Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby EtienneSC » 5 years 5 months ago (Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:21 am)

Here is another play on holocaust denial:
http://www.hoaxocaust.com/
The author claims in a related article:
Holocaust deniers don’t attend much theater. This is based on non-scientific, anecdotal evidence again, but: I was worried my satiric title and subtitle might attract an unsavory element who missed the joke and hoped for something literal. In fact, I kind of hoped at least one of the deniers I portray in the piece might show up, so they could sue me and I could get a lot of free publicity. Maybe Deborah Lipstadt could even testify on my behalf! Alas, it does not seem the Holocaust denying-circuit spends much time reading theater suggestions from Theatermania or the Advocate.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/09/14/10-things-i-learned-from-my-play-about-holocaust-denial/
Well, let us on CODOH forum try to put that right! The playwright is Barry Levey and the comments section of the article has allowed comments from revisionists. There was another play on the same theme, called "Denial" by Peter Sagal and reviewed in 2007. The NY Times review said:
The very idea of denying the Holocaust is so ludicrous that any attempt at writing a serious play on the subject would seem futile. Yet Peter Sagal’s “Denial,” at the Metropolitan Playhouse, is an engrossing legal drama that examines the moral and ethical dilemmas inherent in the First Amendment. [.....] At the heart of the conflict is the question of how much sufferance a free society should give its crackpots to maintain its liberties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/theater/reviews/24deni.html
The impression I had at the time was that the holocaust denier was based on Fritz Berg and the survivor on Elie Wiesel. The free speech issue in the USA is used to introduce elements of revisionism into the plot. To date, the plays do not appear to have toured outside New York, but maybe it is significant that reactions to revisionism are being canvassed in the theaters there. Authors and reviewers note that it is tricky (even "terrifying") to allow revisionists theories to be expounded on stage without making them sound plausible. For example, Levey writes:
Putting Deniers’ actual theories on stage, verbatim, without comment can be terrifying. On the other hand, when a denier tells you that the Anne Frank diary was written in a type of ink that wasn’t invented until 1953, how do you put that onstage? Such “facts” – while easily disproven – can sound scarily “true” to people who don’t have the knowledge at their fingertips that the diary was authenticated by the Netherlands State Forensic Lab. It is much easier to combat the anti-Semite who says Jews drink the blood of Christian babies than it is to combat the anti-Semite who spews more sober-sounding pseudo-science.
Levey's play has been extensively reviewed (see his website) and the reviews are themselves of interest as snapshots of public opinion on the subject. No doubt the audience reaction is also telling. One review states that holocaust deniers "grow in numbers each year" (http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/156677)

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby EtienneSC » 5 years 5 months ago (Thu Oct 09, 2014 5:06 am)

I see that there is another play, The Soap Myth by Jeff Cohen, on the same subject:
The play is based on the story of a survivor named Morris Spitzer. In his later years, Spitzer, who died in 2005, campaigned tirelessly to convince the academic establishment and the public at large that the Nazis did indeed make soap out of their Jewish victims—an idea now largely discredited by serious Holocaust scholars.
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/theater-and-dance/10929/false-witness

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Mulegino1 » 5 years 5 months ago (Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:12 pm)

Here is a review of the play which I found at:

http://newvoices.org/2014/09/22/hoaxocaustreview/


It’s 9/11 in New York and I’m commemorating by seeing a Holocaust comedy. Though Barry Levey originally wrote Hoaxocaust! written and performed by Barry Levey with the generous assistance of the Institute for Political and International Studies, Tehran for the New York Fringe Festival, I became aware of it during its second run at the Baruch Performing Arts Center, where I saw it that fateful Ellul night ripe for introspection and self-doubt. Hoaxocaust! tells the story about the time Levey, the grandson of a survivor, was invited to his brother’s wedding to a Muslim Franco-Algerian girl in Budapest and got so fed up with hearing both his mother’s constant stream of “Jews should marry Jews because of Hitler,” and “Israel’s actions are justified because of Hitler,” and his Dominican boyfriend Anthony’s weariness at his constantly thinking about the Holocaust, that he started to really, really wish the it had just never happened. Wouldn’t that make Jewish life so much easier? Wouldn’t that make Jewish guilt and anxiety so much less severe if you could prove that the Holocaust never happened, or that it was at least way less severe than you’ve been taught?

Of course, Barry knows he’s not the first person to ask these questions. What if, maybe, possibly the deniers are onto something? He decides the only way to know is to ask them himself. Thus begins his long, strange journey down the rabbit-hole of Holocaust denial, where he’ll run into such “luminaries” as Arthur Butz, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Satan himself. It’s a riot of doubt, convoluted facts, and, ultimately, self-affirmation. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll leave not ready to speak to anyone until you’ve had a little while to process it.

Levey made it impossible for me not to watch this as a Jew. When he does his best to match facts with some of the world’s most infamous deniers, you have to wonder, “Would I do any better?” He readily admits he’s not an actor, but his lack of conceit and simple style bring you down the rabbit-hole with him. His portrayal of everybody as a caricature also means that even once things start to get weird, it feels no less real–his mother, David Irving, and Satan are all portrayed with equal abstraction, meaning their all portrayed as equals. It’s one of the things that makes South Park work, and it works here, too. The play makes graphically portrays the downward spiral of sense that a Holocaust denier is forced into–if one is willing to believe, as Butz does, that the numbers are greatly exaggerated, it really isn’t such a stretch to believe, with Irving, that Hitler never ordered the extermination of Jews. And if you can believe that, it’s reasonable to doubt whether the gas chambers existed, a la Faurisson. And if you can believe that…



BARRY

At least admit the numbers could be totally inflated.



ANTHONY

If you’re going to say something like that, you have to prove it!



BARRY

No I don’t! I don’t have to prove anything didn’t happen.

You have to prove it did.



ANTHONY

And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?



BARRY

I put great stock in the confession of Satan.



In zooming out to see the logical consequences of Holocaust denial at the end, Levey squarely nails the inherent absurdity behind Holocaust denial.

Yet one of the reasons I couldn’t really speak about the play upon leaving the theater was that I was so disturbed by how, if you don’t zoom out like he does, potentially anybody could be suckered into denial if they don’t really know the facts. Hoaxocaust! leaves its audience with many uneasy questions and no easy answers: If people aren’t taught the facts, what’s stopping them from becoming deniers? What’s at stake if denial gains prominence? Is the Holocaust too big a part of American Jewish identity or Israel advocacy? What happens when there are no survivors left? Was it intentional to do this on 9/11? What would American Jewish identity be like if it never happened? What could it be? Can the show come to campus?

Thankfully, I got the chance to catch up with Levey in a coffee shop shortly after seeing the show to ask him these questions and more.



Derek M. Kwait graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and is editor in chief of New Voices.


Comments: It seems to me that this review just underscores what I understand the "Holocaust" to be: a Sorelian myth which can only be accepted provided it is viewed as a single, seamless irreducible "big" supra- historical event; once it is subjected to the scrutiny of impartial and objective investigation as a series of discrete, mensurable and chronological events, the big myth crumbles.

In the words of George Sorel himself:

“A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions…”

For example, the following dialogue:


"ANTHONY

And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?"

In reality, of course, it is the revisionists who make use of the best evidence, such as "blueprints, forensic analyses, invoices, camp records," and it is the myth believers who interpret evidence to fit the narrative (photographs of bodies likely killed by typhus or starvation were all Holocaust victims, all those missing from a prior census were killed, etc ); it is the believers, not the revisionists, who cling to the weakest link in the evidentiary chain, i.e., eyewitness testimony, testimony coerced by torture, "international commissions" and "court verdicts" which take judicial notice of the myth and refuse to even consider factual arguments. It is the revisionists who resort to facts, and it is the believers who resort to tautologies, i.e., "One cannot question the Holocaust. It happened because it happened."

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Dresden » 5 years 5 months ago (Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:38 pm)

Anthony asks:

"And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?"


How about mass graves?

Derek M. Kwait said:

"Yet one of the reasons I couldn’t really speak about the play upon leaving the theater was that I was so disturbed by how, if you don’t zoom out like he does, potentially anybody could be suckered into denial if they don’t really know the facts"

That's an amazing admission from someone who is already biased against Revisionism, and watched a film that is also extremely biased against Revisionism; it shows how weak the Hoaxters' arguments really are.

"Hoaxocaust! leaves its audience with many uneasy questions and no easy answers: If people aren’t taught the facts, what’s stopping them from becoming deniers?"

Nothing is stopping them from becoming deniers if they are not "taught" the "facts" in a one-sided. propagandistic manner.

Where logic, reason and science are free to operate.....Hoaxes crumble.

"Was it intentional to do this on 9/11?"

I don't know if it was intentional. but it certainly is appropriate, since 911 is another Jewish Hoax.
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

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Dresden » 5 years 5 months ago (Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:47 pm)

Comment from above article:

"Comments: It seems to me that this review just underscores what I understand the "Holocaust" to be: a Sorelian myth which can only be accepted provided it is viewed as a single, seamless irreducible "big" supra- historical event; once it is subjected to the scrutiny of impartial and objective investigation as a series of discrete, mensurable and chronological events, the big myth crumbles.

In the words of George Sorel himself:

“A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions…”

For example, the following dialogue:


"ANTHONY

And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?"

In reality, of course, it is the revisionists who make use of the best evidence, such as "blueprints, forensic analyses, invoices, camp records," and it is the myth believers who interpret evidence to fit the narrative (photographs of bodies likely killed by typhus or starvation were all Holocaust victims, all those missing from a prior census were killed, etc ); it is the believers, not the revisionists, who cling to the weakest link in the evidentiary chain, i.e., eyewitness testimony, testimony coerced by torture, "international commissions" and "court verdicts" which take judicial notice of the myth and refuse to even consider factual arguments. It is the revisionists who resort to facts, and it is the believers who resort to tautologies, i.e., "One cannot question the Holocaust. It happened because it happened."
"

That comment didn't last long.....it's down the memory hole!
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

User avatar
Mulegino1
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Mulegino1 » 5 years 5 months ago (Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:10 pm)

Steve F wrote:Comment from above article:

"Comments: It seems to me that this review just underscores what I understand the "Holocaust" to be: a Sorelian myth which can only be accepted provided it is viewed as a single, seamless irreducible "big" supra- historical event; once it is subjected to the scrutiny of impartial and objective investigation as a series of discrete, mensurable and chronological events, the big myth crumbles.

In the words of George Sorel himself:

“A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions…”

For example, the following dialogue:


"ANTHONY

And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?"

In reality, of course, it is the revisionists who make use of the best evidence, such as "blueprints, forensic analyses, invoices, camp records," and it is the myth believers who interpret evidence to fit the narrative (photographs of bodies likely killed by typhus or starvation were all Holocaust victims, all those missing from a prior census were killed, etc ); it is the believers, not the revisionists, who cling to the weakest link in the evidentiary chain, i.e., eyewitness testimony, testimony coerced by torture, "international commissions" and "court verdicts" which take judicial notice of the myth and refuse to even consider factual arguments. It is the revisionists who resort to facts, and it is the believers who resort to tautologies, i.e., "One cannot question the Holocaust. It happened because it happened."
"

That comment didn't last long.....it's down the memory hole!


Actually, it's my comment. I just write "Comment:" after what I quote in order to distinguish it from the quotation itself. :D

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby EtienneSC » 5 years 5 months ago (Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:49 am)

Mulegino1 wrote: Comments: It seems to me that this review just underscores what I understand the "Holocaust" to be: a Sorelian myth which can only be accepted provided it is viewed as a single, seamless irreducible "big" supra- historical event; once it is subjected to the scrutiny of impartial and objective investigation as a series of discrete, mensurable and chronological events, the big myth crumbles.

In the words of George Sorel himself:

“A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the conviction of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable into parts which could be placed on the plane of historical descriptions…”

Sorel is known as an irrationalist, or at least an author on irrational aspects of the mind from the turn of the 19/20th centuries, a bit like Gustav Le Bon's work on crowd psychology from the same era though Sorel tried to interpret the workers' movement. There is perhaps a contrast between his approach and that of Robert Faurisson who confines himself to a positivist methodology in so far as he discusses method at all. My own view is that we require to stick to the facts for the most part at this stage of the debate, but it would be interesting to hear more of your interpretation in terms of Sorel's idea of myth. I wonder if the theatrical profession finds itself confronting myths on the part of its audience.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Dresden » 5 years 5 months ago (Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:58 am)

Mulegino1 said:

"Actually, it's my comment. I just write "Comment:" after what I quote in order to distinguish it from the quotation itself. :D"

Oh, sorry about that!
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

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Hannover » 5 years 5 months ago (Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:47 am)

ANTHONY

And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?"
Right, that's why there are laws in many countries that demand no one exercise their basic human rights of free speech and inquiry. If that silly list was actually proof, there would be no need for such laws. Those laws are enough on their own to alert the casual observer to the bogus status of the storyline.
Only lies need the protection of government, truth can stand on it's own.
- Thomas Jefferson
At first glance the naive may well buy the above litany of "proof". That is until they actually look under the rock.
Revisionists who were once Believers (that's important to consider) and have seen them all, reviewed them all rationally & scientifically, written books about them, made videos about them, won every debate about them (when those that benefit from the scam actually man-up & debate), this forum has threads on all of them. And none of them prove the 'holocaust storyline, not one. That's why I like to say "this is just too easy", because it really is. Once one pulls their head out of the sand, once one dares to look, voila! A piece of cake.

As an aside, there was the usual misleading mention of the Anne Frank "diary" (she died from typhus) earlier in this thread, I suggest:
Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The tide is turning.


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

User avatar
Inquisitor
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:40 am

Re: Holocaust revisionism in the Theater

Postby Inquisitor » 5 years 5 months ago (Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:58 am)

And if you won’t accept for proof:

photographs

or eyewitnesses

or diaries

or memoirs

or speeches

or censuses

or camp records

or kill reports

or work orders

or invoices

or blueprints

or forensic analyses

or testimony

or court verdicts

or international commissions…

…what proof will you accept?"


What an interesting list! Let's reflect:

1) Photographs - is there photographic evidence of millions of dead Jews that I'm not aware of? How about of the actual, physical means by which they were allegedly put to death - you know, those elusive "gas chambers" and such?

2) Eyewitnesses - Oh, you mean the "eyewitnesses" that endlessly contradict one another, make claims that defy science and physics, and are almost invariably supported by nothing tangible whatever?

3) Diaries - what diary provides proof that millions of Jews were murdered by NS Germany?

4) Memoirs - see above. (also, see memoirs such as that by Erich Von Manstein, which call into question even the infamous Einsatzgruppen activities, etc.)

5) Speeches - you mean the dubious comments supposedly made by Himmler or the like. The same Himmler that carried out his "mass-murder" in uber-secrecy, but evidently just couldn't keep it out of his also "secret" speeches...which conveniently were recorded for posterity...which is very odd for super-secret speeches. Those speeches, you mean?

6) Consensus - you mean the "consensus" that is enforced by law, shame, threat of physical harm or incarceration, and peddled by an overwhelming propaganda machinery for more than seven decades?

7) Kill reports - Has it ever occurred to you true believers that the ease with which such documents could me manufactured and/or altered, is only outweighed by the tremendous motivation to do so in order to buttress this whole "extermination" claim. See also - endless Revisionist commentaries on the subject.

8 ) Work Orders - I'd like to introduce you to my friend Mr. Mattogno...he has more than a few thoughts on this matter.

9) Invoices - see Mr. Mattogno, etc.

10) Blueprints - I see Carlo is going to busy here...

11) Forensic analysis - Are you serious? Please...show us the autopsy reports that provide evidence of all this alleged "gassing!"

12) Testimony - you mean like the "testimonies" known to have been tortured and extorted out of prostrate Germans in fear for their very lives and those of their families?

13) Court verdicts - you mean the courts where the truth is no defense by law, and denial that the alleged crime committed since no evidence exists, is still another criminal offense? Those courts? Or the courts where those accused of complicity in mass-murder(directly or indirectly) received curiously lenient sentences, so long as they made all the correct "confessions" and such?

14) International commissions - which did you have in mind? Which commission has unearthed and verified any physical evidence whatsoever of the claims of six-million murdered Jews, and nearly as many "others" for good measure?


This is a fool's game! They are pointing to the very things that expose the lie, as supposedly supporting it! How appropriate this is, given the upside-down nature of this whole "holocaust history." It is the only "history" that we can say, and with a straight face no less, happened not because the physical, tangible, unbiased evidence proves that it does, but because we just KNOW that it happened. How do we know? Well, because it happened, of course.


____


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht, MSN [Bot] and 10 guests