Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

[Daniel]

In Robert Faurisson's Preface to Dissecting the Holocaust he writes:

I think that the co-religionists of Mr. Berenbaum will at last abandon the gas chamber as they have abandoned the Jewish soap and the Auschwitz 4 million. They will go farther than that. As in the two previous cases, they will present themselves as the discoverers of the myth and accuse the Germans, the Poles, or the Communists of having fabricated the ‘myth of the gas chambers’. In support of their impudent thesis, they will then invoke the names of Jews who are Revisionists totally or in part (J.G. Burg, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Roger-Guy Dommergue, Arno Mayer, David Cole, Christopher Hitchens, Joel Hayward ?). They will then assign themselves the starring role.

At the same time, however, transforming the ‘Holocaust’ of the Jews into a religious belief, this time divested of all material content, they will be only the more inflexible in denouncing authentic Revisionists as ‘deniers’, or ‘negationists’, as being intolerant, heartless, basely materialistic and
hostile to the free expression of religious sentiments. For those Jews, the true Revisionists will thus continue to be diabolical in spirit even if they must be acknowledged to be in the right from a factual point of view.

Faurisson labels Christopher Hitchens a total or partial revisionist. But this introduction was written in 1994, before or about the time Hitchens had found out his mother was Jewish. Shortly after this revelation he immediately began aligning himself with neo-conservatives. (Not that he didn't seem Jewy before he learned his mother was Jewish -- perhaps there is something to say for the anti-semitic view that the nature of the Jews has its ultimate root in their genetics). From this appearance on the Riz Khan show (who's probably a crypto) in the 2000s it's plain that Hitchens is a Holohoax promoter.

[from 3:35]

A second point is that I view this quote by Faurisson as very profound. He illustrates an understanding of the chameleon nature of the Jewish people when he predicts, "They will go farther than that. As in the two previous cases, they will present themselves as the discoverers of the myth and accuse the Germans, the Poles, or the Communists of having fabricated the ‘myth of the gas chambers’".

This is an easy scenario to accept. It reminds me of Jews today who completely remove themselves in mainstream histories from any major participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade, even though history books published by Jewish historical societies (meant for Jewish eyes only) reveal how dominant was their participation. I sometimes hear people say something along the lines of, "When the world finds out the Holocaust didn't happen that will be the end of Jewish power." Not necessarily, as the Faurisson quote illustrates.

Another thing to mention about this quote, is that it is immediately followed by an essay by Germar Rudolf ("The Controvery about the Extermination of the Jews," originally written in 1994, but revised in 2003--so I assume the following is still his view). Under the first heading "A German-Jewish Vision of the Future" Rudolf begins the piece by describing the great relationship Jews and Germans had in the 19th Century (itself a dubious statement) and then goes on to write:

It is my wish that both peoples should come together again in a partnership of mutual respect, so as to take up the traditions of an era that brought the world, Jewry, and the German people such immense benefit. It is also my wish that the time may come, at long last, where all the reciprocal contempt or disdain, mutual distrust and fear are eroded and ultimately removed. I long for the end of an era that has brought the world, Jewry, and the German people as much misfortune as perhaps no era before.

Only a man who rejects the view that Jews and non-Jews are eternal enemies could have written the above. I can possibly accept the idea of a Jew becoming compatible with gentiles on condition that the Jew within him is destroyed. St. Vincent Ferrer found suspect any Jewish convert whose family didn't disown him. If a Jew converts to, say, the Catholic Church and remains on good terms with the Jewish people and with his Jewish family, it can be suspected that his conversion is insincere.

Rudolf seems very naive about the Jewish people, where Faurisson displays a better understanding of their nature.

[NSDAP]

Rudolf seems very naive about the Jewish people, where Faurisson displays a better understanding of their nature.

What nature is that apart from cultural, racial or religious prejudices you may hold that can be factually verified please Daniel.

[Daniel]

I'm not sure a prejudice can be rooted anywhere else but in one's cultural/racial/belief system identity.

If you're not a member of a belief system, then you'll necessarily be prejudiced toward adherents of that system. The question a Jew should ask about any gentile isn't "is this gentile prejudiced toward Jews?" Instead the question should be "what is the degree or flavor of this gentile's prejudice toward Jews?" It's a given that all gentiles are enemies of all Jews.

The only way for a gentile not to be anti-Jewish is to convert to Judaism, or become a Noahide.

[k0nsl]

Thanks for a good post. I liked it. As for your assessment about Rudolf re. jewish people, I can just say that I wholeheartedly agree with you. Who knows if that is his true view or not, or if it is a charade so as to not be labeled a loathed annie-semite?

