FSTDT

Hektor #conspiracy forum.codoh.com

Depends on how you define the generation of Revisionists. I think the Rudolf Report could be a good benchmark there. Since World War Two, there were always people that found that there is something fishy with the Holocaust narrative in fact, I think up to the Eichmann Trial they may have been even a majority. Not that they dismissed it out of hand, but they realized that there are people that would lie for gain. And the more educated ones would know about propaganda and that all sides in a war do employ it to some extent.

Only few would of course become Revisionist authors, like e.g. Paul Rassinier. That is to be expected because very few people have the resources, ability and persistence to perform on this. And immediately after WW2 people had a lot of other concerns like rebuilding their lives, building the country, having families etc. So even those that were skeptics towards the atrocity stories, wouldn't be able to have counter arguments in a debate. The proponents of what today is called Holocaust on the other hand would have narratives and propaganda material at hand. So the playing field was stacked in their favor.

Around the Zundel trial dissidents from the Holocaust dogma became more known and interested people could search for relevant literature and arguments. However decades had passed and the Holocaust lobby was able to disseminate their narrative via media, entertainment and the education system. So it still was difficult. With the establishment of a set of literature and arguments, newbies to the subject could inform themselves. This especially is the case via the internet of course. The Holocaust seems to lose its mythical power as well. And lets face it, a lot of dumb political decisions were based on it. So I think the end for the Holocaust is near.

borjastick #racist forum.codoh.com

Hi Sweeney,

I have just re-read your original post and wonder if you mean something rather different to what I thought. You seem to perhaps mean that if it is real no one would question it and if it is made up how did so many people get in on the scheme? Take the moon landings, which have long been the subject of conspiracy theorists. The general doubt about it being a conspiracy is that if it was a fake moon landing how did so many people join in and then keep the secret for so many decades? But that would suggest that at the outset a group of people, perhaps from the White House down, decided to scheme and fake the whole thing.

The holocaust is a completely different set of circumstances. The jews had made an enemy of themselves in the eyes of the Germany leaders and had allowed them to put them in a stranglehold, which led to expulsions and an overall desire to rid all of Germany and a wider body of them. The zionist leaders saw an opportunity to exploit this golden one off chance to their advantage, a zionist state. The more blood on the pavement the better as far as they were concerned. That particular theory is well explored in a very good book - The Founding Myths of Modern Israel. A smooth exit for all jews under German control wouldn't persuade the outside world to give them or realistically, steal land from Palestine.

Thus it was in their interests to make the blood thicker, the pain greater and the suffering worse than any other in history. The PR/propaganda war went into overdrive. On the subject of ordinary jews incarcerated in camps, they would have been tired, undernourished and scared. Rumours would have spread like wildfire. Nothing they heard subsequently could have changed their minds that all those jews who came in on last night's trains disappeared, when in fact they were shaved, showered and sent to work in the vastness of Auschwitz (40sq kilometers) or sent to other camps to work for the war effort. Many who went through Treblinka were simply expelled into the Russian hinterlands. Some of those died of course.

After the war their suspicions were absolutely supported and reinforced by the stories told at Nuremberg and retold in many a film, news reel, story of a survivor and like all stories they get repeatedly worse and more dire. Indeed as a fact they never did hear from many or all of their extended families, but this wasn't because they were gassed or died in camps but because they went elsewhere in the world. It isn't a conspiracy of a faked moon landing, after all that would be out of this world! No it was a set of circumstances that allowed many lying and scheming shysters to claim anything they like without fear of criticism, for that would be an act of evil anti semitism.

Your average Joe Schlomo was not 'in on it' save for the fact that it all made sense to him and being a good jew he couldn't possibly look his fellow jews in the eye in synagogue if he didn't go full metal holocaust and six million at every opportunity.

borjastick #conspiracy forum.codoh.com

Some of you may have seen and heard that Daily Stormer, the bastion of free speech and presentation of a different vision and alt right position has been ejected from the internet by both google and Go Daddy.

They use the usual excuse that DS broke community rules etc. really that's just a way of justifying shutting down an alternative voice, and that in the land of free speech! DS always stressed a violence free position and never advocated anything other than peaceful protest and opinion.

This all came about after the Charlottesville riots last weekend where a legally held rally was attacked by antifa boot boys, who seem to say that it's right for them to use mass violence against white supremacists but not the other way around and that they can shut down free speech because they think so. Funny how the good old left are always right...

