One Man’s Road to “Holocaust” Revisionism

by Giuseppe Furioso

Saluta vitam tuam.
Non licet convertere.
Nobis dormientibus.
Spectaberis gerere te,
quam optime,
praesta terga naturae
omnes optant mundum regere.

Why am I doing this, good people?

Why am I recklessly making trouble for myself? The Liberal Party of Canada has appointed Mark Carnage our (touch wood) “Interim” Prime Minister, although realistically speaking and despicable though he is, all of the contestants were straight out of Dante’s Inferno. Like Frodo I can think of a number of endings to this (both for Canadians in general and me personally), and all of them dark and unpleasant. Purportedly Bill 63, “The On-Line Harms Act” has died on the order table, but there’s nothing preventing Mark from maintaining a liberal government until October 20, 2025 — assuming something doesn’t happen to allow him to suspend elections “for the duration” — and in the meantime I expect a government that will make Keir Starmer’s regime in The United Kingdom look like a monument to probity and restraint.

Thus why am I reposting this article?

Well… An email this evening from Quora, “Why do they lie about the Holocaust?”, which took me directly to one Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty (but you’ll have to scroll down to find him) is one reason. I started to answer him, but discarded my response: It was pointless. Another reason I suppose was Craig Nelsen’s latest post which arrived this morning; “It’s Weird How It Took 20 Years for Anyone To Notice Six Million Jews Were Missing”, and yet another was trying to find where Binky LaRue posted it, and not being able to find it, and it gave me absolute fits of frustration! Finally found his link at the end of “The Holocaust Hoax Meme Page”, which took me to Ava Wolfe’s article, but she now wants money for it, and I’m poor — and this article is worth everyone’s attention. Thus a search on Yandex for “One Man’s Guide to Holocaust Revisionism” found it. (Google of course, will only list fact-checkers. 🙄)

But mostly, as I was putting this together, “accidentally” (my subconscious can be very clever) rediscovering an article I reposted on February 15 from The Daily Beagle, and photographs like this:

Jesus wept…

“Is it not enough to know that they are servants of The Enemy?” answered Gildor. “Flee them! Speak no words to them! They are deadly. Ask no more of me! But my heart forbodes that, ere all is ended, you, Frodo son of Drogo, will know more of these fell things than Gildor Inglorion. May Elbereth protect you!”

Already in the United Kingdom you face years’ imprisonment for speaking out of turn. Craig Nelsen warns of the legislation Donald Trump & Company are working on that — 1st Amendment be damned — “it is only a matter of time before they start arresting antisemites. And at that point it is all over. For everyone.” In Canada, I suspect a revival under Mark Carnage of the “On-Line Harms Act” which provides for life imprisonment… for Thought Crime, in the manner of The Minority Report; Binky LaRue meanwhile warns repeatedly of the dangers of “Holocaust Denial”, and some time ago issued an encapsulation of a homily from Jeff Berwick.

“Both of these simple facts have been widely accepted in America throughout my entire lifetime. But combine them together with the relatively tiny size of worldwide Jewry, around 16 million prior to World War II, and the inescapable conclusion is that in per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.”

— Ron Unz: “American Pravda: Holocaust Denial”

“A religion based upon the principle of “Love Thy Neighbor” may or may not be workable in practice, but a religion based upon “Hate Thy Neighbor” might have long-term cultural ripple effects that extend far beyond the direct community of the deeply pious. If nearly all Jews for a thousand or two thousand years were taught to feel a seething hatred toward all non-Jews and also developed an enormous infrastructure of cultural dishonesty to mask that attitude, it is difficult to believe that such an unfortunate history has had absolutely no consequences for our present-day world, or that of the relatively recent past.”

— Ron Unz: “American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion”

I in turn issue a warning against any false notions of solidarity with and compassion for, a highly privileged and malevolently manipulative group that — taken collectively — simply do not deserve either, as they have repeatedly demonstrated. And I’ll end with re-iterating Robert Louis Stevenson’s warning:

Until next time,
Captain Roy Harkness

The Holocaust Tale consists of three basic elements: (1) Approximately six million Jews were deliberately killed by National Socialist Germany. (2) These killings were part of a state-sponsored program on the part of the Third Reich whose ultimate goal was the total eradication of the Jewish people. (3) The bulk of these murders took place in special death camps where the principal mechanism of execution was the homicidal gas chamber that utilized Zyklon B, a commercial pesticide whose active ingredient was hydrogen cyanide.

That the Third Reich possessed the technological and administrative means to carry out such a vast amount of killing there is little doubt. The Soviet Union with significantly inferior assets in these areas was able to kill far greater numbers of human beings. Furthermore, the armies of the Third Reich succeeded in killing at least ten million of its heavily armed military opponents in the course of World War 2. Hence the killing of six million unarmed civilians should not have presented any unique problems to such an industrially advanced and bureaucratically efficient state as World War 2 Germany; on the contrary, it would have been far easier than the wartime killing that no one disputes.

My doubts about the Holocaust are not centered on whether it could have happened, but on whether it did happen. In fact many of the doubts that I have are a direct consequence of the fact that I have no doubt that it actually could have happened… but certainly not in the ways that have been described thus far in the “official” literature.

It is part of the Western tradition in legal, scientific, and intellectual matters that those asserting something have the burden of proof and that those who disagree are not required to provide evidence. This tradition, however, has been turned on its head regarding the Holocaust since the “historical truth” of the Holocaust has been posited in advance. Furthermore, even to express doubts can result in criminal penalties in at least 11 so-called democratic countries and the ruining of lives and careers in numerous others.

Listed below are some of the “problems” I have with the Holocaust, in no particular order.

1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these “survivors” were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited for their war effort. The official narrative thus suggests there was no logical reason for them to be kept alive. The very existence of more than a million survivors even more than half a century later, contradicts one of the basic components of the Holocaust; i.e., that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on.

2) Why is there no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill’s six-volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower, or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about that war? Keep in mind that all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the Holocaust had been allegedly proven by the Nuremberg Trials. With regard to the Holocaust, the silence of these cognoscenti is deafening!

3) What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp?

4) Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far-flung empire — thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling stock, while fighting a war on two fronts — to deliver people to “death camps” hundreds of miles away who were then executed upon arrival? Wouldn’t a bullet on the spot have appealed to the legendary German sense of efficiency?

5) Why after eighty years have historians been unable to come up with a single German document that points to said Holocaust? Should we believe the likes of Raul Hilberg, who says that in the place of written orders there was an “incredible meeting of the minds” by the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude?

6) How come it is still insisted upon that six million Jews were killed, when the official Jewish death toll at Auschwitz, the “flagship” camp of the official narrative, has been reduced from an immediate post-war figure of three million, to a figure of somewhat less than one million? Why do many respond to this observation by saying, “What’s the difference whether it’s three million or one million?” The answer is that the difference is two million. Another difference is that saying so can get you three years in an Austrian jail… just ask David Irving!

7) All of Germany’s wartime codes were compromised, including the one used to send daily reports from Auschwitz to Berlin. The transcripts of these messages make no mention of mass executions, nor even remotely suggest a genocidal program in progress. Furthermore, it has been insisted that the Germans used euphemisms when discussing their extermination program (e.g., “final solution,” “special treatment,” “resettlement,” etc.) Why was it necessary for them to use such language when talking to one another, unless they thought their codes had been cracked by the Allies — something for which there is no other evidence? And, if they did think their codes had been cracked, why did they keep using them for years, unchanged?

8 ) The water table at Auschwitz lies a mere 18 inches below the surface, which makes the narrative’s claims of huge burning pits for the disposal of tens of thousands of bodies totally untenable.

9) Initially, claims were made that mass executions in homicidal gas chambers had taken place in camps located within the boundaries of the old Reich (e.g., Dachau, Bergen-Belsen). The “evidence” to that effect was every bit as compelling as what was offered for other camps, located in occupied Poland. Yet, without explanation, in the early 1960s we were told that the original story was untrue and that all the “death camps” were located in the East (i.e., Poland) outside (some would say “conveniently outside”) of the probing eyes of Western scholars, being behind the Iron Curtain.

10) No one has been able to reconcile the narrative’s “eyewitness accounts” that personnel entered the gas chambers after twenty minutes without any protective gear, with the fact that Zyklon B was a “time release” fumigant that would have had a lethal capability for at least another twenty-four hours. (Even after 24 hours the corpses would have themselves remained sufficiently contaminated by the hydrogen cyanide gas that they might well have killed workers who touched them who weren’t wearing protective gear.)

11) Why do we no longer hear claims that the Germans manufactured soap, lampshades, and riding britches from the bodies of dead Jews — could it be that in the light of modern forensics and DNA tests, these claims are now totally untenable?

12) Why do we no longer hear claims that huge numbers of Jews were exterminated using massive “steam chambers” or pedal-driven “brain-bashing machines,” or electrocuted while standing on huge underwater metal grids? Such questionable testimony was presented at Nuremberg — testimony that sent men to the gallows.

14) Elie Wiesel has been described as “the Apostle of Remembrance” yet in his memoir, Night which deals his stay at Auschwitz, he makes no mention of the now-infamous homicidal gas chambers. Isn’t this a bit like one of the Christian Gospels making no mention of the cross?

15) Virtually every survivor who claimed after the war to have been examined at Auschwitz said that he or she was examined by the infamous Dr. Mengele.

16) According to survivor testimony, hundreds of thousands of Jews were executed at Treblinka and then buried in mass graves in the surrounding area. Why is it, then, that extensive sonar probing of these supposed mass burial grounds revealed that the entire area has remained undisturbed since at least the last ice age?

