Archive/File: holocaust denial.guide Last-Modified: 1994/11/06 From: Michael Philips
Date: 11 Oct 94 07:23 PDT Subject: Protocols of Revisionism The Revisionist Guidebook (I) After browsing through alt.revisionism posts over the last few months, I've figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy. 1. Always substitute ridicule for rationality, and speculation for research. Say words to the effect of, "It's too incredible to have happened, therefore it didn't." When it is pointed out to you that your post is merely unsubstantiated assertion, ignore it. 2. Don't bog down your posts with pesky citations -- what a hassle! Just post fact-free accusations. When someone requests citations from you, ignore them. 3. Always claim that eyewitness testimony of the Holocaust is not credible, but don't let that stop you from referring to your own eyewitnesses. When someone points out that you are being hypocritical, ignore them. 4. Claim that all documents that are evidence of the Holocaust are forged, but don't let that stop you from referring to parts of the same documents that might support your own views. When someone points out that you are being hypocritical, ignore them. 5. Select one or two colorful quotations -- such as "jumping buckets of flesh" or "geysers of blood" -- from the thousands of eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust. Then repeat them ad nauseam and sneer at them for their seeming inconceivability. This tactic can be enhanced by simultaneously accusing the Holocaust historians of "obsessing on small details." When the historians provide explanations for the context of the quotations, ignore them and/or intensify the unsubstantiated ridicule. 6. At all costs, avoid getting into a direct argument over the veracity of the Himmler speeches or the internal Nazi memos. You will not be able to refute them, and if you try you'll get trounced, thereby making all revisionists look bad. Just ignore them. 7. Argue that the Holocaust is a hoax that was perpetrated at the end of WWII by nameless politicians in Washington DC, nameless people in the media, and nameless people in Hollywood. When asked for names, dates, and procedures by which the thousands of supposedly phony Holocaust eyewitnesses were coordinated, ignore the question. 8. Use idiotic logic, arguing that when people speak out against anti-semitism they are actually generating MORE anti-semitism (not on YOUR part, of course); or that promoting awareness of the Holocaust actually results in people disbelieving it because they are tired of hearing about it. BEWARE: This argument is a double- edged sword -- since YOU want people to doubt the Holocaust, by the above logic, those who over-promote awareness of it are actually helping you out, so you shouldn't really try to dissuade them. But this is probably too subtle for you to comprehend. Sorry. Ignore it. 9. Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmie Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it. 10. Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII. Don't worry if, in the future, a full-scale model IS constructed somewhere. Simply argue that it's only a model and that its existence does not mean that real gas chambers ever existed. When it is pointed out to you that what the HMM does or does not do has nothing to do with whether gas chambers existed, just say yes it does. 11. If a quote doesn't suit you, remove the parts you don't like, thereby changing the meaning of the quote to support whatever it is you want it to support. For example, the quote "Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them," can become, "...tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune..." When your distortion of the truth is pointed out to you, ignore it. 12. State that although you are anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti- Mossad, anti-Spielberg, anti-Talmud, anti-AIPAC, anti-Passover, anti- alleged Jewish over-representation in (variously) capitalism or communism, that does not have anything to do with your "reasoned" and "objective" denial of the Holocaust. Also state that you are not anti-semitic. When someone points out that the hoax argument essentially appeals to those people who are already predisposed to anti-semitism, ignore them. 13. Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there were no gas chambers there. 14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. Explain that you are not a revisionist, merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including the Holocaust stories (ALL of them), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself exactly what took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements. 15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it. 16. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them. 17. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except other revisionists will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be). Revisionist Guidebook (II) The Revisionist Guidebook is an occaisionally updated compilation of tools and techniques you can use to act just like the revisionists on this newsgroup and delude yourself into thinking you are having an impact on something (e.g. history, dimwitted readers of the group, etc.) 18. Intentionally blur the line between Nazis and Germans. Never mind that the German people themselves were victims of the Nazis. Just pretend that the Holocaust believers' condemnation of Nazis applies to ALL Germans. Even though the believers explicitly limit their condemnations to Nazis, pretend to be oblivious of this and keep implying that they are slighting all Germans. That way, maybe you can get normal Germans to take offense at the Holocaust believers. Heh heh! Pretty sneaky, eh? Yes, it's dishonest, but in a desperate venture like revisionism, that shouldn't stop you. 19. Here's a classic: Demand that the believers provide the single best piece of evidence that the Nazis wrote down a plan calling for the Jews to be exterminated in gas chambers. Someone will probably point out the idiocy of your post -- that while there were indeed orders to exterminate the Jews and that while many of the Jews indeed died in gas chambers, there may or may not be a piece of paper on which the Nazis said, "Let's kill all the Jews in gas chambers," and that the lack of such a piece of paper proves nothing. In response, you should argue that this bulls-eye destruction of your post completely missed the target. You can actually have a lot of fun with this approach. You can, for example, point out that while the Philadelphia Eagles had a game plan to defeat the Washington Redskins, and that while they ended up winning by a score of 31-29, there is no evidence that they had a game plan to win by a score of 31-29. Since such evidence never existed, neither did the game.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor