| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 11:22:11 AM |
| Object: |
What is Historical Revisionism? |
What is historical revisionism?
As more facts about past events come to light, it becomes necessary to
re-evaluate them taking the new information into account. All history
is constantly being reviewed. It is a natural process. It is an
important process. The only way to judge the future is to accurately
compare current trends and events to those of earlier times. It has
been said that the good thing about experience is that one can
recognize a mistake when it is made again. So it is with history, the
sum of recorded human experience. Historical revisionism is the
process of changing the human record so that it more accurately
represents events as they actually occurred.
Often there is resistance to the process of bringing history in accord
with the facts. The reason for this is history is not simply a record
of events, but is also a resource from which a world view is drawn. A
re-examination or re-evaluation of important historical events can be
viewed as a threat to the political status quo and to interests upon
whose power partially rests the established view of these events. It
has also been said that historians have the power to upset everything.
Vested interests take a dim view of having everything upset.
Source: "A few facts about the Institute For Historical Review."
pamphlet / IHR
======================================
--
Freedom of speech involves the right to think the unthinkable,
mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Historical Revisionism? |
10 Mar 2005 03:12:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
What is historical revisionism?
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html
Author: Michael Philips [topcat@igc.apc.org] First-Published: January
3, 1996 (alt.revisionism)
Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile,
you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist.
It's easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it
requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the
guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and
you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out
there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil
forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.
1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your
assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula
responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults.
Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave
the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence
yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation
along with it).
2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the
Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof
would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated
assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of
proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)
3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz
furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day
because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When
its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary
commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of
reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one
corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.
4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims
about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in
Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an
ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have
used it and thus they *didn't* use it.
Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas
lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone
trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone
explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had
powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases
people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation
there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to
kill people.
Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those
who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating
the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone
explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away
for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may
have used.
5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and
reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining
about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they
say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than
lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the
gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you
can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."
You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a
lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of
trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building
credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse
but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around
excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.
6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners
were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food
shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither
the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved
to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional
starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a
written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.
7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your
opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the
definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that
historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas
chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you
mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by
"agree?"
Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called
for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really
mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German
dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.
8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never
existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic,
the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great
Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.
9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because
there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with
photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual
photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed
because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed
because . . .
10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers
games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the
"holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at
Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you
that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the
total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered
ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied
from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers
have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1
million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.
The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death
figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is
likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward
until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!
11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of
testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony
about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have
recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are
liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of
them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged
sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists
to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.
12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an
individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad.
When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that
one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.
13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily
make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look
like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler
(whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of
self-defense; b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that
the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the
furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into
question; c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in
Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale
model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII;
d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could
not have been gas chambers there.
14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the
pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance
and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any
other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about
everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are
conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain
Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally
impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would
encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but
in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not
revisionists' statements.
15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result
of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were
sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because
the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that
these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for
allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore
it.
16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the
Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the
establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel
would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the
consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also
foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a
huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those
who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and
wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is
sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the
aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.
17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to
smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.
18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by
racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that
everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let
that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent,
un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from
continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd
like it to be).
--
Philip Mathews
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Historical Revisionism? |
10 Mar 2005 03:19:21 PM |
|
|
How to be an exterminationist:
1) Personal Abuse
2) Avoid answering any questions which point out you have been engaged
in serial lying.
Eg, is the roof on undressing chamber still present or not, why is your
expert testimony inconsistent cf CIA tampering of air-photos, why ovens
and the chimneys never connect in ANY of your crematoria, why you
simply forge interrogation transcripts and documents whenever a hole
apperars in your story, why your chimneys consistently have "flames
coming out of them" etc etc ad nauseam.
3) Call everyone who disagrees with you a anti-semitic, hateful, nazi,
denier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Historical Revisionism? |
10 Mar 2005 06:54:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
How to be an exterminationist:
1) Personal Abuse
While demonstrating denier imbecility.
2) Avoid answering any questions which point out you have been
engaged
in serial lying.
That's a denier projecting.
3) Call everyone who disagrees with you a anti-semitic, hateful,
nazi,
denier.
No, call antisemites and hateful Nazis those names.
What's the matter, don't like what you are?
By the way Colonel, seen any documents for Zyklon B at Majdanek,
lately!
--
Philip Mathews
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: What is Historical Revisionism? |
10 Mar 2005 04:52:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:19:21 -0600,
colonel_blandish@yahoo.com.au wrote
How to be an exterminationist:
1) Personal Abuse
2) Avoid answering any questions which point out you have been engaged
in serial lying.
Eg, is the roof on undressing chamber still present or not, why is your
expert testimony inconsistent cf CIA tampering of air-photos, why ovens
and the chimneys never connect in ANY of your crematoria, why you
simply forge interrogation transcripts and documents whenever a hole
apperars in your story, why your chimneys consistently have "flames
coming out of them" etc etc ad nauseam.
3) Call everyone who disagrees with you a anti-semitic, hateful, nazi,
denier.
You left out both boring and sexless - more neutered than
anything else.
Additionally, of course, the perv/revisionist slaves have
their puppet strings (more like heavy-duty ropes) so large
that no escape is ever possible. Once the whining,
weak-willed boys have had their souls captured and
destroyed, they're pretty much a waste of time.
Because they all read alike and talk alike and are alike,
if one has met one, it might as well be all as their
weakness is very, very well known and very, very trivial
and very, very trite.
The revisionists may remind one a little bit of some of the
Ku Klucker Klansboy but they're not as intelligent.
In the orchestra of life, perv/revisionists are the
accordions.
Gray Shockley
------------------------------------------------------
"Mr Freeman, why do you live in Mississippi?"
"Because I can live anywhere I want to."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
