Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 28th, 2013 #1
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default Exchange with a Teacher on Holocaust Revisionism

Exchange with a Teacher on Holocaust Revisionism


The below dialogue is based on my recent reading of George Jacob Holyoake's 1850 exchange with a chaplain on the subject of his atheism during his prosecution for blasphemy. (1) When I read it I knew it was a perfect paradigm for the persecuted and derided position occupied by holocaust revisionism today. Since it ably highlights the fallacious nature of the assumptions made about the two camps (i.e. the tendency to believe that revisionists are quacks with no understanding of the subject and that holocaust historians have mountains of evidence) by the majority of both non-specialist scholars and lay persons simply because they believe the need to believe as such.

I have made only a few changes to Holyoake's original text mainly around the names of the parties in dialogue and the subject of their debate, but I have left the rest of it intact.

Let us begin:

Teacher: Are you really a Holocaust Revisionist, Karl?

Karl Radl: Really I am.

Teacher: You deny there was a Holocaust?

Karl Radl: No; I deny that there is sufficient reason to believe there was one.

Teacher: I am glad to find that you have not the temerity to say that there wasn't a Holocaust.

Karl Radl: And I am very sorry to find that you have the temerity to say there was one. If it be absurd in me to deny what I cannot demonstrate, is it not improper for you to assert so dogmatically what you cannot prove?

Teacher: Then where do you leave the question of a Holocaust ?

Karl Radl: Just where it leaves us both. It is a question of probability.

Teacher: Ah! The probabilities in favour of Holocaust Revisionism are very few.

Karl Radl: How know you that? Did you ever examine the question without prejudice, or read that written in its favour without fear? Those who dare not look at all never see far.

Teacher: But if the Holocaust Revisionist has so much on his side, why does he not make it known? We do not keep back our evidences.

Karl Radl: Has the Holocaust Revisionist an equal opportunity with you? Is it generous in you to taunt him with lack of evidence, when you are prepared to punish its production?

Teacher: The reason is that your principles are so horrible; as Deborah Lipstadt has said, 'Holocaust Revisionism is a bloody and ferocious attempt to rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazi Party.'

Karl Radl: Permit me, sir, to return that gentle speech – to tell you that your principles are horrible, and that the Holocaust is a bloody and ferocious attempt to libel the entire of Europe.

Teacher: Really I am shocked to hear you speak so dreadfully of the Holocaust.

Karl Radl: Why should you be shocked to hear what you are not shocked to say?

Teacher: But Holocaust Revisionism is so revolting.

Karl Radl: But the Holocaust is so revolting.

Teacher: How dangerous is it for Holocaust Revisionism to corrupt the minds of children?

Karl Radl: How pernicious is it for Holocaust doctrines to corrupt the thoughts of children?

Teacher: But you are only asserting.

Karl Radl: Are you doing otherwise? I sometimes think that proponents of the Holocaust would be more respectful in their speech if the same language could be applied to them with impunity which they apply to others.

Teacher: But, my dear sir, the language of Holocaust Revisionism is so shocking to the feelings of the Jews.

Karl Radl: And, my dear sir, has it never occurred to you that the language of the Holocaust is shocking to European feeling?

Teacher: Holocaust Revisionists have a right to their opinions, I allow, but not to publish them.

Karl Radl: I shall think you speak reasonably when you permit the same rule to be applied to proponents of the Holocaust.

Teacher: But you really cannot deny the Holocaust?

Karl Radl: And you say this who have have been a party to the imprisoning of Holocaust Revisionists for their beliefs? If you believe yourself, go and demand their liberation.

Teacher: Ah – when you come to have a career you will wish that you were a proponent of the Holocaust.

Karl Radl: Can it be that I shall wish to hold to a theory that I distrust – one that leads me to deny others the liberty I claim for myself? If to be capable of looking back with satisfaction on conduct like this is to be a proponent of the Holocaust, may I never have a job again, and may my last days never be like that.


References


(1) George Jacob Holyoake, 1850, 'The History of the Last Trial by Jury for Atheism in England: A Fragmentary Autobiography, Submitted for the Perusal of Her Majesty's Attorney General and the British Clergy', 1st Edition, James Watson: London, pp. 80-82

---------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...holocaust.html
__________________
 
Old October 29th, 2013 #2
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,089
Default

I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but I found an error here:
Quote:
Karl Radl: How know you that*? Did you ever examine the question without prejudice, or read that written in its favour without fear? Those who dare not look at all never see far.

*It should be phrased as "How do you know that?"
Its a good article.
 
Old October 29th, 2013 #3
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Why deny the Holocaust? First you debate the meaning of the term. What teacher is referring to is the Jewish Holocaust. World War II was an undeniable Eurasian-wide holocaust which should be called The Holocaust. Revisionism does not deny that Jews died in large quantities in WWII. What is debated are numbers, methods, and intent of German National Socialists toward European Jews during the Jewish Holocaust.
 
Old October 29th, 2013 #4
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,089
Default

I assume Karl Radl lives in a country where its illegal to deny the holocaust outright, and it appears he skirted the gray area, seeing as how he didn't admit to denying the holocaust outright.
 
Old October 29th, 2013 #5
The Captain
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Teacher: But you really cannot deny the Holocaust?


Is that all they can come up with when they are up on the ropes?
 
Old October 30th, 2013 #6
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain View Post


Is that all they can come up with when they are up on the ropes?
Did you actually read what I wrote in the introduction moron?
__________________
 
Old October 30th, 2013 #7
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
I assume Karl Radl lives in a country where its illegal to deny the holocaust outright, and it appears he skirted the gray area, seeing as how he didn't admit to denying the holocaust outright.
You didn't read the introduction either: did you?

Let me repeat it for you and pick out a few points:

Quote:
The below dialogue is based on my recent reading of George Jacob Holyoake's 1850 exchange with a chaplain on the subject of his atheism during his prosecution for blasphemy. (1) When I read it I knew it was a perfect paradigm for the persecuted and derided position occupied by holocaust revisionism today. Since it ably highlights the fallacious nature of the assumptions made about the two camps (i.e. the tendency to believe that revisionists are quacks with no understanding of the subject and that holocaust historians have mountains of evidence) by the majority of both non-specialist scholars and lay persons simply because they believe the need to believe as such.

I have made only a few changes to Holyoake's original text mainly around the names of the parties in dialogue and the subject of their debate, but I have left the rest of it intact.
__________________
 
Old October 30th, 2013 #8
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but I found an error here:
As I said in the introduction that is from the 1850 original: I simply left it unchanged.
__________________
 
Old April 17th, 2014 #9
Wednesday Owens
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 337
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
paradigm for the persecuted and derided position occupied by holocaust revisionism today
Ingenious.
 
Old April 20th, 2014 #10
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Very good pitch there Karl. As we've talked about for years, it's precisely the kind of context-turning of tables that tends to be very effective when making a point. Being, like you, a realist about my surroundings, I am not surprised the point went over a few heads (all of that fancy 'book learnin' and so forth).
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 PM.
Page generated in 0.89821 seconds.