Is Revisionism psychologically draining?

[oberststuhlherr]

When I first started to question the orthodox history, I found it very painful. As I've said before, it would be horribly unjust to claim these atrocities did not happen, if, indeed, they did happen. Likewise, it would be horribly unjust to claim they happened, if, indeed, they did not happen. When I began to have serious doubts, I was compelled by my conscience to seek clarification.

Questioning these matters is not an act that will gain a person favorable recognition in "polite" circles. It's difficult to be subjected to the kinds of ridicule that comes with this form of skepticism. It is also, for me, a very difficult topic to contemplate. There are certainly ugly truths behind the hideous lies - if these are in fact lies. Clearely there were some horrible and violent incidents involving innocent non-combatants and Nazi perpetrators. Trying to determine the scale and nature of these is not a cheerful matter.

In order to address these questions one must both face emotionally difficult topics, and think carefully, and dispassionately, if he wishes to determine the truth of the matter. I find this exercise to be dismal. I am grateful that others have made an effort to investigate the evidence, and offer challenges to the status quo. If the people who have taken these steps are anything like me - which I suspect they are - this has not been an easy task.

Do others share the sense of bleakness I am expressing here?

[Richard Perle]

Yes. I do. When it comes to times when I should be thinking about career matters and other things of importance, I find myself running over holocaust issues and strategies for convincing arguments. It's already an obsession for me. I often wish that I was still blissfully ignorant. It would be so much more simple to believe the standard story and forget about it, but that is impossible for me now.

[Hannover]

Clearely there were some horrible and violent incidents involving innocent non-combatants and Nazi perpetrators.

First of all, there's no need to throw them a bone via such statements. You're already on the defensive at that point.

There was a war on and the Nazis were the lowest on the totem pole of participants who engaged in 'horrible and violent incidents'. It takes a while to accept that, but I've seen zero evidence to show otherwise. One needs to start with a clean slate when assessing the events of WWII.

The lies are deep and difficult to overcome and examine objectively. A la Irving, there's always the tendency to attempt appeasement. Forget about about it. Once you knock down one small portion of the scam, you are on the judeo-supremacists' black list. They know all too well that once word is out about stupid, impossible gas chambers and the laughable '6,000,000', then all their other profitable persecution fantasies are suspect.

Think of it this way; the reaction of Believers says more about them than about Revisionists. In effect, they are revealing just how weak the story is. You don't see people reacting as such when you discuss any other alleged event in history. Ultimately, the ''holocau$t' is more of a religion for the goyim than the Jews, remember that.

Is it a pleasure to be shunned, marginalized, and beset upon? Probably not for most. But I'd rather not die stupid. There's no turning back when you know the truth. Find satisfaction in breaking free of the lies, find satisfaction in being an aware, educated, intelligent human being. We accept science and logic, they deny it, they are the deniers.

Also, when you discuss Revisionism, discuss it naturally and in a relaxed manner; IOW normalize it. Make it a normal conversational topic, legitmatize it, don't whisper or speak in dark corners. Afterall, it's they who believe in superstition. It can be difficult for many, but the Thought Police count on self censorship more than their own actions.

- Hannover

[simon1003]

Of my friends, about 5 or 6 know my views on the holocaust, when I first broached the subject with them (usually in the pub) I noticed that they all had the same initial reaction, firstly stunned silence (this is a moment of enlightenment I feel), then protests, because of the stories and films and the fact that they've had the whole bullshit story hammered into their heads all their lives.

After a few discussions with them, then they just accept it, one even now looks at revisionist literature on the net and has actually told me how liberating she feels it's been for her, she says that she's always had a suspicion that something wasn't quite right with the whole story.

I wonder how many believers actually suspect that it just doesn't add up but are fearful of the whole right-wing connections that the adl and anl hammer on about?

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hey Oberst,

I'm glad you posted this. I almost posted something very similar yesterday.

I've thought about this alot. And I think at some point it's important to reap the benefits of "truth." That is, the way you think has got you here. The free thinking that got you here has it's benefits. Let's take Galileo. Had the web existed then (lol) I don't think he would have got up in the morning ready to do battle with the "everything revolves around earth" crowd. He was probably more interested in his own cool mind and his own thinking.

