Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Steaming Pile of MGK Manure is Here

Many of our readers will be aware that, nearly two years ago, the members of this blog produced a substantial “white paper” critique of three antisemitic Holocaust deniers named Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, and Thomas Kues (hereafter MGK) concerning the subject of the Aktion Reinhard camps. Our critique focused on three of their collective books: Mattogno and Graf’s Treblinka (2004), Mattogno’s Belzec (2004), and MGK’s Sobibor (2010). This weekend MGK posted this response consisting of ludicrously bloviated diatribes and arguments based on logical fallacies such as Argumentum Verbosium, which is a common feature of conspiracist cranks like MGK. We are currently reading through the PDF file like men forced to walk through an endless river of manure. It will take us a long time to digest the whole pile of rotting vegetables, but here is a taster of its antisemitic contents. Mattogno writes:
An Italian writer troubled himself to count the number of persons exterminated according to the Bible by virtue of the “cherem”: 2,120,182. The biblical Jehudim were therefore real forerunners of the Einsatzgruppen, actually even worse, because besides men, women and children, they even exterminated the animals! Is pointing this out “anti-Semitic” too?
This is the level and tone to which Mattogno has sunk, abetted by his pet monkeys Graf and Kues. We will reserve our full response to the maniacal work until we have had time to read through the verbiage and recover from both our laughter at its fallacies and our migraines from its tedious length. However, a few preliminary remarks are necessary here in order to forewarn our readers of the crap they will encounter when reading MGK's work.

First of all, it must be said that this response has arrived more quickly than we originally anticipated. In past writings Mattogno generally took much longer to become aware of material, and in many cases he produced a response more than ten years too late, to the sound of deafening indifference. Three examples might suffice to get the point across: first, it apparently took Mattogno some twelve years to notice and comment on a 1997 article by Karin Orth concerning the testimony of Rudolf Hoess; second, Mattogno did not write in detail about Raul Hilberg’s classic work on the Holocaust (originally published in 1961, expanded in 1985, and translated into Italian in 1995) until 2008 (nor did Graf until 1999); and finally, he did not bother addressing a 1997 article by Christian Gerlach until a decade and a half later. Getting out a response within the same decade might seem to be a bit of an achievement, then.

Turning to what we can see of their response, we were astounded to discover that MGK have managed to write 1554 pages in response to us. Our initial “white paper” filled 570 pages, but yet discussed three of their books (942 pages all combined). Somehow, they have managed to produce a response which is more than double the length of our critique in word-count and nearly triple in page-count. This is an absurd feat that does not meet any academic standard whatsoever. If one sent a 1500+ page response to any semi-respectable publisher, they could only expect to be quickly rejected and told to make the content more concise; that is, unless one is laughed at hysterically by copy editors, proofreaders, and the like who would have to actually go through such verbiage to find the arguments and ultimate point to such a monstrosity.

Such an excessively verbose response seems to meet the criteria for the logical fallacy known as Argumentum Verbosium, which is a common feature of conspiracist cranks like Mattogno. While Graf airs out his delusions of grandeur as to why more reputable academics do not pay attention to MGK’s work, this is actually one of the core reasons: the format of their arguments is simply too long-winded that it is borderline unreadable even for the most ardent of audience members. MGK apparently do not concern themselves with the most effective and coherent way to communicate and present their ideas. For instance, the trio’s table of contents shows that MGK do not collaborate to write a single coherent argument on a topic, but instead have each author provide their own individual response and keep them separated for publication (e.g. Mattogno adds his own remarks to Chapter 7, Chapter 8, and Chapter 10, with his remarks deserving their own subsection).

In truth, Mattogno does seem to be the guiltiest of the trio in terms of verbiage. If his recent two-volume publication on Auschwitz were not a sufficient example, one could look at Chapter 6 of MGK’s reply (215 pages), which responds to Chapter 3 in our White Paper (93 pages); in other words, more than twice as long. This observation is hardly a contrived attack, and is a characteristic that has been noted by Mattogno’s fellow deniers as well. Arthur Butz, for instance, in a review of Mattogno’s puerile Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, openly admitted
I do have a problem with Mattogno’s writings and, partly because I have already read many of them, and partly for reasons I shall presently elucidate, I did not read these recent two volumes in their entirety. A major reason I did not read all of Mattogno’s books is simply that I have great trouble following his arguments and, even after taking all that time and trouble, I can feel I have been left in the lurch. 
Roberto Faurisson came to a similar conclusion many years ago, when he noted Mattogno’s propensity for overly extensive block-quotes, his need for “greater conciseness and simplicity” or what Faurisson calls “the scholar’s or professional’s simplicity of expression,” and for his ability to discuss a matter without arriving at a clear conclusion or argument (“just when it seems that he is about to provide the key to the mystery…the reader is left unsatisfied”). Imagine how Faurisson would feel if he had to plough through 1554 pages of vomit only to find that "the key to the mystery" was still not buried within it.

While we have highlighted such wordiness and verbiage on the part of MGK (see pp. 9-10 in the critique), we have sought to remain as concise as we could ourselves. Admittedly we have not always been entirely successful with our brevity, particularly when we have slipped into point-by-point refutations. However, in the critique we primarily sought to identify and establish patterns of abuse by MGK; these patterns included a colossal omission of evidence, misrepresentation and minimization of what evidence they did use, an astounding ignorance of relevant literature, incomprehension or ignorance of context, as well as no clear methodological basis for their work (particularly in their treatment of witness statements).

Mattogno's verbiage also contains an endlessly repeated libel that we are somehow guilty of bibliographic plagiarism. He insists on labeling our citation of any document he finds mentioned in another historian's work as 'plagiarism'. These allegations are entirely false, and actually end up backfiring on Mattogno in several ways.

First, he is prone to alleging plagiarism from secondary sources but then fails to notice, or properly account for the fact that we actually cited the documents from an entirely different archive to the one cited in the secondary source. Examples: on p.423 of the response, Mattogno claims we took a source from Martin Dean, but Dean's work cites a Bundesarchiv reference whereas we cited US National Archives (NARA) references; on p.184 he claims we took a reference from Gerlach but he cited a Bundesarchiv microfilm whereas we cited a NARA microfilm; there is no concordance list, and Nick Terry had cited that document in his PhD some years ago, having copied it at NARA in 2002. 

Second, Mattogno is not very attentive to what we actually cited on a number of occasions. He alleges for example that Terry stole references from an article by Jan-Erik Schulte, but fails to notice that Schulte's references to a series of documents in a file from the Bundesarchiv Dahlwitz-Hoppegarten lack titles, whereas Terry's references to the same documents from the same file give the title of the document.

Third, it never seems to have occurred to Mattogno that we might have looked up specific files precisely because they contained documents which are discussed in the literature at large. In one case (p.788), he alleges that we plagiarised a document from Wendy Lower which Terry actually copied while Wendy Lower was present in the same reading room; Lower and Terry discussed it in person before her 2005 book came out. Mattogno bizarrely thinks that we sourced it by getting hold of an advance copy of a recent edited collection which was published after our white paper came out.

Fourth, Mattogno thinks that it is plagiarism if we cited a book/article title once, without a page number, which would turn a considerable volume of academic footnotes into 'plagiarism' if anyone other than him held to this cuckoo principle. The point of citing books and articles without further comment was invariably to demonstrate the volume of literature available on a topic, and if the best he can come up with is to handwave and claim we didn't read the work, then this only confirms how shallow his knowledge of the literature actually is.
In several cases these claims are actually quite amusing to us personally. In one example he claims that Terry never read an article that he has set three years in a row for a seminar reading on one of the undergraduate courses he teaches; in another case Mattogno says Terry did not read an article which appeared in the very same volume as one of his own published articles! If anyone hasn't read the thing, then it would appear to be Mattogno, as if he had actually found the volume of the yearbook in question, he would have very rapidly realised that Terry was in it.

The final example of Mattogno shooting himself in the foot with the incessant false allegations of not having gone to archives is that MGK cite extremely few archival sources themselves. In Book 1, which runs to p.794 and has 1807 footnotes, the three revisionist authors cite from not much more than 70 archival documents by our preliminary count, discounting Nuremberg and Eichmann trial documents that are often available in publications or online. Of these references, about 31 have previously appeared in MGK work, meaning that 22 months of effort led to just 40 new archival sources being cited, many of which were previously known to MGK via publications.

The situation is actually not much better regarding MGK's engagement with published work. Ignoring the 'revisionist' citations and self-citations for the worthless trash that they are, and after eliminating double-counts in their bibliography, MGK together cited just 451 books and articles over the length of their 1554 page response, with the overwhelming majority of titles having been cited by them in previous work. While our critique evidently stung them into looking up some work they had hitherto ignored, the gaps in their knowledge of the subjects they purport to master remain colossal.

One example will suffice for the time being: despite the crucial importance of the Soviet Union to their fantasy 'resettlement' thesis, Kues cites from just one scholarly work on Stalinism in his Chapter 7.6, preferring to rely instead on wild speculations and newspaper clippings that actually contradict his own arguments. Such a shoddy level of research might seem like an extreme case, but it is reproduced over and over in the response. MGK still evidently don't understand that their arguments constantly blunder into entire sub-fields, such as the history of Nazi war crimes trials, or occupation policy in the Soviet Union. Mastering those fields requires that relevant scholarship is digested and thoroughly understood, not misrepresented and quote-mined.

Mattogno's libels are rendered even more laughable by the fact that MGK have no historical methodology at all. They never consistently apply a consistent set of rules to any type of evidence, but instead operate a double standard. This is evidenced by Graf;s statement in his introductory chapter concerning the testimony of Kurt Gerstein. Graf suggests that Gerstein’s report is “totally unreliabile,” which does not bode well for Mattogno’s earlier usage of Gerstein as an indication of a disinfestation facility at the Belzec camp (see page 369 of the White Paper). In the meantime, we ask ourselves: when are MGK going to present a coherent account that links together the documents they spend hundred of pages seeking to obfuscate and minimize here? When will they explain how it is justifiable to cherrypick sources compiled by the same authorities whom they accuse of framing the Nazis?

Graf mixes his antisemitism into a form of personal abuse towards us which reaches a level that he would see as discrediting if we did it to him. His Introduction and Epilogue alone contain the phrases "sent by Yahweh himself", "Yahweh cheated us by sending out five clowns", "Jews definitely do not appreciate this type of humor", "Jewish ideologues of the Holocaust industry", "the Nessus shirt of international Jewry is Holocaust lie","Jews and their stooges","from the Jewish point of view", "Yahweh's greenhorn" and "Yahweh's moron." How bizarre that Graf should cite George Orwell as  Terry's "great compatriot" when Orwell's fought against fascists of Graf's ilk in the Spanish Civil War, and sought to participate in the British military against the Nazis. Orwell even wrote an essay on antisemitism in 1945 excoriating the petty, Jew-hating mentality that MGK possess.

When all the above points are considered, MGK should be grateful that we are wading through these 1554 pages of manure at all. The chumps that follow them at CODOH will doubtless only glance at selectively spammed passages. Simultaneously, these chumps and their pathetic leader Jonnie Hargis will claim this tome as evidence that "the tide is turning": a doubly ironic joke given that it appears at the same time as Iran's foreign policy is moving away from Holocaust denial. In other words, these three Nazi defenders are resurfacing at just the time when they schtick is being trashed even by their erstwhile allies. Mattogno had lost Faurisson and Butz; now he can wave goodbye to the endorsement of the only state that allowed these loons to use its political space as a forum for legitimacy.

Why are MGK so lost, even in their own antisemitic milieu? The answer is surely contained in the fact that their 1554 pages offer no positive narrative for chumps or fellow travelers. There is no evidence of resettlement, as we will show in a forthcoming piece when we again deconstruct Kues' kindergarten. There is no show here, chumps. Time to move on.

35 comments:

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

"[...] of three antisemitic Holocaust deniers named Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, and Thomas Kues"

I closed the page after that. Harrison doesn't deny himself, it's always antisemites wherever the man looks. Maybe there's a couple of raving ones down-under his bed, too? He should probably look and later inform us in yet another hysterical post at this blog.
FRANZ

Nathan said...

Honestly, if garbage like the above is all that "Revisionism" has to offer, then it really doesn't have a future now, doesn't it?

If what "revisionists" say were true, then it should be really easy to prove it. Just look at the whole resettlement thing: there should be thousands if not millions of pieces of evidence for such an endeavor. You don't have a such a large program without even a single crack. And yet, deniers have yet to provide such evidence. Despite the 68 years that have passed since the war. Instead; they have nothing but hollow, irrelevant blather and insults. Literally monkeys throwing poop at the ones staring at their cages.

It is to laugh.

Gilles Karmasyn said...

Hello to the HC team,

I am in fact surprised that the MGK "answer" is so *short*. I was expecting this arguments war of attrition, which is one of the main characteristics of the Holocaust denial discourse. As I have written in french newsgroups more than a decade ago, when you analyze, refute and pull apart one denier's lie or falsification, he will reply not by strengthening his point or answering your critics, but with a salvo of ten other lies and falsifications. Since refuting one lie always needs five times the amount of time/words than uttering it, this can prove far worse than filling the Danaids' jar. imho, the goal one has to keep in mind, of course, is not convincing (or even enraging...as sweet as it can be) the deniers, but providing the honest reader with tools allowing him to understand that the deniers are hateful dishonest liers in full knowledge of the real facts. Anyway, the ridiculous plagiarism accusations from Mattogno are the symptoms of a final intellectual, if not mental, bankruptcy. Whatever the HC team provide in return of MGK's BLOB (Big & Large Obfuscation & Baloneys -- why not call it the MGKB?) I will read it carefully, but really, there is no urge, and you should not even feel you have to provide anything...

Jonathan Harrison said...

Gilles, many thanks. Your comments echo many things we have been saying to each other in private correspondence. Whatever we decide, we will indicate here on the blog our broad intentions. As you say, it cannot be responded to as if it were a conventional, honest text but must instead be analyzed forensically as the discourse of deranged antisemites.

Roberto Lucena said...

"I closed the page after that. Harrison doesn't deny himself, it's always antisemites wherever the man looks. Maybe there's a couple of raving ones down-under his bed, too? He should probably look and later inform us in yet another hysterical post at this blog."

How do you expect anti-Semites be called by others? The fact someone doesn't declare itself as anti-Semite doesn't mean it's not.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

Roberto Lucena:

Harrison is known for screeching 'anti-Semite' at every opportunity he can get, whilst very rarely (if ever) pointing out any legitimate anti-Semitism. At the very best Harrison's continued screechings' of anti-Semitism is a way to reflect his own extreme paranoia and insecurity. There appears to be something deficient in the Jewish mind as with regards to this particular issue.
As you know only too good, pointing out deficient in various ethnic or religious groups do not constitute 'anti-Semitism' or the ever so bogus incitement of racial hatred.
FRANZ

Nathan said...

-when you analyze, refute and pull apart one denier's lie or falsification, he will reply not by strengthening his point or answering your critics, but with a salvo of ten other lies and falsifications. -

Well said. Thank you for the interesting read.

Roberto Lucena said...

"Harrison is known for screeching 'anti-Semite' at every opportunity he can get, whilst very rarely (if ever) pointing out any legitimate anti-Semitism. At the very best Harrison's continued screechings' of anti-Semitism is a way to reflect his own extreme paranoia and insecurity. There appears to be something deficient in the Jewish mind as with regards to this particular issue.
As you know only too good, pointing out deficient in various ethnic or religious groups do not constitute 'anti-Semitism' or the ever so bogus incitement of racial hatred."


I think Harrison isn't Jewish, so there's no "paranoia" from him with anti-Semitism for him to be "Jewish/Jew." I don't consider illegitimate criticism of group/country behaviors as long as there's some concrete foundation and not simple speculations or prejudices, but this is not what Deniers do in relation to Jews.

It's very well known the Denial connection with anti-Semitism, someone states most Deniers are anti-Semites (or specifically MGK) is just a simple conclusion/observation.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

It's very well known that Harrison (who is Jewish, by the way) rants about 'anti-Semitism' at every opportune and inopportune moment the man can.
This feature is - unfortunately - very common amongst Jews, especially in those Jews who has as business, or as agenda, to lie - like in Harrison's case, for example. I can imagine it to be very dangerous for the mind to lie and pretend to believe in those lies.
FRNAZ

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

"Franz" never misses an opportunity to show how right we are about MGK and their audience, does he?

Strafford said...

I've red "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka" with great interest, and I thought it was superb.......BUT I've red about 200 pages of MGK response and it's devastating (on HC bloggers use of the sources, at least)....hope for a proper refutation!

Jonathan Harrison said...

For the record, I have never been Jewish and have no plans to convert.

Nathan said...

Please, step away from the cage. There's the very real danger of shit being thrown your way. There's nothing to see here: the chimp has repeatedly shown that it will never be anything more than a chimp.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

MGK note on page 1099 of the rebuttal that on page 358 of the C&P Manifesto, the 'plagiarist bloggers' purport to quote from the Polish-Jewish journal "Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego," but actually stole the English translation along with the citation from Yitzhak Arad.

I decided to check MGK's assertion, and guess what? They're 100% correct:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/cb37fb991dbb613e58828d6792eaa56b.jpg

"Mattogno's verbiage also contains an endlessly repeated libel that we are somehow guilty of bibliographic plagiarism." - JH

It's not libel when it's true.

Franz Holtzhäuser said...

The Black Rabbit of Inlé:

This bunch reminds me of Hololeugner Herman Rosenblat. You may expect a reply from Jonathan Harrison, or one of the other stooges, saying something so insane as; “It was real in my mind”. Because it probably was.
FRANZ

Hans said...

The Black Rabbit of Inlé:

"I decided to check MGK's assertion, and guess what? They're 100% correct:"

I am speaking here for myself, not for the authors of the critique.

This example is certainly unfair practice, even if they were having checked out a copy the Polish-Jewish journal (this I don't know), and Arad should have been cited. The same is true for any other case where they did had the original source (e.g. a German document) but quoted the English translation without acknowledging the source of the translation.

We already know that Mattogno's plagiarism accusations are exaggerated and sometimes just painfully stupid discarding that at least one of the authors did research and check out archive files.

In the end, it will depend on the extent his accusations are true or unfounded.

For example, if there are only a a small fraction of cases such the one you have mentioned among I don't how much citations, this may very well be just carelessness and not a big deal.

If there are a number of cases where they have clearly had access to the original and could read and understand the original (German, Russian), but just quoted a translation from a secondary source without proper citation, that's unfair practice but would also fall into the category of carelessness.

If that's all, it would not significantly lower the quality of their work in general if the mistakes are acknowledged and corrected.

And in particular and most importantly, it would not say anything on the arguments against MGK's distortions and misinterpretations of evidence.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Speaking purely for myself, the scenario is more complicated. I was using English translations by Browning and Gerlach in old blog articles. The blog articles always cited the source of the translations, usually through hyperlinks. It subsequently came to light that one of my co-authors had the documents in question. When we read the documents, our translations agreed entirely with the translation I cited via hyperlinks in the blog articles. We can show in future editions of the critique that we own those documents by quoting different parts of the documents that are not in Browning and Gerlach, and by the fact that our file reference is different.

