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.
 

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor