【免费】iOS.5.Programming.Pushing.the.Limits.Developing资源-CSDN文库

ios

需积分: 0 94 浏览量 2014-05-09 09:37:07 上传评论收藏 16.3MB PDF 举报

资源详情

资源评论

资源推荐

CHAPTER III

THE REVISIONISTS

The claims of the revisionists

Everyone today knows that there is a group of people who radically question the

prevalent image of the fate of the Jews under the Third Reich. These people call

themselves "Revisionists", or, more precisely, "Holocaust Revisionists". The media

bespatters them with idiotic smear words like "Auschwitz Deniers", and lumps them

together with "Right-wing Radicals".

If you were to ask the average German what the revisionists actually say, and what

they their statements are based on, he would be unable to answer. This is quite

inevitable because of strict media control; the media have strict instructions not to

permit any expression or discussion of revisionist arguments. Thus, many people are

given the completely erroneous impression that the revisionists deny Jewish suffering

during the Second World War. In reality, no one denies that a considerable number of

Jews under German rule were interned in concentration camps, or that large numbers

of deportees died of epidemics and exhaustion. Nor does anyone deny the reality of

shootings of Jews, particularly, on the Eastern Front.

Revisionists dispute the following three points in particular:

1) That there was a plan for the physical liquidation of the Jews;

2) The existence of "extermination camps" with gas chambers for mass killing of

human beings;

3) That five to six million Jews died in German occupied Europe.

It is also not true that revisionism is a "Right-wing radical" movement, since it is not

an ideology. It is, as Prof. Robert Faurisson likes to say, a method. Revisionists

examine the official picture of the "Holocaust" using the same methods which are

generally recognized as valid for other historical periods.

Of course, it is also true that most revisionists are politically to the Right, and that

some of them are acknowledged National Socialists, but this has no influence on the

correctness or incorrectness of their arguments. Whether the discoverer of a new

planet is conservative, liberal, socialist, or Communist, is irrelevant to the history of

science. What counts is the discovery of a new planet!

Furthermore, some of the best-known revisionists, for example, the Frenchmen Serge

Thion and Pierre Guillaume, are on the Left.

A former concentration camp inmate as revisionist pioneer:

Paul Rassinier

The founder of revisionism also came from the left. Paul Rassinier, a French

resistance fighter, a Socialist and detainee at Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau

concentration camps. In his book Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (the Lies of Ulysses), which

appeared in 1950, Rassinier denounced the endlessly exaggerated tales told by former

inmates of German camps. Over the course of years of research, Rassinier finally

came to the conclusion that gassings had either not taken place at all, or had taken

place only as the act of a few lunatics. In Le Drame des Juifs européens (1964),

Rassinier wrote a few years before his death (1):

"For 15 years, every time that I heard of a witness anywhere, no matter where

in the portion of Europe that was not occupied by the Soviets, who claimed to

have himself been present at gas exterminations, I immediately went to him to

get his testimony. With documentation in hand, I would ask him so many

precise and detailed questions that soon it became apparent that he could not

answer except by lying. Often his lies became so transparent, even to himself,

that he ended his testimony by declaring that he had not seen it himself, but

that one of his good friends, who had died in the camps and whose good faith

he could not doubt, had told him about it. I covered thousands and thousands

of kilometers throughout Europe in this way."

Since nobody else wanted to print Rassinier's works, he finally had them published by

a publishing house closely associated with the "Extreme Right" (Les Sept Couleurs).

The hypocrites who reproach him for having them published them there, would no

doubt have preferred to see them never published at all.

Media vilification of the revisionists

If we observe the campaign against the revisionists carried on by the media clique, we

immediately note a series of remarkable features:

First, revisionist literature is flatly stated to have no credibility at all. Thus, a Swiss

women named Klara Obermueller wrote as follows in an anti-revisionist series (2):

"If somebody came along today and reported the calling of a scientific

congress to examine the question of whether the sun revolves around the earth

or the earth around the sun, he would either be ridiculed or declared non-

compos mentis. It wouldn't occur to anyone to discuss the matter seriously... A

similar thing occurs with the propagandists of the so-called 'Auschwitz Lie' or

'Holocaust Lie': their statements that there was no extermination of the Jews, is

so obviously false that it is basically unworthy of serious scientific

discussion."

According to the above, the revisionists are purely and simply crazy. So why

persecute them? Why not just ignore them? Do people take you to court if you say the

earth doesn't revolve around the sun?

