Thursday, May 15, 2014

Germar Rudolf's True Feelings about Jews

Can be read on page 39 of this report, which quotes Germar thus:
If the Holocaust is seen as a unique collection of lies, then the sole pillar supporting international Judaism's legitimacy will collapse. The idol of substitute religion will disintegrate. The possibility of extorting more billions from Germany on account of its alleged obligation will likewise collapse. The possibility of obligating America to eternally rescue the Jews from new Holocausts through endless donations of money will likewise collapse. World sympathy for the greatest liars and swindlers in the history of mankind will likewise collapse. Europe's second attempt to establish a lasting enclave in Palestine against the will of the Arabs, similar to the crusades, will likewise collapse. And finally, the future Arabia, which will be unified and self ruling without Jewish, American or European occupiers and colonial powers, will develop irresistibly. This explains why the Jews and Jewish dominated media and politicians everywhere defend these (Holocaust) lies and repress the prophets of truth by all means possible.

82 comments:

Tesla said...

A very interesting look into the details of a modern day witch trial.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Except that the witches weren't caught out repeatedly lying. Nor were they vicious antisemites. That doesn't mean I condone Rudolf's imprisonment. Our policy at HC is against criminalization of HD.

Tesla said...

Sure they were. They were caught "lying", "kidnapping small children", "worshipping the devil" and all sorts of "vicious" things. If the similarity escapes you, I can only wonder why.

Every time I debate the Holocaust with a believer that person tells me "...but I'm completely against the imprisonment". But still thousands are persecuted in Western countries every year. Funny, isn't? I wonder who is actually the liar here.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Another essential difference is that the witches weren't sentenced on account of a behavior they had actually engaged in (for the obvious reason that such behavior was physically impossible). Not so Rudolf, who was sentenced on account of actual and proven actions/statements of his, which happened to be criminalized in the country in which he was tried for them.

Yet another difference is that the trial against Rudolf was conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural laws which forbid coercing a defendant, give a defendant the right to defend himself with the help of an attorney, and require the crime that the defendant is accused of to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant to be convicted, among other benefits that people accused of witchcraft never enjoyed.

So while one may rightly criticize the existence of laws that criminalize hate speech in certain countries, comparing Rudolf's trial with a witchcraft trial is just silly polemyzing.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Every time I debate the Holocaust with a believer that person tells me "...but I'm completely against the imprisonment". But still thousands are persecuted in Western countries every year. Funny, isn't? I wonder who is actually the liar here.»

Quite a hysteric we have here, and I wonder where he/she got those "thousands" from, already because I didn't know there were nearly that many "Revisionists" around.

I also wonder what opponents of "Revisionism" are supposed to do against hate speech laws that criminalize Holocaust denial in certain countries, other than manifest their disagreement with such laws. Should they petition against such laws?

Talk about petitions, I have circulated one against German laws criminalizing Holocaust denial on this blog, which I intend to submit to the Bundestag's petition committee as soon as it has at least 100 signatures.

I'm sure our new guest will be glad to help me by putting his or her name under that petition, which he or she may find under this link.

Nathan said...

-"thousands"are persecuted in Western countries every year-
The last I heard of was that dumbass, Toben. And that was last year. Some idiot also waxed on about Proven liar Nick Kollestrom being "persecuted", but IIRC that was more of his colleagues getting sick of his stupidity and wanting nothing more to do with him. Something that is perfectly within their rights. Also last year.
And people accuse Jews of "whining" about antisemitism.

- I wonder who is actually the liar here.-
Given the above drama, you.

Tesla said...

So how many have signed this petition?

Considering the fact that you frequently reveal the identities of holocaust revisionists as part of your debating techniques, obviously as a means to threaten and discourage them from further debate, this petition is just as deceitful as the rest of the crap you post on your blog.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So how many have signed this petition?»

Follow the link and you'll see.

«Considering the fact that you frequently reveal the identities of holocaust revisionists as part of your debating techniques, obviously as a means to threaten and discourage them from further debate, this petition is just as deceitful as the rest of the crap you post on your blog.»

Trying to chicken out behind a smokescreen of baseless accusations and invective?

How typical for a "brave" defender of the "Revisionist" faith.

Don't be afraid to put your name under the petition. Disagreeing with hate speech laws is not a crime in Germany.

Come on, what are you waiting for?

Tesla said...

Baseless accusations - so you actually deny *that*? What a filthy liar you are.

Speaking of hysterical - how is that bipolar disorder of yours going? Still up and down?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Baseless accusations - so you actually deny *that*? What a filthy liar you are.

Speaking of hysterical - how is that bipolar disorder of yours going? Still up and down?»

I must have hit some raw nerve, judging by the reaction.

And there's no substantiation of the "filthy liar" accusation, which is no surprise.

Could I please have the name of the anonymous coward who is trying to insult me?

Tesla said...

"Could I please have the name of the anonymous coward who is trying to insult me?"

Oh, I wasn't trying to insult you. I just thought you wanted to talk about psychiatry, since you mentioned hysteria...

Tesla said...

"Yet another difference is that the trial against Rudolf was conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural laws which forbid coercing a defendant, give a defendant the right to defend himself with the help of an attorney,"

What a bunch of baloney. Neither the defendant nor his attorney can defend holocaust denial in Germany, since that would lead to yet another prosecution for holocaust denial. The German attorney Sylvia Stolz had to spend several years in prison simply for defending her clients. And this is the kind of legal justice you defend.

So stop pretending you are against this, will you, since we all know you would prefer having "holocaust deniers" in jail or shot, just like in previous times(I see one of your contributors has the communist flag on his youtube account - what a surprise). You obviously can't debate them, therefore your only means of defense is to out their names to make sure the corrupt legal systems of the Western regimes take care of the rest.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Yet another difference is that the trial against Rudolf was conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural laws which forbid coercing a defendant, give a defendant the right to defend himself with the help of an attorney,"

What a bunch of baloney. Neither the defendant nor his attorney can defend holocaust denial in Germany, since that would lead to yet another prosecution for holocaust denial. The German attorney Sylvia Stolz had to spend several years in prison simply for defending her clients. And this is the kind of legal justice you defend.»

You're mixing up the judiciary and the legislative. The German legislative has made Holocaust denial a criminal offense. The judiciary has to follow the law of the land, and decide whether someone accused of having engaged in Holocaust denial as defined by law is actually guilty of this offense. Rudolf had all the means offered by German procedural law to defend himself against the accusation that he had engaged in Holocaust denial as defined by German law. Unfortunately for him, the proof that his writings and statements constituted Holocaust denial in the sense of the legal definition was overwhelming.

«So stop pretending you are against this, will you, since we all know you would prefer having "holocaust deniers" in jail or shot, just like in previous times(I see one of your contributors has the communist flag on his youtube account - what a surprise). You obviously can't debate them, therefore your only means of defense is to out their names to make sure the corrupt legal systems of the Western regimes take care of the rest.»

Actually debating hollering hysterics like you is a piece of cake and can be great fun. And yes, I would like to see laws against Holocaust denial revoked, for two reasons. One is that, as the German legal scholar I quoted in my petition text pointed out, stupidity (which is what Holocaust denial essentially amounts to) should not be a criminal offense. The other is that I don't want stupidity to be given a chance to gain notoriety by whining about "persecution". Being duly ridiculed is all the faithful followers of the "Revisionist" religion deserve, and their behavior (just look at your own) makes that a rather easy task.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Could I please have the name of the anonymous coward who is trying to insult me?"

Oh, I wasn't trying to insult you. I just thought you wanted to talk about psychiatry, since you mentioned hysteria...»

An anonymous coward, as I said.

Tesla said...

"You're mixing up the judiciary and the legislative. "

No, I'm not mixing up the judiciary and the legislative - I'm stating the simple fact that you can't defend yourself against charges of "holocaust denial" in Germany, because then your lawyer will be charged with "holocaust denial" as well. Thus your statement was false. Again, it's you who mix things up here, as your downplaying of this seems to indicate that you are unable to distinguish right from wrong.

Your labeling of me as a "hysteric" just fits the pattern of psychological pathologization you marxists are so famous for(yes, that is what you are). That your own history of psychological illness is posted all over the Internet just makes it more funny.

Have a nice day, Donkeykamp, and be careful with that Moclobemide.

Tesla said...

"An anonymous coward, as I said."

Maybe if you had some arguments to defend your case, you wouldn't be so obsessed with my person.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"An anonymous coward, as I said."

Maybe if you had some arguments to defend your case, you wouldn't be so obsessed with my person.»

Actually my arguments are way better than my opponent's, and as my opponent well knows, my interest in his person is related to his personal attacks. If my opponent doesn't want his treasured anonymity challenged, all he has to do is refrain from such attacks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"You're mixing up the judiciary and the legislative. "

No, I'm not mixing up the judiciary and the legislative -»

Of course you are, by attacking the judiciary for enforcing the law of the land.

«I'm stating the simple fact that you can't defend yourself against charges of "holocaust denial" in Germany, because then your lawyer will be charged with "holocaust denial" as well.»

Nonsense. You can defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that you didn't make statements or publish writings that qualify as Holocaust denial according to German law. What you cannot do is defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that there is no such thing as Holocaust denial because there was no Holocaust. Just as you cannot defend yourself against charges of theft or murder by arguing that there is no such thing as theft or murder.

«Thus your statement was false.»

Nope, I made an appropriate distinction you were unable or unwilling to make.

«Again, it's you who mix things up here, as your downplaying of this seems to indicate that you are unable to distinguish right from wrong.»

I'm not downplaying anything, but you are a) blaming the wrong people (the judiciary for enforcing the law of the land, instead of the legislative for making the law) and b) blowing the issue out of proportion (by making an big bloody fuss about something no worse than a cynical propagandist's misfortune in running afoul of overdone hate speech legislation, which doesn't exactly move me to tears). People shouldn't face criminal charges for being deluded fools or lying skunks, that much we can agree on. But it doesn't change the contempt I feel for such people.

«Your labeling of me as a "hysteric" just fits the pattern of psychological pathologization you marxists are so famous for(yes, that is what you are).»

So now I'm a supposed to be a marxist because I pointed out the hysterical nature of your behavior (which must have hit one of your raw nerves, considering how you still go on about it). You're becoming increasingly amusing, genius.

«That your own history of psychological illness is posted all over the Internet just makes it more funny.

Have a nice day, Donkeykamp, and be careful with that Moclobemide.»

And here our fine friend is getting personal again. From the safety of an alias, as befits the cowardly piece of trash he has amply shown to be.

Tesla said...

"Nonsense. You can defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that you didn't make statements or publish writings that qualify as Holocaust denial according to German law."

I guess your ignorance of this matter is at the same level as your arrogance. You obviously haven't studied the case of lawyers such as Syliva Stolz. In any case, your argumentation constitutes a side point that can be likened to saying the witch can defend herself by proving she isn't a witch. It is interesting to note that that was exactly what happened in many cases of witch trials. No matter how absurd these cases were, the inquisitors managed to put some apparent justice to it with their bizarre beliefs. Your ramblings about "legislative" versus "judiciary" is just that.

"And here our fine friend is getting personal again. From the safety of an alias, as befits the cowardly piece of trash he has amply shown to be."

The problem with you people is that you never understand it when your proclaimed enemies are answering you with your own language. Which is why you always end up getting mowed into pits.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Nonsense. You can defend yourself against charges of Holocaust denial by arguing that you didn't make statements or publish writings that qualify as Holocaust denial according to German law."

I guess your ignorance of this matter is at the same level as your arrogance. You obviously haven't studied the case of lawyers such as Syliva Stolz. In any case, your argumentation constitutes a side point that can be likened to saying the witch can defend herself by proving she isn't a witch. It is interesting to note that that was exactly what happened in many cases of witch trials. No matter how absurd these cases were, the inquisitors managed to put some apparent justice to it with their bizarre beliefs. Your ramblings about "legislative" versus "judiciary" is just that.»

What's wrong with your "witchcraft" comparison is that there's no such thing as witchcraft in the real world, whereas there is such a thing as the behavior described in Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code:

"(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine."

I suggest you make your comparisons less far-fetched (to put it politely) by trying to liken Rudolf to someone tried for heresy by the Inquisition on account of a scientific theory that ran against the beliefs of the day. The problem with that comparison would be that Rudolf did exactly the opposite of what such heretic had done: instead of trying to counter religious/ideological nonsense with reason, he tried to counter reason with ideologically motivated nonsense. But at least it would be marginally less silly than your "witchcraft trial" parallel.

«"And here our fine friend is getting personal again. From the safety of an alias, as befits the cowardly piece of trash he has amply shown to be."

The problem with you people is that you never understand it when your proclaimed enemies are answering you with your own language.»

Did I attack you by bringing up a health problem of yours that you once mentioned on the internet? Not that I remember.

And if I had sunk to such lowliness, I would have done it writing under my own name, and you would have the opportunity to seek satisfaction if you felt like doing so.

See the difference?

«Which is why you always end up getting mowed into pits.»

Interesting imagery you use in your wishful thinking - "mowed into pits". It evokes the image of people being mowed into pits with automatic weapons, doesn't it?

Tesla said...

"What's wrong with your "witchcraft" comparison is that there's no such thing as witchcraft in the real world, whereas there is such a thing as the behavior described in Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code: "

There is nothing wrong with my comparison. That it isn't similar to witchcraft trials in all aspects doesn't make it wrong.

You seem to completely fail to grasp the point that trials against someone for their beliefs in history, science or whatnot, is wrong - whether that person is right or wrong, rational or irrational, or whether it is a judicial or legislative matter, is irrelevant.

"Did I attack you by bringing up a health problem of yours that you once mentioned on the internet? Not that I remember."

No, of course not, since I don't have any mental health problems, and if I did, I wouldn't be so careless as to post them under my full name - especially if I had the habit of being an Internet loudmouth like you.

"Interesting imagery you use in your wishful thinking - "mowed into pits". It evokes the image of people being mowed into pits with automatic weapons, doesn't it?"

Yes, of course.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"What's wrong with your "witchcraft" comparison is that there's no such thing as witchcraft in the real world, whereas there is such a thing as the behavior described in Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code: "

There is nothing wrong with my comparison.»

Let's see: Witchcraft doesn't exist, Holocaust denial does. Witchcraft trials involved the most brutal forms of coercion, trials before German courts are conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural rules, which among other things rule out any form of coercion. Two things wrong already, where are the right ones?

«That it isn't similar to witchcraft trials in all aspects doesn't make it wrong.»

I still have to see the right parts of the comparison. Care to point them out?

«You seem to completely fail to grasp the point that trials against someone for their beliefs in history, science or whatnot, is wrong»

Of course it's wrong, and I never said anything to the contrary. But there's a difference between pointing out the wrong of such trials and the silly hyperbole of your "witchcraft trials" parallel.

«- whether that person is right or wrong, rational or irrational, or whether it is a judicial or legislative matter, is irrelevant.»

It may be irrelevant to you whether a court of justice is not guided by or violating defendant-friendly procedural rules or trying someone in accordance with such rules for having violated a legal hate speech provision that should not exist. It's not irrelevant to me.

«"Did I attack you by bringing up a health problem of yours that you once mentioned on the internet? Not that I remember."

No, of course not, since I don't have any mental health problems, and if I did,»

I wouldn't hold that against you, as I'm not a lowly character like you are.

«I wouldn't be so careless as to post them under my full name -»

Wise precaution as the internet is full of lowly skunks of the "Tesla" variety, who will go as low as attacking a person on account of that person's having suffered from what is arguably one of the most unpleasant ailments around.

«especially if I had the habit of being an Internet loudmouth like you.»

The forum conversation about my depression took place in 1999, well before I have my first internet encounter with one of Hitler's willing defense attorneys. And as to the "Internet loudmouth", it's hard to miss the obvious self-projection.

«"Interesting imagery you use in your wishful thinking - "mowed into pits". It evokes the image of people being mowed into pits with automatic weapons, doesn't it?"

Yes, of course.»

Thanks, it fits the profile you have been presenting.

Tesla said...

"Let's see: Witchcraft doesn't exist, Holocaust denial does. Witchcraft trials involved the most brutal forms of coercion, trials before German courts are conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural rules, which among other things rule out any form of coercion. Two things wrong already, where are the right ones? "

I have seen "right-wing extremists" being dragged naked into the street by the secret, state police in Germany, who then proceeded to beat them with sticks. Have you? Your "defendant-friendly procedural rules" is just hogwash. Their treatment is only surpassed by Guantanamo Bay, but my guess is it won't be long before we have similar camps for nationalists also. The Jews are relentless in their persecution of anyone who opposes them.

"I still have to see the right parts of the comparison. Care to point them out?"

I have done that many times already.

"I wouldn't hold that against you, as I'm not a lowly character like you are."

I don't "hold that against you" - I simply point out the laughable in your typical, Marxist usage of psychiatric terms when your own diagnoses are all over the Internet.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Let's see: Witchcraft doesn't exist, Holocaust denial does. Witchcraft trials involved the most brutal forms of coercion, trials before German courts are conducted according to defendant-friendly procedural rules, which among other things rule out any form of coercion. Two things wrong already, where are the right ones? "

I have seen "right-wing extremists" being dragged naked into the street by the secret, state police in Germany, who then proceeded to beat them with sticks.»

In one of your nightmares, or in actual fact? In the latter case, where in Germany and when is that supposed to have happened, and what's the name of that "secret, state police" you are talking about?

«Have you?»

No, but I'm amused to see one of Hitler's willing defense attorney's waxing indignant about what would have been no more than a case of police brutality, if it happened.

«Your "defendant-friendly procedural rules" is just hogwash.»

Police brutality may hit extremists of the right and left, and also non-extremist citizens, even in a constitutional state of law. It doesn't imply that the courts of justice in such state don't give defendants a fair trial according to defendant-friendly procedural laws. You'll have to do better than mixing apples with oranges if you want to demonstrate German procedural laws don't protect the defendant or that German courts don't abide by such laws.

«Their treatment is only surpassed by Guantanamo Bay, but my guess is it won't be long before we have similar camps for nationalists also. The Jews are relentless in their persecution of anyone who opposes them.»

Shall we take that as just some more of your rhetorical hyperbole, or shall we assume that you're paranoid? You seem to be obsessed with "the Jews" and their supposed evil doings.

«"I still have to see the right parts of the comparison. Care to point them out?"

I have done that many times already.»

I didn't notice, and I don't think I missed something.

«"I wouldn't hold that against you, as I'm not a lowly character like you are."

I don't "hold that against you" - I simply point out the laughable in your typical, Marxist usage of psychiatric terms when your own diagnoses are all over the Internet.»

So because I had a case of MDD (which I sincerely hope you'll never have, as it's one of the worst things that can happen to you), I'm supposed to refrain from pointing out your obviously hysterical behavior?

Ah, and please keep repeating the "Marxist" BS. It further illustrates the cloud-cuckoo-land you live in. Marxists and Jews in every corner, threatening the Aryan race, right? :-)

Tesla said...

Your fishing around my identity is beginning to become tiresome. I am of course never going to give you the slightest bit of information in that regard, as I am sure it will be passed on to the local Antifa/authorities in no time.

According to your own posts on Usenet, you suffer from a recurrent mental illness that is associated with such serious symptoms as psychosis and mania. So to your continued allusions to my claims and beliefs being a result of mental illness, I can only point out that this is coming from someone who is potentially psychotic himself. And one who, in the same Usenet post, attacks his doctor - the very hallmark of that patient group.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Your fishing around my identity is beginning to become tiresome. I am of course never going to give you the slightest bit of information in that regard, as I am sure it will be passed on to the local Antifa/authorities in no time.»

You seem to be suffering from paranoia, my friend. And I'm not "fishing around" your identity by asking you to sign my petition. I want more signatures on the petition, that's all. I happen to know who you are and where you live. But relax, there's no Antifa that I have any contact with, and reporting you to authorities would be against my principles.

«According to your own posts on Usenet, you suffer from a recurrent mental illness that is associated with such serious symptoms as psychosis and mania.»

It may but need not be associated with that, and in my case it was just associated with feeling miserable to the point of wanting to die.

«So to your continued allusions to my claims and beliefs being a result of mental illness,»

... don't exist anywhere outside your own fantasies. One doesn't have to suffer from a mental illness to stick with "Revisionism". Hating Jews and/or admiring Nazi Germany and/or being a white supremacist or the like will do nicely.

«I can only point out that this is coming from someone who is potentially psychotic himself. And one who, in the same Usenet post, attacks his doctor - the very hallmark of that patient group.»

Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real. Which is not my problem, but what you have written might lead one to suspect that it is yours. I hope for you that this is not the case.

Tesla said...

So, let's see, for some reason you've found out where I live, but you're not going to use it for anything. And you say my opinions on Jews etc. lead you to believe I am psychotic, but then you suddenly turn around and say that is just part of my fantasies. Hm.

This isn't very logical, is it?

Sounds to me like you're on the verge of something, but can't quite figure out which leg to stand on.

"Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real."

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Psychosis is a state of mind where the patient confuses his own emotions with the real world. His emotions *become* what he senses, and this leads to a form of logical incoherence whereby everything the patient thinks, says or writes is tailored to his emotions at that particular moment. It can be quite hard to spot, but can usually be triggered if you know which buttons to push.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So, let's see, for some reason you've found out where I live, but you're not going to use it for anything.»

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that I happen to know who you are and where you live but do not intend to use that information for the purposes you fear I might use it for.

«And you say my opinions on Jews etc. lead you to believe I am psychotic, but then you suddenly turn around and say that is just part of my fantasies. Hm.»

Again, that's not what I wrote. What I wrote was this:

«Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real. Which is not my problem, but what you have written might lead one to suspect that it is yours. I hope for you that this is not the case.»

«This isn't very logical, is it?»

What exactly does not seem logical to you?

«Sounds to me like you're on the verge of something, but can't quite figure out which leg to stand on.»

Actually I’m making clear points. One is that contempt for "Revisionism" doesn't necessarily imply favoring the criminalization thereof, rather the contrary. The other is that bringing up an opponent's medical history as a negative, as you have done, is a behavior that suggests a lowly kind of character.

«"Psychosis is characterized by seeing, hearing or believing things that aren't real."
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Psychosis is a state of mind where the patient confuses his own emotions with the real world. His emotions *become* what he senses, and this leads to a form of logical incoherence whereby everything the patient thinks, says or writes is tailored to his emotions at that particular moment. It can be quite hard to spot, but can usually be triggered if you know which buttons to push.»

Why, you seem to know more about psychosis than I do. Congratulations on your superior knowledge, and I hope for you that it is not based on personal experience.

Tesla said...

So you just happen to know who I am and where I live...right. Your dancing around with ambigious threats is becoming tiresome.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«So you just happen to know who I am and where I live...right. Your dancing around with ambigious threats is becoming tiresome.»

As you know more about psychosis than I do - isn't feeling threatened for no reason also one of its characteristics?

Tesla said...

Who says I'm feeling threatened? I've had crazy skimask-wearing communists running after me with a fireaxe. I know the difference between the dangerous ones and the ones who just can't argue without making ambiguous threats.

Arthur Crump said...

Tesla I was just going to advise you to give up, but on second thoughts please carry on, as I'm really enjoying watching you get humiliated.
It's like watching Oscar Wilde debating with Benny from Crossroads !!!

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Who says I'm feeling threatened? I've had crazy skimask-wearing communists running after me with a fireaxe.»

Like you saw the "secret" German police taking naked Nazis into the street and beating them there, I suppose. You seem to keep mixing up your nightmares with reality.

«I know the difference between the dangerous ones and the ones who just can't argue without making ambiguous threats.»

He doesn't feel threatened but sees "ambiguous threats" in my stating this:

«And I'm not "fishing around" your identity by asking you to sign my petition. I want more signatures on the petition, that's all. I happen to know who you are and where you live. But relax, there's no Antifa that I have any contact with, and reporting you to authorities would be against my principles.»

Alles klar. :-)

Tesla said...

Arthur Crump, thanks for joining in. I'm sure Oscar Wilde needs all the male cheerleaders he can get. He was, after all, a homosexual pederast. Some people also believe he suffered from various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, but that comparison was possibly not intentional from your side?

Tesla said...

"Alles klar. :-)"

"I know who you are and where you live" is the hallmark sentence of people who make online threats, yes. That doesn't mean I actually feel threatened by you. You seem to be too much of a coward.

bhigr said...

Lot's of name calling here. The real question is: Is anything that Rudolph says actually true or not? Let's analyze his statement.

"If the Holocaust is seen as a unique collection of lies, then the sole pillar supporting international Judaism's legitimacy will collapse."

I don't think the holocaust is the sole pillar for supporting Judaism, but it is the most important pillar. This pillar will surely collapse, if and only if the Holocaust turns out to be false. Who would disagree? At some point people will find out - regardless of laws prohibiting the dissemination of this information.

"The idol of substitute religion will disintegrate. The possibility of extorting more billions from Germany on account of its alleged obligation will likewise collapse."

If the Holocaust is false, this surely will happen, since the holocaust is the justification for this, right?

"World sympathy for the greatest liars and swindlers in the history of mankind will likewise collapse."

If the most unique and vicious crime of mankind, the holocaust, turns out to be wrong, well then the holocaust originators are going to be the most vicious liars of mankind, right? But, since most Jews truly believe in the Holocaust, they cannot be called liars. But, possibly, sympathies for Jews as a whole would diminish as well, ... just like sympathies and support for all Germans - both guilty and innocent Germans - has been affected by the holocaust.

Did I miss anything?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Alles klar. :-)"

"I know who you are and where you live" is the hallmark sentence of people who make online threats, yes.»

That may be so in your world. It is not so in mine.

«That doesn't mean I actually feel threatened by you. You seem to be too much of a coward.»

... says a fellow who hides in safe anonymity to someone who writes under his own name and makes no secret of where he can be found. The self-projection is obvious.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«At some point people will find out - regardless of laws prohibiting the dissemination of this information.»

Those laws shouldn't exist because no one should be punished for being a deluded fool or an inveterate liar, but since when does ideologically motivated garbage qualify as information?

«Did I miss anything?»

You mean, apart from the fact that the assumptions underlying Rudolf's predictions (e.g. the «extorting more billions from Germany» - BS) are utter nonsense outside Rudolf's fantasy world, and that his musings reveal the fellow's true feelings about Jews? Nothing at all.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Arthur Crump, thanks for joining in. I'm sure Oscar Wilde needs all the male cheerleaders he can get. He was, after all, a homosexual pederast. Some people also believe he suffered from various mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, but that comparison was possibly not intentional from your side?»

Not that I’m interested in our anonymous coward's private life, but could it be that the associations he made reveal something about his secret wishes and tendencies?

Tesla said...

"Not that I’m interested in our anonymous coward's private life, but could it be that the associations he made reveal something about his secret wishes and tendencies?"

As in the theories of dr. Freud? Yet another sign that you believe in unscientific, Jewish bullshit.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Not that I’m interested in our anonymous coward's private life, but could it be that the associations he made reveal something about his secret wishes and tendencies?"

As in the theories of dr. Freud? Yet another sign that you believe in unscientific, Jewish bullshit.»

Actually I believe in nothing, and thanks for yet another of your self-portraying comments.

Kevin said...

A bit off-topic, but still important.

Roberto Muehlenkamp: In the blog post regarding the petition the link to the RODOH forum where you can ask questions/comment on the petition itself that links here redirects to Yuku's homepage. Is there a thread on the new RODOH forum (rodoh.info) that it can be linked to to fix this? Thanks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Kevin,

The petition blog was written at the time of the old RODOH forum, which was eventually deleted by Yuku. That's why the link no longer works. On the current RODOH forum there is no thread about the petition, as far as I know.

Tesla said...

"Actually I believe in nothing"

Of course. Like most uneducated people you think science is about proofs. That is the authoritarian, Jewish "science" of the Freudian sect in a nutshell.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Of course. Like most uneducated people you think science is about proofs. That is the authoritarian, Jewish "science" of the Freudian sect in a nutshell.»

Whereas "educated" people not subscribing to the "Jewish" notion of science apparently hold that science is not about checking a theory against evidence, but about non-testable speculations. And that's called "Aryan" science, I guess.

Tesla said...

"Whereas "educated" people not subscribing to the "Jewish" notion of science apparently hold that science is not about checking a theory against evidence, but about non-testable speculations. And that's called "Aryan" science, I guess."

I don't know where you get this fantasy from. Your own uneducated guesses, I presume.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Whereas "educated" people not subscribing to the "Jewish" notion of science apparently hold that science is not about checking a theory against evidence, but about non-testable speculations. And that's called "Aryan" science, I guess."

I don't know where you get this fantasy from. Your own uneducated guesses, I presume.»

Looks like my friend means to tell me that the correct term is not "Aryan" science. Must be "White" science, then.

Tesla said...

Science as we understand it today (most of us anyway) arose in Europe among people who were predominantly White, yes. It's mostly based on the negative epistemology of the old Greeks (often summed up with Socrates' "I know one thing: that I know nothing") who were a 100% Indo-European (White) people.

What's your point?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Science as we understand it today (most of us anyway) arose in Europe among people who were predominantly White, yes. It's mostly based on the negative epistemology of the old Greeks (often summed up with Socrates' "I know one thing: that I know nothing") who were a 100% Indo-European (White) people.

What's your point?»

The one you just helped me to make, especially with the «100% Indo-European (White) people».

Thank you.:-)

Tesla said...

You mean the point that it shocks your ideological roots to be confronted with the astounding fact that modern science was developed by Whites?

I think we're getting closer to finding out who you are, Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«You mean the point that it shocks your ideological roots to be confronted with the astounding fact that modern science was developed by Whites?»

I'm not shocked at all, actually. It's just a matter of utter indifference to me what race or ethnicity developed modern science. Whereas it seems to be very important to my interlocutor that it was the White race, which in turn speaks volumes about my interlocutor.

«I think we're getting closer to finding out who you are, Mr. Muehlenkamp.»

No mystery there at all. Unlike my White Supremacist interlocutor, who believes in the superiority of the White race (as he defines it) and wants to keep it from mingling with races he apparently holds to be inferior, I'm a person who doesn't give a damn about anyone's racial or ethnic background.

Tesla said...

Of course you are indifferent to racial background; the thesis that race is not important to anything is one of the central parts of the Frankfurt school's line of marxism. Today it is usually followed up by calling anyone who disagrees a "nazi" or a "White supremacist".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Oh, the good old "anyone who disagrees" mantra.

Not anyone who disagrees, but Tesla's professed concerns about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", which I recall having read in one or more of his posts, clearly shows where the fellow comes from.

Tesla said...

"Not anyone who disagrees, but Tesla's professed concerns about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", which I recall having read in one or more of his posts, clearly shows where the fellow comes from."

None of those points make me a "White supremacist" nor a National-Socialist. In any case your name-calling started long before I made any points regarding the Jewish role in multiculturalism.

Maybe if you had been more concerned with facts and knowledge rather than throwing your smears, you would have known what National-Socialism actually was. But like most ignorant marxists, you simply throw words like "nazi" and "fascist" around because of their connotative value.

Another a clear sign that you people aren't interested in the truth.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

So what (besides the screwball and asshole suggested by his "ignorant marxists" and "interested in the truth" blather, besides other utterances and behavior) should one call the indignant Mr. Tesla on account of his professed concern about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", if not a White Supremacist or a National Socialist?

A "White Nationalist" and hater of Jews, perhaps?

Tesla said...

"So what [...] should one call the indignant Mr. Tesla on account of his professed concern about foreign immigrants threatening the "European race" at the behest of "the Jews", if not a White Supremacist or a National Socialist?"

Maybe you simply shouldn't be so dependent on namecalling.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Maybe you simply shouldn't be so dependent on namecalling.»

I'm not «dependent on namecalling», it's just that I like to call a spade a spade, and that specimens like you invite expressions of contempt.

Now, do you define yourself as a "White Nationalist" and a hater of Jews, or do you not?

Tesla said...

"I'm not «dependent on namecalling», it's just that I like to call a spade a spade, and that specimens like you invite expressions of contempt."

Be careful so that that "contempt" doesn't evolve into, *gulp*, HATRED. You might turn into a fascist!

"Now, do you define yourself as a "White Nationalist" and a hater of Jews, or do you not?"

No, I don't define myself as that, and I don't hate the Jews. The reasons for that is that, first of all, hating the Jews will do nothing to stop Jewish behaviour. Second of all, the Jews, and the ideologies and philosophical doctrines they create to further their cause - like Einstein accurately pointed out - feeds upon hatred and grows on it. The Jews *want* people to hate them, insofar as they can control that hatred, because they gain sympathy from it. That sympathy was the primary force behind the erection of Israel and the primary reason why people are persecuted for criticizing the Jews and their doctrines today.

So no, I don't hate the Jews, because hating the Jews will simply make them even more powerful and create even more space for them to commit their crimes against the peoples who are now under their control.

This, of course, doesn't mean I am afraid to point out their historical record as one of the most vicious peoples on earth.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"I'm not «dependent on namecalling», it's just that I like to call a spade a spade, and that specimens like you invite expressions of contempt."

Be careful so that that "contempt" doesn't evolve into, *gulp*, HATRED. You might turn into a fascist!»

Don't worry. All that specimens like you evoke in me is feelings of contempt and pity.

«"Now, do you define yourself as a "White Nationalist" and a hater of Jews, or do you not?"

No, I don't define myself as that,»

Then why this concern about foreign immigrants "destroying" (IIRC) what you call the "European race" (or races)? What would be so bad about European nations becoming multi-racial? If you look at the low birthrates of certain European countries, you may gain the impression that foreign immigration is the only way to avoid a slow extinction of such countries' populations. Germany seems to have finally realized that she needs immigants to keep her population from overaging and plummeting.

«and I don't hate the Jews. The reasons for that is that, first of all, hating the Jews will do nothing to stop Jewish behaviour. Second of all, the Jews, and the ideologies and philosophical doctrines they create to further their cause - like Einstein accurately pointed out - feeds upon hatred and grows on it. The Jews *want* people to hate them, insofar as they can control that hatred, because they gain sympathy from it. That sympathy was the primary force behind the erection of Israel and the primary reason why people are persecuted for criticizing the Jews and their doctrines today.

So no, I don't hate the Jews, because hating the Jews will simply make them even more powerful and create even more space for them to commit their crimes against the peoples who are now under their control.

This, of course, doesn't mean I am afraid to point out their historical record as one of the most vicious peoples on earth.»

I see. Our friend considers Jews "one of the most vicious peoples on earth", but he avoids hating them because he thinks hatred would be counterproductive to his struggle against this "most vicious" people. Never hate your enemy, as Don Vito Corleone said. Understood.

Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as a vicious people on the planet. Individuals can be and often are vicious, whole peoples can't be.

Tesla said...

"Don't worry. All that specimens like you evoke in me is feelings of contempt and pity. "

Contempt AND pity? In my experience, people who claim to pity someone are often harbouring a great deal of aggression against that person. Kind of like saying someone is "pathetic" - a word which meaning has been completely distorted.

"Then why this concern about foreign immigrants "destroying" (IIRC) what you call the "European race" (or races)?"

These are your twisted words, not mine. That the European peoples are in peril because of foreign immigration does not mean that those foreign immigrants are destroying them. The immigrants are a rather innocent piece of this game. The problem is the ideology behind it.

You seem to yet again confuse me with the simple-minded people of the anti-immigration movements in Europe. Funnily enough, these movements are almost entirely being souped up by Jewish propagandists who attack muslims.

"Never hate your enemy, as Don Vito Corleone said. Understood."

"Never hate your enemy. It affects your judgement" is the full quote. That was obviously not the point I was making, but this is a fine point too. People who hate tend to not think very rationally. You seem to be a great example of that.

More demons you would want to compare me to?

"Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as a vicious people on the planet. Individuals can be and often are vicious, whole peoples can't be."

We are a product of our genes, and whether you like it or not, genetic clustering is a fact. Like most traits, viciousness is not something that has been handed out equally, and there would be no reason for it to be so.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Don't worry. All that specimens like you evoke in me is feelings of contempt and pity. "

Contempt AND pity? In my experience, people who claim to pity someone are often harbouring a great deal of aggression against that person. Kind of like saying someone is "pathetic" - a word which meaning has been completely distorted.»

Some bizarre "experience" you claim to have. Must be like those "experiences" of seeing a right-wing fellow dragged out naked into the street by the German "secret police" (or something like that), or of having some masked left-wing fellow run after you with a fireaxe.

«"Then why this concern about foreign immigrants "destroying" (IIRC) what you call the "European race" (or races)?"

These are your twisted words, not mine.»

The "IIRC" reservation precludes the "twisted words" accusation. Now, let’s have your hallowed words verbatim:

«The real proof of Jewish genocidal intent however, is what has *in fact* happened after the war: namely the introduction of millions of third world foreigners to Germany and other European countries, purposefully with the aim to destroy the European race. That is genocide according to the UN 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' which defined genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:" and where one of those acts is given as: "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;".»

«That the European peoples are in peril because of foreign immigration does not mean that those foreign immigrants are destroying them. The immigrants are a rather innocent piece of this game. The problem is the ideology behind it.»

Quite the "slippery eel" (or something like that) exercise you falsely accuse me of, as I'm obviously not arguing that you infer any malicious intent on the part of those "third world foreigners" supposedly being introduced with "Jewish genocidal intent" into Germany and other European countries "purposefully with the aim to destroy the European race".

Now tell me, how are those "third world foreigners", if only as innocent tools of those "genocidal" Jews, supposed to "destroy the European race", other than by producing, with "European" mates of the opposite sex, descendants who have somewhat-less-than-"European" physical features?

And why, if you’re not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist", does it bother you that the next generation in "Germany and other European countries" might not be quite as "European"-looking as the current one?

«You seem to yet again confuse me with the simple-minded people of the anti-immigration movements in Europe. Funnily enough, these movements are almost entirely being souped up by Jewish propagandists who attack muslims.»

So now the Le Pens in France and the "Ausländer raus" fellows in Germany and other countries are supposed to be "souped up by Jewish propagandists who attack muslims"? You better don’t tell them that, for they might take offense.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Never hate your enemy, as Don Vito Corleone said. Understood."

"Never hate your enemy. It affects your judgement" is the full quote. That was obviously not the point I was making, but this is a fine point too.»

And just the point I was trying to make, namely that you see Jews as your enemy. Thanks for the confirmation.

«People who hate tend to not think very rationally. You seem to be a great example of that.»

Why, now look who is talking – the fellow who sees the "European race" threatened by destruction from those "third world foreigners" introduced into Europe as innocent tools of "Jewish genocidal intent".

«More demons you would want to compare me to?»

Besides whom, Don Vito Corleone? Quite a sympathetic character, if you ask me, especially as played by Marlon Brando. And if you aspire to being a "demon", you’ll have to get up much earlier. Right now you're just a nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo -pick the Leo translation of the German word Spinner that you like best) with a head full of occasionally hilarious garbage.

«"Incidentally, I don't think there is such a thing as a vicious people on the planet. Individuals can be and often are vicious, whole peoples can't be."

We are a product of our genes, and whether you like it or not, genetic clustering is a fact. Like most traits, viciousness is not something that has been handed out equally, and there would be no reason for it to be so.»

So what’s that supposed to mean?

That assholes are more thickly sown among some peoples than among other?

I don’t think that's the case, and also don’t see why it should be.

Tesla said...

"I'm obviously not arguing that you infer any malicious intent on the part of those "third world foreigners"."

Of course you are. That's why you said I had claimed it was *they* who were destroying Europe, when in fact I have repeatedly stated that I blame the Jews and the ideologies they have created for it; in this instance the ideology of the Frankfurter school.

In fact, I try to reach my hand out to muslims and other non-European people whenever I meet them, explaining that I have no bad feelings against them and their culture, and even that I would like to see an alliance between the Islamic world and Europe in the future.

This, of course, completely destroys your kind's notion of me being a "White supremacist" and a "racist" and so you must pretend that I put the immigrants in the position of the destroyers, rather than then Jews. This tactic of framing their narrow interests as something that concerns a much wider group is incidentally a typical Jewish tactic that has been used for centuries, finely illustrated by the very word "anti-Semitic" itself.

"nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo"

Time to calm down?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"I'm obviously not arguing that you infer any malicious intent on the part of those "third world foreigners"."

Of course you are. That's why you said I had claimed it was *they* who were destroying Europe, when in fact I have repeatedly stated that I blame the Jews and the ideologies they have created for it; in this instance the ideology of the Frankfurter school.»

Here we see my somewhat-less-than-honest interlocutor persisting in his detraction of the issue, which is why (if he's not some sort of White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") he is concerned about third world foreigners supposedly having a destructive impact (whether intentionally or not is completely irrelevant to my question, as he well knows) on what he calls the "European race".

As we're at it, and please forgive my ignorance: wtf is the "Frankfurter school" you're so obsessed with?

«In fact, I try to reach my hand out to muslims and other non-European people whenever I meet them, explaining that I have no bad feelings against them and their culture, and even that I would like to see an alliance between the Islamic world and Europe in the future.»

And if your sister got pregnant from one of those non-European muslim Palestinians you like so much, would you welcome that as something in the sense of such "alliance"? Or you would see either or both as innocent victims of Jewish "genocidal intent" against the "European race"?

«This, of course, completely destroys your kind's notion of me being a "White supremacist" and a "racist" and so you must pretend that I put the immigrants in the position of the destroyers, rather than then Jews.»

The question is not about who you consider to be the mastermind and who a mere (innocent) tool of your supposed "destruction", but why (if you are not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") you consider the admixture of third world foreigners to the "European race" to be a "destruction" (you even used the word "genocide", IIRC) of that race.

«This tactic of framing their narrow interests as something that concerns a much wider group is incidentally a typical Jewish tactic that has been used for centuries, finely illustrated by the very word "anti-Semitic" itself.»

Oh, those awful Jews! :-)

«"nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo"

Time to calm down?»

Time you mind the context of my quote-mined remark, actually. Which was the following:

«And if you aspire to being a "demon", you’ll have to get up much earlier. Right now you're just a nutter (or crackpot, madcap, crank, nutcase, nutjob, oddball, weirdo -pick the Leo translation of the German word Spinner that you like best) with a head full of occasionally hilarious garbage.»

Tesla said...

"interlocutor persisting in his detraction of the issue"

Like I have explained to you, "White supremacism" is something that exists in your head. It is not in any way rationally linked to anything I have written.

"As we're at it, and please forgive my ignorance: wtf is the "Frankfurter school" you're so obsessed with?"

You mean to tell me you are so helpless you do not know how to google or look something up on Wikipedia? That is ignorance that cannot be forgiven, sorry.

"And if your sister got pregnant from one of those non-European muslim Palestinians you like so much, would you welcome that as something in the sense of such "alliance"? Or you would see either or both as innocent victims of Jewish "genocidal intent" against the "European race"? "

What a nice false dilemma from the master of fallacies.

"why (if you are not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") you consider the admixture of third world foreigners to the "European race" to be a "destruction" (you even used the word "genocide", IIRC) of that race."

I really don't see what you are having trouble understanding. I want to preserve the European peoples, therefore I am against mixing with other peoples - what is so hard to understand about that?

Well, actually I do think I know what your problem is, because after I while it has dawned on me that the main cause of your many odd rhetorical circumventions and tricks is that you are hopelessly poor at thinking logically. You actually think that since being a White supremacist or White nationalist implies being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc., then being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc. must imply being a White supremacist/nationalist. Well, in logic this is called 'affirming the consequent' and is a common logical fallacy, but explaining logical errors to someone who has been using them for so long is probably pointless, so I won't.

"Oh, those awful Jews! :-)"

Indeed.

"Time you mind the context of my quote-mined remark, actually. Which was the following:"

Again, if I were to quote everything you said, then not only would the readers (if any) have to go through your multiple posts, but they would also have to go through multiple posts of me quoting your obsession with every little detail I write. Consequently, I do not do that. If you think the full quote of that passage somehow removes the fact that angry people tend to namecall instead of arguing rationally, then so be it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"interlocutor persisting in his detraction of the issue"
Like I have explained to you, "White supremacism" is something that exists in your head. It is not in any way rationally linked to anything I have written.»

How about answering my question instead of dodging it with "explanations"?

The question is: why (if you’re not some sort of White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") are you concerned about third world foreigners supposedly having a destructive impact (whether intentionally or not) on what you call the "European race"?

«"As we're at it, and please forgive my ignorance: wtf is the "Frankfurter school" you're so obsessed with?"

You mean to tell me you are so helpless you do not know how to google or look something up on Wikipedia? That is ignorance that cannot be forgiven, sorry.»

"Cannot be forgiven", the idiot blabbers. Googling is no problem for me, but the point I made (with some help from my interlocutor's predictable remark, thanks) is that I had no knowledge prior to our conversation of the "Frankfurter school", which I'm apparently supposed to be an adept of.

«"And if your sister got pregnant from one of those non-European muslim Palestinians you like so much, would you welcome that as something in the sense of such "alliance"? Or you would see either or both as innocent victims of Jewish "genocidal intent" against the "European race"? "

What a nice false dilemma from the master of fallacies.»

What an obvious attempt to avoid a pertinent question with hollow rhetoric, which doesn’t even fit the occasion.

How about cutting the crap and answering the question?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"why (if you are not a White Supremacist or "White Nationalist") you consider the admixture of third world foreigners to the "European race" to be a "destruction" (you even used the word "genocide", IIRC) of that race."

I really don't see what you are having trouble understanding. I want to preserve the European peoples, therefore I am against mixing with other peoples - what is so hard to understand about that?»

So "mixing with other peoples" threatens the "preservation" of the (White) European peoples, in our friend's book. Which suggests that our friend is a racist of the "I have nothing against other races as long as they don’t mix with mine" variety. OK.

«Well, actually I do think I know what your problem is, because after I while it has dawned on me that the main cause of your many odd rhetorical circumventions and tricks is that you are hopelessly poor at thinking logically.»

Look who's talking about "odd rhetorical circumventions" and being "hopelessly poor at thinking logically". Our friend is describing himself as accurately as ever.

«You actually think that since being a White supremacist or White nationalist implies being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc., then being anti-immigration, anti-Jew etc. must imply being a White supremacist/nationalist.»

Well, let's say that it's at least a strong indication in that direction. But I'm open to an alternative explanation if you can provide one, hence my question. Answer provided doesn't point to such alternative explanation, however. It rather reinforces the indication.

«Well, in logic this is called 'affirming the consequent' and is a common logical fallacy, but explaining logical errors to someone who has been using them for so long is probably pointless, so I won't.»

Actually I wasn't "affirming the consequent" but asking a question based on the "consequent" but allowing for a non-"consequent" answer. Which hasn't yet been provided, however.

«"Oh, those awful Jews! :-)"
Indeed.»

Thanks, though further confirmation of what you're all about was hardly necessary.

«"Time you mind the context of my quote-mined remark, actually. Which was the following:"

Again, if I were to quote everything you said, then not only would the readers (if any) have to go through your multiple posts, but they would also have to go through multiple posts of me quoting your obsession with every little detail I write. Consequently, I do not do that. If you think the full quote of that passage somehow removes the fact that angry people tend to name-call instead of arguing rationally, then so be it.»

Angry, me? My interlocutor must be having delusions of adequacy if he thinks that his tirades make me angry.

Name-calling? Calling a Spinner a Spinner is not name-calling, actually. It's calling a spade a spade.

And as to "arguing rationally", that's the last thing someone obsessed with the supposed awfulness of "Jews" and their "genocidal" intentions against the "European race" should be lecturing about.

Tesla said...

"How about answering my question instead of dodging it with "explanations"?"

I have answered your questions many times already, but since my answers don't fit in with your preconceived notions of 'racists' and 'white supremacists', you keep ignoring them.

"Angry, me?"

Of course you are angry - that is why you keep writing your essays to me instead of simply approving my comments (some 'free speech' you practice btw., when your censorship process takes five days for each post).

Your main problem is that you harbor so much anger and hate towards others and at the same time realize that you are everything you accuse those people of being. If I were to guess, then I would say this realization was what made you tick in the first place. The Internet is full of pages describing you as a nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc. - and this from independent sources, deniers and believers alike - even from yourself.

In short, it must suck to be you.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"How about answering my question instead of dodging it with "explanations"?"

I have answered your questions many times already, but since my answers don't fit in with your preconceived notions of 'racists' and 'white supremacists', you keep ignoring them.»

So now the fellow claims he has answered "many times" but I "ignored" his answers because they don't fit into some "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have. A classic charlatan's retort. I doubt he can quote all those "answers" he provided let alone demonstrate that the are at odds with "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have, but he is welcome to give it a try.

«"Angry, me?"

Of course you are angry - that is why you keep writing your essays to me instead of simply approving my comments (some 'free speech' you practice btw., when your censorship process takes five days for each post).»

So now I'm supposed to be "angry" at the fellow because I have the courtesy of responding to his utterances, instead of just ignoring them? Another of those bizarre ideas running wild in a confused mind, it seems. And as to "censorship", he can complain about that the day some his "wisdom" fails to be published, which hasn't happened yet and will not happen. If his posts don't get published as fast as he would like them to, that's just because I don't exactly check my inbox every day, least of all to see if "Tesla" has produced some more BS. "Tesla" should get used to the idea that he's not exactly one of my priorities.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Your main problem is that you harbor so much anger and hate towards others and at the same time realize that you are everything you accuse those people of being.»

Interesting "analysis", except of course that it's only basis is self-projection, a frustrated individual's urge to attack his opponent, or a combination of both.

«If I were to guess, then I would say this realization was what made you tick in the first place.»

Err, what "realization"? Outside the cloud-cuckoo-land of Mr. "Tesla", I mean.

«The Internet is full of pages describing you as a nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc. - and this from independent sources, deniers and believers alike - even from yourself.»

Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here. Meanwhile, the site co-hosted by said sociopath has been removed from the list of links on the THHP site, which instead recommends the HC blog, especially our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. What is more, that critique is referred to on several occasions in a recent work about the AR camps by German historian Sara Berger, which I mention here and here.
Serious researchers are obviously not as gullible as "Tesla" (or, for that matter, as Mattogno, Graf and Kues, who also disgraced themselves by taking Lisciotto's smear at face value, as pointed out here).

«In short, it must suck to be you.»

Funny, that's what I think of poor "Tesla" every time I chuckle about one of his tirades. And of course remarks like these show the fellow to be as angry as he would like me to be.

Keep on fuming, Mr. "Tesla". I'm enjoying the show.

Tesla said...

"So now the fellow claims he has answered "many times" but I "ignored" his answers because they don't fit into some "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have. A classic charlatan's retort."

And how is this supposed to be a 'charlatan's retort'? Perhaps my dear friend would, for a moment, try to back up and explain his accusations rather than simply throw them around?

"I doubt he can quote all those "answers" he provided let alone demonstrate that the are at odds with "preconceived notions" I'm supposed to have, but he is welcome to give it a try."

Now, why would I do such a thing when it has been firmly established that my dear friend is, in fact, simply ignoring my answers - perhaps because he thinks this is a viable tactic? Certainly, my dear friend would have simply denied the quotations I would have provided also, and this "debate" would remain in the same positition it is currently at (which is perhaps what my dear friend wants, since he does not feel he is making much progress).

Tesla said...

"Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here."

So my "interlocutor" again defends himself by making accusations of mental pathology in his adversaries - and this we are supposed to take at face value rather than see as part of my "interlocutor"'s longstanding history of making such accusations, from which we may deduce that it is indeed part of my dear interlocuting friend's debating techniques, or modus operandi if you will, or even perhaps of his personality, from which we again may deduce that said accusations are unlikely to have any merit other than to discredit our dear "interlocutor" himself. Or perhaps when my friend uses the words 'sociopath', "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land" (a particular phrase which he has used against this writer also) it is not to be taken literally, but rather, as my friend has explained earlier, simply as words of denigration that have no intentional reference to real mental illness of any kind?

Furthermore, I cannot see that evidence of any kind has been provided by my dear friend to show that the amount of "dirt" existing on him (from widely different and independent sources, as pointed out) is the result of the workings of "sociopaths" (I assume here that Dear Friend also sees dirt coming from revisionists as coming from "sociopaths", in either of the two meanings which Dear Friend usually ascribes to such words) other than accusations of "hatred", which do not seem logically valid unless we, a priori, assume that Dear Friend has in reality been the victim of such an attack as he describes. Without this assumption, it would seem that our dear friend's accusations against the person he mentions could just as well be described as "hatred", and that, rather than being the victim of, our dear friend is indeed the instigator of such hatred. Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence linking the mentioned person to the blogs mentioned in the summary, and such a connection seems unlikely when we look at the web pages which we know the person accused by our friend has authored, since these pages appear far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition. A more likely explanation is that these blogs are simply the creations of a person who has noticed our dear friend's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to accusations of "hatred", and has thus, with a minimum of effort, established a few blogs to make fun of our dear friend after he himself rightfully was accused of "hatred" by his peers. Or perhaps these blogs are the creations of our dear friend himself, as a means to escape the no doubt bothersome accusation of document tampering, puth forth by his peers, by putting himself in the place of the victim? Such acts are by no means farfetched, and seem to be quite common among our dear friend's ilk in their crusade against evil "anti-Semites": http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs . The vitriolic postings which are spewed on these blogs, apparently created by an individual calling himself "blogbuster", seem to be very familiar in the way they use various mental characteristics and psychiatric diagnoses as part of their rhetorics: http://holocaustcalamities.blogspot.no/2012_06_01_archive.html . Very familiar, indeed.

Tesla said...

This summary you present to me also seems to contradict your original claim that we are dealing with the workings of *one* sociopath, in that it mentions a second person by name and furthermore a website that certainly does not appear to be the work of a single mind (but perhaps it only appears so while it is in reality part of a grand, "Stalinist" conspiracy against Dear Friend). By looking at this website, we can find an article signed by a third, hitherto unmentioned individual with interesting quotes such as "if you think the Holocaust Deniers seemed kooky or paranoid in their methods, then the "Debunkers" can be simply downright psychotic in the way they approach the debate" and "Often we find when one is exposed to the level of vitriol spewed by "Deniers" they are shocked to see the equivalent or worse form of diatribes disgorged by the "Debunkers" on the controversy blogs, hate forums, email bulletins, and YouTube videos". So unless we assume this is some form of grand conspiracy against our dear friend, it seems clear that we have several of Dear Friend's peers making critical remarks about him which are very similar to the critical remarks coming from revisionists, and so the claim made by this writer that convergence of independent opinion seems to go in our dear friends disfavour is, to a high degree, true. That our dear friend is indeed the perpetrator and not the victim here, is also substantiated by looking at certain Wikipedia talk pages where it becomes clear that our "interlocutor" and his friends attempted to overthrow the legitimate deathcamps.org website by creating an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org, which was incidentally linked to by this blog. The level of dishonesty displayed by such acts is perhaps something that deserves to be referred to by the same name our friend so easily threw out, namely that of charlatanism?

Of course, our dear friend is going to respond to this by reassuring us that it is all the work of a single "sociopath", but there is no hard evidence showing that this alleged "sociopath" suffers from any kind of mental illness. Rather, he seems quite clearly to be a victim of our friend's mendacious ways. The only hard facts concerning mental illness that can be ascertained here are the facts presented by our dear friend himself regarding his own "recurrent agitated depression", which is no doubt of such a serious nature that it could render him capable of committing such acts as he his accused of by this merely alleged "sociopath": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry)

"agitated depression [...] is a condition during which features of mania and depression, such as agitation, anxiety, fatigue, guilt, impulsiveness, irritability, morbid or suicidal ideation, panic, paranoia, pressured speech and rage, occur simultaneously. [...] Typical examples include tearfulness during a manic episode or racing thoughts during a depressive episode [...] irritability to full blown rage, are the most common symptoms of dysphoric mania [...] Symptoms may also include auditory hallucinations [...]"

These are descriptions of our "interlocutor"'s behaviour, no doubt, and 'tearful' is likely going to be a proper word to describe his whining and wailing when he complains that psychiatry is being used unfairly against him.

Tesla said...

"Meanwhile, the site co-hosted by said sociopath has been removed from the list of links on the THHP site, which instead recommends the HC blog, especially our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. What is more, that critique is referred to on several occasions in a recent work about the AR camps by German historian Sara Berger, which I mention here and here.
Serious researchers are obviously not as gullible as "Tesla" (or, for that matter, as Mattogno, Graf and Kues, who also disgraced themselves by taking Lisciotto's smear at face value, as pointed out here)."

And this is supposed to show what? Getting a bit defensive, are we?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Actually the only "believer" source of such "pages", as my interlocutor should have realized by now (unless he's a hopelessly gullible individual, that is), is a certain sociopath who harbors a pathological hatred for certain members of HC. That fellow and his activities are summarized in here."
So my "interlocutor" again defends himself by making accusations of mental pathology in his adversaries - and this we are supposed to take at face value rather than see as part of my "interlocutor"'s longstanding history of making such accusations, from which we may deduce that it is indeed part of my dear interlocuting friend's debating techniques, or modus operandi if you will, or even perhaps of his personality, from which we again may deduce that said accusations are unlikely to have any merit other than to discredit our dear "interlocutor" himself. Or perhaps when my friend uses the words 'sociopath', "mentally unstable", "feast for psychiatrists and psychoanalysts" and "cloud-cuckoo-land" (a particular phrase which he has used against this writer also) it is not to be taken literally, but rather, as my friend has explained earlier, simply as words of denigration that have no intentional reference to real mental illness of any kind?»

Here we see Tesla clinging to my use of the term "sociopath" (which I consider an appropriate characterization of the orchestrator of an internet smear campaign against me and other HC bloggers) to detract from my essential argument, which is that, where Tesla would like to have a multitude of "believers" independent of each other ("independent sources") calling me a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc.", there is actually only one individual who for some reason has undertaken to fill the internet with mendacious smear against me and two other HC bloggers.

«Furthermore, I cannot see that evidence of any kind has been provided by my dear friend to show that the amount of "dirt" existing on him (from widely different and independent sources, as pointed out) is the result of the workings of "sociopaths" (I assume here that Dear Friend also sees dirt coming from revisionists as coming from "sociopaths", in either of the two meanings which Dear Friend usually ascribes to such words) other than accusations of "hatred", which do not seem logically valid unless we, a priori, assume that Dear Friend has in reality been the victim of such an attack as he describes.»

It is duly noted that Tesla is either gullible enough to take the smear produced by one individual writing under a number of aliases as coming from "widely different and independent sources", or dishonest enough to claim the existence of such "widely different and independent sources" against better knowledge. And evidence seems to be the last thing he’s interested in, for if he were looking for evidence that the smear campaign in question emanates from a single individual previously known for similar behaviors, he would have to go no further than the articles linked to in the last two paragraphs of my summary.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Without this assumption, it would seem that our dear friend's accusations against the person he mentions could just as well be described as "hatred", and that, rather than being the victim of, our dear friend is indeed the instigator of such hatred.»

Actually the "instigator of such hatred" was just caught up in the fray, like another fellow blogger, due to his association to the author of this article, which was what unleashed a smear campaign emanating from someone who a) felt vexed by this article's contents, namely the accusations of incompetence against a friend of his, and b) had been noted for similar behaviors on past occasions.

«Indeed, there does not appear to be any evidence linking the mentioned person to the blogs mentioned in the summary, and such a connection seems unlikely when we look at the web pages which we know the person accused by our friend has authored, since these pages appear far more professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition.»

If Tesla is referring to the ARC web pages, these were the creation of a research group including, besides researchers of note like the late Robert Kuwalek, an individual by the name of Carmelo Lisciotto, who appears to have been "forced to leave the group because of an internal conflict", and the group's "secretary" Chris Webb, whose bumbling and reaction to the revelation of that bumbling, as documented here, led to the 2006 breakup of what used to be a great undertaking.

That aside, Tesla seems to labor under the false conviction that dishonest individuals inclined to mendacious smear are not capable of producing writings that "appear professional, both in design and structure as well as in language and composition". One wonders where he picked up that idea.

«A more likely explanation is that these blogs are simply the creations of a person who has noticed our dear friend's blatant hypocrisy when it comes to accusations of "hatred", and has thus, with a minimum of effort, established a few blogs to make fun of our dear friend after he himself rightfully was accused of "hatred" by his peers.»

That may be a "more likely explanation" in Tesla’s wishful thinking, but in actual fact the endeavor to "make fun" of certain HC bloggers was obviously born out of someone's feeling vexed by this article. It is hardly a coincidence that the "few blogs to make fun" (which Tesla seems to consider OK, thereby revealing further traits of his "personality") started to appear in the immediate aftermath of said article.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Or perhaps these blogs are the creations of our dear friend himself, as a means to escape the no doubt bothersome accusation of document tampering, puth forth by his peers, by putting himself in the place of the victim?»

