FREE WILL Does Not Exist: Illusion of the Mind by Psychological Ration

[7bit]

Not anymore. But in other places they are and their populists have easy going.

[adhoc]

Turkey is a tragedy in its current state.

[Mr.Nobody]

I think you lost the metaphor, if all people were color-blind why should we insist on using colors as traffic signals, we can use signs, for example + means go - means stop and ! means slow down.We used to believe people have free will and are capable of independent think that's why democracy was ushered in in the first place. But now we found it's not the case...We are color blind we didn't know, but now we do.

Why voters have to be adults, because we believe minors are not eligible for dealing with politics right? In fact adults aren't either... bus driver, electrician, fishman, they know how in their own fields, but they don't know politics, get them involved won't help.

In essence the so called democracy is still elitism, parties compete against each other on " whose tricks are better for fooling the people." not on "who can do the job better" Wasn't there democracy when Hitler got elected, now Trump...I got the impression that many western people are religious even superstitious to democracy, if anybody dare suspect it, he's a heretic, a commie, a dictator wannabe, a terrorist....

[Mr.Nobody]

[codemonkeymike]

I think you lost the metaphor, if all people were color-blind why should we insist on using colors as traffic signals, we can use signs, for example + means go - means stop and ! means slow down.We used to believe people have free will and are capable of independent think that's why democracy was ushered in in the first place. But now we found it's not the case...We are color blind we didn't know, but now we do.

Why voters have to be adults, because we believe minors are not eligible for dealing with politics right? In fact adults aren't either... bus driver, electrician, fishman, they know how in their own fields, but they don't know politics, get them involved won't help.

In essence the so called democracy is still elitism, parties compete against each other on " whose tricks are better for fooling the people." not on "who can do the job better" Wasn't there democracy when Hitler got elected, now Trump...I got the impression that many western people are religious even superstitious to democracy, if anybody dare suspect it, he's a heretic, a commie, a dictator wannabe, a terrorist....

Classic straw man argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Menuhin]

Somehow this thread is revived... Ha
I actually asked questions, not a single one who put hat on me attempted to provide any answer, because this has been the education - to ignore these questions.

When some of you accused non-existing hatred to a questioning mind, and when a questioning mind think he is just trying to stand on the correct and logical side and at least to try to know more, and think some of you are ignoring to answer the questions because of the brainwashing upbringing.
There should be no point to continue.

[vivalarevolución]

This thread has convinced me that China has taken a page from Russia's book and is flooding the Western internet with trolls.

[adhoc]

Somehow this thread is revived... Ha
I actually asked questions, not a single one who put hat on me attempted to provide any answer, because this has been the education - to ignore these questions.

When some of you accused non-existing hatred to a questioning mind, and when a questioning mind think he is just trying to stand on the correct and logical side and at least to try to know more, and think some of you are ignoring to answer the questions because of the brainwashing upbringing.
There should be no point to continue.

Let me guess, you watched the greatest story never told documentary and took everything is a fact?

[Menuhin]

@adhoc

I didn't watch that long movie that narrates stories with actors.
I did browse through the War trials in Yale Law school online archive.

[kbdfr]

Somehow this thread is revived... Ha
I actually asked questions, not a single one who put hat on me attempted to provide any answer, because this has been the education - to ignore these questions.

When some of you accused non-existing hatred to a questioning mind, and when a questioning mind think he is just trying to stand on the correct and logical side and at least to try to know more, and think some of you are ignoring to answer the questions because of the brainwashing upbringing.
There should be no point to continue.

You keep asserting that you just "ask questions", so I decided to search all your posts in this thread for question marks, as this obviously is the best way to identify (at least formal) questions.

The result is that when you do ask questions, they have either strictly nothing to do with the Holocaust itself, or only with… not being allowed to ask questions.
In other words, you do not ask any Holocaust-related questions other than "why am I not allowed to ask questions?". It is so to say your meta-question, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust being or not being an established fact.
To put things clear, asking questions about the Holocaust is not forbidden. You just simply don’t.

• In your 1st post there is not a single question mark.
  post364209.html#p364209
• In your 2nd posts there are the following questions:
  post364234.html#p364234
  " And I don't like any "Hate speech" - even in lands full of protectionism mind set, e.g. "Welcome Tourists! " / "What??! You do business here? To earn our money??! >:( "
  Obviously not questions about the Holocaust.
  " However, why so much monetary (EU powerhouse) and exclusive military (most advance tanks and submarines in the world) support to a country that continues to destroy and occupy homes of innocent people around it and engulfing the area with the surrounding countries mostly just being beaten up? "
  Obviously not a question about the Holocaust, just massive (even if justified) critic against Israel disguised as a question introduced by "why?".
• In your 3rd post there is no question mark.
  post364247.html#364247
• In your 4th post there are the following questions:
  post364250.html#p364250
  " The take home message of these [sources about free will] is that unconscious decision precedes our conscious awareness window. But sometimes we operate "in a flow" and all the decisions of actions are made subconsciously. What counts as our "will" then? What qualifies to let us say that is "free"? "
  Obviously not questions about the Holocaust.
• In your 5th post there is no question mark.
  post364305.html#p364305
• In your 6th post there are the following questions:
  post364308.html#p364308
  " Is asking for evidence denial?
  Is asking for more details in order to have a clearer picture denial?
  […]
  Think of a curious child who wants to ask to the detailed bits. Will such a child by definition commit crime if official letters are sent by him asking for the official supporting details? "
  Obviously not questions about the Holocaust, just the meta-question referred to above.
• In your 7th post there is no question mark.
  post364309.html#p364309
• In your 8th post there is no question mark.
  post364318.html#p364318
• In your 9th post there is no question mark.
  post364319.html#p364319
• In your 10th post there is no question mark.
  post364324.html#p364324
• In your 11th post there are the following questions:
  post364435.html#p364435
  " Let's see I am new to the topic, and if I am a tourist and fresh off the boat, how would you "educate" me on a historical event that you believe happened since your elementary school education? If I am very curious, can you provide one answer after another to my questions? "
  Obviously not questions about the Holocaust, but again only the meta-question referred to above.
• In your 12th post there are the following questions:
  post364438.html#p364438
  " What is "semite"? That includes all the Palestinians, Jordanians, Bedouins, Lebanese, etc in the area. "
  Obviously not a question about the Holocaust
  " If I tell them my grandparents witnessed a teddy bear used its paw to punch a hold into a fire hydrant, would they believe it? I don't know... How about aliens abduction? Perhaps one can be more convincing if one can find some outer space rare materials / remains verified in a qualified lab. And how about dragons?
  The point of that video was, why bother to try to add up to such a specific number? "
  Again obviously not questions about the Holocaust, but the same meta-question.
• In your 13th post there is no question mark.
  post365504.html#p3654504
• In your 14th post there is no question mark.
  post364967.html#p364967

Again:
To put things clear, if negating the Holocaust is forbidden, asking questions about the Holocaust is not.
You just simply don’t ask any questions, but keep complaining nobody answers them.

Considering that at the same time
- you "erroneously" asserted that Ursula Haverbeck had been put to jail without being convicted, and that
- you invited us to "look up some work by the lawyer Sylvia Stolz, and look at her with an impartial mind without any prejudice" but "forgot" to mention she even signed a court document with "Heil Hitler" (in 2008, not in 1942!),
the only possible conclusion is that you are not in the least concerned with the truth, but only with your obnoxious propaganda.

[Menuhin]

What is the "Holocaust"?
I mention this term the first time in this thread.
My questions are not about this term that people invented later, quite a few years after the wars have ended, a term for easy memory and for literature and movies, also with certain degree of ambiguity in what it actually represents.

My questions are pointing towards what actually happened in those years, and the presence or the lack of related scientific and legal proofs supporting the current official narrative.

@kbdfr
Please don't be so angry or worked up.
I am remaining very calm and although you started to raise some personal attacks, I still try to be friendly to you.

Questions:
What actually happened around the time of WWI and WWII and the time immediately afterwards in Europe?
And how truthful and how supported with evidence these incidents are, when examined using the legal method and the scientific methods? (e.g. How the number of casualties add up to that number? and what are the related historical records of the official announcements that led to that claim?)

The questions above are probably the meta-question you referred to in your previous post.

Please point to add least one published record or published book with valid sources and references, that everyone can find in the library.
On my previous post, I already stated that Yale Law School has perhaps not complete but one of the most comprehensive archive for War Trials available online.

