Myles Power's New Video on Germar Rudolf

[fireofice]

Myles Power's put out a new video titled An Introduction to Germar Rudolf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vnWQQY7UY

Some here may remember him as doing videos on Leuchter and "debunking" Holocaust denial. Several responses to him have been made so far. It seems he is going to make more videos on this.

[Lamprecht]

The thread:

Myles Power - "Debunking Holocaust Denial" video series
viewtopic.php?t=12438

I'll be checking out the video later.

Some here may remember him as doing videos on Leuchter and "debunking" Holocaust denial. Several responses to him have been made so far. It seems he is going to make more videos on this.

[Otium]

This kind of thing is very annoying. Myles seems to be very confident that Germar's book is "unconvincing", and yet no historian or chemist has been able to debunk him. Why does Myles think he'd be any different? In the video he holds up a copy of the book, so he must be aware that Germar thoroughly responded to all his previous critics. SURELY he can't and won't trot out Richard Green.

I think my problem is that I presume people are more good-faith than they are. I know that might be a bit hard to believe since I've discussed many bad-faith people before in various threads, but honestly every time I come across somebody who ends up lying, or acting in bad faith it boggles my mind. Yet perhaps it isn't necessarily conscious. I'm not sure. Because my assumption is that SURELY Myles Power will have to try and bring something NEW to the table. . . . But what could it possibly be? In regards to Leutcher, his video was from what I saw, completely unoriginal. I just don't know what else he can do.

In any case. I would recommend Germar be made aware of this. I think he should respond to this video, and the subsequent video when it's released. I have already emailed him, perhaps others should too. Although I don't like the idea of bombarding him, these videos often do more harm for general consensus, despite being misinformed then they would otherwise if there is a response out there. Perhaps Germar might make a documentary like he did on Lipstadt? Probably not, there are other projects that undoubtedly require his attention. But it would be nice and probably more suitable in terms of a response, as one can then play the video and make a point by point rebuttal.

[fireofice]

At the end of the video, Myles Power repeats lies about the park incident by repeating lies the officer made as well as lying or at least misinformed about other things. All the info on what happened in the park can be read in Germar's book Moral Turpitude. He then criticizes Germar's defense of himself by comparing it with his method to deny the holocaust. This is just silly. Both his defense of himself and his holocaust methodology are perfectly sound.

[Lamprecht]

So Myles shows that he has Germar's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf) yet the entire time he doesn't argue about anything in the book. In fact, some of his arguments are addressed in the book itself.

He trots out the old/debunked claim that Rudolf used pseudonyms supposedly to cite himself deceptively. GR already addressed this before: https://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html

Quoting Pen Names

McCarthy argues that every time I quote a work I have written using a pen name without expressively stating that this is me, I do so in order to use these authors' works "as authorities to bolster" my own arguments. That is untrue.

1. If I revealed a pen name every time I quoted it, what would be the use of pen names? If McCarthy agrees that using pen names is an acceptable measure to avoid social persecution and political prosecution, why then should it be dishonest not to reveal the pen name?
2. From time to time I indeed have indicated who is hiding behind certain pen names. Once you start doing so, you would have to do it always. But by doing so, I would have to expose others as well, who are hiding behind pen names and who would then immediately be exposed to heavy criminal prosecution in Europe. Does McCarthy want me to be responsible that people are being sent to prison because I have to be always honest and tell everybody the truth about every pen name? Would he have demanded this from dissident in the former USSR? Why is he demanding it from dissidents in the present People's Republic of Continental Europe?
3. Frequently I get chided for revealing my own pen names, simply because people think I should not give my readers the impression that I want to impress the public with the amount and importance of work that I am doing. So I stopped it. I don't want to appear arrogant.
4. In all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name, I never do it to say: "look, this expert has the same opinion as I have", but rather to say "this fact or argument was proven and published there."
5. Quoting works in science follows a certain formal procedure, as McCarthy and Dr. Green should know. The background of it is to enable the reader to find the quoted source. That means in our case that you refer to the author's name as it is to be found in the libraries' database. Giving a possible real name for a pen name that is not included in the library data is not additional data that enables anybody to find the work quoted better than without the real name given.

