Why does everyone believe in conspiracy theories nowadays?

I guess I was lucky in that way. My so-called parents never taught me or told me shit about anything. Lived with my gramma in my youth--kinda raised myself. Did a shit job of of it sometimes.

 

I was raised in a non-religious family who never practiced any religious observances. And my dad left when I was 6. Not much chance for brainwashing, esp growing up in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic milieu as NYC.

I learned to question authority whenever things seem wrong or immoral or just another NYC con artist b.s.ing his way thru life (you know who I mean)

 

It seems those who are most isolated geographically, physically, emotionally, mentally tend to have more extreme views.

Unfortunately, social networking has allowed these socially reclusive people to climb out of their socially limited environments, and spread their extreme beliefs to a wide audience who gobble up whatever gets them more followers, and of course money for their causes/grievances/political aspirations.

And that's when the conmen smell money. They can spot the fools and know how to take advantage of their ignorance. It always amazed me to see preachers using God to enrich themselves shamelessly. Nowadays, it's political pundits and political performance artists.

 

"I love the uneducated." ----and they love you--chump.

 

Thanks for a great post!
You nailed it!
That is the reason I put up the Wannasee conference as a little 'Orthodoxy' test.....to see who would 'imagine' they saw proof of extermination, (as the claimants do) and everyone, @Tishomingo @MeAgain, and @scratcho, failed but apparently you my be the only one that passed since the only way anyone would be capable of coming to the conclusion Wannasse says anything what so ever about 'extermination' is if their Dick Tracy secret decoders are working overtime and they completly fail to look at or give the facts an honest analysis!

Thats how orthodoxy works!

https://www.collinsdictionary.com › us › dictionary › english › political-orthodoxy
Political orthodoxy definition and meaning - Collins Dictionary
1 day agoPolitical orthodoxy, foreign policy, fiscal and legal practices and morality were the most sensitive issues, and any views contrary to doctrine on these subjects led to bans.

In this case subject to ridicule and condemnation despite lacking facts, even a nonview cross examination.

Thats when a premise becomes their religion and the brain is not capable of hearing anything that could shake their 'beliefs', because to them their beliefs are facts they fail to distinguish between the two.

 

The holocaust is not my "religion." I just drop in to post those clips I post because I've never seen anyone so adamant about a subject as you are. I'm not much of a fanatic on anything--my disdain for republican thought and action would be close to making me a fanatic in that area. As far as the rest of it goes--I don't give a shit about the holocaust--of course I feel bad about anyone that goes through the problems that war brings ,including all those poor folks pictured ,and anyone and everyone that has serious problems of ANY KIND in their lives. I've met people like you in my life---you MUST BE RIGHT at any and all costs. I made a mistake even coming into this thread simply because I don't much give a shit what you or any other singular fanatics believe about anything. My mistake. Gone.

Besides , it's my birthday and I want some FUN!!!!!

 

The companies and the government hope that the establishment of the "voluntary fund" will avert the threat of multi-billion law suits in the United States. Lawyers acting for victims of Nazi rule are preparing several class action suits against companies like Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen.

Mr Schröder said the fund's function was "to counter lawsuits, particularly class action suits, and to remove the basis of the campaign being led against German industry and our country."

The German government has paid billions of Deutschmarks in compensation to former prisoners in concentration camps during past decades, including a settlement negotiated with the State of Israel. Most slave labourers, however, have not been compensated by the companies they were forced to work for.

Some businesses, like Volkswagen, have already agreed to pay their former workers around 10,000 Deutschmarks (£3,500, $5,700) each. Other companies have only recently begun to open their archives to independent historians and lay open their involvement in the Holocaust and World War II.



