Holocaust Scepticism

Can you imagine a book about pornography. Would that book be pornography? I hope you are inclined to accept that it could well not be. If that one is too hard for you what about a book about sexism and misogyny, would that be sexist? If it was a hell of a lot of the high priestesses of feminism would be classed as shitlords of woman hating. Is Macbeth a play which promotes witchcraft? The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to look at something without being that which you’re looking at. OK, less obtusely, it is possible to look at holocaust denial without being a holocaust denier.

All history is myth. It has to be. That is all history that a large number of people can agree on must be mythic in its simplicity.

Saying that something is a myth doesn’t mean it isn’t true. There is a myth of the Wild West but there is plenty of genuine history of the era and those locations. Not every aspect of the myth is exactly accurate, one good reason for that is that Hollywood had to film westerns in big wide open space and scenic canyons and mesas and in reconstructed towns because real cattle country and cattle towns were still cattle country or had developed into larger cities with more than one street of saloons, brothels, newspaper offices and undertakers. We know that our myths are not completely accurate or inaccurate, they are always a mixture.

Nobody cares that we have a myth of Victorian Manchester or a myth of Dickensian London or a myth of Rome under the Borgias. We are comfortable knowing that there are a few facts and a few interesting stories and much of what we can picture of those times is due to fiction, theatre and cinema. It is quite easy to have a non-heated conversation about the myths and the truths and the unknowns about almost any period of history, nobody will get called names or lose their job. And, of course, nobody will ever expect to go to prison for arguing about historical myths.


And this is a really big but, perhaps you will allow me to suggest a Kardashian but. The Holocaust is different. If you question the myths that are known as the Holocaust they call you names. They call you a monster. They would gladly see you broken, your children taken from you, your employment terminated, all prospects of alternative employment blocked and you thrown into prison. I would hazard a guess and suggest that if they could they would spit-roast you on a bayonet over an open fire of brimstone if they could. For asking questions. For not just taking claims at face value.
There are several countries where questioning the myths of this historical period will get you thrown into prison. And truth is no defence. Seriously, the courts will not listen to evidence that you are telling the truth because they don’t care about the truth they defend the official myths. This should offend the instincts of every true believer in liberalism, civilization and common decency. I suggest that the leaders of such nations should face up to this question at every diplomatic meeting. They should be shamed at every meeting. Can I have your assurance, Mrs Merkel, that you will not be asking for my arrest if I express scepticism about anything which you have deemed to be officially beyond question? Mr Netanyahu, can I have your assurance that if any of the footballers going to play this Wednesday night in Tel Aviv question the tally at a restaurant they will not be imprisoned for hate crime for disagreeing with an official total?

I do not deny that Nazi Germany instituted mass killings and crimes against humanity. I do not deny that Nazi Germany was an evil regime which denied the humanity of people outside its own favoured group and a regime which denied the national aspirations of foreigners. I am no Nazi. I am not a fan of Adolf Hitler. I am not a Neo-Nazi or a crypto-Nazi or any other kind of Nazi. I believe that nations have the right to protect themselves from invasion and that people have a right to remain as a people, I think diversity is a good thing and it is preserved best by keeping populations separate and homogeneous not trying to blend away the diversity as rapidly as possible by making every extended family into a mixed family. Homogeneity not only maintains diversity for the future it makes for happier societies. Today the happiest communities are not those with the highest material wealth, the most passionate religion or the greatest internal diversity but those which are comfortable with their homogeneity. You could say those who are comfortable within their own skin. But dat be raycist.

I don’t have any reason to defend the Nazis, murdering scum they were, but I do have a reason to defend the truth and the quest for it. There is no point in having freedom of speech for people to say stuff the government approves of. You can do or say whatever the government likes in North Korea. Freedom requires the ability to say stuff that the government doesn’t like, that the universities don’t like, that the chattering classes don’t like, that failed comedians don’t like, that your friends don’t like. Saying that you are free to say whatever an audience of middle-class lefties like is no different from saying you are free to agree with the Supreme Leader. To be really free you must be free to say things which are unpopular.

I believe in freedom of expression. For about five years on my debate forum there was a chap from Tennessee who we all knew was sexually attracted to children. His name on the forum was Markaba, we knew his real name was Todd Nickerson. I protected him from those who would abuse him and I saw many people leave the forum in flamboyant displays of synthetic outrage. Fuck ’em. Todd was not suggesting that adults and children should have sexual relationships and he was adamant that he would never try to satisfy his sexual urges with a child even if they were literally asking for it. If freedom of expression was worth anything then Todd was exactly the sort of person who ought to be allowed to express his views. If people who are sexually attracted to children are treated as if they are already guilty of committing a crime as soon as they think about the matter then what reason do they have to try to keep by our rules? Todd fell out with me over some matter that I have forgotten, I probably suggested his desire was abnormal or something like that and he couldn’t forgive me for such illiberal thoughts. Whatever, Todd, whatever. Todd Nickerson is not a monster, but he is obsessed and very much up himself seeing himself as a martyr figure because he is honest about his feelings.

Anyway. That is what I think about freedom of expression. It is important and it is people who are expressing offensive views that need the protection of the law not further persecution.
I support freedom of expression for fools, idiots, nutters, perverts and apologists for monsters. Why? Because I am in the next trench behind them. While I am not any such thing by my own estimation I have been called those things, also the leftist’s appetite to suppress opposing views is not limited by much in the way of conscience. If they could get away with it they would suppress conservatives and Christian democrats with no more pangs of conscience than they have when they try to silence, bankrupt and socially ruin those they call the far right.

I need holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis as human shields or canaries in the mine. We all do. While they may be saying things you disagree with they still deserve legal protection to say it. Of course it is grossly offensive for somebody to say that the Nazis didn’t kill any Jews. It’s also extremely rare that anybody with any shred of credibility would say anything like that. Most of the people who deny there was any mass killing of Jews think that when their time comes they will do it properly. All I want to do is get to the truth, or at least scrape off a few layers of dried on bullshit.

The big problem with what is known as the holocaust is that there was systematic lying on behalf of the allied powers both in the war and in the aftermath. This was about creating the great myth of The Good War. The second world war stands out in history as being uniquely a one sided good war. Other wars are much more mixed. Who thinks the First World War was a thoroughly good thing? Korea? Vietnam? The invasion of Iraq? Most wars are seen as something ambivalent. The Second World War is different, it is portrayed as thoroughly good. Good versus evil. Heroes against monsters. Of course this is nonsense. There is ambiguity and ambivalence in this war too. When looking at what happened with the Soviet oppression of Eastern Europe Winston Churchill did ask himself whether he had fought against the right totalitarian state. Here is the source of many of the problems. Propaganda which helped put lead in the pencils of the allies while fighting the war was regarded as too useful to disparage after the war was over. The people in democracies which had suffered greatly because of the hardships of war had to be kept on-side, they needed to believe that it was all worth it.

Whilst I have come across the odd American who thinks the war was fought to save the Jews as the main message given to the troops I have never seen anything which supports that concept. If the populations of Russia, Britain and America were told they had to wage total war to save the Jews of Europe I can’t help thinking that they wouldn’t have sent their sons off to die for the Jews. Whilst of course that was part of the message it wasn’t in the top five reasons that people willingly joined the war effort and the populations of Britain and America were not told that the Nazi regime was systematically murdering Jews in industrialized death camps. Some say that was because they didn’t know, and others say it was because it wasn’t happening.

This subject is important. Truth matters. Always. Why is it that we regard sunlight as the best disinfectant for any public controversy except the Holocaust? There isn’t any other similar issue which is treated in this way. How does this work? How can there be an issue too hot to allow people to discuss it in case they convince somebody of something which those in power don’t want people to think? We are free to discuss the merits of abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. We are free to discuss whether or not God almighty flooded the world drowning almost all the people and taking the majority of innocent animals down as well. We are free to discuss genocidal actions in the New World, Australia and the causes of famines in India, Ireland and the Soviet Union which also feature huge death tolls and culpability of people who have surviving descendants today. The only unique thing about the genocidal episode we have been taught to call the holocaust, capital T capital H, is that we are not allowed to question it. Sorry, I don’t mean to be insensitive or anything but fuck that.

Why is there the assumption that questioning means denying and denying is caused by hatred of Jews? No, questioning means you want to know the truth. I have always been motivated by the desire to know what is true rather than what is comfortable or convenient or what makes you popular or seem smart. I don’t trim my beliefs to fit in with people, anybody. I wouldn’t have needed Eve or a serpent to tempt me. If somebody told me I was free to eat any fruit except the fruit of that tree over there I’d be straight over to it. If you are not allowed to question this story then surely this is the story you should be scrutinizing most closely.

