Australian Democracy, History, and the ‘Holocaust’

An attempt at an overview with a question: Do Revisionists need Orthodox Historians?

Fredrick Töben

21 September 2003, with additional material 11 October 2003  

[I bear in mind that my thoughts are restrained under a Federal Court of Australia Court Order — 17 September 2002 , and confirmed on Appeal on 27 June 2003 — that effectively gags me on matters ‘Holocaust’. However, I call upon the Common Law principle of Natural Justice that guarantees me a right of reply. I further call upon the Principle of Balance in order to correct and augment comments made by those who oppose my world view.]  

  By Way Of Background

  On 17 September 2003, a popular ABC Radio National morning presenter focused her daily topic on ‘Democracy in Australia ’. One guest speaker was Professor Robert Manne, the academic and one-time editor of the conservative Quadrant magazine, who some years ago felt the need to out himself publicly by confirming his Jewishness. Up to that outing, Robert Manne was considered to be a respectable spokesperson for the conservative right. Manne traces his growing up within traditional Anglo-Australian society, emphasizing that his wife and children are not Jewish. In 1995, at a conference in Adelaide , Manne did subscribe to a social ‘plurality’ as opposed to a ‘multi-cultural’ Australia. Then a switch occurred away from this mono-cultural society towards a multicultural Australia, with Manne fully embracing the ‘Aboriginal cause’.

This meant that Manne vigorously embraced the controversy surrounding the historical debate begun by Professor Geoffrey Blainey during the 1980s with his ‘Black-Armband’ history. Manne opposed Blainey’s view and became highly critical of the British-European treatment of Australia ’s inhabitants at the time of early colonization, and to this day. He speaks of genocidal policies that need to be acknowledged if present-day Australia is to become a harmonious society where ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ live at peace with each other.

During the ABC Radio National program, Manne was asked, among other things, to respond to an item wherein an American Moslem cleric claimed that God’s laws need to be followed, especially as regards the fundamentals of a social order that includes the supremacy of the heterosexual family unit. Manne claimed that he could not relate to the Moslem cleric’s “incoherent view” of things and such a view would not be welcomed within Australia ’s democratic environment.

I rang in and responded by stating that Australian democracy is in peril because I am operating under a Federal Court gag-order, and that Manne is in the forefront of a movement in Australia that will drastically limit Australia ’s democracy by imposing his ‘Holocaust’ religion on us.

In his response to my curtailed comment, Manne claimed he did not know what I was talking about. When the presenter returned to me for a comment, she insinuated that I had hung up, when in fact I had been disconnected before she came back to me for a response. So much for participating in a democratic process on the airwaves in Australia .    

Interestingly, Manne approvingly use the Karl Popper term ‘open society’, a term the world financier, George Soros turned into the ‘Open Society Institute’. It is now one of the many charitable organizations set up by Soros that distribute ideological and financial aid in those countries where his form of predatory capitalism has destroyed the financial systems of countries such as Russia , Indonesia , Thailand , etc. Legendary Dr Mahatir of Malaysia withstood such an onslaught that came under the guise of free-trade, but Soros is waiting for Mahatir’s departure from the political stage at the end of 2003, and may then work on Mahatir’s successor who may not be robust enough to withstand Soros.

Australia’s Official Revisionism

An academic debate is now raging about the Aboriginal issue that Keith Windschuttle fanned with his 2002 book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Volume One: Van Diemen’s Land 1803-1847.ISBN 1 876492 05 8. Such debate is to be welcomed because it is one not confined to the academic environment, though it is from the universities that the various arguments are structured and disseminated into society.

Professor Manne has just edited a book that literally sets out to demolish Windschuttle’s thesis. Whitewash. On Keith Windschuttle’s Fabrication of Aboriginal History, 2003. ISBN 0 9750769 0 6.

On its back cover we find a summary of the book’s theme:

“In December 2002, The Fabrication of Aboriginal history, Volume One by Keith Windschuttle was published. It argued that violence between whites and Aborigines in colonial Tasmania had been vastly exaggerated and sought to rewrite one of the most troubling parts of Australian history. The book soon attracted widespread coverage, including both high praise and heated criticism.

Until now Windschuttle’s arguments have not been comprehensively examined. Whitewash collects some of Australia ’s leading writers on Aboriginal history to do just this. The result provides not only a demolition of Windschuttle’s revisionism but also a vivid and illuminating history of one of the most famous dispossession of the Tasmanian Aborigines. Whitewash is edited and introduced by Robert Manne, with contributors including Henry Reynolds, Cassandra Pybus, Lyndall Ryan, and Martin Krygier.”

Besides the above, also quoted on the back cover is Manne himself:

“What is so alarming in the reception of The Fabrication of Aboriginal History is the way so many prominent Australian conservatives have been so easily mislead by so ignorant, so polemical and so pitiless a book.”

I have never seen a “pitiless book”, and wonder whether it is helpful to manipulate public sentimentality in such a way. Will it actually help those Aborigines who need dire physical and financial help?

The Social and Legal Suppression of Open Debate-Free Speech

The final of the 18 essays in the book, by Dirk Moses, that marks 'In Conclusion', is of special interest to Revisionists. Titled ‘Revisionism and Denial’, it is a grand attempt at demolishing the Revisionists’ argument and approach/method used to finding out the truth of historical matters. A new shut-up word, ‘denialism’ is now added to the already stagnant list that consists of ‘hater’, ‘holocaust denier’, ‘antisemite’, ‘racist’, and ‘neo-Nazi’.

From thereon, as many Revisionists well-know from personal experience, it is impossible to sustain an open debate with individuals who use such words as a weapon to shut up their opponents. They become antagonistic and abusive, and above all, quite irrational. Without inhibitions, their tirades against Revisionists degenerate into name-calling and public vilification. To cap it off, legal censure is applied to those Revisionists who will not shut up and who continue to speak the truth as they see it. The list of Revisionists, who have conflicted with laws in various so-called democratic countries specially enacted to silence them, is long.

The latest Revisionist to be imprisoned is engineer, Wolfgang Fröhlich, 52, who on 3 September 2003 faced a court in Vienna , Austria , that found him guilty of ‘reactivating’ National Socialism. This is the specific legal term that the Austrians use to catch those that challenge the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy. Fröhlich stated that the process of history was one of continued revision, something I claim as well. For example, as archives are unlocked new information becomes available that historians then need to evaluate and contextualises.  

Once these labels are used, subjective emotionalism – the hurt feeling syndrome – enters the debate as a legal weapon that will ring the death-knell on any semblance of an open debate. Democratic principles are thrown out the window on the pretext that the ‘hurt’ generated by the topic and, of course, by the person thus labelled, is so terrible and vile, that continuing the discussion would be psychologically damaging to the participants who are feeling the ‘hurt’ and who disagree with the proposition up for debate.

The Federal Court of Australia has gone along with this notion and handed down judgments against Tasmanian widow, Mrs Olga Scully, and myself, which effectively prevent an open debate on the ‘Holocaust’. However, the challenge that Robert Manne, et al, has thrown out in the book Whitewash, is too serious a matter that cannot be ignored, that needs a response for the sake of clarifying our world view on the matters raised by Manne and his group who uphold the orthodox version of the ‘Holocaust’.

 At this stage, where no rational argument is possible,  in the public ‘Holocaust’ debates the accusation is made that any further discussion is tantamount to killing the victim a second time, and if not the victim , then certainly the memory of that victim.

The absurdity of such intellectualised emotionalism was demonstrated in France when in 1979 a group of academics moved against Professor Robert Faurisson's sometime lonely fight against the propagation of lies surrounding the ‘Holocaust’, in particular the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. In the renowned Paris newspaper, Le Monde,  P Vidal-Naquet, Léon Poliakov and 32 academics proclaimed: 

“One may not ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible since it took place. Such is the obligatory starting point required for any historical enquiry into this subject. This truth we simply want to bring back into memory: there is not, and there may not be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers."

That such a mindset is blocking open enquiry into a vital and contentious historical problem is beyond doubt. It is an intellectual scandal that such a statement was not publicly refuted by professional educators and those self-appointed upholders of intellectualism.

We have now reached a similar situation in Australia where a group of academics, who since the mid-1980s began without opposition, to develop the academic stream of ‘Aboriginal history’, and who are now publicly facing critics that do not share the basic premises on which their arguments rest. I am reminded of my time as a sociology tutor at the Warrnambool Institute, now Deakin University , where in 1987 its then head of Sociology, Dr George Zollschan, advised me to enter the academic growth industry: Aboriginal Studies.  

I refused to even entertain the idea because I saw this field as an example of academic fraud that continues to patronise the original inhabitants of Australia before European colonisation. The whole ethnic industry is marred by this blemish: there are Aborigines who wish the nonsense would stop and that they would be taken at face value for what they represent as human beings, not as representatives of some diseased or infantile European mind that condescendingly categorises them, albeit romantically, into the fraudulent 40-thousand year historical prison of primitivity! 

There is nothing more condescending than to see Aboriginal Australians arriving in the desert somewhere with their 4-wheel drives, there with the media waiting to devour them, then to celebrate some ancestral dreamtime event - in the dust, with the flies - then take off again in their air-conditioned wagons back to civilisation. Romantising  primitivity is intellectual fraud because those few Aborigines that still lead that kind of life wish nothing more than to get a bed, house, have a fridge and a cold coke! 

Likewise with Aboriginal art that is currently making headlines for the price it fetches on the world art market. That this issue is resolved when one recalls that French pointilism came before it, then again we see the condescending nature of the Aboriginal-ethnic industry at work. Rather than grasp the nettle and face the historical facts, like the Holocaust industry, proponents of the multi-cultural industry fear facing their own cultural standards. 

In most instances it is failed Europeans and the culturally rootless who push for social acceptance of lesser/degenerate forms because this does not challenge their own valueless system of social control. The ultimate cry of self-defence then is 'democracy', and having worked the populace, the result is predictable. But not always because every human being has the potential to grow and to develop, to nurture and mature within a value system that is universal and not particular. This is what is meant by the axiom that we are all human, that no matter where we are from on this planet, we share in the passions and follies of life. 

Those that divide the world into them-us deny this fundamental universalism. These individuals then attempt to eliminate those that refuse to be categorised by using concepts that have been spiked with venom: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, Nazi, and various phobes. 

Likewise those so-called academics who patronisingly developed the whole feminism ideology. A woman who has consciousness does not need sisterhood to cope with the vagaries  of the male world. David Attenborough clearly illustrated this in a recent film about the family life of lions. When Mrs Lion needs love, she needs it during a 24-hour period, and then every 20 minutes, to which Mr Lion somewhat exhaustedly obliges. But Attenborough reveals a timeless truth applicable, to some degree, to all creatures on earth: even the act of love-making has its dangers that a man needs to know about. When during a love-session Mr Lion grunts away happily  but exhaustedly doing his duty, Mrs Lion suddenly looks up at him, then with her great paw swipes him across his face. Mr Lion yelps off like a little puppy.

There are academics who wish to hide such universal truths in humans, in animals - within God's Creation!

 Focus Israel: A Zionist, Apartheid, Racist State

It appears that the group of academics around Robert Manne does not even realize that their labelling arsenal is their own inversed form of ‘racism’, ‘denialism’, et al. The fact that the Zionist, apartheid and racist state of Israel is excluded from any of their extraneous critical comments, speaks for itself.

The US President Bush’s ‘War on terrorism, and for freedom and democracy’, directly links into the argument because the Moslem world has by implication been branded a ‘terrorist’ world. Robert Manne’s response to the radio presenter playing the item about the Moslem cleric’s remarks is telling. The Manne-led Aboriginal-lobby clearly has defined its them-us dialectic, again linking with US President Bush’s claim that anyone who opposes the president’s policies is an enemy of the state. Worse still, Bush has claimed that God has been directing him to invade Iraq and liberate its people from a dictatorship. Interestingly, it was a unilateral decision and the Iraq people had no say in whether they wanted to be liberated by the US or not. That is not democracy as I understand it.

[Currently Australia is making its further aid package to Papua New Guinea dependent upon Australian police playing a role in curbing crime in PNG. That such a demand by Australia could be seen as a form of invasion and violation of sovereignty has not quite dawned on Minister Alexander Downer. That’s the danger faced by those who become legends in their own minds, in their own self-importance, where a reality-check would inform the minister otherwise.]

Some of these academics around Robert Manne are, likewise, not in contact with social factual reality. They are behaving like children or undergraduates who simply do not want to grow up as reasonable individuals, so as to develop a mature understanding of the ‘Aboriginal problem’. They are the ones in ‘denialism’ of the fact that there is such a thing as objective history, that there is such a thing as factual/objective truth.

This does not mean that subjectivism should be rejected outright, far from it. It is the empathetic understanding that develops and flows from a subjective appreciation of a human problem, which needs to be nurtured. It does not help to despise and label one’s opponents in a debate as being less than oneself. That would retain the perverse Marxist dialectic, which rests on hatred and envy, and on an outright elimination-killing of one’s opponent. The false consciousness in that Marxist class-thinking dialectic still imbues those who have now embraced the Aboriginal cause, and that is adopting an unbalanced and morally, if not an outright immoral, view of the world.

Robert Manne and his group are thus presenting an unbalanced and hateful interpretation of Australia’s history that has as one of its aims to engender  and imbue the Australian nation with a massive guilt complex, in much the same way that the ‘Holocaust industry’ has done with the Germans.

That the fulfilment of such a political goal will ultimately not help the Aboriginal people is self-evident. Professor Norman Finkelstein writes in his The Holocaust Industry reflections on the exploitations of Jewish suffering. (Verso, 2000), how individual Jews do not benefit from the machinations of the ‘Holocaust industry’, something he condemns as unjust.

I agree with this sentiment. It is the organized groups of Jews that use the billions extorted from various governments in recent years, which use this ill-gotten gain to further the existence of the state of Israel , much to the disadvantage of the oppressed Palestinians. Likewise with the professional Aboriginal lobby. The current state of many individual Aborigines is tragic, and it does not help these individuals who desperately need help, to be patronized by academics that have their own selfish self-interests at heart. Slotting such individuals into the ethnic-Aboriginal category is apartheid. What is needed is to bring these individuals into mainstream Australian society rather than into a sub-branch that the multiculturalists so dearly love to control for their own selfish needs and ends.

Also, talk is cheap in this ethnic multicultural industry, as we saw years ago when former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, was publicly moved to tears because he had become aware of the suffering endured by Aboriginals.    

There is thus a clear motive behind this wailing and gnashing of teeth from Manne, et al., against those who do not go along with the ‘guilt-trip’ agenda that drives the ‘Aboriginal industry’. It is the vision of an apartheid Australia where Aboriginal Australians have their own reservations, as they already have. The next logical step, and this is where we are at the moment, is independence from Australia , the somewhat hidden agenda that drives Aboriginal politics. And so we have here a vision that is a mirror image of what is going on in the apartheid and racist state of Israel .

An Ethnic Aboriginal Apartheid Racist State in Australia ?

That the true agenda of the ‘Aboriginal studies’ lobby is a political agenda, is not a secret. Henry Reynolds spells it out, and it also appears on the back cover of Manne’s book:

“Even some of Windschuttle’s admiring reviewers have suggested that he has gone too far in his vilification of the Aborigines. But they miss the point. If the object is to undermine all those staples of contemporary indigenous politics – land rights, self-determination, reparation, even the need for a prime ministerial apology – then the necessary and logical path is the one opened up by Windschuttle that leads to the interrelated concepts of savagery and terra nullius.”

There is a problem that Manne, et al, have not addressed, and that is that many Aborigines are converting to Islam, thus leaving their Christian identity behind as a somewhat painful first conversion inflicted upon them by Christian missionaries. The legend of the Stolen Generation will make the conversion to Islam all the more palatable. Thus even in Australia there is a spin-off effect from the 9:11 tragedy that befell the USA : Australia ’s Moslem community has been tainted as a possible terrorist-harbouring community. Should the leaders of Australia ’s Aboriginals decide en-mass to jettison their Christian beliefs, then Australia ’s Jews would have lost their support on which they are currently depending for their own survival. A strong Moslem community in Australia would not be in Israel ’s interest. Why not? The Moslems do not fear the Jews, as do most Christians.

The Dialectic Problem: Finding the Enemy

One academic goal is to have reason and understanding guide us through the jungle of human endeavour, without falling back on superstition or cheap sentimentality. That these latter elements have a place within any society is not denied here. But when academics begin to vilify their opponents, it is a clear sign of such individuals losing the plot. It does not help solve problems by reverting to name-calling, and that is what Manne and his group are doing.

Dirk Moses explains this phenomenon by claiming that the two popular rhetorical devices used to beat down an opponent are ‘political correctness’ and ‘revisionism’; the former being a derivative of the Marxist ‘ideological soundness’ tactic used to beat down opponents, while the latter arose during the 1890s among the Germany socialists and in France by those mounting the Dreyfus affair. He details how ‘Revisionism’ was a Marxist heresy, but he does not state that like the term ‘antisemitism’ those labelled thus were criminalized, the latter term was a capital offence in the former Soviet Union. He says that during the 1970s Holocaust deniers appear on the scene who also claim to be revisionists. Indeed! Interestingly, here the term ‘Holocaust deniers’ appears without it being defined in any way.

Moses thinks that revisionism is not “a coherent movement but a rhetorical weapon wielded in the symbolic struggles that constitute any free academic and public sphere.” In a footnote he says Michale Shermer/Alex Grobman think there is a revisionist movement, then cites their book: Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, Berkeley , University of California Press , 2000.

Revisionism a mere rhetorical weapon? Revisionism is more than that, but Moses, schooled by the false life-denying Marxist dialectic process that has imbued him with false class consciousness rather than with the life-giving Hegelian dialectic, must forever deny that another person may compromise, have good-will, altruistic intentions, and is not out to eliminate/kill an opponent. The Marxist dialectic has built within it the order to physically kill those considered to be class enemies. The thesis: worker; antithesis: capitalist class; synthesis: communism-heaven!

During this clash of opposites, the Marxists claim that one of them will be eliminated/killed. Hegel saw it differently, and his dialectic process is actually what moves the world. For example, thesis: man; antithesis: woman; synthesis: child. Here the opposites are conserved within the synthesis, i.e. the child contains elements of both its parents.

 I define Revisionism thus:  

Every thinking human being is a revisionist. Revisionism is nothing but

a method, an heuristic principle, with which to construct one's world

view. Opinions are constantly revised through a free flow of information.

Only encrusted minds cannot absorb new information, preventing moral

responsibility from coming to the fore.

Dirk Moses then claims that “Revisionism posits an orthodoxy that often exists solely in the mind of its proponents, just as political correctness implies moral and intellectual censorship that may or may not exist.” (338)

Any Revisionist knows the following orthodoxies do not exist only in their minds, for example the six million alleged Jewish deaths and the alleged existence of homicidal gas chambers, the so-called pillars of the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy. Revisionists have been imprisoned for not bowing to these orthodoxies which have no basis in physical historical fact.

Moses does admit that Revisionism is heretical if “the orthodoxy is regarded widely as legitimate”, and opponents of ‘revisionists’ will attempt to tar them as ‘deniers’. He does not anywhere stress that the attack on Revisionists has heightened to the point where they are criminalized, something that has been going on for decades around the world.

He briefly touches on religious and psychological issues that he says influence these cultural wars involving public debates about Revisionism. His fallback on Freudian psychologism that for example, nationalists suffer from castration anxieties is unhelpful in clarifying issues. Philosopher Karl Popper had a field day in rejecting psychologism as a useful vehicle for gaining objective knowledge.

 Culture Wars and a Psychic Defence Mechanism?

Dirk Moses attempts to discredit Keith Windschuttle’s academic credibility by introducing his book as a “self-publication by media analyst Keith Windschuttle”. “Media analyst’? This is designed to deflect from the fact that Windschuttle is an historian who has a first class honours degree in history from the University of Sydney , and an MA with honours in politics from Macquarie University , and for twenty years taught history and social policy at the University of New South Wales .

Why would Moses do this? It seems that this is character assassination for the sake of what? He explains:  

“My aim here is to further understanding of these issues by situating his ‘revisionism’/’denial’ in historical and international context. Does the Australian situation bear any resemblance to culture wars in other countries? Is Windschuttle a revisionist, a denier, or both?” 339

So, Moses wishes to tar and label Windschuttle because he, Moses, does not agree with Windschuttle’s interpretation of Australian history. Merely labelling Windschuttle a denialist does not help develop a critical appreciation of the argument Moses wishes to develop. He does not succeed in establishing the concept 'denialist' as a term with any explanatory powers.

To the question, “Why do people deny the Holocaust?” Moses writes: “We are dealing here with the operation of a psychic defence mechanism with which denialists protect themselves from the traumatic consequences of having to incorporate  uncomfortable facts into a closed and rigid ideological framework. Freud called this mechanism ‘repression’.  340

So, Revisionists need to do some self-analysis and become un-repressed! Revisionists would respond by claiming that individuals such as Moses are desperately attempting to character-assassinate Revisionists because they, the Revisionists, are revealing historical truths that Moses does not like to grapple with. [ See below, Horst Mahler who points out the nonsensical nature of the term 'Holocaust denier': an event that never happened cannot be denied!]

And further, by adhering to the ‘Holocaust’ dogma, Moses is himself repressing an uncomfortable truth about allegations that have not been substantiated in any way. They remain just that, allegations about what Germans are supposed to have done to European Jewry during World War Two. Moses is a typical ‘Holocaust believer’ who cannot tolerate the thought that his belief has no foundation in fact.

Holocaust Revisionism

This explains why, for example in Germany , the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy is protected legally. Any public scrutiny would eliminate its basic tenets and thus destroy it.

This is what Moses says is happening within a Revisionist’s mind:

“One is ‘splitting’, that is, protecting both the loved object and self from their own corrupting features by separating and projecting these features into an external source. The second is ‘repetition’, whereby someone acts out his or her pathological attachment by repeating the type of destructive behaviour that led to the controversy in the first place. The denier is unaware of his or her own repression, yet the uncomfortable facts will not go away.” 341

[Moses footnotes this paragraph with a reference to Pierre Vidal-Naquet’s Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust, New York , Columbia University Press, 1992, pp.54, 79.]

Here, a little self-reflection would indicate to Moses that he is actually describing his own thought processes and that of the ‘Holocaust’ believer. A Revisionist welcomes a holistic approach, and anything about ‘splitting’ is pure nonsense. As Popper would have said, by using psychological concepts you can prove any of your pet-propositions because there is no requirement to make contact with physical reality. The process is a purely mental one where there are no obstructions to impede it, except those imposed by the limitations of the mind itself.

He continues: “Holocaust revisionism is revisionist in both the senses I have described: heretical and denialist. And because of revisionism’s dual meaning, ‘orthodox’ intellectuals often attempt to discredit their ‘revisionist’ critics by suggesting they embody both aspects. Whether they do, needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis".  341

This tells me more about the workings of Moses’ mind. By harping on the ‘denialist’ concept Moses attempts to deflect from his own ‘denialism’ when it comes to matters ‘Holocaust’, how he does not open himself to the facts, as stated by Revisionists. 

Further, Moses has forgotten that orthodoxy needs to be challenged if we wish our stock of world knowledge to grow. New knowledge/information becomes available, for example, when documents are released from some archive that has had them locked up since the end of World War Two. I assume that Moses will not dispute the fact that sealed documents indicate that the flow of historical information is controlled, in our case by the victorious All(l)ies.

It is sad to see Moses does not credit Revisionists with basic moral and intellectual integrity, of wishing to know and not wishing to believe in the ‘Holocaust’. It appears to me that Moses is the one who is avoiding the factuality of the Revisionist arguments by deflecting from the Revisionist argument and labelling them ‘denialists’.

As stated above, it is unhelpful to deflect from the actual Revisionist argument by falling into psychologism, worse still to criminalize Revisionists’ who challenge such orthodoxy. In a country that calls itself a democracy the pillars on which the ‘Holocaust’ story rests cannot be placed beyond rational analysis. If it is done, then we have reached the situation that prevailed in the Marxist-controlled Soviet Union , and the ‘Holocaust’ becomes a state dogma, legally protected from objective criticism. Democracy ceases to exist and the dissident movement begins to challenge the prevailing orthodox views.

And thus are born dissenters, heretics, ‘Holocaust deniers’, and in most instances ‘racists’ because criticism of the ‘Jewish Holocaust’ is deemed to be a racist matter, which it is not.

Those who are at the leavers of political power use this clever but highly immoral method of silencing their opponents. It ultimately leads to a dumbing down of a nations’ moral and intellectual vitality because fear takes over rational debate on contentious issues. As fear is the father of cruelty, we can extrapolate therefrom how ‘Holocaust’ believers effectively become vicious and intolerant towards those who reject the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy.

Historical Corrections affirm Revisionism

Believers avoid a confrontation with uncomfortable facts, something that in some individuals has developed into a pathological condition. For example, the continuous reduction in the Auschwitz concentration camp figures, for example, from 4 million in 1988 to 1.-1.5 million a few years later, should be a reason for relief to all ‘Holocaust’ believers – but it is not celebrated. Why not?

In 2002 this figure was again reduced by Fritjof Meyer to just on 500 000, of those about 300,000 Jewish deaths, something that should bring welcomed relief to all those who are labelling themselves as ‘Holocaust survivors’ first and second generation. But it is not. In fact, it is considered to be an insult to even raise this point that a death-figure reduction has been made. Almost without exception the various reductions in the death figure is met with aggression and anger. The ‘Holocaust believer’s argument reverts to the fall-back position that states even one Jewish person put to death is one too many. The factual argument that an actual reduction has taken place is dismissed with a sneer. Why? Any discussion about the numbers of deaths is considered an insult, a sacrilege. Rational discussion is thrown out the window and irrational vilification begins. Moses remains silent on this aspect of the actual figures, and no doubt shares the sacred six million, the number that does not change according to the death figures reduction.

Moses goes on: “Revisionism sometimes tends towards denialism. In the 1920s, the American historians Sidney B Fay and Harry E Barnes rejected the war guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles and the historical consensus that held Germany and her allies responsible for World War I. But Barnes went further than conducting the one-sided blame of the axis powers. He exculpated Germany altogether and pronounced the ‘unique guilt of France and Russia ’.  Nothing, it seems, could dissuade him from an extreme position, leading commentators to place him in an incipient denialist camp.”

[The Barnes’ book referred to in the footnote is: The Genesis of the World War, New York , Knopf, 1926, pp.434, xii.]

Why would Barnes’ moral position be negatively described a denialist position? Revisionists, who seek to write truthfully and in a balanced way when evaluating historical events, adopt an unashamedly moral position. For a Revisionist no topic is off-limits, certainly not for anyone who has an enquiring mind. To place historical topics off-limits is unjustified censorship that suggests there are things to hide from an open enquiry. Protecting historical lies is not good for a society’s mental wellbeing. The essential healthy ingredient of trust, the moral quality that enables societies to function well, is subverted by the shroud of lies. Money will for a while cover up the deficiency in trust, but that is only a temporary measure.

 Barnes saw that an injustice had been perpetrated upon the Germans, and he holds that in a democratic society, where a plurality of opinions ideally exists, Barnes should therefore have the right to dissent, the right to publish an unorthodox view of historical events that is approximating closer to what really happened.

Moses moved forward from Barnes to the 1970s and claims that revisionism in its non-denial stage ”has endured” in Ireland, Israel, the USA and West Germany,  but bloody-minded denialism is evident in relation to Japanese and Holocaust history (although it was not German historians who engaged in such denial).”

He sees the above as a left-liberal movement, a humanistic counter-elite, that is attacking “powerful national foundation myths”.

“Revisionism of the denialist variety occurs when conservatives convince themselves that their cherished ideals and beliefs remain viable and credible despite being unmasked as morally and factually compromised legends. The question to ask is whether Australian revisionists belong in the first or second group.” 342

Moses thus claims that in Ireland and Israel the revisionists are left-liberals, while in Germany and Japan they are conservative nationalists.

He quotes approvingly D George Boyce and Alan O’Day (eds), The Making of Modern Irish History, p.2, who have labelled Germany as the “storm centre of ‘revisionism’”.

