This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Banned as we are from “legitimate” fora such as “name” publishers, university faculties, and even (through the imposition of prejudicial “standards” of verification) from Wikipedia, we revisionists have been forced to take recourse in on-demand printing for our books and websites and blogs for our publications on the Internet. The well-entrenched defenders of the Holocaust Faith have for the most part remained loftily ensconced in their (much government-funded) ivory towers, and have occasionally deigned to publish perfunctory “ripostes” to our natterings as protocols to their various conferences in luxurious hotels in major cities of the Western world.
At least one intrepid band of “bloggers” (so-called in many of our references to them) has operated a website called holocaustcontroversies on blogspot.com since 2006, whose banner sports the smarmy motto “What Part Of The Word Genocide Do You Not Understand?” Its various participants including (possible pseudonyms[*]) Roberto Muehlenkamp, Jonathan Harrison, Sergey Romanov, Nicholas Terry and Jason Myers most spiritedly attack all manner of revisionist publications, assertions, and even individuals where they are able to identify a real person among their targets. Except of course for personal smear attacks, much of their work has been specific, pertinent, characterized by the presence at least of carefully selected and interpreted facts, and relevant to things revisionists have actually published (which they typically identify clearly without, however, providing hyperlinks to the targeted material). Their magnum opus appeared in 2011 as a massive white paper (see tinyurl.com/7arwaek) titled “Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard,” subtitled “A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues,” a good description of our opposition for once coming directly to grips with our findings and pronouncements.
While we are not necessarily honored by their partisan sniping, I believe I can speak for many revisionists in saying that we are at the very least gratified that some defenders of the regnant faith deign to address not only us, but the things we actually say. Of such opposition, it might be hoped that superior information might eventually emerge from both sides, and in a manner that could command more credence than the unchallenged statements of either of the combatants alone. And the Bloggers (I gladly accord them the capital letter) have met us on the very open field of battle to which we have largely been relegated: the Internet.
But we at CODOH have experienced far greater gratification in our late discovery of a website (see tinyurl.com/qybz3x6), much of whose excellent work is dedicated to parrying Holocaustcontroversies’s counterthrusts against revisionism, the Holocaust History Channel. Unlike Holocaustcontroversies, History has an About tab on its homepage, but it is not informative, containing only a rousing quotation of Thomas Carlyle, the erudite Scottish sometime translator of German into English. Interlocutions from the site’s editor are signed with the initials —JF, and his opponents address him as “Mr. Jansson.”
But curiosity as to the site’s writer(s) and researcher(s) mounts even as it faces mounting competition for our interest from the material itself. The research and interpretation presented in the site’s hundreds of posts to date (the first was in March 2013) are staggering in quantity and quality if they are, as it appears, entirely the work of one person. The clarity and focus of the text is consistently admirable, and even the editing (typography, spelling, punctuation) are virtually flawless. Aside from plentiful links to clearly identified sources, there are photographs, charts, graphs, diagrams, and even videos in dizzying abundance.
The entire setting, viewed in the context of the opposing website to which frequent and occasionally invidious reference is made, provides the kind of point-counterpoint debate from which any number of philosophers have declared that the truth is exclusively to be arrived at. The pair of contending blogs so vigorously and extensively confront and oppose each other’s contentions that droplets of truth can almost be seen oozing out of the tumultuous mass.
Obviously, virtually all of those droplets of truth—believable, even occasionally provable truth—ooze from the Holocaust History Channel’s side of the contest. But the role of Holocaustcontroversies, even if only that of an inferior sparring partner, is indispensable to the winnowing, distilling process that ensues from the clash of viewpoints.
I highly recommend you visit Holocaust History Channel, and dedicate amounts of time and attention such as you might devote to a fascinating book of depth-plumbing technical analysis of a subject that seems to grow more-vital with the passage of each year. You’ll be well-rewarded.
[*] Holders of some of the more-common names have eschewed pseudonyms, and so have, by dint of considerable sleuthery, been identified. Nicholas Terry is a history professor at Exeter University in the UK. Jonathan Harrison, a graduate of Leicester University in the UK, is an adjunct professor of sociology at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers, Florida.
Additional information about this document
|Title:||Counterfire, Our Worthy Adversaries Are Honored with Our Finest (Counter-) Counterfire|
|Sources:||Smith's Report, No. 214, August 2015, pp. 11f.|
|First posted on CODOH:||July 31, 2015, 12:56 p.m.|