My response to Scott's long comment is just as long: https://counter-currents.com/2024/10/co ... t-parrott/ I introduce to the discussion about the Holocaust tale Dr. Pierce's "The Evidence of the Prussian Blue" that should be viewed by everyone reading this.
Scott, my coffee got cold while reading your long comment, but for truth, this pearl says it all:
---
Scott: October 16, 2024 ...
[E]ither the Germans gassed the Jews or they didn’t... [My elevator thumbnail] is basically Nazi Gassings Never Happened. Nobody Was Gassed!
---
Go to the head of the class.
---
I don’t understand the notion that one is doing Holocaust Revisionism to somehow find the key to gaining political power and thereby building an ethnostate. Just who is saying this, exactly? Any real historians or current racial movement leaders?
---
A personal anecdote: In 1994, representing the National Alliance, I was fortunate to be invited to an intimate gathering at the German restaurant in Black Mountain, NC -- perhaps 25 others attended. After our meal the two honored guests, David Irving and Ernst Zundel, gave their talks, revisionist talks you might say.
I raised my hand to ask Ernst, "Why is it revisionists who are apparently on our side go to such lengths to put distance between yourselves and us racial nationalists, when we are the ones using your work to make our case," or something along that line.
His answer was that "revisionists can't be too closely associates with White loyalists or risk being tarred with the same 'racist' brush as you."
Of course, they had both been heavily tarred by Jews already and continued to be for their courageous truth-telling. Viewing the video of Ernst, wearing a hard hat, being viciously attacked by a mob of Jews at his first Canadian show trial in 1985 was my first shocking introduction to the seriousness of the Jewish Question. David, a universally respected WWII historian, had his own serious legal bouts with Jews, especially when he went up against them in 2000. Both were jailed, basically, for the crime of "spreading false history." WikiJews characterize David as a "negationist," defined as:
Holocaust denial is an antisemitic conspiracy theory[1][2] that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a fabrication or exaggeration.[3][4][5] Holocaust denial includes making one or more of the following false claims:[6][7][8]
*Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination.
*Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers for the mass murder of Jews.
*The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately six million.
*The Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by the Allies, Jews, or the Soviet Union.[4][9]
The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary.[10] Scholars use the term denial to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.[11] Holocaust deniers generally do not accept denial as an appropriate description of their activities and use the euphemism revisionism instead.[12]
The truth is, like you say, Scott: "Nobody was gassed."
---
There is no sacred canon with Revisionism, nor is Science anything similar to Scripture. But to have real-history as with real-science, we do have to take our investigations wherever they need to go... unburdened by lies.
---
Physicist, Dr. William Pierce, looked into Holocaust claims at Auschwitz as a scientist 35 years ago in his essay, "The Evidence of the Prussian Blue" at nationalvanguard.org. That single essay is all one needs to conclusively know that the Holocaust tale is "The Hoax of the 20th Century."
Incidentally, Fred Leuchter, the expert engineer on whose work Pierce's piece is based, asked me last year if I would serve on the board of an effort to finally unite revisionists with racial activists. I declined, telling him that the combination is a pipe dream, reminding him that some revisionist historians are race-mixers, so not compatible with strict race-thinkers.
