Revisionism is in Trouble – or is it?

That was the response of a certain Richard A. Salzer to a statement in this regard by Dr. Fredrick Toben. I do not know this person, and I am sure that he doesn’t know me either, therefore I can only wonder, how he drew this conclusion. When asked by Dr. Toben to elaborate on this, he did not respond.

I have heard similar stories before, but so far I have always managed to change peoples’ minds, if only by meeting them in person.

Anyway, if revisionism can get in trouble just because of one single person, then revisionism is in trouble, no matter who that person is. If we do not think and act as a community, as persecuted and ostracized as we are, then things really look bad. Declaring a fellow revisionist as bad news for revisionism is not constructive criticism.

And by the way: if I am bad for revisionism, then evolution will replace me with something better, as the IHR under bad leadership was simply replaced by something better that evolved as the niche opened, as the need for something new arose.

* * *

That was the response by David Irving to Dietmar Munier’s story about him having some Jewish ancestry, about which I reported in an editorial in the last issue of this magazine. The reactions to this editorial were along the line of what I expected. Instead of being curious as to whether or not it was true, and instead of seeing some irony and benefit in it, if it were true, I got a lot of scathing criticism for having written anything about it in the first place – even if it were true.

I must admit that I made three mistakes with this editorial: First, I did not ask David Irving for his comment, but I took the comment he allegedly made to Mr. Munier as sufficient. That was not a good thing to do. Secondly, I did not look up the family history pages he has on his website, which give lots of information about his ancestry, but no indication of Jews being among them (denominations are mentioned nowhere). Thirdly, I should have gone to British governmental archives to find out through birth certificates about Mr. Irving’s ancestry instead of relying on hearsay.

All three things I corrected now. Mr. Irving says that Dietmar Munier’s claim about his alleged confirmation of Hochhuth’s claim about his mother having been Jewish is “rubbish,” and the birth entries in the General Register Office of England do not give any information about religious affiliations, but it gives “Newington” as the maiden name of Irving’s mother, which doesn’t tell anything about her religious background. We leave it at that for now, unless I find any documentary proof.

Apart from being more cautious about chatter, there is another thing I learned for the future: revisionists are excited and delighted to learn and experience a development such as a Jew like David Cole became a revisionist and caught the Auschwitz Museum off guard by interviewing them wearing his yarmulke; they are equally delighted to see the German Jew Joseph Ginsburg beat up on Zionists and Holocaust liars. However, the very same revisionists become infuriated if somebody suggests that a historian in line with their views could be Jewish. Can somebody explain this irrationality to me?

It would be psychologically devastating to the Holocaust myth if prominent Jewish historians were to share our revisionist viewpoints. So why should it be any different if that prominent historian’s name turns out to be Irving? Or Germar Rudolf, for argument’s sake – although I am neither prominent nor a historian. And all of my grandparents had to deliver Arier Nachweise (proof of Aryan ancestry) in order to get a marriage license, so I am afraid I am only a non-Jewish subhuman, a German Sour-Kraut.

Is anybody paranoid about Jews here?

* * *

That was Friedrich Paul Berg’s reaction to my decision to publish an article by Charles Provan on the question of whether or not victims of Diesel gassings would appear bluish.

I might sometimes be undiplomatic – the result of being overly sincere and straight forward – but at least I don’t swear and cuss at people. So could we agree to let the steam out at home and cool off before we jot down these lines to people we are arguing with? That is good advice to follow for any social exchange, even and especially when we address our adversaries and enemies, because keeping a cool head makes anybody look superior in a discussion (I know, I should hear myself…).

To conclude this editorial, we revisionists are a community of idiosyncratic people. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, because if we were normal, we would never dare to think out of the box, never dare to fight the uneven, Sisyphus-like struggle against the Holocaust Moloch, never dare to swim against this torrential current of social hysteria surrounding all of us. As long as we keep in mind that although we do not have to love one another, we still ought to fight together in the same struggle we are caught in.

In this sense I would like to apologize for my idiosyncrasies, which my defense lawyer in Germany as early as 1993 listed as my insuppressible tendency to write and speak as my mouth has grown, and not to stop even if I write myself knowingly onto the gallows. That’s the kind of matter true revisionists have to be made of, be their name Salzer, Irving, Berg, Rudolf, or what have you. I love you all, guys!

Thus, I reach out to all of them and to all the others I might have offended or might offend in the future by saying that I do not mean it personally. I just can’t keep my mouth shut and my scribbling pen off the paper, but that is more to the detriment of the Holocaust lobby than it can ever be to my fellow revisionists, so I keep hoping that you will support all of us in our anti-Holocaust idiosyn-craziness…