Trademark Pen Names

Yes, I used to use a pen name similar to one used by a German journalist as part of his smear campaigns against those he hates. Anton Maegerle, alias Gernot Moderi, is one of the most evil journalistic promoters of political prosecution and censorship in Germany. He is one of those journalists who incite the public to take all sorts of illegal measures against those who are deemed to be "right wingers." To be clear: I am not attacking him for his own political views. I am attacking him for promoting the deterioration of human rights in Germany.

I wrote an article in a name similar to his, in which I described the illegal censorship in Germany and its effects on the German society, i.e. I did argue from the opposite position as Maegerle alias Gernot Moderi is doing. I wanted to tease him, the fighter against human rights, by linking him to a work in favor of human rights. I read in McCarthy's work that I succeeded. Moderi had to explain and defend himself, he had to make clear to his friends and allies that he is still fighting against human rights. I love to see that my small revenge succeeded. But the moral buck is always passed to those who fight against human rights, i.e. for censorship and vilification. Because there is no trademark protection for pen names, I cannot see why anybody could be offended by this. Exposing Gernot Moderi morally is pure fun.

Phony Doctorates

The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title "Die Zeit lügt!," published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This is the fairest article about the Holocaust controversy that has appeared so far, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always had the means to check both point of views. Nobody else has ever done that before or since -- on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of the authors given (H. K. Westphal, Dipl.-Ingenieur, Dr. W. Kretschmer, Jurist, Dr. Ch. Konrad, Historiker, Dr. R. Scholz, Chemiker und Pharmakologe), nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.

Myles also claims that Dr. Richard Green wrote a "Scathing rebuttal" of Rudolf. Rudolf has since replied to this however, with no response. Myles deceptively ignores this. See the chapter "Green sees red" in the book "Auschwitz lies" (PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/18-al.pdf)

Myles also claimed that Irving didn't use Rudolf's report in his trial because Irving believed it was "utter nonsense" - is there any evidence at all for that? Seems like Myles simply made that story up entirely.

He also obsesses over the Leuchter report again, which I don't understand. This was dealt with in the previous thread I linked to. He also spent a lot of time on Germar's arrest, which has nothing to do with the topic either.

What really is there to debunk? He held up the book and not once did he quote anything from the text or try to debunk anything.

[hermod]

This kind of thing is very annoying. Myles seems to be very confident that Germar's book is "unconvincing", and yet no historian or chemist has been able to debunk him. Why does Myles think he'd be any different? In the video he holds up a copy of the book, so he must be aware that Germar thoroughly responded to all his previous critics. SURELY he can't and won't trot out Richard Green.

He doesn't think he'd be different. He just knows that posturing is often more efficient than arguing. That's a widespread deception technique. Solid arguments replaced by charismatic arrogance. More than enough to convince many people that the Holocaust case is closed, especially when one side is systematically called "deniers" and portrayed as biased haters. Impressive enough to keep Generation Z away from all the revisionist works. Unfortunately, that kind of shit is a very efficient "Move along, there's nothing to see here!"...

[Revision]

If Myles isn't attacking the arguments of some less competent revisionists (like Leuchter and Rizoli), he just brushes them aside.

[Hektor]

So Myles shows that he has Germar's book "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" (PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf) yet the entire time he doesn't argue about anything in the book. In fact, some of his arguments are addressed in the book itself.

He trots out the old/debunked claim that Rudolf used pseudonyms supposedly to cite himself deceptively. GR already addressed this before: https://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html .....
Myles also claims that Dr. Richard Green wrote a "Scathing rebuttal" of Rudolf. Rudolf has since replied to this however, with no response. Myles deceptively ignores this. See the chapter "Green sees red" in the book "Auschwitz lies" (PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/18-al.pdf)

Myles also claimed that Irving didn't use Rudolf's report in his trial because Irving believed it was "utter nonsense" - is there any evidence at all for that? Seems like Myles simply made that story up entirely.

He also obsesses over the Leuchter report again, which I don't understand. This was dealt with in the previous thread I linked to. He also spent a lot of time on Germar's arrest, which has nothing to do with the topic either.

What really is there to debunk? He held up the book and not once did he quote anything from the text or try to debunk anything.

1. Bringing up side issues and dwelling on them, is a clear sign that one doesn't have a case.
2. Instead of trying to debunk a dispute, why not demonstrate that the thesis one tries to defend holds any water.

The thing is that the Holocaust Promotors can't remotely prove their thesis. That's why they have to attack the critics personally... Sometimes they do that even in a veiled way by trying to ridicule the works of critics. This is actually a common modus operandi in academia. Instead of directly attacking the person, you'll see them getting pedantic about minor irrelevant mistakes, forming strawmen and questioning whether the person is intellectually accomplished enough to address or understand the issue.... Well, it's mostly that they aren't themselves.

Concerning Leuchter and Rudolf Reports. Leuchter's was a pioneering work, which made more mistakes (which Rudolf also pointed out), but still was on the money there. The physical remains don't support the homicidal gassing thesis, plain and simple. The Holocaust promotors can't produce a report that demonstrates from the physical evidence that industrial style homicidal gassings occurred as alleged. That's why they tried to turn things around by arguing why there is no evidence and by putting the critics into a bad light. People that don't understand how something needs to be proven to be acceptable as a fact will of course be impressed by this. Especially, if they already have been primed and tricked into believing the narrative by media and school indoctrination as most people in Western countries actually have. But that's how scams work, it would be a big no, no for proper historiography, though. That this is still done, demonstrates that the story is a hoax. Let's face it. They don't have corpses of gassed people, they don't have the murder weapon, can't even explain how it could possibly work and the testimony they use is full of implausibilities and contradictions. Hence all they can use is innuendo, fallacies, manipulative tactics and mockery of opponents. This can be very effective and one can keep a scam going with it. But it actually proves that their claims are untrue.

[Otium]

What really is there to debunk? He held up the book and not once did he quote anything from the text or try to debunk anything.

Because, as he says at the beginning of the video, it's an introduction to Germar before he intends to respond to Germar's 'unconvincing book' in a subsequent video(s).

Like I said. He'd trot out Richard Green, which is insane because he has Germar's book and therein lies an entire section on Green and his poor arguments which are, for the most part speculative and unscientific.

Just wait for Myles to trot out the bullshit about 'blue wall paint' or, Green's conjectural argument that the blue splotches are the result of 'items “soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN” were leaned against these walls, thus causing the formation of the blue stains' (G. Rudolf, Chemistry of Auschwitz, p. 349); this is of course despite the fact that the Prussian blue has also formed on patches on the outside of the delousing chambers and supposedly only penetrates millimetres into the wall!

His method, I think, will be to use the arguments of those who Germar has already refuted, and by holding up Germar's book and not disclosing these refutations - or at most disingenuously presenting them to his audience - will proclaim that there's nothing to see, and that nobody should read Germar's book. Then he can just handwave away the inconvenient reality the book presents with his hack job of a video.

Myles also claimed that Irving didn't use Rudolf's report in his trial because Irving believed it was "utter nonsense" - is there any evidence at all for that? Seems like Myles simply made that story up entirely.

This isn't true. But even if it was, since when did Irving's opinion on such matters mean anything? Seems like Myles is using David Irving here when it suits him, whereas he would dismiss him in any other circumstance. What actually happened is that Irving requested an appeal and to submit Germar's report into evidence, but it was refused by the court. If I recall right, he explained this in his discussion at the 'Real History Conference' in 2001: https://archive.org/details/DavidIrvingLipstadtTrialTheTruth_201803

In fact, in Irving's final address to the court, he cites Germar's (and others) research:

"Krema II [building at Birkenau] has been protected from these outside elements; it is possible to crawl beneath the famous roof [of the alleged homicidal "gas chamber" there] -- about which roof I shall have more to say -- but neither Jan Sehn, nor Fred Leuchter, nor James Roth, nor Germar Rudolf, nor any of the subsequent investigations found any significant traces of cyanide compounds present in the fabric of this building, despite the eye-witness accounts of that same chamber having been used for the gassing of half a million people."