Best wishes,
-k0nsl

[...]

Rudolf seems very naive about the Jewish people, where Faurisson displays a better understanding of their nature.

[been-there]

In Robert Faurisson's Preface to Dissecting the Holocaust he writes:

I think that the co-religionists of Mr. Berenbaum will at last abandon the gas chamber as they have abandoned the Jewish soap and the Auschwitz 4 million. They will go farther than that. As in the two previous cases, they will present themselves as the discoverers of the myth and accuse the Germans, the Poles, or the Communists of having fabricated the ‘myth of the gas chambers’. In support of their impudent thesis, they will then invoke the names of Jews who are Revisionists totally or in part (J.G. Burg, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Roger-Guy Dommergue, Arno Mayer, David Cole, Christopher Hitchens, Joel Hayward ?). They will then assign themselves the starring role...

Faurisson labels Christopher Hitchens a total or partial revisionist. But this introduction was written in 1994, before or about the time Hitchens had found out his mother was Jewish. Shortly after this revelation he immediately began aligning himself with neo-conservatives. ...From this appearance on the Riz Khan show ...in the 2000s it's plain that Hitchens is a Holohoax promoter.

[from 3:35]

A second point is that I view this quote by Faurisson as very profound. He illustrates an understanding of the chameleon nature of the Jewish people when he predicts, "They will go farther than that. As in the two previous cases, they will present themselves as the discoverers of the myth and accuse the Germans, the Poles, or the Communists of having fabricated the ‘myth of the gas chambers’".

This is an easy scenario to accept. It reminds me of Jews today who completely remove themselves in mainstream histories from any major participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade, even though history books published by Jewish historical societies (meant for Jewish eyes only) reveal how dominant was their participation. I sometimes hear people say something along the lines of, "When the world finds out the Holocaust didn't happen that will be the end of Jewish power." Not necessarily, as the Faurisson quote illustrates.

Another thing to mention about this quote, is that it is immediately followed by an essay by Germar Rudolf ("The Controvery about the Extermination of the Jews," originally written in 1994, but revised in 2003--so I assume the following is still his view). Under the first heading "A German-Jewish Vision of the Future" Rudolf begins the piece by describing the great relationship Jews and Germans had in the 19th Century (itself a dubious statement) and then goes on to write:

It is my wish that both peoples should come together again in a partnership of mutual respect, so as to take up the traditions of an era that brought the world, Jewry, and the German people such immense benefit. It is also my wish that the time may come, at long last, where all the reciprocal contempt or disdain, mutual distrust and fear are eroded and ultimately removed. I long for the end of an era that has brought the world, Jewry, and the German people as much misfortune as perhaps no era before.

Only a man who rejects the view that Jews and non-Jews are eternal enemies could have written the above. I can possibly accept the idea of a Jew becoming compatible with gentiles on condition that the Jew within him is destroyed. St. Vincent Ferrer found suspect any Jewish convert whose family didn't disown him. If a Jew converts to, say, the Catholic Church and remains on good terms with the Jewish people and with his Jewish family, it can be suspected that his conversion is insincere.

Rudolf seems very naive about the Jewish people, where Faurisson displays a better understanding of their nature.

Hitchens was informed by his mother of her secret 'Jewishness' [there's a subtle and insidious oxymoron] in 1987. So Faurisson's intro was written seven years after that.

Hitchens wrote the following in 2006, in defence of David Irving (so that is 19 years after this 'Jewish' self-discovery):

“Now may I mince a word or two? I have been writing in defence of Mr. Irving for several years. When St. Martin’s Press canceled its contract to print his edition of the Goebbels diaries, which it did out of fear of reprisal, I complained loudly and was rewarded by an honest statement from the relevant editor — Thomas Mallon — that his decision had been a “profile in prudence.”
I will not take refuge in the claim that I was only defending Mr. Irving’s right to free speech. I was also defending his right to free inquiry.
You may have to spend time on some grim and Gothic Web sites to find this out, but he is in fact not a “denier,” but a revisionist, and much-hated by the full-dress “denial” faction.”

As a gleeful iconoclast himself, I think its worth noting that Hitchens made a distinction between defending 'free speech' — and as he wrote here, 'freedom of enquiry' — and defending the results of that free speech and free enquiry.
He presumably was following the precedent set by Voltaire who famously didn't say: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
.

[Daniel]

Thanks for a good post. I liked it. As for your assessment about Rudolf re. jewish people, I can just say that I wholeheartedly agree with you. Who knows if that is his true view or not, or if it is a charade so as to not be labeled a loathed annie-semite?

Best wishes,
-k0nsl

[...]

Rudolf seems very naive about the Jewish people, where Faurisson displays a better understanding of their nature.

I'm glad you liked it. He revised it in 2003, so I don't know. If he hadn't revised it since 1994, then I would assume he had changed his mind about this rapprochement business.

[Daniel]

Hitchens was informed by his mother of her secret 'Jewishness' [there's a subtle and insidious oxymoron] in 1987. So Faurisson's intro was written seven years after that.

Hitchens wrote the following in 2006, in defence of David Irving (so that is 19 years after this 'Jewish' self-discovery):

“Now may I mince a word or two? I have been writing in defence of Mr. Irving for several years. When St. Martin’s Press canceled its contract to print his edition of the Goebbels diaries, which it did out of fear of reprisal, I complained loudly and was rewarded by an honest statement from the relevant editor — Thomas Mallon — that his decision had been a “profile in prudence.”
I will not take refuge in the claim that I was only defending Mr. Irving’s right to free speech. I was also defending his right to free inquiry.
You may have to spend time on some grim and Gothic Web sites to find this out, but he is in fact not a “denier,” but a revisionist, and much-hated by the full-dress “denial” faction.”

As a gleeful iconoclast himself, I think its worth noting that Hitchens made a distinction between defending 'free speech' — and as he wrote here, 'freedom of enquiry' — and defending the results of that free speech and free enquiry.
He presumably was following the precedent set by Voltaire who famously didn't say: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
.

Thanks for the correction about Hitchens' discovery.

[Daniel]

Given the sentiments I highlighted Rudolf expressing above in the OP, it didn't come as a complete shock to me that Rudolf uses the word genocide to describe what happened to the jews in WWII.

This is an important video to watch, wherein Leuchter and Jim Rizoli respond to an interview John Friend conducted with Rudolf:

Leuchter: "I believe Germar has been brainwashed. And I don't believe Germar understands that."

and

"He needs someone to get deep and personal with him, because I think the problem is almost inbred at this point."

Jim Rizoli: "Do you think, Fred, that he's doing it to ingratiate himself . . . with the jews, so that he doesn't look as bad to them?"

Leuchter: "No, I don't think so. Because . . . what he's saying is the jews don't like it anyway. But I think he honestly believes that. He's been programmed to believe that. And he needs to go through a deprogramming situation with a therapist. He needs someone to talk to and ask him, "Why?" He needs introspection. He needs to look at himself and find out why. And after that's done, if it works and he comes out of it, he's going to have a better understanding of the history of Germany and the history of his own people. You know, the German people have a 3-4 thousand year history of living in that area. And it's a good, it's a clean, it's a bright history and it's a history that they can be proud of. But the deprogramming, the programming that they went through . . . the denazification, as you put it, changed all that . . . and as I say it went deeper than deprogramming National Socialists -- they deprogrammed them from being a white German. And that's dangerous. That never should have happened. You never want to destroy people's ethnicity. Politically, yeah. That's the difference we have, and people don't realize it when we talk about Zionists and jews and Israelis. Israelis and Zionists . . . it's a political situation. But people who believe in the jewish faith . . . aren't. But everything is mixed together today."

As Leuchter observes, Rudolf grew up in Germany during de-Nazification, which wasn't a program to make the German people hate merely the National Socialist political regime, but to hate the German people full stop. I object to Leuchter distinguishing jews and Zionists. This suggests that Leuchter is somewhat Judaized, as he thinks jews as a "people of faith" are to be respected. Does he know nothing of the Talmud? Does he think Zionists aren't a product of the Talmud, and aren't members of this "people of faith" he says we should respect? Perhaps he got sloppy, as it's hard to believe he's that naive.

It's remarkable, however, that Rudolf still has a jewish-engineered conscience, given that he has so much knowledge of jewish manipulation of history.

It just goes to show, as I learned long ago, that knowing the holocaust didn't happen simply is not enough to make one immune to jewish manipulation. Just because you've figured out one scheme of jewry doesn't mean you've figured out the thousands of other schemes they foist upon us.

One must be anti-jewish. One must view the jewish people as the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church viewed them: as spiritual vermin. Even as physical vermin, in the sense that body and spirit are intertwined, which is why Catholic states of past times made illegal marriage between Catholics and jews.

The traditional Catholic definition of a "good jew" is a jew who is hated by the jewish people. Jesus is hated by the jewish people. The Talmud says that Jesus is boiling in hell in His own excrement. Bobby Fischer is hated by the jewish people.

