fiquata

7" white. I've got it! I don't know this record here, and now is not the time, maybe in the future. Anyway: I completely agree that they are a mix of Dinosaur, Flaming, and Sonic Youth, obviously with their own personality. Bore, ah, if only we had seen each other at the end of May :)

"Phantom," perhaps you’ve lost some comments along the way; many have died—two is already too many—but they are not six million. Can we question what we please, or must we accept everything passively, helplessly? I don't believe the eyes of the survivors contain the numbers of the dead. Primo Levi (who made me fall in love with literature: it was the first book that moved me) testifies to life within the camps, if life is what we can call it, but he does not count the dead. Why count the dead? Because if you’ve studied a bit of history and the parameters used to understand it, especially in times of war, it’s the count of the dead that makes the difference. Denier, revisionist (we're just missing reactionary and then we're at the fair of trinkets) are classifications that abstract, synthesize, and are worthless. Use them however you like; I don’t need any of them. Here, I’ll take up an old comment of mine, I think in response to Alia: "you see, the current respectability is what makes the world what it is. You cannot speak poorly without being labeled antisemitic, communist, fascist, radical-chic, mafia supporter, right-wing anarchist, and so on. You cannot reason; you cannot deviate without having to clarify, rectify, justify, and blah blah blah."

I didn’t understand the meaning of your comment. Do you mean that Wikipedia is reliable? It’s a medium, it can be an opportunity, but it isn’t reliable. I myself targeted the Zen Arcade page (which is really awful) and it remained that way for months and months, to the point that anyone passing by, without knowing anything at all, could really think that the famous critic was Piero Sgarruti. Who can tell you that the same thing hasn’t happened? But even the verdict: by diving into conspiracy theories, I could think about masonry, Mossad, La Befana, and gnomes. Maybe if you ask this Verrall, who’s to say he won’t tell you that the verdict is part of a larger plan, after all everything starts from a trial, right? Nuremberg? Obviously, I’m exaggerating. Anyway, for me, it was a good book, which revealed things I didn’t know (like McCarthy's statements or Chaim Weizmann's declaration of war) and that I’ve always considered, as I mentioned before, “at times” denialist and therefore not exactly for me. I don’t understand why I should come back here and especially for what purpose. I didn’t write the book, I don’t feel I owe anyone any explanations. Then, the fact that Harvood's credibility has drastically collapsed, I believe, doesn’t change anything for anyone, neither for Harvood nor for Verrall :) As for me, I’ll sleep poorly and little like every other night. Have a good evening.

but not just of the sentence :)

When I have read the ruling of the Supreme Court Of Canada, I will know what to think. Wikipedia doesn't exist. As far as I know, you could have written the Wikipedia page yourself. Just saying, eh.

"FABRICATED EVIDENCE, AND CITED NON-EXISTENT AUTHORITIES" ahahah. "it provides you with its evidence. stop!" how many fools are there in this world. "instead, do you feel so little of a fool to believe Wikipedia? have you read the ruling, the reasoning? Wikipedia Uber Alles! HEIL WIKIPEDIA!

Thank you for this information about the pseudonym; I had no idea. This, of course, does not change the data it presents. The author's introduction and, specifically, the paragraph "il problema razziale" annoyed me as well. The somewhat amusing part is the dedication in the editorial note. "Ad memoriam del cam. Armando Arena, che, ancor alla vigilia della sua tragica scomparsa, questa edizione sostenne." ...we just miss "che fieramente perì pugnando." Oh, this is their grammar. When I interact with a Milanese, I know how their mind works, I know what to expect, but that doesn’t mean I dismiss them outright. Of course, when they display their behaviors, I won't be surprised at all; I expected it, I knew it, I understand their grammar.

You see, I said "occasionally" a denialist. I didn't say "not a denialist," and when I said that "occasionally," I was thinking precisely of his "in the order of thousands," which is clearly nonsense. He doesn't deny the existence of gas chambers. He simply says that no one has seen them live, in a newly liberated camp, which is an implicit denial, very different from outright denial. Explicitly, it's a doubt. Between one and six lies the distance of the truth. Aren't you interested in the truth? I don't believe we will ever reach the final truth about this piece of history, but it's necessary to shed light. I believe it's always necessary to shed light, as much light as possible. It doesn't seem like a small thing, does it?

Taxi, Céline launched himself against Nazi Germany during the collaborationist period, he who was truly antisemitic, because, despite all the chatter, he believed that, in his own way, it was still "Jewish." In short, you would agree.

Denier refers to someone who denies, and he doesn't deny, he downplays. He believes that far fewer have died. He provides his evidence. Stop! What evidence do you provide? The ones from the Nuremberg trial obtained through torture? "Realize that it really doesn't make sense to downplay the Holocaust (because that’s what you are doing, reducing it to a mere question of numbers)." It is a mere question of numbers. If only 6 Jews had died instead of the phantom 6 million, would we be talking about the Holocaust? No, and so it is right to analyze, Excel or not. "How would you define a person who denies the existence of gas chambers?" I wouldn't know, I rather feel like defining you, who can't even understand what is being written (assuming you've read it). Harwood wonders why Auschwitz was closed to the public by the Russians for ten years? What could they have done in those ten years and why reopen it since you closed it for ten years? Renovation? What is it, a basilica? All the questions are legitimate; it is propriety that forbids questions, and it is not proper to pretend to be a decent person on a page dedicated to Junger.