No Open Debate

Moses then draws a rather strange conclusion from the above quote:

“That is not surprising. Where else have the crimes committed by the nationals of a country been so heinous yet so freely debated for such a long time thereafter?” 345

What nonsense this is. There is no open debate on the ‘Holocaust ’in Germany because the topic has been criminalized, and I have personally researched this matter. See: Fredrick Töben, Where Truth is no Defence, I want to break free. (Peace Books 2002).

The reference to the Historikerstreit, that involved Professor Ernst Nolte as the leading historian who attempted to open the debate, is ironic because Nolte is actually from the so-called liberal-left.  He is one of a number of Germans who has matured beyond the often infantile left-liberal musings. One comment for which the left-liberals will not forgive him is the statement that began the historians’ dispute, that before Auschwitz there were the Soviet Gulags.

Left-liberal philosopher Jürgen Habermas attacked Nolte by claiming Nolte was ‘relativising’ (Verharmlosung) the ‘uniqueness’ (Einmaligkeit) of the ‘Holocaust’.

Moses does not inform his readers that the two words ‘relativising’, and ‘uniqueness’ are now legally protected, and anyone in Germany labelled as such will see criminal charges flow therefrom.

So much for a free and open debate about the ‘Holocaust’ in Germany . The inordinate fear that an open debate would give rise to a re-emergence of National Socialism, as is claimed by the legislators who uphold ‘Holocaust’ laws, is false. During 2002 lawyer Horst Mahler could prove that the nationalist political party, NPD, in the process of its de-registration, was subverted by Federal agents who had actually authored the various matters that the authorities were using to prove their case. The case was aborted.

In this context it must be remembered that Germany is, after all these years since World War Two, an occupied nation and it is misleading to talk about a German democracy.

In this respect Moses has recognised and welcomes the centrality that the ‘Holocaust’ dogma plays within German politics. It appears to be beyond his comprehension that Germans wish to liberate themselves from such a heinous and obnoxious dogma imposed upon them by the World War Two victors.

The many judicial killings that followed the 1945 cease-fire, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals’ findings themselves, need to be re-visited. The recent US attack on Iraq was justified that the post-World-War-Two world order is at stake here. Indeed, and if that order has been founded on exaggerations, fabrications and outright lies, then it is high time to correct the historical record and bring it in line with the historical facts. The fact that the Iraqi war had as a pretext a hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), has caused historians to make the link to Pearl Harbour , and how that incident was used as a pretext for the USA to enter the war. All this is a result of Revisionist historians continuing to hold on to their belief that truth will out, must out. One difficulty in this respect is that too many documents are still locked up in national archives thus making an open debate a mockery.

Moses offers a brief overview of Japanese Revisionism where, he claims, a balance has been struck between ‘revisionism and orthodoxy”. The visit by the Japanese prime minister to the Yakusuni military shrine where so-called  war criminals a re buried, indicates that this balance is correcting an otherwise unbalanced picture of sole Japanese guilt.

Revisionism or Denialism in Australia ?

Under this heading Moses claims that Australia finds itself between the German and Japanese experience 350. He sees the conservative voice represented in journals such as Quadrant and in bodies such as the Institute for Public Affairs, and thinks they will need to be watched rather closely because “Windschuttle clearly has clout. Each month, the Prime Minister and his cabinet rush out and buy Quadrant to see what new historical scandal he claims to have exposed”.

In a footnote Moses reminds his readers that in 2003 Windschuttle received from the Prime Minister the Centenary of Federation medal for his services to history.

This is all so reminiscent how the USA , European establishments and its various Jewish offshoots award academic honours to those who propagate the ‘Holocaust’, often done where there is such merit evident. The prime example is Eli Wiesel who has a professorship, but who is known to have fabricated/invented his horror stories of the ‘Holocaust’.

Interestingly, Moses does not mention the fact that Robert Manne was once Quadrant’s much respected editor.

Moses is worried that Windschuttle’s thesis is already accepted by school teachers and by eminent historian, Geoffrey Blainey, among others.

“But are they playing with fire? Is he (Windschuttle), like the Japanese deniers, or indeed the Holocaust deniers, in the sense of sharing their method? Certainly, he rejects the parallel.(note69)  Only by comparing his work with the approach of these groups can we answer this controversial question.”353

The Denialist Syndrome

British historian, David Irving’s much celebrated libel trial in London , 2000, is according to Moses the prime reason why “Holocaust denial has emerged from the shadows of the cyberworld into the glare of public scrutiny”, a view that can be debated. 353, www.focal.org/judgment.html

Moses says that the expert witnesses for the defence showed that Irving was “an anti-Semite and not an ‘objective historian’.” Now a new label, ‘anti-Semite’, determines whether a historian is objective or not.

He then claims that “Holocaust negationism, as denial is sometimes called, is an unusual instance of revisionism because most of its proponents are not defending their own nations or tradition.” It does not seem to fit into his pattern that in France most ‘deniers’ come from the anti-Zionist left. It appears that Moses has not heard of academic standards that are universally applicable, and that have nothing to do with ethnocentrisms, nationalism, racism, etc.

He claims that Dr Robert Faurisson is one of the Holocaust deniers “who typifies their narrow, forensic approach when he insists that if the holes in the roof of the now-ruined chambers through which the poison was poured cannot be identified, the case for gassing collapses: ‘no holes, no Holocaust’. Revisionism, he insists, simply demands documentary proof. It is a ‘matter of method and not an ideology’. [This is quoted from ‘Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism’, Journal of Historical Review, 19:1 at www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n1p2Faurisson.html]  

Except for a serious physical assault, he only challenge that Faurisson has had to endure from the French upholders of the Holocaust orthodoxy is being taken through the courts.  And this in a country where Voltaire and the Enlightenment have their home! This is, however, not mentioned by Moses. Why not?

Moses, quoting from D D Guttenplan’s The Holocaust on trial, New York and London, W W Norton, 2001, says that this makes Faurisson’s method a crazed positivism’, [354] and that standard of proof is rejected by professional historians. He then approvingly quotes van Pelt, Schemer and Grobman, Evans and Guttenplan and their ‘convergence of evidence’. This method states that “if sufficient number of them point in the same direction, namely the existence of gas chambers, historians conclude that we may reasonably infer their existence. In this case, such evidence includes testimonies, confessions and memories, as well as architectural plans.” 354  

'Crazed positivism', the term that mixes exacting scientific terminology with wishy-washy and catch-all psychological terminology, does not refute Robert Faurisson's challenge: 'Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chamber". To this very day, and over half a century after the event, the murder weapon has not been put on public display. What has been done is to criminalise those that demand this rigorous kind of scientific proof from those who formulate the allegation: Germans during World War Two systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers.

 It is clear who is crazed in this Holocaust battle because the only recourse in lieu of a defence is childish, infantile even, name-calling, thereby defaming one's opponent.  Simple name-calling is the response from an academic called Dirk Moses.

Moses says that in his judgment Justice Gray found Irving did not follow this ‘convergence of evidence’ because Irving had “ ‘misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence’ “. 354

Moses then concludes that “The fetishisation of direct evidence to underwrite every historical conclusion is the basis of denialists’ peculiar self-understanding as authentic historians” and he goes on to label Revisionists as pseudo-historians where there “is a whiff of paranoia and a proclivity to believe in conspiracy theories in the denialist mentality.” 355

Evans: “ Irving ’s technique was to present … minor mistakes and propaganda legends at Nuremberg while ignoring the overwhelming mass of evidence on major matters of fact, using the former to discredit the latter.” 355

Hugh Trevor-Roper: “He seizes on a small but dubious particle of ‘evidence’;  builds up on it, by private interpretation, a large general conclusion;  and then overlooks or re-interprets the more substantial evidence and probability against it. Since defective method is invariably used to excuse Hitler or the Nazis and to damage their opponents, we may reasonably speak of a consistent bias, unconsciously distorting the evidence.” [quoted by van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz , p.20]

Moses, relying on Richard Evans’ Telling Lies about Hitler, 2002, Verso:  “Denialists offer preposterous counter-explanations or redefine words and contexts to render harmless the charge of genocide. Holocaust deniers, for example, claim the gas chambers at Auschwitz were in fact air-raid shelters for the SS, and that most Jews died of disease.” 

What a nonsense claim this is. The air raid shelter claim is now a fact because van Pelt confirmed in 1996 that Krema I was built to symbolically represent what happened at Krema II.

The Auschwitz Museum followed this lead and claimed on tis website that the Krema I building had indeed been a bomb shelter.

In 2002 Fritjof Meyer claimed Krema II did not represent the gassing scene, but that two farm houses outside the Auschwitz concentration camp were used to gas around 300, 000 Jews. Such Revisionist research is sound and there is nothing preposterous about it, though it certainly provides a ‘counter-explanation’ to all those who have to date believed in the Krema I and Krema II homicidal gas chamber stories. (Fritjof Meyer: 'Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde, Osteuropa, 52(5), 2002, pp.631-441.)

Meyer locates the new sites for the gassings in two farm houses outside of the actual Auschwitz concentration camp complex. Unfortunately to take apart this hypothesis is Italian Revisionist Carlo Mattogno. A detailed analysis is offered in his 'The "Discovery" of "Bunker1" at Birkenau: Swindle, Old and New',  in: The Revisionist, Vol 1, No2, May 2003.  

The claim that most Jews died of diseases also stands as a fact. It is admitted by Arno Mayer in his Why Did The Heavens  Not Darken?, Pantheon 1990, that most concentration inmates died of natural causes and not from murder, and that there is almost no proof that homicidal gas chambers existed.

Moses then becomes irrational in his assertion that “Because of their fanatical commitment to their ‘truth’, denialists cannot accept sources that compromise it. Consequently, they define counter-evidence in such a way as to render their propositions unfalsifiable.”356

What a nonsense this is. I have personally claimed, again and again, that on account of my professional studies, I would be the first to oppose anyone who refuses an attempt to falsify someone’s thesis. It is through the convergence method that we are actually avoiding the falsification process, and merely supporting an ideology, as did the Marxists with their legally-sanctioned academic process of retaining purity of doctrine-dogma. A Revisionist shies away from such a method because it is the easiest thing to do, to find evidence that supports some kind of theoretical model. The Marxists wished to retain a pure ideological model of the world, and so the human element had to be changed and adapted to it. The consequence of this doctrinal battle filled the Gulags with Revisionists and with ‘antisemites’, the latter often facing the firing squad.  

This 'convergence' theory cannot stand the test that Karl Popper became famous for, falsifying theories in order to see what truth-content, what factual residue remains. After all, to support a theory, as the 'convergence' approach requires, is merely supporting an ideology and shielding it with more particular instances from critical analysis. The Marxists had this method of research developed to a fine art, so much so that it ultimately killed the soul of the scientists who could not go along with this kind of scientific fraud. And because those in power wished to retain power, no option was left but to use legal sanction to enforce conformity to the prevailing dogma. This approach is anti-science and it kills off human enterprise, as was evident in the 70-year social experiment called Marxism-communism-Talmudism and witnessed in the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries.

Our current situation in Australia , in the world, reflects this stage where legal sanction is used to stop individuals from dissenting from the legally enforced ‘Holocaust’ dogma. Moses remains silent on this trend that he is advocating by refusing to open himself to the arguments offered but merely decrying Revisionism.

Further, he is projecting on to Revisionists the very method that the orthodox Holocaust believers indulge in. In Moses’ case it is his support of the extermination thesis without opening himself to the Revisionist argument. He presents a distorted generalized version of it something that perhaps cannot be avoided considering he has only 27 pages in which to do it. In fact, his brief overview is to be welcomed by Revisionists because it opens up the Revisionist scene to non-Revisionists, albeit in distortion.

Specifically, the de-commissioning of Auschwitz as an extermination camp is not mentioned by Moses as he attempts to construct a mental framework within which he can shut away the painful factual information unearthed and theoretical considerations made by Revisionists.

He does concede that “deniers are not necessarily disreputable cranks”, but he writes this sentence after he quotes from Samuel Crowell’s  ‘A Holocaust Expert moves from Moral Certainty towards Open Debate’,  Journal of Historical Review, 21:1 at www.ihr.org/ihr/v21/v21n1p39_vanpelt.html.

“the revisionist position that testimony may be doubted, not only because of the social and judicial pressures surrounding such testimony, but also because the gassing claims themselves originated in an atmosphere of anonymous rumour which makes all testimony potentially derivative, is irrefutable.”

This Crowell sentence is used by Moses as an example of Revisionists defining counter-evidence so as to make their propositions unfalsifiable. Moses fails to point out that the gassing claim is then subjected to further scrutiny, in particular to forensic analysis, as did Germar Rudolf in his The Rudolf Report, Theses & Dissertation Press 2003. It is interesting to note that Moses does not mention Justice Gray’s comment about not having had the opportunity of evaluating the contents of The Rudolf Report.

Also, in his review of the Irving trial, one revisionist Moses does not mention is Professor Dr Arthur Butz whose 1976 classic The Hoax of the 20th Century has just been re-published by Theses & Dissertation Press . Is it because Butz has held a regular academic post for decades that Moses shies away from engaging Butz?

Perhaps Moses did this quite deliberately because of his final accusation, that “deniers pick on events in isolation and ignore the broader context … Why were the Jews in the camps to begin with? By focusing on iconic episodes, like the gas chambers, and ignoring the enabling conditions, deniers implicitly endorse the general policies of the perpetrators. They are not mounting scholarly investigations but prowling around for a ‘scoop’ with which to undermine the accusation of genocide.”

Shoddy, that’s the word that comes to my mind when re-reading Moses’ comments. No wonder Professor Butz is not mentioned because his scholarship puts Dirk Moses’ above reflections to shame. It is here that he needs to be reminded that Zionist Jews worked together with the National Socialists to get as many Jews into Palestine as possible. But all this is nothing new for the Revisionist.

If the genocide accusation of Aborigines is unjustified, which it is according to scholarly research, then so be it. Surely in a free, democratic and open society dissent is allowed, especially if it is based on solid research. And Moses ought to be pleased that it did not happen!

Likewise, why is Moses so fixated on defending the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy, with its gruesome stories?  One would think that he would welcome the reduction in deaths and the non-existence of homicidal gas chambers. Instead he, like most orthodox believers, is upset and insulted and hurt by such correction of a tragedy that befell European Jewry and others who were labelled enemies of the state. Were he to extend this compassion to all persecuted peoples of the world, then there would be consistency in his approach. To my knowledge he does not extend this compassion to the current plight that befalls the Palestinian peoples.

The USA is currently doing the same with its prisoners variously plucked up from its theatres of war, for example in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is nothing unusual to remove and place so-called enemies of the state into prison camps. One need not mention what the USA did with German soldiers after the war that is detailed in James Bacques Other Losses, Stoddart 1989.

It is surprising to note that all those who uphold the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy will only begrudgingly admit that there were no lampshades made out of human skins, that there was  no soap made out of Jewish fat, and that such cruel and horrid stories emerged out of war propaganda.

Yet only recently, on 5 September 2003 , Jonah Goldberg in an article titled  “ ‘Bush equals Hitler’ adds up to holocaust denial” states the following:

The Nazis murdered millions of men, women and children. Their victims
weren't "collateral damage" in a war, and they were not executed after a
long and fair trial. The Nazis sent their victims to gas chambers and ovens
in boxcars. Nazi scientists injected dyes into the living eyes of small
children to see if they could be made "Aryan." They made soap out of
people.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/printjg20030905.shtml

It is clear that those who uphold the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy, the Exterminationists, are expressing nothing but pure German hatred. Nazi is synonymous with German, and so for Goldberg the Germans are still his convenient whipping boys/scapegoats that gives context and meaning to his life; never mind that no soap was ever made out of people, never mind that the number of deaths have been reduced successively from four million to under half a million, never mind that now the gassings are alleged to have occurred outside of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration complex. I shall not even mention that no Hitler order exists that is alleged to have started the systematic extermination process. I am not certain whether I am permitted to state this freely because the Federal Court of Australia court order that has placed a gag on me, seemed so broad and far-reaching.

 Interestingly, only after Revisionists aired the ‘Holocaust’ in court cases has a reduction in the Auschwitz death count been made. But the official total figure of six million remains unchanged. Why?

1. When Ernst Zündel launched his second massive defence in a Toronto court in 1988 —during which he introduced the ground-breaking ‘Leuchter Report’ — thereafter the 20 plaques that had the four million memorialized, and which the Pope blessed in 1979, were all removed. A few years later new plaques appeared with the reduction of the number to 1.-1.5 million deaths.

2. After the Irving trial in London in 2000, Fritjof Meyer in 2002 published a new figure in ….He says that this reduction is as a result of new information that emerged out of the Irving trial. The death figure is now reduced to around 500 000, with an equal reduction of Jewish ‘gassed’ victims of around 350 000. New plaques with this further reduction will have to be made again for the monument at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

And does Dirk Moses think that the above does not give rise for concern about the veracity of the official ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy as propounded by the Exterminationists? The search for truth continues unabated, even if Moses thinks that it has become a kind of ‘fanatical commitment’ for Revisionists. But surely in our current climate we need some obsession, perhaps even some fanaticism, otherwise we dare not break the ropes that bind us, that attempt to silence us into submission, into enslavement to the orthodox view of the ‘Holocaust’. 

Is Windschuttle a Denier?

My immediate reaction to this heading in Moses’ article is to exclaim: Who cares whether he is a ‘denier’ or a ‘Revisionist’? So long as anyone presents a reasoned and balanced account of historical events, and backs it up with proofs, then surely that suffices and eliminates any need to character assassinate a person by using a shut-up word such as ‘denier’.

Hence, to derive a term such as ‘denier’ from the above definition is a nonsense designed to literally stop the mind from functioning. Discrimination is the hallmark of life and of an active mind, and this means things will be rejected/denied and accepted according to one’s moral framework.

This clearly places Moses and his group at the forefront of limiting free speech, of open enquiry in Australia . Civilized debate needs to be nurtured, not stifled as it is through the thought-pattern that Moses wishes to impose on academia by using the term ‘denier’. I have a faint suspicion that Moses is either terribly insecure within his own value system, or he is a vicious control-freak who cannot tolerate another person’s differing point-of-view. In either case it makes Moses a typical Marxist ideologue that lives by the dictum: It cannot be what is not allowed to be.

The absurdity of this ‘political correct’ thought pattern is clearly illustrated in the following cartoon where it is shown how impossible it is to write meaningfully on a matter without being politically incorrect, without being judgmental, without thinking!  

How an individual talks about such thing is a matter of taste and manners, and if this normative aspect of human nature is legislated upon, we reach the stage in which the Soviet Union and its like-minded states found themselves in: materially backward and mentally and spiritually blunt and demoralized. It kills the enquiring mind’s drive to find things out by enforcing a regime of fear of persecution. Matters developed to such an extent where husbands and wives and children all reported on one another to the State security services. Half the population reported on the other half with the result that the eastern European countries found themselves in a frozen state. Individual initiative was stifled because all feared to take a risk because criticising/opposing the Marxist ideology would be punishable by prison, and the Gulags were well populated with its particular slave labourers.

Hate Speech and Discrimination

In his attack on Keith Windschuttle, I charge Dirk Moses with wilfully attempting to develop such a state of fear in Australia as existed in the former Soviet Union. Moses knows that the Racial Discrimination Act is about to be augmented by an amendment to the Crimes Act that will then criminalize so-called ‘hate’ - and ‘race-hate speech’. The ‘denier’ label is designed to facilitate the transition into that legal category, thereby ensuring that Moses and his group are free to impose their dictatorship of the ‘Holocaust’ dogma.  

The label ‘hate speech’ is designed, again, to block and impede the free flow of information thereby impeding mental development. By claiming one’s opponent is engaged in ‘hate-speech’, it avoids opening up to an opponent’s argument on the ground that a response is demeaning, unworthy or, as Professor Deborah Lipstadt used to claim, it legitimises an opponent’s absurd point-of-view. That this is nonsense was brought home to Lipstadt when she had to realize her claim “there is no debate about the Holocaust” was silly because the debate about the ‘Holocaust’ is raging. That legal means are used to silence such a debate is conveniently ignored by Lipstadt.

But not only is the free flow of information limited, it is through such limitation that our thinking processes are also stifled. Where school students are instructed to ‘feel’ about matters, without augmenting that feeling through rigorous thinking, they remain in an infantile developmental stage where anything below the navel leads to an enthusiastic appreciation of ‘bread-and-circus’. Matters are absorbed on a literal level, which leads to feeling offended, and that leads to litigation. The use of figurative language is not developed and legalese rules supreme. Anything that challenges the individual to engage in critical thinking is perceived as an offence or a personal attack because their subjective world is so total and absolute. Any form of stress is ‘upsetting’ and managed through an effective scape-goat mechanism. At schools today the concept of offering individuals events that are character building, is shunned and frowned upon as a relic of an authoritarian and totalitarian education system. Enthusiasm among ‘orthodoxers’ runs high to spread the word of life to primary school students through sex education!  If one were to state that such courses are embedded in a dubious moral framework, then that’s outright heresy! I detail the educational scene in my The Boston-Curry Party, Peace Books 1998.

At such an elementary level, the driving force of individuals is usually determined through manipulation of public sentimentality. It is then easy to re-structure individuals into a mental framework that rests not on principles but rather on feelings. That is where the politically correct have done their homework well, and they have succeeded in capturing the legislature through effective pressure group tactics. Hence, well-meaning and well-sounding legislation is passed by parliament, usually late in the evening when hardly any members are present. That is what happened with the Racial Discrimination Act.

Yet what is ‘hate-speech’, or worse, what is a ‘hate-crime’? I would have thought a crime-is-a crime! But the politically-correct brigade sees it differently. That this causes understanding problems is evident when considering how this concept is applied in the USA . If a white person kills a black person, it is quickly labelled a ‘hate-crime’ murder, while a black on white killing is labelled a murder. There is something not quite balanced in such news reporting. It favours the blacks and disadvantages the whites, a case of reverse-discrimination, so to speak!

But the term ‘discrimination’ itself creates a problem because our innate moral value system requires of us to think; and thinking is nothing but the mind discriminating among various possibilities. The familiar example is when individuals chose partners, and here the various Internet dating services are instructive. There are a number of categories that enable an individual to develop a personal profile. For example, race, religion, eye and hair colour, height, profession, income, etc. If the discrimination industry is to be serious about its business, then this aspect of the Internet traffic must be proceeded against. 

So, if we have laws that limit our behaviour on grounds of discrimination, then we are actually causing arrested mental development because we are going against a basic human form of behaviour. We are then forcing individuals to shut up and still do their thing in private, though even the private sphere is not safe anymore from those who think they are on a mission that requires them to impose anti-discrimination laws.

However, such laws on their own are a failure because in order to ensure that a balanced result emerges from any discrimination processes, it is essential to augment it with the concept of justice, which in turn needs to be augmented by the truth concept. Where truth is not a consideration, lies flourish, and from such a state immoral actions flow because without truth-telling there cannot be trust, one of the most important ingredients necessary to ensure a functioning social order.

It appears to me that Dirk Moses has not considered the problem that his use of the term ‘denier’ causes to our mental maturation and to our social wellbeing. By using this dialectic trick of labelling an opponent an enemy and a denier, he automatically assumes that he has a monopoly on the truth of a matter. Moses sets himself up as the arbiter of what is right and wrong. His mental framework consists of a clear-cut THEM-US dichotomy, something that he accuses Windschuttle of possessing.

Legal, Professional and Social Persecution

Moses claims that Windschuttle shares with David Irving the “proclivity”357  to sue one’s critics, yet he fails to mention how his own selected group that upholds the ‘Holocaust’ dogma viciously and relentlessly pursues so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’ through the law courts, mostly at state expense because laws are there specifically to cater for such persecution.

If it is not legal persecution, then there is always the earlier stage — professional and social persecution. The first German to have his doctor title revoked was in 1983 when the University of Göttingen moved against  Dr Wilhelm Stäglich whom it had awarded a doctorate during the 1950s. The reason was that Stäglich had published a book questioning the evidence that is alleged to have supported the extermination argument. He wrote an essay about it in 1973, and this then formed the basis for his book Der Auschwitz Mythos. Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme, Grabert 1979.  

The long-running New Zealand saga of such persecution involves Dr Joel Hayward, the former academic who in 1993 wrote an MA thesis that claimed the ‘Holocaust’ did not involve exterminations or homicidal gas chambers. Although Hayward recanted and apologized profusely to the New Zealand Jewish community, the latter will not let the matter rest because The University of Canterbury, New Zealand, has not withdrawn the MA. This means that technically the MA conclusion stands, especially because an initiated working party concluded in its report that Hayward was not dishonest in his work. To this day the New Zealand Zionists are at it, pressing the university to open the case and withdraw Hayward ’s MA. It hurts them because Canterbury University is the only university in the world that has accepted a so-called ‘Holocaust-denial’ thesis. Its 18 December 2000 Report By The Joel Hayward Working Party concluded that the degree could not be revoked because Hayward was not dishonest in his work.

The thesis The Fate of Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism, can be found on the Internet by using any search engine.  

Moses is following this line of threatening those who disagree with his orthodox view. His essay is what I consider a veiled threat to Windschuttle: Remain a Revisionist but don’t venture into denialism because then you have overstepped the mark of the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy. And for lazy thinkers it is best to remain within the comfort zone of orthodoxy. Why venture into controversial spheres and attract all this fire of discomfort?

I hasten to add that this kind of bluff is nothing new, and in some way we ought to welcome it. It will determine the moral and intellectual courage that Windschuttle possesses. During my 1960s student days at the University of Melbourne I met historians who complained about not getting their views published. It was on the then new topic of Indonesian politics and history.

Still, Windschuttle should be safe because he has publicly stated that he does not ‘deny ’the ‘Holocaust’. And Morse states that Windschuttle is not an anti-Semite, “There is no evidence to suggest he doubts the veracity of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide or Japanese war crimes.”357

The absurdity of this statement, "he doubts the veracity of the Holocaust",  lies in its simplicity. Without defining the term ‘Holocaust’ one is asked publicly: Do you believe in the ‘Holocaust’? After decades of incessant ‘Holocaust’ media saturation, including schools and universities, it would surprise if one had not heard about the ‘Holocaust’. It is common knowledge, and in German, Austria, Switzerland, et al, offering evidence to the contrary merely accentuates and proves that the accused is a ‘revisionist’. In Germany the prosecutors then talk about an accused having used lots of ‘criminal energy’ to spread the revisionist message.

A Detour into recent Australian Politics

The closest we came to that kind of mindset in Australia occurred when in 1996 the Pauline Hanson One Nation populist political movement began to upset the establishment.  Anyone who was aware of the ‘Holocaust’ problem and who refused to bow to those who controlled the orthodoxy, had no chance of gaining office in the fledgling movement. The divide was clear: believe in the ‘Holocaust’ and things are fine; don’t believe in the ‘Holocaust’ and you are a ‘denier’ and you are out.

If one then countered such rejection with arguments, the next step of the smear campaign would be introduced by publicly being labelled ‘anti-Jewish’, ‘anti-Semitic’, or even ‘racist’.

That Pauline Hanson warmly embraced Aboriginal supporters during her touring the Australian political scene, is conveniently forgotten by her critics who delight in labelling her a ‘racist’.

Her current term of three years imprisonment on account of her having fraudulently registered her One Nation political party is currently under appeal. The fact that she, and co-founder of the party, David Ettridge, was given the legal treatment is not an accident. It sends a clear message to Australians not to deviate from the orthodoxy of the ‘Holocaust’,  ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘internationalism-free trade’, never mind that such policies are destroying the fabric of Australian society.

When Pauline Hanson addressed the South Australian Press Club dinner, I attended. A journalist immediately brought my presence to the attention of Hanson, then asked her to respond to the fact that well-known ‘Holocaust denier’ Fredrick Töben was in the room. Pauline Hanson in her delightful way responded by saying, “Dr Töben, please explain.”

Instead of opening himself to the actual arguments on which the Holocaust Revisionists rest their case, Dirk Moses seems to be following this pattern of libel and defamation. Anyone who questions the orthodoxy is a heretic, a denier, etc.

He begins this section of his essay by asking: “How does Keith Windschuttle’s work appear in light of this syndrome?”

Syndrome? As stated earlier, the use of psychologism may shed light on human motivation, but it certainly does not help in clarifying actual historical problems that emerge out of actual physical events alleged to have happened. Here scientific investigation of the empirical kind is needed, not some discourse of whether a person is a ‘denier’ or not.