Like whether the earth is round or flat: does it matter in your immediate life? Does it matter if you know the earth is round? Well in a way yes because you think in a free way, and that has it's benefits across the board in your life.

I broke out of my Christian upbringing at around 20. And that was liberating. Becoming a revisionist was another liberation, but from a secular dogma. (I live in a place where there is an article in the newspaper referencing the holocaust in probably every other issue.) And then the free-thinking can spread to reading Kevin MacDonald etc. Suddenly my world starts making more sense to me. Ultimately every revisionist is a philosopher, because they're the rare person who has "broke out."

But yes, in a worse case scenario for a revisionist, he or she can get smug, cynical, come off as a know-it-all. And Galileo could have become the same way if he was bent on fighting the "world is center of the system" crowd.

For me, I think I can take the way I think to other areas of interest and have a great time exploring.

The last thing I want to say, is I don't believe in debating the holocaust verbally. Verbal conversation is inadequate for this. I believe in creating multimedia pieces on it, and maybe giving that to a friend. And when I work on a project, I want to have a good energy. To enlighten people. To maybe liberate people, so that maybe one day an 11 year old American girl in public school with a German last name doesn't have to feel ashamed about her ancestry.

Plus I don't believe exterminationists are bad people. They often have the best of intentions. For me that's ditto for missionaries. They're just misguided. When I make multimedia presentations, I want to imagine that I'm talking to someone who believes in the holocaust story, and they're also someone I like.

I have cool friends that would dump me if they knew I was a revisionist. They'd also be worried if they were going to get in any hot water for associating with me. I don't hold that against them. I just don't tell them. It's hard to see the light. It would be hard for them to see that my intentions are liberation. Hollywood and news media tries to define us. If we are a revisionist, we are neo-nazis (as defined by them), we are anti semites. We ignore logical reasoning. We have a hidden agenda. But Hollywood defined the American Indian also, and if you've ever met a real American Indian, you know how absurd the Hollywood definition is. Sadly when an individual who is part indian tries to get in touch with his ancestry, he first erroneously goes toward the Hollywood definition of it.

[Secret Anne X]

Hi,

When I first learned about revisionism some years ago it was very very tough, based on what I had learned in school and had grown up with.

I think at first I had the emotions you describe but that was because the original story was so important to my mind-set. Keep in mind that there are many people, including probably the vast majority of people on this planet, who really don't care beans about whether or not people were gassed at Auschwitz or wherever.

The sad feelings have to do with coming to a conclusion that leaves you feeling isolated, I know such and such and most people don't. In a similar way, if you believed in the original story strongly, revising it leaves you sort of out of balance.

Just because someone comes to revisionist conclusions doesn't mean that all revisionists are on the same wavelength. Some people -- like David Irving -- just don't believe the "factory of death" stories, which means they no longer accept the cremation rates or the gas chamber stories (because if there are no fantastic death rates there's really no reason to have gas chambers in the first place.) Other people reject almost all evidence of German atrocities against Jews. Personally I don't know where in that range the actual facts are, but if you get to the point that you realize that the "extermination camp" stories are phony, you can at least call yourself sane.

One thing I learned about revisionism is that, just as you believed it completely before, so, when you start to study revisionism, you can get a little obsessed at times. Even in those cases, though, it's still all about a brutal world war and the way millions and millions of people (not just Jews) were treated.

People accept the standard story because -- surprise, surprise -- hardly anyone has the stomach to really study it seriously. The story has been accepted for sixty years now, it's an ugly story as told, so who would want to study it? I am sure that everyone who has ever studied it realizes how much of a point the revisionists have. However human beings are very conformist animals and people aren't going to make trouble for themselves for no reason.

If you find yourself getting depressed about this subject, that's normal. Just realize that the revs are basically right -- _at least_ basically right -- and go from there. It's not a bad idea to take a break from time to time, though, if you find it's starting to get to you.

[oberststuhlherr]

Clearely there were some horrible and violent incidents involving innocent non-combatants and Nazi perpetrators.

