The Other Side of Holocaust Denial

[Scott]

In that case his ideology would be White supremacism and Christian Identity, which would tend to make his arguments less convincing.

So then...Judeo-supremacism, Talmudic hate, and 'holocau$t' superstition/mythology/anti-science are convincing? Why is that not included here? Why is it more believable?

False-dichotomy. I never said that would be more convincing either, nor from any interested party.

Could it be that those who control the presses & air-waves control the minds?

The mass-media and the government is for sale and the Goys want the kingdom of Christ in the Holy Land, via militant Zionism or however, and so if the Holo-bleat helps get them there then it "works."

I agree with Faurisson when he says that the keystone is the gaschambers. That is where scientific research is needed the most, because without the gassings the Exterminationist-Intentionalist position falls apart.

But Scott previously said that Faurisson's "no holes, no holocaust" saying was overly simplistic; yet without these alleged 'holes' for inserting the Zyklon-B at Auschwitz the entire gassing lie is exposed....and we know there were no 'holes'. The research is conclusive, right now.

That still doesn't prove anything. Just that a couple of basements weren't used to kill a million Jews. There are still the Reinhardt camps and every cubbyhole with an air-raid shelter door or every van in Axis Europe. Faurisson's mantra is just the kind of slogan that can discredit Revisionism, especially if it were honestly debunked. It also lets the opposition define the meaning of "Holocaust." It might be basements one week and bunkers the next. A broader, less doctrinaire approach makes it harder for the trademark to morph. Like fighting a tumor systemically, what does not destroy makes stronger.

I do agree however, "no gas chambers no 'holocau$t'".

Yes, that is one element that is so integral to the meaning of the Holocaust trademark that it can't be easily dropped.

One influential person, at any given time could bring the story to it's knees.

I don't think he would convince anyone anymore than celebrity flying-saucer updates at the supermarket checkout counter.

Imagine that someone who is independently wealthy, free from the financial effects of intimidation; imagine that he or she studied Revisionist points and simply stated matter of factly at some key media even...'you know what Mr. So & So, the holocaust as alleged is a fraud, there were no gas chambers'.

If he could pressure public officials to support and bankroll an international forensic inquiry then it might have an effect. Otherwise it would be tough to prove a negative and I'm not saying that should be done, but every objection and argument for the Holocaust™ must be met until the Faith has no rational adherents. Ultimately, the totality of the evidence prevails.

Just like that the ball begins to roll. Imagine how paranoid the hate organizations like the ADL must be. One little moment and see ya' later amigo. Time is on our side. The lies of previous centuries fell, so shall this one.

Perhaps, but not much is happening, unless some Revisionist somewhere is holding a bombshell. Already the Believers are weeding out their weaker claims and making their arguments stronger. It won't do to simply discount nonsensical eyewitness claims, because like it or not the story is already widely believed, and it doesn't entirely hinge on the tallest tales that got the most press. This puts the onus on the non-Believer, at least in a political sense.

Persistence is the key.

Agreed. The more we know the better.

[Sailor]

Then I guess there is no point, no fresh perspective that Revisionism can offer.
Surely the Revisionist Movement, if one can call it a Movement, must be able to convincingly propagate its ideas. What is an intellectual dead-end, however, is trying to win converts for the faith of Believers/Deniers.

I never looked at Holocaust revisionism as a movement, a political movement. You mean like Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, things like that?
Well, I am not convinced of that. Maybe the right to express political non-correct ideas could be a movement.
Did Kopernikus or Galileo when they tried to revise the idea of astronomy call that a movement?

I don't think it has anything to do with fear of Revisionist ideas at all. It is simply an easy way for some to show that they are not Nazis or racists and for others to vent their rage and maybe make a buck. Part Zeitgeist, part opportunism.

It is my impression that the persecution of Holocaust revisionists goes beyond a buck or venting some anger. If the German Government puts the fellow in jail because he translated the Leuchter Report from English to German, or a German “Liedermacher” (barde) sings:

Nehmt eure Russenpanzer, euer Mafiageld
und laßt uns zufrieden um alles in der Welt!
Nehmt eure Scheißbomben und Staatsformen heim
und laßt uns mit unsern Sorgen allein!

Take your Russian tanks, your mafia money
And leave us alone, for God’s sake!
Take your shit bombs and government forms home
And leave us alone with our problems!

Packt eure Snackbars und Kolchosen ein
und laßt uns wieder Deutsche in Deutschland sein,
Amis, Russen, Fremdvölker raus -
endlich wieder Herr im eigenen Haus

Pack your McDonalds and ‘kolchosen’ (communist co-ops)
And let us again be Germans in Germany,
Americans, Russian, foreigners, out –
Finally to be boss in one’s own house again.

For this Rennicke received from the Judeo-Germano justice, to which Herr Germania so proudly referred to a “constitutional criminal law”, 17 months in jail and confiscation of all his personal property.

Regardless of the particular cause, the danger is what intellectual orthodoxy can pose for any englightened people, and that has to be fought without quarter.

,the one that is running the show now in the US did away with all my favorite political commentaries (What happened to Chris Mathews?). I have to look now for information at foreign news sources. Good luck, Scott.

As the bad guy on Schindler's List said, "the truth is always the right answer." One has to convince others of his viewpoint, sure, but one can't simply offer an alternative belief-system because the other side is "wrong." There has to be a spirit of free-inquiry and discovery. Yes, an environment of Open Debate.

I agree with that. To debate the Holocaust off the cuff however is not that easy, at least not for me. It requires a lot of preparation.

Suppose Holocaust revisionism gets the upper hand and certain historic ideas will have to be modified.

Then, who would gain? I certainly not. I would have to find a new hobby, that is true. The Nazis neither, in my opinion nobody would vote those back in even without the Jewish Holocaust.

Would anyone loose? The Jews maybe? I honestly don’t think so. They will have their problems in the Middle East anyways, with or without the Holocaust. The German government and their official legal people would probably be in trouble and may look like mud.

[Scott]

Maybe the right to express political non-correct ideas could be a movement. Did Kopernikus or Galileo when they tried to revise the idea of astronomy call that a movement?

Well, the whole Enlightenment was supposed to be about that. As long as the principle of free-speech and free-inquiry apply universally then I see no problem. But when it comes to free-speech, most people believe in it as long as they also agree with the speech. Sometimes Holocaust Revisionists can be no less dogmatic. That is my point. I can't see how Finkelstein or whoever "harms" Revisionism because they don't quite opt for the second scoop and declare themselves H-Deniers, which would only get them blackballed anyway. But the biggest idol is whittled away a grain of sand at a time. One thing that all Revisionists, if there is such a movement, should agree upon is the importance of free-speech and Open Debate; the rest are just historiographical details.

[Hannover]

Scott said:

I can't see how Finkelstein or whoever "harms" Revisionism because they don't quite opt for the second scoop and declare themselves H-Deniers, which would only get them blackballed anyway.

What was that? "**Don't quite** opt for the second scoop and declare themselves H-Deniers?"
Oh, please. Finkelstein isn't even near getting over his fantasy of 'gas chambers', don't pretend he is. He simply says what many others say...'Jew manipulate the holocaust for money', big deal, everybody knows that, it's yesterday's news.

I also see that Scott is content using the 'denier' label, which implies Revisionist 'deny' everything alleged of Jewish experience in WWII, which we do not.

I wonder if Scott believes in the alleged gas chambers. What about it Scott, are you a Believer in the gas chambers? Yes or no.

- Hannover

[Scott]

I can't see how Finkelstein or whoever "harms" Revisionism because they don't quite opt for the second scoop and declare themselves H-Deniers, which would only get them blackballed anyway.

What was that? "**Don't quite** opt for the second scoop and declare themselves H-Deniers?"

Oh, please. Finkelstein isn't even near getting over his fantasy of 'gas chambers', don't pretend he is. He simply says what many others say...'Jew manipulate the holocaust for money', big deal, everybody knows that, it's yesterday's news.

Old news among Revisionists perhaps. No one else has ever heard of him. And they should!

I also see that Scott is content using the 'denier' label, which implies Revisionist 'deny' everything alleged of Jewish experience in WWII, which we do not.

Scott is not using it--he is saying that (some) Revisionists may be using the non-Denier label for their own brand of orthodoxy.

Whether Finkelstein is a Believer or a Denier in the gaschambers, I can hardly see how his message harms revisionism (small r). If it supposedly harms Revisionism (large R), I can only opine. Perhaps we can poll major Revisionists on that point.

Anyway, the real enemy is not some dead Jews in or out of legendary gaschambers but the tendency (wherever found) toward orthodoxy. Therefore, I disagree that someone who believes in the Gas-Ovens cannot necessarily make a postitive contribution to historiography and even Revisionism.