The declaration was signed by insurance company Allianz, chemical giants BASF, Hoechst and Bayer (successors of the notorious IG Farben), car companies BMW, DaimlerChrysler and Volkswagen, Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank, steel and metal producers Degussa, Krupp and Hoesch and electronics conglomerate Siemens. BBC News | The Economy | German industry unveils Holocaust fund



In addition to around $7 billion to the Israeli state, the self-appointed representative of global Jewry, “Individual reparations claims followed — for psychological trauma, for offense to Jewish honor, for halting law careers, for life insurance, for time spent in concentration camps.”

It is against this tableau that Finkelstein aims to restore “the integrity of the historical record and the sanctity of the Jewish people’s martyrdom.”

After expertly demolishing the notion that these “reparations” actually benefited very many actual survivors of the Nazi atrocities — most went to various community institutions and leaders with no plausible connection to those crimes except for shared religious identification — Finkelstein makes a series of broader arguments. The main one is that post-1967 U.S. political culture has produced The Holocaust, an “ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust.”
Norman Finkelstein’s ‘The Holocaust Industry’ and the Fight To Make All Suffering Count - In These Times


Hey African-Americans out there---heads up!

 

Thats the way it goes when up against a religious cult.
If you believe it without facts based in hard evidence then its your religion.
You posted that one oven could cremate 113 people in 24 hours!
That means according to your citation the german ovens could cremate 5 times the mass in 1/3 the time that new modern ovens are capable of cremating! You believed and your facts are wrong since elementary physics proves the matter.

Sure, when people paint me so negatively as my opponents in this debate have done and continue to do to try and save face with their strawman arguments its not one spec more than their adamancy!

In fact its much less because I do not have to resort to strawman fallacies like they are doing, also I post material evidence they have none. Everything they have cited has been refuted by hard material evidence to the contrary that they refuse to look at. Do you understand the way evidence works?

 

want to change that? Cite where Wannasse conference infers extermination! Prove that the cremation ovens can cremate 5x the mass 3 times faster than a new one! Another claim that Eisenhowers camps were better than Hitlers, when peolpe had to sleep in the own excrement and US soldiers shot into the crowd for "target practice" and even though the US had plenty of food they deliberately starved the germans, many who were innocent farmers. Show that Larsen lied and his autopsies really did find gassed people. I mean the list of crazy logic these people are using is unending. What if I am right and you simply have closed your eyes to it? Prove that human skin lamp shades are true. That soap was made from the fat of boiled down Jews, shrunken heads etc are all tru.



Evidence displayed at the Nuremburg trials later admitted it was all FAKE.

How about the count?

Started at 9 million Jews then 4 million, now officially 1 million! A 3 million counting error? Seriously?

I think the real question should be how can anyone possibly believe such things without asking for one shred of proof!

 

Happy birthday, what are you doing here? Should be out partying!

 

Right!

Once it has become an orthodox religion as proven on the last page, (and this one) no amount of proof to the contrary will ever put a scratch in their shiny religious armor.

 

Like others, I find the subject of this thread very distasteful. I do understand your declaration of neutrality but you really do come off as pro nazi. The fact that official documentation may never be found, does not mean that there were no crimes. Even if there was fabricated evidence to increase the perception of how awful the nazis were, it does not remove the facts of what they actually did. I don't think anyone would say the US has not committed atrocities of its own but last I checked, just because one side did something terrible as well does not mean that the other side didn't do terrible things.

Obviously, the specific "evidence" you are asking others to provide does not exist but that does not mean that what happened, didn't happen. Personally, I am more apt to believe the survivors of the concentration camps that I had the honor of meeting while I was studying the holocaust in high school, rather than any sort of document but that's just me. If you need more than first hand accounts, there is plenty of "real" evidence of what the nazis did and if you are truly neutral then you should have no problem researching that as well. If you only look for the things you want to find, that's all you will find. So instead of asking others to prove to you what they think is true, be unbiased and do the research for the other side of the argument yourself. You could start here...
https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=constructing

Treblinka: Revealing the hidden graves of the Holocaust

 

