Dear Cybe2 - Good evening to you. Sorry for the late reply..
I was likewise really fascinated to find and read Miles's various 'essays' based on his opinions. I don't always agree with them nor have the time or intellect to properly analyse all he says but I would suggest there is some truth in there .. you are entitled to your seeming 'psycho-analysis' of him too but i'd advise not to judge or jump to conclusions to quickly also.. check out da beam..afore ye remove the speck.. love you dude.. can't wait to learn how to canoe one day
I had never heard of him until you mentioned him in the Maui thread and where I pointed out his illogical analysis.
Can you give us some examples of what you don't agree with, and why, please?
But how useful is material that a combination of truth and lies? And at what point should one decide that a source is not trustworthy, competent, and worth listening to?
We both probably know how dangerous (deadly) spiritual material that is 90% truth and 10% lies can be...
It was not a psycho analysis, I believe you are referring to the part about grandiose-delusions and paranoia ?
I've seen a few examples that clearly show this to be the case but I don't have them at hand right now.
How quickly do you believe I've jumped to conclusions?
Lately it's seemsed like we're all running around with lumberyards stuck to our faces...
See what Eustace Mullins had to say about the Holo-Hoax:
I guess he is only correct when you say he isâŠ..inconvenient eh? Me, I think he is probably correct on both, Coleman could well have been guilty of plagiarism, just as David Icke is, doesnât mean that Coleman is wrong in what he states.
Someone can have good and interesting takes on one thing and worse takes on other things.
Mullin's arguments seem to be the same ones that I adressed earlier.
And again we can ask, do the points below make sense or are they illogical, dishonest, lies and fabrications.
This document by Eustace Mullins is a textbook example of Holocaust revisionism, a subset of historical negationism. It relies on a specific set of rhetorical strategies designed to sound scholarly while systematically distorting historical evidence.
Below is an analysis of the most significant logical fallacies and rhetorical "sleights of hand" used in the text.
1. The Etymological Fallacy (Equivocation)
Mullins begins by quoting the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "Holocaust" as "a sacrifice wholly consumed by fire."
The Fallacy: He argues that because there were survivors (they weren't "wholly" consumed), the event is a "non-event."
The Reality: This is a semantic trap. Language is not static. While the word has Greek roots meaning "burnt whole," it was adopted as a proper noun to describe a specific historical genocide. Defining an event out of existence based on the literal dictionary definition of its name is a classic equivocation fallacy.
2. The "Luxury Camp" Narrative (Contextomy)
Mullins quotes Otto Friedrich and Albert Speer describing soccer stadiums, libraries, and hospitals at Auschwitz to suggest it was a "health camp."
The Fallacy: This is Contextomy (quoting out of context). While Auschwitz I (the main camp) did have these "amenities," they were largely for the SS guards or were "prestige projects" used for Red Cross inspections.
The Deception: He ignores the existence of Auschwitz II (Birkenau), the purpose-built extermination center located nearby. By highlighting a hospital or an orchestra, he attempts to "anchor" the reader's perception of the entire system as benign, ignoring the industrial-scale gas chambers and crematoria operating simultaneously.
3. The Statistics Shell Game (Straw Man)
The text claims there are "more Jews claiming to be survivors... than there were Jews living at the time."
The Fallacy: This is a Straw Man built on fabricated data. Mullins cites the "World Almanac" without specific page numbers or dates that support his math.
The Reality: Peer-reviewed demographic studies (from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources) consistently show a pre-war European Jewish population of roughly 9.5 million and a post-war population reflecting the loss of approximately 6 million. Mullinsâ claim relies on the reader not checking the actual census data of the era.
4. Tu Quoque (The "You Too" Fallacy)
Mullins spends significant time discussing the Katyn Forest massacre (Soviet murder of Polish officers) and the Allied bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima.
The Fallacy: This is Tu Quoque or "Whataboutism." Even if we assume every Allied action mentioned was a war crime, it has zero logical bearing on whether the Holocaust occurred.
The Intent: The goal is to create a "moral wash." By painting the Allies and "Zionists" as the "real" villains, he attempts to make the reader more sympathetic to the idea that the Holocaust was an invented "cover story."
5. Hasty Generalization from Anecdotes
The text recounts a story of a survivor who supposedly claimed she "had nothing to eat for three years" and survived.
The Fallacy: Mullins uses this (likely hyperbolic or misremembered) single account to dismiss the testimony of hundreds of thousands of others. This is a Hasty Generalization.
The Tactic: If you can find one witness who seems unreliable, you can "poison the well" for the entire historical record.
Summary Table of Rhetorical Tactics
Tactic
Mullins' Argument
The Logical Flaw
Appeal to Authority
Citing the OED or Albert Speer.
Using authorities selectively while ignoring their overall testimony.
False Equivalence
Comparing a hospital for SS guards to the "health" of prisoners.
Treating a marginal detail as the defining characteristic of the camp.
Conspiracy Theory
Claiming "Zionist collaborators" invented the story for money.
A Circular Reasoning loop: "The evidence is fake because it's a conspiracy; we know it's a conspiracy because there's evidence."
This piece is less of a historical analysis and more of a political manifesto. It uses the "veneer of skepticism" to bypass the massive physical, documentary, and testimonial evidence that confirms the Holocaust.
Would you like me to break down the specific forensic or documentary evidence (like the Nazi's own "Special Train" transport logs) that usually debunks these revisionist claims?
