“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Ɯbermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarÄ«, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

What makes someone a Holocaust denier?

My comments are posted after the article below:


What makes someone a Holocaust denier?

By Christopher Beam

Posted Friday, Feb. 6, 2009

Ultraconservative Catholic bishop Richard Williamson apologized to the pope this week for his "imprudent remarks" concerning the Holocaust but did not recant. The bishop accepts that some Jews died in concentration camps but claims that fewer than 300,000 were killed, rather than 6 million, and he denies that the Nazis used gas chambers. To be a Holocaust denier, do you have to deny the whole thing?

No. There's no single definition of Holocaust denial or "revisionism," but scholars generally agree that it means claiming that the Nazis had no official policy to exterminate Jews, that the gas chambers are a myth, or that the figure of 6 million murdered Jews is a gross exaggeration. At the extreme, denial can mean hiding or suppressing evidence of the Holocaust by destroying gas chambers, as the Nazis did at the end of World War II, or by burning documents. But denial can also take the form of relativization—saying that, yes, the Nazis killed Jews, but the killings of Gypsies, Poles, and Jehovah's Witnesses were just as bad.

That said, there are plenty of aspects of the Holocaust that are still hotly debated by historians without charges of denial being tossed around. One is the exact number of Jews killed. Most historians agree it was somewhere between 5 million and 7 million. (Solid documentary evidence exists for about 5.3 million deaths.) But the numbers vary because of the circumstances under which some of the killings occurred. For example, no one knows precisely how many Jews were evacuated when the Soviet army retreated from the western regions of the USSR under German attack, or whether they were killed. Legitimate debate also continues over how widespread Jewish resistance was against the Nazis.

The closest thing to a codified definition of Holocaust denial is found in European law. Thirteen countries have laws banning Holocaust denial, including Austria, Germany, France, Israel, and Switzerland. (Other countries, like Canada, prohibit hate speech against any "identifiable group," including Jews, but don't refer specifically to the Holocaust.) Most of the laws are broad, like the Czech Republic's law punishing the "person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify Nazi or Communist genocide or other crimes of Nazis or Communists." In Israel, any published statement of "praise or sympathy for or identification with" the Nazis is a crime. Germany requires that the statement be part of a "public incitement." Those found guilty of Holocaust denial might get jail time—from six months to five years—or a hefty fine.

Anti-denial laws have resulted in some high-profile trials. In 2006, British historian David Irving was sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison for denying the existence of gas chambers in a 1989 speech. (He pleaded guilty and told the court he had changed his views.) In 2007, denier Ernst Zundel was convicted on 14 counts in Germany and sentenced to five years in jail. German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler was sentenced to prison in 2006 for denying the Holocaust. He gave a Sieg Heil upon arriving at the prison, for which he was put on a trial again in 2007.

He also gave an interview to Vanity Fair in which he said "the systematic extermination of Jews in Auschwitz is a lie." The German interviewer brought charges.

Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2210632/



Google the distinction between "intentionalist" and "instrumentalist" debates among "kosher" holocaust historians.

Basically the "intentionalists" say Hitler and the Nazis planned to physically exterminate Jews from the get-go.

Basically the "instrumentalists" concede that there was not a specific policy of extermination, that the intention was originally deportation, then segregation when deportation was not completely possible, then they descend into quibbling where and when (or if) internment camps became "death camps" and/or if the largescale death of Jews in camps was a side-effect or systematic extermination. They also quibble greatly about numbers and estimated casualties.

Even Michael Shermer and others concede that the "intentionalist" school of thought is no longer adhered to by most so-called "legitimate" holocaust historians.

Basically revisionists belong to the "instramentalist" school of thought and are basically questioning the same "facts" and figures that "kosher" holocaust historians are questioning. The crucial difference is the PERCIEVED motive. If you are PERCIEVED to be an "anti-semite" in your orientation or motives for inquiry, you will be rubber-stamped "Denier" and thrown into the bin marked "crimethink" even though you are basically asking the same questions as kosher historians. No revisionist that I am aware of self-applies the term "Denier."

The "denier" epithet is an over-simplified PR device to make it more efficient to categorize and dismiss people asking uncomfortable questions and who are not sufficiently Judeophile to gain the approval of the "intelletual establishment" or the academc-media complex, largely dominated by Jews and Marxists of various species.

Also note how unevenly the "human rights" pathos is applied to Nazis and "Fascists" in contrast to Marxist and Communist regimes whose wholesale slaughter is acknowledged even by the "kosher" intelligentsia.

It is also worth noting that Deborah Lipstadt in her book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST explicitly avoids discussing this distinction in her rush to accuse and condemn everyone on her blacklist of anti-semitism.

She explicitly states "without going into the 'intentionlist' vs. 'instrumentalist' debate..." repeatedly if I remember correctly, which is lazy and/or sleazy because it bears crucially on what would be any "honest" discussion of "revisionism" ... but of course most of us here realize she has no interest in honest discussion or debate, only in suppressing honest discussion and debate that calls certain agendas into question.



Hadding said...

"For example, no one knows precisely how many Jews were evacuated when the Soviet army retreated from the western regions of the USSR under German attack, or whether they were killed."

This is a huge concession, because the biggest concentration of Jews in Europe was in Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland. It is the thesis of Walter Sanning's The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, published by the IHR (Noontide Press) that the Jews were moslty evacuated and therefore should not be presumed as Holocaust victims; yet here is a journalist supposedly condemning "Holocaust Denial" while endorsing the thesis of a "denier."

Hadding said...

The Functionalists have incorporated some Revisionist observations, most notably the dearth of any paper trail documenting the Holocaust (David Irving, who doesn't call himself a revisionist but is called a "denier" by the Holocaustians, was already saying in the 1970s that very few Germans could have known about the gas chambers because there was no paper trail.) but they still maintain that Jews were gassed, because the gas-chambers are what represent systematic slaughter, and they also account for about 5 of the alleged 6 million figure. The Functionalists maintain the gas-chamber story because without it there is essentially no Holocaust.

Here is Professor Robert Faurisson discussing Raul Hilberg, the inventor of the "functionalist" interpretation of the Holocaust Story:

What I know is that the situation of Raul Hilberg is perfectly tragic. This man is, I think, something like seventy-five today. This man in 1948 began to work on what today we call the Holocaust. In 1961 he published the first edition of his book (The Destruction of the European Jews). In that book he dared to say, at that time, that there were two orders coming from Hitler to kill the Jews. He said that there was a plan to kill the Jews, that there were instructions given to kill the Jews, and so on.

And, in 1985, came the tragedy of Raul Hilberg when he was on the witness stand. Because at that time, he had really changed his story and he was ready to publish the second edition of his book. A really different one, which appeared in the middle of 1985. To give you an example of how much he changed his story, this very man who had said that there were two orders from Hitler to kill the Jews and who was asked to show those orders was, of course, unable to show them. And he came up with a strange theory which is this one: he said that we don't need to suppose that there was an order, or orders, we don't need to think that there was a plan, no.

What happened was, according to the new Hilberg, "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mindreading by a far-flung bureaucracy", meaning the German bureaucracy! Which means that it is an explanation by telepathy! This man, supposed to be a scholar, first said that he had proofs, and then he had to confess that there were no proofs, but "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy". This is a total defeat.

At one point, I remember, all those who attended the trial remember very well, Hilberg said, "I am at a loss."

Q: I remember reading that actually, in Michael Hoffinan's book.

A: That is about Raul Hilberg. That's the only thing that I can say. Recently he published a book, a tiny book, the title being something like

Sources of Holocaust Research: An Analysis. You should read it. Nothing. It's like a void, totally void. You have nothing. Nothing is left. All this formidable building, hammered. It is like the towers in New York. The tower of Raul Hilberg does not exist anymore. http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF020622.html

JJones said...

Over 6,000,000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, and even many more millions of Jews suffered from persecution short-of-death from the Nazis. Approximately 5,000,000 "Non-Jews" were also slaughtered by the Nazis, including 100,000 homosexuals, 200,000 gypsies, and 200,000 disabled persons.

Compare those "millions" of victims with the "handful" of Jehovah's Witnesses. There were only approximately 6000 Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany during the 1930s-40s. While many of those 6000 German JWs were repeatedly arrested during the 1930s and 1940s, only a fraction were jailed or imprisoned for any significant length of time. Only about 200-300 German JWs lost their lives, and the majority of those died from any number of causes other than having been executed. Approximately 1000 JWs from other European countries lost their lives while incarcerated by the Nazis.

During that same time period, there were more Jehovah's Witnesses arrested and jailed in the United States than in Germany. In fact, from 1941 until 1945, approximately 4500 American Jehovah's Witnesses "elected" to go to prison rather than serve in the U.S. Military and go fight against those same Nazis who were committing those atrocities.

Approximately 3000 of those 4500 American JWs were even offered "conscientious objector" status, in which they were offered "non-combatant" work as a substitute, but 99% of those JWs refused to even help out that much.

In fact, it is an insult to mention Jehovah's Witnesses alongside Jewish Holocaust victims given that Jehovah's Witnesses view the Jews much as did the Nazis.

The WatchTower Society teaches its own version of "replacement theology", which says that GOD rejected the Jews as His "chosen people", and replaced them with today's "Jehovah's Witnesses". In fact, the title "Jehovah's Witnesses" was originally applied to the Jews by the Prophet Isaiah, and is even quoted on the wall at the entrance to the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.

The WatchTower Society, in calling its own members "Jehovah's Witnesses" is attempting to steal that designation away from the Jews. The WatchTower Society even teaches that all of the Bible's promises of restoration for the Jewish people now belongs to the followers of the WatchTower Society.