The Shrinking Heads?

[borjastick]

It is important to put this in time context and the chance and opportunity to use these items. By that I mean that these items were pre made, thought through and brought by certain individuals to an agreed situation to use as a freak show as part of the demonisation of Germany. This was all part of the plan, to make Germany and the Nazis seem like a horror show. These were not things they found in Uncle Fritz' garage while nicking his wine and pickled egg store in Frankfurt.

Thus it was clear they were setting out on this path with agreement from the highest authorities to lie and deceive the public and media about atrocities and sub human actions/behaviour they wanted to get across. When they found the camps the opportunity was too good to pass up so they opened up the box of lies and set them out on the table.

Doesn't this just prove to you that the whole holocaust was a hoax and a plan to besmirch the whole country?

[Hektor]

It is important to put this in time context and the chance and opportunity to use these items. By that I mean that these items were pre made, thought through and brought by certain individuals to an agreed situation to use as a freak show as part of the demonisation of Germany. This was all part of the plan, to make Germany and the Nazis seem like a horror show. These were not things they found in Uncle Fritz' garage while nicking his wine and pickled egg store in Frankfurt.

Some of the items could have been come buy opportunistically. E.g. from a museum of from a university.
Psychological Warfare's job is to engage in deception operations. That's their mission. So they will pick anything suitable for this purpose. That it is recognizable as such nowadays is probably because they worked more hastily at that moment.

Demonization was definitely the goal of the operations. And it is a unprecedented type of demonization as well. Perhaps last being the case with witchcraft-crazes in the early modern era. And this is prone to get its own 'life'. People will find more and more evidence for what they assume to be some kind of truth. It's when broomsticks become evidence for witches flying through the air.

Nowadays most people will be skeptical about the witches stories... and rightfully so. The majority still accepts the nazi-tales, though. At least is too timid to question those. Although I think there are more people skeptical than can be measured. They just won't say this for fear of having to draw uncomfortable conclusions.

Thus it was clear they were setting out on this path with agreement from the highest authorities to lie and deceive the public and media about atrocities and sub human actions/behaviour they wanted to get across. When they found the camps the opportunity was too good to pass up so they opened up the box of lies and set them out on the table.

Doesn't this just prove to you that the whole holocaust was a hoax and a plan to besmirch the whole country?

The 'highest authority' set up those units. And psychological warfare is in a different class of operation, too. It's more deceptive than ordinary propaganda would be, which can be entirely promotional in nature.

Thorough knowledge about psychological warfare and its role during and after World War Two is key to debunk the Holocaust Tale for a broader segment of the public. It's psychological warfare is becoming an issue again with the Russo-Ukrainian war, right now.

[tyger]

Back in the 1990s, there was public disquiet in the UK when it was revealed that the Alder Hey Children's Hospital had been retaining organs for research and teaching purposes. The specimens were stored in glass jars - identical to those featured in the post-war atrocity documentaries.

[Hektor]

Back in the 1990s, there was public disquiet in the UK when it was revealed that the Alder Hey Children's Hospital had been retaining organs for research and teaching purposes. The specimens were stored in glass jars - identical to those featured in the post-war atrocity documentaries.

That's however common practice that human body parts are preserved for the purpose of research and teaching anatomy to students. How do they think surgeons learn to do operations on the bodies of living humans. I'd guess there were universities right in the way were the Psychological Warfare Division was operating. Easy to pick something up there and then place it on the display table for the purpose of creating shock and awe with the spectators.

Be advised that there was no criminal investigation whatsoever, just picking and choosing whatever could be useful for the theatrical effect. Now I get that this could go through for a little while. But this type of display has been used to persuade people ever since. And that is intellectually dishonest for educators to show this to an audience as if the narrative would be true.

Why doesn't the Buchenwald Museum or "Gedenkstaette" have a disclaimer debunking common myth about Buchenwald? If they don't have this, they themselves are guilty of disinformation.

[hermod]

It is important to put this in time context and the chance and opportunity to use these items. By that I mean that these items were pre made, thought through and brought by certain individuals to an agreed situation to use as a freak show as part of the demonisation of Germany. This was all part of the plan, to make Germany and the Nazis seem like a horror show. These were not things they found in Uncle Fritz' garage while nicking his wine and pickled egg store in Frankfurt.