Peculiarly, these same lunatics appear to be highly dangerous to the "Western

democracies"; they even appear to threaten the very basis of that society in an

extremely serious way. A hack journalist named Patrick Bahners, writing in the

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 15 August 1994 in connection with the sentencing

of Günter Deckert, revisionist and Chairman of the NPD, by the German legal system,

said:

"If Deckert's attitude on the Holocaust were correct, the Bundesrepublik would

be based on a lie. Every Presidential speech, every minute of silence, every

history book would be a lie. Therefore, anyone who denies the mass murder of

the Jews disputes the legitimacy of the Bundesrepublik."

How can a handful of lunatics endanger the legitimacy of the Bundesrepublik? No,

the journalists must finally recognize that there is something askew in this argument:

either the revisionists are lunatics, in which case they aren't dangerous, and the

journalists can spare the energy wasted on all their hysterical hate campaigns; or they

are highly dangerous to the ruling system of the West, in which case they are not

lunatics! You can't have it both ways; the media must decide one or the other.

State prosecutors and judges as watch dogs for the official version of history

The matter becomes even more suspicious when we learn that "denying" the

Holocaust (a more correct term would be "disputing the genocide of the Jews") are

liable for criminal prosecution in several European countries (3). The model for this

impudent interference of the criminal justice system in the freedom of research is

perhaps the French "Loi Gayssot", passed in France in 1990 (4), which provides for

criminal penalties for anyone disputing any matter decided by the International

Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The sentence of the Nuremberg victor's tribunal has

therefore been declared infallible in France; it has been canonized, as it were. Even

Stalin did nothing of the kind.

In the BRD, revisionists are prosecuted according to paragraph 130 of the Criminal

Code ("Incitement to Racial Hatred") Paragraph 131 ("Slandering the Dead") and

paragraph 189 ("Slandering the Dead"). The first paragraph was considerably

broadened on 28 October 1994, and now calls for prison terms of up to five years for

anyone who approves, denies, or trivializes any criminal act alleged to have been

committed by the National Socialists. Since that date, there have been thousands of

trials of revisionists in Germany just since 28 October 1994.

In Austria, the so-called "Prohibition Law" against National Socialist activities has

served as the Hexenhammer in suppressing the freedom of research on the Holocaust

since 1992.

In France, Holocaust revisionists are liable for imprisonment for one year; in the

BRD, five years; and in Austria, ten years. In practice, however, the penalties are not

that severe. Not yet!

Here are the sentences from some particularly spectacular revisionist trials

in the BRD:

- in October 1992, Major General Remer, one of the most highly decorated soldiers of

WWII, was sentenced to 22 months without probation in Schweinfurt for "Holocaust

Denial", which, for the seriously ill old man, would have been equivalent to a death

sentence (Aktenzeichen Remer 1 Kls 8 Js 7494/91). Rather than serve the sentence,

Remer, accompanied by his wife, went into exile in Spain;

- in April 1995, Günter Deckert, Chairman of the NPD, was sentenced to two years

without probation for translating a technical talk by US gas chamber expert Fred

Leuchter (Aktenzeichen IV Kls 1/95 - 2AK 1/95). That Deckert laughed several times

during the translation, and shortened the sacrosanct Holy Word "Holocaust" to "Holo"

for short, was considered to have aggravated the offense (5);

- In June 1995, the chemist Germar Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment

without probation in Stuttgart (Aktenzeichen 17 Kls 83/94). This sentence was passed

on the pretext that Major General Remer had sent Rudolf's report on the "gas

chambers" at Auschwitz (see chapter XII) to politicians, professors, and the media (6);

- In May 1996, the publisher Wigbert Grabert was fined 30,000 DM for publishing a

scientific revisionist anthology with the title Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte

(Aktenzeichen AG Tübingen 4 Gs 173/95)

- in May 1996, the political scientist and publisher Udo Walendy was sentenced to 15

months without probation (Aktenzeichen 2 Kls 46 Js 374/95 STA Bielefeld) for

"trivializing the Holocaust" (7).

In none of these terror trials did the court spend as much as one single second

considering the arguments of the defendants. Every case assumed the

"Offenkundigkeit" of the Holocaust, i.e., its alleged status as a "proven fact". This

"Offenkundigkeit", believe it or not, dates back to 1945! According to article 21 of the

London Statutes of August 1945, which established the procedural rules for the

Nuremberg Trials, no proof was required of "facts of common knowledge". Just what

constituted a "fact of common knowledge" was, of course, decided by the court itself -

- a court which, in the words of chief prosecutor Robert Jackson, considered its

actions a "continuation of the war against Germany" (8). Thus, the status of the

"Offenkundigkeit" of an assembly-line extermination of the Jews with millions of

victims, was simply considered to be a "fact of common knowledge", for which,

therefore, no proof other than "confessions" and "eyewitness testimonies" is available

today.

