Revisionism vs. Neo-Revisionism

[Hebden]

Here is a provocative article from a Mr. Dale Robertson, available at http://www.russgranata.com (see under Essays):

Eyes Wide Shut: More Revisionist Review 2002
by Dale Robertson

As most are aware, there is no organization which professionally represents conservative culture today. This refers to a culture predominately of Aryan composition, their various European cultural backgrounds and philosophical doctrines. What exists are only offshoots of either the Catholic Church or some form of Christianity. European Conservatism has been a victim of democracy, the global "melting pot," and those active in it today come from backgrounds as diverse as the emigrants which now occupy America and Europe.

Within this diverse global void, a small group known as "Revisionists" are felt by some to ride the cutting edge in the war against liberal culture, alien political action committees, and general societal degradation into the dark age. They are over-represented by two major factions today: Willis Carto, publisher of the defunct Spotlight, The Barnes Review and now the American Free Press; and the Institute of Historical Research—managed by Mark Weber and Greg Raven—publisher of the Journal of Historical Review. Almost everyone is aware of the legal hostilities over the last decade between them. Sharing common philosophical origins—the venerable American Mercury journal, once edited by H. L. Mencken himself—these two organizations each were once a tour de force in representing Revisionism. Today, these former child prodigies appear to represent little more than the octogenarian reality they have become—one which might best be described by the Barbara Streisand song, "The Way We Were."

Other revisionists of neither persuasion, who have been described as "Neo-Revisionists" by some, exist as well, but possess less influence and prestige within these circles. This group would include, among others, Bradley Smith and his associates, and Germar Rudolph, director of Theses and Dissertation publications. The differences between the Neo-Revisionists, Carto and the IHR, is their approach to Revisionism, including the Jewish question. To understand the differences of the three groups, their objectives must be considered.

Definitions and Objectives

How each group regards "Revisionism" varies widely. For Carto, Revisionism was most likely a new conservative fad, which bloomed after public interest in Jewish issues declined for decades. This decline followed the McCarthy era and its activism against Jews and their communist activities. Revisionism was an opportunity to counter the whitewash of 20th century history by the Jewish controlled media. The astute businessman saw Revision also as a way to make money, not only in subscriptions, but large donations by the wealthy. Regardless of Carto's irrefutable conservative dedication, Revisionism was primarily a means of economic profit. At least the business was organized and operated in that fashion, and it became an instant success. Reminiscing recently about one of her husbands accomplishments, Elisabeth Carto proudly mentioned how "Willis...built up and increased to over $1 million retail" the book inventory at the IHR under his control. [1]

Although Carto was the co-father of the Institute of Historical Review, his employees possessed a different perspective. For Mark Weber and others, it was historical. It is undeniable that their political perspectives did not align at least to some degree with that of Carto, but they were more scholarly in their approach to the relevant issues at hand. Although money was the primary factor in the breakup of the IHR under Carto, no one can deny that an equally important schism arose when Carto attempted to divert the Journal of Historical Review away from its primary focus of holocaust research and revisionism.

Neo-Revisionists, despite their common ground with those above, operate from a different perspective—what might be described as a "humanistic" objective. Avoiding the political and racial "landmines" of Revisionism, their expressed interest includes furthering relationships between Jews and Gentiles through truth and knowledge. Bradley Smith's focus is predominately debating the holocaust in public, primarily in state schools and universities. Germar Rudolph focuses on the holocaust from a technical perspective concerning the operational capabilities of the alleged "gas chambers." Operating in an activity which allegedly panders primarily to "anti-Semites" of all extremes, both are visibly "left" oriented. Rudolph is on record stating that the "principles on which revisionism was founded" are different than those of mainstream today. [2]
From this hodgepodge of objectives and backgrounds, one can see that whatever the definition of "Revisionism" is, it requires latitude. It encompasses historical issues, and has an historical definition, but political objectives need to be considered as well. While the IHR has refrained from varying from the historical core issue of Revisionism—critical analyses of the "holocaust" and World War II topics—Carto's publications cover a wider selection of topics, both historical and political, even including current events and obnoxious conspiracy theories. Rudoph's interests are technical in nature, focus upon the alleged holocaust, and are mostly in German. Bradley Smith seldom, if ever, steps beyond, what might be referred to as, the First Amendment aspect. Politically, Carto is considered as anti-Semitic by the chosen crowd. The IHR has been labeled as such also by global Jewry—unfairly, maliciously and inaccurately—for questioning aspects of their sacred holocaust. They may be best described as having simply recognized the danger that Jewry and Zionism present to the rest of the Gentile world. Neo-Revisionsts such as Smith and Rudolph appear to have little interest politically, but are lumped in with the rest of the so-called "anti-Semites." Again, in sum, any definition of Revisionism should consider and include the political aspects therein, as they cannot be avoided.

