Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia
Titolo: Come essere artam-icromino in Storia

How To Be A Revisionist Scholar
Author: Michael Philips [
top...@igc.apc.org
] First-Published: January 3,
1996 (alt.revisionism)
Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you
may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's
easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it
requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the
guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and
you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there
takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces
of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.
1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your
assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula
responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults.
Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave
the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence
yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation
along with it).
2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the
Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof
would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated
assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof.
(originally posted by Mike Stein) 
3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces
could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because
modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its
pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial
crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons --
e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a
single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.
4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about
the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas
chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass
gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they
*didn't* use it.
Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas
lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying
to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you
(countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation
systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas
masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be
enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people. 
Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who
know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas
would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you
that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or
change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.
5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and
reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining
about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they
say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than
lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas
chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can
respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."
You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot
of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy
language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building
credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but
you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating
the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves. 
6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners
were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages
just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp
guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death,
just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation
policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to
starve people, then no starvation occurred.
7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents
off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of
words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally
agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during
the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you
mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"
Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for
the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean
extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German
dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.
8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never
existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the
Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall
never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.
9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because
there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with
photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual
photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed
because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed
because . . .
10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers
games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the
"holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at
Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that
the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total
number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered
ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from
the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have
changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million
and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax. 
The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death
figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is
likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until
you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!
11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of
testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about
the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted
something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If
some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to
death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may
use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU
are a liar as well.
12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an
individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad.
When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one
Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.
13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make,
although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an
imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that
means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense; b)
With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the
Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby
bringing the corpse cremation figures into question; c) Argue that because
the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas
chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers
did not exist during WWII; d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in
Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.
14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the
pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance
and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other
"label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything,
including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your
own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents
actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the
avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you
actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question
the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.
15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of
allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to
Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad
capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually
exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to
result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.
16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the
Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the
establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would
face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent
need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw
possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax
with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might
oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the
aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that
acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the
victims, ignore them.
17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to
smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.
18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists,
white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone
except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop
you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched,
hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post.
After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).
---------------
saluti
Sergio
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 1996 (alt.revisionism)
Mi dispiace, ho fatto francese a scuola.


no problem, non era rivolto a te il post. E comunque non lo avresti capito
lo stesso.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 lo stesso.
Qualcosa ho tradotto. Ne consiglio la lettura a tutti, è davvero istruttiva
per far comprendere la psicologia degli sterminazionisti. Perchè questa
credo sia la parola adatta a definire chi VUOLE  che degli esseri umani
siano stati uccisi da altri esseri umani senza alcun motivo (ed a
prescindere da ogni logica) utilizzando delle camere a gas. Sbaglio?

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:bm6ccg$f0p$1...@news.newsland.it...


 3, 1996 (alt.revisionism)
<cut>
Fantastico! Li fanno con lo stampino i revisionisti <g>
Ho riconosciuto in questo ritrattino una mezza dozzina di individui che
hanno infestato ICS nell'ultimo anno. Se questo modo di fare era già così
conosciuto nel 1996, figuriamoci quanti ce ne sono in giro! Me li vedo
come tanti robottini caricati a molla, con la chiavetta che gli sporge
dalla schiena... LOL !
ciao
--
Piero F.
------------------------------
(email: togliere xyz dall'indirizzo)

 ciao
Senti chi parla!!!!!!!   :-)))))))))))

 Mi fa venire in mente ArtaSergio che scrive sulle foibe e sui gulag.
bene, ora se non vuoi essere indicato come cialtrone e bugiardo ogni volta
che apparirai sul ng , mostra i miei scritti in cui **io nego l'esistenza
dei gulag e delle foibe**.
Vediamo fino a che punto arriva la tua gia' tanta disonesta' intellettuale..
Sergio



si parlava di te non di altri.


 si parlava di te non di altri.
Si, appunto. Tu e Piero siete gli ultimi che possono permettersi di accusare
altri di "essere fatti con lo stampo". I conformisti siete voi, qui.


Lo siamo perche' lo dici tu o giacomino?


 per far comprendere la psicologia degli sterminazionisti.
e chi sono qua gli sterminazionisti?
Cosa dicono di falso?


 Cosa dicono di falso?
Di falso non so, mica ne avranno un interesse, no? Ripetono a pappagallo,
semplicemente. Possono anche aver ragione, dire cose vere, ma non sono
farina del loro sacco. Questo è il punto.

 Lo siamo perche' lo dici tu o giacomino?
No: perchè siete voi a seguire le versioni "ufficiali", "conformi", senza
metterle in dubbio o perlomeno indagarle.

 Vediamo fino a che punto arriva la tua gia' tanta disonesta'
intellettuale..
Fai tenerezza Sergietto!!!
La new entry della gerarchia italiana dei troll che affibbia titolo agli
altri!:-DDD
Comunue sia caro Arta-Cialtron-Sergio il problema è l'interpretazione che
dai dei fatti, del tutto in linea col manuale del piccolo trinariciuto!.
Mi ricordo di quando ti sbrodolavi con gli articoli della Cernogoi!
Dai che ora arriva mamma a portarti il boscottino!

 Dai che ora arriva mamma a portarti il boscottino!
1) di nuovo non hai portato evidenza alcuna per supportare la tua
affermazione sul fatto che io abbia negato le foibe e i gulag. E cio'
conferma ulteriormente la tua cialtronaggine.
2) Questo tuo ennesimo intervento mostra al ng quanto sei irrecuperabilmente
stupido.


 farina del loro sacco. Questo è il punto.
 
A me interessa sapere che dicono cose vere. Se poi non e' farina del "loro
sacco" poco mi importa. Mentre a te piace dire cose non vere e farina del
tuo sacco.


 tuo sacco.
Guarda in faccia la realtà: a te piace credere alle cose a cui ti piace
credere, semplicemente.

Micromino ha scritto:


no, credo alle cose che posso anche dimostrare senza problemi e senza
inventarmi le scuse che adotti tu per scappare dalle discussioni in cui
fai puntualmente la figura del cialtrone filonazifascista.


Micromino ha scritto:


no, credo alle cose che posso anche dimostrare senza problemi e senza
inventarmi le scuse che adotti tu per scappare dalle discussioni in cui
fai puntualmente la figura del cialtrone filonazifascista.


 fai puntualmente la figura del cialtrone filonazifascista.
Quali scuse?

 Quali scuse?
le tue solite, come questa della pappa pronta, della storia scritta dai
vincitori, del non ricordo, non trovo il libro, del che ne so io, del che
c'entro io l'ha detto lui eccetera eccetera.


 c'entro io l'ha detto lui eccetera eccetera.
Purtroppo io a differenza di quelli a cui rispondo, non sono bravo come
demagogo, non conosco le fini arti del lessico, della sintassi, della
semantica.  Mi tocca rispondere come posso.


che non le indaghiamo lo dici tu o giacomino?


 che non le indaghiamo lo dici tu o giacomino?
Lo dimostrate quotidianamente, se non altro accusando me solo perchč cerco
di farlo.

 di farlo.
tu che cerchi di fare? ti limiti a mettere in dubbio tutto cio' che gli
storici hanno appurato, e lo fai senza nessuna pezza d'appoggio.


 storici hanno appurato, e lo fai senza nessuna pezza d'appoggio.
Se gli storici a cui ti riferisci ragionano come te, allora non avete tanto
torto a definire i libri "carta igienica".
Puoi farmi qualunque domanda.