Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:34 am)

As we all know Holocaust revisionism is banned in Germany. Found under Section 130
Incitement to hatred (3)
Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.
My opinion on how to counter this would be if revisionists from all nations came into Germany and distributed revisionist materials on door steps and mailboxes by night to avoid arrest. My theory is that if a "home base" can be built in Germany, they will not be able to handle us with criminal law.


If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:49 am)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:As we all know Holocaust revisionism is banned in Germany. Found under Section 130
Incitement to hatred (3)
Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.
My opinion on how to counter this would be if revisionists from all nations came into Germany and distributed revisionist materials on door steps and mailboxes by night to avoid arrest. My theory is that if a "home base" can be built in Germany, they will not be able to handle us with criminal law.


You would risk going to jail. I don't think you can expect people to take the risk.

Germans must liberate themselves. We can't expect everyone else to risk their liberty for our liberty.

How do we fight for freedom of speech in a smart way? We don't want them to imprison everyone who disagrees with the dogma. Thus, we must talk about the holocaust and create doubt without committing any criminal offense. This is possible.

The case law relating to § 130 StGB defines denial in the following manner:

"Leugnen ist das Bestreiten, Inabredestellen oder Verneinen einer historischen Tatsache. Es kann nur geleugnet werden, was wahr ist, weshalb das Bestreiten wissenschaftlich noch umstrittener Tatsachen nicht erfasst wird; das Bezweifeln oder Infragestellen einer Tatsache reicht nach herrschender Auffassung ebenfalls nicht aus (LK/Krauß, StGB, 12. Aufl., § 130 Rn. 106 mwN; aA Stegbauer, NStZ 2000, 281, 284: Bezweifeln soll aus Gründen der ratio legis genügen). " BGH 3 StR 449/15

http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-b ... os=0&anz=1

1. Thus, we are not allowed to deny or dispute the holocaust. But, we are allowed to doubt the holocaust. So voicing doubt and asking questions is allowed.

2. We must not present the arguments against the holocaust as our own arguments. That would be akin to denial. We must say: "These are the arguments of the holocaust deniers. How can we refute them?"

3. We must ask for an open debate and for freedom of speech in order to resolve the issues surrounding holocaust.

This is the eye of the needle we must go through.

Sure, even if we argue in this manner they will try to silence us. They will recognize that we are carefully avoiding censorship but still spreading the message. They will be extremely angry that they cannot silence us. That's fine. We will revel in their anger. Then, stricter censorship laws may be passed. But, until this happens, we should take advantage of the liberties we still have.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:33 am)

Pia Kahn wrote:
JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:As we all know Holocaust revisionism is banned in Germany. Found under Section 130
Incitement to hatred (3)
Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.
My opinion on how to counter this would be if revisionists from all nations came into Germany and distributed revisionist materials on door steps and mailboxes by night to avoid arrest. My theory is that if a "home base" can be built in Germany, they will not be able to handle us with criminal law.


You would risk going to jail. I don't think you can expect people to take the risk.

Germans must liberate themselves. We can't expect everyone else to risk their liberty for our liberty.

How do we fight for freedom of speech in a smart way? We don't want them to imprison everyone who disagrees with the dogma. Thus, we must talk about the holocaust and create doubt without committing any criminal offense. This is possible.

The case law relating to § 130 StGB defines denial in the following manner:

"Leugnen ist das Bestreiten, Inabredestellen oder Verneinen einer historischen Tatsache. Es kann nur geleugnet werden, was wahr ist, weshalb das Bestreiten wissenschaftlich noch umstrittener Tatsachen nicht erfasst wird; das Bezweifeln oder Infragestellen einer Tatsache reicht nach herrschender Auffassung ebenfalls nicht aus (LK/Krauß, StGB, 12. Aufl., § 130 Rn. 106 mwN; aA Stegbauer, NStZ 2000, 281, 284: Bezweifeln soll aus Gründen der ratio legis genügen). " BGH 3 StR 449/15

http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-b ... os=0&anz=1

1. Thus, we are not allowed to deny or dispute the holocaust. But, we are allowed to doubt the holocaust. So voicing doubt and asking questions is allowed.

2. We must not present the arguments against the holocaust as our own arguments. That would be akin to denial. We must say: "These are the arguments of the holocaust deniers. How can we refute them?"

3. We must ask for an open debate and for freedom of speech in order to resolve the issues surrounding holocaust.

This is the eye of the needle we must go through.

