Message from agag in The Right Server #serious
I have to go to bed anyways just as well
king first 😦
As a reminder, this is a room for serious discussion, please keep a conversations civil. Keep memes out unless they're factual and educational. Please contact a staff member for problems if necessary.
Eliminating scarcity includes being able to automate the maintenance the exponential factors that growing labor niches present, meaning the more abundant and globalized our society becomes the rhizomatically spawned niches that rise will rise just as exponentially, recursively.
This necessitates the need to automate the means of maintenance for the automation of the vast labor niches involved with division of labor and the requirement of it becoming specialized in such a production heavy society.
This will no doubt snowball into a maintenance system of automation as abundant as the automated systems to create the height of specialization in divisions of labor
the nature of these sectoral additions to society is the concept of diffusion; the sectoral revolutions constantly add in trivializing human input (indirectly making humans unable to input due to complexity and sheer abundance in input required).
This superintelligent maintenance system will essentially grow complex enough through sectoral succession to the ability of self-replication.
This makes humans in Kaufman's Paradox of Automation not just a safety net for trivialized labor niches to say, but a grave cataclysmic danger to the globalized apparatus of self-replicating automation and society as a whole. A malfunction from malfeasance or computational error would multiply in complexity due to the nature of human trivialization of labor niches over further sectoral revolutions.
And qualitatively will always exist in some manifestation in proportional over-complexity by machines addressed at handling the complexity-multiplied task before it
This insight could lead to several results as an antecedent to the post-digital automation or a post-error reactionary event; the necessity of destroying the globalization phenomenon in other words. To supplant egalitarian hope for a lone proportionally smaller scion to benefit from a massive labor caste attaching to the labor niches proportional to the scion's upkeep of usage (which would be significantly smaller compared to the imbursement of the laboring class and its proportional requiring of computing to upkeep the scion respectively).
The alternative to ceding the fruits to a quantitatively small usage necessary for a ruling scion would be the post-error reactionary event. This event would happen after the qualitative failure of being able to heed the Paradox of Automation, total negative technological shock and crash that leads to an unparalleled dark age in the post-digital era where the key information is held in data files. The onset of this reactionary event is the expectance of certain schools of anarchy and groups supporting metaphysical practices of human sovereignty to coalesce to fanatically aiding the destruction in a quaint deindustrializing mindset (think of a neo-Kaczynski style cult).
The second post-error reactionary event would be the advent of reactionary cybernetics unto the human population after the multiplicatively erring malfunction or malfeasance qualitatively present becomes known and is a threat to the way of life, the tenants of the society at large would need to adopt technological measures to trivialize their own organic state to overcome the trivialized nature of their input to maintain the Paradox of Automation.
This no doubt will eventually be a painful ending of humanity and biological autonomy with the ceding of human intent to preserve themselves by preserving the machines to becoming integrated with the very superintelligent maintenance system.
Starting with the soap, both of the two links you sent regarding the human soap were written far too early to address the very recent tests that were described in the link I sent. It is true that the RIF myth/rumor is well known to be false, and probably came about because of a confusion of the very similar German Fraktur letters for “I” and “J.” Considering your username, I imagine you’re probably familiar with this typeface.
However, Andrzej Stołyhwo’s investigation indicates that there was indeed some soap being manufactured. I’ve already posted the link to that site.
Also, Harwood attributes the myth to “Exterminationists” twisting the meaning of RIF. This is a false accusation; the rumor that RIF stood for Rein Juden Fett began during the war. In fact, Harwood In The Destruction of the European Jews, Hilberg cites the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, who said that Dirlewanger was making soap out of Jewesses. He also cites a letter from Franz Karmasin, state secretary of German affairs in Slovakia, to Himmler, in which Karmasin says that resettlement of 700 asocial Germans would be difficult because of the rumor that they would be “boiled into soap.” These can be found on pages 1032 and 1033 of the revised edition on Google books. In fact, Weber even admits that the rumors existed during the war and cites the same letter from Karmasin [“German authorities in Poland and Slovakia were expressing official concern about their impact.”] But he then contradicts himself by saying “blame for the soap story lies rather with individuals such as Simon Wiesenthal and Stephen Wise, organizations like the World Jewish Congress, and the victorious Allied powers.” It’s unfortunate that many people continued to propagate the rumor, some even long after the war, but it was not malicious, nor is there any reason to believe the rumor began maliciously. The Allied powers did not create the rumor, nor did the WJC, Wiesenthal, or Wise. It was a pre-existing rumor, which evidently does have some truth to it according to Stołyhwo’s investigation.
The idea that new scholarship resulting in historians changing their mind about a previously accepted event is somehow a “tactical retreat,” “bad faith,” or “calculated,” is ridiculous. Our understanding of historical events can change, and to do so does not mean that we need to throw out our entire understanding of the Holocaust. Considering that this was written in 1991, and that the historical consensus is still that the Holocaust occurred essentially as it has always been thought to have, indicates that there was never a need to save the “sinking Holocaust ship” in the first place. Holocaust denial has never been enough of a legitimately threatening academic movement for there to have been a need for such actions.
Moving on from the soap; I can’t find any free access to the USHMM book that the IHR is discussing in the page about the Majdanek door, so I can’t really respond to the claims based on quotes from the book, or to the idea that this is fraudulent. However, it’s known that there was both a homicidal gas chamber and a delousing chamber at Majdanek, so it’s possible that this door could have belonged to either. Also, witness testimony from Henryk Tauber says that the doors to the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz had grids to protect the glass from being broken from the inside. This would not be necessary on doors being installed on delousing chambers. While Auschwitz may have been different than Majdanek, this shows that doors with peep holes were installed on the homicidal gas chambers. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/auschwitz/crematoria/peepholes-in-doors.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/auschwitz/crematoria/order-for-door.html (taken from https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0434.shtml)
I already sent you the Nizkor article on the World Almanac. The short of it is that the numbers cited by Revisionists were pre-war estimates, while the 1949 numbers were based on post-war estimates.
Now for the real meat of the issue, i.e. the gas chambers. The shorter one by Faurisson makes one major mistake by using NI-99 (https://archive.org/stream/NI9912ENG/NI-9912%20ENG#page/n1,) a manual on proper use of Zyklon B. First of all, it should be noted that not all of the homicidal gas chambers used Zyklon; many of them used carbon monoxide, e.g. at Treblinka. It’s also a mistake to use a manual on safe, proper use of Zyklon for fumigation to discredit the use of Zyklon in homicidal gas chambers. For one thing, dosage is different; humans are much easier to gas than insects. As well, 20 hours is the time it takes before a building being fumigated with Zyklon B can be entered safely. The difference with the gas chambers is that they were forcibly ventilated, and if they weren’t the Sonderkommandos would wear gas masks. This was the same in America. Do you think that we left people executed in the gas chambers sitting strapped to a chair for 20 hours? No, the gas was ventilated out. There is also no furniture in the gas chambers (excluding shower heads,) which speeds up ventilation. Also, there’s no risk of explosion due to the concentration of the Zyklon being used. Pressac does a good job with Faurisson’s arguments here; https://www.historiography-project.com/books/pressac-auschwitz/16.php.
Here’s some testimony from an SS private that shows that gas masks were used while pouring out the gas. Clearly gas masks were available for any chambers that were not ventilated;
“I was detailed to the transport service and I drove the Sanka [abbreviation for Sanitatskraftwagen/medical truck] which was to carry the prisoners....
Then we drove to the gas chambers. The medical orderlies climbed a ladder, they had gas masks up there, and emptied the cans. I was able to observe the prisoners while they were undressing. It always proceeded quitely and without them suspecting anything. It happened very quickly.”
Höss also writes in his memoirs that “The prisoners were given gas masks and told to go into the basement of Block II and bring the bodies out into the courtyard between Blocks 10 and 11. They removed the military uniforms. The corpses were left in their underwear. Moving the bodies by wagons to the crematory lasted late into the night.” So clearly the prisoners did use gas masks when needed.
Let’s move on to Aynat’s essay. I will again link to Pressac’s book, since the essay is a response to it. The book can be navigated by changing the page number in the url. For example, the starting page is 0011. To change to page 165, you can change the number from 0011 to 0165. https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0011.shtml
The 7 chambers in Aynat’s essay mostly share Rudolf Höss as a witness. Höss’s memoirs are very reliable testimony. I would recommend reading this; https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/.
All of the following few paragraphs discuss the portion of Aynat’s essay dedicated to Crematorium I.
Towards the end he talks about the Leuchter Report, and uses its finding that there were similar amounts of cyanide in the washroom and gas chamber as evidence that there were no gassings at Krema I. But the Leuchter Report has been thoroughly debunked and is universally seen as such. Pressac should’ve never even bothered mentioning it in the first place. But either way, it makes no difference that Leuchter detected the same amount of cyanide in the gas chamber as in the washroom; the whole report is essentially worthless, and Pressac shouldn’t have wasted his time with it. Nizkor has an excellent page on this but unfortunately Google says there’s malware on it. It’s an old website, so maybe it’s been compromised or something like that. I won’t post the link here, but it’s very easy to find on Nizkor (main page, under Holocaust Research Guides,) if you decide you want to risk malware to read it. Here’s another good site that has no malware detected. https://malcolmnicholson.wordpress.com/the-truth-about-the-leuchter-report-part-one/
I can’t find Alter Fajnzylberg’s original testimony online, so I can’t respond to Aynat’s specific claims about it. What I can tell you is that he really was a Sonderkommando at Auschwitz; this can be known because he was involved in the taking of the secret Sonderkommando photos of the open-air burning pits, and later testified about how they were taken. While his testimony may not be 100% factually correct, it’s still reliable testimony from an eye-witness to the events. Witnesses tend to exaggerate, and expecting people to remember the exact dimensions of a room by eyeballing it is silly. Also, saying that he “made no allusion to a gas chamber” is clearly false. Aynat himself says that Fajnzylberg testifies that there were gassings done in a Leichenhalle, which Aynat claims was used only as a mortuary. He also admits that “in this declaration, Fajnzylberg repeated exactly the same dimensions for the gas chamber that he had given in 1945.” Aynat is completely mischaracterizing Fajnzylberg testimony when he claims that he didn’t allude to a gas chamber.
It’s true that Filip Müller was wrong that there was a circular chimney at Auschwitz when he first arrived there, and it’s true that Pressac wrote this in his book. What Aynat neglects to mention is what else Pressac says;
“However, there is a series of documents concerned with an order of 13th May 1942 by the camp administration [Documents C1a and C1b] requesting the repair of the Krematorium [I] chimney (first item), which is wrong, because the description of the work [Documents C2a and C2b, C3a and C3b] and the final report [Documents C4a and C4b] show that the repair was actually only on an underground flue ("Kaminnterkanal"). These documents fully confirm the witness’s account of the accident (jets of cold water on fire bricks heated to a temperature of 800-1000° C)”
So clearly Pressac has his reasons for considering Müller to be a legitimate witness to the fact that Krematorium I existed and was used for gassing.
I’ve already posted the link about the reliability of Rudolf Höss. It’s true that Höss’s testimony that 900 Russians were gassed at once in Crematorium I is not possible. The capacity of the room is 700-800, so it may simply be that he misremembered the exact numbers. I disagree with Pressac on the idea that the holes couldn’t have been installed while the transport was unloaded. For one thing, Höss says that the holes were “simply punched” through, not drilled, which is what Pressac says. The ceiling was also “earth and concrete,” not just concrete. It doesn’t seem particularly impossible for holes to have been installed in the time it took to unload the transport.
Pressac himself acknowledges that he thinks Pery Broad’s testimony isn’t entirely reliable, and that it may have been edited by Poles (by no means consensus; http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-reliable-and-authentic-is-broad.html#Part4.) Aynat considers the reason why Pressac uses him as proof that gassings took place at Krema I despite his reservations “an enigma.” But Pressac is very clear that he doesn’t think the entire report is worthless, but instead that it can’t be taken at face value because he considers it to have been edited by the Poles. Pressac is very clear that the basic fact that gassings took place in Krema I can be seen as a historical fact using his testimony, as well as the testimonies of the other three, because, although there are some differences regarding details, the underlying truth that there were gassings at Krema I is found in all 4 testimonies. There is absolutely no reason why these testimonies should not be seen as reliable attestations to the use of Krema I as a gas chamber. Either way, if you read the link I posted from holocaustcontroversies, you can see that Pressac’s hypothesis was probably wrong, so it isn’t really all that important to defend Broad’s reliability; most don’t reject it.
Now for Bunker 1. It’s true that most of the witnesses cited are very vague in their descriptions. This is because none of them actually worked there. Höss is really the only reliable witness concerning the exact properties and usage of the Bunker, since he’s the only one of the six who had intimate knowledge of it. The value of citing these witnesses (besides Broad, who Pressac says was in fact talking about Bunker 2 rather than Bunker 1) is in the fact that they all attest to the existence of the building. This is important because the building was “carefully dismantled without leaving any ruins.” The supposed contradictions can be very easily explained by the fact that none of these witnesses, besides Höss, knew anything about what was going on inside with their own eyes. Fortunately, we can know from Höss and Dragon that gassings did take place within Bunker I. Dragon gets the number completely wrong, but since he knew that there were gassings at Bunker II it makes sense for him to have known what was going on in Bunker I as well. But the real prime witness to gassings here is Höss. As a result, though Aynat may wish otherwise, it is very possible to maintain the historical reality that gassings took place here.
For Bunker 2, Aynat attempts to discredit Dragon’s testimony based on a drawing featured on page 175 of the book. Dragon says there were 4 parts of the cottage divided by partitions, but the drawing appears to show 8. Unfortunately, Aynat seems to be blind; the drawing clearly divides the cottage into 4 parts, as can be seen by the numbers. Here’s a link to the image https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/image_files/174-01.jpe. The second point Aynat makes, that Dragon has clearly exaggerated the capacity, is legitimate, which makes sense; Pressac said the exact same thing in his book. The problem is that Pressac’s explanation of why this is the case makes perfect sense. Eyewitnesses tend to exaggerate things, and Dragon is no exception. That does not mean his entire testimony should be thrown out.
Aynat then moves onto Broad, saying the same thing as before; why does Pressac use Broad if he thinks it’s not entirely reliable? Since it’s the exact same point as before, refer to the explanation provided before.
For Höss, it’s true that his numbers are probably wrong. He wrote his autobiography in 1947, so it makes sense that he might misremember the numbers regarding the gassings, which ended several years earlier.
Dr. Nyiszli's testimony does not affirm "that there were no gas chambers in Bunker 2" like Aynat claims. Nyiszli was a witness to the Bunker when Zyklon B was not being used. Pressac notes that this period of executions was “that without Zyklon B.” So he doesn’t affirm that there were no gas chambers, only that when he was there that there were no longer any, which lines up with correct history.