The so called " holocaust" of the second world war is indeed a religious cult. It is also one in which belief is mandatory. To express dissent is to be labled a holocaust denier and anti-semite.
But if you investigate what the revisionist wriiters have to say ,then like me ,you will conclude that what they say is correct.

According to the above writer historians and history are somehow a "cult."

This is a ridiculous concept.

The Nazi murder of millions of Jews during World War II is simply part of history. Six million died and the documentation to substantiate this historical fact is overwhelming.

Those who deny such an obvious fact of history, most often are anti-Semites.

One example of anti-Semitic Holocaust denier would be Ernst Zundel, now jailed in Canada.

See [www.culteducation.com]

The Holocaust is denied by hate groups and anti-Semites because it is the most chilling testimony concerning the consequences of hate in human history.

Nazi Germany certainly represented a cult of personality. And how thought reform can be used to persuade a nation.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Perhaps this is why Germany today is so adamant in its fight against cults and also has implemented some of the most strict laws regarding hate groups and literature in the world.

There were not six million jews residing within the whole of Nazi German occupied territory.
There is not a shred of evidence to uphold the dictum that the Nazis sought the extermination of the Jews.
There is not a shred of physical evidence for the existence of any " gas chambers".

For anyone who thinks that denial of the Holocaust is just too ridiculous, check this guy out.

The denial factor within this nut obviously runs deep.

It's chilling to think how many more are out there just like him.

When the denial goes this deep people are often capable of doing almost anything.

Rather than attempt to answer my argument, you merely labelled me as a "nut" and an "anti-semite".
Insult is the last recourse of the out argued.
Either marshal your thoughts and come up with a serious opposition or admit that you have none.

"Hengist" proves that there are people out ther "still crazy after all these years" about the Holocaust.

So-called "historian" and Holocaust denial author David Irving is the definitive case study regarding this subject.

Irving lost a lawsuit regarding his theories and failed to prove his claims about the Holocaust in a British courtroom.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Kevin McDonald, an American academic, was also exposed to public scrutiny and ultimately humiliated through the Irving case.

See [www.culteducation.com]

In Germany Holocaust denial is now a crime. No doubt that the Germans understand the obvious implications of Holocaust denial. That is, the hate behind it.

See [www.culteducation.com]

In the United States we typically call such people "nuts" or "crazies." And they are often deeply disturbed.

My father quoted his mother as saying that Hitler killed 68 of my cousins. But quite frankly Rick, when that Grandmother's daughter in law told me that she was "going to get Lubavitch to kill [me]" I have some questions.
No doubt the Holocaust was the most extreme example of man's hate towards a fellow. But the Nazis considered the Jews to be a problem. And I certainly consider the religious priesthood of the Jews to be one myself.
That's not to say thet the Greeks Romans etc. were any better but I feel that man has to aspire to loftier heights when it comes to religious education. And economics too.

I visited Dachau a few years ago.
Just outside of Munich, it used to be a concentration camp and is now a memorial / musuem.

I doubt anyone who has been to such a place could ever say that such an event didn't take place.
If you haven't been there, why not go??? Its not far from England.

You have still not replied to my argument.
I have no faith in David Irving, so you cannot use him against me. I believe that he is a jewish pawn.
So what is your argument exactly?

The Irving case cited previously was right on point and spercifically responded to your argument.

Irving argued that the Holocaust was not as recorded historically. He sued a Jewish scholar for libel/slander who said he was an anti-Semitic hate monger spreading false and/or misleading information.

Irving had his day in court and lost.

The case was definitive, whether you wish to accept that or not and all the historical issues were explored in-depth through this case in a courtroom.

Read the linked articles. The information is there.

Your claim that an anti-Semite like Irving was somehow a "Jewish pawn" is really ridiculous.