Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

This board is open for all subject matters. Post information and discussion materials about open-debate and censorship on other boards (including this one) here. Memory Hole 2 is a RODOH subforum for alternate perspectives.
Post Reply
Daniel
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:38 am
Contact:

Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by Daniel » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:38 am

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.

User avatar
NSDAP
Posts: 1901
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:33 am

Re: Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by NSDAP » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:38 am

Daniel wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:38 am
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.
Wir haben dich nie verlassen, wir brauchten Platz. Neue Nazis sind nicht wir. Wir lassen dich nie gehen, also bitte vertraue uns ... NSDAP

Daniel
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:38 am
Contact:

Re: Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by Daniel » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:44 pm

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.

User avatar
k0nsl
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:48 pm
Location: Scandinavia
Contact:

Re: Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by k0nsl » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:52 pm

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
Daniel wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:38 am
[...]

Rudolf seems very naive about the Jewish people, where Faurisson displays a better understanding of their nature.
The Jew is a falsifier and a cheat! The Jew is congenitally corrupt! Shun the Jew! — Telemachus Timayenis, The American Jew: An Expose of His Career‎ (1888)

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 6956
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:59 am
Contact:

Re: Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by been-there » Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:04 pm

Daniel wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:38 am
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):
The Hitch wrote:“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
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:38 am
Contact:

Re: Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by Daniel » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:19 pm

k0nsl wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:52 pm
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
Daniel wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:38 am
[...]

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
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:38 am
Contact:

Re: Some Thoughts about Dissecting the Holocaust, Faurisson, Rudolf

Post by Daniel » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:46 pm

been-there wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:04 pm

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):
The Hitch wrote:“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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest