(Frequently Asked Questions About World War Two Revisionism)
By Michael A. Hoffman II
Why you deny The Holocaust?
I don't deny the Allied holocaust against the German people, in which 600,000 civilians lost their lives in deliberate, premeditated, terror bombings of German cities. Several more million Germans were slaughtered by Soviet troops, starved to death in Siberia, raped and tortured, and killed in the post-war expulsions from the eastern territories.
Neither do I deny the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians, the Judaic Bolshevik holocaust against Russia and Eastern Europe or Mao's holocaust against the people of China.
I certainly do not deny holocausts. I think it's more likely that you are the "holocaust denier."
The events you mentioned simply were not holocausts. It is racist to detract from The Holocaust the Germans perpetrated against Jewish people, by claiming there were other holocausts.
Well, then I guess history is racist because, like it or not, the facts of the documentary record clearly show that there have been many other holocausts.
How can you compare the unparalleled sufferings of God's Chosen People who, throughout time have been hunted, persecuted, massacred and finally, exterminated--how can you compare that colossal and appalling slaughter with the mere fights and wars that other people have experienced?
The squeaking wheel gets the most oil. The Judaic establishment has the highest profile in the mass media and therefore to the ignorant, all this Judaic public relations noise translates into some sort of definitive judgment of history.
What you're really peddling is racism--the racism that Judaic suffering, alone among all of the blood of the innocent spilled on this planet, has some special claim on our sensibilities.
I'm sorry, I don't believe it. My understanding of the documentary record doesn't support it. Auschwitz was a much safer place to be than Dresden or any other city of any size in Germany from 1943 onward.
Lenin killed ten million Christians, not six million.
Mao killed upward of fifty million, not six million.
The Israelis have wasted tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese and expropriated 97% of the Palestinians' land. In context, what happened to the Judaic people under Hitler was very much in keeping with the disgusting record of this most horrible of all centuries--a minority was targeted for persecution and oppression--with the connivance of the Zionist leadership in Washington and London. It was most regrettable.
Unfortunately, as Albert Camus warned, the victims of the Nazis soon became the executioners of the Palestinians. In fact, it can be said that Hitler is the real founder of the Israeli state, which was what the Zionists intended.
Why do you deny that as a revisionist, you are surely a white separatist, a supporter of Hitler and a neo-Nazi?
Now you are revealing your bigotry and stereotypes. Everyone who doubts the holohoax religion must be made to fit into a Freudian psychoanalytical model.The dialogue is supplied for us, it is put into our mouths, so that we are made to speak of a "cabal" and of course we goose-step and we are neo-Nazis and so forth. The costume of a stock villain is trotted out. In this way, you true believers won't have to entertain our doubts. This is your line of defense-- your ridiculous stereotypes of revisionists. You project onto us the worst absurdities and then convince yourself that you know us and that you need not consider our facts and research. The ADL and the Wiesenthal Center supply these stock epithets. It's a regular industry--putting words into our mouth that we have never uttered.
So what are you saying revisionism is?
Revisionism is an adventure, a reality check, the original project of every thinking man: to wake up every morning and re-vision everything he holds dear in the secular realm.
You're just mouthing reasonable-sounding rhetoric and cliches to make your hatred palatable.
My hatreds don't need any window dressing. I hate compromise and cowardice, idolatry, and conformity and demands from authorities for obedience. I hate those who can't or won't think for themselves.
The Zionists react hysterically to any re-vision of their sacred dogma. Revisionists come along and say, "Hey let's take a look at this huge edifice of belief called, in the recent Newspeak, 'the Holocaust" and Judaic religious fanatics react and say, "How dare you?"
Then begins their process of name-calling and demonization intrinsic to every dogma and cult. Those who doubt the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, must be demonized. Such doubters couldn't possibly be honorable, decent or honest. They have to have a hidden agenda. That's the classic response of the fanatic, the cultist and the true believer to any challenge from a skeptic--shut the doubters up by calling them witches and devils.
In the West there have always been individual thinkers, however. Our culture has a long heritage of that, of doubters, nay-sayers, obstreperous skeptics and curmudgeons who just will not be commissared or silenced.
We still pay lip service to that tradition nowadays, but in reality, as soon as someone stands up and doubts one of the contemporary sacred dogmas of our informal state relgion, these doubters lose all prestige and reputation and most likely their employment and maybe even their physical security.
What do you mean by a state religion?
I mean that the traditional religion of Western Civilization, Christianity, has been supplanted by a new state religion, which is Judaism, presented in the palatable guise of "Holocaust" Newspeak.
Can you seriously and honestly claim that your revisionist research is not motivated by Jew hate?
You have swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the hysteria of Judaic religious fanatics whose insecurity and fear of opposition are so great, they can't conceive of intellectual curiosity as a motivating factor for those who scrutinize their dogmas.
To the supremacist, Zionist mentality, those who question and doubt their sacred dogma must, ipso facto, be "haters." Being perfect, being God's Chosen, and in every way the superior people on the planet, the saints and martyrs of the cosmos, they can't conceive of opposition that is not satanic.
Hence they propound this very primitive notion, that the man who dares to contradict them has got to be banned.
This is the hidden irony buried at the core of the primitive nationalism informing the Deborah Lipstadt style of "denier" nomenclature. For all of their melodrama about victimization and martyrdom, it is these supposed "victims" and "martyrs" who currently are the most avid stokers of the fires of persecution for whoever would dare to ask skeptical questions of them.
Under a boatload of corrupt rhetoric about "human rights," revisionist writers in Germany, Canada, France, Austria and Australia are being beaten, sent to jail and ritually ostracized.
You are trying to diminish The Holocaust by making invidious distinctions which trivialize its uniqueness and reduce it to just another persecution or atrocity, thereby whitewashing it and preparing the groundwork for the rise of neo-Nazism again.
This is the theology in which you have been trained. It's your catechism answer. It doesn't represent your own reaction as a human being to my thoughts, but rather the pre-digested tractarianism of the Lipstadts and the other thought cops who police this discourse.
They don't want you and I to ever have a real conversation. That would humanize the 'revisionist devil,' and that must never be done!
Again you will note the hidden irony here, of a Judaic ideology that presents itself as an antidote to dehumanization, which is at the same time dehumanizing one special class --the revisionist sub-human skeptics-- or, in Lipstadt's canon, the "deniers."
Making these "invidious distinctions," as you term them, are what distinguish us from robots and bond-servants. It is precisely our ability to make distinctions, to sift and weigh and compare that qualify us as thinkers, as men and women who wrestle with notions promulgated by official sources and then discover for ourselves what is true and what we reject. That after all is the vocation of man, to think, to question authority, to strive for originality. It's an eminently normal and healthy response, which leads to growth both spiritual and intellectual.
But as soon as a person takes these normal and healthy attitudes and begins to apply them to the received opinion about World War Two, he or she encounters an incredible hysteria, a legion of traumatized true believers who will psychoanalyze and denounce the skeptic, as "sick, hateful, neo-Nazi" and so forth.
There is an inability on the part of the True Believer in the Gas Chamber Creed to conceive of the fact that a person isn't necessarily a "Jew-hater" or seeking the "revival of Nazism" just because one wants to do some individual thinking and exploration, independent of their prescribed formula.
One of the first things that someone who is free of the hysteria encounters in this realm, is the fact that history teaches that suffering and genocide are most assuredly not unique to one people or nation. Surely Serebia, Lebanon, Northern Ireland and especially occupied Palestine, teach us that.
Why do you keep focusing on Israeli actions as bearing some special notoriety?
Because there you have as dogmatic and formal a philosophy of racism and hate as was ever expressed and formulated in Hitler's Germany.
That's an anti-semitic libel!
Here we go with the response from the catechism again. I can't help it if you haven't read the books and pamphlets issued by Zionist professors at the Israeli Bar Ilan University, such as The Order of Genocide in the Torah or the settler publication in praise of mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. There is a whole Talmudic ideology within the Israeli settler and Lubavitcher yeshiviot (schools), advocating the extermination of the Palestinians.
