A Portrait of a “Holocaust Denier”

http://glaringhypocrisy.com/portrait-holocaust-denier/

(GLARING Hypocrisy) Monika Schaefer is the latest in a growing line of courageous truth-seekers to be arrested, charged or imprisoned for “holocaust denial”. In Monika’s case it was because of her “holocaust denying” video, “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust” (due to communist censorship, you might need to use a VPN to view this).

But what exactly is a “holocaust denier”? What does a typical “holocaust denier” look like? And how does the principle of “holocaust denial” apply to each and every one of us?

The (((SPLC))) defines “holocaust denial” as:

Deniers of the Holocaust, the systematic murder of around 6 million Jews in World War II, either deny that such a genocide took place or minimize its extent. These groups (and individuals) often cloak themselves in the sober language of serious scholarship, call themselves “historical revisionists” instead of deniers, and accuse their critics of trying to squelch open-minded inquiries into historical truth.

Firstly, the statement reiterates the highly problematic six million figure as fact. As I wrote in “The Shoah Must Go On: The Holocaust Story vs. Christian & Other Genocides”:

The six million number was associated with Jews in various situations prior to the claim that 6 million were killed during World War II. For example, The New York Times ran a piece on October 31, 1869 stating that, according to The Hebrew National, there were 6,000,000 Jews in the world, half of whom lived in Europe. Between 1900-45 there were (at least) 200 allegations of six million jews being in peril, persecuted and/or eliminated.

The six million number persisting as fact, despite the total Auschwitz numbers — which includes both Jews (the vast majority) and non-Jews (the minority) — having been reduced over the years from four million to 1.1 million.

Secondly, unsuspecting members of the Matrix will likely read the SPLC definition while nodding their sheeple heads in agreement, yet it’s a thoroughly disparaging and downright defamatory description, designed to cast doubt on the integrity and credibility of anyone who has either done first-hand research into the subject or who has taken the time to dig into the many books, articles, films, etc., that are the result of the work of such researchers.

In response to Monika’s arrest, (((B’nai Brith Canada)))’s CEO Michael Moyston is quoted as saying:

German officials should be commended for taking action against Holocaust denial. Antisemitism has no place in Canadian politics or Canadian universities, and we will continue to work, even across borders, to ensure that racism and bigotry find no haven in Canada.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere: “holocaust denial” equals “anti-Semitism”, two highly weaponised terms that serve to place barriers in the brain which the vast majority of folk are unable or unwilling to break through. Also, note the trend towards removing the hyphen and making lowercase the letter ‘s’, thus creating a new word that’s two steps removed from the literal definition of anti-Semitism: being opposed to or against Semitic peoples.

“Anti-Semitism” is a nonsensical slur and a great example of Orwellian doublespeak, taking something with meaning (Semitic) and turning it on its head (the vast majority of so-called Jews are not Semitic). The term “holocaust denier” is first and foremost a fabricated label to disparage the “deniers” and deter others from crossing the uncrossable line. Just as the CIA-created, weaponised term “conspiracy theorist” was devised to keep the masses firmly in their programmed box in the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination, the term “holocaust denier” is designed to do likewise in regard to “THE Holocaust”.

Indeed, the (((Wikipedia))) entry on “holocaust denial” quotes psychiatrist and one-time director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, (((Walter Reich))), as directly attributing “holocaust denial” to so-called “anti-Semitism”:

The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history. After all, the Holocaust has generally been recognized as one of the most terrible crimes that ever took place, and surely the very emblem of evil in the modern age. If that crime was a direct result of anti-Semitism taken to its logical end, then anti-Semitism itself, even when expressed in private conversation, is inevitably discredited among most people. What better way to rehabilitate anti-Semitism, make anti-Semitic arguments seem once again respectable in civilized discourse and even make it acceptable for governments to pursue anti-Semitic policies than by convincing the world that the great crime for which anti-Semitism was blamed simply never happened—indeed, that it was nothing more than a frame-up invented by the Jews, and propagated by them through their control of the media? What better way, in short, to make the world safe again for anti-Semitism than by denying the Holocaust?

The (((official))) bottom line, therefore, is that a “holocaust denier” is anyone who harnesses their inherent “anti-Semitism” to attack, without reason, the official holocaust narrative. Which is, of course, preposterous.

The reality is quite different. It’s a story of real men and women who’ve had the courage to look into that which is verboten — to ask legitimate questions, conduct extensive research and/or delve into the resulting research and, thereby, be in possession of highly inconvenient facts that stand in contrast to the official story.

THE HOLOCAUST IN CONTEXT: ATROCITY PROPAGANDA, DACHAU AND NUREMBERG TRIALS

Herman Göring at Nuremberg

Speaking of the official story, it’s crucial to be aware of the context in which it was formed — a combination of factors which included post-war atrocity propaganda and key “confessions” having been extracted by coercion and/or torture during both the Dachau and Nuremberg Trials.

Regarding atrocity propaganda, the British Ministry of Information sent the below letter to the higher British clergy and the BBC in February 1944. The letter was published in the 1958 book, Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland by Edward J. Rozek (bold emphasis mine).

Sir,

I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:

It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia and Bessarabia only recently.

We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country.

We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them — and ourselves — from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.

Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of the “Corpse Factory,” and the “Mutilated Belgian Babies,” and the “Crucified Canadians.”

Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,

(signed) H. HEWET, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to this communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons.

As for the Nuremberg and Dachau “confessions”, these were foundational for the lasting success of the atrocity propaganda since they corroborated the official narrative. The Chief United States Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson stated that: “The Nuremberg Tribunal, as a military tribunal, is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations.” (Nuremberg Protocols, Vol. 19, p. 440)

THE TYPICAL “HOLOCAUST DENIER”?

While so-called “holocaust deniers” come from varying backgrounds with different areas of expertise, there are common threads of sensitivity, courage, intelligence, integrity and a thirst for truth — qualities that enabled prior adherents to the holocaust story to approach the subject with an open mind and let the results of their enquiries stand for themselves. In the case of more prominent “holocaust deniers” another significant common thread is that of being subjected to defamation and persecution. In the words of Karl Schlögel (writing in defense of Gabor Tamas Rittersporn, who was accused of having lent his support to Robert Faurisson in 1980):

“Holocaust denier,” “revisionist,” “negationist”: everyone knows what such an accusation means. It effectively means exclusion from civilized humanity. Anyone who is suspected of this is finished. His public life is destroyed, his academic reputation ruined.

The qualities of courage, integrity and a thirst for truth cannot be overstated. Such qualities drive a person to follow truth wherever it leads, however much it flies in the face of everything that was once understood as fact. As Jesus says in Luke 6:43-44: “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.” Thus, the honest mind earnestly in search of truth will deal honestly with the results of any investigation.

HOW “HOLOCAUST DENIAL” IS LEADING THE ONE WORLD ORDER CHARGE