First of all, there's no need to throw them a bone via such statements. You're already on the defensive at that point.

I really wasn't thinking about "them". I was thinking about what really happened 60 years ago with real people. I'm still evaluating what happened. This is not, for me, about debating "the other side".

There was a war on and the Nazis were the lowest on the totem pole of participants who engaged in 'horrible and violent incidents'. It takes a while to accept that, but I've seen zero evidence to show otherwise. One needs to start with a clean slate when assessing the events of WWII.

That really doesn't change the nature of the subject. Since I don't know what the Nazis did, I have a hard time comparing their actions to those of others. Furthermore, in terms of assessing the horrors of what happened, it really doesn't matter how what the Nazis did to innocent non-combatants compares to what others may have done. It was still horrible for the people who suffered.

The lies are deep and difficult to overcome and examine objectively. A la Irving, there's always the tendency to attempt appeasement. Forget about about it. Once you knock down one small portion of the scam, you are on the judeo-supremacists' black list. They know all too well that once word is out about stupid, impossible gas chambers and the laughable '6,000,000', then all their other profitable persecution fantasies are suspect.

At this point, I don't believe I have to worry about the JDL firebombing my home. What I find difficult is trying to watch things such as the BBC propaganda documentary and having serious doubts about the truth of what they say happened. I had to stop about half way through simply because they kept saying "when they told the Jews they were to be resettled, it really meant they were to be murdered."

If that is actually a lie, then who is actually doing the lying? If I repeat to you what I believe to be truth, and that is actually a lie told to me as truth, they I am not a liar, per se, even though, technically, I have spoken a lie. Did the person reading the script know it was a lie? Did the person writing the script know it was a lie? If it is a lie, it is a lie so big that no one who doesn't know better would believe it is a lie. People simply would not believe anyone would have the audacity and depravity to tell such a lie.

Trying to hold open both the possibility that this accusation of massive, premeditated murder actually happened, and the possibility that it is a lie is an extraordinarily difficult exercise. My heart demand resolution. My emotional constitution simply refuses to leave the matter open. OTOH, integrity demands that I do so, until I am convinced one way or another.

[Hannover]

Trying to hold open both the possibility that this accusation of massive, premeditated murder actually happened, and the possibility that it is a lie is an extraordinarily difficult exercise.

Huh? Try applying standards of forensic science. Try applying basic logic.

The so 'holocau$t' is probably the simplest matter anyone could ever debunk. The accusations defy laws of science, there is no physical evidence to support the allegations. It's a 'there is, or there isn't' problem that's easily resolved.

The only 'difficulty' I see is getting used to the fact that you have been duped.

- Hannover

[oberststuhlherr]

Trying to hold open both the possibility that this accusation of massive, premeditated murder actually happened, and the possibility that it is a lie is an extraordinarily difficult exercise.

Huh? Try applying standards of forensic science. Try applying basic logic.

The so 'holocau$t' is probably the simplest matter anyone could ever debunk. The accusations defy laws of science, there is no physical evidence to support the allegations. It's a 'there is, or there isn't' problem that's easily resolved.

The only 'difficulty' I see is getting used to the fact that you have been duped.

- Hannover

I don't see this as a boolean, did it, or didn't it happen. Some horrible things happened. I'm not exactly sure what all of them were, or why they happened. As for forensic evidence. Unfortunately, there was no real effort to gather any during the crucial period when it would have been most meaningful and reliable. To me, that is the most convincing point of all that much of what is asserted is untrue.

The problem is with evaluating things on the basis of this lack of reliable evidence. If I'm not mistaken, Revisionists are typically banned from accessing archives and facilities where the evidence would be located.

When I said it was a difficult exercise to keep my mind open to both possibilities, I was really talking about the emotional, not the logical aspects of the exercise. I'm inclined to believe most, or all, of the gaschamber accounts are untrue, but I am not yet fully persuaded by the evidence. Having a level of uncertainty in this regard is disconcerting.

