". . . What if the truth did get out, after all, and the establishment media and governments simply shrugged their shoulders, said '. . . well, we were wrong. So what?' and then went on with business as usual?
I can very easily imagine such a scenario. The scenario could look something like this:
First of all, as soon as Holocaust revisionism gains some popularity in wider academic circles, some 'anti-nazi' people are bound to start questioning the matter. (Some already are, but they're in minority.)
These people very easily become the favorites of the media once it becomes popular enough for ordinary people to notice. Eventually, scientific magazines start publishing articles reading 'Hilberg revises Holocaust' or something like that.
The whole thing is more or less thoroughly gone through in the main newspapers, but it doesn't make any big headlines. The truth has finally but quietly come through, and the whole thing is eventually swept under the carpet.
Where we would have liked the headlines to read 'THE HOLOCAUST WAS A HOAX! Exclusive Interview With David Irving and Ernst Zundel Describing Their Fight For Truth Under The Tyranny Of Alien Interests. See pages 3 - 26. . . ' (you) read 'The Holocaust Revised. Exclusive Interview With Raoul Hilberg, Describing His Life As A Dedicated Holocaust Researcher. See page 25-26.' (caps added here for emphasis)
What I want to know is, have you thought out how to make maximum impact once the truth starts getting accepted? The establishment might very possibly be able to continue to fool (people) even if the truth about the Holocaust does get out.
Even if you realize that someone is a liar, you may still believe certain things he says. . . "
Well, that has happened all along. Remember the Auschwitz plaque revision
of 4 Million dead to 1.5 Million dead and still shrinking - at last count,
74,000, according to the Soviet Death Books that Gorbachev released after
a world-wide write-in campaign Ernst Zundel engineered? Who read about that
item? Most people didn't even notice that millions previously "lost"
had suddenly been found. You might have thought there would have been rejoicing,
but not a tiny peep.
This is still happening on every single Revisionist front, as can be illustrated
in this letter that came just a few days ago:
"Last weekend my parents and I met and listened to Mr. David Irving in New Hampshire, thanks to the announcement in the ZGram. We thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. The item that gave me the most hope was that, if I understood correctly, during a recent remembrance ceremony, in Germany, the emphasis is now on mass shootings as the main method of killing Jews.
The gas chambers are ever so gently being pushed into the background. How convenient!"
This is indeed a problem that has plagued Revisionists all along. People
have an amazing capacity to swallow pure nonsense as long as it is repeated
often enough. Remember the classic mendacity "soap-from-Jewish-cadaver"
stories? It hasn't hurt the Holocaust Lobby one bit that those stories were
discredited decades ago - you still see them popping up like the proverbial
Jack-in-the-Box. Has it hurt Elie Wiesel's reputation even one iota that
he "saw" mounds of earth heave and geysers of blood spurt MONTHS
after the so-called victims were buried? For that, he gets standing ovations.
I believe the answer lies in the ever-more rigorous examination of the NATURE
of the people who are foisting this on us. Scientifically, the story of
the gassings of the Jews is dead. There is nothing more to be added. Anybody
who has still three brain cells left can take a day out of his life, immerse
himself in what has irrefutable been proven as Nonsense Magnified, and then
move on.
Do where?
To this: WHY is this being done to us? Who benefits? Who loses? How come
our planet tolerates this kind of loathsome zealotry for years on end against
all better evidence?
The answer could be found in fully facing up to this: that both our enemies
and we are running true to type.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"The voice corresponds precisely with the character of the instrument by which it is made - be it the cooing of the dove, the roaring of the lion, the growl of the tiger, the bellowing of the ox, the bleat of the sheep, the crowing of the cock, the grunt of the pig, the neighing of the horse, or the braying of the ass - each has a voice according to his character."
(Samuel R. Wells, in "New Physiognomy, XIX")