Analysing the Holocaust

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/auschwitz4.jpg

A key German Concentration Camp – the alleged locations of millions of deaths by Holocaust promoters – electrified fences and many barracks built for containment purposes not extermination according to Revisionists. Image source

In this post I share the process that I have gone through (over a period of years) to research the Holocaust story, essentially that six million Jews were exterminated in Nazi Concentration Camps in WW2. What this post addresses is not so much whether or not it happened (it didn’t) but how I determine that reality. It’s revealing to see how an investigative blogger thinks and gets to the bottom of a contentious, murky issue.

INTRODUCTION

According to the mainstream media it is ‘common knowledge’ that the Nazis, under Hitler’s direct leadership and instruction exterminated six million Jews in the Concentration Camps of WW2. Some countries prohibit revisionism by law (Germany is a totally controlled speech jurisdiction for example) and the topic is an ultra-touchy one for many. It’s a divisive issue and emotions run VERY high over it around the globe.

Revisionists consider the Holocaust story total nonsense. They have various takes on it but there is consensus within Revisionist circles that the whole thing never happened. Their claims are that the evidence raises more questions than it answers. “Sure”, they say, “There were Concentration Camps but they were POW camps with the intent to contain, not exterminate; the numbers of exterminations are nonsense; the method of gassing is impossible; the evidence shows other uses for the gas used, there is fraud and self-interest within all the stories and witnesses; essentially it is one great big BS story designed to milk sympathy for the Jews under the threat of being labelled anti-Semitic if you don’t agree.”

Well I’ve done the research and the Revisionists in the main have VERY good points; many simply unanswerable questions and they seem to take pretty severe hits from a well-funded, organised defense mechanism that ensures that the Holocaust story retains its widespread public acceptance in a society less able to discern truth than it should be.

Here is the process that I’ve gone and go through to establish truth in relation to the Holocaust stories:

1. PEACE

The first thing I do is to try to clear my mind of preconceptions. Peace from inside is required to deal with the many conflicting emotions – the good guys vs bad guys stories come from both sides and it fogs my mind from establishing the facts when my emotions get thrown around for and against something so sensitive. I only want the truth. To some they would say that I am meditating or praying to get into this state but my prayers are more along the lines of an internal conversation, enabled through typing, so it is a cross between prayer and reading/thinking/writing. The Holy Spirit seems to speak to and through me when I write and SEE the words, more than when I speak audibly or even silently.

2. THE BIG PICTURE

I then look at the big picture stories. In this case it is simple – the predominantly Jewish owned/controlled mainstream Media, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish or Jewish influenced groups are united and vocal. Their materials are explicit, clear and make very simple claims. Those claims have changed over time depending on who is claiming them, and their validations of those claims have also changed but their message is simple. Gas chambers, 6 million Jews, WW2 and Nazi Germany with the anti-Semitic Final Solution the motivation and trigger.

The big picture from Revisionists is a little harder to collate because it is more diverse and comes from different angles but the essence of the messages are that there is deliberate fraud; it’s a long-running conspiracy to present a lie as fact. Motivations are pretty much along the lines that, Jews are the bad guys and . . . well you know or can guess the rest!

3. USE OF LOGIC

The next thing requires experience in truthseeking and investigating to comprehend and apply but any parent will know the principles behind this. I seek big-picture analysis of the method style and thrust of communication especially their use of logic. Denials, a consistent narrow message, ad hominem attacks, calls to authority, avoiding direct probing questions, all manner of logical fallacies are indications of some form of deceit or fraud. On the other hand willingness to cover multiple possibilities and messages, acceptance of others’ viewpoints, detailed reasoned responses to specific claims, a willingness to change a viewpoint or to seek other explanations from any angle and suchlike tend to indicate someone more willing to engage with the truth. This then gives me a base from which to start; a good handle on the issues and the key players and the general thrust of how an investigation will head.

4. SEEKING EVIDENCE

I then take the issues that have direct head-to-head conflict and detail their validations. For the holocaust story, central to the validation are the gas chambers in the concentration camps. Another one is the motivations of the Nazis to kill and exterminate. When I can see a clear motivation, a clear intent to execute a plan, a location of the crime scene and they all stack up, then I know that there is good possibility that the central claims have validity. The six million figure is actually not that important when investigating the Holocaust because that’s a high level result rather than any of the core building blocks of making a case for or against.

5. REBUILDING THE CRIME SCENE

I then seek to rebuild the crime scene, considering all the various claims, validations and stories that are used as evidence by those promoting the story. In the case of the Holocaust I find clear unambiguous evidence that Hitler and the Nazis utilised public dislike and distrust of the Jews in Germany for political and military purposes and that he targeted major sectors of the Jewish population (not all, but large sections) for special prejudicial treatment. I find no evidence though that the so-called “Final Solution” was mass extermination per se. I also find that the logistics surrounding so-called extermination or death camps was much more in keeping with containment and utilisation rather than extermination. There are too many unanswered questions and every answer given as validation for the primary Concentration Camp aspects of the Holocaust story leads to a dead-end. I find no merit with the case when analysing the crime scene(s) and looking at all issues in depth.

6. CREDIBILITY

Having established that the core events as claimed lack evidence, I then look at credibility, for it may be that there is no evidence but the events still took place as claimed. It is perfectly possible that if the claimants are coherent, co-operative, open and willing to discuss the matters; play the ball and not the player and are ‘good-guys’, then this brings credibility even in the absence of evidence. Likewise with detractors. If the Revisionists demonstrate bad-faith (such as anti-Semitism) even sub consciously then they too would lack credibility in claiming that fraud has and is occurring. This is a judgement call based on patterns – patterns of behaviour sometimes built up over many years and snippets of the real picture coming together like a jigsaw puzzle, rather than a photograph flashed onto a screen all at once. Patterns can be seen in all sorts of ways – a good investigator will use all the experience and resources he has to learn the MO of a criminal. He will trust no-one but seek information from credible sources and compare that with other sources. I have found the pro-Holocaust messengers to be strongly lacking credibility in all factors except the “official channels” which are unanimously supportive of the Holocaust claims, often to wildly ridiculous extremes, and I find the Revisionists by-and-large to have strong credibility in terms of the subject matter, and varying credibility of motives. Another form of credibility is the shape and form of testimony and support. When this comes from interest groups and those with agendas it reduces credibility. Another issue in regards to credibility is changing validations and this is an excellent clue as to the existence of a cultish belief system – where a concept, idea or fact is presented and believed based on a particular validation or set of validations. When they are proven invalid, the correct process to go through is to revisit the entire concept. Many though don’t and thus fall prey to deception with a new “better” or revised ‘fact’ that supports the contention. We see this with the concept of evolution – something that has been based on proof debunked time after time yet still remains a valid concept! The Holocaust story too suffers from a series of debunked validations.

7. SOCIAL CONTEXT

Credibility is in a large part determined in a social (religious, commercial or political) context. Even assuming good intent (which many actually challenge) it is unlikely that the ADL would ever confess that they made a mistake and were fooled by someone bearing false witness publicly in regards to the Holocaust but behind closed doors they will find ways to cover up and deal with the threat. Understanding the context in which a story is being told is a crucial component of the investigation. In the case of the Holocaust story I find politics and self-interest in BOTH sides of the conflict although there are some Revisionists who seem to have a lesser agenda than others, perhaps like me – simply out there to find the truth. Again though, the heart is forever deceitful and no-one really knows the true motives of another.

8. DEALING WITH COUNTER ARGUMENTS

I then look at the counter-arguments and analyse what people are saying about the others to their own. This is very revealing, so that those who repeat misinformation or who misquote or who undertake straw-man arguments about their opposition show their intellectual bankruptcy whereas those who repeat their opponents’ positions accurately reveal a greater desire to deal with the truth. When someone calls me anti-Semitic because I simply ask a question and I know that I am not, then I know that they have an agenda. It is my finding that the proponents of the Holocaust story are strongly motivated to bully, and force their opinions on others, whereas Revisionists by and large are the victims of ‘foul-play and injustice at the expense of openness and truth. I’ve noted a huge imbalance in this one yet it is presented in reverse in most of the mainstream media – thus I find bigotry, racism and suchlike very strong in the mainly Jewish proponents of the Holocaust story and a notable lack of it in the Revisionist community.

9. GLOBAL CONTEXT

In all of this I use my own life experiences as a guide. For example I recall the intense hatred clearly of a demonic nature of an Arab friend of mine when the subject of the Jews arose. I recall the response of a Jewish man to a book that he saw on my bookshelf that he didn’t like – a similar knee-jerk reaction that mimicked the Arab’s response but in the other direction. I then extrapolate my findings out into a broad big-picture Christian world-view where there is a cosmic conflict over good and evil. I compare them with my understanding of human nature, biblical prophesy, biblical commentary and the sensitivity that the Holy Spirit gives to a matter, gently guiding us into greater knowledge, wisdom and understanding. When it ‘fits’ then I am happy that I’ve got the ‘gist’ of things.

10. TEST & VALIDATE

I then test the waters, playing with the ideas on my blog, with others I know and trust and with others whom may challenge me, revisiting the whole thing from time to time to see if there are any areas of weakness in my analysis, or failures of proper process or areas of deception that I may have fallen in to. This takes time and inviting criticism, commentary or correction is not always easy but it helps cement an understanding when others’ responses coincide with my ‘take’.

The Holocaust is a high-stakes subject that requires one to be ready to pay the ultimate price for divining truth. Deniers are not yet regularly bumped off for denying something that is as sacred as the Holocaust story, but a true believer must be ready to stand for the truth, no matter what shape or form it takes and no matter the price we have to pay.

In the days of the early church it was the legislated worship of Caesar that cost believers their life when they stood for their beliefs. In the Dark Ages it may have been denying the Trinity. In the Arabic world it may be messing with the image of Mohammed. For some, the subject of the Holocaust is a matter of worship and if we don’t bow down to their golden calf, we shall suffer. For me . . . so be it. I have already paid a price and I am prepared to do more so for what I consider is the truth.

I trust that this has helped you understand some of the issues relating to my research into the Holocaust. I’m not anti-Semitic in the slightest. I don’t care who, what, where or how anybody lives their lives but when I find that the truth is being actively distorted by a certain sector of the community and they get in my way, so be it . . . we’ll have a conflict!

Just show me the evidence, give me facts; deal with the issues and not ad hominem attacks and nobody will have any issues with me because if they stack up, I’ll change my mind and agree with them.

Easy.

But try to ram BS down my throat and avoid the basic questions and as far as I’m concerned, there’s something very wrong with the whole story.

For the record I am not actively promoting Holocaust denial and I don’t claim to know all the ills of that time, nor do I claim that the Nazis were the good guys – clearly nobody was when you look at them all playing games with guns like they did. There are things that happened in WW2 that were just downright disgusting but exterminating 6 million Jews in the Nazi Concentration Camps wasn’t one of them, sorry!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This post has 2,419 words.

Speak Your Mind

*