I wonder if Scott believes in the alleged gas chambers. What about it Scott, are you a Believer in the gas chambers? Yes or no.

Yes or No? Sounds rather dichotomous, doesn't it?

Scott has said many times before that he is a Skeptic not a Revisionist and prefers to makeup his own mind about every tenant.

But as far as the gaschambers go...

1. I categorically Deny the diesel gaschambers.

2. I don't think hundreds of thousands were gassed in a couple of basements with insecticide.

3. I don't think millions were gassed, and unless someone can show some more convincing evidence I will have to say NO.

4. Whether anyone else was gassed or not that is questionable. I try to keep an open mind. It may have been logical to gas some undesirables unfit for work to prevent overcrowding in camps. I don't know.

5. I'm not a dogmatist. I don't know everything. The fact of censorship of unpopular ideas in many countries is far more important than whether holes were chiseled into basement roofs or not, or whether some pundits and critics believe in the hallowed Gaschambers.

6. I don't think Hitler had a plan to Genocide the Jews, per se, but they were insured to have borne their share (and then some) of the horrors of a world war that nobody really wanted.

No doubt True Believers will regard Scott as a blatant Denier. I wonder how True Non-Believers take him. A gadfly has no friends...

[Hannover]

Scott said:

Old news among Revisionists perhaps. No one else has ever heard of him. And they should!

Wrong, he toured Europe pushing his book and appeared in magazine after magazine, TV program after TV program.

- H.

[Sailor]

Scott said:

Old news among Revisionists perhaps. No one else has ever heard of him. And they should!

Wrong, he toured Europe pushing his book and appeared in magazine after magazine, TV program after TV program.

- H.

This is quite correct in the case of Germany. Finkelstein was big, big news there. In fact the Holocaust Germano hoaxers were quite angry with him.

[steve]

Scott says:
"Yes or No? Sounds rather dichotomous, doesn't it?"

Is it unreasonable to demand a yes or no answer when it comes to the existence of witches?

Scott:

"Whether anyone else was gassed or not that is questionable. I try to keep an open mind."

If someone posed the question of whether or not witches existed, would you consider one open minded becasue he admitted to the possibility? Or would consider him a gullible fool?

Is 'keeping an open mind' regarding Magical Nazi Gas Chambers in reality being CLOSED MINDED to the notion that the holocaust Hucksters are simply outright fraudsters?

Look, I understand. It took me about a year to come to the conclusion that the H is simply a lie based on some truths. ie, there were indeed camps, deportations, deaths, (due to diseases), Zyklon-B (for delousing), etc.

I understand it is hard to believe they would/could LIE for over 60 years. What a replulsive group of people who would do such a thing. But, it certainly seems to be the case. I do not think it is necessary to list so many examples of obvious BS.

Consider this for a moment. What if what I, among others, were saying was truly the case, that there were NO Gas Chambers, No 6e6, NO, or minimal, cold blooded murders (any more than is usual in a time of war) of jews. What if ALL those witnesses alleging otherwise were outright liars. If that was the case, can you understand why we give absolutely no credit whatsoever to self-serving parasites like Finkelstein, etal?

And I use the term parasite advisedly. After all, Finkelstein seems to be concerned about H restitutions not being channeled to the proper people. Well, to hell with him! I demand all the money that was paid out gets returned! (Of course, I'm not holding my breath.) The point is, people like Finkelstein are worthless. Possibly worse than worthless. In a sort of psychological way, people like him reinforce the myth. Some people can't see that because they simply cannot seem to fully accept that the H is a Lie. Pure and Simple.

And, by the way, regarding Finkelstein. If he was a Goy touring Europe, pushing his book, he'd be in jail. And, even being a jew, if he came out and said No Gas Chambers, No 6e6, etc., he'd possibly be dead, or at least threatened with it. (ie, David Cole.)

Steve

[Scott]

Yes or No? Sounds rather dichotomous, doesn't it?

Is it unreasonable to demand a yes or no answer when it comes to the existence of witches?

Let's change "witches" to "God" and it doesn't sound quite so unreasonable, does it?

I am an atheist/agnostic. I prefer the term "atheist" because it is a little stronger and I have a real problem with religion, organized or otherwise, and would like to take measures against it (such as subject it to taxation just like any other business or propertied interest).

But from an epistemological standpoint, I cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God and I don't really care to. I simply don't know. So "agnostic" is probably a more proper term.

Scott:

"Whether anyone else was gassed or not that is questionable. I try to keep an open mind."

If someone posed the question of whether or not witches existed, would you consider one open minded becasue he admitted to the possibility? Or would consider him a gullible fool?

If we are talking about beliefs and not certainties then I would say that the probability of witches is as remote as Santa Claus and the Gaschambers™. Some people need to Believe; for them they are real.

Is 'keeping an open mind' regarding Magical Nazi Gas Chambers in reality being CLOSED MINDED to the notion that the holocaust Hucksters are simply outright fraudsters?

The Jews, or whomever, might be frauds and liars; or simply taking part in a certain cultural reality/mythology, or they may have simply gotten their history wrong. If they got their history completely wrong, then that still doesn't mean there is no history at all. Certainly there is a collective history from the NS-era and the war (and is is mostly very bad for them).

So if they want to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, God, Jesus, or the Gaschambers™, I could care less--as long as they don't push their B.S. onto me. I would feel the same whether it was Swaggert's 100 foot tall Jesus as the Gas-Ovens of yore. It is their problem, not mine.

Where it becomes my problem is when it is shoved down my throat, and when laws are crafted to favor sectarian groups and their Peculiar People mythologies.

What if ALL those witnesses alleging otherwise were outright liars. If that was the case, can you understand why we give absolutely no credit whatsoever to self-serving parasites like Finkelstein, etal?

I don't think the Jews are any more parasitic than X-tians. I would like to make short work of the lot. What I mean is that (as I have said) I don't want Jesus in my face and I don't want the Holocaust-liturgy in my face. I don't want the government enabling any sectarian mythology, alien or otherwise.

Go to any small town, rich or poor, and you will find nothing but churches on every streetcorner. People need nostrums to make their lives go down easier, and churches are not taxed; they sprout like mushrooms. Soon Shoah Studies will have an equal pairing with Bible Camp. The Big-H is about as bizarre a religion as any out there in my view.

The point is, people like Finkelstein are worthless. Possibly worse than worthless. In a sort of psychological way, people like him reinforce the myth. Some people can't see that because they simply cannot seem to fully accept that the H is a Lie. Pure and Simple.

Finkelstein might be playing a sort of Martin Luther role, reforming the corruption of the church hierarchy, but in reality just spreading the poison among the laity instead of lancing the boil altogether.

I see what you are saying, but if they want to believe, then fine. Just so long as I'm not getting the shaft or being thrown into prison for Thoughtcrime--which is the forest for the trees.

Jews would be wise to look to people like Finkelstein instead of Wiesel or Wiesenthal or any number of Holo-Hate pundits to reform themselves. Otherwise, one day the Passover liturgy will become the Gaschambers, and who in their right minds would want to worship that? But again, this is not my problem or even concern.

And, by the way, regarding Finkelstein. If he was a Goy touring Europe, pushing his book, he'd be in jail. And, even being a jew, if he came out and said No Gas Chambers, No 6e6, etc., he'd possibly be dead, or at least threatened with it. (ie, David Cole.)

I agree, and that's why Thoughtcrime is the big-picture here--not a complete thesis or "movement" resting upon holes chiseled into basement roofs or the respective views of different Jews on the Shoah-ization of history.

Unless Finkelstein is in favor of jailing Deniers, like Lipstadt and kind presumably are, then I don't see the problem. If he points out that billionaires like Bronfman and Spielberg owe their largesse to elderly Jews of the Shoah rather than to H-sacraments and Greuelpropaganda, then more power to him.

Of more danger to liberties are not Holo-Hate extremists but those like the present generation of neo-Germans that are so desperate to distance themselves from the NS-era that they zealously pass Thoughtcrimes laws in the first place, with every other politically-correct regime on the bandwagon. Just as crypto-Jews did not fool the Inquisition, they are not fooling the Jews anyway. A Gentile is a Gentile and will always be so.

In the final analysis, Jesus might be as much a lie as the Gaschambers™. Who knows?

But if they want to jail me--lest entire nations dwindle in unbelief--then they, and the Intolerance they stand for, must be crushed ruthlessly. One cannot, however, fight Intolerance by legislating In/Tolerance. It's a war of ideas, debate--and ultimately, mutual respect of differences.

