my grandmother's family, like all others there, is inhabited by the descendants of the Kurds that killed everyone of the the original Armenian inhabitants. The Kurds had been living the lifestyle of nomadic cutthroats for generations. Trust me. That is who they still are today. In that region, culture evolves very very slowly. Now, revisionist history has the Kurds as these noble freedom loving carriers of the flame of democracy. What a sick joke.

Yet I have never shouted down or name called anyone expressing positive opinions of the Kurds. Not have I ever done the same to anyone doubting the fact of the Armenian genocide. I have, instead, pointed doubters to educational sources that I felt they should examine before continuing to express their opinion. Oddly, in the converse, I have been shouted down for suggesting that the Kurds are not all that mainstream media revisionist say they are.

People don't like to have their views challenged; especially if those views are part of some group think. And much of "history" is merely group think propaganda; often written by the victors.

Yes, truly, " is unwise to try to prevent people from examining the facts of history insofar as they are available. I do not think any events in history are exempt from this."

This discussion prompted me to start reading Richard J. Evans' book "Lying About Hitler," a detailed examination of Irving's claims. So far I'm finding the book very compelling. Evans shows clearly, in meticulous detail, how Irving misused his sources.

A Kindle edition is available for $9.99 and used print copies start at under $4.00. The Amazon page is here:

Cite facts. By all means, please do. But if someone cites facts selectively to purposely create doubt and misleading impressions, then that person is up to no good. I will not make believe that is harmless.

Freedom of speech is a knife that everyone carries in America, folks, and it doesn't mean freedom from dissenting speech.

"This discussion prompted me to start reading Richard J. Evans' book 'Lying About Hitler,' a detailed examination of Irving's claims. So far I'm finding the book very compelling."

The Library Journal review of that book is interesting:

"As an expert witness for the defense in last year's Irving-Lipstadt trial, Evans (history, Cambridge Univ.) was charged with determining whether David Irving was, as Deborah Lipstadt asserted, a Holocaust denier. Evans spent two years researching Irving's work, tracing his sources, and then evaluating his publications and public speeches. Moving easily from analysis of Irving's abuse of primary documents to a discussion of what constitutes legitimate historical methodology, Evans presents compelling proof that Irving is a Holocaust denier and why he should not be considered a legitimate member of the historical profession. Evans's depiction of the trial and of Irving's behavior in court is followed by an assessment of the implications of the judgment in Lipstadt's favor. Evans's point that some commentators seemed to forget that it was Irving who was attempting to silence Lipstadt, rather than academic historians and 'Jewish interest groups' attempting to stifle free speech, is well worth remembering. Evans eloquently argues that what was really on trial was history itself. Fortunately, history won. Ironically, Evans's carefully documented book has not yet been published in the U.K., as Irving's threats to bring a libel suit have already caused one company to drop publication."

I must have missed something here. Who is supporting Irving?

Nick Herbert.

Yes, Irving is a denier and if, in the course of his case for denial, he is playing fast and loose with historic facts, then, by all means, discredit him as an historian.

But Herbert is a different matter, I think. He seems to have been focussed on two aspects only. One that I promised not to discuss any more (and won't) and the other being the right to free speach and to question popular story lines. I only defended Herbert to the extent that I believe his defense of Irving is limited to these two areas. If herbert's orientation is toward a larger holocaust denial based on abuse of scientific inquiry, then I have issues with his credibility as well.

That being said, the US govt supports the Turkish Armenian genocide denial. So, by the reasoning of a Larry, the US govt, like herbert, should be shunned and distrusted in all things. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Priciples are priciples are they not?

This started out with Larry trying to blackball Herbert and his perspectives re; NDEs because of his defense of Irving.

"the US govt supports the Turkish Armenian genocide denial."

The situation is actually one where realpolitick has trumped scruples. The US congress was set to pass a resolution condemning Turkey, which then threatened some sort of retaliation or non-cooperation in the war on terror, at which point congress, at the urging of the administration, tabled the matter. (Or such is my recollection of events.)

Yeah, something like that, Roger.

Makes you wonder in what other areas realpolitick has trumped scuples. Makes you wonder about a lot of things - for some people makes them wonder about 9/11.

Makes me wonder if Larry and dmduncan have called their elected reps and demanded a cessation of the official policy of genocide denial.

I am not going to argue with a Holocaust Revisionist, it is beyond the pale - but I wouldn't expect a Holocaust Revisionist like Erich to make any sense and respect basic facts and he doesn't.

