SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
About the only thing that could make the Holocaust not be real is if the entire world isn't real and I'm just a brain in a jar.
That's an interesting choice of words. How many homicidal gas chambers did Majdanek have? It was the very first camp where Soviet investigators revealed to the world the truth of the Nazi gas chamber factories, months before the liberation of Auschwitz.
If the Soviet investigators did at Auschwitz in 1945 exactly what they did at Majdanek in 1944, the entire world isn't real?
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
That's rich coming from someone who is arguing that bodies are flammable and cremation is an energy-positive process, and that the cremations would have required no fuel. Even the informed anti-deniers do not make that argument, they would be embarrassed by your display. But you are so committed to believing witnesses you will believe them even when they make completely impossible claims.
To follow-up my comment below, and after now having read Mattogno's work on the topic, the problems with Mandelbaum's testimony are insurmountable. To answer your question:
What's the specific reason for a neutral observer to doubt the specific testimony from these accounts?
Mattogno analyzes pages and pages of contradictions, inaccuracies, and obvious exaggerations, but I'll cite the single most damaging aspect of Mandelbaum's testimonies, which comes from his 2003 interview with Igor Bartosik and Adam Willma:
Q. When working at the crematorium did you come across the corpses of children?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Mandelbaum, the records clearly indicate that there were children in the transports.
A. But I didn’t see it! You are speaking with a serious man, and I have lived through a great deal. I didn’t come here to lie to the two of you. If I don’t know something, I say I don’t know. I did not see children. Maybe there weren’t any on my shift.
Q. Or perhaps your memory has erased these painful images.
A. There were women. But children? After all, I would remember children going to the gas, how they are burned.” (pp. 49/45)
To justify this unique affirmation by Mandelbaum, the interviewers refer in a footnote to psychological studies of ex-inmates from which it appears that “in eyewitnesses, memory was highly selective” (pp. 49/45, Note 65).
Q. When you began working in the crematorium, the transports of Hungarian Jews were still arriving, and there were a lot of children among them.
A. When we were working three shifts, two other transports could arrive on the other shifts. And have you heard about the destruction of the Gypsies in Auschwitz?
Q. Of course.
A. So, a multitude of people were murdered, and I never saw a single Gypsy on the pyre. I only heard from the other guys that there was some kind of fighting with them. They were obviously burned on another shift. I repeat that, when I was working, there were only childless transports.” (pp. 50/48)
According to the official narrative, children, being unable to work, were automatically selected and among the most numerous victims of the gas chambers. Mandelbaum would have cremated hundreds of thousands of children, and his adamancy that he never saw or cremated children is completely irreconcilable with the historical narrative, which his why his interviewers press him so hard on this question and make a futile effort to "jog his memory".
"Selective memory" due to trauma is the best the interviewers can do. But this is demonstrative of how historians will selectively pick the details from these testimonies to piece together a somewhat-coherent broader narrative and handwave the major problems, but when you take a comprehensive view of a witness the credibility doesn't withstand basic scrutiny.
There are of course a lot of other problems that Mattogno describes, but this part of his testimony completely sinks his credibility as it is not reconcilable with the historical narrative without relying on dubious theories of selective memory.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Dario Gabbai and his fellow Sonderkommando are featured in the film I linked, I would encourage anyone to view their accounts captured on film right here and decide for themselves if their various stories seem credible. They are indeed very important witnesses, so much hinges on their credibility and historians rely heavily on their accounts.
So we're talking about one of the biggest events of WWII, and certainly the most unusual event, with millions of men, women and children allegedly being tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower and murdered. It's the event that forms the foundation of the contemporary anti-Christ mythos around Hitler.
And you couldn't find a single concrete reference to that in Winston Churchill's six-volume The Second World War, as I said, so you instead point to a single vague reference in a dialogue during a dream-sequence in a short story, which doesn't mention gas chambers or even Jews. Certainly my point still stands very, very tall. The fact you have to reach so hard to find a single reference of this world-changing event (which doesn't directly mention it in any case, it's just a literary allusion) from someone like Churchill proves the point very well.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
7mo ago
However, it’s far from clear to me that the actual culture of the Anglo-Saxons selected positively for those qualities in any meaningful way.
So your hypothesis is that the Culture of the Anglo-Saxons wasn't very important towards selection? That is a very dubious proposition prima facie, especially given that they had a very profound caste system and distinct noble class. I've already pointed to important features in English Law as having Anglo-Saxon roots, with the entire concept of a proto-Parliament existing in Anglo-Saxon culture.
So you have the genetic substrate, a legal system, a caste system.... and you are saying Anglo-Saxon culture wasn't important in selection?
What other people would you say did not have selection effects due to their culture? Obviously the Houthis are downstream of their own culturally-influenced selection.
Honestly, I do think the Online Right goes overboard on certain aesthetics, like trad girls in wheat fields and chariot riders and the like. But the notion that the selection of Anglo-Saxons was detached from their culture is just really silly.
What it comes down to is that the Anglo Saxons and Vikings are ancestral to the British people and multiple globe-spanning empires.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
Actually, the practice of using hidden/planted IEDs has had a terrible civilian casualty ratio which is why the United States does not use this tactic. That's not to say every single instance has harmed civilians, many IEDs in Iraq only killed Americans. But as a practice it's not considered good to flood public/civilian areas with hidden explosives, that is a terrorist tactic.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
Ok? It's obviously an IED. Traditionally, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan have used IEDs to target American military personnel within planted, hidden explosives. Now Israel is using IEDs for the same purpose against Hezbollah. So why object to my statement that Israel is embracing/normalizing tactics using by terrorists? Just admit they are and argue it's a good thing if you're inclined.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1yr ago
That's a cool castle, the crenellations echo the traditional design elements of medieval European castles, yet the building's relatively small scale and the integration of modern features such as large windows betray it's a modern reinterpretation rather than a historical fortification.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1yr ago
My hot take is that he deserves a standing ovation for fighting for his nation.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Nobody is asking for your sympathy, just a recognition of the fact that Rudolf has faced unfair treatment from the United States due to his holocaust denial. The US courts declared that he didn't prove he faced persecution "on account of imputed political opinion", and then deported him to a German prison where he was persecuted for his Revisionist work. I don't care if you have sympathy, but don't play dumb and pretend that his role as a prominent Holocaust denier didn't influence his treatment by the US immigration system.
How often is the spouse of an American citizen who applies for a Green Card arrested and deported? He was in the United States illegally because he was actually escaping political persecution unlike the millions of asylum seekers who are welcomed with open arms while their cases are adjudicated, but it did not qualify as such in the eyes of the United States and his application for political asylum was rejected. The United States deported him even though he faced prison for what would be legally protected speech in the United States.
On 11 September 2004, Rudolf married a US citizen and settled in Chicago; the couple later had a child.[8] He applied for political asylum, or at least for the right not to be expelled, but this was rejected in November 2004 on the basis that the application had no merits and was a case of frivolous litigation. Rudolf appealed against this ruling, and in early 2006 the US Federal Court in Atlanta found that his application was not "frivolous", but upheld the decision that it had no merit.[1] The Immigration Services said that Rudolf did not have a right to file an application to remain with his family. On 14 November 2005, Rudolf was extradited to Germany where he was wanted for incitement of racial hatred (Volksverhetzung).[9] On arrival there, he was arrested by the police and transferred to a prison in Rottenburg, then to another in Stuttgart in Baden-Württemberg
With David Cole, it's interesting to point out that he is a Revisionist when it comes to Auschwitz. He's one of only a couple others who maintain this "halfway" Revisionism and I have to say it's quite weird. There is much more surviving evidence for Auschwitz than there is for the Reinhardt camps as extermination centers. Basically all of the evidence Cole relies on to assert the genocidal function of the Reinhardt camps, there is much much more of it for Auschwitz. There are many more witnesses, surviving camp facilities, photographs, thousands and thousands of documents compared to those other camps where there are virtually none...