So what does this have to do with us here? Masses. The left seem to have gained the permission of both the law makers and the MSM to attack and shut down what they see as fascism and ugliness, just because they cannot control their foaming mouths and irrational thoughts that violence against free speech is totally justifiable and yet cannot see the pure irony of it all.

They of course see holocaust denial as a platform for right wingers and fascist Nazis who hate all but ourselves. Not true of course but hey why let the truth get in the way? If we allowed truth to win out Codoh and this forum wouldn't need to be here.

This could be a difficult time as antifa/jews/self righteous and all backed by the frightened media put the boot in on anything they don't like.

Sannhet #racist forum.codoh.com

Our* understanding of, and the importance we attach to, the fate of the Jews in WWII (what is now solely referred to as 'the Holocaust') (Revisionists-in-the-know might call the pair of these things, our understanding of it and the importance we attach to it, "Holocaustism") has been an evolving issue since the 1940s. I would propose that "Holocaustism," if we can date such things to single years, begins in 1978 with the Holocaust miniseries on U.S. television, which, this was before cable TV and so on, was watched by an incredible 49% share of all households who watched TV on the nights it aired (in four parts).

Before the late 1970s, the issue of the fate of the Jews was murkier, the capitalized term 'Holocaust' did not exist, and the fate of the Jews was not as hyper-emphasized as it is today and by the 1970s Germans were just as often seen as victims, or the entire war was more and more seen as a heroic tragedy than a morality play of Evil Germans gassing Jews (as it became later).

The year 1978, besides being the year of the 'Holocaust' TV series, was also the year that (1) Ernst Zundel first got involved in Revisionism -- I have heard Ernst became converted to Revisionism after reading Dr. Butz' Hoax of the Twentieth Century (published 1976), (2) The IHR was first organized by Willis Carto as a scholarly platform for Holocaust and other historical Revisionists, (3) Le Monde published Dr. Faurisson's article in which he proclaims "the non-existence" and concludes saying that their non-existence "is good news for humanity. Good news which it would be wrong to keep hidden any longer."

By the 1990s, the 'Holocaust' had largely become the cornerstone of the Western political mind. The Holocaust-Pushers seemed to have won and Zundel and the Revisionists seem to have lost, but put up a good fight with Zundel at the very front.

If you agree with we that Holocaustism begins in 1978, then next year, 2018, will make forty years of Holocaustism, and also forty years of Revisionism. Zundel was alive for thirty-nine of them, and very active for the first ten or so, somewhat active for the next fifteen or so, then in the prison systems of three countries (Canada, USA, Germany) for about seven, and quiet for the last seven (under threat of a return to prison in Germany). He will be remembered as a member of the first generation of revisionists of the Holocaustian Era. He will be remembered for being right from the very beginning, from AD 1978, or Holocaustism Year One.

Leibniz #racist forum.codoh.com

In Biblical higher criticism, this is called 'pious fiction.' I suppose one could argue that the entire Holocaust narrative evolved from being an Allied propaganda campaign into being a contemporary exercise in Jewish pious fiction.... not unlike creating a fanciful history wherein some Moses character leading the enslaved Jews out of Egypt.

Tommo, Borjastick, and Lothario #racist forum.codoh.com

(Tommo): Yes of course the chemical argument is just part of the puzzle, in my view it is a very important part.

It seems now the angle is not exactly confronting Rudolf's findings anymore, but trying to make the chemical argument "irrelevant" altogether as evidence. Of course, were the shoe to be on the other foot, the chemical evidence for extermination would be given the utmost highest calibre of importance.

Yes, they even try to rubbish Rudolf's coverging of evidence from other sources, such as photo evidence etc, as him relying on other sources because his own contribution is nonsense, and hence alleging basically he is a conspiracy theorist.

I've never read so much tripe.

I am of the opinion that it is impossible to even BE a holocaust historian of any calibre without first learning that it is a lie.

I hold Van Pelt, Green, Rees etc as the holocaust industry's/Jewry's most outstanding liars.

(borjastick): Indeed Tommo, they are very happy to make wild claims that 2000 jews were herded into a 'gas chamber' and a tin or two of zyklon B pellets were tossed through a hole in the roof, which killed them all in a but a few minutes. However when someone applies some logic and science to check and question these claims they scream blue bloody murder, accusing that person of not being qualified, using incorrect methods. In fact accusing him of anything that they can to rock the boat and draw attention anywhere else but the very issue he has exposed.

These holocaust managers hate the truth and will do anything to cover it up. The gaze of exposure burns bright among those who dare to question the ludicrous lies of the holocaust.

Why does Lipstadt shout about never debating the holocaust? Because it doesn't stand up in the cold light of day.

(Lothario): This is true. In David Cole's book Republican Party Animal he tells about a conversation he had with a professor from Boston University and quotes him regarding Dachau: "You know, there are times I wish we could just tell the world that the 'gas chamber' at that camp was built by our troops after the war. But we can't encourage denial." (p. 108).

I'm not sure what the official status of the Dachau 'gas chamber' is at the moment (or how they explain it's existence as nobody is alleged to have ever been gassed there), but it shows how little regard the orthodox historians have for good scientific practises. Being wrong is part of science, not willing to admit you're wrong is malefic, especially when people are in jail or physically attacked because of your lies. The question now is: is his desire to tell the world because of a bad conscience or because he is tired of all the hard questions? I hope it's the former, I fear it's the latter.

Hektor #racist forum.codoh.com

It's not "relevant" to them, because once someone is proficient with chemistry, forensic, process engineering he'll looks straight through their charade. Of course chemistry isn't the silver bullet argument here... It's the whole design of facilities and supposed procedures that sinks that boat. I can't prove it first hand, but I'd say the inner circle of "Holocaust Historians" is at least intuitively aware that their dog won't hunt. Or why do you think it's those amateurish bloggers that try to debate Revisionists - And not the crowd that deals with Holocaust issues for a living? Sure, they'll argue that "Revisionists" aren't relevant, just some antisemitic conspiracy theorists that would be elevated by debate or by dealing with their arguments. But that's just academic snobism played, when they don't have the answers they should have. The real reason is that when they'd argue with open conclusions and did a fair, objective treatment on evidence and arguments, it won't look that great for orthodox Holocaustianity.

Green was an exception to that, but he's not from the humanities anyway. So, while he seems to have some vested interest in the Holocaust, it's not his job that is at stake here. Once the Holocaust is history, his department would still exist and he still would have a job. That's a bit different with the "Holocaust studies" department. Once there is common acceptance that the Holocaust is essentially a propaganda hoax by the Allies that mutated after the war into a full blown industry, their funding and political support will dry up. Now that will make those with a PhD in Holocaust studies pretty irrelevant and they'd sit the rest of their life's with an egg in their faces, while they're flipping burgers at McDonalds, if they're lucky. So they'll have to avoid anything what endangers the life of their goose that lays the golden eggs for them until now.

Hannover, borjastick, and Rmbrmb21 #racist forum.codoh.com

(Hannover): That's it in a nutshell. And they cannot even support imprecise claims, it's all just theatre. Those who gain financially, politically, and socially simply invent numbers which cannot be substantiated. When challenged on the absurd claims, Jewish supremacists demand the imprisonment of the challengers. Only the 'holocaust' storyline is protected from inquiry, whereas all other claimed historical events are subject to scrutiny. Cui bono?

(borjastick): Rather spookily this very topic came up in conversation with some friends of friends earlier this very week.

We had a couple of chaps around for drinks, as they were staying in a friend's house. One of them saw my bible on the bookshelf which happens to be next to my holocaust revisionism books. I'm not sure he recognised them as that but asked the question about my interest, saying that he had recently been to Auschwitz.

He then referred to Auschwitz as an extermination camp. I questioned this and mentioned that more Catholics died there than jewsand that disease was a major killer. He was a bit taken aback. So I explained a bit but still didn't tell him about my doubts on the whole thing.

I asked him who he thought died in the holocaust, his answer was simple 'all German jews they could kill and almost every Polish Jew. At that point I showed my hand a little telling him that less than half German jews died, and there was no proof of gas chambers. I think he was somewhat shocked and realised he was well out of his depth, so he changed the subject to another left winger's classic topic - Brexit!

(Rmbrmb21): Nice! I always find it interesting that people could believe something without having all the facts. As if they just so desperately want to believe that they ignore any inconsistencies. What proof did he exactly see at the camp that would be so moving, what could confirm that millions/million and half (no idea what the official count is anymore) people had been killed?

They show you some old brick buildings, some hair, clothes and gas canisters, but there are all explanations for those things. If I were to take this guy to the cave Hira and tell him that Muhammad saw Gabriel there, would he believe me simply because I could take him to a place where something was said to have happened? Independent thinking is so rare it seems.