The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Mortimer » 4 years 11 months ago (Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:22 am)

Kingfisher wrote:When I posted the above, I hadn't finished reading Paul Eisen's article. I now have and would like to post his final paragraph:

Deny the Holocaust!

That Jews suffered greatly from 1933-1945 is not in question but the notion of a premeditated, planned, and industrial extermination of Europe's Jews with its iconic gas-chambers and magical six million are all used to make the Holocaust not only special but also sacred. We are faced with a new, secular religion, a false God with astonishing power to command worship. And, like the Crucifixion with its Cross, Resurrection etc, the Holocaust has key and sacred elements—the exterminationist imperative, the gas-chambers and the sacred six million. It is these that comprise the holy Holocaust which Jews, Zionists, and others worship and which Ernst and the revisionists refuse.

Nor is this a small matter. If it was, why the fuss, why the witch-hunt, why the imprisonment of David Irving, Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel? And it's not just them. What may be a massive lie is being used to oppress pretty much all of humankind. The German and Austrian peoples who, we are told, conceived and perpetrated the slaughter; the Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Rumanian, Hungarian, peoples etc., etc who supposedly hosted, assisted in and cheered on the slaughter; the Americans, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Italians (but not the Danes and the Bulgarians) etc. who apparently didn't do enough to stop the slaughter; the Swiss who earned out of the slaughter and the entire Christian world who, it seems, created the faith—traditions and ideologies in which the slaughter could take place—and now the Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim peoples who seemingly want to perpetrate a new slaughter—in fact, the Holocaust oppresses the entire non-Jewish world and indeed much of the Jewish world as well. Stand and have done with it. Deny the Holocaust.

The full article is here: http://www.righteousjews.org/article27a.html

Paul Eisen has his own blog. http://pauleisen.blogspot.com.au/



avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 7 months ago (Sat May 10, 2014 3:46 am)

Israel Shamir, quote from a response to another jewish revisionist, Gilad Atzmon, who appareantly put the blame for the holo industry on anglo-americans in one article.

This narrative is Jewish, it belongs to Jews, and it has no meaning but as manifestation of Jewish supremacy, as we shall explain below, and it is not necessary to put it over on the much blamed Anglo-Saxon. .... Though Gilad wrote his text as an exercise in dialectics, it can be utilised by less scrupulous men as a “guilt-shifting”.


Above mentioned Atzmon is of jewish heritage I believe, sees the holocaust as a jewish religion, or something.

Thank God For Holocaust Memorial Day .....So the Goyim can learn first hand about the vile impact of Jewish Power. So the Goyim grasp once and for all that their democratically elected politicians better keep their thoughts to themselves.....


http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Who_Needs.htm
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/thank-g ... l-day.html

avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 7 months ago (Sat May 10, 2014 3:58 am)

......remove...
Last edited by Godfred on Sat May 10, 2014 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 7 months ago (Sat May 10, 2014 3:59 am)

The jewish professor Yehuda Elkana was a critique of the holo industry. Not an all out revisionist (gas chambers are mentioned etc.), though I believe it was and his impossible to be that in the academic world anyway...

He recalled that he had been transported to Auschwitz as a boy of 10 and, after the camp was liberated, spent some time in a Russian “liberation camp”, where he encountered Germans, Austrians, Croats, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Russians, as well as fellow Jews. Later he concluded that “there was not much difference in the conduct of many of the people I encountered ... It was clear to me that what happened in Germany could happen anywhere and to any people.”


http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/hope-not-holocaust.html[/quote]

avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 7 months ago (Sat May 10, 2014 6:33 am)

Roi Tov, a jewish convert to christianity, is not a revisionist scholar but has written some clearly revisionist-minded pieces on Israel and the holocaust as mythology.