I don't find Cole's case persuasive. For one, his "contemporaneous documentary evidence section" is extremely sparse, containing 5 pieces of evidence, none of which so much as mention Sobibor. The first piece, the Goebbels diary, is paraphrased and editorialized even though Cole uses quotation marks. It's not what Goebbels actually wrote and the context is different. For example, Goebbels does not mention "the head of Aktion Reinhard", that is added in by Cole and it is in any case completely false that Odilo Globocnik was the head of Aktion Reinhardt. So right off the bat, he's being really misleading by saying "Goebbels writes in his diary" without specifying that the part in quotes is David's interpretation of what he wrote and not what was originally written.
Secondly, his citation of the Korherr report is again off the mark:
SS statistician Korherr states that 2.4 million Jewish “evacuees” predominantly from Poland and Russia were “abgang” (dispatched/departed) via “special treatment in the Eastern camps” and those evacuees are “todesfallen” (that word ONLY means dead).
Just sloppy and inaccurate. The mainstream case is that there were 1.4 million, not 2.4 million as Cole states evacuated to the east. 1.2 of those millions were marked as "sifted through the camps of General Government" which the mainstream interprets as murdered at the so-called Reinhardt camps, but that is half of the 2.4 million he writes in the article. For both this and the previous I think he's working from memory and just getting details very wrong. His assertion that "those evacuees are “todesfallen”" is just completely false. You can search through the original German of the report here and see that this is simply not true. The term "Todesfalle" is not mentioned in the Korherr report, the expression "Todesfälle", which means cases of deaths, is used in two places in the report but not to describe the fate of 2.4 million evacuees.
The most controversial sentence in the Korherr report is "Transportierung von Juden aus den Ostprovinzen nach dem russischen Osten" which translates to "Transport of Jews from the Eastern Provinces to the Russian East", which is what Cole and historians say was code for extermination at the Reinhardt camps. Cole also neglected to mention that Korherr, the statistician who created this report, wrote a letter to Der Spiegel in the 1970s and said that he had asked what "special treatment" meant and was told it meant what Revisionists say it meant. So Korherr himself seconded the Revisionist interpretation in an unprompted letter to a newspaper (actually, Korherr wrote this before there was any Revisionist study or critique of these issues).
Cole mentions some documents from Kube, which is strange because Kube himself had nothing to do with the so-called Reinhardt camps. In fact, Kube's reports describe anti-partisan actions against Jews (very real) and complains about Jews being deported into his area of influence. Kube's letters provide insight into the partisan problem, but not to the camps that are the subject of the controversy. The fact Kube is complaining about deportees suggests they actually were transited east and not killed in secret gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.
Cole references the Stroop report, but keep in mind is use of quotes is again not what is actually written it's Cole's summary. Cole neglects to mention here that >90% of the Jews captured by Stroop were sent to other camps in the General Government, and they were not all sent to be exterminated according to that report.
Lastly, there's the 1944 speech which I assume is that Posen speech that we recently talked a lot about here. Again, it's not what Himmler actually wrote in his speech.
Cole is alleging the murder of 1.5 million - 2 million people at these camps, the "contemporaneous documentary evidence" case is so weak that it should make you highly suspicious.
David Cole also ignores that, for example, Himmler and Pohl refer to Sobibor as a transit camp in documents. But Cole in his case cannot apparently find a single document to include in his "contemporaneous documentary evidence" section that mentions Sobibor at all.
In all, there are a lot of outright factual errors and quotations passed off as quoting documents, but he is editorializing the documents he is referencing.
David Cole also doesn't wade into the debate on the side of the physical evidence, which is wise for him as it's the strongest area of the Revisionist position. 1.5 - 2 million people being killed in these camps would have left huge amounts of evidence, but no mass graves have ever been excavated from these sites.
To me, Cole is missing the big picture. He himself does not believe the mainstream Auschwitz narrative, he is a Revisionist on that camp, he believes the Soviets were systematically deceptive in how they investigated the camp and produced evidence. He should also see that there is a co-dependency of these claims. If Soviet propaganda was able to deceive the world on what happened in Auschwitz, and Cole claims they did, then why does he put so much weight into the Soviet investigation of the Reinhardt camps, when by all accounts the evidence is much fewer and farther between than it is at Auschwitz?
Bring back the word Aryan. Using "white gentile" is so incredibly cucked, it would be like if you made the word "Jew" taboo so Jews had to just all refer to themselves as non-Aryan whites. You could nitpick that term, but the nitpicks of that term would apply to "Jewish" as well.
I'm not sure what you think you are getting out of pandering to militant Jews like @JarJarJedi. You ordain the Jews as eternal victims of an unforgivable crime, do you expect any reciprocity or anything? What he cares about is his "shield against the fires of Auschwitz"- and from that hegemonic perspective, undermining the eugenic thinking of your civilization is an indispensable part of that. Seeing it right from the horse's mouth, do you see the problem here yet?
You are of course free to admire the obvious and considerable talents of Jews from an HBD perspective, I do as well, but you should also consider how HBD underpins this dialectic between civilizational order and Jews.
The Hebrew bible is broadly speaking a story of Jewish travelers appearing in conflict among Empires at the height of their power: Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome... HBD explains this dialectic no less than it explains the human capital component. The tall tale of "industrialized mass murder" in gas chambers disguised as bath houses is not the origin of this dialectic, it's only the most recent continuation of this long story. And that story overtly serves as a bulwark to destroy eugenic-minded thinking of your civilization. That, too, is a consequence of HBD.
The shield from the fires of Auschwitz requires undermining eugenic thinking, or in other words, the promotion of dysgenic thinking. JarJar couldn't make it clearer.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
It's a good point, industrial ingenuity is a prominent feature of German culture. They certainly had the capacity to do it if they wanted to, which is why the methods attested to make no sense. The Germans were world leaders in chemistry and industry, as you pointed it. So how did they murder up to a million people in Treblinka?
It is said that they tricked up to a million Jews into entering bedroom-sized gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, where they were murdered using the exhaust from the engine of a captured Soviet tank. Although other concentration camps like Dachau had state-of-the-art cremation technology, Treblinka did not have any crematorium. So 750,000+ people were buried in under 5 acres (ChatGPT also said that was not possible by the way). Then, the Germans dug those people out and cremated them on makeshift grates made with railroad rails from March until August 1943. This is the mainstream claim.
Does that sound like German industrial prowess, or does it sound like wartime rumor from agitated peasants who know nothing about the science of execution or cremation? Exhaust from a Soviet tank engine? Really? Why would such a nonsensical weapon be used by the world leaders in chemistry for such a crucial task? They wouldn't have. The entire operation is nonsensical.
You can approach it from a totally non-Revisionist starting point, though, which I did. First ask how much wood to cremate a body. Then ask how much wood to cremate 5,000 bodies - i.e. "hundreds of cords of wood." So it's already giving Revisionist arguments before the topic comes up. I doubt that its answers to cremation in general are so heavily influenced by Revisionist arguments. It just walks directly into the Revisionist line of argumentation when starting from generalized questions like that.
There are also many published volumes of work explaining in detail how the cremations were allegedly done. A more kosher ChatGPT would just say "this is how it was done" and describe the process as claimed by mainstream historiography (I expect it will do this when it is more "advanced"). There is a lot of discussion of mass cremation in the mainstream literature, it is not an issue that is only discussed by Revisionsits. It's only Revisionists though who allege that the claims are not possible, and instead of copy + pasting the description from mainstream historiography it seems inclined towards the Revisionist argument.
Let's say that it is not remotely possible 5,000 people were cremated every day at Treblinka, and Revisionists are right. How would an AI create a response that describes the possibility of something impossible/did not happen? It would probably prefer to generate the more likely response, i.e. the Revisionist critique of the claims.
But like I said it's going to get better at detecting this stuff and copy+pasting the mainstream position as in the case with HBD.
The minutes are explicitly stating that the expulsion approach is lacking, expulsion has been banned, and that a different path is to be taken.
The different path was evacuation to the East. This is what is explicitly described in documents and this is what Revisionists claim the plan was. Historians say that "evacuation to the East" was coded language for gassed in gas chambers. But a direct reading of the document supports the Revisionist case for the German plan.
In the same way, Himmler will refer to a camp, like Sobibor, as a "Transit Camp", which is what Revisionists claim it was, while historians will say "Transit camp" was "coded language" for death camp. The historians rely on assumptions of euphemism and coded language while the documents supports the Revisionist case.
The paper at least mentions Mandelbaum, except for some strange reason without a separate analysis or even mentioning much of his specific testimony
There is an entire trilogy solely dedicated to the various testimonies of the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz.
Here is a PDF of Sonderkommando Auschwitz I: Nine Eyewitness Testimonies Analyzed. Henryk Mandelbaum's various testimonies (including testimony unknown in mainstream historiography and translated by Mattogno) are presented and criticized in a 37-page section in Section 10, starting at page 179.
I am not even aware of Dario Gabbai testimony in the 1940s. AFAIK Gabbai entered the scene along with his brother and cousins, the Venezias, no earlier than 1987. The earliest reference I find on Dario's wikipedia page only goes to 1991.
But the Gabbai's and their cousins are featured along with the other "late testimony" witnesses in Sonderkommando Auschwitz III: They Wept Crocodile Tears. A Critical Analysis of Late Witness Testimonies:
Most of the main and secondary witnesses of the Sonderkommando that I have already analyzed, as many as 17, testified for the first time between 1945 and 1947, and this is perfectly understandable; some waited two or three decades: Paisikovic made his first statements in 1963, Rosenblum in 1970. Inexplicably, a small group of self-proclaimed Sonderkommando members, united by origin – they were all Jews deported to Auschwitz from Greece (Josef Sackar, Jaacov Gabai, Shaul Chasan and Leon Cohen) – decided to tell their stories only between 1987 and 1993, in the form of interviews conducted by Israeli historian Gideon Greif, who then published them in 1995 in German (Greif 1995), and ten years later also in an English translation titled We Wept without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz (Greif 2005). The statements of these late “eyewitnesses” constitute the main subject of this present study.
Since the beginning of the 1990s other Greek “survivors” of the Sonderkommando, who until then had remained silent, suddenly felt the imperative “duty to testify”: Daniel Bennahmias in 1993 (Camhi Fromer), and Leon Cohen, already interviewed by Gideon Greif, in 1996 (Cohen).
The crown of laggards, however, unquestionably belongs to Shlomo Venezia (my emphasis: Dario Gabai's (the actor's) cousin), a Jew with Italian citizenship who was deported to Auschwitz from Thessaloniki. After an insignificant media excursion in 1992, he officially entered the Auschwitz martyrology on 3 December 2000, thanks to three German scholars, Eric Friedler, Barbara Siebert and Andreas Kilian, who interviewed him. But it was only after the 2007 publication of his memoirs – in French and then in Italian – that he rose to a prestigious position in Holocaust memoiology as the last “eyewitness” of the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz. In practice, he waited 55 years to “testify,” if we start counting from the end of the Second World War.
Witness testimony is notoriously considered one of the weaker forms of evidence. This is why the Revisionists emphasize historical examples, like Congressman Tom Lantos procuring an "escapee direct eyewitness" to the Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators and killing them, direct eyewitnesses to mass graves of babies, and this story probably tipped the scales of public opinion for waging war on Iraq. Likewise, there were eyewitness testimony to gassings at Dachau and Buchenwald, which are no longer claimed to have happened... although the Dachau museum used to have a sign that bizarrely read GAS CHAMBER disguised as a "shower room" - never used as a gas chamber. That Dachau "gas chamber - never used as a gas chamber" was prominently featured in the Nuremberg Trials by the way.
