Respectful Insolence

Because of the fallout from the revelation by Brian Deer that very likely Andrew Wakefield, hero of the antivaccine movement but, alas for his worshipers, one of the most dishonest and incompetent scientists who ever lived, had almost certainly falsified data for his infamous 1998 Lancet paper that launched a decade-long anti-MMR hysteria that shows no signs of abating, I ended up not coming back to a story I was very interested in. Although this story is about Holocaust denial, the questions raised by it are applicable not only to history and Holocaust denial, but to any area of science or history subject to crankery. In other words, this story brought up questions that to me apply not just to the skeptical evaluation of Holocaust denial, but to skepticism and science in general.

To recap, that story is about Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four rogue bishops whose excommunication Pope Benedict XVI rescinded a couple of weeks ago, opening the way, or so Benedict seemed to hope, to a reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the über-conservative breakaway sect known as the Society of Saint Pius X. Unfortunately, Benedict not only neglected to demand that these four bishops publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council and its teachings and accept the authority of the Pope before reversing their excommunication, but he and his vetters overlooked a rather glaring problem with Bishop Williamson.

They overlooked that he has been an utterly anti-Semitic loon of a Holocaust denier for at least the last 20 years, so much so that he’s buddies with David Irving. They even overlooked that Williamson had given an interview on Swedish television in November that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is an utterly anti-Semitic loon of a Holocaust denier. This interview probably would have faded into well-deserved obscurity along with most other verbal emissions of little-known cranks had it not been for timing most unfortunate (for him and the Pope). It turns out that Williamson’s interview aired the same day that the the Pope signed the decree rescinding the four bishops’ excommunications.

D’oh!

When last I wrote about this saga, Pope Benedict had demanded that Williamson publixly recant his Holocaust denial. Yesterday, it appears that Williamson is too anti-Semitic even for the SSPX, whose writings on its website drip with anti-Semitism. Apparently, however, Holocaust denial is just too much even for the SSPX:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina –  A Roman Catholic bishop whose denials that the Holocaust ever happened led to Vatican demands he recant has been removed as the head of an Argentine seminary, local media reported Sunday, citing a Catholic official.

The ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X has dismissed Bishop Richard Williamson as director of its seminary in La Reja, outside Buenos Aires, according to independent Argentine news agency Diarios y Noticias and the newspaper La Nacion.

That SSPX booted Williamson from his position is not in and of itself amazing, especially in the context of its other actions, which include scrubbing its website of “inconvenient” articles, such as one blaming the Jews for deicide. What I’ve come to find fascinating in the interim since I last wrote is the very concept of a Holocaust denier recanting. What, exactly, would that mean? Is it possible for a Holocaust denier to be sincere in recanting under orders? I started to get an inkling of the possible answers in, of all places, an interview with Bishop Williamson published in Der Spiegel yesterday:

SPIEGEL: The Vatican is demanding that you retract your denial of the Holocaust, and it is threatening to not allow you to resume your activities as a bishop. How will you react?

Williamson: Throughout my life, I have always sought the truth. That is why I converted to Catholicism and became a priest. And now I can only say something, the truth of which I am convinced. Because I realize that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must now review the historical evidence once again. I said the same thing in my interview with Swedish television: Historical evidence is at issue, not emotions. And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time.

Brilliant! Well, not really. It’s a rather transparent attempt to play for time, all the while painting himself as seemingly reasonable. He just wants do do more research! In fact, reading what he said, I can’t seem to shake an image of O.J. searching relentlessly for the “real” killer of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, never to be deterred until he finds the proof he needs. Or, I feel amusement like that of Michael Moynihan that comes from thinking “of a nutter like Williamson ‘reviewing’ historical data on the Holocaust, a subject that has been covered in great depth by historians like Christopher Browning, Saul Friedlander, Raul Hilberg, and Hans Mommsen, all of whom are slightly more qualified to render judgement on the subject.” When faced with the overwhelming mass of evidence that the Nazi regime undertook a systematic, industrialized program of mass murder designed to purge Europe of Jews, how will he react? Will he think that maybe–just maybe–he was wrong when he proclaimed that there were no gas chambers and that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was nowhere near six million, that number being in his view a huge exaggeration? Or will he, like brave, brave Sir Robin, quickly turn his tail and flee? I think you know the answer. He will “research” the Holocaust the same way that the incompetent self-proclaimed “execution expert” Fred Leuchter “researched” the Holocaust, except that, unlike Leuchter, he can’t even trouble himself to actually go to Auschwitz:

SPIEGEL: How can an educated Catholic deny the Holocaust?

