Tom wrote:Perhaps the reason the Revisionist have won the debate but the message is not getting through better is that Revisionists are presenting scientific facts and the opposition is arguing back with Faith (religion-knowingly or unknowingly).
Exactly so. I would recommend that all revisionists who react unfavorably to the treatment of Holocaustomania as a religion with its tenets accepted by faith, because they don't like to use those words in negative context, should pay a lot of atention to your post. The next doubt, of course, may be: "Okay. So what? What should revisionists do they are not doing at present?"
Here is a suggestion:
Once you start to pin the "religion" label on the "Holocaust" lobby -- exactly in the same way it pins the label of "denial" on us -- and insist in hammering away this view, you contribute to show it for what it really is, and indeed is crying out loud to the World it is, when it resorts to such a purely religious-like sin as that of being a denier. Yes, the right answer to the imposition of religious dogma is the straightforward denial of religious dogma: this should be a revisionist leitmotiv.
Do not say "I'm a very good Methodist (or whatever) myself and I have a lot of respect for all the religions and all the tiny creatures in the World, but the 'Holocaust ' religion is a wrong way to worship the Heavens". This is the wrong approach.
Say instead: "The 'Holocaust' is a f*****g religion and should be treated as one; I don't need and won't have any f*****g clergy or its f*****g intellectual errand-boys and f*****g police telling me what I should or should not believe and worship". This is the right approach, though you may substitute "g*dd****d f*****g" for "f*****g" if you're not a religious type yourself.
Not that I'm really asking to be "moderated"; I simply want to reinforce my point...
People who consider themselves free-thinkers, libertarians, atheists, resisters to intellectual opression, but who have little or no information on the actual historiography of the "Holocaust", may start considering our points from a new perspective that, of course, is the same one they adopt when confronting dogmatic authority backed by state and/or clergy.
Free-thinkers, libertarians, anti-dogmatists and their organisations, should be the natural friends of anyone confronted with religious Inquisitions, even if a few of us feel inclined to sympathise with political authoritarianism, respect for religion etc. I am not one of those, but apart from my own personal opinion on the subject, I think all revisionists should ponder with care what may look like an alignment with religious bigots fighting their own religious wars (and, incidentally, persecuting their own dissidents).
By all means always insist in free speech; but I certainly wouldn't recomend trying to be over-zealously nice to any religious types in power anywhere. If you look at some of the images of, and comments on, the Teheran event, you may notice that revisionism is -- and probably will be -- in much the same shape, but anti-revisionists who will visit Töben's site will now have some ammunition concerning the admiration "we" have for the achievements of the "Islamic Revolution". I think Butz produced the wisest words on this subject, and a lot of caution should be in order. I might throw a few comments of my own on Jurgen Graf's admiration for the Iranian prohibition of pornography (Duke interview) or Töben's feelings about Iranian university life, but I will restrain myself to this short mention (and I don't recommend that others start new threads on the subject). I simply ask: is this really the best way to acquire the new allies and the "outside" help we need? I have some doubts. From the strict viewpoint of usefulness, Irving's ill-fortune -- unhappy about it as I most certainly am -- was worth a thousand bows in the direction of any Meccas, because -- in spite of the overwhelming stupidity of the ignorant masses -- it brought revisionism in contact with free-minded people who might as well been living on the moon until then, as far as the meaning of "Holocaust" revisionism is concerned.
In short: in my opinion, the view that presents the "Holocaust" in the context of a fight against a dogmatic religion should be insisted upon, at least to balance any need to look towards religion-based societies for help in what is begining to look to me like a coming war of religion (on both sides).
And certainly Israel should at all times be pointed to as the religious mad dog of the World it is, instead of the tolerant and democratic society it claims to be. I, at least, know of no other modern case of a people dispossessed by another on an exclusively theological basis, followed by the imposition, by violent means, of the same depraved theology, under the guise of a pseudo-historical "Holocaust", on the rest of the World.