The Revisionists have done their homework, and rely on The Rudolf Report, among other works, to support their views. It is this report upon which I personally rely for my view on the homicidal gassing claim at Auschwitz concentration camp.  

Psychology as an aid to understanding Dirk Moses

Here is a little psychologism of my own. Bearing in mind that Moses has taken it upon himself to defend the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ version of events, we can conclude therefrom that he has many blind spots; that he is most probably an ardent Zionist who supports the Zionist and racist state of Israel, and who would be aware of the centrality that the ‘Holocaust’ plays in legitimising the existence of the state of Israel. Take away the ‘Holocaust’ and the Jewish claim ‘never again’, becomes empty rhetoric; the Palestinians would thereby be liberated from the terrible Zionist oppression and Israel would cease to exist.

I hear cries of ‘anti-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Semitic’, but then recall that on 16 September 2003, The Guardian www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1041960,00.html,featured featured an article by Avraham Burg, a speaker of the Israeli legislature in 1999-2003 and a former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel.  

He wrote that the "countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun… Having ceased to care about those children, who are washed in hatred, Israel should not be surprised when they blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism.”  

This recent statement is easily countered by an article that appeared in the Sunday Times on 19 January 2003 :

“Israeli death squads have been authorised to enter ‘friendly’ countries and assassinate opponents in a move that raises the prospect of political killings in Australia . Agents of the Israeli secret service Mossad have been given free rein to kill those deemed to be a threat to the Jewish state wherever they are hiding … a spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer yesterday refused to comment on the possibility of Mossad agents operating in Australia.”

Further, in Paris during a live television program, Tout le monde en parle – Everyone talks about it, Channel France 2, 18-19 January 2003, Dr Robert Faurisson, who watched the show, reported: 

“At the end, T Ardisson asked A Klarsfeld what he thought about an opinion now going around, and expressed in particular by the French Jewish intellectual Guy Sorman, which says that the State of Israel could disappear and would therefore constitute finally only a parenthesis in the history of the Jewish people. The water-throwing man answered that, in this case, ‘the Jews would undoubtedly get themselves organized so as to eliminate the Holocaust deniers.”

A Return to Dirk Moses and his ‘denialist’ threat

Is Dirk Moses part of the forward shock-troop defending the State of Israel’s right to exist? Is his, no doubt self-appointed, job to intimidate Australian students and academics by playing the watch-dog that sniffs out so-called denialists? Or is he merely concerned with, as he implies, the upholder of “scholarly standards that university historians have neglected in pursuing their supposedly dubious ideological goals?”. 357

 The disclaimers that could be used as an indicator of Windschuttle’s ‘denialism’ are telling. He writes that it will not do to smear Windschuttle “as he has smeared historians with his insinuations that they are cheats who invent sources.” It will not do to draw parallels between Windschuttle and the ‘denialist’ and point out that their published titles “are so similar”, e.g. ‘The Fabrication of X’, ‘The Myth of Y’. It will not do, says Moses, to point out that both David Irving and Keith Windschuttle readily sue their critics. It will not do to point out Windschuttle opposes the left-liberal intelligentsia. It will not do to label Windschuttle an ‘anti-Semite’ because “there is no evidence to suggest he doubts the veracity of the Holocaust …”. 357

Here is one Moses’ punch-line:

“But the question is whether he denies frontier violence in Australia in the same way as these other events are denied. Accordingly, we must ask whether the formal structure of his argumentation fits the denialist syndrome sketched out above. An examination reveals sufficient troubling parallels that Windschuttle should clarify where he stands in relation to each of its points.”35 7

That to me sounds much like a blustering huff-and puff teacher I once knew. He was one of the most immature male teachers I have come across in my teaching career. I muse to myself as I visualise this man in action because in his relationship with students it was evident that he was a man among boys, and a boy among men.

Although I do not know Dirk Moses personally, his written text enables me to get a feel about his character, to visualise him. I add, of course, that I may be quite wrong in my assumptions of the psychological make-up of this man.

The subtle control techniques that are embedded within Moses’ article are not based on a rational approach where reason and understanding rule, where the wish to discover the truth of an objective factual allegation is explored within a civilized framework. According to my understanding of academic freedom, we can affirm or deny anything we like with the proviso that we do it in a civilized way. This makes Revisionism so interesting, and were this academic freedom ideal not propagated by our democratic societies, then I would not embrace it so warmly.

Intellectual Dictatorship and Legal Persecution

Yet, when it comes to the ‘Holocaust’ an intellectual dictatorship operates that is vicious and violent. Revisionists have a long story to tell about it. The currently most vicious example is how the USA and Canada are treating Ernst Zündel, one of the world’s most knowledgeable Holocaust Revisionists. His current imprisonment in a Toronto prison/detention centre, where he has been held in solitary confinement since February 2003, is understandable in the context of what Dirk Moses is writing about.

But this does not justify the fact that a group of Zionists and their sympathisers break all the rules just to get Zündel imprisoned. A detailed account of how he was arrested in the USA , then transported back to Canada can be found at www.Zundelsite.org

Such bureaucratic behaviour is reminiscent of the Soviet Union ’s treatment of its dissidents that it sent to the Gulags. Surely we in the so-called civilized and democratic western world don’t indulge in such forms of victimisation/torture. But we do. Australia has as yet not reached this stage of legal depravity, but the signals are there and it needs just some kind of pretext to set the track accordingly. I am reminded how the terrible Bali bombing served as a welcomed pretext for the Howard government to follow the USA into invading Iraq . The pincer movement worked well, to date at least: sell freedom and democracy at home and fight terrorism overseas. And the real reason for the invasion remains a side issue, control of oil and Iraq ’s financial system that threatened to align itself with the Euro.  

The ‘Denialist Syndrome’ illuminated

Moses claims that two points makes up the ‘denialist syndrome’:  

1. “The history profession conspires to conceal a great truth, central to the welfare of humanity, of which he is the anointed prophet” who will challenge myths and legends that lead to the establishment of a “revolutionary utopianism of totalitarian dictatorship” whose hallmark is ‘political correctness’ and whose proponents are self-loathing elites. 358

It is not the history profession that conspires but rather it is a fact that national state archives around the world operate under secrecy clauses. Any history student knows this. Our own Australian federal and state governments, for example, lock up Cabinet papers for decades, sometimes forever. This is what drove the push for Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation because it was deemed that in a democracy a citizen had a right to know what was on his file. Natural Justice and balance re-emerged as powerful tools in Common Law cases. The drive to ‘privatisation’ of industry enables this secrecy trend to continue because private industry is exempt from FoI legislation.

It is obvious from the above that for almost two decades we witnessed a period in which government archives were opened for special interest groups, thus assisting them in their quest for power, and now the closure follows through ‘political correctness’. The prime example is Canada’s quest to create an egalitarian society where the only evident form of justice consists of a total fracturing of the body politics in favour of the powerful Zionist lobby:. The Ernst Zündel case highlights this so well where the internal security agency actually let pass a parcel bomb designed to kill Zündel. It nearly did, but because Zündel suspected that there was something not right about the address he took the parcel to the police who subsequently rendered it harmless by blowing it up..

Such incidents enable Revisionists to conclude that they are dealing with criminal minds that will stop at nothing to protect the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy. The threat to one’s safety is a real threat.  

2. Writing objective history is the goal without a political/ideological agenda, but this  contradicts the partisanship evident in Windschuttle’s writings. Moses claims that on this point Windschuttle’s language is strikingly similar to  David Irving’s, which also claims neutrality over partisanship, and the only way he can avoid this is “by using the same evidentiary criteria and practices  — crazed positivism — as deniers.”

i.                    — fundamentalist use of documents and “abjuring evidential convergence”.

ii.                 — a priori  rejection of material that goes against his case.

iii.               —‘splitting’ pervades Windschuttle’s writings and “mires him in contradictions”.

Of course it is every historian’s goal to write as objectively as possible. But history is not an exact science, it is normative, subjective, biased even. What is important to point out, and Moses alludes to this, is that historians select according to their personal moral values. What historians select and write about reflects what is within their own personal value system. Historians defend their personal world view as objectively as possible.

I cannot relate to Moses’ claim of using documents in a ‘fundamentalist’ way. Any Revisionist knows that any document needs to be weighed up, needs to be turned over many times before it is accepted. All too often the generators of documents are merely justifying the deed after the event. Current world politics abounds with examples, such as the USA invasion war of Iraq . The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was the pretext for this aggressive ‘preventative’ strike into enemy territory. The WMD have to date not been found, but the USA has gained control of the oil and the financial centres of Iraq . What documents will historians rely upon when they tell this story in years to come?

Fortunately we have the Internet that gave us a day-by day account from a number of different points-of-view, something the US-controlled mass electronic media did not do. We witnessed the writing of history in all its various shades.

Concerning the Irving case, after Richard Evans delivered his report against David Irving, I stated that were Evans to write up such a report about any historian working in some university, then that historian would also be “demolished”. It is easy to demolish anyone with hindsight. For example, the way in which the Report By The Joel Hayward Working attempted to strike a balance between competing view-points was of interest. The fact that it concluded Hayward was not dishonest in parts vindicates its work. But New Zealand’s Jewish lobby group remains restless and aggressive towards this conclusion. Hayward felt the pressure and bent, and resigned from his academic post at Massey University in 2002. Hayward recanted, and claimed that the 2000 Irving-Lipstadt trial offered new evidence for him that enabled him to see he had “stuffed up”. Unfortunately for Hayward, he has not made this new evidence available to others. Interestingly, for German Fritjof Meyer, the new evidence flowing out of that London trial caused him to reduce the death figures at Auschwitz, from 1.-1.5 million to around 500 000, and to claim that the gassings occurred in two farm houses outside of the Auschwitz concentration complex.