Sure, even if we argue in this manner they will try to silence us. They will recognize that we are carefully avoiding censorship but still spreading the message. They will be extremely angry that they cannot silence us. That's fine. We will revel in their anger. Then, stricter censorship laws may be passed. But, until this happens, we should take advantage of the liberties we still have.

My point is that if revisionists were to go by the night, everyone would be sleeping and therefore unable to arrest them. Certainly a daunting experience, but possible.

The alternative would be to go to Germany for a couple days, keep your mouth shut, and then right before departure, you produce revisionist literature and leave it somewhere and go back before they can arrest you.

Certainly you brought up good points, but people who hate freedom and history must be taken to task. And our pen is far mightier than their sword, which is why they hate us.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:57 am)

If we are to distribute flyers in Germany, then I would suggest creating such a flyer that conforms with German law but nevertheless presents the major reasons and arguments for doubting the holocaust. The flyer should encourage an open debate about the holocaust without explicitly taking sides in the debate. That would be illegal. Open debate should be the major message. This German Language Flyer could be posted on the Codoh website such that anybody can print and distribute them.

Sowing the seed of doubt is all we have to do and doubting is not illegal.

This English Language Flyer could be a model for the German language flyer. However, I believe that the flyer is too long and complicated.

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holoca ... ticism.pdf

My idea would be to concentrate on the gas chambers of Auschwitz, in particular Cremas 2 and 3. That's the core of the core of the holocaust. The whole holocaust is far too complex; it cannot be addressed in a few pages. We should focus on the core or heart of the narrative.

Prove the missing cyanide residue, show the photographs and major measurement results. Show the missing holes in the remains. Show the missing holes in the contemporary aerial photography. A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

The flyer should briefly explain the orthodox and revisionist interpretation of the photography and evidence and encourage the reader to make up his own mind. If the reader feels that doubts are justified then he should be encouraged to stand up for freedom of speech such that these issues may be resolved in an open debate.

The first picture of the flyer should arouse interest in the topic. The recipient must be lured into reading it. The final picture should be the knock out blow. The flyer should have no more than four pages.

A German lawyer should be consulted in order to make sure that the flyer probably confirms with German law. A certain risk will remain no matter how we proceed. But, we shouldn't encourage people to obviously break the law.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Rogal Dorn
Member
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Rogal Dorn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:29 am)

The thing that gets you in trouble is if you so much as dare make a revisionist claim of your own. Instead, a flyer that only contains questions based on facts which even mainstream historians agree are true can also be distributed, and you wouldnt be breaking the law (although you might still get arrested and questioned as to your motives, in which case silence is your best friend).

A flyer designed with a title something like "Regarding WW2 and the holocaust, did you know..."

and then point by point, preferably with source:

.) It was claimed for decades that 4 million people were killed in the entire Auschwitz camp complex, a figure that turned out to be an invention by the Soviets, one which was slashed by 75% in the early 90s?

.) It was claimed for decades that hundreds of thousands, if not upto 2 million people were killed in Majdanek, figures that turned out to be an invention by the Soviets, which were starkly reduced to a mere 86,000 in the early 2000s?

.) The number of rooms thought to have been homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek has decreased, and the means by which homicidal gassings took place there (hydrogen cyanide and/or carbon monoxide), is also no longer known for certain?

.) Anne Frank and her sister Margot were transferred FROM Auschwitz, "the death factory", to the less deadly Bergen-Belsen, located at the other end of the Reich, and weren't gassed either, but died from typhus? Why all this complicated logistics if the intent of the Nazi party was to exterminate the Jewish race? What use did two frail, underaged teens reduced to skeletons have for the German war industry?

.) During WW2, in the Auschwitz I camp, which is visited by a million tourists each year, there actually was a functioning swimming pool, theatre, post office, and brothel that 95% of the visitors today have no clue about since these are NOT marked as such on the boards and signs in the camp?

.) Himmler, the "devil himself", worked with the Red Cross to evacuate thousands of people OUT of concentration camps and INTO the safety of Sweden and other nordic countries by an operation in 1945 known as the "White Buses" (even has a wikipedia article)?

.) Considering any biologist or botanist can tell you that human ashes are actually NOT a good fertizer, if truckload upon truckload of ashes from the Aktion Reinhard camps and Auschwitz had been, according to the official story, blindly dumped into the surrounding environment, this should have left large visible patches of eroded grass/damaged topsoil etc for generations.


Is it true, that...

.) France was spared widespread destruction by the Germans?

.) The Wehrmacht tank advance halted, preventing a massacre of several hundred thousand British forces at Dunkirk and ended with their escape?

.) Britain and France declared war on Germany, and not the other way round, therefore escalating a local conflict (Germany-Poland) into an actual world war?

.) Hitler did not want a war with Britain, or even France, and sent several peace proposals that were all rejected? A famous messenger of this proposal, Rudolf Hess, was captured upon landing in Britain and sentenced to lifelong imprsonment by the Allies for trying to make peace???

.) The British guarantee to Poland, protecting it from invasion, ONLY applied to invasion by Germans and NOT by e.g. the Soviet Union?

.) The Soviet Union invaded Poland 2 weeks after Germany, and not only did the Allies NOT declare war on the Soviet Union for this transgression?

.) the Nazi government, considered far more evil than the German Kaiserreich, nevertheless did NOT routinely use poison gas on the battlefield the way the Kaiser had done during WW1, even though they did have reserves of e.g. Sarin? Why would the evil Nazis abstain from using poison gas on the battlefield especially if they were already killing millions of Jews via (among other things) poison gas in the death camps?

.) Britain started the deliberate bombing of civilian targets in Germany BEFORE Germany started deliberately bombing civilian targets in Britain?

.) Adolf Hitler waited for months before retaliating on British civilian targets, as he says in his speeches?

.) After war's end, some former German concentration camps were actually repurposed for this and then ran by the Soviet NKVD, such as Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald from 1945 till 1950 in which (together with the other NKVD special camps in Germany), and historians agree on this, an additional 43,000 to 65,000 people were murdered by the Allies after war's end yet 99% of people who have heard about Sachsenhausen or Buchenwald only associate it with Nazis?

.) Thousands of ethnic German civilians (Volksdeutsche) living in Poland were massacred in the most brutal of ways by the Polish shortly after the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, perhaps the most iconic of these known as the Bromberger Blutsonntag ('bloody sunday')?

.) the Cap Arcona, a German civilian ocean liner that was FULL of concentration camp prisoners was SUNK by the Royal Air Force, killing about 5000 people, with more than 2000 further casualties in the sinkings of the accompanying vessels of the prison fleet SS Deutschland and Thielbek, marking THE BIGGEST SINGLE-INCIDENT MARITIME LOSS OF CIVILIAN LIFE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR yet this is not considered an Allied war crime and made a hundred documentaries about?

.) the Allies main excuse for the above was "well it wasn't marked as a hospital ship", i.e. admitting that they would routinely drop their bombs on any non-military vessel even if it had no guns, because Allied bomber commands were, simply put, monstrous war criminals?

.) the Allied war criminals are also responsible for the single biggest loss of civilian life in 20th century maritime history, which was the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff that resulted in some 9000 civilian deaths, but every kid knows about the Titanic's sinking thanks to James Cameron's efforts that weren't directed toward filming this far greater maritime tragedy?

.) If history isnt written by the victor, why does the world (yes, THE WORLD) already decry it a crime against humanity when Nazis put those Jews who survived the holocaust into camps just for being Jewish, but does not say anything when the United States put Japanese-Americans into camps just for having Japanese ancestry? Why is there only a fraction of the awareness about this in schools?

.) respected mainstream historian Walter Laqueur in his book "Weimar: A Cultural History" acknowledges that the Weimar Republic was significantly (disproportionate representation) unter the influence and control of Jewish intellectuals who were spearheading many, if not the majority of progressivist ideals like atheism, sexual liberation, acceptance of homosexuality, feminism, transsexuality, crossdressing etc.? I.e. everything that a national socialist would see as degeneracy? That therefore "Jews are behind this" isn't a baseless accusation invented by idiots after all?

.) Why is there a large menorah on the White House lawn, even called "the National Menorah", in a nation where Jews only comprise 2% of the population, yet no National Cross????

And then conclude with a slogan akin to:

If none of these facts make you question the official narrative, nothing ever will.
Last edited by Rogal Dorn on Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:39 am)

Pia Kahn wrote:If we are to distribute flyers in Germany, then I would suggest creating such a flyer that conforms with German law but nevertheless presents the major reasons and arguments for doubting the holocaust. The flyer should encourage an open debate about the holocaust without explicitly taking sides in the debate. That would be illegal. Open debate should be the major message. This German Language Flyer could be posted on the Codoh website such that anybody can print and distribute them.

Sowing the seed of doubt is all we have to do and doubting is not illegal.

This English Language Flyer could be a model for the German language flyer. However, I believe that the flyer is too long and complicated.

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/Holoca ... ticism.pdf

My idea would be to concentrate on the gas chambers of Auschwitz, in particular Cremas 2 and 3. That's the core of the core of the holocaust. The whole holocaust is far too complex; it cannot be addressed in a few pages. We should focus on the core or heart of the narrative.

Prove the missing cyanide residue, show the photographs and major measurement results. Show the missing holes in the remains. Show the missing holes in the contemporary aerial photography. A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

The flyer should briefly explain the orthodox and revisionist interpretation of the photography and evidence and encourage the reader to make up his own mind. If the reader feels that doubts are justified then he should be encouraged to stand up for freedom of speech such that these issues may be resolved in an open debate.

The first picture of the flyer should arouse interest in the topic. The recipient must be lured into reading it. The final picture should be the knock out blow. The flyer should have no more than four pages.

A German lawyer should be consulted in order to make sure that the flyer probably confirms with German law. A certain risk will remain no matter how we proceed. But, we shouldn't encourage people to obviously break the law.

Regardless of how this goes forward (and our slight disagreement on how to do so), it needs to be done. Probably the flyer would be placed here and on the German language forum for German revisionists who live under threat of arrest.

I know that this has risks, my only point is that while I believe in obeying the law, anyone who hinders the work of a historian has broken the law of freedom of inquiry. Therefore, I don't believe that that law should be regarded as valid (though it holds power).

Just my opinion.

Also - the link to the German Forum viewforum.php?f=8
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:40 am)

"I know that this has risks, my only point is that while I believe in obeying the law, anyone who hinders the work of a historian has broken the law of freedom of inquiry. Therefore, I don't believe that that law should be regarded as valid (though it holds power).

Just my opinion."

I actually share your opinion. The law is not valid. But, it doesnt matter because they are going to imprison you no matter how illegal and unconstitutional that is. They've been braking the constitution for decades and this is plain obvious for anyone who has a minimum of legal training.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Hektor » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:27 am)

Pia Kahn wrote:....
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-b ... os=0&anz=1

1. Thus, we are not allowed to deny or dispute the holocaust. But, we are allowed to doubt the holocaust. So voicing doubt and asking questions is allowed.

2. We must not present the arguments against the holocaust as our own arguments. That would be akin to denial. We must say: "These are the arguments of the holocaust deniers. How can we refute them?"

3. We must ask for an open debate and for freedom of speech in order to resolve the issues surrounding holocaust.

This is the eye of the needle we must go through.

Sure, even if we argue in this manner they will try to silence us. They will recognize that we are carefully avoiding censorship but still spreading the message. They will be extremely angry that they cannot silence us. That's fine. We will revel in their anger. Then, stricter censorship laws may be passed. But, until this happens, we should take advantage of the liberties we still have.

You assume they'll go by the book there. That may be the case for uncontroversial legal issues. But in this case you are dealing with some sort of inquisition. Let me comment on the points:

1. Doubting will be interpreted as an attempt to dispute and in their lingo "deny" the Holocaust. They'll treat the issue in the same manner as Holocaust Denial. Although that also depends on the type of judge and prosecutor you are dealing with. The prosecutor needs to be willing to follow up on the case and not throw it out. The judge will have to then make a decision on "How your intentions have to be viewed". Frankly I think normal jurists do realize that this is political persecution. They'll be reluctant to take up such a case. But that means they hand over those cases to colleagues that do consider "prosecuting Holocaust denier" a legitimate legal endeavor. Remember that the younger jurist all went through FRG-universities and are influenced by the politically correct Zeitgeist. The chances are good to be confronted with someone that will persecute you with ideological "never again" zeal.

2. That may rather work. Reporting on what others say is the method journalists general apply.... and usually get away with. But again, careful. They may look into the background of the authors and then conclude what their "actual intent was". If you got a background in "right-wing" politics they will view it as another attempt of denial. Yes, that means that different standards of laws apply to different classes of people. And that's something that needs to be pointed out. Also that the whole Holocaust legislation is against essential legal principles like the requirement that legislation need to apply generally and mustn't be cases of special pleading.

3. Demanding freedom of speech and research is the safest approach. That's also where you may get the broadest support for. But not so fast. One argument is e.g.: "No tolerance for intolerance" or "Hate is not an opinion, but a crime". What they'll try to argue is that "banning Holocaust denial" is legitimate, because it "violates the rights and dignity of the victims and their relatives". And in that case "Germany" has got a "special historical responsibility due to the Holocaust and Nazi past". That's of course special pleading. And there is no hypothesis, even well confirmed ones, that are sacrosanct and above public questioning, disputing and debate. Expect the argument that "Holocaust Denial" itself is libelous, because it applies that victims were lying. That way they try to shift the burden of proof on those that dispute the Holocaust again. Never mind that lying in and outside of court is a common phenomenon and that judges, prosecutors, defendants make mistakes including admitting claims that are simply false. Another angle will be that "Freedom of Research" only applies to certified academics from established university institutions. And that subsequently this doesn't apply to private researchers that publish their results. Those making that argument, not necessarily those falling for it, know of course very well, that academia got its own control mechanism. In practice that means, while you won't be jailed or killed, you effectively can ruin your career, when you question or dispute widely held opinions, at least when they carry some 'moral' or ideological 'load' to it. And lets face it, we're talking about (German) historians. Their whole view on the 1930s / 1940s got the Holocaust as thought terminating cliche. Meaning they'll interpret Nation-Socialism and World War Two predominantly in that light. Pulling the Holocaust out of the equation would force them to rethink and revise the whole thing, something they are for sure not eager to do. It doesn't stop there. Outside History, but still in the humanities or then in the political/ideological field they Holocaust is the justification myth for a lot of the political morality there. You can't criticize certain groups, because 'muh Holocaust'. You can't suggest certain policies, because "Hitler did the same thing" and you can't do what Hitler did, because again "Muh Holocaust". I should add they are pretty selective on that one. The taboo policies generally relate to German (or White) Nationalism and race related issues. Furthermore they'd relate to issues of Israel, "sexual minorities" (mostly homosexuals), "militarism" - as in "thou shalt not defend yourself" and related to this also masculinity and authority. Funny enough labor, economic and welfare policies and also the persecution of thought criminals have become immune from that sort of ad Hitlerum argument. The probably reason is that those pushing the Holocaust agenda swinging the Nazi club are socialists themselves and would like to use violence against dissenters.


While the legal or openly violent suppression of Holocaust dissent is certainly remarkable, the most potent shut-up mechanism is the tyranny of virtue surrounding the Holocaust. In traditional religions you can't question the deity and they'll consider you a terrible person, if you do. With the civic religion this role of the deity passed on to a supposed set of historical events. That's Holocaustolatry at its finest. Consider that in a conventional religion the deity defines the rules and ethics, the same applies to the Holocaust in the civic religion extending to political correctness as well. What's especially diabolical here is that it isn't the formal, official rules that are of an enforcing nature here. It's the very sublime, suggestive, informal nature of the rules that have an enforcing character. With other words the rules aren't stated clearly, but merely implied. That btw. makes shifting the goal posts of the norms easier as well.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:48 am)

Hektor wrote:
Pia Kahn wrote:....
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-b ... os=0&anz=1

1. Thus, we are not allowed to deny or dispute the holocaust. But, we are allowed to doubt the holocaust. So voicing doubt and asking questions is allowed.

2. We must not present the arguments against the holocaust as our own arguments. That would be akin to denial. We must say: "These are the arguments of the holocaust deniers. How can we refute them?"

3. We must ask for an open debate and for freedom of speech in order to resolve the issues surrounding holocaust.

This is the eye of the needle we must go through.

Sure, even if we argue in this manner they will try to silence us. They will recognize that we are carefully avoiding censorship but still spreading the message. They will be extremely angry that they cannot silence us. That's fine. We will revel in their anger. Then, stricter censorship laws may be passed. But, until this happens, we should take advantage of the liberties we still have.

You assume they'll go by the book there. That may be the case for uncontroversial legal issues. But in this case you are dealing with some sort of inquisition. Let me comment on the points:

1. Doubting will be interpreted as an attempt to dispute and in their lingo "deny" the Holocaust. They'll treat the issue in the same manner as Holocaust Denial. Although that also depends on the type of judge and prosecutor you are dealing with. The prosecutor needs to be willing to follow up on the case and not throw it out. The judge will have to then make a decision on "How your intentions have to be viewed". Frankly I think normal jurists do realize that this is political persecution. They'll be reluctant to take up such a case. But that means they hand over those cases to colleagues that do consider "prosecuting Holocaust denier" a legitimate legal endeavor. Remember that the younger jurist all went through FRG-universities and are influenced by the politically correct Zeitgeist. The chances are good to be confronted with someone that will persecute you with ideological "never again" zeal.

2. That may rather work. Reporting on what others say is the method journalists general apply.... and usually get away with. But again, careful. They may look into the background of the authors and then conclude what their "actual intent was". If you got a background in "right-wing" politics they will view it as another attempt of denial. Yes, that means that different standards of laws apply to different classes of people. And that's something that needs to be pointed out. Also that the whole Holocaust legislation is against essential legal principles like the requirement that legislation need to apply generally and mustn't be cases of special pleading.

3. Demanding freedom of speech and research is the safest approach. That's also where you may get the broadest support for. But not so fast. One argument is e.g.: "No tolerance for intolerance" or "Hate is not an opinion, but a crime". What they'll try to argue is that "banning Holocaust denial" is legitimate, because it "violates the rights and dignity of the victims and their relatives". And in that case "Germany" has got a "special historical responsibility due to the Holocaust and Nazi past". That's of course special pleading. And there is no hypothesis, even well confirmed ones, that are sacrosanct and above public questioning, disputing and debate. Expect the argument that "Holocaust Denial" itself is libelous, because it applies that victims were lying. That way they try to shift the burden of proof on those that dispute the Holocaust again. Never mind that lying in and outside of court is a common phenomenon and that judges, prosecutors, defendants make mistakes including admitting claims that are simply false. Another angle will be that "Freedom of Research" only applies to certified academics from established university institutions. And that subsequently this doesn't apply to private researchers that publish their results. Those making that argument, not necessarily those falling for it, know of course very well, that academia got its own control mechanism. In practice that means, while you won't be jailed or killed, you effectively can ruin your career, when you question or dispute widely held opinions, at least when they carry some 'moral' or ideological 'load' to it. And lets face it, we're talking about (German) historians. Their whole view on the 1930s / 1940s got the Holocaust as thought terminating cliche. Meaning they'll interpret Nation-Socialism and World War Two predominantly in that light. Pulling the Holocaust out of the equation would force them to rethink and revise the whole thing, something they are for sure not eager to do. It doesn't stop there. Outside History, but still in the humanities or then in the political/ideological field they Holocaust is the justification myth for a lot of the political morality there. You can't criticize certain groups, because 'muh Holocaust'. You can't suggest certain policies, because "Hitler did the same thing" and you can't do what Hitler did, because again "Muh Holocaust". I should add they are pretty selective on that one. The taboo policies generally relate to German (or White) Nationalism and race related issues. Furthermore they'd relate to issues of Israel, "sexual minorities" (mostly homosexuals), "militarism" - as in "thou shalt not defend yourself" and related to this also masculinity and authority. Funny enough labor, economic and welfare policies and also the persecution of thought criminals have become immune from that sort of ad Hitlerum argument. The probably reason is that those pushing the Holocaust agenda swinging the Nazi club are socialists themselves and would like to use violence against dissenters.


While the legal or openly violent suppression of Holocaust dissent is certainly remarkable, the most potent shut-up mechanism is the tyranny of virtue surrounding the Holocaust. In traditional religions you can't question the deity and they'll consider you a terrible person, if you do. With the civic religion this role of the deity passed on to a supposed set of historical events. That's Holocaustolatry at its finest. Consider that in a conventional religion the deity defines the rules and ethics, the same applies to the Holocaust in the civic religion extending to political correctness as well. What's especially diabolical here is that it isn't the formal, official rules that are of an enforcing nature here. It's the very sublime, suggestive, informal nature of the rules that have an enforcing character. With other words the rules aren't stated clearly, but merely implied. That btw. makes shifting the goal posts of the norms easier as well.

