'Historical revisionism' means lies

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

'Historical revisionism' means lies

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:57 am)

Letter to the Editor under -

The Patriot Act and Our Civil Rights

New York Times, Dec.21, 05

Rudolph W. Giuliani says that the USA Patriot Act was passed "after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate". This is historical revisionism. ...

Arthur S. Leonard
Professor at New York Law School

Leonard goes on to cite some of the facts about the passing of the Patriot Act which would show Giuliani's statement false. Even though it might appear Leonard is stating against tyranny his applying the term "historical revisionism" as if it should mean lies is no mistake and is intended to stigmatize the term, especially when it comes to the Holocaust.

I have seen this angle before and we can expect to see it more in the future.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10002
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:30 pm)

If 'historical revisionism' is equated with lies, then all those who study and write about history are 'liars'. 'Revise' is what those who write history necessarily do, otherwise there would be no historical research, history would be a dead, fixed entity.

Take note that those to try this tar & feather tactic are curiously shy about saying 'holocaust revisionism' for fear of stirring up interest. Simply using 'revisionism' in a negative manner sends a more subtle and effective message.

The so called 'holocau$t', the only historical topic that has laws shielding it from scrutiny and debate. That confirms it's fraudulent nature.
"Only error needs protection of government, truth can stand on it's own"

- Thomas Jefferson

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:52 pm)

These days, orwellian Newspeak is omnipresent.

It's not enough for the Holohoaxers to call revisionists "deniers", thereby implying that we are denying historical facts, they have also managed a semantic shift of the word "revisionism". If you ask someone to explain the meaning of the word "revise", he or she will surely say that it means 'to take another look at something' and 'to update something in order to bring it to accord with facts'. If you ask them to explain the word "revisionism" or "historical revisionism" however, they will say that it means lying about historical facts through "rewriting history", something which brings us to another important point:

To most people, there is no important difference between history and historiography (at least the one of their times). Most people tend to believe that history - or more specifically recent history - went down more or less exactly as they were taught, and they believe it simply because they are taught to believe it. There is not much of reasoning involved, specifially when it comes to Holocaust. Rather emotionalism and "inner experience of the past" is the norm.

Therefore, to most people "historical revisionism" equals "rewriting history", i.e. "changing" the past, and not what it actually means, that is "correcting historiography". Revisionists disagrees with "history" as sanctioned by the established authorities, and therefore they are declared "liars", "deniers" - and "historical revisionists", but with and intended meaning that is actually its opposite!

In Orwell's novel, the purpose of Newspeak - a language where each new dictionary contained fewer words - was to limit free thought, ultimately making it impossible to think thoughts not sanctioned by the regime.

"Holocaust denial" and the semantically inverted form of "revisionism" are powerful parts of the real Newspeak. Their purpose: to hinder people to think forbidden thoughts.

Even though we are force fed the Big H each and every day by our media teachers etc, most people are only very dimly aware about the actual details of how the Holocaust is supposed to have happened. I would say that only a few percent of all westerners have seen photographs of the supposed homocidal gas chambers. Most people have no idea whatsoever of the technicalities of the supposed murder weapons - aside from that it was gas. This is the reason why we see newspaper articles mentioning "gas ovens" and such nonsens.

To most people, the Holocaust is a religious dogma or mystery (in the theological sense), a dogma masquerading as a historical event, but not really thought of as such by most people, but as an incarnation of some struggle between "good" and "evil", wherein "the good" died for our sins. This creates a kind of psychological shield within many people, that hinders them from looking to deep into practical workings of the supposed events: the Holocaust is treated as holy, its innermost nature a holiest of holies that should not be left to prying, matter-of-factly eyes. When someone else breaches this shield, normal thought breaks down and is replaced by terror, panic and "holy wrath" against the committer of taboo. When oneself breaches the shield, one either recoils from the horror of thinking against the grain, or one takes the step and volontarily becomes an outcast, a "leper". That is, a person guided by his own principles and a love of truth, no matter wthat the repercussions. The truth is a harsh mistress in those nighttimes, indeed.

The "irreverence" - in fact, enlightenment - that enables one to penetrate the cloudy spheres of myth and sacrosanctity and take a hard look at reality - is the reason why most of us are here today.

For those of you who have not already read George Orwells classic novel Nineteen Eighty Four, it is available for download here:


It was written in 1948 and based mainly on Stalin's variety of totalitarianism, but it sure is prophetical of our days, when war is (waged 'for') peace and the vilest of lies are presented as the greatest of truths.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:11 pm)

There is far more than mere semantics invovled here as L. Dahl so well explains. Of course every serious historian must be a "revisionist" in the broadest sense. The real forces at play here are the forces of darkness wishing to conrtrol thought as Orwell's great work explains.

As an aside I note that the Zionist "revisionists" were followers of Jabotinski who wished to revise the Mandate to include Trans-Jordan as Jewish territory and to cleanse Palestine of Arabs by force if necessary. He was more honest than some other Zionists who wanted the same thing but were discreet about mentioning it. The Likud party of our times are the spiritual heirs of those revisionists. The term has many uses.

Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:42 am

Postby Ratatosk » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:25 pm)

"Holocaust denial" and the semantically inverted form of "revisionism" are powerful parts of the real Newspeak

Yes, I agree. It is meant to be Newspeak. But, for a term like holocaust denial to work as Newspeak. You need people who are scared enough to be intimidated by it.

I as a Revisionist have no problem with it whatsoever. I am a holocaustdenier. Meaning that I deny that people were gassed, I deny that the Nazis had a extermination program and I deny the 6 millions.

Nothing to be scared of. Believe me. It is simply the truth.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:39 am)

I as a Revisionist have no problem with it whatsoever. I am a holocaustdenier. Meaning that I deny that people were gassed, I deny that the Nazis had a extermination program and I deny the 6 millions.

People are way too sensitive about being called a "denier". The term was first aimed at Holocaust skeptics by the Holocaust community in order to imply skeptics deny everything, including that Jews were singled out, among others, for special attention.

Holocaust, The Holocaust does not mean persecution of Jews. It means mass extermination. If the revising involves claims something didn't happen then that would be denying. Denying and revising applied to the Holocaust are the same thing according to the trail of dictionary definitions.

If one is a Holocaust revisionist and denies being a denier that's falling into the trap set by the Holocaust community.

The Holocaust means mass extermination. That's it. You don't revise the Holocaust as if to imply you are just correcting a few details, you deny it happened. Revision is the word that's wrong if anything.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:08 pm)

If one is a Holocaust revisionist and denies being a denier that's falling into the trap set by the Holocaust community.

I agree. The "holospeak" matter and how to beat it by turning it against the propagandists that peddle it, has always interested me. I will repost here some previous ideas on the subject that I have frequently mentioned elsewhere.

I disagree with the idea that the label "Holocaust denier" is a negative one that should be avoided. I believe, on the contrary, that it is a fortunate one, since it gives one an opportunity to bring the dogmatic, unscientific character of the "Holocaust" into focus. What should at all times be driven home is the fact that what we, like everybody else, call the "Holocaust", is a precise set of alleged events that in fact can be shown to rest on no historical grounds. Any attempt to avoid the clear (and indeed well-known!) boundaries of the "Holocaust" should be refused. The "Arno Meyer gambit" should be left for the Arno Meyers of this world. The goal should be to expose the historical lie, not to help it survive and thrive.

Allow me to explain what I mean by quoting a letter of mine posted to David Irving's site:

"Many people would say that they take the "Holocaust", at least in part, to be "a fact", and that it would take quite a lot of persuading for them to believe that "the whole thing" is a fiction. Indeed even David Irving himself, as far as I know, rejects the plain and simple label of "Holocaust denier". This is quite understandable, but what exactly are we talking about when we use the word? Can a word be accepted as "a fact", even a "partial fact", regardless of previous definition?

"Obviously, we can construe complex sets of events into "single historical facts" and maintain an epistemological validity to our discourse if a clear definition of our meaning exists. Historical narrative would be a desert of intractable minutiae if we didn't do just that. Thus, the Second World War might well be called a fact, much like the fact that I'm writing you a letter, or any other simple empirical truth. This is because, in spite of the great complexity of the historical events, we establish definitions and understand them: a "war" is a state of belligerence between states, a "world war" is a war of global world significance, and "the Second World War" is the particular world war that took place between 1939 and 1945.

"Similarly, if we are to take the "Holocaust" as "a historical fact", rather than a vague set of religious-like beliefs, we should define our meaning. For instance, biblical "holocausts" were simply sacrifices consumed by fire, and "ill-will towards the Jews", "persecution of the Jews", "the shooting of one's Jewish grandfather in Russia" or "some mass killings of Jews" are not "The Holocaust", the one historians are talking about when they capitalise the noun. I presume every reasonable person would agree that it is impossible to debate the supposedly historical "Holocaust" fact if -- alone among historical facts -- it is allowed to remain an open concept devoid of meaning and form.

"Now, the "Holocaust" concept, the factuality of which we are talking about, is assumed -- by both the faithful and the deniers -- to be a relatively precise set of events (true or false, according to each of the positions) involving an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, mainly in German homicidal gas chambers, during the Second World War. I believe anyone who has been around for the last half century, living anywhere but in the deepest Amazonian jungle, is familiar with this.

"In this sense then, we are perfectly entitled to defend the position that the "whole thing is a fiction", since the impressive corpus of revisionist findings -- little-known due to censorship and persecution, but wide-ranging in its implications -- does establish that all the above claims are false: no extermination (real or attempted); no 6 million victims (not even approximately); and no homicidal gas chambers (not even in the supposed "extermination camp" of Auschwitz-Birkenau where, by far, the largest part of the presumed homicidal industrial gassings is supposed to have taken place).

"Of course, if we choose to define the "Holocaust" in a different manner, say as proto-religious teaching based on vague war propaganda, claiming that undefined -- formless but terrible -- events, many of them miraculous, happened to Jews in such a manner that they are collectively entitled to financial compensation and exemption from the basic standards of civilised behaviour, then the "existence of the Holocaust", might indeed be considered "a fact" -- though the "Holocaust" itself would hardly be an appropriate subject for any historical debate.

"But this is not what is usually meant: while the few authorised "Holocaust historians" that concern themselves with factual history insist in the extreme importance of their subject matter, they do not usually subscribe to such a definition, and therefore, a debate on the "Holocaust" as historical fact vs. proto-religious myth, should be in order, precisely for the sake of preserving the evidence and dismounting the legends.

"This, and nothing else, is what most "Holocaust" deniers ask for, and this is why they are censored and persecuted, rather than confronted."

I also entirely agree with Faurisson's claim that such matters as the theft and rape of Palestine are entirely relevant to understand why the "Holocaust" tenets are daily rammed down the whole World's throat.

On the subject of calling the Jewish experience during WWII "the Holocaust", so that we may more easily focus on it as an area of study, etc, here is what I think.

The word "Holocaust" carries meaning and implies context. I don't think there is something to be gained, from the historiographical viewpoint, by calling the entire objective Jewish experience during WWII "the Holocaust", when the meaning of the "Holocaust" is an altogether different and previously well-established one.

The misunderstanding comes from the idea that people at large are not familiar with the supposedly historical "Holocaust", i.e. an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, many of them in German homicidal gas chambers. Both the faithful and the deniers know perfectly well this is what the word means, and not any fuzzy sociological sum-total of the Jewish experience during WWII. This is what should always be stated and repeated as frequently as necessary.

The correct designation for the entire Jewish experience during WWII, is quite simply "the Jewish experience during WWII".

This is exactly what you do for any other groups. If you want to go into detail, then you refer to, say, "the persecution", the "deportation", the "mass murder", the "suffering" or whatever you have in mind. No more should be needed, unless one wishes to confuse the general concept of "Jewish experience during WWII", regardless of what that experience may have been, with an attempted extermination of the Jews, resulting in approximately 6 million of them being murdered, many of them in German homicidal gas chambers, a set of alleged events already called the "Holocaust".

I think the "Holocaust" -- as opposed to "the Jewish experience during WWII" -- should be called a lie simply because we should look for the truth and telling it like it is.

Take the "Invasion of the Martians": We call H. G. Wells's "a novel" because that's what it is; similarly for Orson Welles's ("a radio joke"), Spielberg's ("a movie"), my loony neighbour's ("a mental delusion") etc. The equivalent accurate description for the "Holocaust" should be "a propaganda fiction, currently used for power and profit" (I suspect if one happens to be an intelligent Jew, one may well add "and for spiritual self-destruction as well"). It's very simple and entirely truthful, an intellectual bonus for anyone fighting unscrupulous propagandists who resort to all kinds of lies and shadowy tricks. We wouldn't call any of the above Martian invasions exactly "a lie" (Orson Welles's would be the nearest). However, if anyone was trying to force an alleged "invasion of the Martians" on everybody else as a ploy for power and profit, rather than for innocent artistic or recreational purposes, then indeed a hoax and a lie it would become.

One's added vulnerability due to "denying the Holocaust lie" doesn't arise from any wrong rhetorics or untruthful claims, but simply from going to the heart of the dangerous forbidden knowledge. Hitting the nail squarely on the head, if you wish.

As for the "rhetorical box our opponents would like to put us into", forget it. They have other boxes for us, made of stone and with very little room for rhetorics. But if censorship is the only way to avoid the truth forever, then they've got a gigantic problem on their hands. In fact, the "Holocaust" single-word concept is a rhetorical box into which they've put themselves for historical purposes, for it makes it impossible to erase the whole gigantic humbug into easy oblivion. An enormously successful hoax in our present day, but also a lesson for all time, for all mankind. Not a future heritage I would be proud of.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SkepticalMind and 3 guests