Since Erich denies the extent of the Nazi genocide of Jewry, what is Erich's comment above supposed to mean?? After all I don't deny the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. I am not the one questioning any facts about any holocaust, unlike Erich. So Erich makes no sense (and Erich gets the US stance on the Turkish genocide of the Armenians entirely wrong btw, the US govt doesn't deny the Armenian genocide, they are just pathetically looking the other way out of realpolitik), but then again what else would one expect from Erich, the Holocaust (of Jewry) Revisionist, but getting his facts wrong?

Nick Herbert shares David Irving's views on the Holocaust, ie like Irving, Herbert is a Holocaust Revisionist and endorsing Irving's views makes Herbert an extreme Revisionist/Denier. That's why I said he should be shunned. I do realise Holocaust Revisionists and other bigots of assorted stripes could care less if somebody like Herbert holds the same opinions of the Holocaust as extreme right-wing fascists like Irving (which Herbert does), but then what else to expect? My call for him to be made persona non grata had nothing to do with his opinion on NDEs, evolutionary theory, vaccines, his opinion on the state of Hollywood cinema or whether he prefers beer to wine or whatever else.

Erich shares his Revisionist opinions on the Holocaust with people like neo-Nazis and Muslim jihadists who are hoping to make the world Judenrein and committ another Holocaust - tell me Erich (and Prescott for that matter) is that just a meaningless coincidence? No I don't really expect an answer here of course.

To Prescott - I suggest the next time you see any self-respecting Jew (if you have any contact with any) that you let them know that you don't necessarily consider Holocaust Revisionism to be anti-Semitic (one wonders where Prescott draws the line with anti-Semitism or if he even has one). Maybe if you ever bump into Dean Radin (of Polish Jewish extraction), who lost at least half his family to the Nazis, you let him know that people like Erich who clearly imply that many of the Jewish (and non-Jewish) camp survivors were lying about either the scale or nature or both of the exterminations (despite all the evidence to the contrary) are not necessarily anti-Semitic. You don't see it that way, they might be anti-Semitic, they might not be, depends how long they have held these views blabla. You don't see it as cut and dried at all.


The level of discussion on this blog has sunk to an all-time low. Last night I thought about shutting down the blog altogether. But then I thought: Why should I do that, when a much simpler remedy is available?

What I'm going to do is go through the two threads on 9-11 Trutherism and Holocaust denial, make a list of all those who supported either of these positions, and ban all of them from ever commenting again. I am also going to ban Larry, because he is an insulting, offensive jerk who deliberatively misconstrues what other people (including me) have said.

Is this censorship? Technically no, since only the government can censor. But in a loose sense, yes, it is. Tough. I'm sick of reading this garbage on my own blog. It's personally embarrassing to me.

There is a very interesting post in the comments thread of Alex's latest podcast. From a person called Rudolf Smit. He has produced a PDF(nearly at the bottom of the page) which completey discredits Woerlee's conjecture on the case of the dentures. He apparently tracked down the male nurse who removed the teeth and said nurse is certain that he removed the dentures before CPR was begun. CERTAIN. This is extremely important because the patient reported that he SAW the dentures being removed. But Smit's paper shows that 'that' was impossible because the man was completely comatose.

Thanks for the info, Trev. For those who are interested, here's a direct link to the PDF on the "dentures" case:

“I'm sick of reading this garbage on my own blog. It's personally embarrassing to me.”

I hear you, Michael. I’ve suspected that you must feel that way, at times. Probably, often enough, about stuff that I myself write. :o)

But yesterday, I was actually feeling good about the direction this particular thread had taken. It seems to me that (except for Larry’s comment today) we’ve managed to arrive at some some pretty thoughtful conversation.

I also took a quick look over the thread and couldn’t find anyone who’s a Holocaust denier, so I’m wondering who you’re referring to.

Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what develops from here.

I suppose I should comment briefly on Larry's remarks above.

He wrote, "You don't see it that way, they might be anti-Semitic, they might not be, depends how long they have held these views blabla."

To me, it's obvious that there is a difference between someone who has looked into a subject for a few hours and drawn a few tentative, provisional conclusions, versus someone who has immersed himself in the subject for years, knows all the arguments and evidence against his position, and continues to dogmatically maintain his position anyway.

I'm willing to cut the first person some slack, but not the second one.

MP: I hope you won't ban ZC, who is the #2 contributor here (after you).