Williamson: I addressed the subject in the 1980s. I had read various writings at the time. I cited the Leuchter report (eds. note: a debunked theory produced in the 1980s claiming erroneously that the Nazi gas chambers were technically impractical) in the interview, and it seemed plausible to me. Now I am told that it has been scientifically refuted. I plan now to look into it.

SPIEGEL: You could travel to Auschwitz yourself.

Williamson: No, I will not travel to Auschwitz. I’ve ordered the book by Jean-Claude Pressac. It’s called “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.” A printout is now being sent to me, and I will read it and study it.

SPIEGEL: The Society of Saint Pius X has set an ultimatum for the end of February. Are you not risking a break with the group?

Williamson: In the Old Testament, the Prophet Jonah tells the sailors when their ship is in distress: ” Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you.” The Society has a religious mission that is suffering because of me. I will now examine the historic evidence. If I do not find it convincing, I will do everything in my power to avoid inflicting any further harm on the Church and the Society.

Don’t you just love the “persecution gambit” that Holocaust deniers love to play, how they love to don the mantle of free speech and portray themselves as nothing more than humble seekers of the truth?

Of course, here is where the problem with ordering a Holocaust denier to “recant” comes in. If Williamson were simply to obey the orders of the Pope and SSPX and publicly say something like, “Sorry about all that Holocaust denial since the 1980s; I didn’t really mean it, and the Holocaust did really happen,” it would be mind-numbingly obvious that his statement would be utterly insincere and that he would be making it only because he was ordered to. In other words, his “recantation” would be a lie, and if the Pope and SSPX accepted it they would be accepting a lie. If I thought there was any chance that Williamson would be willing and able to examine the evidence fairly and actually open himself to the possibility of changing his mind in response to it, I might find his desire to reexamine the evidence admirable, except that I know that the evidence for the Holocaust was just as strong 25 years ago as it is now. Williamson screwed up his “review” of the evidence back in the 1980s. What makes anyone think he could get it right now?

But notice how, even though it clearly means a lot to him to be officially part of the Church again, Williamson will not go out of his way to “do research” on the Holocaust. He will not travel. He has picked a single source that, apparently, if he finds it “unconvincing,” will allow him to hold fast to his current Holocaust denial. Notice how he makes lame excuses for not doing the research, for example, his all but saying, “Well, the book I want to read for my research hasn’t arrived. Never mind that he has a blog, meaning that he uses the Internet. If he has Internet access there is a wealth of material readily available to him that he could use to begin his research, starting with, ironically enough, the very book he is seeking, which has been reprinted with permission in its entirety on The Holocaust History Project website and at Mazal.org. He can pick either site and then just read the book on his computer screen. If he’s the old-fashioned type (and, it would appear, virtually all SSPX clergy are pretty “old-fashioned” kinds of guys, as in 16th century old-fashioned), he could print it out and read it on good, old-fashioned paper.

No, no, Williamson doesn’t need to thank me. I’m more than happy to help out.

So is Professor Deborah Lipstadt, Director, Rabbi Donald A. Tam Institute for Jewish Studies, and Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies in the Department of Religion at Emory University. O. her blog, she suggested several excellent sources of scientifically and historically valid information on the Holocaust, including the judgment in favor of Professor Lipstadt in David Irving’s trial, Professor Lipstadt’s own rebuttal of the claims Williamson made in his Swiss interview, the Myth/Fact Sheet, The Holocaust History Project, and Van Pelt report. (To that, I’d also add Nizkor’s Techniques of Holocaust Denial, which refutes some of the most common denier canards, several of which Williamson parroted in his interview for Swiss television.) In fact, Professor Lipstadt even tried to e-mail Bishop Williamson, but unfortunately it bounced, leading her to resort to sending her letter with the sources listed above by old-fashioned snail mail.

Again, Williamson needn’t thank me or Professor Lipstadt. We’re both more than happy to help.

It is clear that Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust denial is not a new phenomenon. It has clearly been built up over at least two or three decades. It is clearly a highly ingrained belief. You can almost feel him building a wall that would prevent any new evidence that conflicts with his world view from entering his mind or influencing his thought.

By concentrating on a single book on the operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers, Williamson is showing a mindset that is common to many cranks, namely that of thinking that there must be one single “magic bullet” of evidence that either proves or disproves a something, be it a series of events over 12 years in history or a scientific theory. By way of comparison, consider how creationists, be they the “intelligent design” or “young earth” variety, deal with evolution. They pick apart single strands of evidence, thinking that any weaknesses in a single strand disproves the theory of evolution. For example, if there is a questionable bit of evidence in the fossil record, they’ll zero right in on that, ignoring all the other evidence that supports evolution. Think of how HIV/AIDS denialists deal with the science of HIV. They’ll point to any study that doesn’t fit quite so neatly in with the existing paradigm, zero in on it like a laser, and say that it “discredits” the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Consider antivaccinationists. They will pick apart minor flaws in the studies that fail to find an association between vaccines and autism, and ignore the rest of the data.

The historicity of the Holocaust does not depend upon whether there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, anyway, although that factory of industrialized murder contributed up to 20% of the total number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The historicity of the Holocaust is supported by multiple converging strands of evidence from many sources, including Nazi documents, eyewitness accounts, forensic studies, among others. Similarly, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not depend upon any one study, but rather hundreds–nay, thousands–of studies approaching the question whether and how HIV causes AIDS from various directions and disciplines and nearly all converge on the same conclusion: HIV causes AIDS. The same is true of evolution, which is supported by many lines of evidence from many disciplines that all converge upon the same broad conclusion of common descent by which every creature alive today evolved through natural selection and other mechanisms and through which every living creature is related. Creationists may find single bits of evidence that may have been misinterpreted or that don’t fit neatly into what they consider to be an evolutionary niche and claim that they somehow “discredit Darwin,” but ignore the convergence of evidence from numerous disciplines, including paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, genetics, molecular biology, geology, and others, that converge upon the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Unfortunately, demanding that a Holocaust denier like Williamson “recant” is nearly always a useless and futile exercise. Cranks like creationists, Holocaust deniers, HIV/AIDS denialists, antivaccinationists, 9/11 Truthers, and the like tend to be so attached to their views that the likelihood of “recantation” is slim. Their world view is too much a part of who they are. They go out of their way to construct an edifice that seems, at least to the, internally self-consistent and logical, even if it goes against established science and, from the outside, is even self-contradictory. That’s because crankery such as this is almost always constructed against something rather than for something. Holocaust denial is designed to be a weapon against the Jews, as a prominent Holocaust denier in essence admitted just last month. Creationism is designed to combat evolution because certain fundamentalist religious people do not like the implications of evolutionary theory, which refute their religious beliefs regarding the creation of the world, the origin of life, and the uniqueness of man compared to animals. HIV/AIDS denialism is arguably a reaction against the implications of HIV causing AIDS, namely that a virus, not immorality, causes AIDS, given that the usual “alternative” hypothesis preferred by HIV/AIDS denialists is that some combination of drug use and promiscuity somehow “weakens the immune system” and causes the syndrome.

So is it ever possible for a true crank like Williamson to realize he is wrong? It’s difficult, and usually requires a lot of help. However, it is not impossible. For example, Jean-Claude Pressac, who wrote the very book that Williamson is searching for in order to read, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, was once a Holocaust “revisionist.” He changed his mind, and even describes how he went from being a Holocaust denier to writing one of the definitive works on Auschwitz. Pressac shows that “conversion” (not a great word, given its religious connotations, but the only one I could think of at the moment) is possible. However, by and large, the truly committed cranks, the Williamsons, the Michael Behes, the J.B. Handleys, the Michael Egnors, the Christine Maggiores of the world do not change their minds.

Does that mean it’s a complete waste of time to try to persuade such people? If your goal is to change their minds, probably. However, if in doing so by publicly refuting their arguments (for example, on a blog), there remains the possibility that you might be able to persuade those who are not committed cranks, who might believe the blandishments of the cranks because–well, because they don’t know any better. That’s one reason why I remain engaged in a constant battle to explain why, for example, antivaccinationists and “alternative” medicine advicates are wrong about the science. I have no illusion that I’ll persuade Jenny McCarthy or J.B. Handley that their arguments are a load of pseudoscientific rubbish and even downright lies. However, I hope that parents who read my Respectful and not-so-Respectful refutations of such nonsense will see just how bad their reasoning is. Similarly, refuting Holocaust deniers can provide evidence to counter the misinformation that cranks like Williamson use to persuade people of their cause and maybe–just maybe–on rare occasions persuade a crank to rethink his position and rejoin the world of the rational.

That’s why I hope that Williamson actually gets Deborah Lipstadt’s letter and reads it. I hope against hope that he does indeed evaluate the sources she provided. I hope that he figures out that Pressac’s book on the Auschwitz gas chambers is freely available on the web, thanks to The Holocaust History Project.

It’s a slim hope, but I have to believe it’s possible to persuade a man like Williamson to recant and actually mean it, even if it is incredibly unlikely ever to happen.

Comments

  1. #1 Danny
    February 10, 2009

    Very small odds there. I think Williamson’s a lost cause. His holocaust denial is being fed by his anti-semitism. I doubt he cares for the facts. But the effort to debunk denialism is worth it, especially now that his views have been given public recognition, piquing the interest of more than one denialist-to-be.

  2. #2 Thony C.
    February 10, 2009

    Williams has just failed in an attempt to get an injunction banning the further distribution of his interview outside of Sweden. The interview was original filmed for a Swedish television network.Because the interview was filmed in Regensburg the court responsible is Nürnberg and on Friday the court in Nürnberg denied Williams’ application.

  3. #3 I am so wise
    February 10, 2009

    Obfuscate. Then, if that fails, Deny, Concede, and then Recant the concession when the coast is clear was David Irving’s method at his trial and this clown will follow the same script.

  4. #4 Zipi
    February 10, 2009

    Orac, I still do not understand why you believe that the pope made a mistake by reinstating this bishop, because of his views on the Holocaust. As a former Catholic, you are probably familiar with Catholic doctrine, and with the Catechism. Being a Holocaust denier or being antisemitic are no big deals in Catholic faith. Are they even a sin? They certainly are not mortal sins. Sure, they may be a big deal for you and me, or for any other reasonable person, but not for the pope. Expecting the pope to not make friends with this bishop because of his views on the Holocaust is like expecting the pope to excommunicate a different bishop because he is telling women to be submissive to their husbands even when the husbands beat them up.

  5. #5 Orac
    February 10, 2009

    Straw man. The Holocaust denial is not the main reason why I thought the recission of his excommunication was wrong; it was just icing on the cake. Read:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/01/holocaust-denying_conservative_bishop.php

    Quotes:

    All of that is why I responded by wondering why on earth the Pope’s excommunication of these bishops was rescinded without his first demanding from them as a precondition of having their excommunication lifted a public renunciation of their previous disobedience of the Church in having accepted their clearly illicit ordinations and their current heresy against the Church, a public vow of obedience to the Church and a public statement affirming their belief in Church teaching–including Vatican II. To me, reversing the Lefebvrists’ excommunications without first requiring of them even those minimal public demonstrations of repentance sent the worst possible message in that it suggested to me and others that Benedict was so desperate for reconciliation that he didn’t even bother to make sure that the bishops would come back to the fold in both word and deed if he rescinded their excommunication for having participated in the “rogue” ordinations of bishops outside the authority of Rome.

    And:

    Finally, it beggars the imagination that Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t aware of Williamson’s long and very public history of denying the Holocaust and spewing the most virulently racist and anti-Semitic comments. Not knowing this about him would indicate a level of ignorance and incompetence beyond anything I would have imagined before. One would have to be quite willfully blind not to be aware of Williamson’s history. Combine that with a preemptive gesture of “forgiveness,” and it looks as though the Vatican got snookered into giving up something a Catholic would consider very valuable for, in essence, nothing, giving itself a black eye in the process. Apparently, “reconciliation” with an ultraconservative breakaway society takes precedence over responsibility, giving the appearance of supporting anti-Semites and Holocaust denial, or even the pure power calculation of enforcing obedience to the Church before providing forgiveness in turn.

  6. #6 St Sam of C
    February 10, 2009

    This is probably going to get brickbats…

    Williamson, unpleasant person with horrible views, yes. SSPX, nasty organisation, yes. Vatican stupid to revoke the excommunication without doing their homework, yes. Pope Benedict, nasty piece of work, yes.

    But wouldn’t it be appropriate to give these parties a little time to sort things out before spluttering some more? If Williamson said immediately “oh, er, yes, I got it wrong, I recant” it would be rejected as implausible trimming. This guy has discovered that he’s detested by a lot of people, including some he ought to respect (such as the Pope and some cardinals and the people running his gaff in Argentina), which must be a disturbing experience, how’s he going to dig himself out of the hole?

    Give him time to get his act together, then chuck some fresh criticism at him if he doesn’t say honestly “yes, I’ve looked at the holocaust denial issue, and I can see I was horribly, horribly wrong to think that and to say what I said and I’m sorry”.

    There’s a tendency in this blogging world to chuck excessive amounts of ordure at anything particular hate-figures say: for example, Myers and his wailing catamites criticise even nakedly pro-science and non-theistic announcements from the Pope. Do they really expect the Pope to admit there are no gods?

    Let the story develop, then fling the faeces when it’s faeces-flinging time!

  7. #7 Phoenix Woman
    February 10, 2009

    St. Sam of C.: Unfortunately, the SSPX has used the time given it to do things like scrub its website, and not actually address any issues head-on.

    The dirty little secret of the opposition to Vatican II is that it was founded in large part on bigots wanting to use the old prayers that referred to Jews as killers of Christ.

  8. #8 Mu
    February 10, 2009

    Hard to judge if it was the right move to lift the excommunication first, and then tell him to shut up. I agree, and “recant” by this person (and probably anyone involved with their organization) would be something forced, not really felt.
    But, as someone pointed out, the theological argument was not about the holocaust but about Vatican 2. The pope might not actually care too much about the former, and he’s shown pretty immune to public pressure.

  9. #9 Richard
    February 10, 2009

    Excellent article (as is usual) but your first sentence makes baby jesus cry – and my brain hurt.

  10. #10 Harry Eagar
    February 10, 2009

    I expect Williamson is every bit as sincere as the Japanese politicians who now regret their nation’s activities in, eg, Korea between 1905 and 1945 — every time they are caught whitewashing them in textbooks.

    The Roman Catholic Church has a ‘get out of jail free’ card that it doesn’t like to talk about too much, the doctrine of ‘invincible ignorance.’

    If you really, really, truly, squeeze your eyes shut tight believe what you’re up to, then even if you’re blindingly wrong, it isn’t a sin. Welcome home, Bishop!

    Otherwise, what Zipi said. I am pretty sure that Benedict has no clue what anybody is making a fuss about.

  11. #11 Zipi
    February 10, 2009

    Orac, it is not a strawman. I never said that was the main reason. I agree with your other reasons, which are sufficient (the first paragraph you quote in your reply). But let us look at the second paragraph you quote. You are certainly accusing the pope of not vetting the bishop enough and considering his views on the Holocaust. (Correct me if I am wrong.) I claim that the pope was aware of the bishop’s views on the Holocaust, and he just does not care. Why would he?

    You say ‘Apparently, “reconciliation” with an ultraconservative breakaway society takes precedence over responsibility, giving the appearance of supporting anti-Semites and Holocaust denial … ‘ Which responsibility? Again, you seem to argue that his views on the Holocaust should be a factor to be taking into account by the pope when deciding to reinstate the bishop. Why?

  12. #12 Bluegrass Geek
    February 10, 2009

    Zipi
    Why would he?

    Because this is basically a huge slap in the face to the world at large. It’d be like the USA appointing an avowed Holocaust denier as ambassador to the UN.

    The technical argument is that it’s not covered by the Catechism. That ignores Vatican II and, more importantly, violates the spirit of Christianity as a whole by denigrating an entire people’s suffering.

    If you want to go from the political perspective, it creates an appearance of impropriety (ie. the Pope says he doesn’t care about the Jews).

    Short version: it’s a dick move by someone who claims to be the very mouthpiece of God.

  13. #13 G Felis
    February 10, 2009

    Presumably, this Williamson feller is able to convince himself of the truth of Catholic doctrine. He’s so convinced of it that he didn’t like it when that doctrine was modified during Vatican II, which arguably brought the Church into the modern era – say the 18th century (although the current wearer of the big silly hat seems bound and determined to drag the Church back a century or three). If Williamson is capable of swallowing the utter bollocks of Catholic doctrine (new or old) – or even the more broadly believed balderdash of the Nicene Creed – without choking, he clearly has vast reserves of stubborn conviction able to resist any amount of reason and evidence. I think they call it “faith” in his biz. Anyway, if Williamson were of any kind of serious critical thinking persuasion, he wouldn’t be any kind of professional god-peddler, let alone an ultra-conservative Catholic Bishop. So I’d say he has Laurel & Hardy chances of changing his mind about Holocaust denialism – fat and slim.

  14. #14 Tim
    February 10, 2009

    Another great post Orac, the depth with which you analyze issues is fantastic!

  15. #15 The Perky Skeptic
    February 11, 2009

    Uh-oh… did we crash the server at holocaust-history.org? I can’t get either of Orac’s linked pages to load.

  16. #16 Helena
    February 11, 2009

    The Bishops comments about Jonah may be revealing here. Jonah knew the ship would be safe with him overboard because he knew god was singling him out for punishment after he had willfully disobeyed god’s orders. Is that how Williamson sees himself, even at an unconscious level?

  17. #17 Akephalos
    February 16, 2009

    - I’m profoundly outraged by this biased article that I found while checking for the world mouth about Mr Williamson’s case. Some people live only for the truth and you have no moral right to stigmatize the bishop for his sincerity. His opinion was very clear but was not aimed against anyone. On the opposite, he was condemned, attacked and banned because a possible error. Your article is a perfidious attack to the right of thought, a right that belongs to anyone and is unrelated to his/her position. No one has the right to judge one’s opinions without research, and few can boast that, in the horde of [b]accusers[/b]. Condemning is an even shameless action.

    – Thank you for your links, I’d like to research further, because at this moment, the only proofs that stand before my eyes are against the holocaust reality as depicted by the mainstream organisations.

    – Understanding is the only secret key to peace, without it you do more harm than good. The holocaust deniers, if wrong, need help not blame. Don’t you actually try to explain yourself why this phenomenon is on the rise the alleged reality of the holocaust? You’re supposed to be scientific…

  18. #18 AF
    February 16, 2009

    “Thank you for your links, I’d like to research further, because at this moment, the only proofs that stand before my eyes are against the holocaust reality as depicted by the mainstream organisations.”

    The only thing that tells us is the sad state of your eyes.

  19. #19 Miltant Agnostic
    February 17, 2009

    A month or so ago there were a lot of news items in Alberta about the Ukrainian Holocaust because a French Priest (whose father was in a punishment POW camp in the Ukraine) has been traveling throughout western Canada interviewing Ukrainian immigrants who witnessed and in some cases were foced to assist in the killing of Jews. There the policy was one bullet one Jew. The victims were shot once and then buried in mass graves whether or not they were dead.

    Maybe you should research that Akephalos

  20. #20 Akephalos
    February 18, 2009

    AF: if you’re not able to go for a debate, please sit back and watch discussions of people who think.

    Militant Agnostic: executing by shooting sounds feasible, but gassing chambers is simply absurd. Maybe you want to research this: http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html

    Before one should research the huge 60+ years literature about the reality of the Holocaust, a lifetime job, if you ask me, the defenders should first prove false the “denial” arguments. Please can you tell me where the these arguments cannot be debunked? Why the greatest “proofs” are merely heart-breaking stories by witnesses. From time to time they are proven lies ( eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ9geDDJbes ). Most stories have hardly believable logical statements: prisoners were witnesses to deaths of their relatives in an uncontrollable environment, like they could freely move around.

    In any case, no matter what the truth is, the idea of exterminating the Jews should be erased from the human mind! From the human sub-conscious. Is it so hard to understand? Read some psychology then. Persecution existed in history and was connected to many peoples but it almost disappeared today, with extremely few exceptions, Holocaust being by far the greatest, the ones who suffer most from it are the jews themselves, even if on the short term it brings some minor financial and political benefits. But what about neo-nazism, persecution phobia, related conflicts, they should have not even existed. This is obviously sick :|.

    Think about it before acting.

  21. #21 Michael Rose
    February 24, 2009

    There MUST be a very important reason why you holocaustics have to go to such lengths to shout down the odd fellow like Richard Williamson, like David Irving, like many other intelligent writers.

    There MUST be a very important reason why certain governments deem illegal the contrarian opinion that the holocaust may not be quite what we’ve been told over half a century. Otherwsie, why does such an obviously-intelligent historian such as Irving have to be legislated against? What offense to morality is so heinously intolerable as to demand that he be locked up?