[Sailor]

Some of the thoughts in this essay by ASMarques may fit in here nicely:

*** The Dogma of the 20th Century ***

It seems to me that a conclusion can be drawn from the Irving vs Lipstadt
verdict: bowing to the abstract "Holocaust" vacuum as a necessary pro-forma
ceremonial before any criticism of its tenets doesn't pay.
Either one ignores the cliché altogether and therefore neither confirms nor
denies one's position as a "H denier" on the grounds that there is nothing
sufficiently explicit in the concept to be affirmed or denied (this was
more or less Irving's *implicit* position but not sufficiently repeated
during the trial or outside of it, since he was trying to fight the "dogma
denier" murderous label) or one simply assumes the position of "denier" in
the sense that the "Holocaust" is a set of sufficiently falsifiable
propositions. It doesn't pay to walk the middle "definitions" ground and
this is the part that constitutes little surprise to me.

Nevertheless I must say I expected a partial vindication of Irving's
position since clear instances of libel existed. I was impressed by his
courtroom performance and his mastery of the subjects under examination. I
was therefore dumbfounded to see the truly amazing extent to which one side
doesn't even need to speak any more to have practically everybody --
judges, politicians, historians, media opinion-makers -- intellectually
capitulating and crawling on all fours before the Dogma of the 20th Century
and its blindingly mediocre and ignorant proponents.

Something is terribly wrong here and this is much more worrying than any
overblown estimates of Jewish power in contemporary non-Jewish societies,
for the symptom is not the disease. What we have is not "Jewish power", but
the power of stupidity, ignorance and the good life over integrity and the
desire to know more and in better ways. Jews in general -- and I don't mean
the Jewish professional charlatans that know very well what they are doing
to their own people for the sake of a few more shekels in their purses --
are as much the victims as anybody else.

In any case, you'll notice that we are back to scholastic discussions of
the religious type and this is not by accident. The "Holocaust" debate
nowadays is the equivalent of proclaiming oneself an agnostic on the
grounds that the concept of "God" like the concept of "Dwjwlrkjf" is not
sufficiently clear to be discussed in an exclusively logical way; or
claiming one is an atheist on the grounds, say, that a gaseous mammal is
not conceivable as an igneous talking vegetable in the world of our
experience, where things like virgin human births and beanstalks that reach
the sky and gas chambers with roof-holes that simultaneously exist and
don't exist, are factually *false* (an everyday irreligious concept that
means the opposite of *true*).

It's already a fully fledged new religion, no more, no less. And although
it benefits the group that actively -- but not solely -- contributed the
most to it, its perverse appeal extends to many outside the Jewish fold,
just like early Christianity progressively outreached the circle of its
original Jewish inventors and reached the heart of so many unfortunate
slaves and haters of free philosophical inquiry. Let's face it: good
Christians still love to crawl at someone's feet and good Christians
deserve what they get at the hands of good Jews. It's their way to
happiness. It's not fair to make the Jews guilty of *this* particular
crime. They are quite right when they claim the "Holocaust" is now part of
the human heritage and not an exclusively Jewish hoax for power and money.

By all means fight the "Holocaust" religion and its followers of every
nominal creed and nationality, including Jewish sham-foundations still
drilling the ridiculous mountain of golden teeth, British judges that put
their unashamed faith in judicial circuses such as Nuremberg or Frankfurt,
German and French halfwit imbeciles empowered as lawmakers, Polish popes
trembling on their feet, American preachers and show-bizz politicians,
Muslim "realists" even if they are Palestinians doing their best to call
your attention to their unhappy lot, and all who proclaim the "Holocaust"
dogma from their many different pulpits in any way you think worthwhile. A
plague on all of them.

But don't fight the "Holocaust" as if it was something else. It's an
ecumenical phenomenon, and no longer the vanguard of any particular
highway-robber gang with a single-minded purpose. Irving's expression "the
traditional enemies of freedom" may be a good counter-propaganda formula to
the "Holocaust" amoeba-like monster we are forbidden to pin down. And,
unlike their Big H weapon, it's not unfair, it's not addressed to
individual innocent people, it doesn't need the ritual sacrifice of
inarticulate old men and it's unmistakable in context. We know what we are
talking about. At least I do.