Mattogno in this scenario will still accuse us of copying and pasting. I should therefore have cited the translations by Browning and Gerlach that I originally cited via hyperlinks in the blog articles and saved ourselves the hassle of defending these accusations.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Furthermore, to repeat my point on the other thread, there are many "Browning...citing" refs in my Chapter 2 so there was no systematic concealment of Browning as a major secondary source of documents.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

"First, he [Carlo Mattogno] is prone to alleging plagiarism from secondary sources but then fails to notice, or properly account for the fact that we actually cited the documents from an entirely different archive to the one cited in the secondary source." - Jonathan "Manure" Harrison

Oh, but he has accounted for your mix-n-match plagiarisms Harrison. I enjoyed the example on p. 343 where he proves you C&P your snippet quote from Eduard Strauch's July 25, 1943 report to Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski from a David Thompson post on AHF, who had quoted from, and correctly cited the source: Klee et al., ‘The Good Old Days'. Having plagiarised Klee et al.'s translation, you then plagiarised the archival reference from Gerlach's “The Wannsee Conference”. He rounds it off nicely by proving that you learnt of the Strauch quote from Thompson's AHF post with your own words , on this very blog: “The report is reproduced in full at the Axis History Forum here. The report includes the following revealing paragraph.”

"The harvest of evidence relating to Strauch will thus leave an unpleasant taste in mouths of Hitler-kissing [recte: plagiarism] deniers."



Jonathan Harrison said...

That was an error and it will be corrected. We have sight of such docs: this one is on my hard drive from ‘Aus den Akten des Gauleiters Kube,’ which is on-line:

http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1956_1_5_heiber.pdf

As I said above, this kind of error (which only happens a handful of times) comes from the fact that this writing process, in my case, started with blog articles in 2008 that used links. Converting that into a chapter required checking the source, which we did, and amending the footnote to show this. This was a case where that wasn't done correctly, and I take sole responsibility for that, but it will be corrected in the next version. My apologies to Klee for not crediting his translation, but I doubt he's losing sleep over it (especially as he is now deceased).

Jonathan Harrison said...

Note: I cited another Klee extract correctly on page 105 of the chapter (n.72) so the incorrect cite on page 128 is clearly not an intention to conceal Klee as a source.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

"We have sight of such docs: this one is on my hard drive from
‘Aus den Akten des Gauleiters Kube,’ which is on-line:


That's not a "document" Harrison, it's an article by Helmut Heiber.

You didn't cite Heiber's article either (probably because you can't read it, see MGK p.283), and it's an article that doesn't contain—for obvious reasons—the archival reference you did cite in your footnote: 'BA NS19/1770, pp.15-27', which you clearly plagiarised elsewhere.

Are all your excuses for the litany of plagiarisms documented by MGK going to be as feeble and transparently false as this one?

Jonathan Harrison said...

I don't need to make excuses. I will be correcting this type of small error in V2, whereas MGK will keep lying and misrepresenting the documentation and historiography in the ways we documented in V1 and will document further in V2, based on the lies in their latest ton of shit. If you accuse me or my colleagues of plagiarism again I'll just ignore you.

Nicholas Terry said...

Jon's memory of this particular reference is not quite accurate. The BA ref was included because *I* had copied the relevant file from the Bundesarchiv.

Jon did not see the originals because in all honesty, my copies were buried under a ton of papers and still are; I had only my notes immediately to hand, and thus the page reference is imprecise. This was a white paper, after all, and I think BROI has already seen that there are a few other places where vaguer-than-necessary citations were given, yet I still obviously saw them.

When putting the critique together, we also did not necessarily share documents that were readily available, as in this case; therefore this was not a priority. Jon certainly referred to Gerlach's Wannsee article but he equally certainly didn't notice the BA archival reference in there. I don't think even I noticed it, since the Strauch-Kube documentation is splashed all over the literature and has been published in whole and in part in both English and German. I wouldn't have associated the docs with the article. Meanwhile, the finding guides are such that you tend to notice when there are interesting looking files; the question is always is there something else in the file other than the familiar Nuremberg document - sometimes no, often yes.

Therefore you look, and therefore you take copies or make notes, even of documents which are 'familiar', because it's nice to see documents in the flesh so to speak.

