CODOH Leaflets Must Work Quickly and be Simple

[phdnm]

I don't believe it would be illegal in Europe.

It all depends on wich country.

- NO nazi document or recording ordering an extermination of Jews
- NO nazi document, recording, or diagram confirming the existence of homicidal gas chambers

Two sentences.

You deny the "HOLOCAUST" and the existence of HOMICIDAL gas chambers.

In France, you will be prosecuted and sentenced because the law...

The French anti-revisionist law

Robert Faurisson

The French anti-revisionist law dates from July 13, 1990. It is known by various names: “Gayssot law”, “Fabius-Gayssot law”, “Faurisson law”, “lex Faurissonia” (in dog Latin), "lex Faurissoniana" (in proper Latin) or “article 24bis” (of the law of July 29, 1881 on press freedom). It provides for a prison sentence of up to a year as well as a maximum fine of €45,000 for anyone who publicly disputes the reality of one or more “crimes against humanity” as defined and ruled on, essentially, by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg in 1945-1946. In addition to the prison sentence and fine there can be an order to pay damages to Jewish or other associations as well as the heavy costs of having the decision published in the media: finally, the courts may order the confiscation of any work material, along with books and papers, seized by the police.

It is inaccurate to say that this law forbids the questioning of the entirety of the Nuremberg judgment for it forbids only the questioning of the judgment’s word on crimes supposedly committed against “humanity”, that is, first and foremost, against the Jews. However, the passages in the judgment dealing with that subject amount to but 2% of the said judgment as a whole. Thus one remains free, at least in principle, to dispute publicly the other 98%. Consequently, only the crimes alleged to have been committed, above all, against the Jews are decreed legally unquestionable. Let us salute here the granting of an astonishing privilege to the exclusive benefit of God’s “chosen people”.

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/200 ... t-law.html

DENIAL is criminal, but just stating you support open debate on the issue is legal. And if that becomes criminal, then you can say you support open debate on whether there should be open debate.

Again, it all depends on wich country.

Supporting an Open debate about this subject, in France, it's challenging the official version and that puts you in breach of the law.

It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible given that it took place. That is the requisite point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.

This text was signed by historians whose names follow and who work or teach at the College de France, CNRS, the universities of Paris and the provinces, the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, at the Ecole Pratique high school: Philippe Ariès, Alain Besançon, Robert Bonnaud, Fernand Braudel, Pierre Chaunu, Monique Clavel-Levêque, Marc Ferro, François Furet, Yvon Garlan, Jacques Julliard, Ernest Labrousse, Jacques Le Goff, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Pierre Levêque, Nicole Loraux, Robert Mandrou, Claude Mossé, Roland Mousnier, Jacques Néré, Claude Nicolet, Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Evelyne Patlagean, Michelle Perrot, Léon Poliakov, Madeleine Rebérioux, Maxime Rodinson, Jean Rougé, Lilly Scherr, Pierre Sorlin, Lucette Valensi, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paul Veyne, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Édouard Will.

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.be/2009/09/three-letters-from-professor-faurisson.html

[Lamprecht]

To be fair, saying there is no document ordering the extermination of Jews is not the same as saying it did not happen. But didn't Alain Soral get sentenced in France for denying the soap/lampshades or whatever (although it was overturned)? It would possibly be a risk, I couldn't say, since I live in the USA so I have no legal risk for questioning the Holocaust.

And by the way, I made a template if you like the shape/design of the flyer, but want different text or even to translate it into another language:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1evR ... PGuac/edit
(simply file -> make a copy, then edit the text to your liking)

Here's the map image if you want to use that to make your own:

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

Supporting an Open debate about this subject, in France, it's challenging the official version and that puts you in breach of the law.

It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible given that it took place. That is the requisite point of departure of any historical inquiry on this subject. It is incumbent upon us to simply state this truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.

This text was signed by historians whose names follow and who work or teach at the College de France, CNRS, the universities of Paris and the provinces, the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, at the Ecole Pratique high school: Philippe Ariès, Alain Besançon, Robert Bonnaud, Fernand Braudel, Pierre Chaunu, Monique Clavel-Levêque, Marc Ferro, François Furet, Yvon Garlan, Jacques Julliard, Ernest Labrousse, Jacques Le Goff, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Pierre Levêque, Nicole Loraux, Robert Mandrou, Claude Mossé, Roland Mousnier, Jacques Néré, Claude Nicolet, Valentin Nikiprowetzky, Evelyne Patlagean, Michelle Perrot, Léon Poliakov, Madeleine Rebérioux, Maxime Rodinson, Jean Rougé, Lilly Scherr, Pierre Sorlin, Lucette Valensi, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paul Veyne, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Édouard Will.

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.be/2009/09/three-letters-from-professor-faurisson.html

Due respect - I have to disagree with the last part of what you said. Here's why.

The statement of the Holocaust clergymen is their religious faith. It has no legal power. In order for there to be a law, the law must be written down, it must be legally passed, and it must be accessible to the public. Although this is written down, it was not made part of French law. Therefore, it is not legally binding.

All the French law says is that you cannot question the Nuremberg Trials/crimes against humanity. Open debate about whether one supports the legality of revisionism/free speech is not mentioned. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to say that you support the legalization of open debate on the Holocaust in France. And by default, flyers which do not explicitly deny the Holocaust are also legal to pass around in France.

[phdnm]

To be fair, saying there is no document ordering the extermination of Jews is not the same as saying it did not happen. But didn't Alain Soral get sentenced in France for denying the soap/lampshades or whatever (although it was overturned)?

The case isn't over yet.

https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/ ... _3224.html

And by the way, I made a template if you like the shape/design of the flyer, but want different text or even to translate it into another language:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1evR ... PGuac/edit
(simply file -> make a copy, then edit the text to your liking)

Here's the map image if you want to use that to make your own:

In French, we have all the videos and writings of Vincent Reynouard.

http://blogue-sc.com

[phdnm]

Due respect - I have to disagree with the last part of what you said. Here's why.

The statement of the Holocaust clergymen is their religious faith. It has no legal power. In order for there to be a law, the law must be written down, it must be legally passed, and it must be accessible to the public. Although this is written down, it was not made part of French law. Therefore, it is not legally binding.

All the French law says is that you cannot question the Nuremberg Trials/crimes against humanity. Open debate about whether one supports the legality of revisionism/free speech is not mentioned. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to say that you support the legalization of open debate on the Holocaust in France. And by default, flyers which do not explicitly deny the Holocaust are also legal to pass around in France.

You can always request a public debate on this event but nobody will want to debate with you.

Already in 1987, the revisionists proposed a public debate:

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/198 ... debat.html

there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers.

This is the only answer you will receive.

Ask Vincent Reynouard, he challenged a holocaust survivor (Ginette Kolinka) and ... she never answered!

Recently, he asked for a debate with the philosopher Michel Onfray and Alain Soral ... Maybe?

And by default, flyers which do not explicitly deny the Holocaust are also legal to pass around in France.

In France, just asking about the holocaust (a debate about the official version) immediately puts you in the category of "Nazis, anti-Semites, far-right..."

[Lamprecht]

Might be a good idea to have flyers in other languages besides English

Is challenging to debate really a crime?

I think new flyers should take advantage of QR codes, which can be scanned on a mobile device.

The following code can be scanned and will cause the user to navigate to the CODOH forum:



Here is an example of a flyer which uses a QR code:

[flimflam]

I"ve designed a flyer, shown below.

My thinking is that a flyer about 'supporting free speech' or 'open debate on the Holohoax' is not to the point. The point is that the Holohoax is a monstrous fraud. But, of course, that cannot be said. Therefore, my approach is that the leaflet should only state facts, and document the facts on the leaflet to the extent possible. So, no opinions, at all, just verifiable facts. Thus the objective of the leaflet is not to convince, but to provoke thought.

That said ... the leaflet .... this is an 8x11 sheet, so it costs pennies. Also, if I had more space I would have had more topics. And I also think multiple leaflets is a good idea ....

[Lamprecht]

I"ve designed a flyer, shown below.

My thinking is that a flyer about 'supporting free speech' or 'open debate on the Holohoax' is not to the point. The point is that the Holohoax is a monstrous fraud. But, of course, that cannot be said. Therefore, my approach is that the leaflet should only state facts, and document the facts on the leaflet to the extent possible. So, no opinions, at all, just verifiable facts. Thus the objective of the leaflet is not to convince, but to provoke thought.

That said ... the leaflet .... this is an 8x11 sheet, so it costs pennies. Also, if I had more space I would have had more topics. And I also think multiple leaflets is a good idea ....

Unfortunately all we see is an "Image is no longer available" message

[flimflam]

Unfortunately all we see is an "Image is no longer available" message

Oops, my bad. I think I know what the problem is (but it shows up OK on my computer, which I don't understand). This should work ...

[Lamprecht]

Unfortunately all we see is an "Image is no longer available" message

Oops, my bad. I think I know what the problem is (but it shows up OK on my computer, which I don't understand). This should work ...

It's OK. Elie Wiesel does mention gas chambers in his translated version of "Night" - he simply mistranslated "Ovens" into "gas chambers" when he made the English version

I also address some of those arguments in this thread; mainly the changing plaque.

Best and worst / least successful arguments
viewtopic.php?t=12430

I am still thinking of another design for a flyer I would like to. I want to incorporate the QR code that I mentioned above, so people can scan it with their phone and get all of the details. Possibly have it link to a thread, which gives a minor introduction to revisionism, and resources for reading.

Ultimately the idea is to spark people's curiosity, and get them to check out the website, rather than convince them with arguments on a single sheet of paper.

Also something I would suggest is to make sure it looks fine in black/white vs color. The red text may not be as readable if someone chooses not to print in color. For a flyer, this is important.

[borjastick]

It's OK. Elie Wiesel does mention gas chambers in his translated version of "Night" - he simply mistranslated "Ovens" into "gas chambers" when he made the English version

Really??? I thought the reason it was changed had little to do with the truth and accuracy and much to do with the development of the holocaust story at the time of the English translated version.

[Lamprecht]

Yes, there is no other reason why he would publish the book in Yiddish, and then when "translating" it change crematoria into 'gas chamber' on accident. It was certainly deliberate, but that means "He does not mention gas chambers" is not entirely accurate.

[flimflam]

It's OK. Elie Wiesel does mention gas chambers in his translated version of "Night" - he simply mistranslated "Ovens" into "gas chambers" when he made the English version

???

This is easy to check .... the text of the Oprah Book Club recommended 'Night' is here https://canvas.instructure.com/courses/966906/pages/night-text-dot-pdf

Searching for 'gas' we find .... "that these children were destined to feed the gas chambers and crematoria." in the foreword written by François Mauriac,

and "You have betrayed, allowing them to be tortured, slaughtered, gassed, and burned, what do they do?" in the text.

So, no mention of gas chambers in the text of 'Night'.

Searching for 'oven' we find .... three instances of "Beethoven" in the foreword.

Not only does Wiesel not mention gas chambers in 'Night', he also gets the method of extermination wrong, writing that the Nazis killed the Jews by tossing them alive into burning pits, one for children, one for adults. This is not only false and not part of the standard narrative, it is absurd because any person tossed into a burning pit would immediately climb out.

And, searching for shower we find .....

A barrel of foul-smelling liquid stood by the door. Disinfection.Everybody soaked in it. Then came a hot shower. All very fast. As we left the showers, we were chased outside.

These were the showers, a compulsory routine. Going from one camp to the other, several
times a day, we had, each time, to go through them.
After the hot shower, we stood shivering in the darkness. Our clothes had been left behind; we had been promised other clothes.

Of course, we first had to pass through the showers. The head of the camp joined us there. He was a stocky man with big shoulders, the neck of a bull, thick lips, and curly hair.

A veteran of Buchenwald told us that we would be taking a shower and afterward be sent to different blocks. The idea of a hot shower fascinated me. My father didn't say a word. He was breathing heavily beside me.
"Father," I said, "just another moment. Soon, we'll be able to lie down. You'll be able to r e s t…"
He didn't answer. I myself was so weary that his silence left me indifferent. My only wish was to take the shower as soon as possible and lie down on a cot.
Only it wasn't easy to reach the showers. Hundreds of prison-ers crowded the area.

"Leave me," he said. "I can't go on anymore…Have pity on m e … I ' l l wait here until we can go into the shower s…You' l lcome and get me."
I could have screamed in anger. To have lived and endured so much; was I going to let my father die now? Now that we would be able to take a good hot shower and lie down?

On the third day after we arrived in Buchenwald, everybody had to go to the showers. Even the sick, who were instructed to go last.
When we returned from the showers, we had to wait outside along time. The cleaning of the blocks had not been completed.

'Night' completely destroys the gas chambers disguised as shower room hoax, and yet the Jews promote it in every school in the US, and this is an indication of the power of the hoax, which seems to get strength from absurdity.

[Lamprecht]

I have pointed out that over 95% of "Auschwitz" testimony by jews makes no mention of gas chambers. The most common response? They were secret and most people didn't know about them or see them. Only the nazis, sonderkommando, and jews who were gassed allegedly saw them. Or the jews who magically managed to survive the gassings...

I did not have to read Night in school, but I did have to read "4 perfect pebbles" as well as excerpts from Anne Frank's diary in our textbook. Actually, I believe the author of the first book I mentioned came to our middle school and gave a speech in the auditorium. It was a big deal, my best friend a the time had his photo taken with her.

Does anyone have copies of some of the CODOH advertisements Bradley Smith used to put in school newspapers? That might give some ideas

[Lamprecht]

Also you were right, the English version does not have the "Gas chambers" mistranslation. That is the German version, according to Faurisson


A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel
https://codoh.com/library/document/858/

There is one single allusion, extremely vague and fleeting, on pages 78-79: Wiesel, who very much likes to have conversations with God, says to Him: "But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before you!" (Night, New York, Discus/Avon Books, 1969, p. 79). In his preface to that same book, François Mauriac mentioned "the gas chamber and the crematory" (p. 8 ). The four crucial pages of "testimony" by Elie Wiesel are reproduced in facsimile in: Pierre Guillaume, Droit et Histoire (La Vieille Taupe, 1986), pp. 147-150. In the German-language edition of Night (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa [Ullstein, 1962]), on 14 occasions the word "crematory" or "crematories" has been falsely given as "Gaskammer" ("gas chamber[s]"). In January of 1945, in anticipation of a Russian takeover, the Germans were evacuating Auschwitz. Elie Wiesel, a young teenager at the time, was hospitalized in Birkenau (the "extermination camp") after surgery on an infected foot. His doctor had recommended two weeks of rest and good food but, before his foot healed, the Russian takeover became imminent. Hospital patients were considered unfit for the long trip to the camps in Germany and Elie thus could have remained at Birkenau to await the Russians. Although his father had permission to stay with him as a hospital patient or orderly, father and son talked it over and decided to move out with the Germans. (See Night, p. 93. See also D. Calder, The Sunday Sun [Toronto, Canada], May 31, 1987, p. C4.)