From the above deliberations we can deduce that the historical enterprise is neither perfect nor absolute, like the ‘Holocaust’ dogma.  No-one has perfect knowledge, something that makes the Revisionist mindset ideally suited to such an enterprise. However, Moses has a wrong perception of what Revisionism is all about. Moses still holds to his Marxist dogma and its clear enemy-friend dialectic process that propels his rigid and dogmatic thinking, that he then projects upon Revisionists.

Moses claims that Windschuttle’s writings reveal contradictions, but contradictions are the hallmark of being alive, and there are individuals who cannot cope with contradictions. The trite saying 'Life is more than logic' illuminates the same point. Moses ought to continue to insist that all historical writings be revised as new information becomes available, often through the opening of sealed archives. and new archives. He does this towards the end when he lists specific worries he has about incidents used by Windschuttle in his thesis, that corrections be made in subsequent volumes. But, again, this is nothing new because it happens all the time that books are revised as criticism is taken on board from friend and foe alike!

However, we are dealing here with a possible open debate of the ‘Holocaust’ topic , and that Dirk Moses wishes to nip in the bud by threatening Windschuttle with the term ‘denier’.

Without a doubt, Moses, et al, is sending a firm signal to Windschuttle: If Keith Windschuttle moves beyond Revisionism, he will be branded a denialist thus bringing him into the realm of ‘Holocaust’ deniers, and that is perhaps soon to be a criminal matter in Australia, as it already is in a number of European countries.

But Moses is not the only one who is sending threatening messages to individual Revisionists around the world.

Robert Manne, and the group of former Marxists/leftists around him, simply cannot tolerate that which they disagree with. Interestingly, Windschuttle’s credentials as an historian are beyond reproach while Manne is not a historian.

Keith Windschuttle’s search for truth in history will be liberating Australian’s from an unbalanced view of their history that attempts to imbue European Australians with a sense of guilt/shame/self-loathing, etc. The so-called ‘left’ interpretation of Australia’s early beginnings reflects the demise of the old political divide ‘left-right wing’, a world-wide trend. This is no more noticeable than in Russia where so-called ‘red’ and ‘brown’ are coming together in a nationalist alliance, against the internationalists.

And that is where Australia is at. The former Marxists/socialists/internationalists cannot cope with the idea that it is a normal course of events for patriotic individuals to want to belong to a group, a community, a state, a country. Their reasoning is that nationalism will again lead to the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz , something that has become a blackmailing their opponents into silence. How? In many western and so-called democracies this very issue of the homicidal gas chambers has been criminalized, thereby making it impossible for anyone to develop a rational argument about it. But that suits those who cannot accept the fact that to this day the existence of homicidal gas chambers has not been proven. In fact, at Auschwitz the two alleged homicidal gas chambers, in Krema I and Krema II, have since 1996 and 2002 respectively, been de-commissioned. Now it is claimed that the gassings occurred in two outlying farmhouses.   

That amicable international relations are not precluded by nationalists is another point the ‘left’ will not acknowledge. For them the old dream of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, of course controlled by them, still makes up their world view. The first casualty of this process is Truth, but this does not bother them because they despise this concept. It demands of them to make a physical reality check about issues that have a correspondence in the physical world. But their Marxist dialectic process is a purely mental process that is not limited by any physical considerations. A dictatorship indeed.

But it goes further. According to Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach , http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm]

“All the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied were typified by a deep sense of orthodoxy—a sense of “us versus them.” Dissenters are expelled, usually amid character assassination and other recriminations. This has certainly been a feature of the neocon movement. The classic recent example of this “We vs. They” world is David Frum’s attack on “unpatriotic conservatives” as anti-Semites. Any conservative who opposes the Iraq war as contrary to U.S. interests and who notes the pro-Israeli motivation of many of the important players, is not to be argued with, but eradicated. “We turn our backs on them.” This is not the spirit out of which the Anglo-American parliamentary tradition was developed, and in fact was not endorsed by other non-Jewish pro-war conservatives.”

Manne’s, et al, dictatorial world view is a failure because nothing constructive can be built on the manipulation of public sentimentality and outright lies. It will not be enough for them to use naked power to impose their world view on those who disagree with them. Even the use of legal force/persuasion is of limited effect when it comes to discussing historical matters because basic legal principles are thereby thrown out. For example, the concepts of natural justice and of balance are crucial in any debate on any matter. A dialectic process does not open itself to any moral dimension where the crucial concepts of natural justice and balance are at home.

And, of course, the liberating power of the Internet with its free flow of information must not be undervalued as an effect that will counter Manne’s plans to impose the ‘Holocaust’  dogma upon Australia and upon the world as a definitive orthodoxy for ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.

Dirk Moses concludes by challenging Keith Windschuttle to respond to the specific allegations levelled against him. Moses then claims that 

“One of the hallmarks of deniers is their refusal to enter into serious dialogue with historians, picking out as they do easily dismissed criticisms and ignoring the telling ones... The answer to the question of whether he is a denier is in his hands.” 363-64

It appears to me that here Moses is describing historians who fear Revisionists. I certainly do not relate to the above, nor does any Revisionist I know. In fact, it is the reverse. The so-called ‘court historians’ avoid Revisionists and proceed against them legally by activating state agencies to silence them. The list of Revisionists who have experienced this kind of treatment is long. Moses cannot deny that, so whom is he calling a ‘denier’ in this context?

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is often quoted as stating that truth emerges in three stages: first it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is taken to be self-evident. So, too, it will be with the ‘Holocaust’. We currently find ourselves in the second stage, hence the vicious attempts at criminalizing so-called ‘Holocaust’ denial in Australia . But then the individuals who go along with enacting such laws will be faced with the following: Are they going to be ‘Holocaust’ liars and deniers? A Revisionist would respond: How can I be a denier? How can I deny that which didn’t happen?

Conclusion: A Hopeful Future

Irrespective of what Robert Manne, Dirk Moses, Keith Windschuttle, et al, think and do, the Revisionists will continue to power on. It does not matter what these individuals think about ‘Holocaust’ Revisionism because the field is still beyond their reach, and dare I say it, beyond their interest and understanding. This needs to be qualified by indicating that the ‘Exterminationists’, as the self-proclaimed guardians of the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy call themselves, are fearful of Revisionists, and they are actually limping behind research done by Revisionists such as Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno. The Exterminationists’ negative attitude towards Revisionism is well canvassed above, and their closed, undemocratic and unbalanced views need not concern us any further.

It is not Revisionists who avoid the open debate, as Dirk Moses claims but rather the reverse, the so-called orthodox historians, the self-selected band of men and women who claim to have full knowledge of all aspects of history. That crucial documents are locked up in archives for many years does not seem to concern them at all. They will continue to rely on official enquires’ results without taking into consideration what material is held under lock and key. Such history remains a guessing game, fed by irregular leaks to keep the chooks happy. It is a pity that Moses did not address this aspect of the historical enterprise. After all, where individuals work together as a team that implements policies designed officially and legally to hide information for decades, that is in my view a conspiracy. In this sphere of politics very little, if anything at all bar a natural catastrophe, happens without design.

As is natural for Revisionists, they have their own critical commentators and thus do not need those who are not serious about their business such as the ‘orthodoxers’ mentioned above. One such voice is that of Professor Robert Faurisson who at the 2002 IHR Conference predicted that for individual Revisionists the future looks bleak, but that the future belongs to Revisionism. Having been taken to court countless times and suffered a serious physical attack, Faurisson will not yield to the enemy of free speech, to the distorters of the historical record.

As stated above, the Revisionists have seen a number of their concerns propel others to correct their historical record. More a Revisionist cannot ask for.

While suffering persecution through legal prosecution Revisionists have not been idle. For example, Germar Rudolf, whose own legal persecution is legendary, has been busy publishing through his Castle Hill Publishers and Thesis & Dissertation Press a number of Revisionist books. His work output literally is awesome.

Anyone who wishes seriously to begin a study of the ‘Holocaust’ controversy should begin with the new edition of Arthur Butz’s now classic text: The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Here is Rudolf’s description of the book:  

Arthur R. Butz, THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry

With his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, A. R. Butz, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, was the first (and so far the only) writer to treat the entire Holocaust complex from the Revisionist perspective, in a precise scientific manner. This book exhibits the overwhelming force of historical and logical arguments which Revisionism had accumulated by the middle of the 70s. It was the first book published in the US which won for Revisionism the academic dignity to which it is entitled. It continues to be a major revisionist reference work, frequently cited by prominent personalities.  

This new edition comes with several supplements adding new information gathered by the author over the last 25 years. Because of its prestige, no library can forbear offering The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and no historian of modern times can ignore it. A ‘must read’ for every Revisionist and every newcomer to the issue who wants to thoroughly learn about revisionist arguments.

Another book for beginners is Dissecting the Holocaust, edited by Germar Rudolf, the author of The Rudolf Report.

A general anthology to the topic of Holocaust Revisionism is Dissecting the Holocaust It applies state-of-the-art scientific technique and classic methods of detection to investigate the alleged murder of millions of Jews by Germans during World War II. In 22 contributions of each ca. 30 pages, the 17 authors dissect generally accepted paradigms of the ‘Holocaust’. It reads as excitingly as a thriller: so many lies, forgeries, and deceptions by politicians, historians and scientists.  

Postscript