Germar Rudolf has kindly responded to a CODOH Forum user on my posting "Holocaust Handbooks" Updating Policy - Cosmetic Changes and Recycling Instead of Engaging With Critique and provided this pointed summary of the "Revisionist" problem these days:
The fact that he is the main author of 2/3 of the Holocaust Handbooks even underestimates his impact as his writings have occupied the most relevant issues of "Revisionism". Mattogno had been hyperactive for years, publishing at a pace where the level of research has to leave a lot to be desired, as amply demonstrated on this blog. At his age of 65 years, this source will likely run dry in some years.
The lack of authors and diversity is symptomatic for the poor state of Holocaust "Revisionism". This is not limited to printed media, the Inconvinient History Blog has seen just three postings this year - one remembering the dead Bradley Smith, one reviewing the journals' year 2015 and one announcing the publication of the journals' articles from 2015 - thus none adding anything new to advance "Revisionism". Anyone following the blog would think the movement is close to clinically dead.
We have not heard from Santiago Alvarez since February 2016, Thomas Kues left the scene, Jansson's blog is idle since almost 18 months and the theblackrabbitofinl has become sceptical of denial. The recycling of Mattogno's decades old Italian pamphlets on Miklos Nyiszli and Rudolf Höß (Holocaust Handbooks 36 & 37) and his forthcoming Einsatzgruppen book, which will ask for the stunning mental gymnastics to explain the extermination of the Jews in the occupied Soviet Union within the hypothesis that there was no policy to exterminate the Jews, will keep the patient in a vegetative state for the time being, but that's not exactly a promising perspective for 2017 and further.
Incidentally, the lack of "serious research" is actually the reason why "Revisionists" are ignored by Holocaust historians. The difference is that Holocaust historiography can afford to freeze them off.
"Carlo Mattogno cannot revise 30 books every year and write thirty more on top of it."The Holocaust Handbooks series is essentially a three man show of Mattogno, Graf and Rudolf, who are the main authors of 3/4 of the books, and it is especially dependent upon Mattogno:
The fact that he is the main author of 2/3 of the Holocaust Handbooks even underestimates his impact as his writings have occupied the most relevant issues of "Revisionism". Mattogno had been hyperactive for years, publishing at a pace where the level of research has to leave a lot to be desired, as amply demonstrated on this blog. At his age of 65 years, this source will likely run dry in some years.
The lack of authors and diversity is symptomatic for the poor state of Holocaust "Revisionism". This is not limited to printed media, the Inconvinient History Blog has seen just three postings this year - one remembering the dead Bradley Smith, one reviewing the journals' year 2015 and one announcing the publication of the journals' articles from 2015 - thus none adding anything new to advance "Revisionism". Anyone following the blog would think the movement is close to clinically dead.
We have not heard from Santiago Alvarez since February 2016, Thomas Kues left the scene, Jansson's blog is idle since almost 18 months and the theblackrabbitofinl has become sceptical of denial. The recycling of Mattogno's decades old Italian pamphlets on Miklos Nyiszli and Rudolf Höß (Holocaust Handbooks 36 & 37) and his forthcoming Einsatzgruppen book, which will ask for the stunning mental gymnastics to explain the extermination of the Jews in the occupied Soviet Union within the hypothesis that there was no policy to exterminate the Jews, will keep the patient in a vegetative state for the time being, but that's not exactly a promising perspective for 2017 and further.
"I'd appreciate it if everybody reading this start publishing yourself -- in print -- serious research rather than bickering about somebody having forgotten over overlooked something. Some nagging on an internet blog isn't exactly what can be taken all that seriously anyway."Obviously, Rudolf did not check out and examine the links to the rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz Open Air Incinerations if he reduces this comprehensive critique to "nagging". In general, the Holocaust Controversies blog addresses specific, fundamental, systematic and methodological flaws in "Revisionist" works. The publication on the medium internet blog does not affect the validity of the arguments. Conversely, not much substantial is gained from compiling related postings (such as the series on Mattogno on Auschwitz and Alvarez on Gas Vans) to print-on-demand books on amazon.com. Publishing a book has become meaningless at latest since Fritz Berg has done it (see also Rudolf's own review of the book), but the Holocaust Handbook series is another example that publishing something in print does not establish quality of content (only quality of form, if there is a proper editor).
Incidentally, the lack of "serious research" is actually the reason why "Revisionists" are ignored by Holocaust historians. The difference is that Holocaust historiography can afford to freeze them off.
Rudolf needs to realize that "writing thirty books a year" is not an indication of quality.
ReplyDeleteI read 4-5 of the so-called "Holocaust Handbooks," that was enough to convince me that life was too short to waste on garbage.
The Holocaust is dead. Mattogno is the best holocaust historian in the world by far, that included over any "conformist" historian as well.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, you can't BE a holocaust historian in the true sense unless you ARE a holocaut denier.
Orthodox hisorian's know it's a lie, and forumalte their own thesis as best they can, none of them have ever survived revision and no denier has ever been shown decisively wrong in 75 years.
Further, Mattogno delivers his blows to the holocaust in such a way that there is no possibility that it could be wrong, and removes all possibility for anybody ton lie about it.
Sites like this, prolific all over the internet are aimed at the average person in the hopes that none of them will ever actually READ his holocaust handbooks.
Van Pelt, Pressac, Hilberg, all discredited.
There entire thesis go against physical possibility, they are completely reliant on the mis-representation of douments (completely exposed) and false witnesses (all of them discredited.)
Holocaust belief is no different than Flat Earth belief. It is a conspiracy theory and a religion, a faith-based belief with zero connection to fact.
Currently every camp has been obliterated, and the holocaust promotion scene is surrounded on all sides in Eastern Europe and being bombed to smithereens.
I can't wait until Mattogno releases Einsatzgruppen. It'll be the final nail in the holocaust coffin.
After that it's a completed subject, I fail to see how anything but an unconditional surrender from the holocaust industry could not be forthcoming.
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and usually the (only) kind of thinking that "Revisionists" excel in.
ReplyDeleteMattogno is actually a joke. His "blows" have been slapped around his ears throughout his blog site. Look up the blogs collected under the label "Mattogno", where he is exposed time and again as a sloppy researcher and a charlatan. No demonstration of physical impossibility, no misrepresentation of documents (many of which Mattogno doesn't even know about), no discrediting of "false witnesses" (again, there are many testimonies that Mattogno doesn't even address).
But the greatest joke is that neither Mattogno nor any other "Revisionist" has ever been able to provide evidence supporting an alternative account of events. They claim that Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór and Treblinka were transit camps for Jews bound for the occupied Soviet territories, but haven't yet managed to provide even a single name of a Jews thus "transited". Pathetic.
Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book? I would be surprised if it contained much that has not already been rebutted on HC, and what has not yet been will be.
And what you wrote about "Holocaust belief" (which doesn't exist, as belief is not necessary where there is evidence) actually fits "Revisionist" belief like a glove. A conspiracy theory with no evidence whatsoever to support it, postulating a "hoax" that must have grown on trees, because "Revisionists" can't provide the slightest evidence of the supposed "hoaxers"' activities. It anything deserves being called a "religion" and a "faith-based belief with zero connection to fact", it is "Revisionism".