In the article written by Costas Zaverdinos, 'Suppressing Debate about Auschwitz: The Rudolf Case, Irving's Lost Libel Suit and the Future of Revisionism', there is no indication that Germar's report was dismissed as nonsense:

In my view, Irving's worst blunder was to neglect the work of Germar Rudolf, who did not appear as an expert witness.137 Neither his own report nor his technical opinions on Van Pelt's report138 were placed in Irving's discovery. At Irving's request Rudolf wrote a "Critique of the 'Findings on Justification' by Judge Gray," for use in a possible appeal.139 However, nearly everything Rudolf wrote there on the chemical and physical aspects of gassing could already be found in the Rudolf Report and his other pre-trial writings.140 Often trumpeted by Irving as a more thorough study than Leuchter's,141 the Rudolf Report was never submitted, and this tied Gray's hands in forming his judgment. On the morning of the ninth day, Irving promised to have it couriered for the afternoon session, but it failed to arrive.142 The next day there was a repeat of this tragicomedy as the "dozen copies" of the "glossy blue publication" that should have been handed to his Lordship were "through an oversight... not listed in discovery," for which Irving apologized.143

Also see the relevant notes, nos. 137, 140 and 142.

[hermod]

Don't you think that illustrating a video about a scholar with pictures of him doing gym workouts is a very clear sign of utter dishonesty and gross manipulation?

[Lamprecht]

His method, I think, will be to use the arguments of those who Germar has already refuted, and by holding up Germar's book and not disclosing these refutations - or at most disingenuously presenting them to his audience - will proclaim that there's nothing to see, and that nobody should read Germar's book. Then he can just handwave away the inconvenient reality the book presents with his hack job of a video.

He also made a big deal about "funding deniers" by buying the book, even though it's a freely available PDF. He doesn't want anyone to know they can get it for free.

[Otium]

He also made a big deal about "funding deniers" by buying the book, even though it's a freely available PDF. He doesn't want anyone to know they can get it for free.

Assuming he knows the books are also listed for free in a PDF format, then yes, absolutely. Otherwise he's just incompetent and has no clue that these books are listed for free, which surely impugns his ability to do basic research.

It's a stupid non-argument too. It's a presupposition which assumes that "deniers" are not only wrong, but morally contemptable and thus shouldn't be "funded". This is only "convincing" if you already believe these things. It's not an objective argument or valid criticism, it's just whinging from an arbitrary moral vantagepoint.

This shows (as if it wasn't and hasn't been obvious in every other case) that people like Myles Power cannot pretend, as they often try to, that they're objective and care about "truth".

[Lamprecht]

From Myles' website:
https://mylespower.co.uk/2022/06/11/an- ... ar-rudolf/

Apparently he bought the book 2 years ago. When is he going to debunk any of the content? From his website:

"Hello Internet! My name is Myles Power and I am a chemist from the North East of England, who loves to make videos trying to counter pseudoscience and debunk quackery in all of its various forms! From the hype around GMOs through to Atrazine turning the freakin' frogs gay, I'll try to cut through the nonsense that's out there!"

[Otium]

From Myles' website:
https://mylespower.co.uk/2022/06/11/an- ... ar-rudolf/

Apparently he bought the book 2 years ago. When is he going to debunk any of the content? From his website:

"Hello Internet! My name is Myles Power and I am a chemist from the North East of England, who loves to make videos trying to counter pseudoscience and debunk quackery in all of its various forms! From the hype around GMOs through to Atrazine turning the freakin' frogs gay, I'll try to cut through the nonsense that's out there!"

Interesting that a chemist would just repeat the arguments of others. We'll see I suppose.

From Myles' article, or script? I think this is worth responding to:

The reason I bring attention to Germar’s lewdness is not just because it is hilarious, but because it is a perfect example of how he and his fellow revisionists construct their arguments. They like to get bogged down in the minutiae whilst purposely ignoring the bigger picture. Here, Germar’s entire counter argument centers on the arresting officer’s rough estimate of where he was relative to Germar at the children’s playground. What he does not mention is that the policeman testified that he physically saw Germar’s genitals, that Germar originally told the officer that it’s “OK to exercise naked in public in Germany”, that his original defence was that he was caught whilst changing into his running shorts, and that he had a bottle of baby oil on him when he was arrested. He also does not mention to the 188 people who parted $13,452 on his GoFundMe page that he was banned from the park in 2014 after previously being caught “exercising” naked. What I am basically saying is that cyanide-based residue is not the only evidence we have of homicidal gas chambers and by allowing ourselves to get bogged down on the insignificant, we miss the bigger picture.

