http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3352

Jacket copy, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Ecrits révisionnistes, 1974-1998 (1999, rev. ed. May 2004):

Robert Faurisson has concluded from his research that the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic political-financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people - but not their leaders - and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

He has demonstrated that, for physical and chemical reasons, the alleged Hitlerite gas chambers could not have existed. He has emphasised that the Germans had wanted not to exterminate the Jews but to expel them from Europe towards a Jewish national home elsewhere than in Palestine; that was what they called "the final solution to the Jewish question" (die territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage).

Many European Jews, civilians or soldiers, died as a result of wartime actions and notably in the typhus epidemics, but many Jews survived and, in their millions, dispersed throughout the world, going so far as to create and people a new State, that of Israel.

Recently R. Faurisson has written that Adolf Hitler's weapons of mass destruction (gas chambers and gas vans) existed no more at that time than do those of Saddam Hussein today. The first lie received official endorsement in November 1944 from an agency called the War Refugee Board, created by President Roosevelt at the instigation of [Jew] Henry Morgenthau, Jr. The second lie was launched by another Washington agency, the Office of Special Plans, which President George W. Bush created in 2002 at the instigation of [Jew] Paul Wolfowitz. The world is witness, at nearly sixty years' distance, to the same type of lie and the same type of liars.


Born in 1929 of a French father and a Scottish mother, R. Faurisson holds the agrégation des lettres (highest competitive examination) and a doctorate in "literature and the social sciences." He was professor at the University of Lyon-II where, in particular, he taught the "criticism of texts and documents (literature, history, media)." Divested of his chair by an unexplained ministerial ruling, he has suffered numerous physical assaults and incurred many convictions in the French courts for disputing the myth of the "Holocaust." He has published seven works: three of literary revisionism and four of historical revisionism. His four volumes of Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998 ) bring together in more than two thousand pages articles, studies and critical revisions of texts in which the upholders of an official history, increasingly religious and repressive in character, are seen to yield step by step, on the plane of reason, before the arguments and discoveries of historical revisionism initiated, in France, by Paul Rassinier, author of Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (1950).

Below this article on the page linked , is the face of a young white woman blow which are the words " I love my family , I love my race".
This propaganda and that is all it is , seriously directs you in the direction why this gentleman lost his seat.
There is no mystery and there is no truth in what he writes.

Revisionism seems to be a reversal of the usual cause-effect way of things.

Even if the way things actually happened deviate from the "official" Holocaust history, I have yet to see a revisionist whose beliefs were a result of looking at all the facts impartially and then deciding on their position.

It's not a position you get because of the facts, it's a position you end up in and then you look for facts supporting it.

Below this article on the page linked , is the face of a young white woman blow which are the words " I love my family , I love my race".
This propaganda and that is all it is , seriously directs you in the direction why this gentleman lost his seat.
There is no mystery and there is no truth in what he writes.

Why don't you just shut up and get lost! Just because you do not like the site which recomends the works of proffesor Faurison, does not mean he is a liar.
Oh god - there is a face of *gasp* a "white woman" with the words "I love my family, I love my Race!". Horrific! Not a single rapp ****** on that site to be seen. Not a single Jew! Oh my God! It has to be a LIE!

Why dont you go to some jewish forum and leave us alone, you anoying, pesky lil Jew!

Revisionism seems to be a reversal of the usual cause-effect way of things.

It's not a position you get because of the facts, it's a position you end up in and then you look for facts supporting it.

And you can pass such Judgment, because - of course - you have read all of Faurisons works and know why he wrote them? Eh?
And for your information, the revisionist Paul Rassinier was a concentration camp inmate himself, and he didn't see any Gaschamber either. Funny, even in France leftist resistance fighters like him come to the conclusion that it's a hoax.
You should just open your mouth if you have something of substance to say or if you plan on stuffing another twinky between your teeth. Otherwise shut up! :rolleyes:

Ah, this is the "civilized debate" that you Nazis have complained Cerberus and OvB are ruining. I mean, nothing says "intellectual powerhouse" like ad hominem attacks!


And who said that every camp had gas chambers? Gas chambers are not the issue. The gas chamber topic has been debated to death. What I care about is that sooner or later, "revisionism" goes beyond clarifying the actual facts, and becomes just another way to minimize or rationalize what happened.

And of course, it's a wee bit convenient for so many revisionists to also be Jew-haters.

Revisionism seems to be a reversal of the usual cause-effect way of things.

Even if the way things actually happened deviate from the "official" Holocaust history, I have yet to see a revisionist whose beliefs were a result of looking at all the facts impartially and then deciding on their position.

It's not a position you get because of the facts, it's a position you end up in and then you look for facts supporting it.

This is simply untrue. In my case I discovered Revisionist studies quite by accident and went from being a believer in the holocaust story to a disbeliever precisely on the basis of looking at the facts closely and sceptically - as one would with anything of the kind.

Its interesting and says a lot when the defenders of the official story always have to resort to slurs and insinuations against revisionists.

What does it say about the story that it needs to be defended by Orwellian laws? Question the existence of gas chambers in Germany and France and various other countries and you go to jail.

That has nothing to do with any hoax, it has to do with the fact that various groups comprise a "Holocaust Industry".

However, there is a difference between what happened then, and how it is milked now. I will be the first one to say that the HI groups are completely disgusting, milking the suffering of all the victims of Nazi persecution, while carefully avoiding mentioning any but the Jews, then often lining their own pockets, at the expense of actual victims, even Jews.

But that is neither hither nor thither when it comes to discussing the actual events. Yes, the gas chambers may be much less widespread than commonly thought, yes, the death tolls may have been lower, but it doesn't erase the fact that people were put in camps, and many died, for being of a certain ethnicity, political persuasion, sexual orientation, or whatnot.

Yes, the gas chambers may be much less widespread than commonly thought, yes, the death tolls may have been lower, but it doesn't erase the fact that people were put in camps, and many died, for being of a certain ethnicity, political persuasion, sexual orientation, or whatnot.
It erases many legal precedents, common understandings and stereotypes. It's a huge field to examine.