For the people that you referred to, I didn't know that they behaved so unlawfully (racist statement towards a single person 'Charlotte' and the other the use of legally forbidden words), and I refer to their argumentation. The act of distracting people to focus on their media portrayed images, in order to avoid facing and examining their questions and arguments directly - is also one of the many ways of the brainwashed selective ignoring of reasoning.

I know majority of those with brainwashed upbringing will immediately jump into conclusion that those who ask these questions (e.g. stating and asking why there are discrepancies between some published history books and the trial records) are crazy.

I actually don't want to add anything to this thread, as the brainwashed minds will tend to impose malignant intent to the questioning mind, to a mind that try to follow the steps before jumping into conclusion. I just have to live with it, one of the quite a few brainwashed aspects of the belief system of the current modern society.

(The back and forth stays the same: one side thinks the other side is evil, and the other side think those who accused him as evil are brainwashed. As I pointed out 2 posts before this one, there is no point to continue such an argument for these two sides in this scenario.)

[Slom]

What actually happened around the time of WWI and WWII and the time immediately afterwards in Europe?

I won't really get into this thread, but a short notice:

We, over here in Europe, still have access to primary evidence sometimes by just talking to relatives. Or just walking around. It takes me about 5 minutes of walking to reach a destroyed church left as a memorial to remind people of the destruction war brings about.

I my city there marks on the pavement where people that died in concentration camps lived. There are a lot of them. It is very easy to look up verifying information for each of these names.

To imply that we Germans are not interested or informed about that part of our history is laughable at best and quite insulting at worst.

To think that we Germans are taught that we were the only bad guys in WW2 is completely mistaken. There were bad things other nations did as well. But the genocide which killed 6 million jews (Here is your definition of holocaust) in Europe is undeniable.

The lesson we are taught in Europe is that war in general is bad.

[seebart]

Unbenannt.PNG (272.04 KiB) Viewed 5202 times

[Menuhin]

@Slom

I understand that you have the general education of the matter.
Everyone being taught something at school, or being noticed some structure as such, and then being pointed to some official published records about the past, will then believe something is true. It is how belief system works; questioning is not the natural tendency of human beings, and therefore the Abrahamic religions flourish in many forms for centuries.

Here, what I mentioned and referred to are more about the legal records and the scientific evidence, are deep at an investigative level, which is out of the scope of the generally informed citizen in this country.

I understand most of the modern Germans are pacifists, more than many many countries in the world.
No war is a good war.

***

Just like how I answered 7bits' other questions raised for me, I am skeptical and careful to examine the official narratives of many matters including recently news. And of course, this is how I try to read history.

We have the right to know more about the history, not only those taught at school: this is my major point, the meta-question is also about knowing more. Forbidding the activity of questioning and answering should not happen in the modern society.

For those who have a strong opinion about the certain version of narrative (wide-spread, funded, movie made):
Please just think I'm from a parallel universe and I should not get back and forth on this thread.

[Slom]

Here, what I mentioned and referred to are more about the legal records and the scientific evidence, are deep at an investigative level, which is out of the scope of the generally informed citizen in this country.

https://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/archiv.html

eye witness reports of survivors, documents related to the development and management of the camp, post-war trial records, and holdings of the international prisoner committee founded after liberation.

The computerized prisoner registry contains data on more than ninety percent of the over 200,000 prisoners who were detained in the Dachau Concentration Camp.

[Menuhin]

Eye witness reports play the only and the most important role here, while how much one should rely just on these as evidence to establish history is controversial, e.g. Alien sighting. I know these are serious matters.
These are important records I can look into.

For the legally valid eye witness reports of the biggest act, they were presented in trials between 1963-1965 in Gallus, Frankfurt.

[kbdfr]

[…] My questions are pointing towards what actually happened in those years, and the presence or the lack of related scientific and legal proofs supporting the current official narrative.
[…]
Questions:
What actually happened around the time of WWI and WWII and the time immediately afterwards in Europe?
And how truthful and how supported with evidence these incidents are, when examined using the legal method and the scientific methods?
[…]
Please point to add least one published record or published book with valid sources and references, that everyone can find in the library.

You want "valid sources and references"?
How about a video of Rudolf Höss, commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp, testifying before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg on 15 April 1946?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANEYUQ22VSE
Of course a video can hardly be dismissed as a fake like any other of the millions of original documents seized at the end of the war, so you and your likes have to resort to claiming (see the video comments) that he had been tortured or was under drugs.
I wonder what is more "valid" in your eyes: the testimony itself or the torture or drugs claims?

