New film from Denierbud -- Lying To The Troops: Early Origins Of The Holocaust Myth

[Callafangers]

In summary, it would be a net negative for a forum like Codoh to, for example, open a JFK forum or a 9-11 forum, or a race realism forum, for obvious reasons - but an interested Revisionist will seek out and study the areas he enjoys, to bolster and support his Revisionism.

I agree. There was a 9/11 subforum at the old CODOH which got very little activity. I had promoted the idea early on but the Holocaust seems to require so much intellectual bandwidth of its own, few were willing to dedicate the time and research required to take on a whole new front. I do think it's best for Holocaust revisionism to have its own lane, clear and distinct, but there must come a time where some conversation about how the similar narratives converge takes place. I feel the time is nearly or already here, others may disagree. But I would agree that scope creep into association with more speculative theories and claims needs to be carefully managed (prevented).

[Archie]

I split off some of the 9/11 posting. Let's continue that over in the "Other" section.

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=430

[Archie]

...So I personally support some judicious bundling of JQ discussions...

It's critical.

I agree with you both however there is some nuance to be had, in my opinion. On the one hand yes, Holocaust revisionism is indeed heavily heavily linked to "The JQ", and the Venn diagram of overlap is enormous. On the other hand, "The JQ" also has the same or similar overlap with other topics as diverse as JFK, 9-11 or Race Realism.

It's my view that an interested Revisionist will study the varying topics he is interested in, at his leisure. I for one am fascinated by JFK and Race Realism, but not so much by 9-11. It's also my view that, in the words of Mike "Enoch" Peinovich, if you're doing Holocaust Revisionism, then do Holocaust Revisionism. That is, to do it well, do it properly, and to avoid scope drift into muh dancing Israelis, muh Khazarians or muh Azov Battalion - or even, WW2 proper.

The latter only invites as I said, scope creep but also a credibility crisis. The named Revisionists, and Rudolf in particular have walked this line very well. I disagree with some of his politics, but I understand why a named Revisionist has taken that path, and honestly view it as a net benefit. In the case of Denierbud, i agree with CF that his haphazard and seemingly unweildy "shots fired" do not provide value add, and in fact seem out of place (Slavery??) in a Revisionist piece.

In summary, it would be a net negative for a forum like Codoh to, for example, open a JFK forum or a 9-11 forum, or a race realism forum, for obvious reasons - but an interested Revisionist will seek out and study the areas he enjoys, to bolster and support his Revisionism.

With Rudolf in particular, it bears remembering that his foray into all of this was as an expert witness. In that context, you want to be as objective and dispassionate as possible. Part of his defense when he was accused of Holocaust denial was that he was doing scientific work (there are apparently some special protections for this in Germany) but he ended up getting burned because the publisher of the original Rudolf report had included a polemic introduction. The court said something to the effect that the introduction (which Rudolf did not write) invalidated his claim of doing objective science. I imagine all of this has influenced his approach. For something like Chemistry of Auschwitz, a JQ discussion probably would be out of place and would detract from the core presentation. But for a book like Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur Butz, that would an example where an author did not shy away from Jewish issues and where it would have diminished the book tremendously if he had. Butz I think struck the right balance. He explains the "hoax" as, more or less, a Jewish special interest but he does not overdo it or get into anything kooky.

As a general rule, the most academic and informed researchers tend to be rather specialized and don't like to spread themselves too thin. Kevin MacDonald for example does not venture into Holocaust revisionism, WWII revisionism, the Third Reich, etc. He surely has some ideas about these things, but these types usually won't take bold public stances unless they have looked into something exhaustively. They tend to be very cautious that way. In contrast, the guys who immediately latch onto to every single conspiracy or contrarian position within 5 minutes of hearing about it usually don't care about getting things wrong or being embarrassed.

[Callafangers]

As a general rule, the most academic and informed researchers tend to be rather specialized and don't like to spread themselves too thin. Kevin MacDonald for example does not venture into Holocaust revisionism, WWII revisionism, the Third Reich, etc. He surely has some ideas about these things, but these types usually won't take bold public stances unless they have looked into something exhaustively. They tend to be very cautious that way.

Dalton is an example of one who specializes less, instead covering a wide range of topics, similar to E. Michael Jones. Both are valuable. Specialists are more incisive and critical in advancing their specific field but they seldom make their work very accessible to the mainstream (e.g. Mattogno's work, which many have considered 'unreadable'), which is why both are essential.

In contrast, the guys who immediately latch onto to every single conspiracy or contrarian position within 5 minutes of hearing about it usually don't care about getting things wrong or being embarrassed.

True, and they quietly sidestep out of the discussion once their bogus views are proven wrong. I strongly suspect many of the most bogus views are peddled by the same networks who committed the crimes or conspiracy in the first place, where applicable. Nonsense views on topics like 9/11 ("no planes", "DEW space beams", "mini nukes") and JFK assassination (probably too many to list), or conspiracies in general (moon landing fakery, etc.) have been very effective at creating "noise" that takes away from productive investigations on the path toward pressuring more formal inquiry, especially on key narratives.

I regret not saving it but I once saw a quote from Hitler (or someone high up in the NSDAP) expressing that those who believe everything/anything are much worse than those that are [overly-]skeptical and hard to win over.