Boomer Internet 'Historian' Destroyed In His Comments After Calling Revisionists Crackpots

[Hektor]

Our opponents are deliberately trying to push our views to the fringes and paint our movement as "conspiratorial". Sadly too many of our people still believe more our opponent's propaganda of us than the views of our own researchers and writers.

Bradley Smith, the founder of CODOH, didn't even believe things like 9/11 truther stuff, and it's quite sad to see so many of you doing it. viewtopic.php?f=29&t=14547

One of the standard charges leveled against Holocaust revisionism by Deborah Lipstadt is that it is a groundless “conspiracy theory.” She describes “Holocaust deniers” as “a group motivated by a strange conglomeration of conspiracy theories, delusions, and neo-Nazi tendencies.”

https://codoh.com/library/document/jewi ... timony/en/

Thomas Dalton sums some tactics of our opponents in his book "The Holocaust: An Introduction: Exploring the Evidence" (p. 112):

Misleading presentation of revisionism and the leading revisionists: no mention at all of Mattogno, Rudolf, Graf, Kues, or Berg, nor anything at all on their many important publications through 2010. Silence on many of the same key issues: nothing on the ‘6 million,’ Hitler’s actual words, deportation plans, incriminating air photos, or the glaring absence of bodies or remains. And straw-man arguments: emphasis on ‘hoax,’ ‘myth,’ evidence fabrication, and the idea that ‘the Holocaust never happened.’

It's the Holocaust that is the unfounded conspiracy theory. And it's ludicrous how they argue:
Them: "There is piles of evidence, documents... etc."
You, showing them that this isn't evidence for what they claim.
Them: "The NAZIS destroyed all the evidence".
You: Now you still have to proof that it happened as well as them destroying all the evidence. There is indeed piles of documents... Overall this doesn't support Exterminationism, but fit the Revisionist thesis 100%. So what exterminationists do is to pick tiny fragments that suit their agenda and use them to create a picture in the audiences mind that seemingly supports their claims.

We should also stop using words that really HURT our cause. Thomas Dalton in his book "Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides" (p. 30):

"Traditionalists in turn leap on this hoax label and use it to their advantage. They take it to mean a kind of global conspiracy, a large-scale collective effort to deceive the general public. They say, 'Those deniers actually believe that the Jews could pull off this monumental fraud! They actually think that thousands of historians, writers, journalists, government leaders — everyone, in fact, who supports the standard view — are in on the scam, all conspiring to assist the powerful Jews. How stupid can they be?' And there is some weight to this. You cannot claim massive fraud without a solid basis for it. If someone lies, call it a lie. If someone utters a blatant absurdity, call it absurd. Revisionists risk looking foolish, and only hurt their cause, by arguing for a hoax."

Bwahaha... If that silly strawman is so believable, the Jews could indeed do so easily.
And well... They did plot against Germany since long before Hitler came to power. Otherwise numerous statements won't make sense.
And be advised that several Allied countries and their establishment had sufficient motive to smear Germany with all kinds of atrocity propaganda. And they actually did. No grand conspiracy were "everybody had to be in"... Just lots of rumor mongering, disinformation, emotional manipulation of lots of gullible people that are "in it", just not knowing what they are in for. People cite and copy nonsense all the time, without knowing whether it's true or not. And sensation sells.... Isn't it plausible that this also applies to the Holocaust Narrative? Nevertheless, you and the rest of believers still owe us proof for your claims. We've seen enough of your distortions and innuendo. Where is it?

Point being... Lots of religion is a scam... There is more than a billion Muslims... claims of Islam can actually be shown to be scam. Does that now mean that it must be true, because it can't be that "a billion people have to be in on the scam".

[Revision]

Nevertheless, you and the rest of believers still owe us proof for your claims. We've seen enough of your distortions and innuendo. Where is it?

I don't support the exterminationist narrative. You should know that well from my threads here.

My signature literally says "The mainstream Holocaust story is a baseless conspiracy theory." and you are trying to teach me that. Revisionism doesn't require belief in some grand conspiracy, exterminationism does. I'm just saying that there are many know-nothing people that call themselves "deniers" or "revisionist", but are more useful to the exterminationist side because of their skewed view of revisionism. Our enemies advertise these already flawed narratives and strawmen about us for a reason. You might be surprised to find out for example that there is a fair bit of flat earthers that have somehow became interested in "revisionism". And it doesn't help that people like Jim Rizoli has uploaded flat-earther videos, because he wants to "seek the truth".

[Otium]

Revisionism doesn't require belief in some grand conspiracy, exterminationism does. I'm just saying that there are many know-nothing people that call themselves "deniers" or "revisionist", but are more useful to the exterminationist side because of their skewed view of revisionism. Our enemies advertise these already flawed narratives and strawmen about us for a reason. You might be surprised to find out for example that there is a fair bit of flat earthers that have somehow became interested in "revisionism". And it doesn't help that people like Jim Rizoli has uploaded flat-earther videos, because he wants to "seek the truth".

Absolutely. I also agree with Dalton.

A lie or misinterpretation should be challenged on a case by case basis, not made to look like a 'conspiracy'; because it's true that the word 'hoax' brings the fore all kinds of strange implications.

The truth is that the Holocaust is not so much a 'hoax' as it is a hysterical distortion of various pieces of evidence to fit various popular notions (e.g. the witness statements from alleged victims and perpetrators, also wartime reports), all of which are variations of the war-time propaganda idea that the Germans were unprincipled butchers of not only Jews, but everyone that stood in their way. It was this ruthless view of the Germans on the eastern front (not without some level of truth), shielded by the secrecy of the Soviet Union, which allowed these myths to proliferate and find willing adherents among the disgruntled Jews and the Allied nations who sought to indict Germany. Nothing was too crazy to be seen as 'true', especially with the abundance of certain stories. This is of course not to say that there weren't also deliberate lies in the mix.

The narrative was never concocted from above (although it is maintained/controlled from above), but reformed gradually from below by those who studied the matter with a certain preconceived notion in mind which allowed them to perhaps, unwittingly falsify evidence and thus allow them to rationalize 'proof' for their belief. This still happens today when these people attempt to reinterpret a document to 'fit', or to 'fill the gaps' with supposition. It is delusion, backed by irresolute insistence on 'Nazi' wickedness which keeps this story alive, and gives it so much dynamism.

The level of control from within the academic system is probably not as much as we would expect, because most people involved are themselves already indoctrinated with the 'correct' view and tow the line. They wouldn't consciously transgress against it, and thus wouldn't necessarily be punished. If you did step out of line, like Ernst Nolte who didn't even advance any particular revisionist notion (that I can recall) then you will inspire at most an academic debate in which you are practically designated persona non grata.

This is to say that all the people who perpetuate the Holocaust are not stooges 'in the know', they genuinely believe it. So whenever they read a document, they view it from their inalterable and preconceived perspective (or pre-imposed perspective) which forces it to conform to their belief in the Holocaust story as it has evolved. The notions which have propped up regarding 'coded language' for example, has itself been enough to dissipate any possibility of cognitive dissonance to evolve from the lack of real explicit documentary evidence.

One can also hide behind the other strongly held notion that the 'Nazis' were all unscrupulous liars, which means any document no matter how secret or entwined within the Nazi bureaucracy itself that doesn't fit the narrative can be reinterpreted to support the Holocaust. For example this thread regarding Himmler's report of December 29, 1942 to be seen by Hitler only. 'HistorySpeaks' aka Cockerill claims that despite the document making reference to 'bandits' and not Jews, that for some reason this needed to be shielded from Hitler who supposedly authorized the genocide of the Jews. Thus we see a conscious attempt to rationalize what these people want to believe rather than what's actually true. That in this instance Himmler's office had submitted a banal report to Hitler regarding partisan activity (real and perhaps imagined, who knows how accurate the numbers really are) and because both men are 'Nazis' and thus 'liars' the document is forced to fit.

---

Any view which is unpopular runs the risk of being inundated with grifting conspiracy nuts who believe anything and everything so long as it seems superficially plausible. Because Holocaust revisionism is not only 'superficially plausible' but logically sound, but also unpopular, it attracts the worst kinds of conspiracy minded people who lack critical thinking skills and so believe all their wild notions are the result of a totally open mind, and therefore must reflect the 'truth'.

People like Jim Rizoli are festering sores who leak bile and damage the credibility of legitimate historical discussion and opposition to monolithic power narratives. People like this should never be tolerated. I do not care whether they 'share' my view or not, they do more harm than good in the long term.

As I have said elsewhere you cannot bombard people with "truth" about various topics they're already unlikely to agree with, because you're then forcing them to become iconoclasts. This they simply will not do, and you seem less trustworthy as a result. Inherently in-fact. Nobody is going to trust a single thing you say if what you're saying sounds as if you're trying to convince them the sky is green and the moon is made of cheese. This is practically no different when you go on about all the various 'TRUTHS' out there. No matter how 'true' you think they are, it is tactically irresponsible to bombard people with them, let alone to tolerate shit like the idea the earth is flat or the moon-landing didn't happen (this latter one is popular too, and completely irrelevant even if true).

The real truth is - I (and many others too) have experienced this - that people do not want, nor will they believe that institutions of power which they're taught to trust are really not the bastions of truth they have always supposedly been. Emotionally, the idea that people are liars is reserved for the enemies of history (the 'Nazis' and to a lesser emotional degree the Communists) whom the collective yet divergent forces behind the current political axiom had designated as the proprietors of such indecent behaviour. This shields criticism of those in power, and allows them to implicate normal people with historical 'criminals'. It's of course much more comforting to believe that the enemies of 'truth', 'justice', and 'liberty' were vanquished decades ago. And that in some way the manifestation of hatred and lies is a residue from those times which we are lucky to never experience. The foundations of this view are difficult to challenge because it isn't just a historical question, it is a moral and political one with widespread implications.

It is only natural for regular people who have a stake in the current system - because they implicitly trust it - to simply dismiss you if you're telling them all sorts of 'crazy' sounding things about history. If you do not pick your battles, and at the right moments, then you will never make headway with the truth. The dominos will not fall if you insist on blowing them up immediately. Then the damage is irreversible.

People do not want to believe that liars (or irrational ideologues) pervade their impeccable institutions which represent authenticity, truth, and objectivity. Of course this has a lot to do with people's general political preconceptions.

So when today someone has a 'left-wing' orientation it is impossible for them to see the fact that those whom they agree with ( and are largely representative of those in power) are themselves ideologues who aren't objective. And because colloquially 'leftism' is the general orientation of society today (whereas being 'right-wing' is synonymous with 'lies' and can be dismissed out of hand and as a reason in itself not to trust someone or something) these ideologues are harder for regular people to identify, which means they insist that no such people exist!

Everyone believes - and has believed historically - that they (the ones in power at a given time) are the bearers of the truth while those they disagree with whom are powerless must also be reasonless and irrational ideologues; hence their less powerful status*. It's not any different now than it was 100, 200 or however many years ago. The masses (i.e. the layman) will never be capable of seeing the forest from the trees. They never have and never will. They fall victim to the same deluded cycle again and again until the orientation of society shifts over time and the new society becomes aware of how the old society rewarded lies, perpetuated dogmas, and irrationally believed in what those in power said. Then a new myth is created behind the dogmatic belief that this 'new society' will never do such a thing again. "Caution" is then propagated against the previous lies and dogmas, and this is done until it believes itself to be progressive, by which time - inevitably - it happens all over again; the new dogmatic system corrupts itself and polices itself and whatever new dogmas reign will again be incapable of being challenged because 'this time for real' we have 'learnt from the past' and recognize 'objectivity' and 'truth'. As is said today in the wake of WW2, allowing all sorts of immoral transgressions on normal people who do not conform. This kind of hypocritical injustice consists of such things as police harassment, social stigma, discrimination, censorship and of course political violence. Some variation of which I'm sure many of us have experienced.

As stated, the cycle perpetuates and is primarily enforced by a new belief in 'progress' accompanied by principled meritocracy, which evolves into ideological dogmatism against the new minority thought and is justified by its own authoritarianism. As Rod Serling and my grandma have both said: "It has forever been thus".

* As family and friends have told me, if what I believe is true, then it must surely be accepted as such by wider society, which they erroneously think is malleable to logical challenge and not dogmatic in the least. Of course this is contradicted by their understanding of how dogmatic and unwelcome challenge is to the Holocaust narrative. But this is simply viewed as legitimate outrage at an 'impossible' criticism, which is of course believed to have sinister implications and propagated by those with sinister intentions.

[Hektor]

Nevertheless, you and the rest of believers still owe us proof for your claims. We've seen enough of your distortions and innuendo. Where is it?

I don't support the exterminationist narrative. You should know that well from my threads here.
....

I wasn't responding to you directly, but to those that actually argue in the way as described, sorry for the misunderstanding there. I should have made that clearly.

The "If the Holocaust was a hoax, imagine how many do have to be in on it"... Is a common believer argument. It's away to avoid dealing with the issue, by misrepresenting the arguments of Revisionists. Given that this is infused into the debate via announcement and repetition, it's actually a framing strategy. On its own, the Holocaust narrative doesn't look to smart to an objective observer. So all they can do is try to make any opponent look silly or fiendish in some way. It works to distract from the fact that there thesis is merely a paper tiger without any empirical grounding and huge logical problems.

[hermod]

Targetting a group's weak spot is a usual trick of crooks. David Irving has never been a Holocaust historian (he's a Third Reich and WWII historian who disbelieved some parts of the Holocaust orthodox narrative and he never wrote a single book about the Holocaust) and he has never been more than a semi-revisionist when dealing with the Holocaust anyway. Deborah Lipstadt and the historian in the opening post of this thread deliberately misrepresent Holocaust revisionism and dishonestly single out David Irving as the official spokesman of Holocaust revisionism for deception purposes. They do that in order to dupe the public and conceal the fact that real Holocaust revisionists such as Carlo Mattogno and Vincent Reynouard easily debunked the pseudo-arguments of Holohoaxers. They both know that Irving is not the alpha and the omega of Holocaust revisionism as they claim, but they both hope that most people will keep believing that big lie.

[borjastick]

He, Simon Webb, is at it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANTi_erdpQ

In his latest video he talks about wooden doors and the fact that 'gas chambers' had wooden doors and so couldn't have been functioning.
He refers to Kurt Gerstein's book and confession as if that is somehow the only and last word on the matter.

Sad to say Simon Webb really doesn't know his subject. But then again as a jew lover who adores israel how could he be objective at all? It would be like asking a muslim to have a bacon roll while at the same time offering a critique of the quran...

Some of those who deny that the Holocaust took place signal their views by posting cryptic phrases on the internet. One of these is of course ‘wooden doors’.
https://alphahistory.com/holocaust/an...

[Hektor]

He, Simon Webb, is at it again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANTi_erdpQ

In his latest video he talks about wooden doors and the fact that 'gas chambers' had wooden doors and so couldn't have been functioning.
He refers to Kurt Gerstein's book and confession as if that is somehow the only and last word on the matter.

Sad to say Simon Webb really doesn't know his subject. But then again as a jew lover who adores israel how could he be objective at all? It would be like asking a muslim to have a bacon roll while at the same time offering a critique of the quran...

Some of those who deny that the Holocaust took place signal their views by posting cryptic phrases on the internet. One of these is of course ‘wooden doors’.
https://alphahistory.com/holocaust/an...

They don't get the point that Revisionists aren't questioning the Holocaust, because some details or testimony sound fishy. It's questioned, because any sufficient evidence presented in support is absent. What Exterminationists hence resort to is innuendo with circumstantial stuff that can not really be challenged, since those are statements that are either true or not, but not verifiable. Other tactics involve showing photos with the comment "dead Jews in concentration camps", "deportation lists", Zyklon B orders or cans, piles of shoes, etc. Why present such trinkets, when you have a rock solid case with proven, functional murder weapons, pathological reports on corpses demonstrating death by HCN, etc. They don't even have/show this as a minimum presenting evidence that can actually be examined or discussed. And they do this for decades, while stressing how important the matter is to them and that 'lots of research' has been done etc. Do they realize that this actually supports the contrary position?

From a neutral point of view it objectively is a swindle involving outrageous accusations, financial and political blackmail ... and well persecution of dissent on the matter. There is no rational reason to believe that story in the absence of empirical evidence... The logical conclusion is that there is a mud campaign is being run by rather sick people that like to play the victim and try to take advantage of other people's pity. This could be a minor issue, but since the story is dominant in Western consciousness serving as a morbid Myth to justify what is otherwise unjustifiable, there is good reason to continuously challenge the narrative and to call out those perpetrating it as well as cooperating it. Bear in mind that it serves as justification ideology to break wars of the fence that potentially could lead to even nuclear war. Those engaged in it, fulfil requirements for functional insanity, but they do have positions of influence and power in the Western world, where the Holocaust is a thought-terminating cliche.

[TmodelFord]

They are still running television advertisements asking for money to help elderly Holohoax survivors in Israel. If they survived, how do we know they were there at all? Some six digit tattoo that wouldn't have served the first 100,000? Maybe they reused the numbers after someone was gassed? The German records of concentration camp production of Buna N, stone blocks, etc was typical precision. They kept no record of gassings?

[Hektor]

They are still running television advertisements asking for money to help elderly Holohoax survivors in Israel. If they survived, how do we know they were there at all? Some six digit tattoo that wouldn't have served the first 100,000? Maybe they reused the numbers after someone was gassed? The German records of concentration camp production of Buna N, stone blocks, etc was typical precision. They kept no record of gassings?

If you assume that they were in camps extermination facilities, their survival is odd indeed.
If you however assume that the only goal of those facilities was war time internment, it isn't strange at all that people did survive.

On a general note "Holocaust survivor testimony" isn't testable at all. At best it is probably a mixture of recalled experiences and rumors... More of the later since the narrative was peddled in media over and over again. And if one's main social circle is Jewish I'd guess that such stories were even more part of their conversation than usual. There is of course a media bias as well on what types of testimony gets aired and which doesn't. Two types of testimony are unlikely to be aired:
a) Stories that are totally obnoxious and obviously fictitious.
b) Stories that put things in a more sober light or even portray the guards/ camp administration in a positive light.

What journalists want are tough luck stories of Jews that support the idea of innocent suffering and a hilarious 'German villainy' / 'Nazi Tyranny'.

Just check the news feeder for Holocaust types of articles. E.g. on 'trials against war criminals' meaning former concentration camp staff.

They usually cite a court historiography like "six million Jews died in the Holocaust" and "XXX thousand Jews" died in camp ABC. They barely mention gas chambers anymore. They will however cite a witness that told a story in the line of "My Whole family was deported to camp ABC and I never saw them again".... Such testimony is admitted, even if it is virtually never tested for veracity. And the obviously suggestive character of the statements isn't critically assessed neither. The court simply assumes that factuality of the common Holocaust narrative. And the accused must now try to prove that he somehow wasn't guilty. No obligation on the side of the prosecution to establish personal guilt of the accused. That this is actually outrageous behavior on the side of the court is never pointed out That there wasn't free choice in terms of employment at the time, is also always ignored.