For the people that you referred to, I didn't know that they behaved so unlawfully (racist statement towards a single person 'Charlotte' and the other the use of legally forbidden words), and I refer to their argumentation. The act of distracting people to focus on their media portrayed images, in order to avoid facing and examining their questions and arguments directly - is also one of the many ways of the brainwashed selective ignoring of reasoning.

I wonder who is brainwashed here - or trying to brainwash.
Don't tell me you know (and cite as a reference, asking us to "look at her with an impartial mind without any prejudice") Sylvia Stolz, but were not aware she is a fierce Nazi propagandist.
And don't tell me you know Ursula Haverbeck (which you even simply name by her initials, as if everybody should know her, like JFK) and really believed she had been put to jail without having been sentenced.

How comes you request "valid" sources and don't care about the "validity" of the fake information you yourself post?
The answer is simple: you are lying. You don't doubt the Holocaust, you just deny it.
You are not in quest of the truth, but on a propaganda mission.

[Menuhin]

@kbdfr
The testimony of Rudolf Höss (no matter what position title he actually held) has been the pillar of the mass killing theory.

I already responded you previously about UH:

... I agree with you.
I am incorrect about the "put to jail without sentence" part.
...
points to make:
...
Perhaps for the trial / sentence, I want to say, "without any trial that actually look like there is a way to defend in a reasonable manner".
... the legal argument basically was, if you ask for evidence, then that is equivalent to denial, because the alleged historical cruelty myths/happenings throughout the years in a sneaking way gained a kind of 'factual truth' legal status. These 'factual truth' status is not only those for one's birthday was on a certain day, but "When you goes out and walk in the rain, your clothes will get wet" kind of status.
...

So if what you referred to as >>"validity" of the fake information you yourself post"<< is the above, I have just clarified it again.

It is actually difficult to use the word impartial for any human opinion, because everyone has their own stance, so I should not have said Sylvia Stolz is impartial. My point to make was about her argument of the legal basis of what should be treated as self-evident fact and not.
Asking for evidence is rejected when certain event is legally self-evident. "When he dropped the television set from the windows, the TV set went downwards", or "When she came back up from the swimming pool after accidentally fell into it, her clothes was all wet" - if her clothes were wet at that time, or did the TV set fell downwards not not upwards do not need to submit any evidence to support, they are "self-evident". But granting a piece of historical narrative the status of "self-evident" is just very convenient.

Spoiler:

More about the legal basis of law in Germany and EU and Canada, related to that piece of sensitive history, during an annual meeting of the "Anti-Censorship Coalition":
https://youtu.be/NCuwbbNQcZI?t=4739

For the trial of Zündel, the Judge Meinerzhagen said, reported by Berlin newspaper Die Tageszeitung on February 9th 2007, "Towards the end, and much to the surprise of the anti-fascist groupings present, the court dismissed all the submitted evidence. For the short and simple reason, that it is completely irrelevant whether the holocaust really did happen or did not happen. It is illegal to deny it in Germany, and that is all that counts in court."

***

For kbdfr and others who do not believe I am in quest of the truth, I share the path (what I looked for and what I read) that I took to know and understand more and more about the most important period of era that changed the course of Germany:
1. I tend to seek out scary and historical sites to visit. Here is a photo of sites in Cambodia:

Despite the large amount of remains, there are skeptics, including Noam Chomsky, about the historical events in Cambodia, and offered alternative explanations due to some historical motives.
I tried to seek out these, asked friends, and visited sites. And I later found out, none of these exhibition sites with remains exist or ever discovered ("yet"). After knowing this I just thought, "those were genius criminals" at the beginning, and I wanted to hunt out the locations.
2. Then I came across the work by David Cole.

There are full versions of this video, in which one can also see the questions and answers with one of the most authoritative scholars on the subject matter, it was this scholar that set the numbers and changed the numbers accordingly on his hallmark books after years of revisions. And he is not the only one who present some logical arguments casting doubts at various points of the official narratives.
And please focus on his logic and arguments, e.g. if someone states, 2 and 3 are prime numbers, despite his mental state, that is a logical math statement to consider.
3. I also watched a bit of the "The Last Days of The Big Lie" by Eric Hunt, which is banned in Germany.

Spoiler:

The complete movie:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... E3943D7FDF

Trailer:

Eric Hunt made many videos.

4. Then I found out a lot of books are banned.
And friends who are librarians or studied library science, got me into the interest of knowing more about banned books and forbidden books. Usually they are related to established political agenda.
MrNobody tries to defend the government of his own country, while people may attack with the fact that many books are banned in his country, and there is virtually "no" freedom of press.
I just see that this is the same for any country that bans any book, and try to sort out the reason and political agenda behind. And there is a whole long list of banned books in Germany, in the EU, quite similar to the list of those banned in the US when I discussed it with librarian friends from the US.
I dag into banned and forbidden books, one after another, as long as, as soon as I can get my hands on them.
And I double-checked some of their claims by looking up trial records.
Including those by Rudolf (who who worked at the Max Plank institute for Solid State Physics, then lost his job and was prevented from completing his doctorate, then a few years later he was given a jail sentence, now in a high-security prison near Stuttgart). A report of personal observations in 1973 of the site (visited also by David Cole above) by the Hamburg judge Wilhelm Staeglich (who was then forced to resign his job, and then had his doctorate degree stripped off, and then his book banned).

Spoiler:

Brief http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html
Comprehensive http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
They are not published in any peer-reviewed chemistry journal for obvious reasons. The only way to hold a debate on this subject appears to be in a courtroom, while being prosecuted.

After seeing how these people ended up, I know I should stand on the side of the majority who received education of history with the view of official narrative, designed by the authority. I don't have the dignity and justice for grand parents / great grand parents to defend. I can stand on the side of other countries: when people are slightly racist or not as friendly as they should be to the Ausländer, I can even conveniently yell at them about the generation of their grand parents'.

This has been my quest for truth. I shall still look at the arguments and their evidence on both sides, not only into the officially available records, but still certainly will read more and more banned and forbidden books and their reasons to be banned.

[vivalarevolución]

So what's going on this thread? Holocaust denial? Are we serious?

[Menuhin]

To MrNobody:

The single most forbidden taboo in modern history, especially in 17 countries. See how it is discussed:

Spoiler:

@vivalarevolución

I dare not to follow some of the people I talked above to claim anything, because this is against the law in where I live.
A member (adhoc?) asked me earlier if I have watched a certain documentary, and I just posted above what I instead did and watched and read.

These materials of course shape one's idea of the world, but I remain at a state of absorbing more information and not drawing any conclusion - for the sake of my future and my family, I would join the legal camp if any authority forces me to draw any published conclusion.

[kbdfr]

@Menuhin
Endless cross-references to Holocaust deniers do not make you or them more credible.

Concerning especially you, I am quite certain that you do not really believe the Holocaust did not happen,
but simply negate it (doing so as if you would "question" it) as a propaganda means.
And obviously your primary driver is antisemitism.

Your very first post in this thead, which in fact is the very reason why it took that direction,
had a clear antisemitic stance with the usual attacks against Israel and its supposed power over Germany.
It already contained your first lie (Ursula Haverbeck having been "put to jail without sentence") and tendentious omission (not mentioning she is a prominent hardcore antisemite), and then you just couldn’t stop yourself:

[…] In Germany, this 87-years old lady UH was put to jail without sentence in Germany, because she just wanted to know more and know more clearly the official story that enslaved Germany to his host for many decades, the host, the actual real ruler that Germany will sell nuclear-capable submarines to without any discussion from the public, and that receive binding money flows as aids from Europe and from the US in millions and billions every year. […]

So there’s a point I am still quite curious about:

[…] you don't even have the guts to say [your arguments] are directed at Jews, but use periphrases instead.

By the way, even the nick you use here on DT, a keyboard forum, shows how central this topic is to you.
Yehudi Menuhin was a famous Jewish violonist and conductor, his son Gerard Menuhin denies the Holocaust.
Now don't tell me your nick has nothing to do with either of them

Would you care to enlighten me?

[caligo]

Is this thing still going on? Man…

It is quite obvious that Horst Menuhin is not really interested in 'finding the truth or asking questions', and I doubt any rational argument here will change that. Those SS uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss after all – I bet that fascist tinfoil hat of his looks real fancy, making it hard to part with.

The reason holocaust denial is kind of a touchy subject is that it has effectively become a form of anti-semitism, and part of the neo-fascist ideological project. That is also why it is in many countries considered hate-speach to deny that it ever happened – because such denial has more or less always been part of a political project aimed at persecution of jews and other minorities who have supposedly somehow orchestrated this 'hoax'. It is just the same old 'jewish conspiracy' crap as in the 1930's, and it is not any less anti-semitic this time around.

There is quite a stark contrast between discussing how events transpired and outright claims that the whole thing didn't happen. The former happens all the time within academia, as well as in society at large, and there is no law against doing so – not even in Germany. This whole idea of 'censorship' is based on a blatant misrepresentation of what goes on in academia, as well as what goes on in the justice system.

Maybe the Nazis just managed to kill five million jews, maybe they killed as many as seven million. There are gaps in the material available to us, and there will always be some educated guesswork and specuation going on. This is what research is, but this does not in any way change the fact that there was a systematic genocide – something for which there is a mountain of evidence, and that established scholars all agree on.

The anti-semititic holocaust denial always reverts to the same myopic focus on details, things like 'well, other people where also killed in the war actually' or 'well, technically the jews in this particular camp where mostly killed by being shot or worked to death and starved so it's not really correct to say they where gassed'. It's all bullshit, since it does nothing to disprove the existence of a systematic program of ethnic cleansing.

'I'm just asking questions man, and also maybe there's a world conspiracy led by evil jews. I'm just asking, right?'. Yeah, sure pal. For some reason, I kind of doubt your motives here. Gegen Nazis, and all of that.

[Wodan]

Hugo Boss did not design the SS uniforms. That is just one of these idiot facts busted by a 1 minute Wikipedia research:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Bo ... _designer)

There's hardly any big German company that predates WW2 and wasn't involved in the war effort. They called it Total War for a reason.

[caligo]

Hugo Boss did not design the SS uniforms. That is just one of these idiot facts busted by a 1 minute Wikipedia research:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Bo ... _designer)

There's hardly any big German company that predates WW2 and wasn't involved in the war effort. They called it Total War for a reason.

Fair enough: Hugo Boss was a nazi by conviction (joined the party in '31) who's company made uniforms for SS (using slave labour, one might add). They were not really into haute couture back then, just a simple clothes manifacturing company. And of course there where lots of companies that made business with the German state during the war (but I doubt all of them where convicted after the war, like Hugo Boss was).

The SS uniforms are quite striking from a purely aestethic standpoint (which is part of the reason they were popular attire in parts of the synth subculture during the 1980's), and where produced by fashion giant Hugo Boss. It's an interesting curiosity, that's all. Doesn't make the company itself evil per se, and the man himself died in '48 so it's not like the founder's nazi sympathies have much bearing on the company that exists today.

[Mr.Nobody]

No, this thread is not about Holocaust Denial, I've watched some film footages about holocaust and concentration camps, and I believe the authenticity of the materials I watched...aren't those footages evidence? Whatelse you need to prove a thing? Japanese right wing extremists deny Nan Jing massacre, what's the point?

[PollandAkuma]

What did I miss? Hugo Boss suits and military fashion discussion?

[kekstee]

Maybe Menuhin is just in this for the long game and wants some Hugo Boss military fashion back in style.

That's what I call dedication.

[Menuhin]

Somehow this post surfaces again.

@kbdfr

I have friends from Israel, Jewish or Arabs, on both sides of the conflict.
A few of my mentors are Jews, and I am forever indebt to them.
You can guess whatever "primary driver" I have and say it out, it is simply only your own thinking.

Listen:
Instead of "anti-semitic" you may say, you don't even mentioned in one documentary above David Cole is a Jew himself; from a historical perspective after all these readings, I am questioning the justifiability of Zionism and Zionist movements in the early 20th century. Not that I want the state of Israel, the home of many of my friends, stop to exist, but I really hope that they see the land is Palestinians' land originally and that they should stop the continuous expansion and the abuse of the neighboring Arabs - so much so that some friends moved out of the country because they don't agree with what the government and the military do to the neighboring Arabs.

My primary driver behind is PEACE - genuine PEACE for the whole world:
After WWII, there are two major source of war / military conflicts:
1. US continuation of the solution of the great depression, weaponry industry driven economy - Vietnam, Korean, ME, etc. Together with the oil industry and financial industry, three sections supporting each other.
2. The continuous expansion of the early settlement of Jewish in Palestine. The conflicts in Iraq and hostility towards Iran and the involvement of Saudi are all related.

I am always pro-peace in my life. How many anti-war protests did you attend?