Israel Shamir, Gilad Atzmon, Steve Sailer (yes he identifies as a jew and thinks the holohoax happened), David Cole Stein, Ron Unz, Norman Finkelstein are fake "good jews." They're smarmy gatekeepers for jewish power.

More here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13878

[Daniel]

When I posted the above I also posted a sister thread on Codoh linking to this thread, and the moderator saw fit to delete it. He deleted it, then put it back up with the proviso that he was going to delete in a matter of time, so anyone interested should save it. I took a snapshot.

The moderator states that there are Rodoh members who have made threats against WWII revisionists, and therefore he won't allow links to Rodoh.






The initial thread deletion was protested by a couple Codoh members:





The Codoh moderator didn't delete the thread because he thought the subject matter was irrelevant. But I guess there are people on this forum who rub him the wrong way. Any idea what he means about doxxing and threats from Rodoh members?

[Scott]

When I posted the above I also posted a sister thread on Codoh linking to this thread, and the moderator saw fit to delete it. He deleted it, then put it back up with the proviso that he was going to delete in a matter of time, so anyone interested should save it. I took a snapshot.

The moderator states that there are Rodoh members who have made threats against WWII revisionists, and therefore he won't allow links to Rodoh.

[...]

The initial thread deletion was protested by a couple Codoh members:

[...]

The Codoh moderator didn't delete the thread because he thought the subject matter was irrelevant. But I guess there are people on this forum who rub him the wrong way. Any idea what he means about doxxing and threats from Rodoh members?

Yeah, basically, the lead moderator Hannover over at CODOH got in a big tiff about two decades ago with Dr. Andrew Mathis who sometimes posts here at RODOH (which wasn't even founded until about May of 2003).

As I recall, a UCLA Library Assistant (now long retired) was fired back around 2001 for using University e-mail to spam anti-Zionist arguments during a flurry of e-mails and arguments about the fallout over the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But this person filed a grievance with his Union and they soon got his job back because his freedom-of-speech was grossly violated and he was treated disparately. (California is not a right-to-work state so some Union members there might have recourse to get redress of grievances.)

As I see it, what the Library Assistant did wrong was use the institution's e-mails to spread political propaganda amongst his coworkers, and he was hardly alone but was singled out. All of this was readily in the public newspapers, so Mathis did not reveal much if somebody knows how to use Google search.

Btw, about thirty years ago, I used to be a Union shop steward myself while I was a Broadcast Engineer for a TV station in a right-to-work state where Unions typically have little power, and I filed a few grievances and Unfair Labor Practices with the National Labor Relations Board whenever I thought some injustice was involved.

But, as I learned, you have to be able to actually PROVE your unlawful discrimination case and that is very hard to do. I really only won one case, and that was an egregious unlawful termination. And I am quite proud of that because without my efforts and the Union support, the guy would have had no recourse whatsoever.

So this person at the UCLA Library was lucky to have a strong Union to back him up. But in the last almost twenty years, the Universities in the United States have become overt hotbeds of Communist activity that are promoted by University senior staff and administration and even corporate donors who are wedded to the ideology of Globalization and Critical-Race Theory. They hated Trump basically because he was popular with White working people.

And elsewhere in the U.S., even private social media can be used to doxx and blacklist people and sometimes get them dismissed from their jobs. These Leftists do not believe in free-speech or even old-fashioned class-warfare as such, just Kill Whitey. The Universities now valorize the Black clenched-fist Communist salute. But if somebody was caught in public or photographed in social media doing a stiff-armed Hitler greeting, they would no doubt be summarily sacked.

But there was some free-speech left in the country and on a University campus even after 9/11/2001. People like Hannover went to bat for Palestinians. So not long after 9/11 and the U.S. response to it, the Institute for Historical Review picketed the Israeli embassy building in Los Angeles and they published a photograph of their participants doing so around this time. One such person shown in the IHR news publication was said by Dr. Mathis to be the CODOH moderator Hannover. I had heard that rumor too and said so.

I kind of got into the middle of this ongoing feud (still going on today, it seems) because I did not censor any of it discussed at RODOH. I figured that if Hannover had something to say in response to Mathis he could freely come over to RODOH and do so.

Nowadays since freedom-of-speech is even more under threat and people can get fired just for saying something in completely non-work-related social media such as: "St. George Floyd actually overdosed on fentanyl and methamphetamine and (per the man's autopsy) was NOT choked by Minneapolis Police officers in 2020 who are being charged with murder."

Thus I have had to be more careful, and unfortunately have had to delete some content that people post, and to also reduce baiting and trolling, especially in the main subforums. I don't like to have to do this and I do try to keep it minimal.

In any case, I am not aware of any threats made to anybody here at RODOH.