1,271 words
Holocaust Memorial, Berlin. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
The Holocaust remains one of the most extensively documented and morally horrifying events in modern history. It is a cornerstone of 20th century historical consciousness and a symbol of industrialized cruelty and racial ideology brought to its most extreme ends. Yet in recent years, the manner in which the Holocaust is discussed, taught, and legislated raises critical questions about how we treat history itself. When a historical event is placed beyond the realm of inquiry, it ceases to be history and becomes something else—a doctrine, a sanctified narrative, a concept.
This article contends that the Holocaust must be preserved as a historical event and not transformed into an abstract, unfalsifiable concept. Doing so is not merely an intellectual necessity but a civic one. When scrutiny is disallowed, denialism festers. When historical events are treated as infallible doctrines, they lose the very qualities that make them believable: their susceptibility to critical inquiry, their basis in evidence, and their openness to ongoing research. A responsible approach to the Holocaust must therefore insist on treating it like any other event in history—subject to verification, refinement, and even revision when justified by new sources. This does not dishonor the victims; on the contrary, it honors them by insisting on truth rather than dogma.
At the heart of this argument lies the principle of falsifiability, a concept most commonly associated with the philosophy of science but equally applicable to historical reasoning. A proposition is only meaningful, Karl Popper argued, if it can be proven false in principle. In history, this means that any claim—whether about dates, death tolls, causes, or motives—must be subject to challenge and verification based on evidence. If we immunize the Holocaust from such scrutiny, we are no longer treating it as history but as an unquestionable article of faith. And faith, by its nature, requires no evidence and tolerates no dissent.
There are obvious risks in relaxing the taboo around Holocaust inquiry. Denialism, revisionism, and antisemitism do indeed flourish in some quarters under the guise of “skepticism.” But the problem is not skepticism itself, it is bad scholarship. The best response to poor historical reasoning is not censorship, but better evidence, better argumentation, and more rigorous methodology. The historical method, unlike ideology, thrives on contestation. It gains strength from interrogation, not silence.
The value of scrutinising prevailing historical narratives is well demonstrated in the case of Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s controversial 1974 book, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. In it, the authors used econometric methods to reassess the nature of slavery in the American South. They argued that slaveholders employed both coercive and incentivizing strategies—the “stick” and the “carrot”—to manage their enslaved labor force. More provocatively, they contended that slavery had not entirely destroyed the black family structure, a claim that sparked considerable outrage.
Critics such as Paul David and Herbert Gutman vigorously opposed their conclusions, accusing the authors of downplaying the brutality and psychological violence of slavery. And yet, the debate that Time on the Cross triggered was intellectually productive. No one was accused of excusing slavery simply for reevaluating the data. The historical narrative was not flattened, but enriched and made more complex. It illustrated a fundamental truth of the historical discipline: claims must be tested against evidence, and no interpretation is beyond challenge.
Similar principles hold across the social sciences. In anthropology, the popular saying “it takes a village to raise a child” is often cited to support the idea of communal child-rearing. However, growing ethnographic and empirical evidence shows that even in traditional agricultural societies, children are primarily raised within nuclear families. While extended kin may provide occasional support, day-to-day caregiving typically falls to the mother and father. Moreover, children tend to fare better when their mothers are actively engaged in their upbringing. Although the proverb retains cultural resonance, it does not always reflect the lived reality. This underscores the importance of testing cherished ideas against actual data.
The point here is not to trivialize the Holocaust by comparing it to slavery or child-rearing. These are vastly different events in moral gravity, political significance, and historical character. Rather, the analogy lies in the application of the falsifiability principle across different domains of knowledge. Historical claims must be evaluated on the strength of their evidence, not on their emotional or symbolic weight.
The danger of turning the Holocaust into a concept lies in its perceived immunity to this kind of evaluation. If any attempt to examine discrepancies in numbers, implementation methods, or evolving policies is automatically denounced as denialism, then the Holocaust risks being treated more like a dogma than a historical occurrence. One need only consider the controversies surrounding scholars such as Bernard Lewis—who denied that the Armenian massacres amounted to genocide—or the criticisms directed at R. J. Rummel, whose estimates of deaths under communist regimes have been both influential and contested. In both cases, historians have argued, debated, and revised positions. No historical claim was off-limits simply because it was politically or emotionally charged.
Yet when it comes to the Holocaust, legal restrictions, social taboos, and academic caution often discourage open discussion. In some European countries, denial is criminalized. While these laws aim to prevent hostility, they also suggest that the truth is too fragile to withstand scrutiny. This perception, in turn, fuels the very denialism these laws intend to suppress. The numbers bear this out: a recent survey in the Netherlands found that nearly a quarter of young adults believe the Holocaust is a myth or has been exaggerated. An Oxford Internet Institute study found that up to half of Holocaust-related content on Telegram either distorts or outright denies the historical record.
This is not a coincidence. When people are told they cannot question something, they become suspicious that there is something to hide. This dynamic has fueled the popularity of figures like Candace Owens, who exploit public skepticism and institutional silence to offer alternative, often malicious narratives. The problem is not simply that denial exists; it is that mainstream discourse has failed to model what responsible, critical engagement with Holocaust history looks like.
The public must be allowed to encounter historical complexity without fear of ostracism. Scrutinizing an event is not the same as denying it. Questioning elements of its record is not the same as disputing its occurrence. The current climate, in which all but the most orthodox interpretations are taboo, leaves the field open to extremists and conspiracy theorists who claim to be saying “what no one else dares.” In reality, what is needed is not silence, but rigorous debate grounded in evidence.
If we truly wish to honor the victims of the Holocaust and preserve the historical truth of their suffering, we must reclaim the event as history rather than concept. This means welcoming new archaeological finds, encouraging critical engagement with primary sources, and resisting the urge to sacralize what must remain examinable. Only by treating the Holocaust as a historical event—subject to the same methodological rigor as any other—can we prevent it from becoming a relic of moral instruction rather than an object of factual inquiry.
The stakes are high. Denialism does not thrive because people are presented with too much information; it thrives because they are presented with too little space to question. The best antidote to bad history is not censorship but better history—fortified by evidence, grounded in reason, and open to revision. In this way, the Holocaust can continue to stand as both a moral warning and a historical fact, not because it is beyond criticism, but because it has withstood it.
40 comments
My skepticism of the holocaust is only fueled by how many outright falsehoods there are about it.
Can you make soap out of human flesh? No. Can you make a lampshade out of human skin? No. My personal favorite is the story done by PBS depicting negro tank commandos liberating Buchenwald. The story was completely debunked, but the makers of the documentary managed to get A-list celebrities Denzel Washington and Louis Gossett to participate. It was a case study in just how far they’re willing to go with it.
We’ve all known people that we catch in a lie. The first time we might blow it off and think nothing of it. Then it happens again and then again and again and we begin to wonder if anything this person tells us is on the level. That is the holocaust.
Holocaust survivor and Jewish activist Ellie Wiesel was caught in a lie. He claimed that the first American soldier that he met when he was liberated from the concentration camp he was in was black. When this claim was investigated, it was discovered that the closest black army unit was thirty miles from the camp he was in when he was liberated. The media quickly hushed this up. What a way to show appreciation for his white liberators.
I remember that. I guess Jews don’t believe in the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not bear false witness means nothing to them.
The text reads, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
That means only other Tribe members. All of traditional Jewish morality divides humans into Us and Not Us.
Only Foolish White People actually take universal moral commands literally…to our great sorrow.