Some of the items could have been come buy opportunistically. E.g. from a museum of from a university.
Psychological Warfare's job is to engage in deception operations. That's their mission. So they will pick anything suitable for this purpose. That it is recognizable as such nowadays is probably because they worked more hastily at that moment.

It was postulated that those shrunken heads had been brought from the Naturkundliches Museum in Weimar near Buchenwald (see note 11 in the paper below).

https://postimg.cc/N2H4M8hZ

https://postimg.cc/v43WG2gc

[Hektor]

It is important to put this in time context and the chance and opportunity to use these items. By that I mean that these items were pre made, thought through and brought by certain individuals to an agreed situation to use as a freak show as part of the demonisation of Germany. This was all part of the plan, to make Germany and the Nazis seem like a horror show. These were not things they found in Uncle Fritz' garage while nicking his wine and pickled egg store in Frankfurt.

Some of the items could have been come buy opportunistically. E.g. from a museum of from a university.
Psychological Warfare's job is to engage in deception operations. That's their mission. So they will pick anything suitable for this purpose. That it is recognizable as such nowadays is probably because they worked more hastily at that moment.

It was postulated that those shrunken heads had been brought from the Naturkundliches Museum in Weimar near Buchenwald (see note 11 in the paper below).

https://postimg.cc/N2H4M8hZ

It's probably something like that. Fact remains. The Holocaust promotors can't tell you where this is from or that it was something manufactured in Buchenwald. But play on people's gullibility. It's the hide-and-seek-with-the-evidence game. Simply spread photos of such trinkets (And "pictures never lie") and people will start believing a sinister nazi-atrocity story about it. One would think people would notice the swindle... As they would in any other case with some probability. But with "NAZISM" they will make a deception indicating the religious character of Holocaust Belief.

[hermod]

The Holocaust promotors can't tell you where this is from

Don't they claim without a solid proof that the Buchenwald shrunken heads were from the corpses of Polish laborers who had been executed for having sex with German girls?

or that it was something manufactured in Buchenwald.

Isn't it what the dubious document in the OP was supposed to prove?

[Hektor]

They have a page dealing with the lamp shades:
https://www.buchenwald.de/de/geschichte ... nschenhaut
At the "Gedenkstaette Buchenwald".
Now there is some hick hack on why they think that the human skin lamp shades are real and why they think this was manufactured in the camp.
They do insist that there is "credible testimony" for the lamp shades being manufactured in Buchenwald on the orders of Koch.

Für die Existenz eines Lampenschirms aus Menschenhaut gibt es zwei glaubwürdige Zeugen, die ihre Aussagen auch beeidet haben: Dr. Gustav Wegerer, Österreicher, politischer Häftling, Kapo der Pathologie, und Josef Ackermann, politischer Häftling in der Pathologie und Sekretär des Lagerarztes Waldemar Hoven. Wegerer erklärte an Eidesstatt: „Etwa zur selben Zeit [1941-H.S.] erschien eines Tages der Lagerkommandant Koch und der SS-Arzt Müller in meinem Arbeitskommando, der Pathologie. Damals befand sich gerade der aus gegerbter, tätowierter Menschenhaut hergestellte Lampenschirm für Koch in Arbeit. Koch und Müller suchten unter den vorhandenen gegerbten, pergamentdünnen Menschenhäuten Motive, die mit geeigneten Tätowierungen versehen waren, für den Lampenschirm aus. Aus dem Gespräch, das die beiden führten, ging hervor, dass die vorher gewählten Motive nicht das Gefallen der Ilse Koch gefunden hatten. Der Lampenschirm wurde sodann fertiggestellt und an Koch abgeliefert.“ Dr. Hans Müller, später SS-Arzt auf dem Obersalzberg, war von März 1941 bis April 1942 als Pathologe in Buchenwald.
https://www.buchenwald.de/de/geschichte ... nschenhaut

Now this Dr. Gustav Wegerer is given as political prisoners. They don't mention that he was a Communist. What the political affiliation of Josef Ackermann is not on his wikipage, but he made career afterwards during the occupation and in in the early FRG (intelligence services and publishers in Munich). So there is motives to swindle as well as indication that they may have been rewarded for 'their service'. Munich was part of the American zone of occupation.

That gets the museum around the embarrassing admission that this was a swindle by psychological warfare. I search for "psychological warfare' and it appears that the term was in some of the texts in the past. The present page doesn't mention psychological warfare with a single word it seems (always possible that it is still somewhere hidden). Here is a mention (from the past):

Likewise under the influence of his impressions of the camp, General Patton, the commander of the Third U.S. Army, ordered a representatively selected group of Weimar citizens to tour the camp on April 15.

In addition to guided tours and photo and film documentation, the collection of reports written by inmate survivors contributed substantially to the perception of camp reality and the dissemination of the history of Buchenwald Concentration Camp. In the very first days following liberation, over one hundred inmate survivors – primarily persons who had carried out functions within the camp and were therefore more familiar with the system than others – produced approximately 150 first-hand reports at the request of the Intelligence Team of the Allied Forces Psychological Warfare Division. Originally intended as a report for the Allied Forces Supreme Headquarters, the first standard work on the Nazi concentration camp system was drawn up by the former Austrian inmate and publicist Eugen Kogon. Kogon had been strongly involved in the production and compilation of the survivors’ reports. The first edition of his book SS-Staat appeared (in German) in 1946. A bibliography of the literature published internationally on Buchenwald Concentration Camp would comprise far more than a thousand titles.

They don't ask themselves or state what could possibly the purpose of psychological warfare division be. Their sources are people with professional skills in spin doctoring and motivation to lie about those they considered their arch enemies. And this was motivated to do ever since.

The vanishing of mentions of 'psychological warfare' is indication to me that they may occasionally be confronted with that question and that their court historians don't give them good answers on this. So rather avoid the issue and sanitize the page. The common visitor of their web site or the museum won't bother or ask anyway. And it is still a powerful relic they have there. And well, isn't that all that counts, if your job depends on this. The thing is of great value to the ruling elites in Germany. It is cultural capital for them. And also cultural capital needs to maintained mainly by people with backgrounds in the humanities.

[hermod]

They have a page dealing with the lamp shades:
https://www.buchenwald.de/de/geschichte ... nschenhaut
At the "Gedenkstaette Buchenwald".
Now there is some hick hack on why they think that the human skin lamp shades are real and why they think this was manufactured in the camp.
They do insist that there is "credible testimony" for the lamp shades being manufactured in Buchenwald on the orders of Koch.

So not all "Holocaust museum curators dismiss such claims" after all...

Note that the All Lies liquidated their star propaganda artefacts (shrunken heads & lampshades) after use in order not to be caught with their pants down afterwards.

And human-skin lampshades were only an item of the Allied horor show at Buchenwald. What about the "book bindings, bookmarkers, and other ornamental pieces (including a wall ornament that was an entire male chest) --- all made from human skin too"?

https://postimg.cc/fk0mVftK

https://postimg.cc/zLjxx27f

https://postimg.cc/LJS7vPSN

https://postimg.cc/XGyhvk3c

https://postimg.cc/D87jVTWc

https://postimg.cc/Pp7MCCTW

https://postimg.cc/HjFY36VH

https://postimg.cc/hQmqHqfn

https://postimg.cc/TLxp3Cvn

https://postimg.cc/BPWPH4FP

P.S. The Holocausters used the same trick for Dachau. The Dachau museum curators now claim that formerly-dropped testimonies have finally proved that some inmates were killed in a homidal gas chamber at that camp.

[Hektor]

They have a page dealing with the lamp shades:
https://www.buchenwald.de/de/geschichte ... nschenhaut
At the "Gedenkstaette Buchenwald".
Now there is some hick hack on why they think that the human skin lamp shades are real and why they think this was manufactured in the camp.
They do insist that there is "credible testimony" for the lamp shades being manufactured in Buchenwald on the orders of Koch.

So not all "Holocaust museum curators dismiss such claims" after all...

Note that the All Lies liquidated their star propaganda artefacts (shrunken heads & lampshades) after use in order not to be caught with their pants down afterwards.

And human-skin lampshades were only an item of the Allied horor show at Buchenwald. What about the "book bindings, bookmarkers, and other ornamental pieces (including a wall ornament that was an entire male chest) --- all made from human skin too"?
.....
P.S. The Holocausters used the same trick for Dachau. The Dachau museum curators now claim that formerly-dropped testimonies have finally proved that some inmates were killed in a homidal gas chamber at that camp.

I think there is two points to consider
1.) They Can't drop the story entirely. If they would say that the Srunken Heads and Lamp Shade stories were false, this would mean that those were lies. And people would start asking, whether they are not told even more lies. So rather take a 'we are not sure'-attitude on this.
2.) Not possible to prove a negative. Their advantage is that it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. Can I prove that "No Nazi never did..."? I can't. I can't prove that "no nazi did manufacture soap from Jewish fat". I can't prove nobody was ever gassed. I can't prove that no NAZi ever did produce shrunken heads, human-skin lampshades or furniture from bones. All I can do is show that those stories are void of substance and actually preposterous propaganda. Meaning that this is rather obvious propaganda lies.

Well I can't prove that Santa Clause doesn't live on the moon neither. But I don't demand that people have to believe in it. That those are rumors and atrocity propaganda lies are however the best explanations for those stories. And they would say this in any other historical case. I fact people insisting that the present government manufactures shrunken heads would be laughed off, called conspiracy theories and seen as a bit nutty and bizarre. But with the Holocaust Myth as thought terminating cliché, almost anything goes. Just don't over do it. Play very serious and talk like an expert that wants to teach the youth a lesson about evil. It's a mixture between public historian and priest assigned to show the crowd the relics. Ever seen one of them coming forward claiming that those pieces of wood weren't from the cross, but medieval art pieces to sell to believers? Not going to happen, not going to happen easily.

The worst that can happen to them is that an otherwise unattached hipster does do a good documentary on the matter. Tells a story that he visited Buchenwald and then wondered about the lamp shades, wondered about the conditions at the time. That it seems a bit 'over the top to him' etc. It's far more dangerous to them than 'Holocaust Denial'. Because with that they are still taken seriously. In fact they use Holocaust Belief to fight "Denial", portraying deniers as 'dangerous Nazis' that won't to revive Hitler, take over the world and gas all the Jews. Can't do that with a hipster that just lost trust into what he's told. It's like with the kids that are taken to pilgrimages, but aren't interested in the exercised. It's the problem with all idolatry, it looses power once people can express their resentment about it and also can ridicule it. Ridicule is perhaps the biggest danger for them. But it's powerful to tell ridiculous stories and force people to believe in them. The excuse is of course that one 'doesn't laugh about suffering'. So the believers and enforcers do have some trumps in their hands.

What reinforced the Holocaust was the dinner table talk. Some friends and relatives sitting around the table talking about a documentary or movie they have seen. And some elderly lady being shocked about 'gas chambers' and 'those atrocities'.... This enforces the belief for the others there. A skeptic will be suspected of not being 'sensitive', not being part of the 'morale collective'... So stated unbelief can be bad for social relations. People don't want that. So they rather shut up about it. They don't necessarily believe it, but let the others not know about their unbelieve as to not cause tensions within the group. Most mass religions function like that. There is a hardcore of 'pious people' and a a mass of not so pious people to some degree. The groups of unbelievers will also include rather unpleasant characters and they are then portrayed as examples of 'unbelieve'. Underlying message is that if you don't believe us you are bad, so rather believe us and 'be good' (or at least be counted as good).

[hermod]

I think there is two points to consider
1.) They Can't drop the story entirely. If they would say that the Srunken Heads and Lamp Shade stories were false, this would mean that those were lies. And people would start asking, whether they are not told even more lies. So rather take a 'we are not sure'-attitude on this.

True, but they realized that only after they had dropped some parts of the Holocaust narrative for damage control purposes. They had patently failed to realize that, in the Holocaust narrative, everything is true or everything is debatable & potentially untrue because the "evidence" for the Nazi gas chambers is qualitatively identical to the "evidence" for the Nazi human-fat soap, the Nazi human-skin lampshades and the Nazi steam chambers. When they finally realized that, they backpedalled and restored the dropped parts of the Holocaust narrative (the Dachau gas chambers, the human-fat soap, the human-skin lampshades, etc.) but in a minimized version (only a few inmates were gassed to death at Dachau, the Nazis manufactured human soap on a small & experiemental scale, some human-skin lampshades were manufactured at Buchenwald but they vanished in the turmoil of WWII, etc.).

2.) Not possible to prove a negative. Their advantage is that it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. Can I prove that "No Nazi never did..."? I can't. I can't prove that "no nazi did manufacture soap from Jewish fat". I can't prove nobody was ever gassed. I can't prove that no NAZi ever did produce shrunken heads, human-skin lampshades or furniture from bones. All I can do is show that those stories are void of substance and actually preposterous propaganda. Meaning that this is rather obvious propaganda lies.

Well I can't prove that Santa Clause doesn't live on the moon neither. But I don't demand that people have to believe in it. That those are rumors and atrocity propaganda lies are however the best explanations for those stories. And they would say this in any other historical case. I fact people insisting that the present government manufactures shrunken heads would be laughed off, called conspiracy theories and seen as a bit nutty and bizarre. But with the Holocaust Myth as thought terminating cliché, almost anything goes. Just don't over do it. Play very serious and talk like an expert that wants to teach the youth a lesson about evil. It's a mixture between public historian and priest assigned to show the crowd the relics. Ever seen one of them coming forward claiming that those pieces of wood weren't from the cross, but medieval art pieces to sell to believers? Not going to happen, not going to happen easily.

That's why the burden of proof normally rests on an accuser.

What reinforced the Holocaust was the dinner table talk. Some friends and relatives sitting around the table talking about a documentary or movie they have seen. And some elderly lady being shocked about 'gas chambers' and 'those atrocities'.... This enforces the belief for the others there. A skeptic will be suspected of not being 'sensitive', not being part of the 'morale collective'... So stated unbelief can be bad for social relations. People don't want that. So they rather shut up about it. They don't necessarily believe it, but let the others not know about their unbelieve as to not cause tensions within the group. Most mass religions function like that. There is a hardcore of 'pious people' and a a mass of not so pious people to some degree. The groups of unbelievers will also include rather unpleasant characters and they are then portrayed as examples of 'unbelieve'. Underlying message is that if you don't believe us you are bad, so rather believe us and 'be good' (or at least be counted as good).

Probably a very old primitive instinct in our brains. Exclusion meant certain death to a caveman. Most humans fear a potential exclusion more than anything else and dissident beliefs easily lead to the exclusion of their carriers. The whole political correctness thing is based on that old instinct if I'm asked.

[Hektor]

It's indeed a tactic of propaganda to first start out with sensationalist obviously exaggerated claims to draw attention to the propaganda. It's so people will pay some attention. Normal prison live doesn't do that... You want some really sick story that will gain attention by a crowd that is starving for horror and heroism. In Commercial Law this is actually a bait and switch. E.g. you offer something at a ridiculously low price and when the person comes and visits your shop you tell him that the price has risen and that unfortunately he has to pay a bit more now. The Holocaust apostles and priests try of course to do their best to have an appearance of seriousness, earnestness and piety. So they will claim that, if they made a mistake that it was an 'honest mistake'. No, Lampshades? Fine, we made a mistake. We don't say anymore that 'the Nazis manufactured lamp shades from Jews'. Dropping such dry weight is no problem for them. They even will use this to argue that they are actually 'serious about science and accuracy'. What counts is that the emotional content is preserved and maintained this way. One needs to understand that, while this is a religion it is different from a church that has clear structures and makes official statements. The Holocaust Industry has a myriad structures, but no pope, no officially appointed priests and no written statements of faith. This makes them far more flexible and also more immune to critique.

The other thing is the credible middle-ground fallacy. They say ten million... People sense this is definitely to much, but they will settle for a smaller number. The idea of an 'extermination program' does however remain. One tag-line of history teachers was that 'even of only one Jew was killed' that this would 'have created the same guilt'. What they argue is that 'the Holocaust' is an example for people being persecuted and killed, because they belonged to a specific ethnicity. But weren't people with ancestry in Axis countries (e.g. Germans, Japanese, Italians, etc.) also persecuted in Allied countries? Yes, they were, but will hear virtually nothing about this. Given that ethnic Germans were persecuted and killed in territories under Polish control a debate about this would pretty quickly endanger another part of the Hitler Myth. And that is that he started world war two for no reason at all, but as a starting point to 'conquer the world'. So they have to keep up the cultural production of Holocaust Tales and Nazi-demons, because if they'd stop this, interest and resources may shift to investigating other matters that have potential to shake their box on other matters.

