Sobering thoughts

[ASMarques]

[From another thread] I dare not think what would have happened if Irving had the best legal councels and some expert advice on the spot.

I hope I'm wrong, but...

1) No legal counsel or able expertise will, in the foreseeable future, under any circumstance, be able to stand up to rigged trials and corrupt judges / jurors. And I don't mean simple material corruption and fear: I mean absolute intellectual corruption, i.e. deep faith seating inside the minds of the judges and jurors.

2) In the West the "Holocaust" has developed into a fully fledged faith, with all the usual -- both on the individual and collective levels -- religious means of coercion behind it. Revisionists often have a hard time accepting this, but it's the truth.

3) So what about the future? Probably a struggle for many decades or even centuries to come, with neither side giving in. Israel will go under, probably after launching a nuclear war. Then, slowly, like Christianity before it, the new religion will turn moot and people will stop actively believing and performing the cult activities. Historical "Holocaust" skepticism will be higly praised, and other, new religions will rise from the old Biblical framework, like Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Holocaustinity before them.

Note that -- generally speaking on the current "cartoonish" state of affairs -- neither one of the two main world religions, Holocaustianity and Islam, wants freedom of speech. What most Muslims seem to be saying is "we too want equal protection against free speech". In other words, we have a conflict of religions in the first place, using revisionist viewpoints on one side, but very rarely invoking what should be the basis for any true revisionism: full freeedom of inquiry and speech.

This is simply the millenia-old struggle being reenacted. It's Voltaire's "l'Infame" back from the ashes on all fronts, as soon as we are tempted to thinks it's dead and buried for good. I' m afraid this is not pessimism on my part. It's simply the way things are. Be prepared to share this planet with the other species -- the one who thinks common faiths, instead of the one and true faith in reason (the only weapon we have and the only faith that seems to function in the real world of awareness) are the way to knowledge -- for a long time.

Of course, all of this makes the struggle against the common faiths even more necessary, unless one develops total and unremiting cynicism and manages to migrate to some sort of unreachable inner sanctuary.

My take on the subject, on a rather cloudy day, though not a particularly unhappy one.

[Tom]

ASMarques, .

I find your thoughts to be refreshingly realistic.

Yes, as you say, "It's simply the way things are".

The Inquisition never ended. We had a brief rest from
its evil hand for a very short time. But now it is coming
back with a vengeance. Once again it is telling us what
we must believe - "take on faith" - or else!

And again as you say, "Of course, all of this makes the
struggle against the common faiths even more necessary".

This a very ancient war... And we are a very important and
necessary force in it. Preparing the way to a brighter future.

Welcome to the Kali Yuga.

[Rashid Metwan]

I don't think it's fair to say all Moslems are against free speech. It is one of the things we fight for here in Palestine. Please measure your thoughts carefully before posting something like that. Thank you.

[ASMarques]

I don't think it's fair to say all Moslems are against free speech.

What I wrote was: «What most Muslims seem to be saying is "we too want equal protection against free speech."»

I don't think it's fair to imply that "most Muslims" means "all Muslims". Nor, by the way, do I think Islam is any different from the other organised religions, when it comes to the defense of free thought.

Please measure your thoughts carefully before posting something like that.

Believe me, I do. I have all the respect in the World for people. None whatsoever for the love of voluntary ignorance and superstitious belief.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

[Hannover]

ASMarques:

Muslims seem to be saying is "we too want equal protection against free speech". In other words, we have a conflict of religions in the first place, using revisionist viewpoints on one side, but very rarely invoking what should be the basis for any true revisionism: full freedom of inquiry and speech.

That distracts from the matter at hand, which is exposing the 'holocau$t' for the utter fraud that it is. If it takes the Muslims to do it, then I'm all for it. The observation that both sides engage in double standards is fine, but the immediate need of exposing the Big Lie is paramount to the survival of the world I live in.

- Hannover

[ASMarques]

That distracts from the matter at hand, which is exposing the 'holocau$t' for the utter fraud that it is.

I beg to differ. I think the fraudulent matter at hand should also be the object of our attention in different ways, other than simple exposure, in order to establish its nature, and hopefully help to open people's eyes to their own inner workings.

For instance, people who still think that ordinary reasonable argument will -- rather sooner than later -- win the day in some sort of court, may be sorely mistaken. Not all frauds partake the same nature: religions that take hold of people's minds are something else, very different from your ordinary run-of-the-mill snake oil or strictly political scam or whatever. I think it's no longer possible to face the "Holocaust" as a purely historical or political scam. It has developed into something else.

If it takes the Muslims to do it, then I'm all for it. The observation that both sides engage in double standards is fine, but the immediate need of exposing the Big Lie is paramount to the survival of the world I live in.

What I was hinting at was both the religion centered on the "Holocaust" and "Holocaust" skepticism are here to stay for a long time, so maybe we should start to develop new approaches to the matter. The amazing acceptance of Irving's condemnation for heresy by ordinary people all over the Western World has convinced me that it is no longer possible to strangle this particular religious serpent in the craddle.

Some time ago I read in one of Smith's blogs something about the need to concentrate on the civil rights issues instead of the technicalities of the "Holocaust" and I was somewhat doubtful. Well, no longer. I now agree with him. The original debate seems to be closed. What we have is a new religion -- on a par with fundamentalist Islam -- that has taken hold of the Western World we live in. No longer a process, but an accomplished fact.

If we want to understand the present day situation and to prepare for the future, we should try to weigh all the variables. In the present day World, with Soviet Marxism no longer a religious factor, the major contenders for the coming wars of religion should not be of passing or indifferent interest. Much less still if you're concerned with the survival of the World you live in, as you say (or maybe you meant the World you used to live in...).

[Hannover]

ASM,

I think your position would have more weight if the populace in general were aware of specific Revisionists points, they are not. If they were and we still were at 'square one', then yes, we could abandon that approach.

The argument that some people applaud imprisonment of Revisionists is not persuasive to me. I'm not convinced that the majority accepts that as fair play. What we're seeing is a rather vocal, judeo-supremacist set that pretends to speak for others.

This is not to imply that Revisionists should not address free speech, 'holocaust' as religion, or civil rights .... we should and are.

- Hannover

[Ratatosk]

ASMarques:

Not an unhappy one? I don't agree. Unfortunately, I share your views in your well-written piece.

Lately, I've gradually become more aware of the scope and depts of the H-issue. It seem almost endless. It is indeed, the millennia old struggle re-enacted. Was the enlightenment a mere chimera with only little influence?
In courts, govt bodies and among the intelligentsia the deepest superstition seem to be firmly rooted. All the analogies to medieval witch trials are fully adequate.

Hannover
I think your position would have more weight if the populace in general were aware of specific Revisionists points, they are not. If they were and we still were at 'square one', then yes, we could abandon that approach.

The argument that some people applaud imprisonment of Revisionists is not persuasive to me. I'm not convinced that the majority accepts that as fair play. What we're seeing is a rather vocal, judeo-supremacist set that pretends to speak for others.

This is not to imply that Revisionists should not address free speech, 'holocaust' as religion, or civil rights .... we should and are.

I don't think that we have to abandon any approach (the technical) and in all essentials Revisionists have already won that debate. But, as Marques point out, it is not enough. The message is not getting through. The debate is closed. And the gatekeepers are not ashamed even if they are liberals and it goes against their most inner convictions of free debate etc.

Revisionists def. has to broaden the scope of the debate, first of all to the areas you mention.

The current political importance of the H-myth seems very high. The political structures are fully "invested" in the myth. If we take Germany. A Revisionist breakthrough would probably mean a total political breakdown. Is that really desirable?

So, this will take much longer then many of us thought...

[Hannover]

The message is not getting through.

Huh? What do you think has been going on with all the arrests, the book burnings, the Iranians, the Butz affair, the 'cartoons' caper, on & on. 'Holocaust' Revisionism has gained more notice in the last couple of years than in all the previous combined. People, when given a chance to speak up are now commonly demanding that free speech be permitted on the subject ... note the Butz matter and the viewpoints that came through the campus newspaper. Sure the judeo-supremacist media tries to censor Revisionist research, but it's no longer working completely. Even some Jew writers have spoken up about the supression of free speech in editorials galore. Hell, generally loathsome Deborah Lipstadt even said she does not support arrest of Revisionists.

And the gatekeepers are not ashamed even if they are liberals and it goes against their most inner convictions of free debate etc.

Excellent point when applied to some or even most gatekeepers/liberals. That point must be considered. But acceptance of being duped takes some getting used to.

The current political importance of the H-myth seems very high. The political structures are fully "invested" in the myth. If we take Germany. A Revisionist breakthrough would probably mean a total political breakdown. Is that really desirable?

Desirable? No, needed is more like it. Corruption at all levels must be exposed, let the chips fall where they may. In fact this 'breakdown' is probably inevitable as the truth becomes known.

The world is changing.

- Hannover

[ASMarques]

I think your position would have more weight if the populace in general were aware of specific Revisionists points, they are not. If they were and we still were at 'square one', then yes, we could abandon that approach.

Let me state that I wish you're right and I'm wrong. Also that I don't want to instil pessimism. I certainly agree we are no longer at square one! In fact, short of some unexpected documentary breakthrough (Red Cross, Eastern European archives, etc.), there is probably very little more to discover. But I'm not suggesting that we abandon any approaches. The more, the better. What I'm trying to do is to take the bearings for the current situation.

The argument that some people applaud imprisonment of Revisionists is not persuasive to me. I'm not convinced that the majority accepts that as fair play. What we're seeing is a rather vocal, judeo-supremacist set that pretends to speak for others.

It's not that they actually applaud. What surprised me the most in Irving's case was not that he was condemned, in spite of his concessions and the very simple fact that he always rejected the label of "denier". I've been following, through Google Alert, day by day, everything that is being written in the press all over the World, as well as blogs and newsgroup mentions, and I tell you that I was thunderstruck by the sheer weight of opinion against him. I still am. Note that I'm not saying people agree with his imprisonment. Not at all! Most people go through the motions of saying something like "I wish those Austrians weren't helping revisionists by throwing them in jail". But the sheer degree of malice and the torrents of insults that invariably (I'm not using the word loosely) follow is breathtaking.

This is not normal. The degree of vilifying by ordinary folks (not at all exclusively Jews, as far as I can tell) from all quarters of life, singing the free speech tune and then immediately proceeding to make clear that it's really no big problem at all, and directing the lowest of printable insults against the condemned man is a surprise to me. And it's the same everywhere. My own country had nothing to do with any holocausts or even with the War itself, and all the non-Jewish media comentators who took the position that Irving should not be jailed -- both the intelligent ones and the usually stupid -- followed that with the worst insults they could devise, imploring people not to read what he wrote nor to pay any attention to him or to any other jailed revisionists.

I don't think that even the vilifying by the Soviet government mouthpieces during the Moscow trials in the 30s reached this pitch. I have seen a British article where the interviewer managed to make the mother of Irving's daughter announce that she may be on the verge of leaving him. Another one interviewed his twin brother and published his ramblings about brother David's generally very bad ways, besides his suspicion that he may have tried to strangle him with the umbilical cord practically inside their mother's belly. I know the tricks the media resort to, but that's not my point. My point is as far as I can tell, the only one they still didn't dare to enlist in their vile campaign is his 12 year old daughter. Therefore, I repeat: this is not normal. This is no ordinary reaction to a political or historical taboo.

All of this craziness, all of this spite, is puzzling until you start to understand what (not who) it is you're up against. It's not really "the Jews". It's what the Jews invented for posterity, long ago, and never let go since then. It cannot be explained away by pretending people in general are shuting up and it's only the vocal judeo-supremacists doing the talking. It's a religious cult and people are reacting in much the same way old-fashioned Christians would react to debates on virgin births or today's Muslims if you tell them that angels don't dictate books to illiterate camel shepherds, or whatever.

It's true the Jewish role is all-important. But there is more to it than that. Christians used to love both real and imaginary guilt, as well as self-deprecation. They apparently still do, and the Jews have devised the perfect religion for them.

This is not to imply that Revisionists should not address free speech, 'holocaust' as religion, or civil rights .... we should and are.

Certainly. I never said efforts should cease. I think revisionists find themselves in much the same spot cultured pagans such as Celsus, the roman physician and writer on religion, did, when Christianity started to take over the Roman World. What can be done is to preserve the revisionist files in as many different ways as possible, while helping to bring down the state of Israel, the nerve center of the biggest lie in History and the worst menace to the survival of freedom in the West.

[Bergmann]

I am not familiar with Irving’s books.

If Irving knowingly falsified history in his books of history in order to leave a certain impression with the reader, I think he should be criticized for it.
Because in that case people may belief what he wrote, and they were demagogued by him.

It is quite another matter if Irving simply made mistakes. Most books of history contain errors, I am sure.

[Rashid Metwan]

I agree very strongly with Hannover in this thread. Whatever it takes to get the revisionist message across should be used and if that means Moslems are the shocktroops then so be it. I also agree that we lack specific scientific knowledge - a point I have been making since we got here. I have learned much but I am just one person and most Palestinians can speak some English but cannot read it.

[Radar]

This is a most interesting and important debate among friends! I can understand the somewhat pessimistic view of AS Marques and of course we should follow the advice of Bradley Smith and always point out the offenses by the enemies of freedom against fundamental human rights in the fight but as Hannover says we should not assume we are losing because so few speak out and because we suffer the imprisonment of our so to speak, leaders, etc. Why not? Because time passes and new players are in the game. Note the reaction of young Germans, brainwashed for their entire lives, but showing signs of being fed up with being told that they must cringe and denounce their grandparents. We are creating a record that those young people will read, a record such as Germar Rudolf's new book "Lectures on the Holocaust", the works of Mattogno, Graf, Faurisson, Butz and the the others. Long after Abe Foxman, Wiesel and the other professional liars are gone from the scene, new young people will still be reading and will not be encumbered by the guilt imposed by our politically correct culture. The truth will creep out. That's why we must keep pushing it out there even if no one seems to notice now.

And much as the Holocaust dogmas are like a religion they are not a religion in the sense of the Muslim or Christian or even Jewish faiths. They will be exposed because they have no spiritual value for goodness, only revenge and promotion of one group, Zionists.

[ASMarques]

I am not familiar with Irving’s books.

If Irving knowingly falsified history in his books of history in order to leave a certain impression with the reader, I think he should be criticized for it.
Because in that case people may belief what he wrote, and they were demagogued by him.

It is quite another matter if Irving simply made mistakes. Most books of history contain errors, I am sure.

I am very familiar with most of what he wrote. You know what the supreme irony is? Irving is perfectly right when he says the "Holocaust" has never been an interest of his, meaning he almost never even touched it in his books! He gives the big H about the same space, say, Keegan or Trevor-Roper or any of the mainstream military historians would give it in the same sort of books.

His "mistakes" were absolutely minimal. If any mainstream historian had had his whole life work scrutinized the way he had his in the Lipstadt trial with the same quantity & quality of "errors" in the end, he would have been considered an exceptionally faithful interpreter of the historical data.

He did not lose because of any distortions in his work. He lost because: 1) he had been a witness for Zundel in Toronto and he had published the Leuchter Report in the UK; 2) since that time he had been up against the organised power of you know who, fighting for his livelihood as a non-conformist writer and historian; and incidentally: 3) because of a humorous "racist" child's ditty that is still used to make his judicial railroading palatable to the politically correct moronic public.

[Tom]

And much as the Holocaust dogmas are like a religion they are not a
religion in the sense of the Muslim or Christian or even Jewish faiths.
They will be exposed because they have no spiritual value for
goodness, only revenge and promotion of one group, Zionists.

Hi Radar,

I agree with you completely. I see absolutely no redeming value of
goodness at all in the Holocaust Religion.

I have been doing both a web search and a real life inquiry into this
Holocaust as Religion topic for a fair amount of time now.

I have found that the Holocaust as Religion (and Ethics) is being taught
by hundreds - maybe thousands - of Universities, Divinity Schools and
all kinds of Institutions in America, England and I suspect in many other
countries. And of course those students carry it to others all the way
down to local grade and high schools and churches and communities.

The Holocaust as Religion is being blended into the mainstream of
Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic. The ground work for this
blending I trace (through the research of others) to 1917 (WW1)
and really getting a boost again in 1942 (WW2). (The National and
World Council of Churches, etc.)

Ratatosk observed above that "(the technical) and in all essentials Revisionists
have already won that debate. But, as Marques point out, it is not enough.
The message is not getting through. The debate is closed."

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).

And take note, if you go out in the real world, the opposition is not all or
even mostly Jews. (although they certainly do seem to make the most
noise)

A good read on this subject, I think, is:

Holocaust Revisionism And its Political Consequences - Juergen Graf
- January 2001 (written in exile, Tehran)

15. The last battle http://www.ety.com/tell/books/jglife/15.htm

a) The transformation of the holocaust into a religion

"Achieving our quest for a new world order depends upon our learning the
Holocaust's lesson." (Ian Kagedan, director of government relations for the
Jewish Bnai Brith organisation, as quoted by the Toronto Star, 26 November 1991.)


As the Zionist-controlled system of the "Western democracies" is woefully unable to counter the revisionists with arguments, it resorts to censorship and brute force in order to silence the dangerous heretics. And the Jews are gradually transforming the holocaust into a religion. This is a very clever strategy, for as Robert Faurisson aptly remarks, one cannot refute a religion with scientific arguments. Thus, the holocaust museums and holocaust monuments spreading like mushrooms all over America and Europe are really temples of the new religion, whereas professional "holocaust survivors" such as Elie Wiesel are the priests of the new religion. To prove this assertion, we only have to quote Wiesel himself: "The Holocaust is a holy mystery, the secret of which is limited to the circle of the priesthood of survivors" (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 1999, p. 211, 212, retranslated from the German). Another high priest of the holocaust cult, Simon Wiesenthal, goes even further: "When each of us comes before the Six Million, we will be asked what we did with our lives... I will say: I did not forget you" (Simon Wiesenthal in Response, Vol. 20, Nr. 1).

No critical questions about the holocaust are allowed because they are a blasphemy....
----------------

Tom