The Story of Mike Enoch Backing out of a Holocaust Debate with me

[HistorySpeaks]

See: https://historyspeaks.substack.com/p/on ... weak-knees

Mike wriggling out of his commitment to debating contrasts with Thomas Dalton, who promptly honored his commitment to debating me.


[mod edit: Adding a link to Mike's post on the matter]
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14468&p=104670#p104670

[Butterfangers]

See: https://historyspeaks.substack.com/p/on ... weak-knees

Mike wriggling out of his commitment to debating contrasts with Thomas Dalton, who promptly honored his commitment to debating me.

Well, I can help explain this:

'Enoch' is a commentator. Dalton is an actual Revisionist.

Glad I could clear that up.

[Hektor]

See: https://historyspeaks.substack.com/p/on ... weak-knees

Mike wriggling out of his commitment to debating contrasts with Thomas Dalton, who promptly honored his commitment to debating me.

Well, I can help explain this:

'Enoch' is a commentator. Dalton is an actual Revisionist.

Glad I could clear that up.

I think Peinovich also got other commitments that may be time consuming as well.
And indeed, he didn't do first hand research. Basically has to rely on information from others. He knows the information from exterminationists as well. And despite those people being prolific writers, what they present isn't exactly overwhelming. It puts a great emphasis on impressions and emotion though. But when it comes to verifiable evidence it gets meager, very meager.

[Archie]

There are a few bits that caught my eye.

To understand the source of the false claim that I ‘insist on having a pro-antifa Jewish moderator,’ one has to go way back to 2020, when Mike and I first agreed to debate Holocaust denial. ...

As a premise of the debate, Avi and I were to produce documentary evidence for the Holocaust and send it to Mike and Striker. We were unable to do this until September 2021, because the COVID epidemic led to the closure of archives and borders.

So then you are claiming that in order to prepare for this debate, this required you to do cutting-edge archival research? That is hilarious. This is a stunning admission on your part as it implies that the mountain of books and documents available in print or online as of 2020 was insufficient to prove the holocaust. The implication that the crucial evidence is not yet available to the public even in the 21st century but is languishing in an archive somewhere is simply absurd. Also, it sounds like you are admitting to delaying this debate for over a year, so there's blame on your side as well for it not happening. Think about it from their perspective. You took over a year getting your material together and then you dumped a bunch of untranslated documents on them.

Naturally, most of the documents are in German, a language Mike cannot read. Notwithstanding the hubris of Mike purporting to be competent to ‘debunk the Holocaust’ without knowing German—this means he cannot do any original research, and can only recite the arguments made by other deniers—I have, after initial reluctance, repeatedly offered to translate the documents for him into English.

Looks like you're more interested in trying to flex on them with your German instead of simply trying to get your evidence across. But again I will reiterate my first point which is that it is amazing that you would suggest that the thousands of holocaust books available in English plus online material are not enough to prove the holocaust. What this tells me is that you know that most of the traditional "proofs" like the Hoess confession are easily debunked and so you are trying to come up with novel material in hopes that no one will be familiar with it. But in that case you are actually contradicting your side's claim that the holocaust was definitively proved many decades ago.

I would add that even many full-time scholars do not necessarily have strong language skills and many people online inflate their abilities, pretending to know languages well when they are really only at a schoolboy level and are mostly using Google translate. At any rate, there are many revisionists who know German and many for whom it is a native language, so you can't say revisionists as a whole are deficient in this regard. Notice also that revisionists do not play these sorts of games with saying they have secret untranslated documents and you just have to trust them. They just make their points!

P.S. You're not supposed to start threads just to drop links.

From the rules:

If you post a quote, a link from or to a book, a news article, magazine story, a photo / image, film / movie, another website, etc., you must also comment on the quote or the link content. Tell the forum what you find wrong, compelling, unique, or important about the reference content. Flippant, overly brief comments are not acceptable. We want commentary and discussion.

[HistorySpeaks]

Think about it from their perspective. You took over a year getting your material together and then you dumped a bunch of untranslated documents on them.

I'm open to the idea that we should have just changed the rules so as to not have such a massive delay. That's reasonable.

But again: Mike agreed to do a 1v1 debate with me way back in fall 2021, at which point all the documents are in. At this point it's clearly he who is preventing the debate from happening.

[Hektor]

There are a few bits that caught my eye.

To understand the source of the false claim that I ‘insist on having a pro-antifa Jewish moderator,’ one has to go way back to 2020, when Mike and I first agreed to debate Holocaust denial. ...

As a premise of the debate, Avi and I were to produce documentary evidence for the Holocaust and send it to Mike and Striker. We were unable to do this until September 2021, because the COVID epidemic led to the closure of archives and borders.

So then you are claiming that in order to prepare for this debate, this required you to do cutting-edge archival research? That is hilarious. This is a stunning admission on your part as it implies that the mountain of books and documents available in print or online as of 2020 was insufficient to prove the holocaust. The implication that the crucial evidence is not yet available to the public even in the 21st century but is languishing in an archive somewhere is simply absurd. Also, it sounds like you are admitting to delaying this debate for over a year, so there's blame on your side as well for it not happening. Think about it from their perspective. You took over a year getting your material together and then you dumped a bunch of untranslated documents on them.
....

Given the tons of Holocaust literature that were written, promoted, distributed, etc. This is indeed an astonishing statement. One would expect that there was somewhere a booklet that would state what they mean by Holocaust. E.g Extermination Program, Homicidal Gassings, 6 Million. And then list you the evidence that they have for this:
E.g. indicating by documents that there was a plan to exterminate Jews. E.g. orders that are clear and concise on this. Something those involved would be able to use in case they'd be accused of murder.

Reports on a thorough forensic investigation on homicidal gas chambers including documents and detailed descriptions of artefacts and procedures.

Forensic evidence for people killed by those homicidal gassings. Again detailed description and a summary for this.

Virtually nothing of this sort exists. It's always a lot of story telling, cherry-picking of documents, photos etc. And well. Simply assume "The Holocaust Happened" and interpret anything inline with this paradigm.

[Butterfangers]

So then you are claiming that in order to prepare for this debate, this required you to do cutting-edge archival research? That is hilarious. This is a stunning admission on your part as it implies that the mountain of books and documents available in print or online as of 2020 was insufficient to prove the holocaust.

Given the tons of Holocaust literature that were written, promoted, distributed, etc. This is indeed an astonishing statement.

I think the goal is simply to create barriers, much the same as the role of fallacy in any argument. HS knows that Mike Peinovich is not likely to travel to an archive in Europe (or wherever), be allowed entry, then to spend hours/days there first locating the documents cited by HS and then seeking to validate, criticize, refute them with other documents in said archive, many if not all of which are in languages Mike would require a trustworthy translator for, by his side at all times.

It makes perfect sense that, if the Holocaust happened beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is already plenty of evidence in public circulation which can conclusively prove it. Ask any historian today and they would tell you this is the case. Yet, HS makes this move to claim a "gotcha!" moment on Mike based on the latter's inability (or improbability) to access the documents cited.

Years ago, I debated with Nick Terry at the JREF forum. I demolished him on many key points before we reached a point in the debate where he relied almost entirely on citing archival sources which I obviously had no access to. It was a stalemate, at least on my end, but he was able to portray a semblance of victory since I could not respond to many of the points he held up with those sources. At that time, I had yet to read the work by Mattogno/Graf/Kues which came out in 2013 (?) and proved how much of a plagiarist Terry et al actually are, demonstrating clearly that they had not even seen many of the sources they had cited in their "bloggers' manifesto".

It's obvious that using the barriers to archival sources to Revisionists (financial, professional, social, legal, or otherwise) has become a favorite tactic by establishment defenders who fail to sustain the "Holocaust" with the historical record that has already been published. It's taking a situation where the table has obviously been tilted and using it unfairly to their advantage.

Invariably, when Revisionists have had the time and resources to attempt to validate and look critically at any of the archival sources provided by establishment historians (or those who pretend to be), they find key contextual elements that tell a different story than what those establishmentarians had portrayed it as. It's been a game of "catch-up" over many years since, given the disparity in resources, orthodoxy has had the time and ability to produce new documents as though they necessarily bolster their narrative and it takes Revisionists years, in most cases, to circle back around to those documents and refute/demolish them entirely.

But as Archie points out, it's quite clear that these documents have all been demolished thus far, evidenced in part by the fact that HS felt a need to do "cutting-edge" research just to debate with a layman like Mike 'Enoch'. Hilarious, indeed.

[HistorySpeaks]

At that time, I had yet to read the work by Mattogno/Graf/Kues which came out in 2013 (?) and proved how much of a plagiarist Terry et al actually are, demonstrating clearly that they had not even seen many of the sources they had cited in their "bloggers' manifesto".

Can you point me to a copy of MGK's response to Terry and the HC guys?

I am quite sure Terry is not a "plagiarist," but am interested in the back-and-forth.

[Hektor]

So then ....aust.

Given the tons of Holocaust literature that were written, promoted, distributed, etc. This is indeed an astonishing statement.

I think the goal is simply to create barriers, much the same as the role of fallacy in any argument. HS knows that Mike Peinovich is not likely to travel to an archive in Europe (or wherever), be allowed entry, then to spend hours/days there first locating the documents cited by HS and then seeking to validate, criticize, refute them with other documents in said archive, many if not all of which are in languages Mike would require a trustworthy translator for, by his side at all times.

Ultimately one has to depend on other there. That did do the research can provide the documents, verified them, etc.
And that is of course a challenge. But if there was really some thorough evidence, they would have shown this long ago. Every detail for it. Given the nature of the claims there would have to be *physical* evidence. And there it can become close to undisputable.

It makes perfect sense that, if the Holocaust happened beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is already plenty of evidence in public circulation which can conclusively prove it. Ask any historian today and they would tell you this is the case. Yet, HS makes this move to claim a "gotcha!" moment on Mike based on the latter's inability (or improbability) to access the documents cited.

As I said a couple of times already. Instead what you get is:
a) books that assume the full narrative to be true a priori and then try to maneuver some details into it.
b) use snippets of evidence in terms of innuendo. Deportation Notice? "Proves" that those people were gassed in XYZ.

And yes, 'hide and seek' with the evidence. Pick something out, say it proves the Holocaust, and have the audience that can't refute or contradict it with confidence, be wondering what to say and what to believe.

Years ago, I debated with Nick Terry at the JREF forum. I demolished him on many key points before we reached a point in the debate where he relied almost entirely on citing archival sources which I obviously had no access to. It was a stalemate, at least on my end, but he was able to portray a semblance of victory since I could not respond to many of the points he held up with those sources. At that time, I had yet to read the work by Mattogno/Graf/Kues which came out in 2013 (?) and proved how much of a plagiarist Terry et al actually are, demonstrating clearly that they had not even seen many of the sources they had cited in their "bloggers' manifesto".

It's obvious that using the barriers to archival sources to Revisionists (financial, professional, social, legal, or otherwise) has become a favorite tactic by establishment defenders who fail to sustain the "Holocaust" with the historical record that has already been published. It's taking a situation where the table has obviously been tilted and using it unfairly to their advantage.

Indeed, the playing field is far from level there. And those that get access privileges will use their pride in this in debates. Think that they know better, because "I was in the archive" and "I got a title", etc.

Invariably, when Revisionists have had the time and resources to attempt to validate and look critically at any of the archival sources provided by establishment historians (or those who pretend to be), they find key contextual elements that tell a different story than what those establishmentarians had portrayed it as. It's been a game of "catch-up" over many years since, given the disparity in resources, orthodoxy has had the time and ability to produce new documents as though they necessarily bolster their narrative and it takes Revisionists years, in most cases, to circle back around to those documents and refute/demolish them entirely.

But as Archie points out, it's quite clear that these documents have all been demolished thus far, evidenced in part by the fact that HS felt a need to do "cutting-edge" research just to debate with a layman like Mike 'Enoch'. Hilarious, indeed.

The trick is to find harsh-sounding documents and then extrapolate from this. It works, because people nowadays have no idea anymore about the war time conditions, hence the information is offered decontextualized, nay, given another context in form of the Holocaust that is presumed a priori.

Thorough refutation is indeed laborious. Meanwhile lots of the published stuff does indeed work as a refutation of previous claims. E.g. The Auschwitz orders indicated what was going on there and it doesn't really sound like an extermination program.

[Archie]

Can you point me to a copy of MGK's response to Terry and the HC guys?

I am quite sure Terry is not a "plagiarist," but am interested in the back-and-forth.

At one point it was Holocaust Handbook #28 but Germar Rudolf replaced it with a more concise volume on the AR camps. He felt it was too long and lacked readability.

https://archive.org/details/carlo-mattogno-thomas-kues-jurgen-graf-castle-hill-publishers-2015-the-extermina

Regarding the plagiarism, MGK give repeated examples of where Terry and team provide pretentious archival citations but where they actually just used a common secondary source like Arad (or Mattogno). In some cases they reproduce typos in Mattogno's citations.

[curioussoul]

Can you point me to a copy of MGK's response to Terry and the HC guys?

I am quite sure Terry is not a "plagiarist," but am interested in the back-and-forth.

MGK literally cite hundreds of individual examples of plagiarized archival references, quotations and sources - often times including minor mistakes and spelling errors. It's mildly ironic that you accuse Enoch of copying revisionist arguments, when most of your arguments are copied from the HC blog, which in turn have been demolished by revisionists for decades.

[hermod]

https://postimg.cc/y3cD21Yn

[Hektor]

Can you point me to a copy of MGK's response to Terry and the HC guys?

I am quite sure Terry is not a "plagiarist," but am interested in the back-and-forth.

MGK literally cite hundreds of individual examples of plagiarized archival references, quotations and sources - often times including minor mistakes and spelling errors. It's mildly ironic that you accuse Enoch of copying revisionist arguments, when most of your arguments are copied from the HC blog, which in turn have been demolished by revisionists for decades.

I take it a source-book on archival references And well. Forged or 'no-source' documents also deserve an overview.

I should add that arguments or at least their structure will get copied by others. It's the nature of debates. The thing with the 'holocaust-theme' is that it can get a rather complex issue, giving that supposedly millions were involved. And well, a physical removal policy would involve millions of people as well. No 'extermination' narrative needed. So the theatrics of picking documents and then saying 'look, this proves the Holocaust' maybe persuasive to the gullible, but they are not convincing to a rational person.