17) “Proof” of the Holocaust rests primarily on “survivor testimony”; there is little if any hard evidence. The best of this has been described by Jean Claude Pressac as merely “criminal traces.” Even Judge Grey, who presided at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, commented that he was surprised the evidence pointing to the Holocaust was “extremely thin.” To paraphrase Arthur Butz, “a crime of this magnitude would have left a mountain of evidence” — where is it?

18) Why has questioning the official Holocaust narrative been criminalized in at least eleven countries? What other historical fact needs the threat of prison or the destruction of one’s career to maintain itself? Should someone be sent to prison for expressing skepticism about Union or Confederate losses in the Civil War, for example? Has anyone except the Jews ever thought of such a thing?

19) Why do the official historians insist that “denying the Holocaust” is like denying slavery or saying the Earth is flat, when it is nothing of the sort? The leading revisionists are first-rate scholars who hold advanced degrees from the world’s leading universities.

20) Promoters of the official Holocaust narrative have expressed concerns that the Holocaust may not be remembered once the last survivors die. Why haven’t Civil War historians expressed similar concerns, since the last survivor of that conflict died in 1959? One could think of a thousand other examples.

21) Survivors of the Holocaust have testified that smoke billowed from the crematoria as they consumed the bodies of murdered victims — some eyewitnesses even preposterously claimed they could detect the victims’ national origins by the color of the smoke. How can any of this be reconciled with the fact that properly operating crematoria do not produce smoke of any color?

22) According to the official version of the Holocaust, hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were rounded up in mid-1944 and sent to Auschwitz, where most were gassed immediately upon arrival and their bodies disposed of by burning in huge open-air pits, using railroad ties and gasoline. Why, then, is there is no evidence of these huge funerary pyres in the high-resolution surveillance photos taken by Allied aircraft who were flying over the camp on a daily basis during this time period? Furthermore, why have no remains been found? — since open pit burning, even when gasoline is used, generates insufficient heat to totally consume a body.

23) All of the “liberated” camps were littered with corpses (as were entire German cities, a fact usually left unmentioned!); is there a single autopsy report or any other forensic evidence that shows that even a single one of these deaths was a consequence of poison gas?

24) The official death toll for the Holocaust relies exclusively on population statistics provided by Jewish sources; has any independent demographic study been produced that shows that approximately six million Jews were missing at the end of the war? (Some published sources, such as the World Almanac, in fact show no such losses.)

25) Why do the wartime inspection reports of German camps made by the International Red Cross contain no references to mass executions? — it strains credulity that such monumental numbers of killings, supposedly over a million in a single camp alone — could be hidden. The only explanations are that either these killings never happened, or that the Red Cross was complicit in a cover-up.

26) Why has there been no credible response to the Leuchter Report, which showed that the de-lousing chambers at Auschwitz contained significant traces of Zyklon B, while the alleged “extermination chambers” did not?

27) “The Holocaust was technologically possible because it happened.” Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument, which turns scholarship on its head, considered by the promoters of the Holocaust to be “historical truth,” and considered a sufficient response to the mounting revisionist evidence to the contrary?

28) What other historical truths rely to the extent that the Holocaust does on so-called “eyewitness” testimony — people, after all, can say anything, especially if they get fame and adulation and sympathy and money for doing so — and why have nearly none of these witnesses ever been cross-examined?

29) According to the official version of the Holocaust, the Jews remained ignorant of their fate until the very end — so skillful were the German fiends in deceiving their victims. How can this ignorance be reconciled with the facts that that mechanized mass murders were taking place just a few dozens or hundreds of feet away, that certain Jews were allegedly recruited to do some of the killing, and that many thousands of “eyewitnesses” stayed in the camps for years, and presumably talked with other inmates at the time before going on the lecture circuit in later years? How can this ignorance be reconciled with the fact that the Jews have historically been a highly literate and well-informed people with legendary international coordination and intelligence operations, including access to the highest echelons of numerous governments?

The Holocaust (as a capitalized proper noun) was created in 1978; as we all can discover by looking in any dictionary, encyclopedia, or history book printed before this time — simply put, the term does not exist before 1978.

Even the character played by Jewish actor Dustin Hoffman in the 1976 movie Marathon Man (screenplay by William Goldman, another Jew) never uses the term “the Holocaust.”

Here’s the plot Summary for Marathon Man (1976):

In New York City, the brother of an infamous Nazi war criminal is killed in a head-on collision car accident. Shortly thereafter, members of a covert US government group called “The Division” begin to be murdered one by one. When the brother to one Division member sees his brother knifed to death, it is revealed that former SS dentist Szell, “the White Angel” of Auschwitz, is wrapping up loose ends to smuggle priceless diamonds from the United States.

A 1976 Hollywood movie, made by Jews, about an SS dentist from Auschwitz — and the word “Holocaust” is never uttered? 🤔💩