my first brush with the holocaust denier crowd was with jan irwin. as you may know he's done a lot of excellent research on a whole bunch of different alt-media topic including the gloria steinem thing, the gordon wasson thing, the deadhead thing... and other stuff. so I entered into an email exchange in order to invite him on the show. he started hitting me with the holocaust stuff. here's what I said that sent him into a rage:
========
The big stuff... i.e. Nazi plans (and implementation) for the systematic, deliberate, physical annihilation of the European Jews
remains unchallenged. Have you seen the Wannsee Conference documents (
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005477)?
I find the Nazi-fication of the US a more interesting topic. I had a chance to interview Jim Marrs re,
Rise of the Fourth Reich... chilling.
Best,
Alex
At some still undetermined time in 1941, Hitler authorized this European-wide scheme for mass murder. Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference (1) to inform and secure support from government ministries and other interested agencies relevant to the implementation of the “Final Solution,” and (2) to disclose to the participants that Hitler himself had tasked Heydrich and the RSHA with coordinating the operation. The men at the table did not deliberate whether such a plan should be undertaken, but instead discussed the implementation of a policy decision that had already been made at the highest level of the Nazi regime.
====
Thanks for responding.
(And btw in general- thank you for all your long time freely shared work with the podcast, long time listener here, thousands-not kidding- hours of tractor driving and on-field weeding while listening to Skeptiko.... great work man!)
But that was exactly not my question. It was asking about the (grammatical) subject, not the object.
I like very much your ideas of level (0-)1,2 and 3-discussions and am very much interested in the higher spectrum if possible.
My main asking condensed were these 2 ones I guess:
1.- Would you say your opinion/conclusion is
a) strongly made up about the topic or
b) still inquiring/interested?
2. (If 1.a is the case)"Would you say you accurately know -purely factually- what those you label as such actually say/inquire before having reached such (If)"?
Again, sorry if that maybe sounds like meant polemically or rhetorically, it is not.
Thanks for sharing your exchange with Jan Irvin (have to admit to my shame hadn`t heard of him before and first assuming it was a misspelling of David Irving...). But what does "hitting with Holocaust stuff" mean practically, what data/sources (not opinions) offered/received and time have you spent investigating those then (no details. mean just ex. hours 1-10, 10 plus, scholarly books read 1-5, 5 plus...?)?
Again, the links you offer (to the Holocaust Encyclopedia and Blog) are entirely fair, but as mentioned last post and above I am asking if you also on the other hand then would be able to cite links and scholarly (preferably not 2nd-3rd hand) articles that fairly present the other view (in case of document-interpretations, the differing ones, in case of witnesses, other contradicting ones maybe...)?
As said I myself am not really sure yet what to think about that specific topic either side, but isnt that the point then involuntarily maybe, my opinion should not matter shit anyway. What does is whenever uttering strong opinions about any specific topic better the f... factually both-sides knowing what one is talking about?
Should "researchers" like f.ex. Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and Steven Novella who have obviously very strong opinions about NDE not be at least able to name just the most basic scholarly researchers (like Van Lommel, Long, Greyson...) and simply most basic factually what their scientific research results showed? Should those offering strong ones regarding "Holocaust Deniers" equally not at least be able to name/represent factually 3 or more scholarly authorities (with maybe as fun-nobrainer-fact/challenge at least 2 of which of jewish ethnicity..?) and their scientific research results maybe as well? "Climate Activists" be able to name/present fairly Curry, Ball..., roman-times historians know about Brody....?
Personally felt so shocked/embarassed when someone some years ago asked me the question "Ever read a book from the german(/japanese) contradicting side of view of events?" and answer was, after 35 plus -oh so intellectual.., years, not only No, but I realized I never even had gotten the idea there could be such....
Again, left aside whether that side is correct (or the mainstream), isn`t it a bit peculiar how one sided that whole period seems to have been presented (history/media/ entertainent industry ...)- if one looks at the whole thing bit from a detached overview for a second-and in case that is so, is that because there a) is no other side to the events/history or b) the other side is left out you think?