Israel acknowledges that the Holocaust is its raison d’être. It doesn’t matter what happened there, the official version led to the UN’s Partition Decision and to the incomplete independence declaration of the State of Israel. Yet, Neturei Karta’s (an ultra-orthodox Jewish group) website displays documents clarifying the responsibility of Jewish leaders of the time beyond doubt. In this context, the activities of the Judenrat were also obvious. Adam Czerniaków was the Eldest of Ghetto Warsaw; aware of his being part of the Nazi regime and in fact a traitor to his flock, he committed suicide.


http://www.roitov.com/articles/ghetto.htm

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Zulu » 3 years 6 months ago (Fri May 16, 2014 1:44 pm)

Godfred wrote:The jewish professor Yehuda Elkana was a critique of the holo industry. Not an all out revisionist (gas chambers are mentioned etc.), though I believe it was and his impossible to be that in the academic world anyway...
He recalled that he had been transported to Auschwitz as a boy of 10 and, after the camp was liberated, spent some time in a Russian “liberation camp”, where he encountered Germans, Austrians, Croats, Ukrainians, Hungarians and Russians, as well as fellow Jews. Later he concluded that “there was not much difference in the conduct of many of the people I encountered ... It was clear to me that what happened in Germany could happen anywhere and to any people.”

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/hope-not-holocaust.html

It could be interesting to add in that thread Jewish scholars who, despite being not classified as revisionists or "deniers", have written statements which are clearly on a revisionist line. For instance, some statements published by the following Professor would have surely led him to a trial in France beneath to the Gayssot Act.

Arno J. Mayer, a professor of European history at Princeton University.

Full text of the correspondant Faurisson's article
In the United States a Jewish Professor Takes the Revisionist Path

Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The “Final Solution” in History by Arno J. Mayer, New York: Pantheon, 1988, Hb., 492 pages, $27.95, ISBN 0-394-57154-1.
Reviewed by Robert Faurisson, “In the United States a Jewish Professor Takes the Revisionist Path” The Journal of Historical Review, Volume Nine, Number Three, Fall, 1989, p. 375-379 (slightly modified on December 15, 2010)

***
In May 1989, Newsweek described a “storm over a new book” devoted to “the extermination of the Jews” during the Second World War (issue of May 15, p. 64-65 [Europe edition p. 57]). The book is Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The “Final Solution” in History.

Pierre Vidal-Naquet’s Friend

Its author, Arno J. Mayer, was born in 1926 into a Jewish family in Luxembourg. He is a professor of European history at Princeton University. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, in his 1987 book Les Assassins de la Mémoire (Editions de la Découverte), called Mayer his “colleague and friend” (page 203, note 21) and mentioned his name nine times. For example, he wrote: “I owe very much to Arno J. Mayer, whom I warmly thank” (page 216, note 12). He said that he had read the manuscript of a book that Mayer was going to publish in 1988, probably bearing the title The Final Solution in History.

It seems that in 1982 the American professor infuriated an Israeli colleague during an international conference at the Sorbonne presided over by François Furet and Raymond Aron (29 June to 2 July). At that time Mayer undoubtedly had the courage to express some reservations about the dogma of the Holocaust and the gas chambers.

In any event, Mayer’s own conference paper did not appear in the book L’Allemagne nazie et le génocide juif, (Gallimard/Le Seuil, 1985, 607 pages) that was published three years later and was supposed to contain the results of that conference. We were thus kept in ignorance of Mayer’s thesis from 1982 to 1988.

According to the author, he submitted the penultimate draft of his entire manuscript, except for the prologue, to three of the leading people in the field of Jewish history: Raul Hilberg (United States), Hans Mommsen (West Germany), and Pierre Vidal-Naquet (France) (see page xiv). On the cover of Mayer’s book one can read the following appreciation of the book: “The most important effort ever made by a historian to think critically about the unthinkable (Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris).”

Sources for the Gas Chambers Are Rare and Unreliable

Arno J. Mayer says that he believes there was a policy to exterminate the Jews and that the homicidal gas chambers were a reality, but at the same time he writes pages of text and makes observations with which many revisionists would agree. Furthermore, in his bibliography he even mentions two revisionist works: The Lie of Ulysses by Paul Rassinier (in the edition published by La Vieille Taupe in Paris in 1979), as well as Arthur Butz’s masterly study, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.

According to Mayer there is no trace of any plan for the extermination of the Jews and, as regards the gas chambers, he includes, in his chapter on Auschwitz, the following sentence, which is quite astonishing coming from a friend of Pierre Vidal-Naquet: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable” (p. 362). He adds:
Most of what is known (on this subject) is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity (pages 362-363).

There is no better way of saying that people must be suspicious of the so-called statements, confessions, and eye-witness accounts that the exterminationists so shamelessly make use of.

Then the author adds, regarding the above-mentioned sources: “there is no denying the many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources” (p. 363). One would like to see Arno J. Mayer review some of these contradictions, ambiguities and errors; no doubt he is thinking about the “sources” that the same exterminationists have used for more than forty years.