Current Issues Considered - Conflict and Progress

Over the last decade, since the breakup of the IHR and dismissal of Carto, the lawsuits have been continuous. Carto has possessed an almost childish enthusiasm for filing lawsuits, even after he agreed not to do so, despite the fact that he was the one who allegedly, and apparently, swindled the IHR out of millions of dollars. [3] The lawsuits have obviously been a factor in the rather dismal performance and financial position of the IHR over the last decade, but should not be considered the sole cause. Interestingly, Carto's operations appear to continue almost unfettered by the legal ping-pong process. At a recent function, Carto boasted proudly that the Spotlight had approximately 100 thousand subscribers. This, of course, was probably exaggerated, with 50 to 70 thousand being more accurate. [4] Regardless, any such subscriber base would be a windfall for the IHR, who has lost many subscribers over the last decade, now standing at only a few hundred at best. The primary cause of this decline appears to be simply apathy to the current global order. However, more than a few have noticed a lack of originality and quality in the Journal of Historical Review over recent years. Admittedly, this is due to several factors; lawsuits, funding, lack of research, etc. Frankly, none of the publications of either Carto or the IHR, however, has been exceptionally impressive over the last decade. While the latter has become repetitious, and recently resorted to including syndicated columnists in each issue, the former has stooped to lowest levels of publishing credibility by insisting that ad hominem character assassinations of Mark Weber is worthy of print. Overall, intentionally or otherwise, the leading voices of the Revisionist community have returned absolutely no prestige, or even respect, to the conservative community in the fashion that Jewish organizations do so today. The seeds of potential which once existed in the Revisionist community became weeds of greed, anger, carelessness and selfishness. With respect to the Neo-Revisionist groups, their operations appear to function within their objectives and meet their intended performance levels. The only notable issue with them might be their limited scope in a field full of targets.
Rudolph's recent arrival on the Revisionist scene presents another distraction for the IHR. The industrious Rudolph has an impressive background, education, and research expertise, all resulting in a large number of recent technical publications. Rudolph's professionalism has opened up the Revisionist business to competition and his open questioning of the IHR's performance over recent years has revealed the differences between those involved. Rudolph has documented a performance comparison between the IHR and himself, which is posted on his VHO website. [5] At one point Raven challenged Rudolph to draw up a plan which would improve the operations and performance of the IHR This, of course, would be little other than a mere exercise in banality, since any plan on the part of Rudolph—or anyone else for that matter—would require approval by those it criticized. Nor would any author of any such plan ever receive credit due for any constructive criticism under the current structure which the IHR is run.

The poor financial situation is not the only issue circling the IHR these days. The questionable removal of the editor, Ted O'Keefe, is only the latest is a series of problems, or scandals as one might call them. O'Keefe, who recently published his story concerning the state of the IHR [6], had little impact on IHR operations after taking the helm as editor, despite making respectable progress in publishing the ailing Journal of Historical Review in a timely fashion. This is understandable since O'Keefe had no influence over any real management decisions, thus never was in any position to address or correct the problems therein. One should note though that the state of the IHR journal is only the manifestation of the problem, not the problem itself.

A larger dark cloud still hovers over the heads of Weber and Raven concerning their consideration of selling the mailing list for the Spotlight, which was once potentially part of a Carto settlement package. This scandal was revealed by former IHR employee Eric Owens, who created an uproar by releasing internal conversations between Weber, Raven, O'Keefe and himself concerning the problematic nature of the issue. Owens' magnitude of integrity is only surpassed by the question of trust, doubt and concern which instantly arose for many in the conservative community concerning the integrity of the IHR's management, and their capability to single-handed run what should be a multi-million dollar non-profit corporation. Sadly, however, after only a few days, the dark cloud dissipated with no visible change in IHR operations. Although the issue awoke the so-called "Board of Directors" from their slumber, their response was, at best, dismal, and resulted only in the call for trivial changes, none of which improved or changed any IHR operating procedure.

Real Issues More Important

Regardless of what has transpired between these three groups over the years, let us consider the Revisionist "forest," and not just its three little trees. None of the groups above has ever had any effective impact, politically or culturally, nor will they in the future. No politicians represent Revisionism, and those who have acknowledged it have been quickly terminated by the AIPAC executioner. The Jewish image is essentially untarnished, in spite of Revisionism's best efforts over the last two decades. Carto's publications today serve mostly for entertaining the uneducated masses with his tabloid, and pseudo-intellectuals with his Barnes Review. While the other Revisionist groups also attract primarily pseudo-intellectuals of limited number, neither attract or interest society's key elements—the rich and influential—the foundation of any cultural or political movement. Nor do they interest the masses. None of these three groups can serve to unify conservatives, and Revisionism itself has little potential to do this as well. The narrow perspectives of the Barnes Review and the Journal of Historical Review is of little interest, at best, to mainstream society. The sad fact of the matter is that Revisionism, overall, has little to nothing to offer to anyone that would improve their lives if they become a member thereof. Therefore, any such outreach is impossible.

Revisionism's misdirection and questionable effectiveness is not everything to consider. It lacks financial backing and central funding, and management for Revisionism is critical overall, but non-existent. While Carto's operations appear adequately financed and punctual, and Neo-Revisionists work within their means, the IHR remains particularly vulnerable. The lack of any research programs and subscribers, together with the limited management foresight, promises little future for it. The same may be concluded for Revisionism overall. Due to the current "inverted" structure at the IHR, the Board of Directors clearly possesses, at best, only minimal influence and control over its management. One might even be inclined to believe the Board is under the control of the Director and Editor. This is strongly suggested by their lack of reaction during the Owens fiasco, as well as the apparent dismissal of a board member at the insistence of Director Raven, during the termination of Ted O'Keefe.

Although the Revisionist picture is dismal overall, the idea of an Institute itself is worthwhile. The benefit of the current IHR to Revisionism, in its current condition, is undeniably limited however. Any salvation for it would require major changes. The only suggestion worthy of action is that by Greg Raven, viz., the submission of a plan to revamp the IHR into something new and effective, but this should be focused at Revisionism itself instead with critical analyses of issues such as education (how to effectively incorporate the material in everyday life), religion (how to integrate the various factions), advocacy (should Revisionism adopt active or passive stances), and philanthropy (how to acquire a sound financial base and disperse it effectively for educational and socioeconomic objectives). Although Revisionism's political objectives and its success should be the primary focus of Revisionism, Revisionism must be financially solvent in order to function. It can't work any other way. These objectives should be established, in addition to effective marketing, advertising, and research. Without research, outreach programs or marketing, the benefit of any donation to any cause is the equivalent of flushing the money away. Without direction and accountability therein, Revisionism is effectively neutered. Because of this sterile condition, Revisionism's shortfalls must be recognized and admitted, and its objectives must be carefully reconsidered.

Objectives and Redefinition Needed

Today's masses are uneducated, undisciplined and self-centered. Whatever genetic capabilities and advantages descendants of European races possess today, have all been undermined by complex socio-economic and -psychological factors, developed by those like the Frankfurt Institute. The products of America's schools today cannot relate communism to Jewry; scrutinize Zyklon-B remains in ancient walls; or identify with German or Italian culture in the 20th century. They don't understand politics or know history, and aren't impressed by scholarly Revisionist journals. Their only interest is what benefits them, that to each person and his own individual lifestyle. To be successful, the primary focus of Revisionism must be political and reach out to the masses.

Revisionism cannot win friends and influence people using their current techniques, journals and images. After more than 20 years, Revisionism, under Carto and the IHR, has had virtually no influence on society. [7] A new approach to changing the future must be considered, one which looks at reality with both eyes wide open. Revisionists leaders must unify, define Revisionism, its political objective, and establish economic and financial plans for that objective. Although this is reinventing the Revisionist "wheel," it is the only future of Revisionism—a future long overdue. As long as Revisionists keep their eyes wide shut, as Revisionist leaders do today, their efforts, like our money, will be just another "flush" of enthusiasm.

References Cited

[1] Personal letter from Elisabeth Carto to Guillermo Coletti
[2] Rudolph, Germar "The Controversy about the Extermination of the Jews" Therein Rudolf wrote:
"The first and foremost goal of this discussion is the joint and sincere search for truth, in order to contribute to a reconciliation between Jews and Germans which may perhaps result in a realization of my dream of a revival of the German-Jewish symbiosis."
"I believe a co-existent German-Jewish vision of the future is indeed possible. Well-being and peace are in the best interest of the Germans and Jews alike. To think otherwise is to go against the very principles on which Revisionism was founded and has existed since its inception."
[3] Willis Carto's Homepage at the LSF website:
[4] That was only a few weeks before the Spotlight went out of business. Sadly, those who subscribed during those last days were not rolled over into Carto's new tabloid, The American Free Press.
[5] IHR Crisis document
[6] Ted O'Keefe's "WhistleBlower" Document
[7] With the obvious exception of generating huge incomes for hundreds Jewish organizations who specialize in ‘watchdogging' alleged anti-Semites.

[Germania]

Revisionism was an opportunity to counter the whitewash of 20th century history by the Jewish controlled media.

what jewish controlled media is he talking???

------
there will be a schoolary debate between belivers and revisionists elsewhere. go to:

The Scholars Debate!

or search google for

RODO.H (without dot!)

[Hannover]

I consider this to be mostly rubbish. This 'Dale Robertson' is way behind the times and uninformed. It's a strawman article pretending to be in-the-know, it is not. I'm surprised Granata took the bait on this.



- Hannover

[Hebden]

I consider this to be mostly rubbish. This 'Dale Robertson' is way behind the times and uninformed. It's a strawman article pretending to be in-the-know, it is not. I'm surprised Granata took the bait on this.

Unless you can put some more meat on these bones, we shall have to conclude that Mr. Robertson's piece rather hit the nail on the head. So feel free to give us the benefit of your wisdom on the current state of Revisionism, and the future prospects thereof.

[Sailor]

Revisionism was an opportunity to counter the whitewash of 20th century history by the Jewish controlled media.

what jewish controlled media is he talking???

How many media are there?

[Hannover]

Hebden posts material without comment, what's his viewpoint of it? He curiously appears reluctant to say.

I feel that Robertson is yesterday's news, Carto is largely irrelevant, Rudolf (along with Mattogno) is perhaps the most relevant & important of the lot, and the IHR, having taken some hits, is regrouping.
I also believe that Revisionism has achieved worldwide growth and increased acceptance, successes are being achieved. A few years ago Revisionism was not even mentioned, now The Believers talk of little else.

- H.

[Sailor]

There was an article posted here that disppeared: "The Taming of the Shrew" quoted from Guillermo Coletti.

The way I understand Coletti is: The Jew knows that he is lying about the Holocaust and any attempt to discover the truth about the Holocaust and at the same time try to appease the Jew is impossible. Coletti calls a revisionist who also wants to make peace with the Jews a neo-revisionist.

With other words, a real revisionist has to be anti-semitic.

That is heavy.

Or did I misunderstand?

[Moderator]

The post 'disappeared' because Hebden included a childish taunt towards a member.

Moderator

[Hebden]

There was an article posted here that disppeared: "The Taming of the Shrew" quoted from Guillermo Coletti.

The way I understand Coletti is: The Jew knows that he is lying about the Holocaust and any attempt to discover the truth about the Holocaust and at the same time try to appease the Jew is impossible. Coletti calls a revisionist who also wants to make peace with the Jews a neo-revisionist.

With other words, a real revisionist has to be anti-semitic.

That is heavy.

Or did I misunderstand?

There is yet a third position you may wish to consider, as expressed by Mr. Michael Hoffman:

There are both conscious and unconscious Zionist and rabbinic agents in pro-Palestinian and revisionist ranks. These agents are determined to reimpose the exhausted and failed psychology and paradigm of Jew hatred under various semi-respectable guises. This tendency must be combatted not on humanitarian or liberal grounds, but because it will lead to a dead-end, a repeat of history, a path to the treadmill of endless, rerun defeat for us and our Cause.

There are hundreds of thousands of "Jews" who feel severely oppressed and threatened by Judaism and Zionism and who seek escape and liberation; who were raised as "frum Yiddin" in settings of unimaginable despotism and claustrophobic micro-management of their lives. We, who should be their harborers and liberators, only drive them back into the arms of their oppressors when we single "Jews" out for any sort of special animus.

We are not fighting genes or blood or a race; those are Talmudic and Kabbalistic obsessions clandestinely conveyed into our civilization by means of the Social-Darwinist and Hitlerian belt of transmission. Originally this racism was a rabbinic meme, reflecting the ancient megalomania of the Pharisaic sect at Jerusalem.

We are fighting not a race of people but a spiritual and ideological toxin, which infects Judaics and gentiles with equal virulence. These spiritual toxins are the dogmas embodied within Orthodox Judaism, war-Zionism and their various step-children in the Western occult as personified by Hitler's hero, the Kabbalist Giordano Bruno, as well as Pico della Mirandola, Reuchlin, Dee, Pike, Crowley and their infernal Rosicrucian, Masonic and OTO branches, including the Skull and Bones demonology of George W. Bush, who was initiated in New Haven, CT in 1968. (This writer owns a photocopy of the official Skull and Bones --"Russell Trust" -- roll, giving Bush's date of initiation and biography).

When the great French writer and virtuoso anti-rabbinic polemicist, L.F. Céline, wandered the salons of Paris during the Nazi occupation, he was invited to speak at various anti-Jewish conferences, where "Jews" were denounced with great fervor. He sat in the back of the room at one such gathering, disgruntled and mumbling imprecations. Thinking Celine resentful because he was in the rear, the organizers invited him to come up to the dais and join the assembled Vichy dignitaries as they denounced "Jewish bullsh**t." But Celine only stood up and shouted, "What about Aryan bulls**t? Why don't you talk about that for a change?" and then he stalked off.

Full article here:http://www.hoffman-info.com/essay23.html

[Germania]

I also believe that Revisionism has achieved worldwide growth and increased acceptance, successes are being achieved.

where? on mars?

[Hannover]

Germania appears to be in denial, or perhaps uniformed. Afterall,
why would so many countries have laws against 'holocau$t' Revisionism if there was no interest in it?
This event, as alleged, is the only alleged historical event which is protected from scrutiny. Only lies need protection from scrutiny.

I shall later post examples of Revisionist works, conferences, reporting, etc. from various world locations.

- H

[Sailor]

…Thinking Celine resentful because he was in the rear, the organizers invited him to come up to the dais and join the assembled Vichy dignitaries as they denounced "Jewish bullsh**t." But Celine only stood up and shouted, "What about Aryan bulls**t? Why don't you talk about that for a change?" and then he stalked off.

The “Aryan Bulls**t”, what an interesting point of view.

We are always talking about how much money the Jews are getting out of Germany and the US because of the Holocaust.
I think that that is peanuts as compared with the fortunes certain German (and probably also US ) non-Jewish enterprises made and are making by playing the Holocaust card right.

The Holocaust story, if it is a hoax, will disappear one day. It may take some time, maybe a world wide disaster, a depression lasting a decade or so, a nuclear war, with Israel trying through the US to conquer the rest of the Middle East. One day a child will in its innocence say: “But look, the Kaiser has no clothes on!” And that would be the end of the story.

But if the Holocaust story as we are told by the Jews is true, then the so called Holocaust revisionism will just fade away.

In the meantime I plan to follow the neo-revisionistic approach, and have a hell of a fun time doing it.

[Scott]

I'd have to say that Robertson has hit the nail on the head.

Afterall, why would so many countries have laws against 'holocau$t' Revisionism if there was no interest in it? This event, as alleged, is the only alleged historical event which is protected from scrutiny. Only lies need protection from scrutiny.

I'd have to say in addition that if the Bundestablishment didn't have "Holocaust Deniers" they would have to invent them just like demons in the Middle Ages for the Inquisition, the purpose of which was to enforce Belief in the System and to provide catharsis for a public accustomed to the harshness and the vagaries of nature, God, and governance.

In short, Groupthink.

Healthy Skepticism and a commitment to free-speech, are the tools necessary to short-circuit B.S. from all comers. Any way you dice it, there can be no justice without truth.

[Hannover]

I said:

I also believe that Revisionism has achieved worldwide growth and increased acceptance, successes are being achieved.

Germania replied:

where? on mars?

I would like to welcome Germania back to earth:

Iranian intellectual, Abdallah Horani: "instead of talking about the so-called Holocaust, (we) should have followed the doubts (about it) that are gaining momentum in the international arena and among leading European intellectuals." It's quite clear, the tide is turning against the lies.

Palestinian leader blasts fraud of the standard story of the holocaust : alleged numbers, alleged gas chambers, etc. discredited - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=27795
"A Palestinian leader considered to be second-in-command after Chairman Yasser Arafat claimed in a pair of doctoral theses that the number of Jewish men, women and children killed by the Nazis during World War II is a fiction perpetuated by Jewish leaders and the West."

New Revisionist book in Armenia has Jews in a panic. A quote from it: "The greatest falsification in human history is the myth of the Holocaust. ... no one was killed in gas chambers. There were no gas chambers." see - http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/022002Armen.shtml

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/04/10/27496.html -
THE STATE OF ISRAEL WAS FOUNDED ON THE HOLOCAUST MYTH - "the latest research that has been conducted by scientists of different countries regarding the mass genocide against Jews and the real number of victims, testifies to multiple and unjustified exaggerations and distortions of the real events." - "The world would never have allowed Israel to exist without this myth"

"The trend among public opinion in the Arab world today -- whether we like it ot not -- is to question the veracity of the accepted wisdom about the extent of the killing of Jews by the Nazis."
-Rami Khouri, Toronto Globe and Mail, May 22, 2001

Holocaust Revisionist Speaks to Packed House in Estonia
http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/120402Estonia.shtml

http://www.codoh.com/newsdesk/srnu199811.html#1
TEHRAN, March 6 (Reuters) - A senior Iranian cleric called on Friday for a book by a convicted French author questioning the Holocaust to be widely distributed in Moslem countries.
``I recommend that this book be translated and distributed in all Islamic countries, including Iran,'' Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said in a Friday prayer sermon broadcast on Tehran radio.
He was referring to the book ``The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics'' by French Moslem author Roger Garaudy which disputes the numbers of Jews killed in the Holocaust and questions the existence of gas chambers in Nazi death camps.

Jews attempt to repress dissent, but the cat is out of the bag folks - French academics in turmoil at Lyon. see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ ... 815912.stm - As if a picture of children means 'extermination', quite the opposite.

- Hannover