I copied the file when going through Bundesarchiv microfiches (which is how you get BA NS19 in Lichterfelde as well as at USHMM - I saw NS19 files in both places).

That was after going through boxes of NO- document photostats at Duxford, and in parallel to looking at RG242 T175 microfilms at NARA (over a period of many years). So I've actually seen some docs in 2-3-4-5-6 separate file locations.

Just this afternoon I came across a cache of T175 photocopies sandwiched in a box between copies of Wehrmacht records, which turned out to contain a photocopy of Himmler's order to Pruetzmann on 27 October 1942 to destroy the Pinsk ghetto. I knew I had that copied but had taken notes from Heiber so long before copying it that I never inputted the microfilm reference. I've also got a copy from the National Archives of the Republic of Belarus, from a file of copies they took from elsewhere (could have been BA or NARA).

In the critique, we cited that order from Heiber's collection of letters to and from Himmler. Rest assured that the NARA and NRAB archival references will be added in the revised edition, along with other documents from the relevant reel and file respectively.

Jon Harrison has apologised for making errors, and there are definitely a few in his primary-drafted sections, which were overlooked even after editing. And those few errors are sometimes of the type he describes above; just not in this case.

A good example is the Erren report on Slonim which is cited on p.101 as if it should have had a secondary source first, and ends up reading like we saw an indictment w/o giving a proper file reference for it. We do have materials from the Hamburg state attorney's office, but for other cases, not Erren's trial.

Ironically I saw a copy of the Erren report on microfilm from the CDJC at USHMM - the report was so badly scanned and blurry as to be unreadable. I've since acquired a published version. I'm also sitting on more copies from the CDJC which will be relevant to the revised edition.

Sabertooth said...

"This is the level and tone to which Mattogno has sunk"

It must be the ultimate chutzpah to make such an argument in an article that is filled with references to manure and other forms of excrement...

I've always thought that, wrt. the Holocaust, Jewish anger is the weather vane of truth and wisdom. Can we also make the inference here, that the Jew's references to shit are proportional to the number of his lies exposed?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"This is the level and tone to which Mattogno has sunk"

It must be the ultimate chutzpah to make such an argument in an article that is filled with references to manure and other forms of excrement...

I've always thought that, wrt. the Holocaust, Jewish anger is the weather vane of truth and wisdom. Can we also make the inference here, that the Jew's references to shit are proportional to the number of his lies exposed?»


Thank you for your post.
Comments like these are always appreciated for what they reveal about the kind of people that "Revisionist" scripture appeals to.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Sabretooth has left a new comment on your post "The Steaming Pile of MGK Manure is Here":

You mean people who find arguments like "this is manure" and "this is bullshit" to be the very bottom of "intellectual debate"?»

No, I mean people who appreciate intelligent and substantiated arguments but also like to see a spade called a spade and a pile of manure called a pile of manure.

«Or are you just being sore because I wrote something negative about the Chosen People?»

Not at all. The more you reveal what makes you tick and where you come from, the better.

«I thought I'd find some controversy on this blog, but all I see is the same story I read in Hilberg's book with "antisemite!" attached to it to fend off the critics.»

Then you haven't been paying attention. What this blog has done over the years is expose "Revisionist" propaganda as what it is, with such success that the coryphées of "Revisionism" dedicated 21 months and 1554 pages just to our work. And it will continue doing so, especially as Mattogno, Graf and Kues have presented us with many new opportunities for this healthy exercise.

«Thanks for handing revisionists the victory.»

Thanks for revealing your characteristic capacity for self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Please continue with the self-portrayal. And please forgive my having accidentally rejected your instructive comment. I still have to get used to moderating.

Sabretooth said...

"And please forgive my having accidentally rejected your instructive comment. I still have to get used to moderating."

That's all right; we all do things we regret.

And please continue with your outrageous projections and slimy rhetorics, because you're absolutely right: that IS what makes the Indo-European man tick. What you fail to understand though, is that, in the words of David Irving, no one is going to machinegun ME into a pit for saying what *I* am saying.