"Makes me wonder if Larry and dmduncan have called their elected reps and demanded a cessation of the official policy of genocide denial."

Who represents me, Erich? Why would I call a senator or a congressman who will politely listen to my comment, send out a form letter thanking me, and who then does what he wants, which is no different than what he was going to do before I called???

Ouch, MP. Thought you might be interested:

so once again reality bits Woerlee in the butt.

Michael P, I am relieved you chose not to shut down this blog. It is an excellent resource and one which I (and I'm sure many others) have benefited from considerably.

Micheal Duggan,

If that is a snarky response to Kris, why don't you take a few minutes to look at the paper from Rudolf Smit.

If it's not, apologies.

Don't think Duggan said anything to me...

"Ouch, MP."

The study says iPad owners are six times more likely to be "wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50 year olds."

Hmm. I'm not sure how much of that applies to me, but some of it does!

The study seems to boil down to this: iPad owners are older and have more money; iPad critics are younger and have less money.

That sounds about right.

"Don't think Duggan said anything to me..."

I don't think so either.

Me neither!
(Looks confused!)

Michael D,

Quite obviously I need some treatment for my paranoia.

A sincere apology to you.

where did I misconstrue what you said Michael P? Oh wait I'm banned this won't go through. Are you kidding, I let you off the hook?

I meant to say 'let you off the hook' (sans question mark). Wait am I unbanned now? Or will my comments be deleted?

In that case re Erich (and maybe this will be deleted but I take a chance)..

I called out Erich for an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist on the 'rooting for JREF' thread where Erich wrote the following re 9-11:

"However, I do think there could have been a conspiracy - from within the US gov't - to allow them to carry out their sinister plans. Especially when you have equally fanatical people in the US gov't, like say Richard Perle, stating shortly before the event, that the US needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to motivate us to sieze (what he and his neocon cromies saw as) the historic opportunity to become a unilateral power in the world; imposing a pax-americana through use of military force (well documented; google richard perle new pearl harbor neocons project for new american century)."

So Erich on that very thread where he acknowledged that the hijackers were Muslim extremists, nevertheless clearly implies that it's possible that a notable JEW Richard Perle somehow orchestrated behind the scenes with the Muslim extremist hijackers who hate Perle to death because he's a Jew, to carry out the mass murder of thousands of Perle's fellow Americans on 9-11 (and that would include Republicans and fellow Jews among them!!), one assumes for the purpose of dragging America into a war etc.

Blaming a Jew/s for pulling the strings behind the scenes for the most notorious terrorist atrocity in the Western World in the twenty-first century - 9-11, in which thousands of Americans including Jews were incinerated, when in fact jihadists were solely responsible, is thus not only indicative of 9-11 'Trutherism' and ridiculous conspiracy woowoo in general, it is worse than that.. Blaming the JEW behind the scenes for a terrible evil terrorist atrocity to further his own nefarious ends (and one assumes perhaps the nefarious rapacious goals of others nudge nudge wink wink) when of course no Jews nor Catholics nor Protestants nor Apaches nor Eskimos nor secular humanists nor Hindus had anything to do with the terrible evil that was the 9-11 atrocity; is not merely anti-Semitic, it is pathological anti-Semitism - classic Medieval anti-Semitism of the 'human devil Jew behind the scenes plotting to destroy the lives of the gentile innocents for his own sinister ends' type. So Erich's Holocaust Revisionism came as no surprise to me, it is entirely consistent with his 9-11 conspiracy woowoo in which he thinks it plausible that an influential Jew played a major role in that act of mass murder for which jihadists are responsible.

Note how Erich's MO on his 9-11 conspiracy woowoo is the same as his MO on his Holocaust Revisionism, he denies that he's a 9-11 conspiracy theorist while at the same time saying maybe a powerful Jew was involved behind the scenes and he doesn't deny the Holocaust, just denies the extent or the nature of the deaths or both of the Holocaust victims as Holocaust Revisionists are wont to do, and then on both threads he expressed outrage at being called anti-Semitic by me. Whatever would give one that impression?

Bruce Siegel writes:
"I also took a quick look over the thread and couldn’t find anyone who’s a Holocaust denier, so I’m wondering who you’re referring to."

Does somebody want to help Bruce Siegel out here? He doesn't see any Holocaust Denial in this thread apparently. To be technical, I never said Denial per se, I said Holocaust Revisionism. Well there's Erich and Paul see? (at the least)

Endorsing the views of David Irving, one of the most notorious Holocaust Revisionists in the world on the gas chambers alone, as Herbert does and clearly Erich does (it's all there above), is Holocaust Revisionism in principle. Irving has been entirely discredited on this front - what he has said on the gas chambers are lies, distortions and fabrications. Herbert ignores the fact that Irving (an extreme right-wing fascist) has been discredited here and on the Holocaust as a whole and has no credibility, yet Erich believes Herbert and Irving are possibly credible on this issue of the gas chambers, that there may be something to Herbert's and Irving's position here, the jury isn't in...even though the very literal judge and jury is in. Irving was entirely and emphatically discredited during the Lipstadt and Penguin Books vs Irving libel trial in the UK some years ago now, yet you wouldn't know it from the likes of Erich and you never will.

It does make a difference btw (Erich's protestations to the contrary - "a meaningless detail") saying the Jews died from disease and starvation rather than gas (of course many did die from disease and starvation) but saying those who actually were murdered in the gas chambers died from disease and starvation instead - as Erich clearly does; since you are saying they died from the neglect and apathy and indifference of the Nazis rather than the cold extreme bigotry and genocidal bloodlust and unsurpassable HATE of the Nazis and the wilful humiliation and trauma they thus inflicted on Jews sent to the gas chambers in their last moments. In other words it is downplaying the evil of the Nazis considerably, the Jews died through Nazi indifference and incompetence rather than through premeditated pre-planned purposeful murder and humiliation of the most despicable kind, to reiterate the point Prescott made. So Erich's falsehoods on this front are two-fold, "a meaningless detail" and the lie about the gas chambers per se.

Erich wrote (in response to Prescott pointing out some obvious facts re the Holocaust and Irving):

"The quality of the evidence you cite has been called into question.

interesting link displaying the basics of the revivionist case which addresses the "evidence" of planned genocide"

Did anybody bother to follow-up on Erich's "interesting link" that he recommends above on the gas chambers and Holocaust question?

It is standard gas chambers denial entitled 'The Auschwitz ' Gas Chamber' Illusion' (authored by Nicholas Kollerstrom a well-known UK historian of science and science writer interested in marginal and liminal science and well-known in UK 'crop circle' circles!!) and Holocaust Revisionist claptrap and Kollerstrom's sources are among the most notorious Holocaust Revisionists/Deniers and anti-Semites in the West - Zundel, Butz, Irving and others. The worst in other words.

Erich's recommended link is part of the CODOH website and organisation (Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust) ie a Holocaust Revisionist group founded by Bradley Smith, one of the most notorious Holocaust Revisionists in the States, in 1987 with Mark Weber a very well-known Holocaust Denier. So Erich puts up a link approvingly, recommending the contents as plausible and perhaps valid and accurate (it makes more of an impression on Erich than the 'official history' that much is clear), a link to CODOH, a notorious Holocaust Revisionist organisation founded by well-known hardcore Holocaust Deniers Smith and Mark Weber and one that heartily recommends the Holocaust Denial writings of Irving, Butz, Zundel and others - ie all the who's who in the Holocaust Denial zoo. At the front page of CODOH is a photo of an old man and a woman and the thought bubble "where's the tattoo" and these remarks on Eli Wiesel:

"Elie Wiesel is the most visible representative of “The Holocaust” and the most highly-rewarded of its alleged victims. Elie Wiesel has made fantastic charges about concentration camp atrocities, many that were not believable and were therefore subsequently attributed as being “literary devices.” Elie Wiesel’s descriptions of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, where he claims to have spent a year of his life, are full of inaccuracies and contradictions, and even obvious falsehoods."

You can imagine the rest...

But Erich is just "only trying to get a more general discussion concerning open mindedness" and goring "sacred cows" don't you know?

Prescott on Irving:

"All this Irving must ignore or reinterpret. Whatever he's up to, it's not a quest for truth."

The same can be said for Erich, he is not on a quest for truth despite his lying to the contrary.