There are rules/laws, and there are also exceptions to these for Jews per their ‘holy’ Talmud, which is 63 books long. Here are just a few of those gems regarding Jews & Gentiles:
“Jews may use lies (deceit) to circumvent a Gentile.” -Baba Kamma 113a
“A Jew is permitted to rape, cheat and perjure himself (lie); but he must take care that he is not found out, so that Israel may not suffer.” -Schulchan Aruch, Jore Dia
“A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.” -Aboda Sarah 37a
“To communicate anything with a Goy (Gentile) about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.” -Libbre David 37
Balaam (Jesus) is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel are boiled in hot excrement.” -57a Gittin
“Only Jews are human. Gentiles are animals.” -Baba Mezia 114a-114b
There are so many phony fabrications. Anne Frank’s step-sister, Eva Schloss, also at Auschwitz, mentioned some of the fact vs fiction discrepancies about the liberation, when interviewed on Good Morning Britain. She announced that photos were faked and that she & her mom “avoided being taken on a death march” by oversleeping & simply not being pursued.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-7933509/Anne-Franks-step-sister-claims-photos-showing-liberation-Auschwitz-FAKE.html
elie weasel. There’s a name to trust.
The Holocaust is a religion that has been imposed on us, one that over-writes the passion of Jesus Christ with the lurid martyrdom of six million innocent, suffering Jews, with Whites in the role of the evil one who ought to be punished forever.
Our historians, and academic institutions, have failed to do their jobs as this legally protected narrative was imposed as though it was the sort of fact that has been through the regular mill of criticism and revision that scholarly honesty and free inquiry require.
Our clergy, and churches, have failed to do their jobs as this as this Hollywood martyrdom has been imposed as the revealed, enforced, and legally protected Truth.
A very good article. The Holocaust is not only treated with religiosity, like affirming the divinity of Jesus, but it is treated like a monolithic historical event. But no historical events are monoliths.
Furthermore, Jews are no better than anyone else. I have no problem with raycissm but it has its limits. I want my people to thrive but there are limits to where I would be willing to go unless survival was at stake. Debating these things is essential.
In other words, the deaths and suffering in the World Wars was tragic and unfortunate, but the deaths and suffering of Jews is no better than anyone else’s, including that of Germans and Nazis.
I have long been disappointed that Liberals and Conservatives have had very little interest in actively fighting Thoughtcrimes laws that they perceive as having no relevance because they only operate within the stiff respectability of Kosher parameters.
That is not how our people win. It’s how we die on the vine.
I hate the term Genocide because it is disingenuous and polemical by definition. Is it any better that we go out with a whimper than a bang?
You may not be interested in the Big-H Whitey, but the Big-H is interested in you.
🙂
The term genocide is used a lot. Many people who are familiar with the holocaust don’t know about The Holodomor, Pol Pot’s Killing Fields in Cambodia, or the massacre that the Rwandans inflicted on each other in the nineties. You are correct, Jewish suffering isn’t more important than anyone else’s.
I am grateful for the UN-adopted definition of the term Genocide:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Naive folks have scoffed at the term “White genocide”, but the above genocidal objectives are being used against White people in their own countries today.
The term isn’t meant for White people; it is meant to catalog for the justifications of Globalists, the celebrated grievances of Minorities whose proverbial ox has (allegedly) been gored.
There ain’t never going to be no recognized genocide against White South Africans, for example.
But even if the Genocide Convention applied in theory to Whites, how would you enforce it? International Law does not work that way.
For one thing, “political” and “cultural” conflicts are expressly carved out of the treaties(s).
The late Libertarian and small-government Marxist Senator E. William Proxmire was a Democrat from Wisconsin who endlessly denounced his anti-Communist Republican predecessor ─ Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, whose office Proxmire filled after McCarthy’s death in 1957.
Senator Proxmire’s other hobby horse was a decades long crusade for the United States to join the UN Genocide Convention.
“ From 1967 to 1986, Proxmire gave daily speeches noting the necessity of ratifying the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. [Ibid.] He gave that speech every day that the Senate was in session for 20 years, for a total of 3,211 times. On February 11, 1986 the U.S. Senate ratified the convention. [fn4] “ (LINK)
In 1987, Senator Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-DE) introduced the implementation legislation.
President Ronald Wilson Raygun signed the Proxmire Act, as the implementing legislation was called, four days before George Herbert Walker Bush was elected President in 1988.
I don’t know if signing the Proxmire Act helped the GOP with the Jews or not, but paleo-Conservatives had fought hard for decades against Proxmire’s crusade for the USA to join the Genocide Convention.
So let’s see how much good Genocide does for Brown people at least.
The post-Apartheid state of South Africa filed a Genocide complaint against Israel on behalf of Gaza.
Mr. Google says:
“ In December 2023, South Africa filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The case, formally known as Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), is based on the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which both countries are signatories. ”
South Africa’s arguments :
“ In its application, South Africa’s legal team presented arguments including that Israel’s actions in Gaza were “genocidal in character” with the intent to destroy a significant portion of the Palestinian people. They cited statements from Israeli officials as evidence of genocidal intent. The application alleged several violations of the Genocide Convention, such as killing Palestinians, causing serious harm, deliberately creating conditions meant to lead to their physical destruction, and imposing measures to prevent births. South Africa requested provisional measures from the ICJ, asking for a legally binding order to stop Israel’s military operations to prevent further harm. ”
Israel’s response :
“ The Israeli government denied the allegations, calling them “baseless.” Israel argued that its military actions were in self-defense following the October 7th attacks and were directed at Hamas, not civilians, in accordance with international law. They contended that claims of genocidal intent based on statements by some officials did not reflect official policy and that South Africa was misusing the Genocide Convention. ”
I don’t see how it is possible to out whine the Joos, and I fail to find any value in this for White Nationalism.
🙂
“I don’t see how it is possible to out whine the Joos, and I fail to find any value in this for White Nationalism.”
I don’t believe out-whining is the goal, but perhaps simply being able to matter-of-factly point out to normies that criminal behavior against racial groups, needs to be weighed in an even and fair manor.
These concrete, defined terms are for folks who still believe in political solutions, & think voting will solve major violent world conflicts. (People, on their own, will eventually need to figure out, and come to terms with, the fact that violence/force will be necessary to drastically shift the downward death spiral.)
It’s all in the hope that those civic nationalists/GOP, who still complain, “The progressives/POCs did, or said that, but nobody in authority would ever permit a White person to say the equivalent?!” Will finally graduate to: “Genocide of Whites will Never be tolerated!”
And for the brainwashed churches, the religion of Holocaustianity has replaced Christianity.
In other words, the deaths and suffering in the World Wars was tragic and unfortunate, but the deaths and suffering of Jews is no better than anyone else’s, including that of Germans and Nazis. Tell that to the jews and watch the screeching oy-veyance.
“Denialism” is not the problem, “under-reporting” of the actual number of jews killed in the holocaust is the problem. The actual number of jews killed was 600 million; if you disagree with me you will go to prison. 🙃
And don’t forget about the explosion of births taking place at the camps. Polish midwife Stanislawa Leszczyńska, during her two-year internment at Auschwitz, delivered 3,000 babies.
My prediction is that as the narrative of Jewish victimhood continues to collapse, and the Holocaust comes to be seen as just one of many sad and unfortunate historical episodes rather than as the single most terrible event in human history, then it will gradually be subjected to the same historical scrutiny as everything else.
It’s normal for the winning side of a war to exaggerate the misdeeds of the losers, and it only makes sense that the deadliest war ever fought would be no exception.
That’s right.
And also, most importantly: whatever the details of the event, they have no relevance whatsoever to our (Whites’) right to thrive and live among our own without the intrusion, abuse, or even “benign” disproportionate presence of others. (After all, one of the most formidable enemies we have is other Whites, so dealing with them is struggle enough.)
White rights do not hinge on the exploits of Hitler (whatever the actual details) anymore than Mongolian rights do on the deeds of Genghis Khan.
To what end, then, the endless “Holocaust” propaganda and the blackmail of white nations such as neutral Switzerland and the conquered Poles?
I don’t understand the point. It seems like you’re disagreeing with what I’ve said, but I don’t understand the point, or question. Please elaborate.
Prima facie, your post is unobjectionable: whatever happened to the Jews in Europe in the forties should have no relevance to white survival. But white survival will entail shrugging off the Holocaust cult no less than it will rejecting the supposed moral onus of black slavery–if only for the mental and spiritual servitude the cult imposes.
There’s no neutral ground. And, as Lipton Matthews makes clear, the grand white traditions of free thought and free inquiry are squarely on the side of us Holocaust doubters, not the Holocaust affirmers.
“White rights do not hinge on the exploits of Hitler (whatever the actual details) anymore than Mongolian rights do on the deeds of Genghis Khan.”
That is a bit of a straw-man argument as nobody is saying this [e.g., hinging White survival upon esoteric Hitlerism] as far as I know ─ and I’ve been a Revisionist and student of historiography for a very long time.
I don’t see how White Nationalists accepting or even ignoring the monstrous gas-chamber lie helps White people.
Real History behooves us, and seeking the Truth is always the right answer.
🙂
“That [‘White rights do not hinge on the exploits of Hitler (whatever the actual details) anymore than Mongolian rights do on the deeds of Genghis Khan.’] is a bit of a straw-man argument as nobody is saying this [e.g., hinging White survival upon esoteric Hitlerism] as far as I know ─ and I’ve been a Revisionist and student of historiography for a very long time.”
Not an argument, just a comment, added to the comment I liked, above.
But… I didn’t say anything about “esoteric Hitlerism.” Also but: yes, it is common for people to hang the cause of WN on Hitler/revisionism. I’m confused by your saying that; I see you arguing with them frequently on here (not this article–others), and even liking comments I’ve made condemning them for doing so. Have you changed your mind? Is The Jewish Holocaust now something you believe is crucial to the WN case for White sovereignty? I won’t be arguing about it, just curious if you have changed your mind.
“I don’t see how White Nationalists accepting or even ignoring the monstrous gas-chamber lie helps White people.”
This article by Greg expresses my own position better than I can, or frankly care to, at this point: https://counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/ Feeling, as I do, that The Jewish Holocaust is relevant for revisionists and those interested in it, but not pertinent to making a case for WN, and seeing as my concern is WN, not giving the Jews their comeuppance, I don’t like spending much time talking about it. I am much more focused on advancing the cause of Whites and on doing white things.
“Real History behooves us, and seeking the Truth is always the right answer.”
Yes, it does. That’s worthwhile. But letting people trick us into thinking our case rests on something if it doesn’t rest on that thing is, necessarily, a strawman that we are sometimes (not always, but sometimes) wise to circumvent, at least when it has no relevance to what we’re fighting for at any given moment.
Well, I don’t think the subject is important for civic nationalism or for White Christians (whom I support, even though I am not personally religious nor superstitious and often find it extremely problematical).
However, I do think the Big-H subject is part of the Jewish Question and therefore very important for White Nationalism and for White people ultimately.
The atrocity-propaganda is not going away easily, and that is by design. White people do have enemies to their interests, but the Truth is not our enemy.
The Big-H subject is also important for historians and students of historiography, and I have a degree in the subject and do consider myself a Revisionist.
In fact, like the Scientific Method, which is an epistemological process, History is revisionist by nature.
In Part 1 of the recent Counter-Currents article by Carlos Pinedo Cestafe, “Ideological Foundations of the Nouvelle Droite,” the author points out that Marxists conceptualize Science as though it were a Christian canon or a “materialist” Bible sitting on a bookshelf.
That is not how the Scientific Method works, but it gives us insight into the thinking of every scruffy Marxist protesting Trump who carries signs like “Science is Real,” and obviously not understanding what Science really is.
🙂
In the article cited, Greg wrote in support of his claim that exposing the Holocaust imposture is not central to breaking Jewish power in America:
“Before the Second World War, Jews already had an enormous amount of power in the United States: enough power to deliver the United States into two World Wars, for instance. Jewish power was based on over-representation in banking, business, law, politics, academia, and the news and entertainment media.”
True enough—and I can’t recall either a Holocaust revisionist or a white nationalist claiming seriously that upending the Holocaust cult would end the Jewish sway in this country. Yet there’s no denying that Jews have devoted vast efforts to promoting and institutionalizing white guilt through the Holocaust cult, here and around the world, and that invoking and commemorating their World War II mythos has become an organic part of Jewish control.
Perhaps this discussion revolves in fact around issues of discretion and prudence: open espousal of white national, tacit acceptance of the achievements of revisionist research. Or perhaps mere tolerance of freedom to investigate the latter. But, sooner rather than later, the Big H will have to be confronted, or will confront you, just as it has that Maine state populist with the Totenkopf on his backside.
“I don’t see how White Nationalists accepting or even ignoring the monstrous gas-chamber lie helps White people.”
Here’s how: It’s been shown that the single thing that, by far, unites Jews worldwide, more than not eating pork, attending Hebrew school, celebrating bat mitzvah, going to temple on Saturdays, celebrating Passover, is belief in the Holocaust™.
And we have legal testimony from the 1980s, from gas chamber experts that there was never the ability to kill anyone via gas poison in German camps during WW2.
Exposing this, will cause (any thoughtful and honest) Jews and Gentiles alike to question their own beliefs, their opinions of their own leaders, and their illegal and unethical actions as a whole. Exposing truth is beneficial to White people.
Agreed. That is why the Big-H should not be ignored, and why Revisionism is important to White people in any case.
🙂
“…resisting the urge to sacralize what must remain examinable” Then why do you capitalize the ‘H’ in holocaust? I’m getting tired of these Lipton Matthews articles, Greg.
Because the Big-H term was specifically paired along with the Jewish term Shoah in 1945 as a proper noun, and then specifically popularized in 1978 by an eponymous NBC TV miniseries.
The TV minseries Holocaust starred Meryl Streep as a Shiksa and her Jewish prisoner husband, Karl Weiss, played James Woods.
Karl Weiss is a David Olère type of character who survives to paint and “bear witness” (note the religious terminology) by painting twisted Auschwitz art ─ much of it involving crematorias and carnality if not cannibalism.
David Olère, who died in Paris in 1985, actually claimed that the Nazis made “Kremawurst” (crematorium sausages) out of Jewish corpses.
Image1
Image2
Image3
Image4
Other than in specific Jewish sources, you almost never encountered the term “holocaust” in the context of the Jews in any mainstream media prior to 1978.
I did a systemic Library search and actually found the term “holocaust” in this Jewish context in an article in the newspaper Manchester Guardian from 1968.
The generic term holocaust is derived from Greek as a sacred burnt offering that is consumed in holo or in whole.
Sometimes the term holocaust has been used to describe specifics such as a potential nuclear apocalypse, or something at least catastrophic involving fire such the Chicago Fire of 1872, or the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906.
I call it the Big-H, because it illustrates the quasi-supernatural and propaganda aspects of the atrocious claim(s) against the Nazis, and really, against all Gentiles.
🙂
“The generic term holocaust is derived from Greek as a sacred burnt offering that is consumed in holo or whole. Sometimes the term holocaust has been used to describe specifics such as a potential nuclear apocalypse, or something at least catastrophic involving fire such the Chicago Fire of 1872, or the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906”
Scott, I’m surprised the Holodomor did not make your list of examples. Some argue the official ‘Holocaust’ was a response to the Holodomor.
Outside of Ukrainian diaspora publications, I think Holodomor is actually a latter term. I do not recall mainstream Western publications using it before 1978 and I can’t recall seeing it before Glasnost if not after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The word Holodomor is not found in the Etymological dictionary today, but Wikipedia says that the etymology comes from:
” The Ukrainian word Holodomor means “death by hunger”, “killing by hunger, killing by starvation,” [15][16][17] or sometimes “murder by hunger or starvation.” [18] It is a compound of the Ukrainian holod, ‘hunger’ and mor, ‘plague’. The Ukrainian verb moryty (морити) means “to poison, to drive to exhaustion, or to torment”, and the expression holodom moryty means “to inflict death by hunger.” The perfective form of moryty is zamoryty, ‘kill or drive to death’. [19] In English, the Holodomor has also been referred to as the artificial famine, terror-genocide and the great famine. [12][20][21] “
So the term Holodomor dates back to the 1930s outside of Western publications, but it does not relate to the Holo in Holocaust.
I have not done systematic research on this, but until recently in mainstream publications, it was just called the “Ukrainian Famine” and blamed on a bad harvest ─ after the NKVD confiscated all the seed corn from the Kulaks for collectivization of agriculture and in order to purchase Western industrial infrastructure including hiring unemployed American engineers during the Great Depression in order to meet the goals of Stalin’s 1928- industrial arms race (against Germany) called Socialism In One Country.
🙂
Thank you for your very thorough and researched reply!
There was also genocide of Kazakhs in the same years.
Scott, did you ever see this article?
Flashback 1978: German-Americans Pressure NBC To Pull Holocaust Miniseries As ‘Audacious’ Anti-German, Anti-Gentile, Anti-Christian ‘Propaganda’
https://christiansfortruth.com/flashback-1978-german-americans-pressure-nbc-to-pull-holocaust-miniseries-as-audacious-anti-german-anti-gentile-anti-christian-propaganda/
No, but I’ll look it over more closely.
Engineer and Holocaust Revisionist Friedrich Paul Berg was part of those 1978 New York City demonstrations against NBC over the Holocaust TV miniseries.
Fritz was also stabbed at a related protest in NYC on behalf of the Soviet-annexed Baltic states by a Jewish activist punk named Mordechai “Mark” Levy, who founded the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO), a more radical version of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) that was founded by Meir Kahane in 1968, and helmed by the infamous terrorists Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel that even the ADL despised.
Fritz was cut but not seriously hurt in the protest. The protest and the stabbing are mentioned in the Village Voice but I don’t have an exact link at the moment.
🙂
“This article contends that the Holocaust must be preserved as a historical event and not transformed into an abstract, unfalsifiable concept. Doing so is not merely an intellectual necessity but a civic one. When scrutiny is disallowed, denialism festers.”
What is “denialism”? A little scrutiny, please?
Might “Holocaust deniers” have something in common with that heliocentrism “denier,” Copernicus?
What is “denialism”? A little scrutiny, please? Anything not in perfect lockstep with what jews demand you believe and do or they’ll destroy your life and your kids’.
OK, though a mite broader than what I had in mind.
The term “Holocaust denial” is of significance not merely because it’s used to denote virtually any questioning or doubt of the gas-chambers six-million Jewish orthodoxy. No less noteworthy is that, so far as I can discover, “denial” is used only in connection with the Big H (and–clearly derivatively–for a few other cases, such as those who contest the Armenian “genocide” of the First World War), not for any other historical issue.
The petitio principii involved in so naming one’s intellectual adversaries ought to be all too evident.
Some people are (((so clever))) but so bereft of wisdom, so adept at scoring own goals. Without the obvious irrationality of accusing people ‘denialism’, and the manic desire to forbid all discussion of an historical event, I would never have become aware of the JQ.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.