Therefore, it stands to reason that flyers and posters should be undeniably "denial propaganda". Although I have no intention to travel to Germany, this is what I would do if I was in Germany to combat "holocaust denial" laws. Print hundreds of flyers/posters, and then distribute them at night to avoid arrest with gloved hands. Concealing one's face would also be effective, and would be untraceable. Wearing a mask is legal in Germany, unless one is on strike. This would work better in smaller German towns which don't have a large police presence. Let Germany know that we will not be silenced!
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:21 am)

"Doubting will be interpreted as an attempt to dispute and in their lingo "deny" the Holocaust. They'll treat the issue in the same manner as Holocaust Denial. "

Sure, they will try to do this. But, if it is well done, then they cannot.

"2. That may rather work. Reporting on what others say is the method journalists general apply.... and usually get away with."

I know it works. I've gotten away with it.

3. "One argument is e.g.: "No tolerance for intolerance" or "Hate is not an opinion, but a crime"." Sure, but that only works for the die hard believers. Once somebody recognizes that it is a legitimate question, then none of this holds any water.

"While the legal or openly violent suppression of Holocaust dissent is certainly remarkable, the most potent shut-up mechanism is the tyranny of virtue surrounding the Holocaust." That's actually a very good point. But, recognizing the manner in which people are brainwashed is impossible so long as you are still an uncritical believer. This could be the topic of a follow up flyer. How is the holocaust used in order to manipulate people - irrespective of whether it is true or not.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Hektor » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:29 am)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:...
Therefore, it stands to reason that flyers and posters should be undeniably "denial propaganda". Although I have no intention to travel to Germany, this is what I would do if I was in Germany to combat "holocaust denial" laws. Print hundreds of flyers/posters, and then distribute them at night to avoid arrest with gloved hands. Concealing one's face would also be effective, and would be untraceable. Wearing a mask is legal in Germany, unless one is on strike. This would work better in smaller German towns which don't have a large police presence. Let Germany know that we will not be silenced!


The hammer should be on the freedom of speech // religion // research issue.
The issue with the flyer is that they'll be removed immediately, be viewed as "Neo-Nazi"-propaganda, don't reach a good target audience.

Debating the issue in a private circle with people that are open minded and thinkers to some extent themselves is more efficient.
The masses are kept in check with mass media and the usual weapons of mass instruction (government) schools.
Virtually everybody over 18 in Germany was at one stage confronted with the Holocaust. It's also part of teacher training.
With the omnipresence it's virtually everybody gets the impression that the story is either true or at least most of it is.
There is however some fatigue about the issue and the classical liberal to libertarian circles in Germany object to jailing people for expressing a "false" opinion.

But as indicated the structures support Holocaustolatry and won't accept dissent. You'd need alternative structures and they are emerging for a couple of years now. But they are careful with the issue themselves, since they get quite some flak on other issues already. On the other hand, if the Holocaust-vestige falls, they will have an easier job and persecuting, harassing and marginalizing them will get far more difficult for the establishment. So I won't dismiss the possibility that at some stage there will be a meltdown on the Holocaust. It would make the elites look bad like those in "The emperors new cloths". The cultural Marxists in media and academia would loose grip. But bear in mind that the media age in Germany is about 46. So people between 20 and 30 are a smaller percentage than in previous ages. That means that their influence is seriously curbed. The older ones hardly will change their mind, although this also happens on occasion.

The challenges faced in Germany are demography, the welfare state as well capital and production structure. It relates to the European Union and globalization as well. There is a growing gap between rich and poor... and a steady intellectual decline, too. As can already be measured in school performance, something happening despite lowering the standards. So again, one would have to find people with a) contingent intellect to understand the issue, b) some economic security that allows them to engage in the issue. The route of attacking state persecution of Revisionists is still a legal one with a lower risk. Although you probably will be harassed by the ANTIFA.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:33 am)

"The issue with the flyer is that they'll be removed immediately, be viewed as "Neo-Nazi"-propaganda, don't reach a good target audience. "

That's a good point. Therefore, they should be distributed in the letter boxes of private homes. People will be afraid to even pick up such a leaflet in public. If they are reading it in the safety of their private home, then it makes sense. Act as if you were distributing advertisement and go.

"The hammer should be on the freedom of speech // religion // research issue. "

Agreed. Lot's of people who are avid believers in the holocaust, reject the government censorship on the issue. This is a good starting point and should be the prevailing message of the flier.

By the way. The problems with free speech in Germany are immense. Holocaust denial is just one aspect of this. Lot's of people are angry about the lack of free speech in Germany. This is the wave we can ride on.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:56 am)

Hektor wrote:
JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:...
Therefore, it stands to reason that flyers and posters should be undeniably "denial propaganda". Although I have no intention to travel to Germany, this is what I would do if I was in Germany to combat "holocaust denial" laws. Print hundreds of flyers/posters, and then distribute them at night to avoid arrest with gloved hands. Concealing one's face would also be effective, and would be untraceable. Wearing a mask is legal in Germany, unless one is on strike. This would work better in smaller German towns which don't have a large police presence. Let Germany know that we will not be silenced!


The hammer should be on the freedom of speech // religion // research issue.
The issue with the flyer is that they'll be removed immediately, be viewed as "Neo-Nazi"-propaganda, don't reach a good target audience.

Debating the issue in a private circle with people that are open minded and thinkers to some extent themselves is more efficient.
The masses are kept in check with mass media and the usual weapons of mass instruction (government) schools.
Virtually everybody over 18 in Germany was at one stage confronted with the Holocaust. It's also part of teacher training.
With the omnipresence it's virtually everybody gets the impression that the story is either true or at least most of it is.
There is however some fatigue about the issue and the classical liberal to libertarian circles in Germany object to jailing people for expressing a "false" opinion.

But as indicated the structures support Holocaustolatry and won't accept dissent. You'd need alternative structures and they are emerging for a couple of years now. But they are careful with the issue themselves, since they get quite some flak on other issues already. On the other hand, if the Holocaust-vestige falls, they will have an easier job and persecuting, harassing and marginalizing them will get far more difficult for the establishment. So I won't dismiss the possibility that at some stage there will be a meltdown on the Holocaust. It would make the elites look bad like those in "The emperors new cloths". The cultural Marxists in media and academia would loose grip. But bear in mind that the media age in Germany is about 46. So people between 20 and 30 are a smaller percentage than in previous ages. That means that their influence is seriously curbed. The older ones hardly will change their mind, although this also happens on occasion.

The challenges faced in Germany are demography, the welfare state as well capital and production structure. It relates to the European Union and globalization as well. There is a growing gap between rich and poor... and a steady intellectual decline, too. As can already be measured in school performance, something happening despite lowering the standards. So again, one would have to find people with a) contingent intellect to understand the issue, b) some economic security that allows them to engage in the issue. The route of attacking state persecution of Revisionists is still a legal one with a lower risk. Although you probably will be harassed by the ANTIFA.


I understand your argument. It is a fact that people get more stubborn as they age. The alternative would be to go to campuses and "encourage universities to explain why holocaust denial is wrong without insulting the denier or using bad research." Even though we are right, this will subtly encourage the hoaxers to engage our points and actually use logic, thus winning converts to our side. According to https://www.timeshighereducation.com/st ... vey-answer the top 2018 German universities are
1. LMU Munich
2. Technical University of Munich
3. Heidelberg University
4. Humboldt University of Berlin
5. RWTH Aachen University
6. University of Freiburg
7. Free University of Berlin
8. Technical University of Berlin
9. University of Tübingen
10. University of Bonn

If we get them to engage "the arguments of holocasut deniers" we have already won, and this will help us greatly. While I have no regard for "holocaust denial laws", this might be the more effective way to do it. That said, it would be funny to see the reaction of German police to find hundreds of revisionist literature all over street corners and people's doorsteps. :lol:
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:04 pm)

"1. LMU Munich"

This is where the sisters Scholl distributed flyers during the third Reich. They were eventually hanged for distributing them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_and_Sophie_Scholl

If we distribute flyers there then they should make reference to this event. The very first page should deal with this historical event and demand freedom of speech. The second page should deal with freedom of speech and the holocaust.

Imagine if the judges were to try you for essentially repeating the deeds of two famous heroes.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Legalizing Holocaust Revisionism in Germany

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 6 days ago (Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:13 pm)

I find this idea very intriguing. It should be first and foremost a freedom of speech leaflet.

1. The very first page should commemorate the heroic deed of the Sisters Scholl.
2. The second page should deal with the novel internet censorship laws in Germany, the nework enforcement law.
"Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" ("network enforcement law")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiko_Maa ... _of_speech

The young students of the internet age will heartily agree with everything we said and did. By this time, the reader is still completely unsuspecting.

Pages 3 and 4 Should deal with holocaust denial and why it should be openly debated.

If this event gets any kind of public attention then it would really stir up the debate about freedom of speech and the holocaust.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bonniwell2923, Google [Bot] and 37 guests