As the "bothersome accusation of document tampering" is contained in these very blogs as well as a forum created by their author to smear three HC bloggers (and other people he doesn't like), the only explanation for the above remark is that Tesla's meager thinking capacities left him alone when writing these lines.

«Such acts are by no means farfetched, and seem to be quite common among our dear friend's ilk in their crusade against evil "anti-Semites": http://www.commondreams.org/hambaconeggs. The vitriolic postings which are spewed on these blogs, apparently created by an individual calling himself "blogbuster", seem to be very familiar in the way they use various mental characteristics and psychiatric diagnoses as part of their rhetorics: http://holocaustcalamities.blogspot.no/2012_06_01_archive.html . Very familiar, indeed.»

The individual calling himself "blogbuster", aka Carmelo Lisciotto, is living proof that unfortunately there are disgusting characters also among those who oppose the falsification of history known as "Revisionism".

As to Tesla's comparison, his meager thinking capacities seem to again have deserted him.
If I understood the article under his first link correctly, it is about agents provocateurs who create fake "anti-Semitic" personalities. While I don’t approve this kind of behavior, to the extent it actually exists outside the claims of Tesla's source (contrary to what Tesla would like to believe, his opponents are not one monolithic "ilk" but include a wide range of characters with widely differing motivations, goals and approaches), it would have a productive purpose from the point of view of those engaging in it, which is to discredit/ridicule the anti-Semitic scene. Now, what could possibly be the productive purpose of an opponent of "Revisionism" (obviously interested in presenting his "side" as consisting of integer and reasonable people), assuming he is inclined to falsehoods (which I of course am not), inventing a smear campaign against himself (among others) by another opponent of "Revisionism"? Would Tesla (who I don’t consider to be above falsehoods) see a productive purpose in inventing a smear campaign against himself by a fellow "White Nationalist" (or however else it is that Tesla defines his racist concern about the preservation of the "European race" being threatened by an influx of third world foreigners)? Get a brain, fellow.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«This summary you present to me also seems to contradict your original claim that we are dealing with the workings of *one* sociopath, in that it mentions a second person by name and furthermore a website that certainly does not appear to be the work of a single mind (but perhaps it only appears so while it is in reality part of a grand, "Stalinist" conspiracy against Dear Friend).»

The "second person" you are referring to is former ARC "secretary" Chris Webb. While he might, if he's a small-minded vindictive character, be motivated to "get even" with who exposed his bumbling (and anyone he holds to be associated to that person), he has not displayed (unlike his associate Carmelo Lisciotto) the kind of behavior that mirrors the "Blogbuster" smear campaign. So I'm giving him the benefit of assuming he's not involved in that smear campaign, at least not directly (though he obviously tolerates it).

As to the ARC website (or, for that matter, the H.E.A.R.T. website), of course the articles contained therein are not the work of a single person. But how does that change the fact that the smear which, among other things, disfigures some of the ARC pages, is the work of a single obsessively vindictive mind?

«By looking at this website, we can find an article signed by a third, hitherto unmentioned individual with interesting quotes such as "if you think the Holocaust Deniers seemed kooky or paranoid in their methods, then the "Debunkers" can be simply downright psychotic in the way they approach the debate" and "Often we find when one is exposed to the level of vitriol spewed by "Deniers" they are shocked to see the equivalent or worse form of diatribes disgorged by the "Debunkers" on the controversy blogs, hate forums, email bulletins, and YouTube videos". So unless we assume this is some form of grand conspiracy against our dear friend, it seems clear that we have several of Dear Friend's peers making critical remarks about him which are very similar to the critical remarks coming from revisionists, and so the claim made by this writer that convergence of independent opinion seems to go in our dear friends disfavour is, to a high degree, true.»

Who said anything about the smear campaign in question being specifically directed at my humble person? It is directed against three founding members of the HC blog, and it accordingly includes baselessly calling that blog a "hate blog". As to the article in question, what's the link, and what’s the name of the author? If the author is someone not known in the anti-"Revisionist" community, there's a good chance that it's an alias of Carmelo Lisciotto.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«That our dear friend is indeed the perpetrator and not the victim here, is also substantiated by looking at certain Wikipedia talk pages where it becomes clear that our "interlocutor" and his friends attempted to overthrow the legitimate deathcamps.org website by creating an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org, which was incidentally linked to by this blog. The level of dishonesty displayed by such acts is perhaps something that deserves to be referred to by the same name our friend so easily threw out, namely that of charlatanism?»

Actually there was no dishonesty at all in trying to create what the usurpers of the ARC site falsely claimed to be "an illegitimate, fake, hyphenated version called death-camps.org". For the people behind that version (which did not include me, though I linked to that version in several articles) were the authors of most articles on the dissolved ARC site, who had a better copyright claim to the contents of these articles than the "secretary" who, taking advantage of his owning the internet domain, illegally appropriated a site mostly consisting of other people's intellectual creations. So this accusation of "dishonesty", which my interlocutor gratefully parrots, is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Of course, our dear friend is going to respond to this by reassuring us that it is all the work of a single "sociopath", but there is no hard evidence showing that this alleged "sociopath" suffers from any kind of mental illness.»

What "hard evidence" did you have in mind? A psychiatrist’s diagnosis of this gentleman would be interesting but is of course hard to obtain. So the evidence consists of the good old "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" argument, which a late lawyer friend told me is accepted by US courts. We are talking about someone who harbors an obsessive hatred for other persons and expresses that obsessive hatred by filling the internet with smear blogs and smear forums dedicated to nothing else than defamatory accusations against such persons. If that behavior is not indicative of a sociopath, then what does else does it indicate?

«Rather, he seems quite clearly to be a victim of our friend's mendacious ways.»

What «mendacious ways» exactly, outside my mendacious opponent’s fantasies? Please be specific and provide evidence.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«The only hard facts concerning mental illness that can be ascertained here are the facts presented by our dear friend himself regarding his own "recurrent agitated depression", which is no doubt of such a serious nature that it could render him capable of committing such acts as he his accused of by this merely alleged "sociopath": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_state_(psychiatry)

"agitated depression [...] is a condition during which features of mania and depression, such as agitation, anxiety, fatigue, guilt, impulsiveness, irritability, morbid or suicidal ideation, panic, paranoia, pressured speech and rage, occur simultaneously. [...] Typical examples include tearfulness during a manic episode or racing thoughts during a depressive episode [...] irritability to full blown rage, are the most common symptoms of dysphoric mania [...] Symptoms may also include auditory hallucinations [...]"»

Why, it looks like my self-diagnosis of "agitated depression" back in 1999 (at a time when I was barely aware that "Revisionism" even existed, by the way) was not exactly accurate, for the "only" symptoms I had were agitation/anxiety and feeling so miserably sad and empty that death seemed a welcome relief.

That aside, it's hard to understand whence Tesla got the idea that the pathology described by his source could prompt the sufferer to organize a systematic internet defamation campaign against certain persons he bears an obsessive grudge against in connection with a clearly identifiable set of events. A person in the condition described on this site (or in my own condition in 1999, which was far less severe but still extremely painful) can barely master everyday life. A sociopath, on the other hand, is "characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior". Antisocial and disinhibited behavior (filling the internet with mendacious smear, lying shamelessly under a number of aliases), as well as diminished empathy and remorse (in this case a pathological hatred and vindictiveness) are exactly what Lisciotto’s smear campaign is all about.

«These are descriptions of our "interlocutor"'s behaviour, no doubt, and 'tearful' is likely going to be a proper word to describe his whining and wailing when he complains that psychiatry is being used unfairly against him.»

Except, of course, that the supposed "whining and wailing" exists nowhere outside my interlocutor’s fantasies. Pointing out that bringing up someone's medical history as a negative is a despicable behavior has nothing to do with "whining and wailing". It's just calling a spade a spade – or, in this case, calling a piece of manure a piece of manure. And if the disease in question is depression (an ailment that affected great personalities like Abraham Lincoln, George S. Patton and Ernest Hemingway, among many others), the "argument" is also quite ridiculous - about as ridiculous as it would be to bring up someone’s diabetes, cancer or heart disease as a negative.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«"Meanwhile, the site co-hosted by said sociopath has been removed from the list of links on the THHP site, which instead recommends the HC blog, especially our critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues. What is more, that critique is referred to on several occasions in a recent work about the AR camps by German historian Sara Berger, which I mention here and here.
Serious researchers are obviously not as gullible as "Tesla" (or, for that matter, as Mattogno, Graf and Kues, who also disgraced themselves by taking Lisciotto's smear at face value, as pointed out here)."
And this is supposed to show what? Getting a bit defensive, are we?»

No, just making the point that endorsement by a major "believer" internet source like The Holocaust History Project and by a German historian is hardly compatible with being considered a "nutter, hater, falsifier of history, document forger etc." by the "independent sources, deniers and believers alike" that Tesla is eager to believe in. So eager that he even switched off his tiny brain, to give him the benefit of assuming that he was not giving free rein to his mendacity.