This racism is very deep-rooted in the Lubavitch orthodox Judaics, whose founder referred to all goyim (non-Jews) as "superfluous garbage." This was his answer when his students in his kollel (Talmud school) asked why Gentiles were so numerous. His response was that there were a lot of Gentiles because they proliferated like garbage, because in fact they were garbage.
Just because you are hostage to a thought-control system that largely ignores the contemporary ravings of homicidal Israeli racism, does not make it less true or potent.
Reality has a rather odd propensity for chugging along on its redoubtable old track, whether or not true believers like yourself take note of it.
Recall that something is only a libel when it is untrue. If it's true, then we have the right to state it aloud. It may not be politic or prudent to do so, but we can shout the truth whenever we find the courage to do so, ever honing and refining that truth to an even higher level of magnitude by the constant process of revisionism--to which all historical perception should always be subject.
I don't see revisionists doing this re-vision that you claim. Revisionists are more committed to their fixed dogmas than those you accuse of having dogmas to protect.
Well, revisionists are a motley crew. We have elderly survivors of the Allied holocaust against Germany in our ranks, and they are probably not going to be as objective and dispassionate as an American revisionist college kid.
But there are many revisionists who have demonstrated a propensity for changing their views based on the excavation of new data. The most prominent of these is David Irving, who, upon discovering statements in Goebbels' diaries referring to mass liquidations of the Judaicsa, has emphasized that massacres did occur to Judaic people but these were not "gassings." Killings of Jewish civilians was more an ad hoc process from the middle level commanders rather than some orchestrated "plot" from the executive level.
How dare you nitpick this mass murder! However it happened, it was an abominable crime.
Yes, of course, mass murder is always just as you, say, an abominable crime and by that criterion, as Robert Faurisson has stated, war itself is a crime. However, I find it interesting that whenever we get down to the nitty-gritty of finding discrepancies in the Allied and Zionist account of World War Two, these are dismissed as "nit-picking."
Since the establishment has put the entire German nation on trial for genocide, then in fairness, we are duty-bound, as in any murder trial, to weigh the evidence both pro and contra and scrutinize it with a high degree of rigorous analysis, to determine what is true and what is a lie and what emanates from that middle ground of human foibles known as exaggeration.
But you cannot deny that there was a holocaust of Jews.
I would hesitate to apply that Newspeak word in the official sense it which it has been decreed, to the Judaic situation in World War Two.
It was the German people who were being burned alive in every major German city by the Allied air forces while some Judaics were dying from typhus and gunfire.
If we're going to maintain fidelity for the integrity of our language, then the word holocaust cannot apply in its denotative sense, to the situation of the Judaics.
Holocaust means death by fire. Few Jews were killed by fire. But more than a half-million German women, children and elderly died by that horrible means from Allied air force fire bombings.
I would agree however, that some Judaics in Europe were recipients of a very harsh fate, and many suffered atrocities and massacres.
Any way you look at it or attempt to explain it away, it still adds up to a Holocaust.
Well, this issue of nomenclature ought to be considered from the point of view of the science of Zionist propaganda, or as the Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky called it in Hebrew, hasbara.
For example the word "holocaust" was formerly applied by most objective observers, before circa 1978, to the German civilian experience during World War Two, at the hands of the tender mercies of Bomber Harris and the American Air Force.
But slowly, in a process of gradualism which we have observed before in other behavior modification models, Elie Wiesel and other hoaxers, used their prestige and aura of religious authority and sanctity, to slowly introduce, around 1978, the term "holocaust" as the exclusive, proprietary word for only the Jewish experience in World War Two.
But history shows that, at the very least, World War Two as a whole, with its mass fire bombings of every German city of any size and the atomic incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the siege of Stalingrad and Berlin, the mass shootings perpetrated by Tito's partisans, and by the French resistance, the Soviet Red Army and NKVD, and the Nazi Einsatzgruppen--in light of the full force of all that horror, it would seem a monumental absurdity to deny that World War Two itself was a holocaust for everyone involved and especially for the defeated peoples of the Axis nations.
No matter how much you cite other alleged war crimes against other people, these cannot undo the reality of the Holocaust against the Jews!
And therein in lies the particular propaganda utility of this Newspeak word coined circa 1978 with regard to the difficulties Judaics experienced in the 1930s and 40s. The word "Holocaust" has come to mean anything you want it to mean. It has that Red Queen/Wonderland tenor: "A word is anything I say it is."
Some of the second rank revisionists have incorporated this Orwellian shorthand that Wiesel concocted and they incorporate it in their own statements, so that they say, "The holocaust never happened."
By that they mean there never were any mass killings in homicidal gas chambers and there was no executive document ordering an extermination.
But when the public hears or sees such a comment ("There was no holocaust"), they think the person making that statement, is denying the whole panoply of World War Two: the piles of dead bodies, the photo of the little Judaic boy with his hands in the air, the deportations, the concentration camps and so forth.
The two groups are talking at each other, at cross purposes, thanks to the imposition of this circa 1978 neologism and this confusion is deliberately generated.
As long as you are talking about "The Holocaust," then, like the Red Queen, you can make that word mean anything you want it to mean. It's a brilliant maneuver, and most revisionists and almost all of the public have fallen for it.
If by "Holocaust" you mean that hundreds of thousands of Jews suffered and died at the hands of Nazi Germany and its agents, due to starvation, disease and gunfire, and that many other Judaics were deported from Germany under conditions of cruelty and hardship, then by that specific and limited definition the "holocaust" word can be assigned to those specifics as an Orwellian exercize in pop Newspeak.
However, if by "Holocaust" you allege that millions of Judaics were put to death in homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, that Hitler and Himmler authorized it in writing and that this suffering constitutes the most unparalleled catastrophe in the history of mankind, then I assert total skepticism for what is, in essence, a laughable and insupportable thesis.
The Holocaust is not a "thesis." All right-thinking people are obliged to believe what is in fact an undeniable truth. Any doubts about of it constitute a hidden agenda of pernicious racism or a case of full fledged insanity.
Once again you usher our conversation into the realm of psychoanalysis and pontificating about what is, effectively, an essential right of human beings--to doubt what they cannot in good conscience believe.
That his been the great contest throughout history, between those who regard their political and religious dogmas as self-evident truth which necessarily command assent from all "right-thinking people," and those who have examined this supposed "truth" and found that, in all honesty, they just can't believe it.
In former times such doubts were regarded as error and the ecclesiastical theorem was that, "Error has no rights."
Therefore the doubter could be ostracized, banned, beaten or killed, by stigmatizing him with any one of a number of heinous epithets: heretic, witch or demon.
Today the same process holds forth against the hapless doubter, who cannot find it in his conscience to give assent to the homicidal gas chamber dogma.
He can be ostracized, banned, beaten or killed and liberal and conservative editorial and moral opinion, from church pulpits to newspaper pundits, will applaud or condone it as long as the victim is labeled a neo-Nazi, a racist or an anti-semite.
The Church doctrine is invoked today: the revisionist "error" has no rights.
We are compelled to believe. But why is it incumbent on any citizen to believe undocumented claims about a fifty year old event?
To doubt such claims is the most ordinary function of the thinking person's intellect. There is no need to be a Nazi or a racist or a "Jew-hater" to doubt.
The Holocaust is the most documented event in all world history. To deny it would be like saying that the Civil War didn't happen.
Not quite. No revisionist says that the concentration camps "didn't happen" or that persecution of the Jews "didn't happen."
What revisionists raise is the question of what specifically did transpire in those camps.
So the accurate analogy would be to doubts concerning the official teaching about the Confederate prisoner camp in Andersonville and not to the Civil War itself. The Civil War analogy is a ridiculous one and reflects a constant need among the enemies of the revisionists to caricature and distort our actual beliefs.
If you want to say that questioning what went on in Auschwitz would be like questioning what went on in Andersonville, you'd be on historically valid ground. But then your hysterical accusation would have lost all its mystifying power because your audience would quickly perceive that it is perfectly legitimate to question what really transpired in Andersonville and why.
No Confederate historian today claims that the Andersonville prison camp didn't exist, but many do challenge the claims for what supposedly happened there and more importantly, the motivation for what transpired. By the same token, no revisionist denies that Auschwitz labor camp existed, but we do doubt the claims made for what supposedly happened there.
To answer the first part of your statement, it may be that "The Holocaust" is the most documented event, if by that you mean the persecution and deportation of Jews.
But since you refuse to stop using ambiguous Newspeak to mystify and will not be specific, what you are evading by this means is the fact that the engine that powered this so-called "holocaust--the homicidal gas chambers--are not documented at all.
Certainly, you can show me a mountain of film footage of trains chugging down tracks, Nazi soldiers goose-stepping, Hitler hollering, Jews with yellow stars sewn on their clothing, piles of dead bodies and you can mix those ingredients together and call the resulting hodgepodge, "The Holocaust." But you can't furnish a single autopsy report to show that even one Jew died from poison gas and that's why you hide behind "Holocaust" Newspeak and evade citation of specific accusations.
Alright then, I can say without fear of contradiction that the gas chambers are the most documented event in history.
What do you mean which ones? Are you saying there were two types of gas chambers?
Yes of course. The ones that actually existed and the fantasy ones.
This is very interesting in that you now do concede the existence of gas chambers that you've been denying all along. So I have you.
The only thing you have is a possibly congenital dose of credulity.
I have never said in the course of our debate that gas chambers didn't exist. I always qualify the gas chamber term by preceding it with the word, "homicidal."
This is not a debate. There is no possibility of debating The Holocaust.
The catechism has spoken. What, pray tell, are we doing then?
I am enduring your racist invective long enough to expose it for what it is.
In other words, when I distinguish between real and imaginary gas chambers, it is racist of me to do so? Can you explain that?
I don't need to explain anything to the likes of you. There were no imaginary gas chambers. The gas chambers existed, it's a documented fact and your distinctions are just a smokescreen.
Well you certainly are confident. Perhaps I should feel the need to trust official pronouncements of historical "authorities," like you do, but I can't. The voice of doubt forever raises its impolitic head and off I sally, daring to doubt yet another fixture of your catechism.
The great irony of World War Two is that the German prophylactic for preserving the lives of the Judaic people in Auschwitz, the facilities for treating their clothing and bedding with the pesticide Zyklon B in order to help limit the typhus epidemic then raging, which is transmitted by a parasitic louse attached to clothes and bedding, has been turned against the Germans and used as the basis for false claims of homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.
You know very well that it was the Jews themselves who were viewed as the "pests" and the Zyklon B was for them.
I don't understand how you can "know" that without any evidence for it. Perhaps you have a crystal ball?
I know it from the testimony of the Survivors of The Holocaust.
The vast majority of the people who survived Auschwitz survived because the Nazis wanted them to survive. If there was an extermination program there, these people would not be around today to collect their pension checks.
So you are saying they are all liars?
Of course not. I do say, with the Jewish sociologist Samuel Gringauz, that the East European Khazar has a remarkable propensity for story-telling and embellishment, but to their credit--and this is obviously something you don't know because you haven't studied it independently--the vast majority of the Judaic people who lived through the war do not claim to have seen homicidal gas chambers in operation.
Rather, if you examine their testimony, they will say they heard rumors, they saw smoke, they guessed that this is what happened. Only a minority claim to have been in the supposed homicidal gas chambers, pulling bodies out and so forth.
So you're saying the Auschwitz gas chambers are merely a rumor?
Again you're failing to distinguish between real and imaginary gassing facilities. Must we convict the Germans of extermination by gas because they sought to exterminate the typhus bug? Facilities for gassing clothes and bedding existed.
Homicidal gas chambers on the other hand were indeed nothing but a rumor and the rumor was started as a cruel jibe of the Judaic concentration camp police--the kapos--who would torment their fellow Jews with stories of people being gassed. Under the circumstances of crowding, dislocation, fear, and death from typhus, such rumors are understandable, but we now know they are without substance.
Now you're the one expounding the omniscient knowledge.
Not at all. We "know" not based on some mystical confidence, but upon forensic examination. The Swedish investigator Ditlieb Felderer was the first researcher to thoroughly explore and document the Auschwitz museum facility in the 1970s. He discovered that the "homicidal gas chambers" advertised as such to tourists, were in fact fakes built after the war. This has since been confirmed by the head of the Auschwitz museum himself, in a conversation with the Jewish researcher David Cole, by the French magazine L'Express, by English historian David Irving, by Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf and by the American execution technologist Fred Leutcher, among many others.
It's interesting to note that for years these fake gas chambers were upheld by all the top Jewish and Allied historians. But now that revisionists have risked their reputations, livelihood and even their lives to prove that these alleged homicidal gas chambers were fakes, the establishment media is beginning to drop hints of a change in their official World War Two liturgy. Here and there I have seen fleeting references in the media to the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz having been "reconstructed after the war."
This is how they operate their damage control, rather like the Soviet encyclopedia that had the habit of making formerly featured claims and personages disappear from subsequent editions.
I predict that at some point in the future the establishment will hint--rather than proclaim--more as an aside than anything else--that mainstream academics never said that the homicidal gas chamber exhibits in Auschwitz were authentic.
But just a few years ago, even the idea of forensic examination of Auschwitz was considered a kind of sacrilege. Revisionists such as Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson have forced writers like Yehuda Bauer and Raul Hilberg, to reassess their own quasi-religious axioms. They would have never done it on their own.
In fact many establishment historians used to regard forensic examination of Auschwitz as a blasphemous outrage. In 1961 Dr. Hilberg wrote a three volume "definitive" history of the supposed homicidal gassings, without ever having set foot in Auschwitz.
In 1978 he finally got around to going to Auschwitz for a one day tour.
Ditlieb Felderer spent months in Auschwitz in the course of 27 forensic explorations, taking thousands of photographs and measurements, for which he was denounced and eventually imprisoned in Sweden, at the behest of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
So who is advancing human knowledge and discovery and who is following in the wake of this great intellectual adventure, issuing anathemas and scrambling to impose damage control?
In my book, The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for Freedom of Speech, I have reproduced a photograph of Pope John Paul II standing solemnly in Auschwitz, before a huge swarm of media, as he examines a series of massive stone tablets engraved with the figure of four million dead at Auschwitz and listing the alleged facts behind that figure. The pope decreed that anyone who doubted that sacred figure of four million, as promulgated by our great Judaic and Allied historians, was an anti-semitic racist.
In an accompanying photo in my book I show these same sacred tablets a few years later, after they had their inscriptions removed by the Auschwitz museum authorities. They lay there blank, defaced by the high priests of the homicidal gas chambers themselves. The Soviet-style explanation for this "slight alteration" in the unalterable dogma, is that the elite Judaic and Allied historians never accepted this 4 million figure in the first place; it was a figure supplied by the Poles. It's the fault of the Polish government. Yet just a few years ago, contrary to what these liars now say, to doubt that mythical figure of four million dead at Auschwitz, could, at the very least, cost you your reputation and your employment.
I notice that you limit yourself to Auschwitz. You say "Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers." What about the gassings in other camps?
Auschwitz is where the Shoah business impresarios have staked their prestige. It's where Spielberg placed his Hollywood cameras, although it's amusing that Spielberg never did try to show a homicidal gas chamber in his movie about Schindler, out of fear for the subsequent revisionist analyses of his depiction, that would have certainly followed in its wake.
The establishment churches have been among the most subservient and uncritical true believers in the homicidal gas chamber allegations. For them, in practice, if not in actual pronouncement, Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event of Western civilization.
So I think it's quite natural that we revisionists focus our investigation and our scrutiny on Auschwitz because that's the hub of the homicidal gas chamber hoax.
The Zionists and the Allies have staked their prestige on Auschwitz and I think that it is there that they will be symbolically defeated. This is quite fitting when one recalls that the town of Auschwitz was a pre-war transit center for the Jewish white slavery traffick in prostitutes bound for Jewish whore houses in Argentina. So in a sense, in the manner in which the Zionists have made Auschwitz the whore of their anti-Arab hegemony, the sense in which they have prostituted the actual suffering that did occur there to serve their extortionist political ends, the final overthrow of those ends at that site, will be most fitting..
But do you deny the gassings that took place in Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Belzec and the camps in the East?
It's a not a matter of denial. It is simply not incumbent on me to believe anything. If someone comes running up to me to announce that Santa Claus lives on the moon in an emerald castle, it doesn't make me some hateful "denier" if I smile, say, "I'm sorry I don't believe that. Won't you excuse me I must be on my way."
Belief is not incumbent. I can live my life and be a good, productive citizen without accepting a single iota of rabbinic theology about their "Shoah." If Judaics want to believe it, fine. Every religion is entitled to its own story. Mormons can believe the Angel Moroni gave Joseph Smith the golden plates. The Shakers can believe that Mother Ann was the Messiah. The Quakers can hold that George Fox was divinely inspired.
But if the Shaker or the Quaker, or the Mormon or the Judaic, establish as criteria for citizenship in our nation at large, their peculiar religious notions as something necessary to be believed by all, on pain of excommunication from society, then they are going to find that they have a fight on their hands.
I will not be compelled to believe any superstition no matter who parades it or how loud the brass band that accompanies it or how august the personages who serve as its grand marshals.
As far as the camps like Treblinka and Sobibor goes, it's an open question as to what transpired. The means alleged for execution in those camps--diesel engine exhaust--have a little more credibility from a scientific and technical view than the Zyklon B nonsense alleged for Auschwitz.
But establishing the feasibility of a weapon doesn't mean it was employed. There has to be more evidence and I haven't seen it, but I'm keeping an open mind. I am willing to re-vision not just the dogmas of the Zionists and the Allies but of the revisionists too. Artaud said, "No more masterpieces." The radical wing of revisionism says, "No more dogma," and that necessarily translates into refuting any attempt to erect a revisionist dogma .
David Irving has been attacked by many other revisionists for "keeping an open mind," as you say, which goes to show that revisionists are as bad as the people they claim to be opposing.
I have noticed that people in general stink and revisionists, being people, stink no less. It is not revisionists that have my faith but the process of re-vision itself.
A radical commitment to revising all our secular beliefs in the face of new discoveries is the great charter of Western history. A lot of maps had to be thrown away once Francis Drake returned from his voyage and a lot of historical maps are being discarded as revisionism hoists its sails upon the roiling waters of the sea of history. I don't think one can make a dogma out of cartography or history and it's disastrous when a religion begins to establish a proprietary relationship between theology and history or when historians stake claim to a particular historiographical turf in defiance of new evidence to the contrary.
If some revisionists fall into the perennial temptation and they too make fixtures of the views they hold, it's just as tragic; though I am not surprised when it happens. However, it just means that such people are no longer revisionists. Revisionism itself is, I think, invincible. It can't be stopped. It's too interesting and too delightful.
Keep in mind that some revisionists are Judaic, like Israel Shahak, John Sack, Prof. Arno Mayer and others who, at great personal cost, have attempted to delineate between history and theology and to pursue fidelity to the documentary record without partisan prejudice.
Even if I were to concede that certain parts of the holocaust story were not true, one fact that is not dogma would remain and that is that the Jews undoubtedly suffered a catastrophe in World War II for which the German regime at that time--and the people who supported it--were responsible.
It was a catastrophe for Judaic people and a catastrophe for the 54 million gentiles who died. There is no argument there.
Then don't you see the essential contradiction in your argument? What separates us are only mere details. We both agree that something terrible happened to Jews and people are responsible for it and we should ensure that it never happens again.
These "mere details" are the crux of any historical issue. William Blake said that is was the scoundrel who dealt in generalities and that truth lay in "minute particulars." It's the disease of modernism to be exhausted by details and gloss over them in order to present a composite image that is supposed to substitute for it.
You haven't thought out the full implications of these "mere details." Taken together, they show that the persecution of the Jews in World War Two is actually part of a seamless garment of 20th century totalitarianism on the part of the Left and the Right, which targeted and massacred a whole host of ethnic groups--not just Jews. This is the missing context that must be suppressed in order for the Six Million propaganda to have the influence it does.