You are the supporter and non-questioner of the official narrative, you are on the politically correct side to prosecute any further questions. It's okay, you are on the side of authoritiy.

Please don't repeat pointing out the mistake I made about Ursula Haverbeck in my early post and that I have clarified 2 times already. (yawn...)

In my previous post, I simply listed what readings and documentary affected my perspectives.
If you can go through them yourself and answer point by point the questions they raised, that is an excellent way to persuade and direct my perspective to a more politically correct one. Please do it if you have the ability, those logical and reasoning related ability - not the usual name-calling acts please.

@caligo

I am interested in finding out the truth and having people answer my questions.
Please be one of those who answer my questions that I posted above.
I am the one who posted rational arguments and questions about what actually happened during the time around WWI up to 10 years after WWII ended.

You said "There is quite a stark contrast between discussing how events transpired and outright claims that the whole thing didn't happen. The former happens all the time within academia..."
My answered are what actually happened and what investigations are suitable to answer that, instead of assuming some numbers and then finding pieces of information here and there hoping to justify. The academia themselves also argue among each other a lot, for example the most wide spread "6 millions" number is already not the official academically recognized number.

I dare you send letters to German government authorities asking for their official evidence of the mass killings, even simply be so polite to ask for trial records with some forensic examinations that you can use for your personal reference.

"... a systematic genocide – something for which there is a mountain of evidence, and that established scholars all agree on. ..."

Sorry I have to say this is the MOST TYPICAL SENTENCE I have heard, and that is the one anti-questioning, anti-logical thinking statement. I really want to know more, to get closer to the truth. Some academic scholars on this topic also just used this sentence to answer my play-dumb questions in many bar chats, even they could not cite anything concrete right out of their head - it is just a belief system.
Here is my question for you:
Please cite some of these "mountain of evidence" you are talking about, I shall read them also.
But I warn you, I have many records of how "established scholars" on the subject matter conflicted with each other in their studies. It is just that, we, people outside this emerged "field of subject", are not allowed to argue about it.

@Mr.Nobody

Sorry for blowing this up to a degree that hijack your thread about science / psychology / philosophy.
Nanjing killing happened, and was used as part of the US strategy (e.g. the war time film) to justified its extended Asian involvement. Any killing of civilians is wrong and people should learn from it, I am sorry that not many of the modern Japanese people don't know too much about it.
You may share some pointers here what film footage you watched and it may convince me so that this whole debate between me and my questioning-official-narrative self may stop altogether.
P.s. To understand more about the WWII Nanjing, I recommend this book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Man_of_Nanking

@PollandAkuma
@Kekstee
It is more like outsider learning modern European history from the ground up in a self-learning, self-directing style in terms of what to read, what sources of information to compare.
All for a good cause: world peace and the understanding of the root of some recent non-stopping conflicts.

[Ray]

@kbdfr
[...]
I am always pro-peace in my life. How many anti-war protests did you attend?

You are the supporter and non-questioner of the official narrative, you are on the politically correct side to prosecute any further questions. It's okay, you are on the side of authoritiy.

Please don't repeat pointing out the mistake I made about Ursula Haverbeck in my early post and that I have clarified 2 times already. (yawn...)

In my previous post, I simply listed what readings and documentary affected my perspectives.
If you can go through them yourself and answer point by point the questions they raised, that is an excellent way to persuade and direct my perspective to a more politically correct one. Please do it if you have the ability, those logical and reasoning related ability - not the usual name-calling acts please.

I'll take something here so kbdfr doesn't need to defend himself for no apparent reason.

The first question in the quote I would consider a direct offense if you read more of kbdfr's posts. I would bet a "Kasten Bier" kbdfr was on more peace demos than you have been. Easy. Next paragraph.

Saying he is a non-questioner is the same level of offense taken out of nowhere. Again, this does not sound like it applies to the person you are insulting.

And he is right in pointing out your mistakes, when you claim you are looking for evidence that holds up. He wasn't just disproving your early claims but also shows your motivation also isn't what you are telling it is.

And then you are pointing to media that you think is worthwhile spending time on. I looked into this one here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iI0qAIaJDM (chosen because it doen't eat more than 10 min of my time), and the only question that arouse for me was: what crap is that? The eye-witnesses who claimed jews were gased in winter clearly made false statements? Don't you think the Nazis did know about the facts of cyclon-B this "expert" also knows? Like they needed to heat the room to above normal room temperatures to make it effective in killing? Come on, if they were using it to kill anyone, they probably knew how it worked...

