That first thing that changed your mind

[hermod]

I started questioning the Holocaust narratives due to infographics such as the attached picture.

That's true. 4 out of the 7 alleged Nazi extermination camps / murder factories / death camps / killing centers mentioned by the British chief prosecutor at the 1st Nuremberg show trial (Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Oranienburg) are no longer portrayed as such by orthodox/exterminationist/antirevisionist historians.

https://postimg.cc/XGGLQC7y

https://postimg.cc/CBVzVzTM

https://postimg.cc/Ff5Jgt3k

[Hektor]

....
Yes, it was "Holocaust" TV serie form the 70's, based on the novel "Holocaust" by Gerald Green. After Franco's death, a huge media campaign arose against him and the holocaust was an important issue, of course. That campaign amounted to the normalization of Spain in the context of other European countries. There were many former "fascists" living in Spain and the authorities allowed a freedom of speech impossible for other countries, say, Germany or France. Therefore, the situation had to be changed. The turning point was the detention of book seller and former CEDADE chief, Pedro Varela in 1996.

Where they accusing Franco of killing Jews with X-Rays?
Franco was in Spain during WW2. Only the Blue Legion went outside to fight against the USSR.

Guilt by association (aka felony murders). As Maurice Bardèche correctly noted in his 1948 book Nuremberg or The Promised Land, not only the German National Socialists were condemned at the Nuremberg show trial. All of us were dispossessed in Nuremberg and all the [non-Jewish] people opposing the globalization of their own homeland were condemned at the Nuremberg show trial, Bardèche wrote. So all the Nationalists are now evil bastards with a criminal worldview, according to Globalist propaganda. And the Nationalists who directly worked with Hitler must of course be regarded and portrayed as super-evil arch-criminals, even those who caused the death of much fewer people than Churchill and Roosevelt did during both world wars (i.e. Globalist bloodbaths for the Judaization of the so-called "Holy Land" and the establishment of a one-world government).

Unsurprisingly, the demonization and/or criminalization of Nationalism is a crucial weapon in the arsenal of Globalists.

I think it's worthwhile to quote Bardeche verbatim on this. The analysis seems to be excellent.

But I guess, while many people did still agree with Bardeche at the time, he mostly got ad hominems and frowned upon. Even the sublime disagreement with the Nuremberg Trials and also the outcome of the war, were diminishing afterwards. People just tried to fit into the 'New Societies" and 'New Economies' that were emerging during the period.

And those that could follow Bardeche at the time were a small percentage of younger people, a little ore of the middle-aged and older, though. But those didn't become younger afterwards neither. Those with first hand experience of WW2 would be rather isolated 20 or 30 years later. Those born post WW2 would only know what schools and media told them as well as what they heard from people with essentially the same sources. A single old man or woman that could tell them first hand what happened would simply be dismissed as an outlier or a 'darn Nazi'. They'd rationalize such statements away quickly. Those elderly that talked were probably ridiculed and rebuked for it as well. So many simply remained silent, if nobody asked. Although it took decades to establish the present narrative into people's minds. Which is a clear indication that it was simply false... And not affirmed by actual experience.

[hermod]

I think it's worthwhile to quote Bardeche verbatim on this. The analysis seems to be excellent.

Here it is...

Nuremberg Or The Promised Land (1948), by Maurice Bardèche:

The Judgment which appears in the first volume of the trial notes the existence of a “plot or concerted plan against peace.” This declaration requires many a gloss. But it is clear, in any case, that the plot starts with the existence of the party: it is the party itself which is the instrument of the plot, and, ultimately, it is the plot. This conclusion has some singular consequences. It is actually equivalent to prohibiting people from joining together for the purpose of making certain claims and from using certain other methods for this purpose. What the court means is this: you exposed yourselves to the risk, it says, of one day committing crimes against peace or crimes against humanity, and you cannot claim that you were unaware of this risk since one has written Mein Kampf for you. It is thus, ultimately, upon the party’s program that condemnation is brought, and accordingly this judgment will constitute in the future an encroachment upon the national sovereignty of every nation. Our jurists say: your government is bad, you are free to change it; but you have the right to change it only while following certain rules. You think that the organization of the world is not perfect: you can try to modify it, but you are forbidden to make recourse to certain principles. However, it may be that the rules that they impose on us are those which perpetuate our impotence or that the principles of which we are prohibited even to think are those which would eliminate the disorder.

This accusation of joining a plot is an excellent invention. The world is from now on democratic for perpetuity. It is democratic by judicial decision. From now on a legal precedent weighs down on every sort of national rebirth. This is infinitely serious, for actually every party is by definition a plot or concerted plan, since every party is an association of men who propose to seize power and to apply their plan which they call a program, or at least to apply most of this plan. The decision of Nuremberg thus consists in making a preliminary selection between the parties. One is legitimate, and the other suspect. Those in the one are in line with the democratic spirit and have the right consequently to seize power and to have a concerted plan because it is certain that their concerted plan will never threaten democracy and peace. Those in the other party, on the contrary, are not entitled to have power, and consequently it is useless that they exist: it is understood that they contain in themselves the seeds of all kinds of crimes against peace and humanity.