The theology of Judaic uniqueness, the racist exclusivity which Zionists claim in virtually every other field--from the "right" to establish segregated, for-Jews-only settlements in occupied Palestine, to the "right" to be exempt from Constitutional separations of Church and State in the U.S., to their demands for special immunity from criticism in politics and media--this macrocosm is mirrored within the official, approved accounts and interpretation of the history of World War Two.
I am not so much interested in saying "it" didn't happen to the Jews during World War Two, as I am in pointing out that the core truth--that hundreds of thousands of Jewish people were hounded and persecuted--has been embellished and wildly exaggerated to such an extent that it has become the cash cow of the Israelis, and the moral hammer with which they strike anyone who dares to criticize Zionists in any field of human endeavor. It has become part of the process whereby Judaic supremacists gain and maintain their power on earth.
It must be said that this so-called Six Million genocide against the Judaics has been wildly exaggerated by them and shamelessly accepted without scrutiny by media and academia, until it has become a sacred belief and prerequisite for employment, socialization, education and in some cases, life itself.
Beyond pointing out the exaggerations and the perennial whining that amounts to an industry, is the need to place the Six Million story in the context of the other holocausts of the 20th century, and once you have done that, I don't think that the Nazi dictatorship will be rehabilitated, but rather that equanimity and balance will be reestablished and Israeli racism and slaughter of Palestinians, curtailed and discredited. If skepticism toward Judaic theology disguised as history increases sufficiently, Nazism will not be rehabilitated. It will be seen as misdirection from the Cryptocracy in the name of reviving the life force of the European people that was doomed from the beginning by Hitler's social Darwinist, occult racialism and hatred for the Old Testament, all of which derive from the Kabbalah as filtered through the Catholic Renaissance humanist occult movement personfied by Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin and Giordano Bruno, among others.
It is not healthy skepticism toward all dogma, i.e. revisionism, that will revive Nazism, but the hysterical aura of the forbidden and the damned with which the establishment media now surrounds Nazism, sans any shades of gray or mitigating circumstances.
In an era of unprecedented degeneracy, youth who are seeking a radical alternative to the diseased society they inhabit will inevitably gravitate toward that which the System condemns unreservedly.
Whatever is held up as the polar opposite of the current order will inevitably attract young reformers and angry revolutionaries. Nazism has been inflated into a supernatural level of potency by Jews and their retainers in media, education and government. Revisionism, on the other hand deflates Nazism, showing it to be another 20th century totalitarianian creed.
Any responsibility for the revival of Nazism rests with those in the Overclass who helped to mystify and mythologize it. The Hitler dictatorship and its crimes were hardly unique in the annals of the 20th century. In fact, of Stalin, Mao, Roosevelt and Churchill, Hitler was no worse than those other mass murderers of women and children.
An authentic re-vision of World War Two will reveal the extent to which the Zionist leadership deliberately provoked the Germans into acting as they did and deliberately left the Judaic middle class and proletarian Jews hostage to Hitler, after the Oberjuden had emigrated.
The Zionists sought to make a bloody point--that the only safe haven for Judaics was in Palestine. Of course, Palestine is the least safe place on earth for Judaics today, so we see another Zionist lie at work. But the full story of how Hitler was manipulated and guided by the Zionists --when these facts emerge it will truly shake the foundations of Israeli and Zionist financial and media power.
That is why the revisionist truth about World War Two must be suppressed at all costs and those who dare to bring it to the fore--especially in Europe--punished with fines, imprisonment and physical terror.
If there is a lesson to be learned from this city-of-dreadful-night that is the 20th century, it is indeed the clarion call of "Never Again." But this phrase is today just a cynical manipulation, a reference to defending Judaics alone.
But if we commit ourselves to protecting any targeted population from annihilation, we will begin in Palestine, in protecting the Palestinian people from their holy executioners, and go from there to defend every group targeted by state power, be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish, African or Oriental or yes, even poor and working class Whites in the trailer parks of America.
There is a lot of blathering bullshit nowadays about keeping an "open mind." But if we are really serious about opening our minds to their greatest capacity, we will venture far beyond the shuttered claustrophobia of the reigning forces of religious fanaticism, and the timid liberals and conservatives who cooperate with it.
The vehicle for that venture is revisionism. The price of admission is courage and curiosity.