[oberststuhlherr]

Hey Oberst,

The last thing I want to say, is I don't believe in debating the holocaust verbally. Verbal conversation is inadequate for this. I believe in creating multimedia pieces on it, and maybe giving that to a friend. And when I work on a project, I want to have a good energy. To enlighten people. To maybe liberate people, so that maybe one day an 11 year old American girl in public school with a German last name doesn't have to feel ashamed about her ancestry.

Ya, what you said.

Plus I don't believe exterminationists are bad people. They often have the best of intentions. For me that's ditto for missionaries. They're just misguided. When I make multimedia presentations, I want to imagine that I'm talking to someone who believes in the holocaust story, and they're also someone I like.

One thing that might be effective, and could make use of the work of others would be to carefully review the BBC docu-drama "Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State" which was recently produced. If someone were to create a good list of challenges to the main points, that could serve to immediately address the current commonly accepted view of what happened during "The Holocaust".

[kk]

My country got a 5-7% loss in manpower while fighting the Axis powers. (A thing we shouldn't have done.)
I get sick when I'm told that the 2nd WW was fought between the Germans and 6m Jews.
This is an atrocity.

This is why I get mad about the "holocau$t".

At least we fought . They didn't.

[oberststuhlherr]

My country got a 5-7% loss in manpower while fighting the Axis powers. (A thing we shouldn't have done.)
I get sick when I'm told that the 2nd WW was fought between the Germans and 6m Jews.
This is an atrocity.

This is why I get mad about the "holocau$t".

At least we fought . They didn't.

My greatgrandfather checked everyday from a hill on Corregidor to see if the US flag was still flying where his son was on Bataan. Both died in POW camps. They were from Missouri - the Show Me State.

[Hyman]

When I first started to question the orthodox history, I found it very painful. As I've said before, it would be horribly unjust to claim these atrocities did not happen, if, indeed, they did happen. Likewise, it would be horribly unjust to claim they happened, if, indeed, they did not happen. When I began to have serious doubts, I was compelled by my conscience to seek clarification.

One should not feel bad about looking into atrocity claims put out by the western plutocracies, since they have often come up false, even in recent times. When the west was pushing for war against Serbia, we heard stories of an on-going genocide which had already claimed 100,000+ victims. The victims were never found and the story was soon forgotten after Serbia capitulated, as was the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo. I was skeptical that Saddam had kept any WMD’s around since they would do him little good in case of an American attack, but I tended to believe in the mega-bunkers we were told that Saddam had certainly built, although none of those have been found either.

As recanted revisionist David Cole has said, what happened to the Jews during WWII is not something any people would want to happen or should happen. Ditto for other peoples who suffered unjustly because of the war. The Holocaust as alleged has become such an article of faith in the mass media that heresy will cause a psychological upset amongst its promoters and believers. Heretics are met with a reflexive and fierce denouncement, even if the “Red Guard” enforcers of orthodoxy in the mass media know little of the subject they shill for. If one believes at least somewhat that peoples’ opinions about the Holocaust were formed via a free and open media, then it might be psychologically draining to be on the dissenting side of the issue. But for those who see the mass media as not all that free and in large respect a monolithic propaganda organ of a few vested interests, then being on the dissenting side is easier to understand. For example, leftist thinker Noam Chomsky is a cogent critic of the herd mentality in a mass media which he believes is controlled by a relatively few vested interests. Chomsky does not dispute the standard Holocaust histories, but he did not have a problem in writing a forward to a book put out by Robert Faurrison in which Chomsky argued that there was nothing in the revisionist critique of the standard Holocaust history that was necessarily antisemetic. Chomsky understands that certain shibboleths of the mass media, taken as articles of faith, can result in a smothering of debate.

As long as the Internet is a free as it is now, more people will come to question certain elements of Holocaust dogma, but until the mass media is at least partially in the hands of those of a different persuasion (than it now is), there will be no mass acceptance of Holocaust revisionism

[oberststuhlherr]

When I first started to question the orthodox history, I found it very painful. As I've said before, it would be horribly unjust to claim these atrocities did not happen, if, indeed, they did happen. Likewise, it would be horribly unjust to claim they happened, if, indeed, they did not happen. When I began to have serious doubts, I was compelled by my conscience to seek clarification.

