Thursday, March 19, 2009

The Jambar, a question that cannot be answered

Professor Lepak writes (19 March) that Bradley R. Smith poses a question that cannot be answered. My question reads: “Can you provide, with proof, the name of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz.”

The professor writes that the question cannot be answered because it is not my “objective” [to have it answered], a non sequitur even for a professor. He then suggests, without committing himself concretely to the fact of the matter, that the question can indeed be answered by searching the German Federal Archives in Koblenz and the International Tracing Center at Bad Arolsen.

So Lepak wants it both ways. On the one hand the question cannot really be answered, while on the other if I were not a “coward” I would go to Germany where the records exist that would answer the question. Which is it, Prof?

Lepak writes that my question is “sophistic”, not a real rhetorical trick but a “kind” of rhetorical trick. My inquiry is so “narrow” that it obscures something “more important.” What is this thing that is more important? One, I don’t include the word “please” in the question. Two: the question demonstrates a “skepticism of authority.” To be skeptical of authority is something most of us probably wish would have been the norm in Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Hitler’s Germany, to mention a few places during my own lifetime where skepticism of authority was, shall we say, seriously frowned upon by the authorities.

And three: Lepak writes, with a stunning disregard for language, that when I ask for the name, with proof, of one person who was killed in a gas chamber at Auschwitz that I am asking for “anecdotal” evidence. It is obvious in my language I am not, and he cannot demonstrate that I am. The fact of the matter is in the question itself: I am asking for “proof,” not anecdotal evidence. There it is in the question itself. “Proof.”

Professor Lepak and I appear to have opposing agendas. Mine is to encourage a free exchange of ideas on the gas-chamber question. Lepak’s agenda appears to be to discourage a free exchange of ideas on the matter. That is probably one reason why he uses an irrational vocabulary that includes such unnecessary terms as “coward,” “sophist,” “cynic,” “dishonest,” and that I am looking for a “jaded and lazy audience.”

To the contrary. Try me. I’m with those who are frowned upon for questioning authority.

3 comments:

Chip said...

Professor Lepak wishes to advance the case that a seemingly straightforward question is pregnant with duplicitous complexity. He uses a lot of words buttressed with the pretense of mind-reading certitude, but when the verbiage falls short, the question remains to be answered. And the plain fact is, it could be answered with a corpse.

I've thought a lot about Bradley's question. I think there is a good-faith argument that the demand for "proof" rather than, say, "evidence," is rhetorical. But I think this argument is ultimately flawed. We should remember that proof is a tested juridical and scientific standard, subject to reason and positivist qualification. An absence of proof does not mean that something did not occur; it simply means that the claim that something did occur roots in belief, or faith, or perhaps a more informed hunch, but not empirical veracity. Where you go from there is a matter of sensibility, or epistemology, or prejudice.

The question is not rhetorical. It is wonderfully provocative, and there's the rub.

apollonian said...

Lepak, The Jew, Echoes Pontius Pilate: "What Is Truth?"
(Apollonian, 21 Mar 09)

I think surely one of the greatest holohoax mysteries is this: 6 million dead, supposedly, as hundreds of thousands at Treblinka, etc., and THERE ARE NO BODIES or remains?--I mean, like, zilch, nada, not the faintest.

Bradley's question ("one person w. proof") is so brilliant as it brings up the very issue of proof and evidence. And it's an incredible discovery to find for the honest student--HEY, it's all a huge gigantic farce, that's all, just repeated and repeated, over and over and over on the Jew-controlled mass-corporate media.

And then--the chilling truth begins to dawn upon the thoughtful person--who only started with merest honesty, even just faintest curiosity: IT'S ACTUALLY A RELIGION, is what it really is, the holohoax.

And then everything else begins to make sense--like how Christianity is routinely and constantly denigrated. And in same way, the 9-11 truthers are also stonewalled, ridiculed, and insulted in similar fashion as students of holohoax.

Finally, the honest student realizes he/she is into Judaic psychopathology and the horrific, morbid manner Jews program themselves--no wonder they're universally hated--and no wonder they've been kicked out of every country on earth.

CONCLUSION: So Bradley Smith surely deserves greatest credit--and thanks fm all citizens who struggle with frauds of all various kinds. And don't forget that great question asked by Pontius Pilate in Gosp. JOHN, "what is truth?"--that's what it gets down to. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Larry Fafarman said...

Your question of "one person with proof" calls the bluff of those who claim that official holocaust history is based to a great extent on "meticulous" Nazi records.

Ironically, Prof. Lepak says that you would be risking prosecution for holocaust denial if you went to Germany to try to get answers yourself. Lepak is too stupid to recognize his own contradictions.

apollonian said...
>>>>> THERE ARE NO BODIES or remains?--I mean, like, zilch, nada, not the faintest. <<<<<<

I have seen pictures -- still photos and motion pictures -- of corpses at the camps. But the corpses were emaciated, suggesting death by starvation instead of by gassing.

>>>>>> Finally, the honest student realizes he/she is into Judaic psychopathology and the horrific, morbid manner Jews program themselves--no wonder they're universally hated--and no wonder they've been kicked out of every country on earth. <<<<<<

That statement is extremely anti-Semitic.

Also, as I have pointed out before on this blog, a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. I am not talking about identification methods that work some of the time -- to have a "systematic" holocaust you need identification methods that work all of the time. And it is not just a matter of identifying Jews -- it is also necessary to avoid mistaking non-Jews for Jews. And even today, we don't know exactly what a Jew is.