The Realist Report – John Friend with Germar Rudolf – Nov 5, 2020 — TRANSCRIPT

[katana]

[John Friend talks with Germar Rudolf on Holocaust revisionism and why there were no homicidal gas chambers in the German camps. Germar estimates the total deaths from disease, etc., at Auschwitz at around 100,000. (55 mins)

— KATANA.]

https://katana17.com/wp/2020/11/09/the-realist-report-john-friend-with-germar-rudolf-nov-5-2020-transcript/

[Lamprecht]

Rizoli made a response video with Leuchter:

"Why does Germar hate Germans?"
viewtopic.php?t=13633

They were not happy about this part:

None of them come anywhere close to the death toll that Auschwitz has. So even if we take the revisionist narrative of it, this camp’s still has been the main location of loss of life, of catastrophic, of tragic loss, of tragic loss of life in the concentration camp system.

So that’s why I’m saying it was a “death camp” in that term. Not because of murder. Not because of gas chambers.

Just the other day I mentioned to an acquaintance of mine, who was not familiar with my views on that. And we got to talk about it. And I said:

“Genocide does not require gas chambers.”

In fact the whole history of mankind is riddled with genocide! And not a single one of them included mass gassings in gas chambers! So why do you insist on this one, of having having gas chambers?

[50:25]

If you look at the definition of genocide:

“You persecute a defined group in a way that its numbers, its population numbers, shrinks due to your measures of preventing births, preventing families to form, of putting them under conditions where they die en mass.”

This is today is definition. And today that definition still applies even if you take out gas chambers. So the genocide charge, ethically speaking, not legally speaking because the law didn’t exist back then, but today it does. But ethically it’s always been there, the genocide charge doesn’t go away.

By the way Katana, do you use software for the transcription of audio to text? If so what is it?
YouTube does this automatically (for some videos) but this sort of thing would be scrubbed from YT immediately.

[katana]

Hi Jan

I think Germar is showing misplaced concern about the jews when you put everything into the larger context of the war which Organized jewry, aka, orgjew, instigated. Orgjew is also responsible for 911, etc., so their monstrous crimes continue on and on.

With doing the transcripts I do use YouTube auto transcript function, which needs considerable clean-up work though, but with this transcript I did it by hand, although assisted quite a bit by some home-brew software that I've worked on.

[Otium]

I can only think of one reason for Rudolf to say these stupid things, and it isn't a good reason either. I think that he would like to associate revisionism morally with the mainstream, and thus attempt to forge a unity in ideology rather than concede the historical facts - which is more what Irving has done, conceding parts of the historical narrative in an attempt to seem reasonable and/or to gain acceptance/save face in the mainstream.

In any case. Germar has failed to define what about the actions the Germans took can be defined as Genocide. He establishes no intent either. He knows full well that there was no plan to genocide anyone, people dying as a result of a policy of deportation, during a major war, is also not a genocide, although he could perhaps see it as unfortunate collateral. Much like the nature of wars, births are prevented and usually when it's over the male population is much smaller for obvious reasons. Yet nobody would say that war is inherently "genocide" because it prevents births since men are preoccupied with killing.

One of the big problems with what he's saying is that he's essentially conceding the contemporary historical narrative of "Nazis wanting to exterminate Jews" but just removing the Gas Chambers as an element. This, he should know, will not appeal to literally anyone in the mainstream. If he is trying to do this then he clearly has no clue - as he should - how dogmatic the mainstream is. After all, Germar seems to be acting here as if he's in a position to negotiate with the narrative makers when he holds no cards. It doesn't matter that he's helped in refuting their narrative of the Holocaust, they just enforce it with laws and online censorship. It's a narrative shaped by cultural and political propaganda, not informed on historical facts; therefore the impact of historical information is lost on a public not primed or educated on how to receive such information. They simply ignore it.

Germar is attempting to disassociate Revisionism with anything politically "right-wing", in a naïve belief that the perception of being amoral, or impartial will have an impact on the conventional narrative that is based on being politically left-wing. Nobody who supports the current narrative of the Holocaust is apolitical and impartial, except for Revisionists. Trying to appeal to the impartiality and rationality of our enemies is impossible seeing as it doesn't exist. Germar ought to realise that.

[Lamprecht]

It's a semantic argument. Germar is using this definition:

“You persecute a defined group in a way that its numbers, its population numbers, shrinks due to your measures of preventing births, preventing families to form, of putting them under conditions where they die en mass.”

Well that definition would include many other events that are not traditionally called "genocide" - in fact, that is the definition cited by White Nationalists who argue that a "White genocide" is occurring today.

HMS:

Germar has failed to define what about the actions the Germans took can be defined as Genocide

He said it: sending Jews to Auschwitz and using them for labor or just interning them, where many inevitably died due to disease. But you can make the same argument that Hitler genocided the German people by conscripting them into the military. That is why I don't use that all-encompassing definition there, it turns all sorts of things into genocide.

[Otium]

It's a semantic argument. Germar is using this definition:

“You persecute a defined group in a way that its numbers, its population numbers, shrinks due to your measures of preventing births, preventing families to form, of putting them under conditions where they die en mass.”

Well that definition would include many other events that are not traditionally called "genocide" - in fact, that is the definition cited by White Nationalists who argue that a "White genocide" is occurring today.

What was genocide called before Raphäel Lemkin coined the term in the 1940s? As far as I know he invented it, and it was the UN whom adopted this term and all it's coinciding definitions in 1948 (See: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). So really, it has "traditionally" always been a word with many different meanings. Too broad for what people generally consider to be Genocide - acts perpetrated with the aim of destroying an entire group of people - which is not what the Germans were doing, they had no such aim. However, this can be applied to what's currently occurring to the white race. Demographic predictions and diversity is such that white people can be reasonably predicted not to exist in 100 years if trends continue.

For example:

This is a picture of the current French football (Soccer) team. 10 out of the 11 players are straight up black Africans, the 11th is some Arab type. If you were to ask even the most politically ignorant white or non-white person on the street if this team was "diverse" what do you think they would say? That it's "so diverse!" no doubt. An all white team, made up of various European ethnicities would obviously be considered in todays world, not to be diverse at all. So, if this French Soccer team is "diverse" by some twisted definition, and our society prizes diversity so highly and wants society to become "diverse", what do you think that will mean? It will mean exterminating whites. And to believe that our elites are ignorant of what is occurring, and what will occur as a result of their policies is naïve.

Greg Johnson makes a very compelling case that White Genocide is indeed occurring in his book 'The White Nationalist Manifesto'. Which if you're interested can be read here:

PDF: https://pdfhost.io/v/bDLgFXJLP_The_White_Nationalist_Manifesto.pdf
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20201124143506if_/https://pdfhost.io/v/bDLgFXJLP_The_White_Nationalist_Manifesto.pdf

HMS:

Germar has failed to define what about the actions the Germans took can be defined as Genocide

He said it: sending Jews to Auschwitz and using them for labor or just interning them, where many inevitably died due to disease. But you can make the same argument that Hitler genocided the German people by conscripting them into the military. That is why I don't use that all-encompassing definition there, it turns all sorts of things into genocide.

Sure, he did define it in that way. I suppose I took it for granted that doing such things just isn't Genocide, so to me, that didn't count as a worthy attempt to define what he meant. I would agree with you though, defining Genocide in such an all encompassing way really does turn many things into Genocide, as to really make the term useless. If you were to define it as I did above, as actions taken intending to, or counting on, the destruction of a group, then I think this is something many more people would accept. And it's happening to whites, but never happened to the Jews. Not by the Germans that is. I'm sure someone could find some kind of ancient reference, so I'm making it clear that I'm not talking about anything like that.

[Lamprecht]

Germar said that at the time, that was not the definition of genocide:

This is today is definition. And today that definition still applies even if you take out gas chambers. So the genocide charge, ethically speaking, not legally speaking because the law didn’t exist back then, but today it does.

[Otium]

Germar said that at the time, that was not the definition of genocide:

This is today is definition. And today that definition still applies even if you take out gas chambers. So the genocide charge, ethically speaking, not legally speaking because the law didn’t exist back then, but today it does.

Yeah sure, the bad definition "still applies". But it isn't ethically Genocide. But it is legally I guess. This transcript quote isn't the easiest to read/understand due to its phrasing.

And like I said, there was no definition for Genocide at all back then, that I'm aware of.

Germar says, as you know:

But ethically it’s always been there, the genocide charge doesn’t go away.

And he's still wrong. If you abide by the official UN definition, then sure "it doesn't go away" because technically they have defined it as such that even if you took out the intent, the planning, and the gas chambers, it would still be "genocide". But we all know this is nonsense, in practise it's nonsense. The point is whether or not Germar accepts this definition and chooses to indict the Germans by using it. The possible meaning of him doing so, if he does indeed do so, I have already speculated about in my first post.

He says "ethically it's always been there" which seems to indicate that he is indeed using it maliciously towards the Germans. Or is he just stating some kind of common belief among people, not asserting his own views? Much like if I were to say in reference to some superstition, or ghost story "it's always been there". The meaning being the story, not the ghost has always been there. You know? If Germar is saying that it's always "ethically" been Genocide, even without the Gas chambers or the current lawful definition, then he is still wrong.

At the end of the day you're either saying or not saying the National Socialists committed Genocide. It's really not that difficult.

[Lamprecht]

At the end of the day you're either saying or not saying the National Socialists committed Genocide. It's really not that difficult.

Well if we go by his definition then all of the major belligerents of WWII committed genocide.

[Hektor]

At the end of the day you're either saying or not saying the National Socialists committed Genocide. It's really not that difficult.

Well if we go by his definition then all of the major belligerents of WWII committed genocide.

That is indeed the case. To commit genocide (present definition) you need to have the intend to destroy the targeted group in part or in total.
It reads like this:

Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

This has been done to Germans and bear in mind that this continues to be done to the Germans, with most of them even realising it.
As for a) ethnically German people were targeted. Bombing, expulsion.
As for b) dito. Add to this that the Holocaust and other atrocity propaganda were designed to cause mental harm (re-education)
As for c) Conditions to destroy Germans were also created (hunger blockaded, deindustrialisation). The propaganda is actively antinational. The institutions have been transformed from pro-German to anti-German.
As for d) Conditions to prevent birth in the group // propaganda for breeding with other groups is rife.
As for e) You can pick children and move them to another group (was done). You can also let children be moved into the other group in effect flooding that. How about 80% of the class room being filled up with non-Germans making Germans a minority in their own institutions?

The definition issued by Raphael Lemkin makes this even more obvious:

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups….
(Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79)
https://archive.org/details/AxisRuleInO ... 1/mode/2up

He of course designed this definition as a weapon against Axis rule in occupied countries (und war time conditions). Officially the war ended de facto (but not necessarily de jure). But can't we see that the Lemkin definition continues to fit the foot of what's done by the Germans with Holocaust indoctrination to be central to that? By extension this also fits elsewhere against White, Western nations. There is many examples of this in South Africa in terms of what's done to Afrikaners and their institutions, their economic life and also physically via murders and incitements by politicians to incite genocide. All under the pre-text of transformation from "Apartheid".

The definition is of course a bit slippery, but still better than the ones for "crimes against humanity" or similar rapes of sound jurisprudence.

This is somehow relevant in terms of the Volksverhetzung (people's incitement) paragraph in the German penal code book:
(

3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.

You have to publicly "approve, deny or belittle" something that has been done under the NS-regime that is defined in the "Code of Crimes against International Law" - you'll see this is virtually the same definition as the first genocide one. They of course mean their Holocaust here, but can't use terminology that is of an obviously religious nature. They also limit this to what the NS-regime supposedly has done. But you could do this at any time with anything that has been done by the Allies to the Germans. Law has to be generally applicable and can not be that one sided. The paragraph is denigrating one group and privileging another. There is far more legal problems with this, but I think I struck the main problems here.

[Rockartisten]

At the end of the day you're either saying or not saying the National Socialists committed Genocide. It's really not that difficult.

Well if we go by his definition then all of the major belligerents of WWII committed genocide.

That is indeed the case. To commit genocide (present definition) you need to have the intend to destroy the targeted group in part or in total.
It reads like this:

Definition
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

This has been done to Germans and bear in mind that this continues to be done to the Germans, with most of them even realising it.
As for a) ethnically German people were targeted. Bombing, expulsion.
As for b) dito. Add to this that the Holocaust and other atrocity propaganda were designed to cause mental harm (re-education)
As for c) Conditions to destroy Germans were also created (hunger blockaded, deindustrialisation). The propaganda is actively antinational. The institutions have been transformed from pro-German to anti-German.
As for d) Conditions to prevent birth in the group // propaganda for breeding with other groups is rife.
As for e) You can pick children and move them to another group (was done). You can also let children be moved into the other group in effect flooding that. How about 80% of the class room being filled up with non-Germans making Germans a minority in their own institutions?

The definition issued by Raphael Lemkin makes this even more obvious:

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups….
(Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79)
https://archive.org/details/AxisRuleInO ... 1/mode/2up

He of course designed this definition as a weapon against Axis rule in occupied countries (und war time conditions). Officially the war ended de facto (but not necessarily de jure). But can't we see that the Lemkin definition continues to fit the foot of what's done by the Germans with Holocaust indoctrination to be central to that? By extension this also fits elsewhere against White, Western nations. There is many examples of this in South Africa in terms of what's done to Afrikaners and their institutions, their economic life and also physically via murders and incitements by politicians to incite genocide. All under the pre-text of transformation from "Apartheid".

The definition is of course a bit slippery, but still better than the ones for "crimes against humanity" or similar rapes of sound jurisprudence.

This is somehow relevant in terms of the Volksverhetzung (people's incitement) paragraph in the German penal code book:
(

3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.

You have to publicly "approve, deny or belittle" something that has been done under the NS-regime that is defined in the "Code of Crimes against International Law" - you'll see this is virtually the same definition as the first genocide one. They of course mean their Holocaust here, but can't use terminology that is of an obviously religious nature. They also limit this to what the NS-regime supposedly has done. But you could do this at any time with anything that has been done by the Allies to the Germans. Law has to be generally applicable and can not be that one sided. The paragraph is denigrating one group and privileging another. There is far more legal problems with this, but I think I struck the main problems here.

I'm going to jump in here with some personal thoughts of my own. I don't believe in tactics where you play by the other side's rules in order to win some observers goodwill. All you do is disempowering yourself and in the long run your personal punches become weakend. If I stand fast on something for years and years, but after a while become a little soft and compromise on my morals, then I can't just change back immediately, I have to explain myself why I became so harsh again all of a sudden. If your enemy makes the rules, you break those rules, you don't play by them, that's an endless loss.

I have no insight in all this, all the names and struggles are too new to me. But if the tactic is to make the Holocaust one of many and that the germicaust or eurocaust or whatevercaust is the same and like any holocaust, then it's like trying to create a PR war against the most publicist and popular product on the planet. It would be like selling a better paradise than Allah to the muslims. "We have 82 little boys instead, buy our paradise".

As a Swede I grew up in a homogenous country. One of the most homogenous countries in the world. During my lifetime of 39 years, we are now 70% of the population, and if it continues, I will be a minority in my own lands before I die. That is genocide. I don't give a shit if people agree or if they show me a paper that says it is not. The word genocide is just semantics. In swedish it's translated "folkmord", murder of a people. Most people don't read the legal meaning of anything, they interpret what they have learned from a phrase or a word, and they think as they have been taught to think. And the Holocaust IS jewish and it IS extermination and gas chambers and nazis and evil. Not swedish people becoming brown and muslim. If the world says that is natural and normal, then that will be the consensus.

So by not playing into the hands of the creator of the game and just showing people who are not receiving the information what the holocaust actually is, the Holocaust dies. From my short studies these few weeks, isn't it a correct interpretation to say that, that is how the holocaust have lost over the years?

Exposing the game is the game, not playing the game.

[Hektor]

.....
.....
I'm going to jump in here with some personal thoughts of my own. I don't believe in tactics where you play by the other side's rules in order to win some observers goodwill. All you do is disempowering yourself and in the long run your personal punches become weakend. If I stand fast on something for years and years, but after a while become a little soft and compromise on my morals, then I can't just change back immediately, I have to explain myself why I became so harsh again all of a sudden. If your enemy makes the rules, you break those rules, you don't play by them, that's an endless loss.

That's exactly the thing. Hostile elites have redefined political (and personal morality):
* You can't place your folks/country first, because that would be "racist and Nazi, just like Hitler did".
* You can't assert your rights, freedom, safety first, because you have to consider the other side first. That they completely disconsider you, you must ignore, because pointing that out would be "Nazi".
* You can't assert yourself as a man, because that would mean "You hate woman".
* You can't insist on a folk community where your ethnic group prevails living family lives, because that would be intolerant (hence those opposing this, will use their power to be intolerant to you).
* You can't insist on keeping the vast majority of your income, because that would be unsocial and inhumane towards the poor.
* You can't use violence against attackers, because that would be disturbing the peace and militaristic.
* You can't be against wealth transfer to others, because that would be selfish.
I'm sure a lot can be added to this list. But essentially people have been set check-mate via transformation of morality. Essentially fairness is used against people, by interest groups that don't respect fairness at all. They even instrumentalised Christianity in this. A transformed version of course. From "Love thy never as thyself" to "Love the stranger more than your neighbour and thyself" - Make'm your God as well and sacrifice your kids future to his demands.

I have no insight in all this, all the names and struggles are too new to me. But if the tactic is to make the Holocaust one of many and that the germicaust or eurocaust or whatevercaust is the same and like any holocaust, then it's like trying to create a PR war against the most publicist and popular product on the planet. It would be like selling a better paradise than Allah to the muslims. "We have 82 little boys instead, buy our paradise".

It is. When people notice the oddity of the fixation and media presence of "the Holocaust", they tend to ask, "but what about the atrocities against other people? Don't they count?" They don't get a straight answer. Adherents of the Holocaust will reply that, "they count as well", but this isn't reflected in their behaviour, not remotely. Obviously other people's then Jews suffering doesn't count as much, while the Holocaust Industry has added Gypsies and Homosexuals to their list of victims to be mourned and pitied (as to broaden the base of supporters and repel the accusation of selfishness). They do get only bronze medals in the Holympics, though.

As a Swede I grew up in a homogenous country. One of the most homogenous countries in the world. During my lifetime of 39 years, we are now 70% of the population, and if it continues, I will be a minority in my own lands before I die. That is genocide. I don't give a shit if people agree or if they show me a paper that says it is not. The word genocide is just semantics. In swedish it's translated "folkmord", murder of a people. Most people don't read the legal meaning of anything, they interpret what they have learned from a phrase or a word, and they think as they have been taught to think. And the Holocaust IS jewish and it IS extermination and gas chambers and nazis and evil. Not swedish people becoming brown and muslim. If the world says that is natural and normal, then that will be the consensus.

They indeed don't. But intellectuals should know better, since academic ranks have been filled up with dimwits, they don't act in accordance with this though. I realise that Sweden was front line in terms of immigration. This was partially done as part of becoming a "moral empire". A secularised version of Augustine's "City of God", suitable for Atheists as well. When the Folkhemmet-concept was developed it took ethnically homogenous Swedes as premise. But it turned from communitarian approach to a bureaucratic one. And from a Swedish to a Universal one. Now welfare states can cope, when abuse is the exception. And in the beginning it usually is, since ethnic Swedes would still have qualms to be getting money taken from fellow Swedes. With foreigners this becomes different, the more distant they are and the less they have a culture of not exploiting weaknesses. With time a welfare state becomes an attraction towards all kinds of rent-seeking folks from all over the world. It also promotes a type of immigrant that is rather undesirable. Those from cultures with dysfunctional economies that would like to live off the labour from others to lead comfortable lives.

So by not playing into the hands of the creator of the game and just showing people who are not receiving the information what the holocaust actually is, the Holocaust dies. From my short studies these few weeks, isn't it a correct interpretation to say that, that is how the holocaust have lost over the years? Exposing the game is the game, not playing the game.

There is of course Holocaust fatigue. People loose interest over time, since it isn't a novelty anymore. But whenever policy concessions are wanted, the theme reappears, e.g. by dragging 90 year olds with dementia into court. Those policy concessions are partly financial and of this money gets reinvested into the Holocaust industry. The issue is that most people saw it as some "historic event" that after WW2 got some attention and then this will be water down the river. They didn't see it as part of a strategy where various interest groups seek policy concessions and well also a tool with which they can transform society in their favour. It has replaced religious morality for many and one can virtue signal by "condemning the horrible atrocities of the Holocaust". The greater rubbish people are, the worse their condemnation is. One only needs to look at Antifa, the self-appointed inquisitors against suspected Nazis in society.

Those that take an occidental-patriotic stance in Western countries (through the political spectrum btw.) mostly never realised that this would become such an issue and would be used against them one day. They weren't NS and they thought that their policy points should be self-evident to most people. They were of course decades ago. So politicians were eager not to rail too much against that and not to deviate to far from that consensus. But it took a turn around, where everyone is now afraid to be called a NAZI for insisting that his country is for people like him. Swedes for example, but I think that applies to other Western countries as well. Without the permanent gaslighting the Germans underwent since the 1970s (and Re-education before) Merkel could not have left the Borders open, when millions of pseudo-refugees entered to plunder their welfare system. This was rather obnoxious to observe. Everybody, but Germans that want to pretend to be remorseful moralists, could see the big folly in this. There was critique against this from their, but only a minority dares to utter it publicly.

[Rockartisten]

.....
.....

There is of course Holocaust fatigue. People loose interest over time, since it isn't a novelty anymore. But whenever policy concessions are wanted, the theme reappears, e.g. by dragging 90 year olds with dementia into court. Those policy concessions are partly financial and of this money gets reinvested into the Holocaust industry. The issue is that most people saw it as some "historic event" that after WW2 got some attention and then this will be water down the river. They didn't see it as part of a strategy where various interest groups seek policy concessions and well also a tool with which they can transform society in their favour. It has replaced religious morality for many and one can virtue signal by "condemning the horrible atrocities of the Holocaust". The greater rubbish people are, the worse their condemnation is. One only needs to look at Antifa, the self-appointed inquisitors against suspected Nazis in society.

.

Yes, I can understand the fatigue, and I didn't bring that into my limited interpretation. Obviously there is fatigue. But that doesn't matter, because when one man gets old, he leaves a new man, freash and young. The strategy of the fatigued is not the way to go then from my argument I guess. I've seen alot about Irving lately, and honestly, he might just be trying to secure a pension. It is not worth it to be old and nothing and have nothing. Also an interpretation of mine of the man Irving is that he might have thought he would be the man. The main man. The man in history. The man who changed the perspective. His fatigue was MAYBE admitted that he would not become that man. Someone will become the frontman at some time. Just a thought.

But the man of Holocaust revisionism in the future will probably be some asshole...hahaha

[Hektor]

....

Yes, I can understand the fatigue, and I didn't bring that into my limited interpretation. Obviously there is fatigue. But that doesn't matter, because when one man gets old, he leaves a new man, freash and young. The strategy of the fatigued is not the way to go then from my argument I guess. I've seen alot about Irving lately, and honestly, he might just be trying to secure a pension. It is not worth it to be old and nothing and have nothing. Also an interpretation of mine of the man Irving is that he might have thought he would be the man. The main man. The man in history. The man who changed the perspective. His fatigue was MAYBE admitted that he would not become that man. Someone will become the frontman at some time. Just a thought.

But the man of Holocaust revisionism in the future will probably be some asshole...hahaha

"Holocaust Revisionism" is pointing out the problems with the present "allowable" spectrum of narratives about this previous era. Or more specific about the policies regarding Jews by Axis countries more specifically National Socialist Germany.

The persecution of Revisionists is the kick off for a cancer of other "Memory Laws":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_laws

With other words the gov. tries to dictate how ordinary folks have to view history. On the behest of interest groups of course.