One should not feel bad about looking into atrocity claims put out by the western plutocracies, since they have often come up false, even in recent times. When the west was pushing for war against Serbia, we heard stories of an on-going genocide which had already claimed 100,000+ victims. The victims were never found and the story was soon forgotten after Serbia capitulated, as was the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo. I was skeptical that Saddam had kept any WMD’s around since they would do him little good in case of an American attack, but I tended to believe in the mega-bunkers we were told that Saddam had certainly built, although none of those have been found either.

As recanted revisionist David Cole has said, what happened to the Jews during WWII is not something any people would want to happen or should happen. Ditto for other peoples who suffered unjustly because of the war. The Holocaust as alleged has become such an article of faith in the mass media that heresy will cause a psychological upset amongst its promoters and believers. Heretics are met with a reflexive and fierce denouncement, even if the “Red Guard” enforcers of orthodoxy in the mass media know little of the subject they shill for. If one believes at least somewhat that peoples’ opinions about the Holocaust were formed via a free and open media, then it might be psychologically draining to be on the dissenting side of the issue. But for those who see the mass media as not all that free and in large respect a monolithic propaganda organ of a few vested interests, then being on the dissenting side is easier to understand. For example, leftist thinker Noam Chomsky is a cogent critic of the herd mentality in a mass media which he believes is controlled by a relatively few vested interests. Chomsky does not dispute the standard Holocaust histories, but he did not have a problem in writing a forward to a book put out by Robert Faurrison in which Chomsky argued that there was nothing in the revisionist critique of the standard Holocaust history that was necessarily antisemetic. Chomsky understands that certain shibboleths of the mass media, taken as articles of faith, can result in a smothering of debate.

As long as the Internet is a free as it is now, more people will come to question certain elements of Holocaust dogma, but until the mass media is at least partially in the hands of those of a different persuasion (than it now is), there will be no mass acceptance of Holocaust revisionism

I suggest we listen very carefully to what people are saying. Sometimes people express their doubts in oblique ways.

[IlluSionS667]

As a child, I felt that something was wrong with this world, but I couldn't pin a name on it.

When I was 17, I dediced to abandon Christiannity, which I consider my first phase of enlightenment and liberation. Without the Christian dogma's, the world suddenly made a lot more sense to me.

From that time on, I went on a search for truth. I studied wicca, anarchism, buddhism, anarcho-kapitalism and many other views and adopted several of them temporarilly, all of which would be abandonned as fast as they were adopted due to newly gained insights. Although I was far from sympathetic to such views, I also did research on ideologies such as "white nationalism", national-socialism and other "racist" ideologies. The reason for this was mostly a desire to understand what could possible drive such people to such ideas.

At the same time, I also questionned historical truth as I found many anomalies in the official historiography of the distant past as well as more recent events such as the latest world war or the Kennedy Assassination. The more research I did, the more I realised that our history is manipulated to fit a certain agenda, being that of the elite bourgois that had taken control of most of the Western world since the end of the 18th century and that has been trying to gain control of the rest of the world ever since then, using lies, distortions and other forms of manipulation as their primary weapon.

When studying WW2, I realized that most of the accusations made towards the Third Reich consisted of lies and that it were in fact the allies who committed many crimes similar to those accusations. This knowledge combined with my already present admiration for the aesthetic principles of the Third Reich made me look into the ideology of national-socialism much deeper than I did before, and I - surprisingly - found those ideas to be very similar to the views I held personally. From that time on, I would graduately start adopting the label of national-socialist to myself.

Being affiliated with both Holocaust revisionism and national-socialism, it should be obvious that I keep my views a secret to most people who know me personally. Only my girlfriend and a one friend are familiar with most of the ideas that I consider self-evident in this respect, while my father and some other friends know just the bits and pieces that I think they can handle.

On the internet, however, I am more open about my views, with the obvious result. I've been called lots of names dozens of times by people who obviously felt they could not use any arguments against those that I put forward. Sometimes this can be quite a psychological burden, but in time you get used to it and learn to use this against these people. The only thing that still bothers me to a degree is being banned from an internet forum for saying things that are true, just because they do not fit into the predefined ideas of the brainwashed masses.