There were also many eyewitnesses to mass homicidal gassings at Majdanek who testified in 1944 (before the liberation of Auschwitz), in facilities which have been revised to have been real hygienic facilities and shower rooms. Soviet investigators claimed in 1944 that Majdanek featured a crematorium with a built-in gas chamber, which was revised recently and admitted to have never been a gas chamber, before Auschwitz was even liberated.
The suspicious over-reliance on the testimony of witnesses also obscures the evidence of which there is too little, which is why I linked the other book. Most people probably do not know that the British intercepted and decoded the secret communication between Auschwitz and SS throughout the war and period of alleged extermination, but even historians admit "The decoded messages contain no references to gassings."
Likewise, the blueprints and construction documents discovered in the archives by Revisionists show non-homicidal functions for these structures. Revisionists, for example, showed that all the blueprints throughout multiple years of one of the Krematorium shows a swinging door connecting the alleged "gas chamber", which is identified as a morgue in the blueprints, with the ovens. The best Believers can do is just argue that the "swinging door" must have been an error in all the blueprints, because a gas chamber obviously would have required a sturdy air-tight door.
Relying so much on the witness testimony, which has its own major problems, ignores a lot of problems with the documentary and physical evidence, or lack thereof.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
3mo ago
Is this the turning point for WW2 revisionism entering the mainstream?
Yes, and it's overdue. The immediate aftermath of WWI also entailed an entirely false, one-sided War Guilt narrative that was Revised by historians after tensions cooled in the decades following the war. This has never happened for WW2, the one-sided narrative today, the narrative written by the victors, is essentially the exact same it was in 1945.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
You act like it's a hard question, but the United States has managed regime change and military occupations, Israel can follow that playbook if they want to go to war. Calling this "self defense" is not even a stretch, that's obviously untrue, it's a major act of provocation.
Israel should negotiate a settlement, but also their conduct in waging war should be held to US standards to receive US support.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
Israel can defend itself and stop trying to use terrorist tactics to draw the United States into another ME war.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
I don’t particularly care if there is a “regional war” or not, provided that nobody I personally care about gets conscripted to fight in it
That's a really silly perspective. So if it causes a lot of damage to your home country- economically, politically, geopolitically, militarily, you don't care as long as you don't know someone who was conscripted?
Ethnocentrism can manifest in subtle ways, like your ability to relate more to an application because its closer to your own experience or identity... But it's not even subtle. Jews are overrepresented by at least 500% their population proportion (probably more, I seriously doubt Hillel is counting all ethnic Jews despite your counterargument), White Gentiles are underrepresented by 60%. It's always tricky having an intuition for the far tail ends of distribution, It could easily be determined with data collection and crosstabs, but they don't want to do it.
Even if you consider the present state relative to what you believe to have been peak Jewish enrollment, the decline in the representation of White Gentiles is much more significant than the decline in the representation of Jews. And, I don't think there has been nearly as large as a decline as you are suggesting in Jewish enrollment.
Basically, the prospect that these Jewish-dominated college administrations are discriminating against White Gentiles is 100%. The prospect they are discriminating against Jews with the same weight they are discriminating against White Gentiles is extremely unlikely to me. Maybe they still discriminate against Jewish applicants, but that discrimination is less. It's also possible the numbers of ethnic Jews are being undercounted and there is no discrimination relative to their academic merit. The only thing that is absolutely certain is that they hate White Gentiles and are driving them away from these institutions consciously.
It's your own ideology that is motivating you to downplay the implications of Gentiles accepting the Torah as divine Truth. You maybe watch something like this on the Glenn Beck show and think "how quaint, that's religion for you!" but your ideology is the one that blinds you to the bigger picture. You accuse me of pathological obsession with Jews but then refuse to acknowledge the actual worship of Jews and Israel by Christians for what it is.
More options
Context Copy link