Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 04:42 am
I am taking a chance here by posting my essay on the Holocaust, prefaced by an introductory letter to rabbis. Although there is a great chance that this will be discarded by the moderators, at least, then, I will have a better understanding as to where David Lyga stands. - David Lyga

Dear Rabbi :

There are strong feelings expressed within my highly controversial essay (attached), but I believe that its stridency is fully justified. At 70, I find myself very confused with the accepted and promoted narrative concerning the Holocaust, to the point where I feel much doubt, even anger, and find myself possibly not believing that it ever took place. Whether you wish to contact me is, and will remain, entirely up to you. And whether your words are conciliatory or admonishing is of no import to me. I seek viable answers, not necessarily corroboration or collaboration.

Learning is a tool which enhances our sense of humanity and enriches our potential as humans. We all come from different experiences and social paradigms, so we often have a thinking process which emanates from a different perspective. We can be respectful towards one another, but we can also disagree with vehemence. Too few understand that the key to human interactive success is a willingness to attempt to comprehend and respect, not vanquishment of our adversary.

When I wrote my essay I intended to be fully accountable and to place myself into a position of vulnerability. I had determined that this would be the only way to appease any lingering doubts as to my intentions. Getting through life by catering to societal norms is, for many, the easiest way to arrive unscathed. But for me, my life's experiences, formulated early on from having been so despised by peers, had forced me to adopt a cognitive dissociation from societal norms and, instead, to speak out for what I believed in; oftentimes with fear, despite disregard for outcome, but almost always conscious of maintaining a foundation of consideration and respect for others who disagree.

Why did I write to Rabbis? FIRST, you are highly educated and eminently accountable for what you say or do. Your actions must coalesce with intense scrutiny. Because of this, you have obtained much respect and have been allowed, in many cases, to indicate norms and parameters for many of your congregants, as well as others whom you associate with. SECOND, regardless of how you envision my essay's rhetoric, angst, and intent, you certainly WILL think about what I have related here, if only because my attack upon the status quo is so real, raw, unrepentant, and unremitting. The initial reactions which you will have with my essay are not as important as melding, synergizing these ideas with your prior knowledge and experiences over a period of time. Logic makes odd bedfellows. Thus, even if your sensibilities become immediately soured, I am satisfied simply to be heard and absorbed. Not everything you have studied or learned by experience has been initially positive. However, such worked efforts have almost always aided your future attempts with rationality … what I will call 'mental wholeness'.

Life is a mixture of ultimately gratifying pain and so-to-be sorrowful happiness. Too often we do not get to select which comes first or what we end up with. Rabbis are both de facto psychoanalysts and protectors of people's vulnerabilities. If they do not know, initially, how to finalize each and every situation unto fruition, they must first conquer a demeaning doubt, then select the best wholesome alternative. They must never give up on the effort to develop new solutions. This forces a certain underlying humility and compromise for new procreation within your minds; you are compelled to think in ways that might be less accommodating, less predictable, and perhaps even less socially acceptable, should a better way be discovered. The angst which emanates from successfully abiding by this dichotomy of 'normative vs revolutionary' establishes you as largely admirable, vital individuals, to whom I will end this introduction by stating that I am proud to be allowed to accompany you in that journey, if only peripherally. - David Lyga


I was born homosexual in Connecticut on 21 FEB 1950. My father's parents immigrated from Ukraine and my mother's from Sardinia. I was raised Ukrainian Catholic (under Rome, but Byzantine Rite) but have been agnostic for decades. All my life I never cared how my opinions were received, as long as they were logically formulated and accurately represented. Early on, I got used to being the black sheep of both family and society. The only important thing for me was to be as honest and correct as possible. Being so meant first ignoring my ego, because that mental cheerleader could get in the way of objectivity and factual transparency. Facts such as these contained within this essay become, and remain, disturbing to me, because the interplay and logic pattern remain purposefully and permanently closed from close, thoroughly objective scrutiny. That tacit and enduring restriction, alone, compels me to question, how can mere emotion and political expediency suddenly beget tangible, historical fact.

The Holocaust is the only topic that is permitted to be discussed in only one manner: in terms of passion and politics, as opposed to other historical events which are subject to the impartial and objective rigors of academic and scientific scrutiny. There are many elements tangential to this declaimed Holocaust tragedy which force me to ask numerous, disturbing questions, but I find that impossible to do without colliding with the assumption that my quest intends to lead us into an exoneration of the Third Reich. Just because someone questions the logistics of this purported event does not then prove that he or she abhors Jews and, instead, reveres the legacy of Adolph Hitler. We have become so acculturated into the dangerous and misleading paradigm of thinking that anyone who questions the basic facts surrounding this "Holocaust narrative" must have ulterior motives.

The Red Cross was stationed in all the camps. The Red Cross offered no reports of any mass murder, ever. No birth certificates for these six million Holocaust victims were ever found in any of the many German hospitals? This Holocaust operation had to be one of the most secret in all of history, especially with the Germans desperate for fuel to run their tanks. They, apparently (there is no other explanation), found using precious fuel for burning six million Jews more important than winning the War. And ... the tiny, tiny (relatively few in number) single body crematory ovens did not speak too well for German efficiency or planning. Are we supposed to really believe that this event occurred, or are we duty-bound to say that we believe it, even if we really cannot due to the ever-so-present gross incapacity for practical, logistic truths to manifest?

Perhaps, some of us are not as stupid as many require us to be. Does the reader offer a different explanation for my reluctance to buy into this narrative, or would it simply be easier to truncate that mental attempt while he or she still has the powerfully supported political correctness mandate in hand, to use freely as a weapon? I shall continue to search for rational answers. Those who believe, with "irrefutable evidence" that the Holocaust narrative occurred, I ask this: Why were there 150,000 Jews working, loyal, and steadfast within the Nazi military, with hundreds of them performing duties in top leadership positions? (Oftentimes, disturbing facts find themselves being conveniently ignored by those who wish to uphold a narrative which does not support those facts.) Again, I ask for answers and am willing to admit correction. But, remember, correcting physics, geometry an mathematics can be done in only one way. That way involves adhering to a dedicated, resolute logic which has no mercy for wayward facts.

Why the political attack on logic? I believe because the political and Zionist implications (buoyed by unquestioning support for the political actions of the State of Israel) are stridently defended under the guise of a fulsome brand of moral propriety. This is an easy trap to fall into. The founding of the United States was built upon a slippery moral precipice of killing off the resisting natives, importing and enslaving blacks, and boldly stating that a "God" sanctioned all of this because "America" was so very special in His authoritative eyes. More recently, we murdered three million Vietnamese and Cambodians in the Vietnam War. We aided Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in mass murder simply because their enemy was the Vietcong. Is there a day of remembrance for them? Reparations? An apology? No, instead, we are asked to thank the Vietnam Veteran for his service. Case closed. When this God "blessed America", He also seemed to have lent a strange, purposeful moral credibility to dastardly, inhumane deeds.

Theoretically, at least in academia and science, we are supposed to be encouraged to question, for clarification, confirmation and comprehension, anything assumed to be factually and historically absolute . When vetting facts, the scientific method demands that a disinterested objectivity, not crude passion or politics, reign supreme. Of course there are those who, for negative reasons, piggyback upon that logical prerequisite in order to exonerate (or even generate) evil. But here, my quest is sincere and, handily, leaves no facile venue for a nefarious, hateful agenda to manifest. This would defeat my legitimate purpose. I try to use logic and basic science as my bailiwick and invite others' honest input ... whether in agreement or not. Not being desperate to win or placate a transitory ego, instead I am interested in learning and becoming better informed. In my quest, I seek facts, not hyperbole or passion. And, if I am wrong, I will freely admit so.

Within the thinking populace, there really are innocent (albeit, hidden) people who question this historic event; and not for nefarious reasons, but simply because the expounded facts fail to align in a believable manner. However, escaping allegations of being "against the Jews" becomes impossible to achieve because of the stridency of the proscribed cultural and political thought processes which we have become pressured to adopt, and assume as real, unyielding, and absolute. For their efforts, these innocent nonbelievers should not, routinely, have to be negatively maligned and denigrated when all that they are doing is mining for facts in order to be able to live with those facts. Because we are continually so stridently pressured into not questioning this topic in any constructively revealing or meaningful way, we have become more interested in avoiding social conflict than in avoiding a far worse conflict, one which challenges our invested, inherent sense of right and wrong. Indeed, those of us who find it impossible (in logistic terms) to believe that such a monumental event could have possibly occurred, given the facts, are intimidated and ostracized for not being able to coalesce with the required narrative. Because of this, we witness a forced disintegration of introspection supplanted by an upholding of dishonest, robotized "social survival" thinking. Thus, for pragmatic reasons, we dutifully comply with the proscribed narrative, because if we question and parse this topic's hard facts, (as we should) we experience social opprobrium and virulent accusations of anti-Semitism. Social protocol demands that we have a difficult time accepting any logical academic and scientific persuasion which might counter this politically pressured mandate. Let us now ponder some basic, factual questions.

Shortly after the turn of the 21st Century Israel said that there were about 1,000,000 Holocaust survivors still living. Given the mathematical necessity to do a statistical extrapolation using life expectancy formulas, one could then easily derive that, 55 to 60 years years earlier, in 1945, there must have been close to 6,000,000 Jewish ‘Holocaust survivors’ immediately after the war! Billions and billions in reparations have been paid by Germany to this Jewish ethnicity. That is fact, not conjecture. Thus, we have a moral duty to delve further into this mathematical quagmire.

How many Jews were living in Europe in 1939? Perhaps somewhat more than half of those living. Shortly before WWII there were a little over 15 million Jews extant, worldwide. That is fact. But, in 1948, the World Almanac stated that world Jewry was still above 15 million, a figure even slightly higher than what they had reported in 1938. Three years after that purported mass killing finally ended, this eminent publication (which got its figures, by the way, from the American Jewish Committee) did not know that almost half of world Jewry had been wiped out more than three years previously? Remember, please, that even in 1945, world-wide communication was immediate: via teletype, telegraph and even telephone. For three years to have passed without anyone connected with the media knowing that 40% of world Jewry had been wiped out ... this is something that I find not merely difficult to believe, but impossible for this fantasy to take root in my mind. Are we to infer that the American Jewish Committee had no idea of such a scale of murder three years after the War? They felt no need to correct the 1946, 1947, and 1948 versions? If such Almanac had first reported the JFK assassination in 1966, would anyone have believed its statistical credibility?

Six Million Jews were burned?

In the 1940s, as now, it takes 8 liters of liquid fuel to combust one human body. (The human body is 65% water and needs to be kept burning for at least 30 minutes in order to fully disintegrate). In a huge crematory oven, if there are cadavers piled on top of another, (for greater ‘disposal efficiency’?), the fuel and time requirements become far greater. However the crematoria fabricated in all Nazi camps were small, single body units, designed not for mass murder but for normal carcass disposal by attrition in a work-camp which housed hundreds, maybe even thousands. Even if these ovens had been designed for multiple bodies, the time and fuel needed for combustion would have greatly increased in order to dissipate the extra water and to achieve a sufficiently high temperature for combustion. From the onset, it has been asserted that the Nazis had planned the extermination of six million of Europe's Jews. However, for them to have built such a small number (around one to few dozen in each camp) of single-body ovens in order to carry out this monumental, planned effort to murder six million Jews ... such madness removes any ability or sense to come out of believing that such a murder had been planned in advance. Indeed, Auschwitz got its first ovens in 1943! There did not seem to be much constructive Nazi preparation involved with such an important task of killing off Europe's Jews; the sizes of these ovens were appallingly small and would have to be called the most ignorant example of Nazi preparation that a rational person could imagine. With today's high tech crematories, it takes a minimum of 30 minutes to fully combust only one body. But back then, with lower technological effectiveness, crematoria took even more time to incinerate a human body.

How could six million bodies be so easily, quickly, secretly burned? And where did the Nazis get 48 million (8 x 6,000,000) liters of fuel to do this horrific deed when they desperately needed this precious fuel for their war effort? Was there an underground pipeline to Saudi Arabia? Again, WHERE DID THEY GET ALL THIS FUEL? (If I were to ask the Holocaust Museum that question I would be met with silence, because they do not appreciate being backed into a corner.) Besides, the USA flew WEEKLY reconnaissance flights over each camp; there were NO REPORTS of smoke or activity which would have indicated a gigantic mass murder of any sort. Indeed, in order to burn that many bodies, the skies of Europe would have been blackened for months. NOTHING about such air pollution was ever reported by our military, or the military of anyone else. Is this fact strange? Thus, for political reasons, should this fact be banished from everlasting scrutiny, because factual dissection and analysis are never permitted to emerge when discussing the Holocaust? Some camps had swimming pools, all had medical hospital clinics, and, in some instances, there were minimal orchestras for musical performance.

When the camps were liberated, photographs showing piles of dead bodies were presented and published. Purportedly, the media wished to project an historical platform for proof of a mass killing. However, due to mass Allied bombing of the rails leading to these camps six months before such liberation, the Germans were unable to provide desperately needed supplies to the camps, such as food, medicine, and sanitary supplies. Certainly, what food was available went to the Nazis in charge; thus people died of both starvation and typhus during this six month period. The victors, the Allies, have never admitted to the world how many camp deaths their actions had caused, despite the horrific results of those actions being precisely what was portrayed within those photographs. Remember always: Victors, not truth, write history. Thus, are Americans the good guys ... or a good guise?

Gassed instead of burned? Where are the bodies? Extensive ground tests have been done at each camp site and the soil was found not to have been disturbed for thousands of years. Six million human cadavers take up a lot of space; Where are they hidden? The so-called gassing rooms, 'shower rooms', had doors that were ordinary in thickness, with glass windows. No riot? No fighting back? No truth here? And how then were the bodies transported from the shower room to the single body ovens? Why had there not been conceived a more efficient way to kill off six million Jews?

Rabbis, please tell me why these important, scientific facts remain subservient to the ongoing passion (forced, in many circumstances) which dominates this "sacred Holocaust discussion"? Worldwide, in many free democracies, prison awaits those who state such honest, straightforward facts. In concept, was the madness of the Spanish Inquisition all that different?

Extensive writings about WWII were published by Charles De Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin. NONE of these writings spoke of any ‘Holocaust’ or mass killings of Jews. Why? Anti-Semitic all? Amazing how this detail becomes conveniently unimportant to those reading this essay, but when you really think about it, one should feel rationally compelled to call ALL of these men utter Jew haters in order to demonstrate their bold, collective refusal to disclose this tragic event from public scrutiny. Certainly, THEY KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, BEING SO INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE WAR EFFORT. And one should not display triumph with positing the shallow excuse that, in the immediate, confusing aftermath of WWII, "not much was known". Listen folks: Churchill’s writings lasted until at least ten full years after the end of WWII. What excuse does that leave, other than to acknowledge the moral necessity to re-write history by calling all of these men unrepentant anti-Semites? Or, perhaps, instead, one should take a closer look into our most profound, "required" Holocaust teachings and realize that history, written by the victors, owes no homage to naked, objective truth. Democracy and political expediency are sometimes quite distant cousins. Or ... on the other hand ... Maybe these men simply did not know what did NOT happen!!!!

The Rwandan genocide (1994) was completely ignored by Israel (I guess that one million murdered was not as sexy as six million murdered). One would have thought that the Jews would have shown the moral way here and become eminently sensitive towards others experiencing such mass-murder (as they had supposedly experienced). I am not saying that Israel could have done anything about it in logistic terms, but to completely ignore such an event, in light of their event, seems to be more than an appallingly negative and demonstrative lack of human compassion. Ditto their continued ill-treatment of the Palestinians, who had been living in present day Israel for a thousand years before they were forced to leave decades ago, under gunfire and terrorist attacks by Zionists. Unfortunately, we are discouraged from speaking of Israel’s wrongdoings because doing so is (falsely) deemed to be 'anti-Semitic'. (Here, in the USA, their lobby AIPAC seems to own both the Democrats and Republicans.) Thankfully, the newspaper of record, the Jewish-owned NY Times, does not comply with that Zionist directive which seeks to halt all criticism of the State of Israel.

The State of Israel's inaction is even more disgusting and discreditable for how they continue to handle the Armenian Genocide which occurred back in 1915. The Jewish State never stops inferring how righteous it is, but, back then, its predecessors, the Zionist press, willingly and fully supported the Ottoman Empire as it systematically wiped out first, Armenian intellectuals, then Armenian civilians. Historians are in agreement that up to one million five hundred thousand Armenians were murdered, but, to this very day, the State of Israel finds keeping silent about this to be in their selfish interest. (In other words, if you were murdered and are NOT a Jew, the hell with you.) Please read this courageous article from the Times of Israel:

Sometimes naked TRUTH must become more venerated, more sought after, than either horror’s victims or political expediency.

A moral primacy must evolve from the aftermath of mass murder or 'holocaust'. (NO, the Jews do NOT own that word.) Such moral imperative enhances the victims’ legacies in a manner which bestows noble distinction, with unfettered dignity, when under laid with a disinterested, impartial evaluation of the event. Whether debating on an online forum or studying an event as part of a university curriculum, confusing any fluid discussion of a 'holocaust' with an ongoing, unwavering commitment to use raw passion (and facile assumptions geared, politically, to appease such passion) as ballast for one’s arguments, is to denigrate, insult, trivialize its victims by parodying them as mere caricatures. They deserve better. For posterity and historical legitimacy, they deserve transparency and openness, without becoming prey to hidden agendas which impede clarity and diffuse argumentative vitality.

Instead, an immediate, almost staged, knee-jerk denunciation of any attempt to discuss THE 'Holocaust' in terms that are fair, objective, and dispassionate, rather than in the ‘approved’ terms which are always emotionally and politically charged, as well as absolute, has been the only road leading to Rome on which travel has been permitted. Collectively, we are permitted no detour from that road, even when ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ pay the travel tolls. This passion overpowers logic. To attempt to discuss THE 'Holocaust' in terms resembling: 1) ‘discovery’ in a court room, 2) deductive, a priori reasoning conducted in a philosophy class, 3) the scientific method employed at an MIT lab, would be deemed as being equally as heretical as would have been a denunciation of the Annunciation in Spain during the Inquisition, thus warranting an auto da fe as punishment. Yes, in many countries, real prison exists for some outspoken, truth-seeking individuals who think that supplanting passion and political self-righteousness with time-tested reason and genuine factual inquiry is a legitimate, moral undertaking. (Again, piggybacking onto this neutral truth-seeking and vital cause momentum are a variety of true anti-Semites who must be called out for the trash that they are.)

If you watch this one-hour documentary. you will probably feel a political need to fabricate it as anti-Semitic; not because it is intrinsically unfair or hateful, but, rather, because it dares to challenge the political 'religion’ that we are compelled to adhere to in our directed society. When factors other than objectivity are allowed to intervene upon the solid platform of truth-seeking, freedom of speech can fall prey to being relegated as subordinate, because it does not "set the required agenda".

Youtube banned this eminent documentary for having “hate speech”. (It remains viable on this alternate website.) I defy anyone to find an honest representation of such “hate speech” in the entire 1 hour and 17 minutes.

The International Red Cross initially stated that there were about 271,000 TOTAL deaths (Jews, homosexuals, Roma) in ALL CAMPS COMBINED. These deaths were not determined as being murders. Many of these deaths were from the direct result of allied saturation bombing during the final six months of the War: starvation, and also from rampant typhus epidemics because of lack of sanitation in the final months. (Thus, despite ostensibly good intentions, sometimes liberators are not true "liberators".) And try not to fall into the comfortable trap of thinking that the Nuremberg trials were a case study in proper jurisprudence. There was much pretrial torture involved, including the crushing of testicles, concurrent with forced confessions, for assured, political expediency. Victors write history in a manner most expedient toward enhancing THEIR OWN moral image, for consumption by posterity.

Of course, if I should be corrected, I WILL be corrected, but I must advise that the International Red Cross was pressured mightily over the years to remove that glowingly minuscule death count 'inconsistency', as were the the figures reported by the World Almanac (which had, however, received all its (initial and later) Jewish population figures from Jewish organizations). Indeed, in the early fifties, at least five years after the war ended, a whole lot of Jews suddenly 'died', but the World Almanac figures were, through pressure, slowly 'revived' over the years. (Zionists take no prisoners.) There are these and a lot of other facts about this Holocaust event that become very disturbing when examined neutrally and dispassionately. Not allowing open discussion (without ad hominem attacks, or worse), is a blight upon our democracy, an insult to our Constitution, and a spit upon the corpses of those mortals who died in those camps.

Such disembowelment of fact and ability to scrutinize is not how valuable historical documentation should be portrayed, because truth eventually wins the contest, regardless of pressures and intrigue. Indeed, with time and current technology on the side of accuracy, I predict that my present forwardness will, not too distantly, be seen, anew, as having real basis, and not viewed as presenting so strikingly arrogant and false an argument as might now seem to most who are used "to obeying" and not challenging any pressured directives about this important narrative. Unfortunately, even in the USA there are subliminal threats which work upon the mind for the purpose of thwarting the ideal of such honest reflection and re-evaluations. The absence of real documentation about such a profoundly amazing, logistic Germanic feat is not to be brushed aside lightly. (Nor are the paltry, pathetic ovens engaged, supposedly, to carry out the horrific deed.) Remember, the first step toward historical accuracy it to approach such history in an objective, disinterested manner. Thus, a truly honest inspection (and introspection) should be directed not by "How could the Germans have been so cruel?" but, rather, (temporarily, leaving morality aside), "How could this mass murder of six million Jews have been possible, in wholly technical terms, without detection or actual documentation, other than by employing messy hearsay and hyperbole for both political and pecuniary gain?".

The problem, again, is that this "Holocaust" topic is not allowed to be vetted as any major event in history should be so explored. Instead, it is enshrined in passion and politics, and protected by legal threats which have had, and still have, real impetus and real bearing concerning one's safety and reputation. Especially telling is the list of countries where debating this matter is NOT ILLEGAL, notably in the USA and UK, which have not as yet fallen prey to the 'absolutist' constituency of this reported, purported event. There, apparently, free speech retains more value than political imperative (or Zionist clout). Yet, in a foreboding way, such verbal freedom exists only while obliquely merged with other, more subliminal retributive efforts which rise to the forefront in order to combat, and seek to obviate, that welcome lack of legal punishment. Ominously, even though legally permitted, negative, political efforts attacking free speech are geared to continue with recurring attempts in order to thwart an objective, transparent discussion from being permitted to manifest. Even though readers of my essay are now so acculturated into thinking that hard, rational Holocaust inquiry bears little imperative for further debate (debate needed in order to challenge this historic narrative's Zionist mastery of passion and politics), my words will remain, as many great thinkers are pondering this essay’s vital inquiry and will be forced to conclude that not all questioners are miscreants.

When the Russian invasion of Auschwitz was immanent, the Germans give the Jews a choice: either follow them back to Germany or wait to be 'liberated' by the Russians. Why did the Jews choose to go with the Germans? - David Lyga (Philadelphia 19 JUNE 2020)

The two important corroborating links are below:



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,567 • Replies: 92

Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 04:49 am
I'm not affected by your tripe but I think it's time you went. Incidentally, your syntax is an appalling, disjunctive hotpotch of prolix piffle.

Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 11:32 am
I've done a little investigating of holocaust denial, beginning with Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (CA '77). I'm familiar with most of the arguments. Yet I still tend toward belief, mainly from knowing people whose families were lost in the camps. What I haven't seen is a direct, side-by-side rebuttal of the points you (and Butz) raise. Is it because Holocaust revisionism is considered beyond contempt and simply ignored? If the revisionists are lying it would be great to see the holes in their reasoning exposed. I'm in the unhappy position of believing one thing but not really being able to debunk the criticism from the denialists because no one takes them seriously.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Walter Hinteler
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 12:53 pm
Any person who'd ever met surveyors of the Holocaust (I have), has been to concentration camps (I've been to many, worked in one, but haven't been to one of six extermination camps) I can only shake my head sadly that such as above is still one's belief.

Homosexuals were considered to be the lowest of the low in the concentration camp hierarchy. Around 60% of those died in the KZ's - the European Parliament's resolution on the Holocaust includes the persecution of homosexuals, memorials to the gay victims of Nazism have been constructed around the world.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Walter Hinteler
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 01:07 pm
@david lyga,
david lyga wrote:
If you wish to engage the Holocaust as a religion which is believed without proof, that is your prerogative.
The Holocaust is not only part of my country's history but of today's German identity.

I grew up with the knowledge of the Holocaust.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Walter Hinteler
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 01:34 pm
@david lyga,
david lyga wrote:
The USA made certain that you did.
Never noticed that.

Have a nice day.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 03:03 pm
What a freaking wack job! Cool
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 03:28 pm
I feel as though you are doing some kind of experiment where you go to a place like A2K and then make a pseudo-intellectual statement that is contrary to most peoples morals and societal accepted ideas.

First it was Covid-19 and now the Holocaust. I read your post, was ready to reply and stopped to think about why you would post this nonsense.

You posted some bait. Hopefully no one swallows your hook.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 03:55 pm
@david lyga,
Do you believe man made it to the moon?
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 04:09 pm
@david lyga,
So, if someone were to vehemently start telling us that Man could never have landed on the moon because so and so said so on a TV show and wrote a book about it you would just shrug and be non-committal to it even though you lived through it, watched it on TV, had verifiable evidence in your copies of the NY Times you would be ok with that person saying those things?

That is a crappy and long sentence but I'm not going to break it down.
Below viewing threshold (view)
david lyga
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2020 05:38 pm
A general comment for all:

I had wondered what a controversial statement would have achieved. I had conjectures and hypotheses and hunches, but, in the end, I had to try this out in order to uncover the targeted answer.

The antipathy I assumed. The need to sequester into a 'safe space' I found trivial and childless. Apparently, I am a great threat to some, but I know not why. A simple demand for objective inquiry has made me into a bete noir which should, according to some, be banished from humanity. Am I so powerful to achieve that status? Am I so smart as to be worthy of being such a threat? To me, this newfound 'power' is simply amazing and befuddling.

If I am so hated by some, why don't you simply flee away from my orbit? I am not going to visit you at midnight and force you to heed my suppositions. For someone who is only partially educated, one would think that my threat to humanity is formidable and complete and omnipotent. It is not. All I am searching for is adequate objectivity applied to a topic that, heretofore, has achieved the dubitable status of unquestioned belief. There was a time whereby religion was also a 'have to believe or else' status.

The threat which I represent is one that is removed with a mouse click. Though, those who perceive me as a threat do not wish to delete me in such a way. There is an apparent need to maintain communication with me because the dire threat which I seem to represent cannot be obfuscated or denied; it is existential and needs a nexus.

In a way, I am delighted to have such power over you; in another way, I think that my power over you is, I am genuinely sorry to say, indicative of minds which are rather weak-willed and pusillanimous. Have you no educative association with debate or controversy? Can you not come out of the fray whole and complete? Am I such a force to be reckoned with? I am not. - David Lyga
0 Replies

  1. Forums
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/11/2020 at 02:25:54