I doubt it, but I can help with that.
The real problem here is that first off I am a JAP, the second, I am old enough that I was never indoctrinated at a young age and taught what you were taught because I am old enough that I used to listen to the conversations about hitler and eisenhower and ww1, ww2, the korean, war kennedy, tonkin and the liberty around the dinner table. I consider my sources better than anyone here. Certainly more direct. Eli Weisel if you dont know wrote fictional stories about the camps roughly in the 60's about extermination and how he escaped the gas chambers from 3 different camps, it was fiction, one of his books in the 80's in print had a couple words from the german version sold in germany changed to 'gas chambers' for american consumption, in other words pure bs, fiction, but when it came to america people here thought it was all factual and of course it was taught in the schools that way, as fact and 6 million was used as a baseline to pay war reparations to Israel even today when most are long gone dead since that is how it became an embedded religion in american culture. Enough to pay every Israeli about 14,000/year for the last 70 years. Black/white people often mistake me as being pro nazi because I am black white and undetermined, just like a court that releases a prisoner due to lack of evidence to convict. This is what I see here. Lack of evidence to convict since we are talking about criminal not civil therefore we are required to use criminal standards of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt standrds.

Finally and most importantly the side of the story you are hearing is contradicted by other sources, sources that since the holocaust has become a religion get harder and harder to find every time I try to look for it drowned out by internet sanitazion. Remember we are behind an ever stiffening iron curtain in this country.

If you can stand to listen to it since these Jewish people (camp survivors), I warn you are going to go against your holocaust religion, though I highly recommend listening to it (10 minutes roughly) all the way though for educational purposes since it causes a controversy at odds with the 'Official Story' you have been indoctrinated with in the government agenda run schools.



For me this is embarrassing, much the same as american history.

 

Because everything you heard was absolute truth and not skewed in favor of one side or the other? You were indoctrinated into your beliefs just as anyone else can be.

You have just proven that you are NOT neutral at all.
Neutral
noun

1. an impartial or unbiased country or person.

You are in fact very biased in you opinions and in your fact finding. You think you already know the truth so anything that seems to contradict it is disregarded as propaganda. I once had a teacher that had us debate things in class and once we were done we had to switch our positions on the topic and make a convincing argument for the other side, this was to teach impartiality and make us consider arguments from all sides. I tend to do this with everything before I make my own decisions on things (kind of the opposite of indoctrination) You should try arguing from the other perspective and see the actual facts for what they are instead of just assuming that what you have been exposed to was the truth.

I did listen and what I heard was that a few people, out of 50,000 accounts, had been treated a bit better than others. Do you think the people that were not given special treatment had the same experiences?

Official Camp Orchestras in Auschwitz
"Since musicians from a camp band were usually concentrated in a special labour crew with common quarters, they enjoyed certain ‘privileges’ with respect to housing, forced labour, and rations, in comparison with other inmates. They thus were situated in the upper echelons of the prisoner hierarchy."

Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz - Wikipedia.
"The orchestra was formed in April 1943 by SS-Oberaufseherin Maria Mandl, supervisor of the women's camp in Auschwitz, and SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Franz Hössler, the women's camp commandant. The Germans wanted a propaganda tool for visitors and camp newsreels"

 

Sorry, I probably just should have not said anything. I hate getting into these sorts of things but it was really making me sick to not speak up.

 

That's understandable. You have nothing to apologize about. Shy wants to suck us all into her pathology. She simply prints pages from unnamed Holocaust denial sources of dubious validity, expects us to react to each of item, and then tells us we're wrong. I've been through many rounds of similar nonsense on different sites, starting with her challenge of a standard definition of politics by David Eastman widely used by political scientists:the "authoritative allocation of values". This she found objectionable for some incomprehensible reason, not because it wasn't useful, but because it somehow wasn't ideologically acceptable to her. She proceeded at great length to use a statement by Durkheim taken out of context from a book she found in the library years ago but could not cite, as the basis for a definition of religion which it clearly wasn't. Then there was the go-around over natural rights, in which she tried to prove their existence by quoting law sources simply explaining what they were and seventeenth and eighteenth century sources when nautral rights were the rage, at one point quoting line by line the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Then there was her defense of the superiority of ancient Egyptian theocracy (seriously), based largely on sources including the History Channel that said Egypt compared favorably with other ancient societies of the time.

She pretends to knowledge she doesn't have, and often gets her facts wrong. For example, early on in the Holocaust debate she hailed as Exhibit #1 which was supposed to settle it all. She claimed that in a trial involving Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson in France, the court had determined that he was right about the Holocaust denier and that this was in the court records. Since Faurisson was convicted, I thought this was curious and asked for further info. Eventually, she turned up an newspaper interview of a French judge involved in one of the Faurisson proceedings that he thought some of Faurisson's arguments were convincing. This, however, was simply the judge's off-the-cuff personal opinion, carrying no legal weight and certainly not definitive proof of Holocaust denial. I pointed out that the personal opinion had the status of obiter dictum, not part of the holding of the court. Her response: "Obiter dictum is used to put evidential determinations on the record that do not directly support (answer) the complaint. In other words he proved to the court that the Holocaust as you present it is impossible, however that did not answer the complaint. He was still guilty of violating French law and was fined anyway. This happens to a lot of pro se's l here in the US." Nonsense. The off-the-cuff personal opinion of the judge is no "proof" of the reality of the Holocaust. Obiter dictum has no legal weight. It might be brought up, like anything else, in presenting an argument, and it would be up to the judge to allow or strike it, but it is not an official determination of anything. If the dictum is by a particularly distinguished jurist (as was not the case here), it might be adopted by a later court that finds it persuasive. Of course in a "pro se" case, brought by a person herself without a lawyer, it could be used, since such persons typically don't know much about the law. As she says, she likes to "play lawyer. But as the saying goes: "A person who is her own lawyer has a fool for a client."

If you're interested in the other side, from reputable, citable sources, see:
Shermer and Grobman, Denying History
Combating Holocaust Denial: Evidence of the Holocaust presented at Nuremberg
Evidence from the Holocaust
Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust - Wikipedia
How the Nazis Tried to Cover Up Their Crimes at Auschwitz
Primary Sources — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
The Holocaust - The National Archives
Holocaust archaeology: uncovering vital evidence to prove the deniers wrong
Treblinka: Revealing the hidden graves of the Holocaust
Auschwitz: How death camp became centre of Nazi Holocaust
Holocaust | Definition, Concentration Camps, History, & Facts
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aau7292
Hundreds of Holocaust Testimonies Translated, Digitized for the First Time | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine
Holocaust: SS officer's photos reveal Sobibor death camp
Holocaust testimony: giving voice to the silent | TheArticle
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/18/5245...veals-early-evidence-of-holocaust-death-camps
https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=constructing
Browning: Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution - Holocaust Denial on Trial
Project MUSE - The Case for Auschwitz
Evidence and Documentation of the Holocaust

More than 3,000 tons of evidence were gathered for the Nuremberg trials. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/combating-holocaust-denial-evidence-of-the-holocaust-presented-at-nuremberg Schermer and Grobman, p. 33 discuss the contemporaneous documents: letters, memos, blueprints, orders, bills, and speeches. We have statistical summaries by the SS Documenting Numbers of Victims of the Holocaust and Nazi Persecution
Holocaust train schedules Browning: Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution - Holocaust Denial on Trial
Aerial photographs Photography as evidence of the Holocaust
We have testimony from tens of thousands of eyewitnesses, concluding survivors, Nazi leaders, and townspeople. Hundreds of Holocaust Testimonies Translated, Digitized for the First Time | Smart News| Smithsonian Magazine
Holocaust testimony: giving voice to the silent | TheArticle

I think this is more than enough credible evidence to convince reasonable people.


Meanwhile, all we can do is be patient as Shy continues to rave on.

 

I am so sorry that your thread has turned into this sort of argument