VOTE FOR NICK
3 Quarks Daily is awarding a prize this Spring Equinox for Top Blog Post in Art and Literature. I have submitted one of my poems and am soliciting your vote.
VOTE FOR NICK HERE
My entry is listed in the poetry section as Quantum Tantra: The New Sex Robot. I'm sure you will agree that this work deserves some sort of recognition: I consider it a new version of Goethe's Faust. Winners will be announced on the Spring Equinox.
VOTE FOR NICK
22 comments:
Don't vote for Nick for anything except the Neville Chamberlain award for Criminal Credulity. Nick, you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting David Irving. Would someone with true intellectual integrity think that the Leuchter Report represents the cutting edge in Holocaust forensics? Because Irving said that report turned him into a "hard-core disbeliever" in the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz (listen to his own words in Errol Morris' film "Mr. Death"). As far as I know, Irving has never retracted his views, even though Leuchter's arguments have been debunked (see link at bottom).
And how do you feel about the views expressed at 0:00 and 7:35 of the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhCbHZPwEEQ
For the record, I don't think that people should be prosecuted or persecuted for their beliefs. But I'm not about to write an article about how great Irving is and completely neglect to mention any of his faults. The fact that you did only proves that someone can be a genius and a fool at the same time.
Actually, Nick, I think you're probably an antisemite yourself if you haven't even qualified your statements about Irving (let alone Germar Rudolf) by now. But if anyone reading this wants THE OTHER side of the story re: Irving, Leuchter and Rudolf from people who know more about the Holocaust and its deniers than Nick OR I, see:
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Make that "credulousness," not "credulity." There - I corrected my mistake. Will Nick do the same...?
We seem to agree, sir, that all sides of an issue should be expressed without fear of fines, imprisonments, persecution or banishment. And that people who support and carry out such coercive practices against the free expression of ideas should be treated like contemptible swine. Nicht wahr? Thank you for your opinion.
B. Romero: "For the record, I don't think that people should be prosecuted or persecuted for their beliefs. But I'm not about to write an article about how great Irving is and completely neglect to mention any of his faults. The fact that you did only proves that someone can be a genius and a fool at the same time."
So, you personally don't believe people should be persecuted for their beliefs?
O Contraro, B Romero...
persecution is exactly what you've done to Nick by discouraging others (people you don't even know) from voting for his poem -- not because of any stated objection to the quality of his art, but because you hold beliefs (about history/historians) that differ from his. Troubling Nick on his website, trying to suppress him in his pursuit of happiness, annoying him by publicly branding him a fool, these actions define a particular kind of offensive behavior, one for which the English language has provided a word.
You do know the meaning of the word persecute, don't you?
You seem to delight in discrediting the character of both Nick Herbert and David Irving but to my knowledge neither man has ever attempted to suppress art because the artist was a Jew; neither has insulted an achievement of science because the scientist was a Jew; neither has used academic disagreement as the sole basis for publicly slandering another as a fool.
In other words, B Romero, neither Nick Herbert nor David Irving have used the lowlife tactics against their detractors that they, and now you, have used against them.
By the way, that high ground you've deluded yourself into thinking you stand upon would be instantly recognized by millions of ravaged and resentful Palestinians.
You claim to have the other side of the gas chamber story, but why would anyone want to hear another side from someone who's already shown a side that's proved so ugly and hateful?
I have to assume B. Romero considers "himself/herself" the appointed judge of whose poetry we should vote for. His/her criteria is not the quality of the entry to the contest, but which historian the writer has praised in the past.
The chutzpah, never mind the imbecility, of such a request is astounding. The opinions of contributors to this "Art and Literature" contest on other matters then their contribution should be irrelevant. This is something so basic that it is embarrassing to have to point it out to someone apparently evolved enough to read.
Oh, Mustafa, Mustafa.... Where to begin?
"Persecution is exactly what you've done to Nick by discouraging others (people you don't even know) from voting for his poem...."
If this is your definition of persecution, you a) cheapen the word and b) must have led a very sheltered life.
In any case, I hardly expect anyone not to vote for Nick because I said so. Indeed, I am not surprised that my remarks seem to have strengthened your endorsement of him, if anything. But yes, I will use this space (and any other I choose) to let people know what Nick wrote about Irving and recommend in colorful terms that they consider that piece in light of Irving's own on-the-record statements. Incidentally, this is exactly what Nick asked his readers to do, he just didn't think people would check back in afterwards. As for whether or not people actually vote for his poem in some contest I don't even know the name of...do you honestly think I care? Let me be clear: I DO NOT. People, if you want to vote for Nick's poem, GO RIGHT AHEAD, as if you need my permission.
Incidentally, what if I just told people I DO know not to vote for his poem? Would that make it better? I'm just trying to figure out how your mind works.
"Troubling Nick on his website, trying to suppress him in his pursuit of happiness, annoying him by publicly branding him a fool..."
Why don't you ask Nick yourself how much sleep he's going to lose over my comments? Because unless the answer is "a lot," I guess that makes you a bit of a drama queen, doesn't it?
"...these actions define a particular kind of offensive behavior, one for which the English language has provided a word. You do know the meaning of the word persecute, don't you?"
Yep, put me right up there with Tomás de Torquemada.
"You seem to delight in discrediting the character of both Nick Herbert and David Irving..."
Do I? How do you read someone's mood through blog comments? Teach me.
"...but to my knowledge neither man has ever attempted to suppress art because the artist was a Jew, neither has insulted an achievement of science because the scientist was a Jew..."
Irving has made any number of derogatory statements about Jews, some of which I alluded to in my original post. Now, I realize that calling Jews "pitiful refugees" who "were responsible for Auschwitz" isn't as diabolically evil as telling people not to vote for someone in a poetry contest, but what can I say? Let God be my judge.
As far as Nick goes, let's ask him together: Nick, what do you think about the Jews? Do you think there might be any unsung Jewish heroes in the struggle for intellectual freedom and academic rigor? Because I didn't see any paeans to them on your website.
"...neither has used academic disagreement as the sole basis for publicly slandering another as a fool."
Funny you should mention that. In 1992 Irving is reported to have said: 'The Jews are very FOOLISH not to abandon the gas chamber story while they still have time [emphasis mine].'
"In other words, B Romero, neither Nick Herbert nor David Irving have used the lowlife tactics against their detractors that they, and now you, have used against them."
Examples abound of Irving writing off his detractors as Jews, as if that were all that need be said. Maybe using someone's (real or assumed) ethnicity/religion as a shorthand for mendacity and irredeemable, insurmountable bias doesn't seem like a "lowlife tactic" to you. Just as long as he doesn't boo a Jew at a poetry slam, right? That would be DEMENTED.
For the record, I have no idea how Nick deals with his detractors. He could be the best sport ever; I must say his response to me was pretty gracious. That doesn't change my belief (and yes, it's a belief - don't go asking me for their phone numbers) that fascists around the globe probably slept a little easier the night they found out that Nick admires their champ, David Irving.
"By the way, that high ground you've deluded yourself into thinking you stand upon would be instantly recognized by millions of ravaged and resentful Palestinians."
Now you're just going nuts. Expressing outrage towards Holocaust denial and its apologists is now automatically a bad thing because Israelis do too? Seriously?
"You claim to have the other side of the gas chamber story, but why would anyone want to hear another side from someone who's already shown a side that's proved so ugly and hateful?"
I don't know...because that side has merit? Or maybe you only get your information from people you find attractive and loving as opposed to ugly and hateful (that really stings, by the way - stop suppressing my happiness because of my views).
OK, I'm about tapped.
But before I forget: Nick, I'm still waiting for your piece about why you admire OJ Simpson for demanding the highest standards of police and prosecutorial conduct. Or the one about those righteous defense attorneys who drag rape victims' reputations through the mud (sorta like Robert Faurisson did to Otto Frank) in order to make sure the jury "hears all sides of the issue."
With baited breath,
B.
"I have to assume B. Romero considers "himself/herself" the appointed judge of whose poetry we should vote for."
You guys are funny. I was much more interested in setting up my Neville Chamberlain joke than actually influencing the 3 Dorks Daily contest. Tell you what: just to get me back, you should vote for Nick's poem, like, a bazillion times. That would crush me.
Looks like B. Romero is attempting to hijack this comment section with rants that have not a thing to do with the subject at hand. Since B. Romero’s focus apparently is stuck on David Irving, I fail to see why he is not posting his deep insights and refutations of Irving’s history on Irving’s website. I'm sure Irving could use a laugh now and then.
Here we have an example of a problem with the Internet. Every little worm with a computer can slander people who he would either wet his pants to face in person, or stutter through his arguments if he had to meet them in debate.
Ironic how all you champions of free speech get bent out of shape if someone (gasp) posts something you consider off-topic.
So, Anonymous, since you think seem to think so highly of Irving, do you agree with him that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz? Want to debate any of the surviving Sonderkommandos about that? How about any mainstream Holocaust scholar? I think you'd be about as likely to wet yourself and stutter as I would against Irving.
Thank you, B Romero, for attracting more traffic to my site and for encouraging people to vote for Nick a bazillion times.
You seem to be quite a fan of mine. Did you perhaps get this odd bug up your ass that Nick Herbert is some sort of holocaust denier by searching the Net and coming across my ancient Halloween 2000 poem?
http://tiny.cc/NoHoloBang
which I called NO HOLOCAUST
and which Linda William (the Physics Chanteuse) immediately answered with her equally heretical NO BIG BANG.
I invite you to check out NO HOLOCAUST and NO BIG BANG with or without your medications.
Nick, I could care less about your poetry. The fact that all your buddies think I really came here to sabotage your literary ambitions is hilarious but false. (again, I think I've probably earned you a few more votes than you would have gotten without my help - but no thanks are necessary).
What I AM suggesting, to you or anyone else who happens upon this page, is that you erred BADLY in calling David Irving "a bold gladiator of the intellect" who "embodies the intellectual virtues that make good science possible--curiosity, honesty, fearlessness, and a willingness to challenge any position no matter how entrenched...." In case you forgot, you also said, "All who think otherwise, I welcome your best arguments. But don't bore me with uninformed prattle." Well, here I am, Nick, and I don't think my prattle is uninformed.
So let's get right to it, Nick: do YOU believe there were gas chambers at Auschwitz? Because David Irving doesn't, and according to you, his methods and reasoning are superior to those of his detractors. So if you're not too busy writing poems and operas these days (apparently you weren't during those "three straight days [reading the] Irving-Lipstadt debate, scrolling down my computer screen long into the night, getting up only to pee"), maybe you'll drop by www.holocaust-history.org, read the Leuchter, Luftl, and Rudolf reports as well as the rebuttals and see if you agree with Irving that the BEST EVIDENCE points to the non-existence of gas chambers. Because if you don't, and Irving does, maybe it's time you revised your glowing opinion of his methods and/or character.
As I mentioned before, Nick, there's a difference between saying someone has a right to express their views (just like I'm doing right now) and SALUTING a racist, fascist admirer of Adolf Hitler who claims that the BEST EVIDENCE points away from the existence of gas chambers.
So what do you say, Nick? Do you have the time and energy to revisit this subject, or is it not the super-fun "intellectual sport" it used to be for you?
Did you read NO HOLOCAUST, fan boy?
What emotions did it stir in you?
Yes I read it, although I'd never heard of it before you posted the link. I can't say it had much of an impact on me emotionally. What's your point?
NO HOLOCAUST moved you not?
Watch your back, my friend.
You may be an antisemite.
I have a suggestion for B. Romero: Post your website, blog, books you have written, or your high school history essays for Nick to examine. This would give Nick an equal opportunity to search for writing which praises an individual whose perspective he may find offensive.
Looking at Nick’s blog and website, we know that he has a Ph.D. from Stanford in quantum physics, has written numerous books and scientific papers, as well as poetry. What we know and can judge about B. Romero is that he can write a few paragraphs in English, if given the opportunity to correct himself in a follow-up post. Additionally, we know that B. Romero is obsessed with David Irving and those who have the audacity to not share his opinion of this historian.
So show us your credentials, B. Romero! Demonstrate that you have earned credibility as a person with something to say, based on your accomplishments. Nick Herbert and David Irving certainly have done so for everyone to evaluate. Your blog with high school diploma or GED will suffice for a start, unless they are the end of the story.
Let me predict: You will prefer to continue cowardly ranting in the shadows against people whose accomplishments you can only dream of. To Nick I will only say, "Even the lion has to defend himself against flies."
I have a suggestion for B. Romero: Post your website, blog, books you have written, or your high school history essays for Nick to examine. This would give Nick an equal opportunity to search for writing which praises an individual whose perspective he may find offensive.
Looking at Nick’s blog and website, we know that he has a Ph.D. from Stanford in quantum physics, has written numerous books and scientific papers, as well as poetry. What we know and can judge about B. Romero is that he can write a few paragraphs in English, if given the opportunity to correct himself in a follow-up post. Additionally, we know that B. Romero is obsessed with David Irving and those who have the audacity to not share his opinion of this historian.
So show us your credentials, B. Romero! Demonstrate that you have earned credibility as a person with something to say, based on your accomplishments. Nick Herbert and David Irving certainly have done so for everyone to evaluate. Your blog with high school diploma or GED will suffice for a start, unless they are the end of the story.
Let me predict: You will prefer to continue cowardly ranting in the shadows against people whose accomplishments you can only dream of. To Nick I will only say, "Even the lion has to defend himself against flies."
So let me get this straight, O Paragon of Courage and Transparency Who Calls Him/Herself "Anonymous": you believe in free speech, but first everyone has to put their credentials and every opinion they've ever expressed on the table? I guess that means that, in order to criticize me for not sharing your opinion of Nick Herbert, you would have to post your "website, blog, books you have written, or your high school history essays" for me to examine, wouldn't it? So where are they? Don't worry, I'll be back here to check.
As far as Nick sharing my opinion of Irving or not, he still hasn't made that clear. So, Nick, DO you still agree with Irving? If not, why not, given that his character and methods are unimpeachable? Doesn't that seem weird?
Of course, feel free to stand on such airtight arguments as "if my poem didn't move you, you might be an antisemite." I just expected a little better from an "expert truth-seeker" who is "trained in the methods of rational thinking and can follow an argument like a rat terrier."
B. Romero, the issue--raised by YOU--is your criticism of Nick’s favorable article of David Irving, a historian. I’m not more than a observer following that discussion without voicing an opinion of my own concerning David Irving or Nick Herbert. All I did was point out the inappropriateness of the topic you raised and the credentials of the people you criticize.
In other words, I need no credentials of my own to write a response to what everyone reading your rants can read. As to free speech, keep it coming; you’re only making a fool of yourself and entertaining the rest of us.
Your off-topic arguments, though, intended to smear Nick Herbert and David Irving, should be judged based on your own achievements and the credibility they give you. I know that’s a tough one for you to conceptualize, but think about it this way--Heisenberg criticizing one of Einstein’s theories would have carried more weight than O. J. Simpson doing so. Is that clear enough?
One would think that an individual as obsessed as you are with David Irving and his politically incorrect history, and Nick Herbert and his audacity in praising Irving, would cherish the opportunity to give his arguments more weight by showing his credentials.
But it looks like my earlier prediction was correct: "Let me predict: You will prefer to continue cowardly ranting in the shadows against people whose accomplishments you can only dream of."
So let's get right to it, Nick: do YOU believe there were sex robots at Auschwitz?
The Lion Speaks (Thanks for the lion metaphor, Anonymous):
Have I not made it clear that I have little interest in The Event which so fascinates B. Romero? And I understand, that for this job, David Irving is also not the man to pursue: In his remarkably well-researched 30-odd books on the history of WW II, Irving barely mentions this topic at all.
If one is seeking reliable information about Romero's obsession, the four experts in the field, I have been told, are Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolph, Raul Hilberg and Robert Jan Van Pelt, who have devoted most of their adult lives to researching this topic. Two of these men have been celebrated for their efforts and two have been serving long terms in German prisons for defending their ideas and their books made illegal for Germans to read.
Tho I fail to share B. Romero's passion for this dreary topic, we do share the belief that government suppression of free speech is a barbaric crime against the human spirit, and that, if the German people were true lovers of liberty, they would immediately release Hilberg and Van Pelt from their cells.
I am not interested in gay pornography, Sarah Palin spoofs or The Event but there do exist many open forums elsewhere for the discussion of such topics so there are plenty of places where Romero can more appropriately exercise his freedom of speech without fear of being fined or locked up.
But not on my site.
I am certain that if B. Romero were running a web site for showing off what he thinks he knows about German history, he would not appreciate me posting my (to him) tedious erotic poetry or my (to him) incomprehensible quantum reality rants. I would respect Romero's wishes to control the content of his site and I trust that he respects mine.
I'm just not interested in discussing your favorite topic, dude. Please go elsewhere to get your kicks. You won't find what you need here. However I don't intend to leave you entirely empty-handed as you go out the door.
I am a bard. I can give you verse.
So, as a farewell gift, I am honoring B. Romero with a poem inspired and dedicated to him. If my poetry becomes famous, so will he (or his pseudonym). Since he does not like poetry and I have already given him more attention than he merits, I am not publishing my poem here but am making it available to anyone who sends a request to the gmail address at the top of my blog with GIFT POEM? in the subject line.
Nick's gmail address is:
nickherbert3@gmail.com
Post a Comment