Sounds like the set-up of an abandonment of position. The point is Myles, that WITHOUT the proof of cyanide residue, the other "evidence" must be explained as something else, as has been done. In that area you need more than a degree in chemistry. It's no longer a hard science, but entwined with historical knowledge which is always going to be more difficult to construct because you're dealing with people. I'm curious as to what he considers this "other evidence" that "doesn't require cyanide-based residue".

Regarding the incident at a park. It was not during broad daylight and there were no children. No matter what you might think, Germar was obviously not intending to behave illicitly.

If Myles weren't dishonest then he would know that Germar's book has a whole section on the 2014 incident (G. Rudolf, Moral Turpitude, pp. 45 ff.). He also discusses the reason he uses baby oil, which is: because it's cheaper than standard lotions, lasts longer, is 'hypoallergenic, free of all other chemical nonsense and smells nice.' (G. Rudolf, Moral Turpitude, p. 50). The reason he uses it to exercise is to sooth calluses, particularly on his hands. So, clearly we need to lock Germar up and throw away the key. . .

Anyway.

Myles just says that Germar 'had it [baby oil] on him when he was arrested' as if this is supposed to mean something in and of itself.

If Myles had said Germar had condoms, maybe a dildo and nudie mags on him when he was arrested then he wouldn't need to elaborate. But in this case the reasons for why one would have something like baby oil on them isn't so easily discernible. Let's say, perhaps, instead of baby oil Germar had peanut butter with him, what would that imply to Myles? I'm sure it'd be easy to hazard a guess. Obviously there could be many answers, but Myles would like the audience to search their minds for the worst one without saying anything himself. It's a cheap and unconvincing way to defend against anyone who points out that he's clearly trying to insinuate something which cannot be proven and he wouldn't dare say. Which is that he thinks Germar was engaged in some weird perverted, sexual ritual of his own making. Total nonsense. Actually, I bet Myles don't believe this, but it serves his cause to try and insinuate to those who would believe it, sincerely or tactically, that this is the case. The only people who would believe it, actually don't, but like Myles would merely say such things to smear someone they don't like and perhaps to start rumours about them. "Didn't you hear? Germar Rudolf that infamous Holocaust denier is a pervert who struts around naked at children's playgrounds and flashes his genitals to unsuspecting strangers! You wouldn't want to defend that guy would you!?"

To answer Myles' stupid question about why Germar didn't feel the need to mention the 2014 incident on his GoFundMe, it's because it wasn't relevant. Why would Germar mention this on his GoFundMe, when on that GoFundMe he was talking about the current incident and the book he was compiling which would contain a discussion of the 2014 incident anyway? He was not trying to hide it as Myles pretends, he only thinks that because he would like to and because he's not doing proper research. It makes no sense to discuss on GoFundMe what happened some 6-7 years prior, when the topic was the current situation as it was in 2020. GoFundMe isn't the place for one to do a deep dive into every little piece of information past present and future. This is just another case of Myles being disingenuous.

I'm also curious as to what he thinks Germar was doing, if not exercising, because the scare quotes around the word "exercising" implies that Germar was not doing what he claimed to. Of course, Myles has no evidence for anything else, nor does he have reason to think Germar was engaged in anything nefarious. He might find it funny to point and stare at someone's habits which he finds odd because he dislikes them (not very liberal of him, do that to a transgender person or homosexual and see how Myles would react with disdain), but if we look at the "big picture - to throw it back in Myles' face - then it really does just come down to personal idiosyncrasies and perhaps cultural differences. Personally how Germar chooses to exercise isn't at all something I would do, it's not my cup of tea, but if he likes to swim naked I guess that's just what he likes to do. It's utterly inconsequential to literally anything, not to mention the topic at hand.

Although the next time some leftist with a fetish for getting electrocuted in the nipples, pretending to be a dog and locked up in a cage, or believes they're really a woman in a mans body or vice versa - and they try to lecture me - I will shame and dismiss them for their strange sexual and lifestyle preferences which I find to be insane, gross and laughable. Any man caught wearing a dress, or a woman dressed too scantily for my liking, from now on, I declare in the name of Myles Power, to be opposed to such a disgusting display of lewdness. Although I'm sure Myles would have a problem with that.

The only reason Myles bothers with any of this off-topic discussion of Germar, is because he's trying to assassinate his character and smear him as not being serious enough to dispute the Holocaust narrative.