[kbdfr]

[…]
@caligo […]

"... a systematic genocide – something for which there is a mountain of evidence, and that established scholars all agree on. ..."

[…]
Here is my question for you:
Please cite some of these "mountain of evidence" you are talking about, I shall read them also.
But I warn you, I have many records of how "established scholars" on the subject matter conflicted with each other in their studies.[…]

You wrote in a previous post that you "did browse through the War trials in Yale Law school online archive"
Well, then you seem to have overlooked the testimony of Rudolf Höss, who was commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp from May 1940 till December 1943. Here is how on 15 April 1946 he answered the questions of Col. John Harlan Amen at the Nuremberg trial (source: the exact "Yale Law school online archive" you invoked; highlighting in bold characters added by me, but everything else is also worth reading):

COL. AMEN: Witness, you made an affidavit, did you not, at the request of the Prosecution?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: I ask that the witness be shown Document 3868-PS, which will become Exhibit USA-819.
[The document was submitted to the witness.]
COL. AMEN: You signed that affidavit voluntarily, Witness?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: And the affidavit is true in all respects?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: This, if the Tribunal please, we have in four languages.
[Turning to the witness.] Some of the matters covered in this affidavit you have already told us about in part, so I will omit some parts of the affidavit. If you will follow along with me as I read, please. Do you have a copy of the affidavit before you?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: I will omit the first paragraph and start with Paragraph 2:
"I have been constantly associated with the administration of concentration camps since 1934, serving at Dachau until 1938; then as Adjutant in Sachsenhausen from 1938 to 1 May 1940, when I was appointed Commandant of Auschwitz. I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70 or 80 percent of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries; included among the executed and burned were approximately 20,000 Russian prisoners of war (previously screened out of prisoner-of-war cages by the Gestapo) who were delivered at Auschwitz in Wehrmacht transports operated by regular Wehrmacht officers and men. The remainder of the total number of victims included about 100,000 German Jews, and great Numbers of citizens, mostly Jewish, from Holland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, or other countries. We executed about 400,000 Hungarian Jews alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944."
That is all true, Witness?
HOESS: Yes, it is.
COL. AMEN: […]
"4. Mass executions by gassing commenced during the summer of 1941 and continued until fall 1944. I personally supervised executions at Auschwitz until first of December 1943 and know by reason of my continued duties in the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, WVHA, that these mass executions continued as stated above. All mass executions by gassing took place under the direct order, supervision, and responsibility of RSHA. I received all orders for carrying out these mass executions directly from RSHA." Are those statements true and correct, Witness?
HOESS: Yes, they are.
COL. AMEN: […] "6. The 'final solution' of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there were already in the General Government three other extermination camps: Belzek, Treblinka, and Wolzek. These camps were under the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD. I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The camp commandant at Treblinka told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of onehalf year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas, and I did not think that his methods were very efficient. So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyklon B. which was a crystallized prussic acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited about onehalf hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special Kommandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses."
Is that all true and correct, Witness?
HOESS: Yes.
[…]
COL. AMEN:
"7. Another improvement we made over Treblinka was that we built our gas chamber to accomodate 2,000 people at one time whereas at Treblinka their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. The way we selected our victims was as follows: We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the camp. Others were sent immediately to the extermination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at Auschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under the clothes, but of course when we found them we would send the children in to be exterminated. We were required to carry out these exterminations in secrecy but of course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz."
Is that all true and correct, Witness?
HOESS: Yes.
COL. AMEN: […] "I understand English as it is written above. The above statements are true; this declaration is made by me voluntarily and without compulsion; after reading over the statement I have signed and executed the same at Nuremberg, Germany, on the fifth day of April 1946."
Now I ask you, Witness, is everything which I have read to you true to your oven knowledge?
HOESS: Yes.

I know, of course, that Holocaust deniers simply argue Höss lied at Nuremberg for whatever reasons.
So please be so kind and give us evidence (well, of course the "forensic evidence" you are claiming from others) that he did not tell the truth. It would of course be a good idea if this time, you did not "forget" to mention what kind of "established scholars" you invoke.

And please do not argue about "six million". Any number would be horrible enough even if it were less than the "about 400,000 Hungarian Jews [executed] alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944".