Larry on Erich (further up):
"a stupid Jew-hater who pretends he is not"

Bruce Siegel in response:
"Not a chance. I know Erich well enough from his posts to know that's not true"

Ben in response:
"Well said, Bruce. Erich is a modern shaman in training. He boldly goes, he dares. Nothing is off-limits"

Nothing somebody like Erich says can be taken at face value, including his claim that he has just looked into this issue of the gas chambers or whatever else for a few hours, and he just wants to get at the truth and question taboos etc. Nothing that Holocaust Revisionists and extreme conspiracy theorists say (and that includes Erich who thinks a Jew played a leading role in orchestrating 9-11) by fact of what they are can be taken at face value. Erich and his ilk bend and weave, dodge and dive, speak out of two sides of their mouth. As I write way up above:

I have noticed a lot of people like Erich out there, you see them commentating all over indymedia type sites, and their MO is this.. 'the Holocaust was terrible, plenty Jews died, there was disease blabla..BUT there is a lot in the 'official history' that makes no sense, appears exaggerated especially about the gas chambers, not that Jews weren't gassed BUT etc etc' They try to soften the blow and the bigotry of their Holocaust Revisionism this way, it's typical new anti-Semitism.

I prefer the honest upfront kind, at least neo-Nazis and Muslim jihadists are honest about what they are and admit their bigotry.

Larry, when it comes to the Holocaust I would say, I would rather believe a lie then try and expose it.

However, that's irrelevant because I believe millions of Jews were killed in the concentration camps, many of whom in gas chambers. It's a subject that terrifies and saddens me, and I see little point in debating it.

Believe me, if MP felt Erich was truly questioning the Holocaust, he'd have closed the comments. He did it previously with 9/11 'truthers' (it was a while back) and with someone claiming Nazis were 'regular people' and therefore shouldn't be judged. I think he's right not to tolerate certain subjects being discussed due to the pain it can cause people by reading them.

I just think though that right now, you're a little bit too caught up in the argument. I'd recommend sitting the next couple of plays out. For your own good as well.

Larry, I wish I were a better listener. Truly. When someone speaks to me, I'm often hearing what I want to hear, or thinking about what I'm going to say next.

But when it comes to not caring about what others are trying hard to say, you take the cake.

Oh why can't we talk about non-local consciousness, like the old days? !!

Michael Duggan,

If that is a snarky response to.....

Just kidding of course. I'm feeling much better now after the therapy. :D

I think this is the danger of taking the paranormal seriously. Too many people go off the deep end and get lost. They don't know how to distinguish between what is reasonably questionable and what is not. The compass is lost. Everything looks equally real, equally false. (And I hope I have made enough comments by now that people know that my first two sentences are not a denial of the paranormal).

And with that sort of delusion the most awful history is more likely to repeat itself.

Yes, people have a right to question what they want, to say what they think. Well, unless you are Oriana Fallaci and you live in Italy. Or France.

But then, quoting the simple wisdom of country singer Charlie Daniels, then you have to live with it. Right? The tape isn't over anybody else's mouth either.

Thank God for Evans. How many other people out there or in here would have spent two years meticulously showing that Irving was full of shit?

How many people are vulnerable to lies and distortions of other kinds because there IS NO Evans doing the same thing for other issues where scoundrels with letters after their names blatantly abuse the trust they know those letters will give them?

I thought I had banned Larry, but evidently he has several IP addresses. I am doing my best to block each one as it comes up.

"Are you kidding, I let you off the hook"

Yes, by implying I'm an anti-Semite. Go away, Larry, you are not welcome here.

My old history teacher used to say this: it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it. To win an argument, you need to woo your audience, not bully them. You can never convince people against their will, even if your findings are flawless and your logic is laudable.

At another time he said: you can win an argument and lose a friend. Better to keep schtum.

Yes Ben but remember not to woo woo your audience :)

It does not do,
It does not do,
To split in two;

Alas! It’s true,
We are too few
Are me and you.

So, Christian, Jew,
Muslim, Hindu
If you love woo,

You must subdue
The bold cuckoo
Within your crew.

Then you can boo
All who pooh-pooh
Your lovely woo.

On Coast to Coast AM tonight (Friday) in five minutes, at 10:35 PM Pacific, there will be a gues discussing NDEs. Here's the blurb from the C2C site:

"During the first half of the program, George Noory welcomes author Alissa Al-Chokhachy, who will discuss some of the 'miraculous moments' she has seen during her time as a nurse, such as after-life communication and near death experiences."

Here's the guest's website, where you can buy her book,

Here's the book blurb from her site:
"Miraculous Moments: True Stories Affirming That Life Goes On contains over eighty-eight first hand accounts of after death communication, nearing death awareness and near death experiences. Unexpected communication from deceased loved ones can bring hope and comfort to the dying and the bereaved. The memorable testimonials shared within Miraculous Moments provide invaluable reassurance that love and life are eternal."

The comments to this entry are closed.