    This question itself is hugely significant in my tiny mind.

    Read this VERY slowly now. I did NOT question any Official history on Shoah, not until learning that Irving suffered such extreme abuse for exercising the very rights to free speech his fellow-countrymen fought so bitterly for in the war that could have hidden the holocaust, that one extremely-significant fact now became very clear to me: the holocaust is indeed a Myth.

    Because of Irving’s abysmal treatment, it becomse so obvious that it is the Deniers who know the Truth. This fact becomes clear as the dawn of a New Era.

    The holocaust is a Myth, and the enormous vested interest seized by the very-powerful PerpeTraitors of the Myth means that free-thinking people MUST make up their own individual minds, in order to perceive the Truth in this New Light.

    After the inevitable deaths of large numbers of camp inmates being re-manufactured into the fabricated story of the holocaust, I can now predict that in a few years time, any American/Canadian/Mexican who denies the 9-11 Myth will likewise be thrown summarily into jail with NO trial.

    It suits the Banksters and Bilderbergers for Dubya’s conspiracy theory that muslim pilots flew Boeings into NY skyscrapers (so fast that the jet fuel vaporized every steel beam in the building) becomes canon law and “9-11 Denial” will become a capital offense, added to electrocution in the sansctions section of a revised Patriot Act.

    We’ve researched all the evidence: we know now that there were NO Arab pilots: we know there were in fact NO planes crashing into ANY of the buildings (certainly not WTC7). We know all that AND we can prove it.
    [BTW Anybody can prove it onlline for herself, too]

    Now that the Truth is so clear, I for one am going to start reading David Irving’s treatise over right from page one.

    I am SO thankful that the vehemence of the Anti-Deniers is obvious enough that after 50 years I can at last see the Truth.

    I’m officially switching to being a Denier from now on.

  22. #22 Orac
    February 24, 2009

    Read this VERY slowly now. I did NOT question any Official history on Shoah, not until learning that Irving suffered such extreme abuse for exercising the very rights to free speech his fellow-countrymen fought so bitterly for in the war that could have hidden the holocaust, that one extremely-significant fact now became very clear to me: the holocaust is indeed a Myth.

    Because of Irving’s abysmal treatment, it becomse so obvious that it is the Deniers who know the Truth. This fact becomes clear as the dawn of a New Era.

    I call bullshit. I’ve dealt with enough Holocaust deniers to recognize a common denier lie when I see it.

    Your rhetoric shows me that you were almost certainly a Jew hater long before you ever heard of David Irving. Whenever I hear someone do the whole “I used to believe in the Holocaust but now I don’t” routine, I know I’m dealing with a diehard Holocaust denier or anti-Semite.

    I’m officially switching to being a Denier from now on.

    There’s no “switching” to it.

  23. #23 Collin Robson
    April 1, 2010

    This Holocaust argument is being stirred up by the Irish Catholic Church to mask its recent exposure as a haven for child molesters, and their Pope as colluding to both of these issues.

  24. #24 Paul Ballard
    April 10, 2010

    If these people are so certain that 6 million Jews died why are they terrified of debate? The Holocaust, or rather ‘holocaustianity’,is the new secular over-arching religion and its high priests are more bigoted than any Medieval Catholic. Western civilization is being destroyed by this collective lunacy. Bishop Williamson is a very brave man with a brilliant mind and I believe will he will soon become a great focus of resistance to this tyranny

  25. #25 Antaeus Feldspar
    April 10, 2010

    If these people are so certain that 6 million Jews died why are they terrified of debate?

    Yawn. As nearly all self-deluded idiots do, you mistakenly assume that the only reason anyone could be loath to engage in a debate with you is that they are “terrified.” You are not terrifying. What you are is annoying as hell.

    You are like a little kindergartener who wanders into a chess club and demands that someone face his majestic skills at tic-tac-toe because a chess board looks kind of like a tic-tac-toe board. And then he throws a temper tantrum when someone catches him cheating, and he tries to invent new rules on the spot, and when he still loses he screams that someone else is cheating.

    And then when the adults finally lose patience with this bratty little child and usher him out the door he brags to everyone who will listen that ‘they had to get rid of him because they couldn’t stand his ability to beat the pants off them.’ Guess what? No one believes it except for other bratty little children.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.