Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 1998 - Ingrid A. Rimland
No word as yet about Dr. Toben's arrest, but I did receive a great many copies of letters written on his behalf, and I am sure that they will make an impact.
I am still in the middle of that big project I have been talking about off and on, and for that reason I am sending you a snippet of a thread that ran in the germanica-l newsgroup pertaining to a magazine called Skeptical Inquirer. It is possible that there are two people talking here rather than one, but I don't think it matters in this one.
It's the ideas and shades that count, and I take never-ending delight in the many, many shades of dealing with the so-called "Holocaust.
Here is one cogent observer:
"I think it may have been in the "skeptic" newsgroup that I first came across the term "denier". I first thought that it was a term that had something to do with the thickness of fibers or fabric mesh. At least, I thought I recollected seeing the term used in the Sears and Roebuck catalogue to describe nylons.
Well, I looked in the dictionary and learned yet another measurement unit in the extravagant anglo-saxon system. "Nylon deniers" sounded like something out of the Sears and Roebuck secret naughty catalogue at first...
Then I figured out that people were making the argument that real skeptics were supposed to be skeptical of persons who DENIED xyz.
In other words, the TRUE BELIEVERS were the "skeptics", and the skeptical NON-BELIEVERS were not "skeptics" but "deniers."
It's an amusing formula and you're perfectly right when it comes to the "Holocaust" business, given its taboo status.
But "denier" is as good a word as any other in the language. A "denier" is someone who denies something and that's all.
If you deny Noah's Ark or "Creation Science", for instance, you're a "Noah's Arc denier" or a "Creation Science denier". The word seems to involve a quasi-religious meaning.
That is, people who "deny", generally deny dogmatic ideas, frequently with religious connotations. You don't "deny" Newtonian or relativistic physics because those are not religious beliefs: they are open-ended scientific theories subject to revision; you simply discuss your findings and try to reach a higher degree of truth.
However, you do deny the "Holocaust" because that's a religious belief, false, quite dogmatic, and impervious to rational examination.
I concluded that I must have stumbled into one of those fabled alternate universes constructed of anti-matter where time runs backwards and water flows up hill.
The only true "Holocaust" may have taken place in the strange world of Bizarro. If you remember the old D.C. Superman comics from the 60s you'll understand why I picture some guys much better in that odd cubic world where everybody acts upside down, so to speak. If you're ever introduced to Keren or McCarthy, please notice the shape of their beanies.
The "Skeptical Inquirer" -- which did pioneer work and which I know well, since I've been a subscriber since the very first issue, has so far avoided tackling the "gas chambers" issue. This is not an admirable attitude, of course, but given the fact that no one finds it easy to counter the real big taboo of the time, they may simply prefer to ignore the whole thing and keep debunking the spoon benders and astrologers.
Or, of course, they may simply realise they don't know exactly what's going on and suspend judgement. Certainly, this is better than coming down on the side of the holoshlockers -- without knowing a thing about the revisionist work or even what you're talking about -- and generally making a fool of yourself.? <end>
Have a nice weekend!
Thought for the Day:
"The Canadian Jewish Congress explained that none of its officers would appear in a discussion with a member of a group whose leader is an anti-Semite. Pretty ironic stuff. Decide who is an anti-Semite and then refuse to speak to that person and let him defend himself against charges of anti-Semitism. Understandable with a holocaust denier or a thug, but surely not appropriate in this case."
(Michael Coren, April 8, 1999 | Toronto Sun - email@example.com)