Is an intermediate/compromise position viable?

What other genuine independent chemist has done this level of investigation?

This is a circular argument assuming the truth of the premise a priori.

Peer review would put those reviewers in legal jeopardy; I think you can understand the issues. Experts can be wrong but the situation precludes scientific investigation.

Yes a chemist would have the same issues. Discussing Germars discourse and then reverting to alleged historical evidence unproven is asinine. This is the elliptical reasoning which defines trolling.

You are well aware that Birkenau like all camps was transit; there were typhus epidemics and other greebies none of us would like to ingest.

You are also aware of the huge number of Zwangarbeitslager in the Ostland, Ukraine and Austria, the total amounting to about a thousand or so. Stop going over old ground.

Please show the forum the hundred of independent historians that have studied this subject matter. Look forward to your response.

Rudolf showed the cyanide gassing claim to be fake. The historical evidence you speak of is found wanting and discussed in th is forum.


Throwing names around means nothing. Most holocaust historians are Jewish as is Dr Terry; they are not independent. Either way talk about their work bit by bit without going over discussed ground over and over again. This is a discussion forum not a carousel.

Hello Gibson,

The original Post is a very good one. These are very good questions. My answer is that I don't think there is an Orthodox position on the Holocaust and I don't think there should be. This is not the way that knowledge works in the real world.

I'm a bit tardy coming onto this thread, but I think the first thing to do when accused of dabbling in "DENIAL" is to ask what precisely is meant by the Holocaust, and what is supposed to be getting denied.

I think Fritz Berg summed up what the essential core is with his simple statement:



This is hugely important because it is far less fuzzy than loaded terms like Holocaust or Genocide.

We should think of History closer to how we think of the Scientific Method, which is to say a set of constantly-revised paradigms that approximate the truth of "How It Really Was" based on old and new evidence and testable hypotheses.

History is fuzzier than Engineering since much of it consists of points-of-view, and some of it cannot be replicated or easily put into practice. But the intellectual methodology must always be OPEN to question what we think we know.

The door must always be open investigate the mysteries, regardless of who may like or not like it. We can leave Theology or Orthodoxy for other realms of thought and what we think that we know about the world and cosmos.

This means that you cannot truly know something if you are not allowed to QUESTION it and to TEST it ─ even down to its foundations from time to time. Until the Enlightenment, this was rarely an accepted way of thinking. It is easy to demonize even today.

A lot has been said by how awful those Thought-Criminals are who doubt the Holocaust_TM, and this is even criminalized by black-letter-law in some countries, but that still does not make it more TRUE. Even something as straightforward as Chemistry can be extremely reductionist, but imagine if theoretical Chemistry or Physics were constrained by something like Holocaust dogma. The real world just does not work that way.

Revisionism is essentially the Scientific Method, and those who think that Revisionism is the enemy are simply ignorant. Historiography, like any other epistemological pursuit, needs rigor and what Prof. Robert Faurisson called Exactitude. If that is not possible, then we have nothing more than Alchemy or even worse, Mythology. Intellectual integrity demands free-speech and honest academic freedom.

Over at Klownz, Dr. Nick Terry has written a couple of recent posts about how Revisionism is dead. He notes that most of the major Revisionists are either dead like Robert Faurisson or Fritz Berg, or retired like Jürgen Graf or Arthur Butz. And the most prolific Revisionist of them all, Carlo Mattogno is reaching retirement.

He doesn't mention this but scientist Germar Rudolf has recently resigned from Castle Hill Publishers, which is being helmed now by freelance journalist Michael Santomauro. This is not unexpected because Germany won't renew Germar's passport, and the United States won't proceed with his U.S. citizenship application, or even renew his residency "Green" card. This means that he is vulnerable to deportation and exile to his place of birth (Germany) where he will no doubt be imprisoned for Thoughtcrime. Germar Rudolf, who has an American-born family, has reputedly had to stop his hobby and go into hiding. He can be deported for jaywalking or at any whim and they will call it a criminal matter.

The year 2022 at Castle Hill Publishers.

So Nick Terry is against prosecuting Deniers but he easily dismisses persecutions of them in the real world and academia. The Exeter lecturer wonders why there are not any longer any competent amateurs in the field when it is difficult to do any kind of Revisionist research at all on the Holocaust.

Even podcasts that discuss the taboo Holocaust subject critically have their credit card processors accessed cancelled. What scholarly journal can exist without normal subscriptions or at the teat of Jewish financing?

And with the increasing levels of public services handled not by the government ─ which must lawfully respect the First Amendment, but by private global corporatocracies like Amazon ─ it is not hard to imagine a time not far into the future when Holodeniers not only do not have access to the Internet but even basic household utilities or any other services. We are all just kooks living in a cabin like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

In the last two decades, I have personally seen the field of academic Librarianship itself turn increasingly "woke" and Marxist. The Jacobin mask really fell off in 2016 when Trump was elected on Populist rhetoric and the Liberals cried foul on "White supremacy." 

Where once Universities had plenty of Liberal professors who at least had liberal thoughts regarding ideas, they now are Critical Race Theory anti-White ideologues.

Even the University Administrators are dyed-in-the-wool Commies nowadays. No, they don't look like uniformed Checka police, just older versions of 1960s scruffy rabble or campus radicalinskys, or green-haired freaks like the recent panqueer Department of Energy nuclear waste official that got dismissed (finally) after being caught multiple times stealing women's luggage at the airport. As Chairman Mao predicted, the Commies are fulfilling their "Long March through the Institutions" apace. I used to think that maybe the Nazis went too far with the Nuremberg Laws but now I am not so sure.

This Counter-Currents article by Jim Goad, the author of the Redneck Manifesto speaks for itself:

The Radioactive Drag Fag Who Stole a Lady's Bag.

I have managed to keep a low profile in the last two decades only because I don't use social media or write articles on edgy websites or appear on podcasts. I am also sincerely willing to keep an open dialog with anybody, including the Jews, on what did and didn't happened during World War II.

I have been critical of anybody, including Revisionists, when or if I think they are wrong. I have been extremely critical of Fred Leuchter, for example.

And I have little regard for the Revisionist Lite position that, yes, Auschwitz was a big lie ─ but the Reinhardt Camps, those are the real deal. I do respect David Cole and David Irving, but I don't agree with them on many things.

There was a good November 1, 2022 article on the Counter-Currents site by Beau Albrecht that I would encourage people here to read. I don't think it is behind a paywall. I also have a long comment at the end of the article where I discuss this aspect of the Holocaust / Holo-Hoax historiography.

David Cole and the Holocaust Narrative.

In my multiple comments, I stress that there need not be an absolute conclusion made about revising the Holocaust, but the ability to at least discuss it openly is essential. I do not consider Revisionism to be a "Movement." Science does not work that way. But the subject might be inescapable nonetheless because it touches on essential political and cultural questions.

Many cold cases are solved by science. The bodies of the Romanov family, murdered by the Bolsheviks at Yekaterinburg were identified though DNS analysis by blood given by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. Geology the study of ancient rocks millions of years old defies that statement.

There is an attempt by those with integrity to deal with one issue at a time; this might explain why people who are "believers" constantly derail into other topics. If an alleged historical event claims that people were murdered by say guillotine and it was shown the people were hanged there are issues with the original narrative presented.

The historical method as described by Nesie has the following epistemological problems:

• Historians relies on indirect and uncontrollable evidence that the past has left behind.
• All historians can do is interpret; they construct plausible meanings from the evidence that the past has left behind.
  In many instances these are hypothetical constructs. There is the interpretation of historical events followed by the personal biases of interpretation by the historian.
• The writing of history is not a photograph or a film of what happened but entirely based on the preconceptions of the historian.

There are many examples of faked histories:

The Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria weren’t the names of Christopher Columbus’s ships
Martin Luther did not nail his proclamation to the church door.
Maire Antoinette did not say "let them eat cake"
Van Gogh did no cut off his ear.