And so what if some revisionists hate Jews? As a non-Jew, that shouldn't concern you.

That has nothing to do with any hoax, it has to do with the fact that various groups comprise a "Holocaust Industry".

However, there is a difference between what happened then, and how it is milked now. I will be the first one to say that the HI groups are completely disgusting, milking the suffering of all the victims of Nazi persecution, while carefully avoiding mentioning any but the Jews, then often lining their own pockets, at the expense of actual victims, even Jews.

But that is neither hither nor thither when it comes to discussing the actual events. Yes, the gas chambers may be much less widespread than commonly thought, yes, the death tolls may have been lower, but it doesn't erase the fact that people were put in camps, and many died, for being of a certain ethnicity, political persuasion, sexual orientation, or whatnot.

Yes, you are right about the Holocaust Industry but wrong about the gas chambers. Don't you see that it is the claims about mass shootings and gassings that is the holocaust. Without that there is no holocaust and that is the point. The gas chamber stories have been devastated by revisionism; they are simply unsustainable. The mass shootings likewise.

Why essentially wartime atrocity propaganda became "historical fact" is another story which could be taken up in following posts. What is important here is to grasp this simple equation: No gas chambers = no holocaust.

Below this article on the page linked , is the face of a young white woman blow which are the words " I love my family , I love my race".
This propaganda and that is all it is , seriously directs you in the direction why this gentleman lost his seat.
There is no mystery and there is no truth in what he writes.

Are you trying to imply that there is something bad, negative, and wrong about loving one's family and race?

Its funny how we keep hearing over and over again about how biased the revisionists are. As I pointed out to Cerberus in the other thread, the vast majority of 'mainstream' books about the Holocaust are morality polemics written by Jews who do not write with even the slightest pretense of objectivity.

1.) Cerberus, the website linked to is a news spider that does not necessarily have any connection to the above individual.
2.) @Everyone: Lets keep this thread about the subject at hand, not about each other personally.

As I pointed out to Cerberus in the other thread, the vast majority of 'mainstream' books about the Holocaust are morality polemics written by Jews who do not write with even the slightest pretense of objectivity.

Yes, quite so. Hence the term some revisonists use for this kind of writing; Holocaustianity; its the new religion. The more far out followers of the holocaust cult like to talk about how the suffering of the "6 million" surpasses the crucifixion!! Of course its yet another attack on Christianity by its age-old enemy.

The interesting thing about the writers and readers of this stuff, is that they are generally quite clueless about the historical facts of their sacred object. They consider it to be profaning the sacred mysteries if you subject it to the normal kind of attention historians give to past events, which of course is very convenient. You must believe.

For them it is unique and incomprehensible so therefore unknowable. The aptly named Elie Wiesel is one of the leading progenitors of this kind of obfuscation.

Perhaps we should deconstruct some examples of that stuff here, I have some fine examples of the genre.

You are right. One must first ask: what is so wrong about revisionism? Isn't that what historians do? You see, revisionism has such a bad name not because there is anything inherently wrong with reinterpreting the past (which no one objects to about virtually any other subject) but what is being reinterpreted, that is, a sacred cow. Holocaustians see revisionism as a blasphemy of a sacred truth which is why they react so emotionally and irrationally to criticism of the mainstream perspective. These so-called histories that they have written are value laden and value judgments are not arrived at through any objective process of historical research. Its one thing to say World War II ended in 1945. Its quite another to say that Adolf Hitler is an evil person. You see, Jews have always been a people that has testified to something that has happened in the past, in the religious sense. For instance, there is the story of how Moses led the Jews out of Egypt. It is not some mere event that happened at some point. It is more than that. It is a moral story. What has happened with 'The Holocaust' is precisely analagous to the events recorded in The Bible. Jews have simply made up another story about the past (after the fact) and have sanctified it as a revelation. Revelations are something that one cannot question because one must have faith in them. Those who question divine truths are evil precisely because they are heretical.

But the biases of the Holocaust writers do not excuse the biases of the Revisionist writers.

I mean, a Jew-hater writing about how the Holocaust never happened/was accidental/etc is somehow more believable than a Holocaust Industry creature writing about how the Holocaust was the worstest thing ever and huge amounts of money should be given to the ADL, as this will ensure it will never happen again?

Iconoclasm isn't the same as accuracy. Just because one kind of BS is newer, doesn't mean it's more right.

>>>But the biases of the Holocaust writers do not excuse the biases of the Revisionist writers.

We shouldn't expect anything other than bias, as our values will always determine how we present our material. It is only possible to approach subjects from a more detached and analytical perspective. I am convinced that the revisionists far excel the mainstream in this respect.

>>>I mean, a Jew-hater writing about how the Holocaust never happened/was accidental/etc is somehow more believable than a Holocaust Industry creature writing about how the Holocaust was the worstest thing ever and huge amounts of money should be given to the ADL, as this will ensure it will never happen again?

I have never seen David Irving suggest that he hates the Jews or that the Jews are evil. On the contrary, I have seen plenty of mainstream Holocaustians suggest that David Irving is a wicked person, simply for presenting a view they happen to disagree with. And why are the revisionists more believable? Very simple. Because they have nothing to gain. Holocaustians are not threatened with death, beat up, professionally ruined, denounced as evil, and bankrupted. There is no equivilancy in this case.

>>>Iconoclasm isn't the same as accuracy. Just because one kind of BS is newer, doesn't mean it's more right.

Once again, I would not say the two are equivilant, Sinclair. Revisionism, for me, is far more convincing simply on account of how ruthlessly the revisionist view is persecuted as heretical. Its not like David Irving gains financially or professionally for the work he does.

Doesn't Irving have a newsletter that refers to the "traditional enemy" frequently?

Irving gains *notoriety*. People care more, in whatever way, about Irving the revisionist than Irving the vanilla historian. He probably sells more books.

And just because somebody honestly believes something, does not make it correct.

>>>Doesn't Irving have a newsletter that refers to the "traditional enemy" frequently?

If I recall, that is a reference to those groups and organisations who are out to censor him and ruin his career.

>>>Irving gains *notoriety*.

Irving could probably have gained a lot more notoriety (he is a good researcher, after all) had he not broken such taboos and stuck with more mainstream topics. Instead, he ruined his professional career.

>>>People care more, in whatever way, about Irving the revisionist than Irving the vanilla historian. He probably sells more books.

If I recall, he just went bankrupt not all that long ago. It most certainly does not pay to put forth a different perspective with respect to the Holocaust. The sort of blacklisting that went on the 1950s pales in comparison to the McCarthyism that goes on these days.

>>>And just because somebody honestly believes something, does not make it correct.

I am convinced that what Irving is saying must have some merit to it, simply on account of how relentlessly he has been persecuted for his views. If Irving was simply a fool or a quack, then there would be no need to demonise the man.

I mean, a Jew-hater writing about how the Holocaust never happened/was accidental/etc is somehow more believable than a Holocaust Industry creature writing about how the Holocaust was the worstest thing ever and huge amounts of money should be given to the ADL, as this will ensure it will never happen again?

You know, the best way of resolving the issue is to study the facts. That means looking closely at the primary sources for the event called the holocaust. When you do that, it becomes apparent very quickly that there are serious problems with vital elements in the story. This is what Revisionism is based on; critical analysis of the primary sources. Calling Revisionists 'Jew-haters' is just a slur and a sign of intellectual laziness or cowardice.

Doesn't Irving have a newsletter that refers to the "traditional enemy" frequently?

No, kindly quote what he actually says. He talks about the "traditional enemies of free speech". That means those who support the criminalisation of holocaust revisionism and bullying organisations like the ADL of the B'nai Brith.

Also, Irving is not a holocaust revisionist. His area of expertise is political history, especially Hitler and the senior figures of the 3rd Reich etc.

And just because somebody honestly believes something, does not make it correct.

You might like to look in the mirror when saying this.

No, it's the truth. A lot of Revisionists are none too fond of Jews. Much less fond of Jews than someone who was just studying the facts would be. How is stating what somebody believes about the Jews intellectual cowardice?

I would put more stake in Revisionism were it not a neo-Nazi cottage industry.

No, it's the truth. A lot of Revisionists are none too fond of Jews. Much less fond of Jews than someone who was just studying the facts would be. How is stating what somebody believes about the Jews intellectual cowardice?

I would put more stake in Revisionism were it not a neo-Nazi cottage industry

This is intellectual cowardice. By calling Revisionists "jew-haters" it relieves you of the burden of having to deal with the facts. If you want to read an ongoing debate between etxerminationists and revisionists I can give you the url.

Instead of facts and arguments you use the slur instead.

>>>No, it's the truth. A lot of Revisionists are none too fond of Jews.

And how did they arrive at such conclusions? Take David Irving for example. If members of a certain population had threatened you with death, libeled you, lobbied to have you thrown in prison, on top of destroying your professional career, then tell me, how you feel about such a group? If Jews set out to destroy you, then it is entirely rational to regard them as being your enemies.

>>>Much less fond of Jews than someone who was just studying the facts would be.

Perhaps such individuals reach their conclusions by studying such facts, Sinclair. Perhaps such individuals come to have negative attitudes about Jews precisely because of the manner in which Jews react to questioning of such subjects.

>>>I would put more stake in Revisionism were it not a neo-Nazi cottage industry.

The mainstream account of 'The Holocaust' would have greater merit if such polemics were not moral lectures about good and evil. It would also have greater worth if one could question the prevailing view without having to worry about being thrown in prison.

"The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force."
--JBR Yant

>>>Much less fond of Jews than someone who was just studying the facts would be.

Perhaps such individuals reach their conclusions by studying such facts, Sinclair. Perhaps such individuals come to have negative attitudes about Jews precisely because of the manner in which Jews react to questioning of such subjects.

This is precisely true in my own situation. My inquiries into the H and how I see the Jewish establishment responding to such inquiry - whilst at the same time milking the so-called holocaust for all they can get financially and politically - has led to my forming a less than flattering view of organised Jewry. Of course one does not condemn a whole people on the basis of the actions of some of those people.

Fade,
David Irving pretty much ruined his own writing career no one did this for him.
He took the libel action himself , he was not libeled , he lost his case fair and square , hands down and without any doubt.
He was a fool to take it , he alledged that no publisher would publish his books , no publisher would take him on beacuse of his track record of adapting history to enhance and advance his own views.
David Irving does love the lime light and the self promotion.
He is also insanely jealous of the success of others and would deny them it , showing sour grapes towards likes of Sir Ian Kershaw ( Professor of History).
Irving would loved to have had that himself .
From viewing Irving as " a man of straw " a mere few weeks ago you have done a 180 degree change of course in your estimation of him as a historian.
Why is this Fade ?
Iring did go bankrupt because he was stupid and vain enough to take on an action which any reasonable person would have recgnied as being daft.
he never recokoned that it would go the whole hog to court and he wanted to settle out of court.
The publisher was not going to have that and he was too vain and proud to admit that he had not got a leg to stand on , that in a nut shell is why he lost his acse and went millions into the red.
As far as being a good researcher , yes he is but he could not use his material , he had his own agenda and bent facts and ignored evidence to fit his view of history. He got caught out , more than once .
When you read his site fade its very crude and plain propaganda and much of it is self promoting.
Why the need to put cartoons beside Kershaw and Evans , publish contact addresses for them ?
One would think that Mr. Irving had a bone to pick with them ?

Irving's mistake was to go up against an army of expensive lawyers paid for by Spielberg. Who was it who said that he who defends himself has a fool for his attorney? Once there he compounded his error by not calling his own expert witnesses, principally Carlo Mattogno (Auschwitz epxert) and Germar Rudolf (chemist).

Irving has a history of litigation and the "traditional enemies of free speech" knew that, when they called him a 'holocaust denier'. Smells of a trap.

>>>Fade, David Irving pretty much ruined his own writing career no one did this for him

I disagree. David Irving's career was not destroyed by his libel trial. Instead, his career was systematically destroyed by Jewish McCarthyism because he dared to question the Holocaust dogma.

>>>He took the libel action himself , he was not libeled , he lost his case fair and square , hands down and without any doubt.

I disagree on the grounds I stated before. David Irving's trial is a perfect example of why the British legal system, much like the British press, is a farce. I reject the notion that this judge 'objectively' evaluated the evidence as an impartial arbiter presented independently of his own values and his own social situation. There never was any 'fair and square' in the UK anymore than there was in the Soviet Union when the 'anti-socials' were persecuted.

>>>He was a fool to take it , he alledged that no publisher would publish his books , no publisher would take him on beacuse of his track record of adapting history to enhance and advance his own views.

Actually, we have a word in America for what has happened to David Irving -- McCarthyism. Organised Jewish organisations put enormous political pressure upon such publishers to censor material they simply do not like. The same sort of censorship goes on today in the U.S., although to a notably lesser degree than over in Europe.

>>>David Irving does love the lime light and the self promotion.

I don't see how anyone enjoys having their career destroyed and going bankrupt.

>>>He is also insanely jealous of the success of others and would deny them it , showing sour grapes towards likes of Sir Ian Kershaw ( Professor of History).

I noted before on the old board how utterly ignorant of Hitler's personal life Ian Kershaw was. He argued that Hitler had no life outside of politics. That is a malicious lie, as Hitler always considered his politics secondary to his interest in art.

>>>Irving would loved to have had that himself .

Historians do not operate outside of the context of political power, although some people still naively believe they do. The views that are presented to the public are mediated through a network of power relations. There are some things you simply cannot say if you want to operate within the mainstream where discourse is structured by taboos that reflect power interests.

>>>From viewing Irving as " a man of straw " a mere few weeks ago you have done a 180 degree change of course in your estimation of him as a historian.

You are distorting my argument. I argued that my own views developed quite independently from Irving's. Only recently have I begun to investigate the man in any detail. From what I do gather, it is rather obvious that powerful people despise the man because he drags skelatons out of closets.

>>>Why is this Fade ?

David Irving has been maliciously persecuted by organised Jewry for his beliefs. As was just recently noted in the other thread, the organised Jewish community of NZ has recently attempted to ban him from being able to enter that country. That such people go so out of their way to torment the man immediantly causes me to raise an eyebrow.

>>>Iring did go bankrupt because he was stupid and vain enough to take on an action which any reasonable person would have recgnied as being daft.

I would say that it is unreasonable to expect anything other than the outcome of the David Irving trial in the UK, as I hold that the judicial system of the UK is by no means independent of the political context in which it is immersed and its decisions will invariably reflect the distribution of political power in that country. Further, I am also of the view that power and knowledge are intimately connected, that the two are never quite separated from one another.

>>>The publisher was not going to have that and he was too vain and proud to admit that he had not got a leg to stand on , that in a nut shell is why he lost his acse and went millions into the red.

You are operating on the premise that the British judicial system is an impartial mediator of legal disputes. I disagree. Instead, I see the British judicial system as an active agent of political power and would argue that it is by no means a neutral institution.

>>>As far as being a good researcher , yes he is but he could not use his material , he had his own agenda and bent facts and ignored evidence to fit his view of history. He got caught out , more than once .

We have the same familiar accusations here:

1.) Irving has an 'agenda'.
2.) He 'ignores evidence'.
3.) He distorts evidence to shape his view of history.

Alright then. I will throw it back at you. Name for me a single Holocaustian whose personal values do not determine the perspective they take on the Holocaust. Just one will do. Point out a single Holocaustian whose values do not determine what evidence they deem to be significant as opposed to what they consider to be insignificant.

>>>When you read his site fade its very crude and plain propaganda and much of it is self promoting.

I disagree. Would you like to compare one of Irving's books to Lipstadt's book? We can always do that you know, for Lipstadt's book is nothing but a moral polemic against those she disagrees with. I challenge anyone on this website to compare a book written by David Irving to Lipstadt's book and come to the conclusion that the former is more full of 'crude propaganda' than the latter. Better yet, I can always take excerpts out of Lipstadt's books and juxtapose them against propaganda techniques.

>>>Why the need to put cartoons beside Kershaw and Evans , publish contact addresses for them ? One would think that Mr. Irving had a bone to pick with them ?

I pointed out on the old board how Kershaw lied about Hitler's personal life.

I once learned from a wise man that one can instantly determine who rules in any society simply by finding out who one cannot criticise.

Cerberus said;

>>>Why the need to put cartoons beside Kershaw and Evans , publish contact addresses for them ? One would think that Mr. Irving had a bone to pick with them ?
and Deconstructionist said;

I pointed out on the old board how Kershaw lied about Hitler's personal life.

To which I might add that one could read at the Irving site reviews in the press of Evans' books where he has been panned, like the Sunday Times review of London, Sunday, October 26, 2003 where it is made clear that Evans is just drawing on other secondary works and not doing anything original. Irving only works from primary sources; the mark of a real historian.

Or perhaps this piece of scandalous carry on in NZ where Haywood's thesis was supressed by the traditional enemies of free speech and their shill Evans:

REPORT to the Council of
The University of Canterbury

of the Working Party established to enquire into:

The circumstances under which the degree of Master of Arts (with First Class Honours) was awarded by the University in 1993 to Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward, on the basis of a thesis entitled 'The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust

quote:

4.5 The Working Party received a submission from Professor G. F. Orchard, counsel for Dr Orange, concerning Professor Evans' report. This submission was principally concerned with the standpoint of Professor Evans; it suggested that he acted not as an objective expert but as a partisan advocate. Professor Orchard cited examples in the Evans report of exaggeration, omission, minimisation and misrepresentation. In its detailed consideration of the thesis set out below, the Working Party has considered Professor Orchard's arguments on particular passages.

end quote

Now we know why Irving calls him "Skunky"

"Revisionism" is a slippery slope. First it's "the gas chambers were not as widespread as thought", then it's "there were no gas chambers", then it's "there was no attempt ever to deliberately kill the victims", then it's "they all died of disease and starvation", then it's "it never happened and the ZOG made it up".

