A Dissertation On
Selective Righteous Indignation

(1) One of the feistiest Exterminationists in alt.revisionism has to be Daniel Keren. Dan I am told, holds a Ph.D in Computer Sciences. He is also Jewish or of Jewish origin, unsurprisingly, and has obviously done a great deal of research on the Holocaust, certainly more than most. I too have done a great deal of research on the Holocaust, probably more than Dan in some respects, although just as there are many areas in which my knowledge is superior to his, so there are many areas in which his is superior to mine. Dan has, for example, studied in some considerable depth the allegations and trials relating to the Aktion Reinhard camps, which is not my strongest point.

If Dan’s intellect and learning are his strong points, he has a very weak point too: arrogance. Since December 1993 I have been involved in acrimonious litigation with a number of parties; as things stand, this action will probably be coming to trial early in the Spring of 1997. (2) I am conducting the litigation in person, and one thing this has taught me is the value of humility. However much noise I may make in certain fora, I always listen to those whose knowledge is superior to, or just different from, mine, and weigh up the pros and cons before I act on them. It is my considered opinion that Dan could learn a great deal from a little humility.

At one time Dan would give me only personal abuse; I was an out and out Nazi scumbag. After all, who but a Nazi could possibly deny the gas chambers, or simply question them - like I do? I had to be a Nazi and a raving anti-Semite like Matt Giwer, Tom Moran, and all the other Revisionist lowlife. Of late though, Dan has obviously been experiencing something of a crisis, because we have had some considerable private correspondence, and he has been far less abusive to me than he once was. Hell, he’s even been debating with me, and there is and can be no debate with “deniers”, remember? St Deborah has spoken. (3)

It is against Net protocol to quote extensively from private mail in a public forum, so I will not do so here, but I will point out that in an E-Mail I received from Dan on Friday, October 18, 1996, he replied thus to my complaint that Revisionists are regularly libelled by Exterminationists: “I have yet to see a ‘revisionist’ who was ‘libeled’. As far as I can tell, they are the worst Nazi slime around (with perhaps a few exceptions, who are insane or have deep mental problems).”

I would be touched to think that I have been relegated from the worst Nazi slime around to being simply insane or even having only deep mental problems. Dan though would not be touched to realise that there are people, including his co-racialists, who believe that we are cut from the same cloth, and that he too is “the worst Nazi slime around” or sick in the head. How come? Well, in its February 4 1995 issue, the Independent newspaper of London reviewed a book called In Hitler’s Shadow, which was described as “a timely exposure of Germany’s neo-Nazi factions.” The reviewer was a journalist named Ian Thomson (4) who claimed that former SS Major-General Otto Remer “has been in and out of prison” for denying the Holocaust, and that [only] “A corrupted personality like Otto Remer...can claim that those bulldozed corpses at Belsen were not the result of a genocidal ideology but of an outbreak of typhus.”

Thomson is referring here, obviously, to the emotive photographs of the bulldozed bodies at Belsen. To this day these constitute the mass propaganda “proof” that the Nazis “gassed” Jews, but of course they prove no such thing. In the words of Professor Butz: “It is, I believe, Belsen which has always constituted the effective, mass propaganda proof of exterminations, and even today you will find such scenes occasionally waved around as proof”. (5) On occasion I have been smeared as an anti-Semite simply for pointing out this prosaic fact.

More recently, a Jewish journalist writing in the British Sunday newspaper the Observer, stated her - undoubtedly sincere - belief that books that promote Holocaust Revisionism (or Denial as she called it) should be binned rather than banned. (6) In this article Miss Phillips (or should that be “Ms” Phillips?) referred to the “vile” claim that Anne Frank died of typhus and that Zyklon B gas was merely a pesticide.

I wrote to this stupid bitch pointing out that Zyklon B was primarily a “pesticide” (7) that had been in use many years before Hitler came to power, and that every schoolgirl knew, or should know, that Anne Frank died of typhus rather than asphyxiation. (Needless to say, my letter was ignored). (8) What is the point? One point is that if dashing Dan, who is forever denouncing us Revisionists as liars, Nazis and slime, were to make such a point, on a talk show, say, he would very likely be denounced as an anti-Semite himself, or, perish the thought, even as a Nazi.

Another point is that although if Melanie Phillips had done the most cursory research on the Holocaust she wouldn’t have made such an arsehole of herself, most ordinary people, unlike journalists and academics, do not have free access to archives, excellent technical research facilities, or to specialist textbooks; they pick up most of their information on world events and history from the media. A media which is dominated by people like Melanie Phillips!

It is hardly surprising then that so many people are ignorant of the “facts” of the Holocaust because they are not simply being fed limited information but outright nonsense. When Melanie Phillips and her ilk snarl at Revisionists for claiming that Anne Frank died from typhus, the public are supposed to throw up their hands in horror. “Shocking, how can these wicked Nazis say such things?”

Similarly, in 1963, the Board of Deputies of “British” Jews published a pamphlet extolling the horrors of Nazism complete with a photograph of the delousing chamber at Dachau. Here is the proof. Here is a gas chamber, they cried. In 1978, two South African Zionists Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond published a photograph of “gassed” Jews at Dachau. (9) Similar deceptions have been used in legal proceedings. (10) According to arch-anti-Revisionist Jean-Claude Pressac, a photograph of a “Gas chamber door” produced as evidence by LICRA at the trial of Robert Faurisson in France was actually that of a delousing chamber. This exhibit was furnished by the Warsaw Central Commission, (11) the publisher of German Crimes In Poland, and one of the main sources of evidence of Nazi atrocities against the Jews.

The point I’m making is not that Dan refuses to snarl at these damned liars and gerrymanderers the same way he snarls at Revisionists, excusing the deliberate deception over the Dachau gas chamber as a “mistake”, the point I am making is that there are many people, like Melanie Phillips, who condemn Revisionists, all Revisionists, when they themselves have not done the slightest research on the Holocaust, even though many of the said Revisionists have done a great deal of research on the Holocaust. No matter how much or how little research - including zero - any Exterminationist has done, it is considered perfectly acceptable for such people to denounce ALL Revisionists as liars. On the other hand, any Revisionist, even those of us who have do ne a great deal of research, well, we must be damned liars too. After all, there is so much evidence that only a liar, anti-Semite, Nazi, ad nauseum, could possibly challenge any aspect of the Holocaust. Right?

A real paradox though is the ill-educated individual who holds the Revisionist position. According to Dan, all such people are anti-Semites, etc, yet if someone has done little or no research on the Holocaust, why should he or she believe in exterminations and mass gassings? Because, as stated, the media, and people like Melanie Phillips, say so. And because only an anti-Semite ad nauseum would challenge the perceived wisdom. Even when that wisdom is that Anne Frank was gassed along with countless other Jews in Belsen, and that Zyklon B was used exclusively or principally for this purpose.

[This article was first published on Usenet].

To Notes And References
Back To Articles Index
Back To Site Index