Monday, June 28, 2010

Holocaust: the burden of proof

Jo Fo, an anonymous “beginner” with the CODOH Forum asks a core question:

“I am a newcomer to this forum and a relative newcomer to this subject in general so if my comments or questions seem a bit academic, please indulge me. Where does the burden of proof in this debate lie? Many in the "exterminationist" camp scoff at the notion that they should have to further substantiate what they already consider established fact. Is it the revisionist's task to disprove their conclusions or could they be fairly required to offer more credible evidence in the first place?”

After a dozen posts replying to this interesting thread, Jo Fo writes:

“So philosophically the answer is fairly straight forward: The burden of proof should fall on those who make the initial claim of deliberate mass murder. But in practice, it doesn't seem to play out that way. That it should allegedly take place during a devastating world war doesn't simplify the matter!

“Kingfisher's idea of getting people to "step back" and re-examine the entire issue is constructive. I would hope that this could one day be treated solely as the murder investigation that it never was. Discard all previous conclusions and invite an unbiased, disinterested third party with sufficient technological prowess (the Chinese or Indians?) to conduct a thorough forensic and historical investigation. Focus on primary documentary evidence and use modern forensic science to find out what really happened. I understand that limited ventures toward this end have already been attempted in the past, but they always seem to run into issues of credibility and integrity.

“Considering the opposition to such an undertaking, this is all pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; and even if it were to take place, it probably wouldn't put an end to the controversy. I am grateful to all who have commented so far.”

For my part, the burden of proof lies first with those who accuse another of a specific murder. That would be the American Way if we were to ask the Fox talkers and most everyone else in media and the university. Of course, there must be exceptions made here and there, depending on your political, religious, or ethnic identifications. These exceptions must be, and are, defended with every contrivance available.


Anonymous said...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

"Six million Jews killed in gas chambers is an extraordinary claim" - me.

Fooled Once said...

Beginning on the forum. I've been trying to do that for over a year, but I can't get the moderator (or anyone else) to let me on.

Mary O'Brien said...

Part of the problem is the most Americans don't find the Holocaust tale relevant in any way to their lives. They honestly don't care how many Jews were killed in the supposed Holocaust. So if you bring up the topic, you come across as obnoxiously hyper-intellectual, like someone who wants to argue about how many species of bumble bees there are in Siberia.

This reaction could also be a passive aggression on the part of Whites: in other words, spontaneous discussion of the Holocaust is taboo. The Holocaust is only mentioned in forced academic settings. The dynamic here might be that since the doctrine is humiliating to Whites, we refuse to acknowledge it in any genuine social context. The Jews mark the school system as their territory by forcing their curricula, and Whites retaliate by subtly degrading the importance and hence the power of academia.

The problem with using passive aggression is that it is usually self-destructive. Colleges & universities determine to a large extent who will get the proper education & encouragement to pursue well-paying jobs and future positions of leadership. The situation calls not for passive aggression but active debate.

I have gotten into friendly arguments with individual Jews, and they concede that the Holocaust is just propaganda. Perhaps they feel trapped by the Hoax: they know that it's not true, but they don't want to accuse their fellow Jews of being liars & cheats.

Guilt is a complicating factor. 1930s Germany society exactly mirrored 1930s American society. We were killing people who shared our religion, our culture, a similar language and who looked just like us. Americans horrified by the devastation wrought upon Europe (our homeland) went into major denial, and allowed Hitler to be painted by the Jewish media as the prince of evil.

Jews seem to believe that manipulating people with pity will always work; but in the long term, people come to resent such tactics.

If anything, the Holocaust would represent one of the most devastating losses in modern human history; since 6 million represents at least one-third of all of the Jews alive at the time. Why would we want the biggest losers of all time running our government?

Mary O'Brien said...

Nuremberg Testimony – Statement of Rudolf Hess:

COL. AMEN: I will omit the first paragraph and start with Paragraph 2:
"I have been constantly associated with the administration of concentration camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until 1938; then as Adjutant in Sachsenhausen from 1938 to 1 May 1940, when I was appointed Commandant of Auschwitz.. I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000 ... That is all true, Witness?
HOESS: Yes, it is.

May 1, 1940 until December 1, 1943 is time period comprising 1280 days. That’s an average of 2344 Jews per day for three & one-half years. Wouldn’t such a situation create a global bio-hazard?

Do they not realize that normal cremation leaves about 5.3 pounds of bone material on average, which would remain identifiable as human remains?

Once you knock out Hess's testimony, the rest of the Holocaust just falls apart.