You can't stop the inevitable, Roberto, and I expect you to keep up your tireless work of creating a new Holocaust. A REAL one this time.

http://tinyurl.com/qzwczag

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"And please forgive my having accidentally rejected your instructive comment. I still have to get used to moderating."

That's all right; we all do things we regret.

And please continue with your outrageous projections and slimy rhetorics, because you're absolutely right: that IS what makes the Indo-European man tick. What you fail to understand though, is that, in the words of David Irving, no one is going to machinegun ME into a pit for saying what *I* am saying.

You can't stop the inevitable, Roberto, and I expect you to keep up your tireless work of creating a new Holocaust. A REAL one this time.

http://tinyurl.com/qzwczag»


Wow, that's quite a bloodthirsty fellow we got here. :-)

Sabretooth said...

"Wow, that's quite a bloodthirsty fellow we got here. :-)"

Not at all - I don't have to be, and I don't want to be. I'm simply an observer watching history repeat itself.

I guess you'll never get it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Not at all - I don't have to be, and I don't want to be. I'm simply an observer watching history repeat itself.»

Repeat itself? I thought you were one of the "Holocaust didn't happen, what a shame" - variety.

Sabretooth said...

Truth is not manifest, and historical truth is not a monolithic structure which cannot be taken apart. You would have known this if you had actually attended a university (and thus been exposed to scientific theory and Karl Popper).

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Truth is not manifest, and historical truth is not a monolithic structure which cannot be taken apart. You would have known this if you had actually attended a university (and thus been exposed to scientific theory and Karl Popper).»

Did I say anything to the contrary to historical truth not being a monolithic structure which cannot be taken apart, or what's this sermon supposed to mean?

The accepted historical record is falsifiable and subject to revision as hitherto unknown evidence is discovered or reasonable new interpretations of evidence are presented.

Does the same apply to "Revisionist" dogmas?

Sabretooth said...

Accepted by whom? Virtually everything on this blog reveals an astounding lack of scientific principles. The 'sermon' means that when truth is capitalized with a T, or H in this case, explanations must be found to explain why there are those who refuse to accept it(read: the 'deniers'). These explanations usually describe a certain wickedness which is then sought to be suppressed. In Popper's words: "For only the most depraved wickedness can refuse to see the manifest truth; only those who have reason to fear truth conspire to suppress it".

It's interesting that Popper traced this back to Marxism. I think he was on to something.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Accepted by whom?»

Historians, governments, criminal justice authorities, and just about everyone else. Not accepted by whom, other than ideologically motivated conspiracy theorists?

«Virtually everything on this blog reveals an astounding lack of scientific principles.»

Please explain what "scientific principles" you have in mind, why you think they should be present on "this blog", and what on "this blog" is supposed to reveal their "astounding lack". Without such explanation your remark is just hollow rhetorical blather, of the kind that uses the term "science" to impress suckers.

«The 'sermon' means that when truth is capitalized with a T, or H in this case, explanations must be found to explain why there are those who refuse to accept it(read: the 'deniers').»

What's a "capitalized" truth supposed to be, and why is the use of the term "Holocaust" when referring to the Nazi genocide of the Jews supposed to make that set of historical events a "capitalized" truth?

«These explanations usually describe a certain wickedness which is then sought to be suppressed.»

I wouldn't necessarily call it wickedness. It's just that certain historical facts are inconvenient to those who adhere to certain political or ideological convictions. People who admire Nazi Germany and/or hate Jews refuse to accept that certain crimes were committed by a regime they admire and/or against an ethnic/religious group they hate. Admiration of Nazi Germany and/or hatred of Jews is what makes most "Revisionists" tick (there are exceptions, but those exceptions I have come across didn't stick with "Revisionism" for long).

«In Popper's words: "For only the most depraved wickedness can refuse to see the manifest truth; only those who have reason to fear truth conspire to suppress it".»

So according to Popper "Revisionism" springs from "the most depraved wickedness". I tend to be more generous and usually attribute it to stupidity and willful blindness.