He mentions the “gassings” at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka but those references are fleeting and are swept up in a flood of considerations foreign to the subject.

Generally speaking, throughout the book the central subject, the supposed genocide of the Jews (here called “Judeocide”) and the supposed gas chambers, is buried under a mass of digressions on such things as the anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages and Hitler’s campaign in Russia. This is what professors complaisantly call the study of the context; I would prefer a study of the text or, in other words, of the subject.

More Dead from Natural than Unnatural Causes

Mayer also takes the revisionist path when he insistently emphasizes the ravages caused in the Jewish communities of the East and in the concentration camps by typhus epidemics. People too often forget that one of the most important motives for the Germans when they created the ghettos was their fear of seeing typhus spread almost everywhere in that part of the world, which was already suffering from war. Even as he is vague on the subject of the supposed “gassings,” Mayer is precise and detailed on typhus. During the period from 1942 to 1945 – in other words at the very time when, according to exterminationist historians, the fantastic “gassings” supposedly took place – he estimates (unfortunately without furnishing any figures) that more Jews were killed by so-called natural causes (starvation, disease, sickness and overwork) than by “unnatural” causes (executions of all kinds). He specifically says that this was true “certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall” (p. 365). That remark has not gone unnoticed and it has provided fuel for a lively controversy.

Elsewhere, Mayer interprets, then eliminates one by one all the documents or arguments which up until now have been used to make people believe that the Germans practiced a policy of exterminating the Jews (the Göring-to-Heydrich letter of July 1941, the Wannsee Conference transcript, the conduct of the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, Himmler’s speeches at Posen in October 1943, etc.).

Things that have been presented to us as definitely established facts are often described by Mayer as being uncertain or untrustworthy. The numbers and the statistics, which have finally achieved, in a sense, an official, sacred character, are greeted by Mayer with great mistrust.

Differentiating between, on the one hand, Jewish “memory” – not to say Jewish legend or mythology – and, on the other hand, “history,” Mayer deplores the existence of a cult of memory which, with the distortions that it imposes on historical reality, has become “too sectarian” (p. 16). Memory, he thinks, tends to “rigidify” while history calls for “revision” (p. 18). Historians today have “the urgent task of thinking, critically, about the unthinkable” (p. 363).

Two Suggestions for the Future

Regarding the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Mayer writes:
The Soviet archives may well yield significant clues and evidence when they are opened. In addition, excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs may also bring forth new information (Ibid.).

I would remind the reader that those are two revisionist ideas for which I have personally fought. Early in 1988, during the second trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto, I was able, working through defence attorney Doug Christie, to get one of the prosecution experts, Charles Biedermann, to confirm that the Auschwitz “death registers,” left intact by the Germans, are in fact to be found, for the most part, in Moscow.

The scandal is that these registers are being kept hidden in the same way as the few volumes that remain at the Auschwitz Museum are concealed. The Americans, British, French, Germans, and Israelis cooperate in hiding these documents and even refuse to reveal how many names are contained in the several registers at the Auschwitz Museum, photocopies of which are in the possession of the International Tracing Service at Arolsen (an organ of the International Committee of the Red Cross located in West Germany, but under the strict surveillance of the Allies and of the Israelis for fear of an intrusion by revisionist researchers). Would Mayer agree in demanding the opening of the “secret file”?

As regards excavations, here again the revisionists have taken the initiative in spite of prohibitions against it. I refer to that in my preface to the “Leuchter Report,” named after the American engineer who studied the so-called homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek ("The End of a Myth", Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1988, p. 376-380).

In February 1989, in Los Angeles, during the 9th International Conference of our Institute for Historical Review, Fred Leuchter asked for the creation of an international commission of inquiry into the homicidal gas chambers supposedly used by the Germans. Would Mayer break with his exterminationist colleagues by responding to the “Leuchter Report” with something other than an embarrassed silence or a hoax of the kind resorted to by Serge Klarsfeld and his disciples? What does Mayer think about an international commission of experts?

Progress in Ten Years

Ten years ago, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Léon Poliakov took the initiative in drawing up a public statement directed against me which said that, because of the abundance and reliability of the evidence, “there is not, there cannot be any debate about the existence of the gas chambers” (Le Monde, 21 February 1979, p. 23). Among the 34 signatories of that declaration were Philippe Ariès, Fernand Braudel, Pierre Chaunu, François Furet, Jacques Le Goff and Emmanuel Leroy-Ladurie. But René Rémond refused to sign it.

We had to wait until 1988 for an established historian like Arno Mayer to say, in his chapter on Auschwitz, that sources for the study of the gas chambers, far from being abundant and reliable, as people asserted, are only rare and unreliable. This is just a single example of the significant progress that Historical Revisionism has made in the scholarly community.

The Jewish professor from Princeton is going to learn the cost of scrutinizing the taboo of the century. He has done so with the greatest caution, without being aggressive or provocative, but he has already unleashed, along with some favourable reactions in the American press, some real attacks. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen of Harvard, in an article entitled “False Witness,” accuses Mayer of falsification, distortion, revisionism, and of having “produced a mockery of memory and history” (The New Republic, 17 April 1989, p. 39-44).

That sounds familiar. Fortunately for Professor Mayer, he lives in the United States and not in France, like Faurisson, in Sweden, like Felderer, or in Germany, like Stäglich [1].

May 24, 1989
(slightly modified on December 15, 2010)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Mayer’s book, more than 500 pages long, does not contain a single footnote. Also, many of his quotations can only be verified by personal research on the part of the reader. At the beginning of 1981, Arno J. Mayer was still so hostile towards revisionism that he wrote:
Regrettably, Faurisson’s new book [Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire, 1980] has an unconscionable preface by Noam Chomsky that is being used to legitimate Faurisson as a bona fide scholar of the Holocaust. As an unqualified civil libertarian Chomsky claims – disingenuously – that he has not read the book he is prefacing! (Democracy, April 1981, p. 68).

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com.es/ ... takes.html

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 6 months ago (Fri May 16, 2014 9:02 pm)

Regarding Paul Eisen, why didn't you (Kingfisher) post his "Why I Call Myself A Holocaust Denier" which is the first link on his website?

http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12 ... -paul.html

avatar
Marcy Fleming
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Marcy Fleming » 3 years 6 months ago (Tue May 20, 2014 11:41 am)

As a secular Jew and general revisionist I want to thank especially Sylvia for her many good posts, particularly the first lengthy one on this thread. It was very thoughtful.

On Mr. Crowell I think most revisionists go beyond the statistical issue as regards what is the conventional Shoah wisdom.
Stats are important and the millions killed in Germany & Japan by the US-UK are usually overlooked, not to mention the staggering number of Mao and Stalin victims. Only Pol Pot, for a while, received any significant western media attention
because he killed either a third or a half of Cambodia's population. Even the Communists largely won't defend him.
But I think Mr. Crowell's comments were at least an attempt to be reasonable.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1258
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Dresden » 3 years 6 months ago (Tue May 20, 2014 2:35 pm)

Marcy Fleming said:

"As a secular Jew and general revisionist I want to thank especially Sylvia for her many good posts, particularly the first lengthy one on this thread. It was very thoughtful"

Thank you, Marcy, but Sylvia Stolz is my Avatar, not my name. :D
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

avatar
Marcy Fleming
Member
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Marcy Fleming » 3 years 6 months ago (Tue May 20, 2014 7:30 pm)

Ok, thank you for the kind correction.

avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 5 months ago (Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:34 am)

Christopher Hitchens, an author/debater/journalist of jewish descent who passed away some years ago, could be called a revisionist or at least sympathetic to revisionist views.

Chitchens made it clear in the L.A. Times that “there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald.”......"The Holocaust has become a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum."[18]


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/29 ... religions/

avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 5 months ago (Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:02 am)

The senior editor at the Veterans today site, Mr Duff, is of jewish descent too. He seems to be quite skeptical of various parts of the exterminationist holocaust storyline.

--You see, Auschwitz, at one time credited with the gassing of millions of Jews is, officially, no longer considered a “death camp. Was massive wrong done there? Anyone who doubts that is insane. Is history, as it is taught in Europe, virtually at gunpoint, wrong?--


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/01/04 ... -quenelle/

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Zulu » 3 years 5 months ago (Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:16 pm)

Gitta Sereny
Gitta Sereny, CBE (13 March 1921 – 14 June 2012) was an Austrian-born biographer, historian, and investigative journalist [...]

Sereny was born in Vienna, Austria in 1921. Her father was Hungarian Protestant aristocrat Ferdinand Serény, who died when she was two[1]. Her mother was a former actress from Hamburg, Margit Herzfeld, of Jewish origin.[3] Her stepfather was the economist Ludwig von Mises.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 & 3 . "Gitta Sereny". Telegraph. 18 Jun 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-18.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitta_Sereny

By having a Jewish mother, Gitta Sereny can be considered as a Jew acoording with Talmud rules. She is not a revisionist but some of her declarations could easily put her in some trouble beneath to Gayssot Act or similar laws in other European countries.

From an interview realized on wednesday August 29, 2001 by Erica Wagner for the newspaper "The Times"
.../
I am not surprised that her correspondents want to talk further with her -- her books are powerful in that they are dialogues not only with her subjects but with her readers and herself. If she appears to have a high opinion of herself, she has the same opinion of her readers -- but her trust that they will be able to be as intelligent and thoughtful as she is has not always been justified, especially in the case of Mary Bell. Her evident sympathy with the woman Bell had become (and her publishers' payment of Bell for her time) gained her much opprobrium.

Her ruthless desire to stick to the facts -- that, say, Auschwitz was not a "death camp" -- has not always won her friends. She is particularly scathing about the identification of Hitler's evil with the death of the Jews and only the Jews. She deplores the use of the word "holocaust", she says.

I deplore it because what happened to the Jews was the worst thing that was done -- but it has now become the only thing. And that is totally wrong. If one wants to be disgustingly numerical, one would have to say that Hitler killed more Christians than Jews. But we don't want to be like that. It's all wrong. But if we concentrate entirely on what happened to the Jews, we cannot see its parallels -- and you know many in the Jewish community refuse to see such parallels because they think it diminishes their suffering. But it's not just terrible to kill Jews -- it's terrible to kill anybody. This whole thing of the murder of the Jews -- we must never forget it, it is part of history, children as long as the world lasts must know that this happened -- but we badly need to accept it now as part of a terrible history, not the terrible history. I don't want anyone to think that I diminish it, I don't diminish it. It was the worst thing. But it was not the only thing."

Sticking to the facts is the only way to avoid playing into the hands of people such as David Irving.

"Untruth always matters," she writes, "and not just because it is unnecessary to lie when so much terrible truth is available. Every falsification, every error, every slick rewrite job is an advantage to the neo-Nazis." She is puzzled, too, by what she perceives as a reluctance to confront the truth by those who seem to have the most interest in it: "Why on earth have all these people who made Auschwitz into a sacred cow. . . why didn't they go and look at Treblinka (which was an extermination camp)? It was possible. There were survivors alive when all this started. Nobody did. It was an almost pathological concentration on this one place. A terrible place -- but it was not an extermination camp." Then she sighs; and suddenly the fierceness leaves her. "The distinctions are important," she says more quietly. "But -- death is death."
.../
Source: Documents on David Irving's Libel Action against The Observer and Gitta Sereny
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Observer/Ser ... 90801.html

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Kingfisher » 3 years 5 months ago (Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:22 pm)

Godfred wrote:Christopher Hitchens, an author/debater/journalist of jewish descent who passed away some years ago, could be called a revisionist or at least sympathetic to revisionist views.

Chitchens made it clear in the L.A. Times that “there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald.”......"The Holocaust has become a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum."[18]


Hitchens' brother Peter has expressed "revisionist" views concerning the origins of WW2, where he was converted by reading Buchanan, and on the bombing of Germany. However he is (or was) a Zionist.

avatar
Godfred
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: The new JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread

Postby Godfred » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:22 am)

Was the libertarian icon Murray Rothbard really a holo revisionist or did he just express sympathy for revisionism in general ? His name was mentioned in a quote (of a quote) earlier in the thread. Here' s an eulogy written for him on the IHR website.

Murray Rothbard, 1926-1995
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n3p33_Weber.html

Mr Rivero from whatreallyhappened.com seems to be a revisionist. He's claimed to be of sephardic jewish ancestry, I think ?

So they needed a propaganda device so powerful that the same people who had spent their gold and blood telling Hitler he could not steal Poland would allow Israel to steal Palestine. So, slave-labor camps became death camps, delousing showers became gas chambers, insecticide became poison gas,......


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/qarivero.php


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests