Anti-Neocons

by Friedrich Paul Berg » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:33 pm

My thanks to the commentators above.

The show should be available as a recording very soon and I will try to make it available from my website.

I did make the point that if one went along with the weird notion that gravesites of Jews should never be opened, then every site containing unknown human remains anywhere would have to be kept sealed as well for fear that some of the dead might be Jews.

I was most surprised by Muehlenkamps's firm but silly belief that there was absolutely no shortage of gasoline in Germany in 1942 and at other times. What war had he been reading about?

by TheBlackRabbitofInlé » Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:16 pm

Must have been a different WWII:

by haarp » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:37 pm

As someone who was hoping to hear an educated response to support the Holocaust claim, Roberto was a severe let down. He makes the claim that there's absolutely no proof to call into question any of the claims made by exterminationists which destroyed his credibility from the beginning because there are still questions, what, he thinks people are asking questions because it's fun? Don't insult peoples intelligence. Then goes on to say ridiculous things such as the Priest 'uncovering' 800 mass graves in Russia, who was only allowed to excavate 1 and only by removing the top soil, but proceeds to talk about how the victims were all Jews and there were thousands of bodies with German bullets laying in the soil nearby. How does one come to that conclusion so positively without any investigation whatsoever? Then he points out the flaw in his argument himself, he proceeds to say it's out of respect and religious law you cannot excavate mass graves. Ok, so why are you taking leaps of faith and assuming what's in there and why's it outrageous for people to question your claims?

Thought I'd make a list of points discussed and made during the debate:

Friedrich debated:
Fuel in short supply
Diesel gas chambers in 3 of the camps
Producer gas generators in use producing a much more lethal dose of Co2
Bodies turn red after Cyanide poisoning
No mention from eye witnesses of red, but mentions of blue colouring in the bodies
Healthy weight on average
Zyklon B taking too much time to kill a person
No proper investigation conducted to proof exterminationist claims
Allies bombing the infrastructure of Germany
Millions of Jews survived
Judicial system biased

Roberto debated:
No proof to contradict anything
Germany had plenty of fuel throughout the war, even till the last days
Nazi's were not practical
Bodies were buried in very deep pits in Sob, Trib and Bels
No forensic investigation out of respect of the dead
No forensic investigation needed
1.4 million sent to Sob, Trib and Bels
Used the term 'UFO' to try and make Friedrich appear crazy
No need to prove people died by gassing
Does not know anything related to the Allied bombing of German infrastructure during the war
Zyklon B kills in a "few minutes"
Jews were well-fed in Poland in 1943, those who were too weak were sent to the 'death camps'

by blake121666 » Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:18 am

I thought the debate was very confused and would surely confuse someone not particularly knowledgeable with the issues. Roberto actually had a few "wins" in my opinion:

1. Fritz peppered ad hominems throughout his arguments ("people such as Roberto should think how I think" - and things like that).
2. Making an argument such as "Germans would have used producer gas and not engine exhaust or Zyklon-B" isn't particularly convincing w/o some fleshing out of the position - which wasn't satisfactorily done by Fritz. Although Fritz did make a good point about the slow-release properties of Zyklon-B; which I'd think that even someone very green to the issue might investigate this claim and its implications.
3. Roberto gave more of a holistic type argument (albeit from either a delusional or mendacious perspective since his arguments are false on a thin investigation).

Here are suggestions for Fritz of what I think would make a more compelling position from him. I'm thinking of reaching people who only have a thin knowledge of the Holocaust.

1. Start off by defining the Holocaust: what it is and what it isn't and what you deny and don't deny.
2. Go over the audio of the debate and try to come up with the most succinct and straight-forward way to refute every one of Roberto's falsities. For instance, Roberto made claims that the AR camps could plausibly have stored 100s of thousands of bodies. Succinctly state the AR camp narrative (it's prima facie absurd as alleged w/o even having to analyse much).
3. Flesh out the red corpse issue you're so fond of. It's a good argument but I think it probably goes over the head of a green listener.
4. Don't be so adamant about your pet "producer gas" argument. You weren't as bad with this as you usually are. The main issue here is that the claimed gassing operations are foolishly inappropriate, not that you can think up a better way (although a quick mention of your producer gas wouldn't be bad). Zyklon-B is inappropriate because it needs to be heated and continues outgassing for many hours. Maybe even try to come up with a succinct summary of the prussian blue issues w.r.t. this. Engine exhaust is inappropriate because you don't need a whole complicated engine to produce CO which is trivially easy to do w/o an engine. No eyewitness mentioned red corpses (and in fact blue corpses were claimed) when the corpses would have been red had people died from CO. Roberto would trot out his mendacious make-it-up-as-you-go-along crap which you could use to make him look very bad on cross-examination.

I also would have liked more of a dialogue format to the debate rather than set speechifying. Rebuttals of points as they are made (in a civil way of course) would have been nice. W/o handling things this way I'm afraid that the debate was a confused jumbled mess.

by Steven Willow » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:10 am

I agree with Blake121666 somewhat about bringing a broader view of the Holohoax than just "producer gas." For example, when Roberto Muehlenkamp went on and on about how cold war enemies like the US and Soviets would not have cooperated to create a hoax during the 60s, when West German courts were conducting their investigations, Mr Berg might have revealed exactly how the Hoax was carried out and detailed the forging of documents and the torturing of witnesses. He could have used this theme to show exactly how West German courts brutalised Kurt Franz and Franz Stangl to get them to testify about gassings that never happened. I think that these West German confessions are puzzling to the general public who are not aware that West Germany was under Zionist control. Some people even believed that these West German courts were leniant and that former Nazis spewed out testimony about gas chambers without even being pressured, so Mr Berg could have educated the public in this regard.

With that said, I totally disagree with Blake121666 about the unimportance of "producer gas." Mr Berg is the formost expert in the world on what types of fuel the Germans would not use for gas chambers. He made it clear that petrol was essential to the war effort and kept German soldiers warm and healthy during those horrible Russian winters, which producer gas would not have done.
Producer gas, Mr Berg proved, would have killed more jews in a shorter time span and would have not detracted from war aims. So why would so called genocidal Nazis have used ridiculous Diesel, or strategically crucial petrol? The answer, Mr Berg clearly presented. They would have used producer gas which was cheap and available. The fact that no eyewitnesses even mentioned producer gas one time is absolute proof that the Holocaust was a Hoax. No one else has argued this like Mr Berg, and we all owe him thanks for a job well done.