Holocaust Revisionism is basically a form of preaching to the choir. People who don't like Jews will accept whatever rubbish that allows them to dislike Jews more.


I fail to see how Nazis can ***** about freedom of speech with a straight face. It's pretty ****ing unlikely that if the Nazis were in power here and now, they'd give a **** about the freedom of speech of their critics. I mean, at least Irving hasn't just been taken out and shot. Zundel may be in jail up in Canada, but is he being used as slave labour?

Yeah, so the Holocaust, or whatever you call it, has been hijacked by profiteers. But what does that have to do with actual historical events? Large groups of people were herded into camps for various reasons, used as slave labour, and large amounts of them died in various ways. I mean, how is herding people into camps because of their political views, ethnicity, etc defensible?

I mean, if the ZOG or whatever had so goddamn much influence, why haven't people who dislike Jews been hunted down and killed? Hate speech lawsuits are pretty pale replacements for firing squads.

And what's with this attempt to exonerate Hitler anyway? One would think that a real Nazi, who believed that the Jews, Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, dissidents, etc, were scum who deserved to die, would thus be PROUD of what happened, albeit a bit disappointed that some slipped through the net.

I once learned from a wise man that one can instantly determine who rules in any society simply by finding out who one cannot criticise.

In the Western world, if you criticize any "ethnic" ethnic group, you get taken down.

Start yelling slurs about, say, the Polish. Somebody will get pissed off, and you may get in legal trouble.

Does this mean that the Polish run America? The POG?


If Jews rule the society, it's because they worked at it. The people who attack the Jews for advancing themselves at the expense of others are the people who would do the same for their group. So what if the Jews, a tiny minority globally, that has faced persecution for a long time, holds vastly disproportionate power? One might as well ***** and whine about how most whites in the world aren't dying of famine. Survival of the fittest, huh?

Does this mean that the Polish run America? The POG?

That would explain our governments sustained ****ing stupidity.

Revisionism" is a slippery slope. First it's "the gas chambers were not as widespread as thought", then it's "there were no gas chambers", then it's "there was no attempt ever to deliberately kill the victims", then it's "they all died of disease and starvation", then it's "it never happened and the ZOG made it up".

This is a complete straw-man. The scenario you outline here has nothing to do with any Revisionism I'm familiar with. I have said it a few times to you already that the only way to resolve the H question is by looking closely at the facts.

The facts are the primary sources which are; witness statements by both "survivors" and "perpetrators"; documentary evidence, and archaeological evidence. Each category can be further broken down and here are a few examples. We have the testimnonies of a small number of people who claimed to have been involved in gassing and burning, the so-called Sonderkommando. These were Jewish prisoners who supposedly were directly involved with the killing and disposal process in Auschwitz, for example. We also have the testimonies of the people like the one time Kommandant of A, Rudolf Hoess (there were three Kommandants in all) and various guards and offciers who claimed to have witnessed gassings.

Truning to the documentary evidence. To this day no-one has ever seen or claimed to have seen a Fuehrer order for the extermination of Jews. There is no document that attests to an extermination policy, although there are some which are given a Kabbalistic-style reading in order to make them say something else, notably the Wannsee Protocol, the text of which talks about deportation and resettlement in the east. There are no technical drawings or plans or engineering reports talking or depictinhg gas chambers. Gorbachev opened the archives and 88,000 pages of documentation from the Zentralbauleitung (Central Construction Office) at Auschwitz became available; no gas chambers.

There are various documents presented at Nuremberg by the Soviets (!) relating to the "crimes against humanity" charges notably the Soviet Commission reoport on Auschwitz which even exterminationist historians have serious problems with (it attests to various impossibilities concering gassing/burning figures). The problem for the Exterminationist argument is that the testimonies of the Sonderkommando converge on the figures given by the Soviet report (see my post where I reproduce an e mail exchange between Brian Renk (Revisionist) and Christopher Browing (Exterminationist) on this question http://www.thephora.org/showthread.php?p=5684#post5684). The testimonies of both classes of witness are sometimes inherently contradictory and mutually contradictory often in very crucial respects. They all testify to things that are physically impossible.

Finally, archaeology. Since 1945 no proponent of the official story has ever conducted or called for any forensic examintion whatsoever. Revisonists on the other hand have conducted such examinations nad have published all the results. Exterminationists now claim to have done such studies but we rarely see the results, or if we do, they are not done in accordance with good practice. The results of chemical analysis of the walls of the alleged gas chambers is not good news for the proponents of the official story. Your holocaust story, i.e. gassing and burning is completely unsustainable in the face of the evidence. I have only mentioned a small but significant fragment of the evidence which needs to be looked at if you want to make historical claims about what happened in those camps.

Holocaust Revisionism is basically a form of preaching to the choir. People who don't like Jews will accept whatever rubbish that allows them to dislike Jews more.

So says someone who has never bothered to do any of the kind of work necessary before making claims about this subject.

I fail to see how Nazis can ***** about freedom of speech with a straight face. It's pretty ****ing unlikely that if the Nazis were in power here and now, they'd give a **** about the freedom of speech of their critics. I mean, at least Irving hasn't just been taken out and shot. Zundel may be in jail up in Canada, but is he being used as slave labour?

This must surely rank as one of the most reprehensible and immoral statements I have seen for a while. "Zundel may be in jail up in Canada, but is he being used as slave labour." So that makes it o.k to keep a man in solitary confinement for over a year merely for expressing an opinion. Shame on you!

Yeah, so the Holocaust, or whatever you call it, has been hijacked by profiteers.

You call it the Holocaust, we call it the Holohoax or the Holoco$t.

But what does that have to do with actual historical events? Large groups of people were herded into camps for various reasons, used as slave labour, and large amounts of them died in various ways. I mean, how is herding people into camps because of their political views, ethnicity, etc defensible?

You tell me. The Israelis have been doing this for over fifty years now but if you dare criticise them Jews start screaming "Jew hater". What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so try this: "German hater!"

I mean, if the ZOG or whatever had so goddamn much influence, why haven't people who dislike Jews been hunted down and killed? Hate speech lawsuits are pretty pale replacements for firing squads.

They do everything short of that ranging from making slurs (like you do) right through legal sanctions and then terrorism (the FBI classes the Jewish Defence League as a terrorist organisation). Robert Faurisson was hospitalised by Jewish thugs who attacked him in the street and the JDL has carried out fire bombings of Revisionist buildings and book warehouses in the US.

And what's with this attempt to exonerate Hitler anyway? One would think that a real Nazi, who believed that the Jews, Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, dissidents, etc, were scum who deserved to die, would thus be PROUD of what happened, albeit a bit disappointed that some slipped through the net.

Its not about exonerating anyone, its about discovering the truth, and if that exonerates Hitler then so be it, but that is a side effect not a motive for historical inquiry - you should try it sometime instead of ill-informed ranting.

If Jews rule the society, it's because they worked at it. The people who attack the Jews for advancing themselves at the expense of others are the people who would do the same for their group.

No, don't project your immorality on to other people. The Jews have gained the position they have through advancing lies like the H in order to project a victim status. They use this to stifle all criticism of their activities, whilst milking other countries for everythgn they can get in the claims scam. The H is also used as a fig leaf for the ethno-supremacist Zionist state and its barbarities.

We could talk about how Jews advance their power through their double standards; one set of rules for Jews, another set for the goyim who were put on this earth to serve Jews as the Talmud has it.

So it's bad for Jews to advance themselves at the expense of others?

Funny, because a large chunk of the NS ideology was the "German race" advancing itself at the expense of others. You know, Lebensraum and all that. Germans were better than non-Germans.

Is this somehow better than Jews being better than non-Jews, as you allege they believe? Which is probably bollocks anyway, they're just doing as a group what benefits them and as individuals what benefits them. I doubt there's any "plan".

So it's bad for Jews to advance themselves at the expense of others?

Bad for anyone to embrace that view.

Funny, because a large chunk of the NS ideology was the "German race" advancing itself at the expense of others. You know, Lebensraum and all that. Germans were better than non-Germans.

Actually no, you really should look at the facts as I keep telling you.

Is this somehow better than Jews being better than non-Jews, as you allege they believe? Which is probably bollocks anyway, they're just doing as a group what benefits them and as individuals what benefits them. I doubt there's any "plan".

I don't know if there is a "plan" but people do generally behave according to their beliefs and the kind of things advanced in the Talmud are revolting, to put it mildly.

Did Germany not act in an expansionist manner, taking land beyond what it had had in 1914?

Did the propaganda not depict Germanics as being "higher peoples"?


Listen, most Jews today are secular. I doubt your average media executive named Weinstein or whatever reads the Torah, much less the Talmud. The Talmud is for crazy Orthodox wankers who nobody cares about.

Did Germany not act in an expansionist manner, taking land beyond what it had had in 1914?

Only after the British and French declared war, up to that point the Germans were restoring their original territories taken by the Treaty of Versailles.


Did the propaganda not depict Germanics as being "higher peoples"?

Higher? Not quite. Hitler was a nationalist.

Listen, most Jews today are secular. I doubt your average media executive named Weinstein or whatever reads the Torah, much less the Talmud. The Talmud is for crazy Orthodox wankers who nobody cares about.

No it is not. It is the main textual authority for all Rabbis except for some of the "crazy Orthodox wankers" as you call them, the Torah Jews who place all authority in the Torah and ignore the Talmud.

>>>"Revisionism" is a slippery slope.

Sinclair begins here by setting up a straw man.

>>>First it's "the gas chambers were not as widespread as thought", then it's "there were no gas chambers", then it's "there was no attempt ever to deliberately kill the victims", then it's "they all died of disease and starvation", then it's "it never happened and the ZOG made it up".

Sinclair posits a temporal order along which the revisionist argument has fallen yet fails to substantiate it with reference to any hard sources. If the revisionist argument has changed to the degree Sinclair suggest it has, then by all means, lets see Sinclair cite his sources.

>>>Holocaust Revisionism is basically a form of preaching to the choir.

This does not follow either. For starters, revisionists are open to debate and seek to open a dialogue on the subject. On the other hand, the Holocaustians seek to stiffle all criticism of their position and attack those who hold other perspectives as evil/immoral. In some countries, it has even become illegal to question the Holocaust. I think the gallery can clearly see here who is truly holding the dogmatic position.

>>>People who don't like Jews will accept whatever rubbish that allows them to dislike Jews more.

Sinclair sets up another argument here which he does not bother to support: the revisionist argument stems from a dislike of the Jews. I think Sinclair is confusing causes with effects here. Many people come to dislike the Jews, not because their dislike of the Jews caused them to investigate the Holocaust, but because of the manner in which Jews have reacted to such inquiries. Also, I can easily throw your argument right back at you: mainstream accounts of the Holocaust stem from a moral dislike of National Socialism, if not in some cases, anti-Germanism. I would say a much stronger argument could be made on such grounds.

>>>I fail to see how Nazis can ***** about freedom of speech with a straight face.

Sinclair sets up a tu quoque argument here. This is basically a version of the "you too" logical fallacy and has no bearing upon the truth/falsehood of the Holocaust, which we are debating.

>>>It's pretty ****ing unlikely that if the Nazis were in power here and now, they'd give a **** about the freedom of speech of their critics.

I am not sure what this has to do with this discussion, Sinclair. I am not a National Socialist. David Irving is not a National Socialist either.

>>>I mean, at least Irving hasn't just been taken out and shot.

This was not always the case in the Soviet Union either. Actually, quite often, the Soviets simply got rid of political dissidents by throwing them in the gulag, by declaring them to be 'anti-socials' or suffering from 'slow-schizophrenia'. This process is precisely analagous to 'hate crime legislation'. It is the same idea under fresh colours.

>>>Zundel may be in jail up in Canada, but is he being used as slave labour?

Canada quite often burns certain racialist books that are ordered from overseas. As I pointed out before, I see little difference between Canada and the Soviet Union.

>>>Yeah, so the Holocaust, or whatever you call it, has been hijacked by profiteers.

The Holocaust never happened. The Holocaust is a metanarrative that was created in the 1970s specifically in order to advance the interests of some groups over others. It is a form of power/knowledge. We can deduce this from observing how the Holocaust has been used and who benefits from it. Furthermore, when one analyses the Holocaust as a discourse, one can see it is full of all sorts of Jewish and Christian tropes, for instance, how Hitler has been constructed as the Antichrist and his followers as demons. The Holocaust is a narrative of good guys versus bad guys, complete with a plot (Hitler's evil desire to take over the world) and a climax (The Final Solution). Value-laden stories like these do not arise from objective reflection upon history.

But what does that have to do with actual historical events?

The Holocaust is a metanarrative, not an actual historical event.

metanarrative - Language games gain legitimation through the local stories (or 'micro-narratives') they tell. But there are 'grand'' or 'metanarratives' that claim to be globally valid. A metanarrative, then, is a theory that arrogantly offers total, all-embracing answers. In doing so it tries to overarch other, more modest language games, and erase the differences between them. Marxism and the Enlightenment project are often called metanarratives. Early semiotics could be seen as a metanarrative because it sought to apply a universal model of meaning and language across a diversity of texts. Lyotard sees metanarratives as dangerously authoritarian and observes that in postmodernity 'we' are sceptical towards them.

>>>Large groups of people were herded into camps for various reasons, used as slave labour, and large amounts of them died in various ways. I mean, how is herding people into camps because of their political views, ethnicity, etc defensible?

Absolutely. In warfare, ethics dissolves into existential conflict so I would argue such actions are entirely justifiable. Also, the old civilian/combatant distinction is a legacy of a bygone error in which wars are waged by sovereign states. The state is no longer separate from civil society anymore. As Schmitt has argued, the state and civil society have penetrated each other, hence the 'total state'. Germany was correct in is assessment that WW2 had been started by World Jewry through the Allies. France, Britain, and America had been goaded into war by influential minority populations within these countries. The Jew was the enemy, not the British, Americans, or the French.

>>>I mean, if the ZOG or whatever had so goddamn much influence, why haven't people who dislike Jews been hunted down and killed?

You mean like Eichmann? The U.S. Justice Department actually has a special division dedicated to hunting down enemies of the Jews.

>>>Hate speech lawsuits are pretty pale replacements for firing squads.

They are precisely analagous to how the Soviet Union threw 'anti-socials' in the gulag. A firing squad is a much more decent way of execution than being thrown in some dungeon as a 'tax evader'.

>>>And what's with this attempt to exonerate Hitler anyway?

Where is the evidence that Hitler ever ordered the execution of six million Jews?

>>>One would think that a real Nazi, who believed that the Jews, Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, dissidents, etc, were scum who deserved to die, would thus be PROUD of what happened, albeit a bit disappointed that some slipped through the net.

Is David Irving a Nazi, Sinclair?

>>>Did Germany not act in an expansionist manner, taking land beyond what it had had in 1914?

Bohemia had been a part of the German Reich for centuries. On the other hand, the so-called state of Czechoslovakia had never existed before in world history. It was set up by the Allies for the sole purpose of weakening Germany and Hungary viz the Western powers.

>>>Did the propaganda not depict Germanics as being "higher peoples"?

I would say that a strong argument can be made that Germanics are a "higher people."

>>>Listen, most Jews today are secular.

This in no way means they do not actively identify with the Jewish people as Jews.

>>>I doubt your average media executive named Weinstein or whatever reads the Torah, much less the Talmud. The Talmud is for crazy Orthodox wankers who nobody cares about.

This is so false I do not know where to begin. Actually, secular Jews often have a much stronger attachment to the Jewish people and its values on account of their secularism, which serves as a type of substitute religion. On the other hand, many of the Orthodox Jews are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel itself, as they do not believe such a state can have legitimacy until the return of the messiah.

But I wasn't talking about group identification. I was talking about the Talmud. Sure, the Talmud is full of the "we're the best **** the rest" stuff that some people seem so paranoid about. Doesn't mean the secular Jews pay attention.

And if the Jews can supposedly control the entire world when there are so few of them, what would that make them if not a higher race?

>>>But I wasn't talking about group identification.

You were discussing secular Jewry as opposed to Orthodox Judaism.

>>>I was talking about the Talmud. Sure, the Talmud is full of the "we're the best **** the rest" stuff that some people seem so paranoid about. Doesn't mean the secular Jews pay attention.

You are assuming that since 'secular Jews' do not read the Talmud then it must follow that their values, beliefs, mores, and attitudes do not reflect the discourse that takes places in the Talmud. I disagree with this. Instead, I would argue that secular Jews are still imparted (albeit in a somewhat distorted form), through their culture and communities, values which have their origins in religious texts such as the Torah or the Talmud. These values have simply been secularised and live on in the social structure. An analogy can be made here to how liberalism is a secularised version of Christianity.

>>>And if the Jews can supposedly control the entire world when there are so few of them, what would that make them if not a higher race?

No one has argued here that Jews 'control the entire world' only that in certain sectors, such as the media or the entertainment industry, they are hegemonic and this influences the discourses that arise out of these institutions. There is a distorting effect upon gentile cultures. And no, Jews are not a 'higher race', Sinclair. Jewry is an ethno-religious group, not a race.

Race, ethnic group, whatever.

If they are able to somehow get away with what they're doing, they must be doing something right. I am tired of the hypocritical view of "If the Jews control a disproportionate amount of power, they're bad. If whites control a disproportionate amount of power, we're good".

The "White Race" had its chance. Remember colonialism? Remember how Britain controlled huge amounts of territory? But the "White Race" let that slip away. If the Jews can do better, so be it. What's so objectionable about survival of the fittest?

You're not getting the point.

"If the Jews control a disproportionate amount of power, they're bad. If whites control a disproportionate amount of power, we're good"

The correct statement would be "If the Jews control a disproportionate amount of power, it's bad for non-Jews and we should call it out and gain power back."

The "White Race" had its chance. Remember colonialism? Remember how Britain controlled huge amounts of territory? But the "White Race" let that slip away. If the Jews can do better, so be it. What's so objectionable about survival of the fittest?

European gentiles are still around, Sinclair. You seem to be promoting apathy. Apathy is not a very good attitude to have while promoting survival of the fittest.

Why should European gentiles be apathetic?

Its a very obvious "I care about my race , I care about my family" , who are under threat from people of other races message.
Its quite crude.
From my point of view I don't really think in terms of race , I don't see that my race or may family are under threat from other races.
As far as wrecking threads go I am not out to do that nor am I out to wind up others or start flame wars. ( Why I did not reply to Dr. B. " Jew" remarks)

Why is it crude to care about your race and family?

I never said European gentiles SHOULD be apathetic. I said that if European gentiles are going to be apathetic and let themselves get ****ed up the ass by and large, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

If you can't hold on to what you took, in the big picture whether you deserved it or not doesn't matter. If European gentiles can preserve ourselves, well, then we preserve ourselves. I myself think that's a good thing. I want my culture and my people to be preserved. But if the overall group of European gentiles lets itself fade away, well, *****ing about it is sour grapes. Somebody else succeeded. That's the way of the world.

Yeah, what the Jews do may be harmful to others. But usually, something that's good for one group is bad for another. A dollar in my pocket is a dollar that isn't in somebody else's pocket. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Etc.

Whatever group is on top will probably cause trouble for the groups below them. That's the way of the world. That's the way it was before people, and the way it will be after the human race is extinct.


I think that European gentiles should stick around. We should be preserving ourselves. But if as a group we don't, well, what happens happens. I don't see why the Jews should be criticized for advancing themselves, just because we aren't.

If they are able to somehow get away with what they're doing, they must be doing something right.

Do you ever think about what you are writing? This makes no sense at all.

Are you seriously saying that if you can get away with something that makes it right?

The "White Race" had its chance. Remember colonialism? Remember how Britain controlled huge amounts of territory? But the "White Race" let that slip away. If the Jews can do better, so be it. What's so objectionable about survival of the fittest?

There's a lot going on here. Why do you immediately reach for colonialism? The so-called white race has achieved a great deal - much of it immensely more admirable than colonialism - which also had its good sides as well.

The point about the Jews is that they believe, according to the Talmud etc, that they are intrinsically better than everyone else, that God loves them exclusively, and that God made all the Goyim to become two-legged beasts for the Jews as well as other monstrous beliefs. The whites, even in the worst colonial excesses never believed in that kind of dreck.

Sticking with the colonial example, they saw it as their mission, to bring the benefits of western civilisation to those living in darkness as they saw it. They conceived of them as junior partners who would be brought up to the western level; much of this is ideology of course, but it is a more noble ideology than Judaism has to offer. Western values and morality are based on universality, Judaism is based on particularism and exclusivity.

For all their unlimited arrogance and self-regard, the Jews have not brought anything of appreciable worth into the world. Their much vaunted achievements - always hailed by themselves of course - has largely been either poor imitiation or largely negative. They are held back by the very things which define them - their limitless hubris. The best thing Jews could do is to abandon their delusions and join the human race.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that somebody wins and somebody loses.

If the "White Race" has let itself be lied to by the Eeevil Joooz or whatever, well, then boo hoo. One group succeeded, the other failed. That's all that's happened. In the big picture, there's no right or wrong. There's winners and losers. If Whites are worthy of being winners, they will be.

I take it that you are not opposed to European gentiles confronting and fighting opposing powers, then?

If the "White Race" has let itself be lied to by the Eeevil Joooz or whatever, well, then boo hoo. One group succeeded, the other failed. That's all that's happened. In the big picture, there's no right or wrong. There's winners and losers. If Whites are worthy of being winners, they will be.

You assume that this way of looking at things is the right way or the only way.

There seems to be a note of despondency or defeatism in some of the posts. A glance at Jewish history will show that they are in fact the losers. They always manage to blow it through their arrogance and have to leave town in a hurry - from the beginning when they fled Egypt - after defrauding the Egyptian women of their jewelry - right up to the 1930's when they became persona non grata in western Europe. Its only a matter of time before the Americans wake up and give them the heave-ho only this time there is nowhere to run. I guess they will have to find another planet.

They are also losers in another respect. They are great at wheeler dealing, deception and sticking together through thick and thin. But is that anything to boast about compared to the achievements of other people's? To earn the contempt of human kind
is hardly something to be proud of now is it?

Edana,
The propaganda is crude , nothing crude in caring for your family or your nation.

I take it that you are not opposed to European gentiles confronting and fighting opposing powers, then?

I'm not opposed in the "big picture".

In the small picture, I tend to believe more in right and wrong.

But historical trends follow no laws. Who today cries about the Britons slaughtered by the Romans? Who weeps for those killed by the Vikings?

Sinclair said;

In the small picture, I tend to believe more in right and wrong.

Well clearly not because you have expressed admiration of Jewish behaviour and the general notion that if something works or succeeds then it is good.

Unless you believe that what is good for Jews (or whoever you happen to be) is good per se.