First, about the elephant in the room. The Holocaust narrative. Hitler ordered the systematic assembly line gassing of 6 million Jews in order to exterminate every Jews in Nazi occupied Europe.





Raise your hand if you always believed every word of this from the age of 3 or six or soon as you could understand television shows. I did. I heard the Zundel in the 80's and 90's but for years I didn't pay attention because he seemed to be a crank. It wasn't till several years into the Internet that I actually read what he said. Still I thought he was a crank.





But I kept hearing more about these trials for 'Holocaust Denial' and finally when someone I didn't consider a crank got ambushed on Swedish Television in 2008, and was charged in absentia with Holocaust Denial in Germany, and all the blatant persecution of the man for honestly giving his opinion when asked on television, THIS is when I began to research the history myself.





Thank you Michael for showing how the casting alone is a grotesque distortion of the real people in the case. When I saw the promo photo, I thought Timothy Spall was playing Richard 'Skunky' Evans. Spall resembles the rat-faced Evans*, not Irving. The choice of Rachel Weisz to play Deborah Lipstadt needs no comment. Just so everyone is one the same page about what Historical Revision is, here's the definition.





"Historical revisionism involves either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism."





I say 'revisionism' can't mean both. One is in the interest of the truth, the other is about making up any narrative to suit political aims.





We need another word for Hollywood History. Let's call it HOLLYWOOD REINVENTIONSIM (ie, bullshit). Every history movie they've ever made is a distortion - and they never apologize for it. Now that the last of the generation eye witnesses of life in Europe during WWII are either dead, or in prison for Holocaust Denial I've seen a rash of articles announcing 'newly discovered documents' originating from the Daily Main, UK Guardian, picked up by the New York Times and the rest. How about this one:





Thus 'historical revisionists' are motivated to get the truth of what really happened to be the final history for posterity, what the 'enemys of the truth'; in Hollywood should not be called revisionism. Let's call it Historical Re-Invention.







As for the history of ethnic cleansing under Hitler's Lebensraum policy, you won't get anywhere analyzing it through your emotions. Historical research is an academic discipline which requires objectivity.





David Irving never denied ethnic cleansing occurred, that's documented.

What the 'Holocaust Deniers' question are Holocaust Industry narratives.

They raised valid questions, and for that they got thrown in prison, and had their careers and lives destroyed.





Merkel's government sentenced 87 year old Ursula Haverbeck to prison last year for openly challenging the German government to provide proof of 6 million Jews; extermination gas chambers; and a 'Final Solution' to genocide the Jews of Europe. We're still waiting for their answer to her challenge.





She said "The truth needs no laws."