[...]

When they condemn nationalism, they know well what they are doing. It is the foundation of their Law. They condemn your truth, they declare it radically wrong. They condemn our feeling, our roots even, our most profound ways of seeing and feeling. They explain to us why our brain is not made as it should be: we have the brain of barbarians. [...] The condemnation of the National-Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. In reality, it reaches all the solid forms, all the geological forms of political life. Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans, it is all of us who are dispossessed. No one has any more the right to sit down in his field and say: “This ground belongs to me.” No one has any more the right to stand up in the city and say: “We are the old ones, we built the houses of this city, anyone who does not want to obey our laws should get out.” It is written now that a council of impalpable beings has the capacity to know what occurs in our houses and our cities. Crimes against humanity: this law is good, this one is not good. Civilization has the right to veto.

We lived up to now in a solid universe whose generations had deposited stratifications, one after the other. All was clear: the father was the father, the law was the law, the foreigner was the foreigner. One had the right to say that the law was hard, but it was the law. Today these sure bases of political life are anathema: for these truths constitute the program of a racist party condemned at the court of humanity. In exchange, the foreigner recommends to us a universe according to his dreams. There are no more borders, there are no more cities. From one end to the other of the continent the laws are the same, and also the passports, and also the judges, and also the currencies. Only one police force and only one brain. [...] This universe which they polish up and try to make look good to us is similar to some palace in Atlantis. There are everywhere small glasswares, columns of false marble, inscriptions, magic fruits. By entering this palace you abdicate your power, in exchange you have the right to touch the golden apples and to read the inscriptions. You are nothing any more, you do not feel any more the weight of your body, you have ceased being a man: you are one of the faithful of the religion of Humanity. At the bottom of the sanctuary there sits a Negro god. You have all the rights, except to speak evil of the god.

https://archive.org/details/nuremberg-o ... 1/mode/2up

But I guess, while many people did still agree with Bardeche at the time, he mostly got ad hominems and frowned upon. Even the sublime disagreement with the Nuremberg Trials and also the outcome of the war, were diminishing afterwards. People just tried to fit into the 'New Societies" and 'New Economies' that were emerging during the period.

And those that could follow Bardeche at the time were a small percentage of younger people, a little ore of the middle-aged and older, though. But those didn't become younger afterwards neither. Those with first hand experience of WW2 would be rather isolated 20 or 30 years later. Those born post WW2 would only know what schools and media told them as well as what they heard from people with essentially the same sources. A single old man or woman that could tell them first hand what happened would simply be dismissed as an outlier or a 'darn Nazi'. They'd rationalize such statements away quickly. Those elderly that talked were probably ridiculed and rebuked for it as well. So many simply remained silent, if nobody asked. Although it took decades to establish the present narrative into people's minds. Which is a clear indication that it was simply false... And not affirmed by actual experience.

Yes, he was even jailed for a while as a punishment for his crime against insanity. 2 or 3 years earlier, he would have been shot by "epurators" for such a book.

[Hektor]

"... Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans, it is all of us who are dispossessed. ...We lived up to now in a solid universe whose generations had deposited stratifications, one after the other. All was clear: the father was the father, the law was the law, the foreigner was the foreigner. One had the right to say that the law was hard, but it was the law. Today these sure bases of political life are anathema: for these truths constitute the program of a racist party condemned at the court of humanity...".

Bardeche's analysis became true over time. Nationhood, which implies people living by their own laws. Sovereignty, which implies a use ad bellum. In fact any conservative virtues were 'discredited' via the Nuremberg Trials. Since 'the Nazis' were presented as an epitome of Nationalism, racial pride, folk, family, fatherland, militarism, authoritarianism, tradition and whatever else can be associated with the older European civilizations. It was of course a cartoon version of National Socialism that was created and attacked as a straw man.

The Allies presented themselves as beacons of virtue. With democracy, liberality, fairness, equality, humanitarianism and inclusiveness as the key virtues. That was of course highly hypocritical. All four Allied Powers were colonial empires. The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship of an especially vicious type. The democracy in the liberal countries was essentially rule by the purse, since only those with huge financial backing stood a chance to run for office. There were huge inequalities in all those countries. They couldn't care less about what's considered 'humanitarian', when it was about their own interest or when they could strike. There were ethno-based elites in all those countries and their populations were not very fond of including those of other races neither. But it set program for them. The Colonial Empires fell... with the USSR finally disbanding in 1990. The US got its 'civil rights' movement and forced integration.

Also interesting that he uses the term 'racist'. The term wasn't in general use at the time. Only became more wide-spread after 1950.