Why do we call it the holocaust? This is a recent invention. If you look in encyclopaedias from the early 1970s the only entry for holocaust says the word means a whole burnt offering to a god, that is a whole animal sacrificed on an altar and burned whole for the delectation of the kind of god which goes for that sort of thing. Rather primitive and ancient foreign gods no doubt. The Germans were not sacrificing to any god. It is completely inappropriate to use such religious symbolism for the actions of a state murdering people because of their ethnicity. Ethnicity is the correct word here. Hitler wasn’t persecuting Jews for being Christ-killers he was persecuting them for being an ethnicity, a subgroup within Germany which considered Germans inferior and unclean, an ethnicity which promoted its own separate interests as an ethnic group. He hated Jews because Jews put helping other Jews first in their priorities, even to the detriment of Germans and Germany. The hatred was not religious and was only superficially racial or genetic. It makes no sense whatsoever for Christians in Europe and America to call Nazi persecution of Jews a holocaust, it would be like commemorating the martyrdom of the 19 jihadis on September 11th 2001. The language is wrong, the perspective is wrong. The correct description is genocidal persecution of the Jewish community. It’s too late now to change it, but I suggest we can make sure we use audible italics or air quotes whenever we use it, not in order to deny that something happened but to reject an inappropriate Judaic religious interpretation that suggests that a god was propitiated by a sacrifice. That is nonsense. People were mistreated, enslaved and murdered because of their group identity not as an act of sacrifice to a primitive tribal god. While undoubtedly many dead Jews were completely burned up there was no hint that this was making a sacrifice to a god, it was just disposing of a potential source of infection and hiding evidence of a crime.

It’s awkward but the word holocaust also has a meaning of a great tragedy and loss of life, and that meaning has increased in importance over the years. It is a figurative meaning, in the same way the word excruciating now means very intense pain of the worst possible kind rather than its original meaning of the sensation of being crucified. But just like the word excruciating the original religious meaning of the word is doing double duty with the word holocaust, especially now there is pushback when people use the word holocaust to describe a tragic loss of life that doesn’t feature six million Jews and they get criticized for doing so – how dare you use the word holocaust to describe thirty gentiles burned to death in a train carriage. This too is part of the holocaust myth. The idea that nothing can ever be compared to this event and if you do compare something to it then the only explanation for your actions is that you hate Jews and you regret that Hitler’s final solution to the Jewish problem failed. No. I will compare anything to anything else thanks very much. Freedom of expression allows people to make comparisons without being held responsible for the worst possible interpretation that somebody can put on it. The word holocaust covered tragic fires in theatres and bridge collapses in the Victorian era, before Hitler was born. We should reject the notion that there can only ever be one holocaust. While we can’t really stop using the phrase The Holocaust I think we should try to strip the word of its special status. We should reclaim the word holocaust. Words mean what people using them use them to mean. We must never let our words be stolen from us by people who want to manipulate how we think. Whenever anybody tries to tell you to use another word or a phrase so that you think the way they think you should always tell them to, with all due respect, go and fuck themselves and not to enjoy it.

Let’s take back a whole raft of other words too while we are at it. Bourgeois. Capitalist. Solidarity. Comrade. Brother. Union. Marriage. Slavery. Oppression. Minority. Majority. Gay. Gender. Race. Queer. Crippled. Colour. Words don’t mean what they decide they mean. Our usage counts as well. To me a brother is a male sibling. Only my sister can call me brother. Nobody else. You are not my brother because your beliefs are the same or because you share the same race or nationality. The word gay has had many meanings in the past, now it seems a small and over exposed minority is trying to monopolize it. No. We shouldn’t let them do it. We are the majority. That is there are more people who are not homosexually inclined than those who are sexually deviant. And yes they are deviant, they deviate from the majority and they do so under the category of sex which makes them by definition sexually deviant. But sexually deviant does not mean criminal or dangerous, or interesting or talented, it means sexually deviant and nothing more. Seriously, if you are a dull pretentious twenty-something declaring that you are sexually ambivalent or you might swing the other way doesn’t suddenly make you fascinating company or talented or worthy of a state funeral when you take an overdose. Please leave homosexuality to those who can’t make any other choice.

If you ever do allow yourself to look at the subject of the so-called holocaust with an open mind you will find that there are plenty of fully legitimate questions which should be addressed. The first issue is the number of , Jews dead. If you search for the phrase six million Jews in newspapers and books published before 1945 you will come across it many times, especially in the writings and journalism of Zionists. You won’t find the same for four million Jews or ten million Jews or two million Jews or three million Jews. Just six million. Jewish and especially Zionist writers put special significance on the figure of six million Jews. It was part of a Zionist myth that six million Jews must suffer greatly before the scattered Jews of the whole world would be able to return to their land in Zion. In the 1880s there weren’t many opportunities to write about the suffering of six million Jews, but they were taken. Clearly it was much easier to conceive of six million Jews being in peril during the time of the first world war and so the number of references to this figure increases substantially.

Of course, coincidences do happen and they don’t always mean anything. You may have recalled a large number of coincidences in the stories of the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy, both succeeded by a Johnson (an extremely common American surname), the assassins having the same number of letters in their names and a bit of a stretch this one the idea that Lincoln was shot in Ford’s Theatre and was arrested in a library while Kennedy was in a Lincoln, made by the Ford Motor Company when shot from a book repository (which is almost a library, right?) and his alleged assassin was arrested in a movie theatre. People look for coincidences and bend things to fit. So the Zionists were talking about six million Jews having to suffer before the Jews return to Zion and now in late 1945 it looks like there were death camps set up across Germany. Shall we wait until we have the careful tallies from all these sites or shall we just say that six million Jews have died and been burned up and received in heaven by Yahweh in the form of a burnt offering? That’s a no-brainer isn’t it? At least half these camps have been captured by the Soviets and they are hardly likely to want to spare the Germans from accusations of war-crimes. The folks back home want to know they have done the right thing by setting the world on fire, this story is just what they need, and just what the Zionists want and the Soviets would be happy to go along with it too. Six million Jews it is. Poison gas? Of course, we accused them of poisoning civilians with poison gas in the last war and no doubt we’ll accuse other people of poisoning civilians with poison gas in the future so that is the story. In the showers? Of course. That sounds sneakily diabolical doesn’t it? And we’ve got hundreds of cans of Zyklon B from the delousing gas chambers and if anybody wants more evidence than that the Nazi bastards hid it from us when they knew we had ’em licked.

The Nuremberg Trials clearly show trials that had little in common with real justice. Almost all those who were on trial at Nuremberg were so badly beaten and tortured that their testicles were destroyed. Some confessed and some killed themselves with suicide capsules. Interestingly nobody who successfully used the suicide capsules made what could be called a full confession of guilt. It’s almost as if their consciences were clear. Do you remember the harrowing tales recalled by the priests who took the confessions of those engaged in killing Jews? Funnily enough neither can I. Just because the allies had a reason to paint the Nazis as the embodiment of pure evil it doesn’t follow that they lied to do it. Even though they employed many people specifically for that very purpose and were in no hurry to return them to civvie street or Madison Avenue after the war ended.

Cynicism can be quite infectious. I get really annoyed by people who won’t believe anything which is announced by a government. Everything is a false flag it seems. There are no real Muslim terrorists in France who hate cartoonists who mock Muhammad and want to kill Jews and the French police. No. It’s a false flag operation of course. And NASA faked the moon landings somehow convincing the Soviet Union that they landed on the moon but not cousin Billy-Bob who’s seen Capricorn One and knows Hollywood special effects when he sees them. I understand how annoying it is when people spout bollocks and won’t be told and I admit that every few months I make a point of watching that YouTube video which features Buzz Aldrin giving that slimy toad what he had been begging for. I get it. People who say that the Nazis didn’t kill any Jews must be deeply offensive. But it is also offensive when a Jew prays each morning thanking God that he wasn’t born a goy, or a Muslim says people who do not believe in one god or the day of judgement are no better than cattle or when a feminist says maleness or masculinity is a disease. The world is full of arseholes.

The appropriate punishment for somebody who says offensive things is being the kind of person who says offensive things. How can anybody justify a term of imprisonment for saying something that hurts somebody’s feelings? People regularly will deliberately say the most wounding thing they can think of saying such as “you’re not my real dad!” or “I should have had you aborted” or “Do you really think he’s your son?” and what are the legal consequences? Nothing. People try to destroy a person’s emotional world with words and there is no legal consequence at all. But somehow people have been convinced to regard offensive statements, even statements which are provably true, as worthy of sending somebody to prison. But only if they are about this one historical period. You can say whatever you like about anything else that happened in history regardless of how many lives are involved.

Every Sunday people across Europe get up and spout nonsense in public, telling tales which have been thoroughly debunked year after year. Spreading lies is not a criminal matter, it’s called religion and we are supposed to respect it. If you don’t agree with Abdul’s story of the flying horse explain why it is wrong. If you don’t agree with David Irving provide your own evidence to counter him.

Please leave a reply