Fear of ostracism, exclusion, rejection, etc. I know the argument from evolutionary psychology. But it is of course wanting. It sounds plausible, but the problem is that it is an untestable hypothesis. That there were humans that were ever immune to ostracism has never been demonstrated. It simply is a feature of the soul that is there, while one can speculate, why this is actually the case like this. Fact is people like to have social approval and they hate it, when they don't find social approval. They also like to be considered 'one of the good guys' and also to be wealthy, successful, popular, etc. It doesn't matter WHAT you ARE, what matters is what other THINK you are. That's also why there is legal recourse to defend ones reputation and why slander, libel, defamation are issues in law. It can however be complicated. Try defend yourself against false accusations. If you are dealing with somebody that knows what he's doing, you will not really be able to win the case. Because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you got a clean record, basically that you are innocent and that the other party had no reason to call you names. That's why the other party may have done some research on you first and accuse you of something that 'may be true'. And court cases can be nerve-wrecking and time consuming. Rather give that a pass and go on.


I assume that virtually every academic knows that while 'evidence and logic' are the 'hallmarks of science' that it looks a little different in the real world. Evidence, Arguments, Proof are secondary, what counts are credentials, reputations and consensus. They can survive somebody proving them wrong on something, but when their reputation gets attacked, this can have really bad consequences for them. Imagine having a phD in history. You look forward to a career as a lecturer, researcher, professor with some reputable institutions. Perhaps you will even publish some best-selling books on a subject. You will belong to the top 2% of your society and can have a comfortable life in the upper middle class. You are not going to exchange this for flipping burgers at McDonalds, because you are considered a "Holocaust Denier". Rather shut up on the issue and focus on your interest of study. I read somewhere that courses related to the Holocaust find it increasingly difficult to find students and interest in academia. I'm actually wondering why that's the case. I could imagine that a phD relating to the Holocaust can actually be rather lucrative and an entry ticket to quite some funding, research opportunities and being a celebrated speaker at conferences. Yet people are not too prone to engage in this. Any idea why?

[hermod]

It's indeed a tactic of propaganda to first start out with sensationalist obviously exaggerated claims to draw attention to the propaganda. It's so people will pay some attention. Normal prison live doesn't do that... You want some really sick story that will gain attention by a crowd that is starving for horror and heroism. In Commercial Law this is actually a bait and switch. E.g. you offer something at a ridiculously low price and when the person comes and visits your shop you tell him that the price has risen and that unfortunately he has to pay a bit more now. The Holocaust apostles and priests try of course to do their best to have an appearance of seriousness, earnestness and piety. So they will claim that, if they made a mistake that it was an 'honest mistake'. No, Lampshades? Fine, we made a mistake. We don't say anymore that 'the Nazis manufactured lamp shades from Jews'. Dropping such dry weight is no problem for them. They even will use this to argue that they are actually 'serious about science and accuracy'. What counts is that the emotional content is preserved and maintained this way. One needs to understand that, while this is a religion it is different from a church that has clear structures and makes official statements. The Holocaust Industry has a myriad structures, but no pope, no officially appointed priests and no written statements of faith. This makes them far more flexible and also more immune to critique.

And the orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians don't work alone. They are vastly helped by mass media not afraid of being sometimes caught in a lie if it strenghtens Israel's most crucial founding myth, because experienced journalists know that a debunked lie is quickly forgotten by the public and lost in the uninterrupted flow of fresh daily news. Those propaganda organs do the dirty job that historians wouldn't do in order to save their reputations. They often use pics of a health disaster in Western camps to 'prove' the alleged mass slaughter of Jews in the nonexistent gas chambers of Eastern camps. They keep repeating horror tales about Nazi lampshades and soap. They never stop claiming that the Holocaust is the best-documented genocide in history. They publish the interviews of 'survivors' telling stories as ridiculous as possible. And all kinds of other gross propaganda tricks that fool most people almost on a daily basis.

The other thing is the credible middle-ground fallacy. They say ten million... People sense this is definitely to much, but they will settle for a smaller number. The idea of an 'extermination program' does however remain. One tag-line of history teachers was that 'even of only one Jew was killed' that this would 'have created the same guilt'. What they argue is that 'the Holocaust' is an example for people being persecuted and killed, because they belonged to a specific ethnicity. But weren't people with ancestry in Axis countries (e.g. Germans, Japanese, Italians, etc.) also persecuted in Allied countries? Yes, they were, but will hear virtually nothing about this. Given that ethnic Germans were persecuted and killed in territories under Polish control a debate about this would pretty quickly endanger another part of the Hitler Myth. And that is that he started world war two for no reason at all, but as a starting point to 'conquer the world'. So they have to keep up the cultural production of Holocaust Tales and Nazi-demons, because if they'd stop this, interest and resources may shift to investigating other matters that have potential to shake their box on other matters.

That trick had also been used by the propagandists of WWI. In his 1927 book on WWI propaganda, Harold Lasswell called it satanism. Lasswell explained that the Allies of WWI had concoted and disseminated all kinds of atrocity stories about the Germans in order to "prove" that the Germans had started WWI because people evil enough to cut off children's hands and turn the dead bodies of their own soldiers into soap and explosives were also evil enough to plot and cause a terrible bloodbath such as a world war. Deceitful and fallacious, but very efficient.

Fear of ostracism, exclusion, rejection, etc. I know the argument from evolutionary psychology. But it is of course wanting. It sounds plausible, but the problem is that it is an untestable hypothesis. That there were humans that were ever immune to ostracism has never been demonstrated. It simply is a feature of the soul that is there, while one can speculate, why this is actually the case like this. Fact is people like to have social approval and they hate it, when they don't find social approval. They also like to be considered 'one of the good guys' and also to be wealthy, successful, popular, etc. It doesn't matter WHAT you ARE, what matters is what other THINK you are. That's also why there is legal recourse to defend ones reputation and why slander, libel, defamation are issues in law. It can however be complicated. Try defend yourself against false accusations. If you are dealing with somebody that knows what he's doing, you will not really be able to win the case. Because the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you got a clean record, basically that you are innocent and that the other party had no reason to call you names. That's why the other party may have done some research on you first and accuse you of something that 'may be true'. And court cases can be nerve-wrecking and time consuming. Rather give that a pass and go on.

Shoot the messenger when you can't contradict his message. Also very efficient.

I assume that virtually every academic knows that while 'evidence and logic' are the 'hallmarks of science' that it looks a little different in the real world. Evidence, Arguments, Proof are secondary, what counts are credentials, reputations and consensus. They can survive somebody proving them wrong on something, but when their reputation gets attacked, this can have really bad consequences for them. Imagine having a phD in history. You look forward to a career as a lecturer, researcher, professor with some reputable institutions. Perhaps you will even publish some best-selling books on a subject. You will belong to the top 2% of your society and can have a comfortable life in the upper middle class. You are not going to exchange this for flipping burgers at McDonalds, because you are considered a "Holocaust Denier". Rather shut up on the issue and focus on your interest of study. I read somewhere that courses related to the Holocaust find it increasingly difficult to find students and interest in academia. I'm actually wondering why that's the case. I could imagine that a phD relating to the Holocaust can actually be rather lucrative and an entry ticket to quite some funding, research opportunities and being a celebrated speaker at conferences. Yet people are not too prone to engage in this. Any idea why?

Perhaps because of this?

The Guilt of David Irving, by Ernest Sommers :

Since it concerns the persecution and destruction of a people it is a dreary and depressing subject for study.

Another interesting fact in that paper: money can buy anything, including the "truth," as illustrated during the notorious Irving-Lipstadt trials.

The Guilt of David Irving
by Ernest Sommers

Published: 2000-08-01

As many revisionists expected, the British historian David Irving failed in his libel suit against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt.

[...]

Why did Irving fail?

[...]

Irving Was Outgunned

One of the reasons Irving brought this suit was because his career had been effectively ruined by a long running campaign to destroy his reputation and to stop the publication of his books. Hence he had nothing to lose. Yet one of the problems of having nothing to lose is that you also are left with nothing to fight with.

In order to sustain their charges against him, the defense hired a half dozen tenured academic historians to go over every footnote in Irving's books, these experts received hefty fees for their work, as much as $200,000 in the case of the Auschwitz expert, Robert Jan Van Pelt. Yet this free flow of money was not just about the resources which the defense had which Irving lacked. It also pointed to the time and effort that the defense was able to pay for in order to find fault with Irving's work, time and energy which Irving did not have available.

The sum total of this calculated expedition of academic assassination were perhaps a dozen or so points of interpretation in Irving's 30 books in which it does appear that Irving was wrong, or mistaken, or interpreted the material in an unconventional manner. These few errors, from a lifetime of work, could not reasonably sustain the claim that Irving was not a historian, and this was immediately pointed out by Donald Cameron Watt and Sir John Keegan, two British historians with even better credentials than Lipstadt's experts. In fact, in his judgment, Justice Gray was quick to reject the sweeping characterization of the defense that Irving had no reputation as an historian to defend. Nevertheless, the existence of these few errors was once again used to put Irving's credibility at a disadvantage with respect to Lipstadt's experts.

To put it another way, the defense's strategy was to destroy Irving's credibility and the integrity of his historical interpretations so that the judge would be bound to accept their version of events, not Irving's. Yet Irving had neither the time, the money, nor even the right through discovery to attempt to undercut the authority of the experts lined up against him.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... irving/en/

[Hektor]

The fact that public servants/teachers/media use the sykewar films to introduce (young and impressionable) people to National Socialism and also to the "Holocaust"-theme was a give-away to me that something was wrong with the narrative. I didn't do so immediately. But those people did look starved and sick and it's a bit odd to keep them around, if extermination was the intention. But to process this one needs more than sufficient background knowledge and of course a sober mind and a grasp on logic. Few people have that. Even fewer non-grown ups have that, at all. With time it became visible that those pushing the Holocaust narrative virtually all had ulterior motives with it (and/or were dupes themselves). It was kind of truncheon being used on people to get them compliant with 'new thinking', 'new aptitudes' and also shame them into refusing to resist political change that would be greatly at their disadvantage. The average consumer of media does of course not know that. He may notice that it is manipulative, but what is he/she going to say? Cognitive Dissonance will be the effect on virtually any newby to this. Except for the volume of repetition there is also the fact that virtually all in the 'intellectual class' seem to have bought into this. There is of course exceptions, which happen to be those that are actually a bit smarter, brighter and more competent than the average self-styled intellectual. It is far too easy to pass a humanities degree. Verbal skills is all you need and a love for reading and writing. That can get you a BA in history with cum laude. It's a bit more challenging to get a phD of course. But when you do a phD, you probably want to do an academic career and sensing that what you say about a subject has consequences, you also will think twice. What phD's (in history) tell me is actually quite revealing. They didn't center there studies around WW2, but told me that the subject also came up during the graduates course. Interestingly they were told by the prof that there is problems with the evidence for 'the Holocaust'. Not the camps, not the deportation, but with the central claim of homicidal gassings. The prof wasn't direct with this and made as if he was teaching them about methodology on this. Interestingly this came even from a leftist academic, not a more conservative one as one may expect. So no dog in the fight neither. But what they say in private, will not be repeated in public. They'll say it's not there area of expertise and shift the problem with their colleagues dealing with that specific era or aspect. This was of course from decades ago and academia may continuously have been dumbed down since then. Any lecturere saying something this regard, regardless of the legal situation, may face hostility from his colleagues, from his students and perhaps from people off campus as well. The Holocaust lobby is well organized and has a multitude of deputies helping them, whenever that seems to be needed.

One would think that the absurdity of Holocaust claims triggers people to reject this as silly stories, but it doesn't. In fact it seems to help them getting people into an entirely irrational mode, where almost nothing can be too absurd for them to challenge. This is a technique also used by cults. And well, they use guilt, shame, shock, empathy, sensitivity training, etc. as well. And they use it with great success. People think that cults only occur on the fringe. Groups that may have 100s or 1000s of members and are a bit outlandish in their behavior's, dress and views. They don't expect something like this from the main stream and probably think: "Imagine how many have to be in on this".

Yes, the morbidity of the Holocaust subject made it a too ghoulish, to depressing subject to study for many. But to be a Holocaustian Expert with a phD can also be very rewarding. There is not much scrutiny as long as you don't step out of line to far. You will get some easy day job and perhaps very lucrative sponsorships. Still that dog wont hunt. Apparently to many people there are more important things than money and fame.

Money (Power) and influence will get you ultimately compliance from leading figures in society. Consider them trying to work in their interest as well. That's the more direct interest and not general interest wherein they participate.

[hermod]

The Claim:

German authorities did not like the idea of German staff making stuff from corpses. They even wrote a memo to the department concerned. Shrunken heads are the example they gave.


main-qimg-262b6b72910a45ae3eac64e3e979d80f-lq.jpg

2 forgeries made by the Holocaust revisionist Carlos Whitlock Porter
in order to show that altering or forging such papers is a breeze :

https://postimg.cc/Xr12NHTy

Nuremberg version of that paper :

https://postimg.cc/RJv8J3G3