*Mankind* -- not Jewry -- is "the traditional enemy of freedom". Freedom is
a lonely divinity and individual eccentrics are its only friends. As long
as you understand this, as I hope Irving will in spite of all, not
everything will be lost. And, of course, the historical psycho-drama can be
an amusing spectacle in spite of its many tragedies, great and small.
I'm very sorry for Irving. I appreciate his courage and aplomb and his
brave stand in the face of adversity and truly scandalous conspiratorial
persecution. I hope he will find ways out of his continued predicament as
well as the health, the financial help and the mental strength to continue
the good fight. And I hope his small daughter will live happy in a happier
world. We need more people like him, but we also need more Rassiniers and
Faurissons above all else. Also more Zundels: politics is an entirely
secondary matter in the present context; we are talking about *religion*,
not politics. And politics is child's play compared to empowered religion.

If you have what they call a Nazi party in your neighbourhood, vote Nazi.
I'm sorry, I won't because I never vote; but if you feel like winning the
accolades of your local masters for doing your "civic duties", vote in a
way that will show those despicable characters that run our societies
exactly what you think of *them*.

You can fight the Nazis later on if the need arises. Most probably it
won't, because the Nazi menace in our present context is nothing more than
a ridiculous bogeyman to condition our mind. That's why we still get --
after more than half a century! -- one daily "Hate Hitler" hour on every
channel, with the same old images of a silly man making wildly accelerated
soundless gestures and they still don't manage to reduce the movie speed to
the normal rate. Alas, the emerging risk of an anti-semitic backlash to an
endless stream of abuse and exploitation from the Jewish sham-organisations
dedicated to the conditioning of the imbeciles and the suppression of
free-thought and free-inquiry is a real risk.

If you have any remaining doubts, please read the British libel legislation
-- regardless of whether you agree with it or not -- then the complete
transcripts of Irving vs Lipstadt, and then draw your own conclusions after
reading the verdict. My advice to you is not to judge lightly or cowardly,
even in the face of the scurrilous, revolting, indecent behaviour and total
impunity of untouchable entities with names like the Board of Jewish
Deputies of the British Parliament. They were not on trial, of course, nor
could they ever be, for we don't live in free societies.

But do avoid anti-semitism and let the superstitious bastards on all
quadrants silently deface their own graves and spit on their own dead
through their own actions. That should be punishment enough.
Spit on the murderous "Holocaust" lie instead. Spit on the dark "Holocaust"
because that's where true evil -- an heritage for all mankind -- will take
sanctuary for a long time to come.
But not for ever, rest assured.

(ASMarques)

[steve]

Scott: "Let's change "witches" to "God" and it doesn't sound quite so unreasonable, does it?"

Ok, that is true, because belief in a god has been pumped into us for so many years. It is for a similar reason I do not blame most jews, any more than most gentiles, for belieivg in the Big H. But!!!, just like I despise Falwell, Graham, etal (in part because I feel they are liars and frauds), I despise Weisel, Hilburg, Vrba, actually, ANY reasonably competent adult, jew or otherwise, who has been exposed to the revisionists findings. They no longer have ignorance as an excuse. In the case of Vrba, Wiesel, etc., they are simply outright frauds who should be dealt with. For the others, I suspect they are liars also, not necessarily blinded by faith (in the H). But, in either case, I find it too coincidental that they buy into a myth that supports the world's biggest racial parasite.

By the way, I pretty much share your views towards god, religion, etc. Hey, if one believes in a god, please show me the evidence. I'd love to believe also!

Scott: "Certainly there is a collective history from the NS-era and the war (and is is mostly very bad for them)."
Was it? And I mean by comparison to other racial groups. It seems pretty clear the Germans had it far worse, and continue to pay! And, by the way, we don't hear the Germans crying for over 60 years. And, when you consider the H is a Lie, it makes jewish whining that much more despicable. It's an absolute outrage.

Scott: "So if they want to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, God, Jesus, or the Gaschambers, I could care less--as long as they don't push their B.S. onto me."
But they do!! That is the main reason I am intolerant of anyone peddling, directly or indirectly, the H yarn. Hey, at least I can walk down the street and claim to be an atheist and not face repurcussions. Try doing that in Europe with regards to the Magical Gas Chambers. You'll end up in jail.

Scott: "I see what you are saying, but if they want to believe, then fine. Just so long as I'm not getting the shaft or being thrown into prison for Thoughtcrime--which is the forest for the trees. "
Maybe, but, there's something about the widespread belief in a Lie, AND the Lie being used for a select group of parasites, that I find intolerable. And, to show I'm fair(!), I'd do away with the Xian hucksters also. By the way, all those big name Xian Hucksters are also rabid Zionists. Gee, I wonder if that's why they can remain on TV?

Scott: "Unless Finkelstein is in favor of jailing Deniers, like Lipstadt and kind presumably are, then I don't see the problem."
Again, maybe because you can't accept that the H is a deliberate Lie. And, Finkelstein has the intellect (not that it takes much intellect to see thru such an obvious fraud) to either see that or admit it. But, his jewishness prevents it. To hell with him.

Scott: "In the final analysis, Jesus might be as much a lie as the Gaschambers. Who knows?"
Well, I agree with you. And, gee again, who wrote the bible?

Anyway, I agree with most of what you are saying. But, the small part where I do disagree is significant. And I suspect it is because I see, with almost no doubt (and I hate to sound so religious/sure about it, but come on, the witches story seems more cerdible!), that the H is a Big Lie. For totally immoral purposes. Seen with that perspective, I have little use for Finkelstein, Sack, Shamir, Chomsky, any jew who continues to hide under that H umbrella.

Steve

[Hannover]

Scott said:

Unless Finkelstein is in favor of jailing Deniers, like Lipstadt and kind presumably are, then I don't see the problem.

Yet Finkelstein knows damn well that Revisionists are jailed for their viewpoints, but yet doesn't speak up against it. For that he is a moral and intellectual fraud.

- Hanover

[Scott]

Unless Finkelstein is in favor of jailing Deniers, like Lipstadt and kind presumably are, then I don't see the problem.

Yet Finkelstein knows damn well that Revisionists are jailed for their viewpoints, but yet doesn't speak up against it. For that he is a moral and intellectual fraud.

Which means he has missed the forest for the trees. Point taken.

[Scott]

Certainly there is a collective history from the NS-era and the war (and is is mostly very bad for them)."

Was it? And I mean by comparison to other racial groups.

Actually, I don't know. That is what historical revisionists on all sides of the spectrum should be finding out.

It seems pretty clear the Germans had it far worse, and continue to pay! And, by the way, we don't hear the Germans crying for over 60 years.

This is a view, a legitimate view, IMHO, that I've had trouble articulating so far. I am not saying that I agree with it, but it is a legitimate viewpoint, AFAIC.

And, when you consider the H is a Lie, it makes jewish whining that much more despicable. It's an absolute outrage.

I think we should be cautious with the word LIE, but I agree that H-promotion is an outrage.

And if I were Jewish I might wonder if it were bound to cause even more anti-Semitism in the long run. It is time to stop fighting the war. Peace can only come with reconciliation and respect, not by endless remembrance of the bloody shirt waving past darkly.

I would feel a lot better if Revisionists and unreeducated Germans were able to amiably debate the issues away. So far hardly the twain will meet.

[steve]

Hannover:

Yet Finkelstein knows damn well that Revisionists are jailed for their viewpoints, but yet doesn't speak up against it. For that he is a moral and intellectual fraud.

I'll also add this: Not only does he not speak out against the oppression of revisionists, if revisionism actually caught on, to the point where it was becomming acceptable to 'deny' the H, Finkelstein may very possibly come out and speak in FAVOR of jailing revisionists!
BTW, I may be mistaken, but I think that Hilburg may have actually stated he was for free speech, etc., but, he testifies at a trial where Zundel could quite possibly have been sentenced to jail for years. If that is indeed the case, you know full well where Hilburg stands/stood on freedom of speech.



Scott:

I think we should be cautious with the word LIE, but I agree that H-promotion is an outrage.

Well, let's see. Geysers of blood, jumping buckets (due to freshly amputated muscles), dead jews as Xmas tree ornaments, Jews' thumbs as light switches, 4.5 Million at Auschwitz (you can't explain away 4.5 mil down to 1.5 mil, ie, it was NOT a 'mistake'), the cage with the bear and the eagle, breathing thru keyholes, etc., etc., etc. (For those who do not what these are, ask, I'll explain them.)

Scott:

I would feel a lot better if Revisionists and unreeducated Germans were able to amiably debate the issues away.

Well, who is not only not debating it, but enacting laws to prevent its debate?

Steve

----------------------------------------------

Jewish Moral Zombies use Fabricated Victimhood to parasite off the rest of the world. ~ NOT Henry Makow