All these trials violate the basic right to free expression of opinion as guaranteed

under the Constitutions of all the states concerned. It is also illegal to deny a

defendant any opportunity to prove the truth of his statements; instead, expert reports

on the technical impossibilities of the reported mass extermination are always rejected

with reference to the "Offenkundigkeit" of the Holocaust.

Generally, the very notion that jurists are competent to decide matters of historical

fact is grotesque in itself. The following is an example:

In the book Hat Karl der Grosse Je Gelebt? [Was There Ever Really a Charlemagne?]

(9), the Munich scholar Herbert Illig disputes the existence of Charlemagne, and

declares the whole period from 614 to 911 A.D. to be a product of fantasy. This entire

period of 297 years, together with Charlemagne and all the other historical figures of

the same period, are alleged to have been invented by subsequent falsifiers of history

for political reasons. The absence of any structures built during the three so-called

"centuries of the Dark Ages" is the logical result of the non-existence of this period of

history: an analysis of architectural monuments is said to show that the few structures

alleged to have been built during this period, were, in reality, built later.

Due to an insufficient familiarity with the history of the early Middle Ages on our

part, we shall refrain from expressing an opinion as to the value of Illig's book. If his

arguments should prove to be sheer fantasy, they will be ignored. If they should prove

correct, the author will be sooner or later have to be recognized as a genius. There is

another, third possibility, i.e., that Charlemagne actually lived, but never performed

many of the heroic deeds attributed to him. In this case, Illig's work would still have a

seminal influence upon the writing of history by pointing out its shortcomings --

particularly, an overly blind trust in the reliability of the sources employed.

One thing is for certain: Illig will never be hauled into court because of his book. No

judge will ever jail him for "Denying the Genocide of the Pagans", although, by

disputing Charlemagne's existence, he is, in effect, denying the mass murder of Saxon

pagans attributed to him.

In short, Charlemagne, or any other historical subject for that matter, may be

researched with complete freedom and the broadest possible latitude. The same

statement is true of every other period of history -- except the Second World War,

and, in particular, the fate of the Jews under the Third Reich. This fact alone ought to

make every thinking person deeply suspicious: "truths" that require protection by

criminal law usually turn out to be lies.

The bankruptcy of the official version of history

"Historians have only interpreted the Holocaust. The thing is to research it."

Ulrich Herbert, German historian, in the Frankfurter Rundschau of 13 February 1997,

p. 7.

The Lausanne daily Nouveau Quotidien on 2 and 3 September 1996, published two

articles by the historian Jacques Baynac (an anti-revisionist). The first bore the

promising title "How the Historians Turned the Job of Silencing the Revisionists Over

to the Courts". That means: the governmental persecution of revisionists described

above is the logical consequence of the inability of orthodox historians to come up

with any counter-argument with which to answer the revisionists. While revisionists

RESEARCH the Holocaust, historians are simply content to INTERPRET it. The

facts are irrelevant.

An excellent example of this may be seen in Gunnar Heinsohn's book Warum

Auschwitz? [Why Auschwitz?] (10). At the very beginning of the book, Heinsohn

mentions an alleged Himmler order issued on 25 November 1944 on the disassembly

剩余886页未读，继续阅读

评论收藏

内容反馈

a123lm

粉丝: 14
资源: 25

iOS.5.Programming.Pushing.the.Limits.Developing

评论0

最新资源

iOS.5.Programming.Pushing.the.Limits.Developing

评论0

《iOS 7 Programming Pushing the Limits》2014.04新书 英文版

iOS.7.Programming.Pushing.the.Limits

iOS7 Programming Pushing the Limits epub版本

iOS 6 Programming Pushing the Limits

iOS 7 programming pushing the limits

iOS 7 Programming Pushing the Limit

iOS7 Programming Pushing the Limits

Android Programming - Pushing the Limits- Hellman, Erik

ios 5 Programming Pushing the limit

CSS3.Pushing.the.Limits(2013.7)].Stephen.Greig.文字版

[JavaScript] JavaScript 极限编程 (英文版)

The.GNU.Make.Book.1593276494.

The.GNU.Make.Book.159327649

iOS6 编程实战（英）

通过深度强化学习训练机器人代理学习计划推动和抓取动作以进行操作_python_代码_下载

libarclite-arc

Homebrew 软件管理工具

Location IOS12.3驱动

苹果手机微信聊天记录备份导出神器：WX Backup、Win版本

Xcode15适配MonkeyDev模板

xcode 15 找不到libarclite 等文件

谷歌插件之蓝湖代码生成器,iOS,Android,Swift,Flutter

IOS17.2真机调试包，低版本xcode的需要

XCode15 不能创建Category

苹果手机微信聊天记录备份导出神器：WX Backup、Mac版本

大麦IOS端抢票辅助脚本6.0

最新资源

《iOS 7 Programming Pushing the Limits》2014.04新书英文版