I don't know how they do this, but I can only assume that they have a person there whose job is to censor comments in real time - as they are actually written - so that only approved posts go through. In other words, the Guardian has, from its point of view, what must be the perfect discussion of Holocaust revisionism - one without Holocaust revisionists!
Anyway, since I went to all the trouble of writing it, here's the post I had intended to contribute to the Holocaust revisionism thread:
The truth is that most people commenting on Holocaust revisionism in this thread really don't have a right to do so, because they know nothing about it.
If you've only ever been exposed to Holocaust orthodoxy you inevitably end up thinking that contrary views must be wrong, because you have no idea what the contrary arguments actually are. It's the same when you've only heard one version of any event. You simply accept that that is the way it happened because your mind has not as yet been opened to alternative possibilities. The anti-revisionist campaign of harrassment and persecution is designed to make you feel obliged to keep your minds closed.
I should point out that I can speak from experience as I used to believe in the Holocaust myself - indeed, I used to teach it - until I began to read revisionist works. I soon discovered that the revisionists had by far the better arguments. Once I knew what the arguments were, and made sure that I understood them properly, the case for the Holocaust quickly fell apart.
A few further points need to be made here:
1) David Irving isn't much of a revisionist and doesn't deserve to be mentioned as he often is as if he were the leader of the movement. In fact, he seems to be an object of so much media attention precisely because his thinking on the subject is so terribly muddy (perhaps by design, I don't know). The key figures in revisionism today are Carlo Mattogno (Italy), Juergen Graf (Switzerland), Germar Rudolf (Germany), Ingrid Weckert (Germany) and Udo Walendy (Germany). I should not to neglect major pioneers like Arthur Butz (US) and Robert Faurission (France). I would also strongly recommend the writings of Paul Grubach.
Rudolf has an excellent personal website at which you can learn a great deal about his life, his transition to revisionism and the campaign of persecution against him:
http://germarrudolf.com
Grubach's writing are available here:
http://www.codoh.com/author/grubach.html
2. Revisionists are rarely pro-Nazi. The first major revisionist was a French socialist (and former communist) Paul Rassinier. Most German revisionists were CDU supporters until they began to understand the issues more clearly. As for myself, because I am extremely concerned about global warming, and because I believe that the labour parties in all countries are shams whose real function is to mislead the people, I vote Green and have done so nearly all my life.
3. Revisionists agree with establishment historians that the Nazi state singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment. The only real point of contention is whether the Nazis planned to exterminate them or deport them to the east. The evidence supports the latter conclusion. In a nutshell, this is all the fuss is about.
4. Half the people I know who complain about revisionists tell me that they know that the Holocaust is 'true' because they happen to know a Holocaust survivor. But isn't every Holocaust survivor - and there were quite literally hundreds of thousands of them, although of course most are deceased now - an argument against the idea that the Germans set out to exterminate European Jewry? As Norman Finkelstein's mother said, referring to those who receive compensation from Holocaust funds, if everyone is a Holocaust survivor, who did the Nazis kill?
5. Many people believe in the Holocaust because they know nothing about how to interpret evidence. If you don't - and be honest with yourself! - go to this website and watch the 4 hour video. It will teach you, in 30 entertaining episodes:
http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/
6. Most people are so emotional about the subject that they lack all objectivity. For example, a Polish student of mine became very upset when I remarked that I didn't believe in the Holocaust. Her response was to ask me if I was calling her grandmother a liar. I tried not to respond emotionally and to take advantage of the situation to find out what piece of information had been passed down in her family. What had happened? Her grandmother had told her that she had thrown a jug of boiling water over her feet so that the Germans wouldn't take her away to work as a slave labourer. I personally wouldn't call this evidence for the Holocaust. When I told her so, she responded that she didn't want to talk about the subject any more because she was too upset!
7. The last comment I want to make is this: since Orwell's 1984 was published after the war we all became aware that the sign of a totalitarian government was its suppression of thought crime. Well, the totalitarian state is here and the revisionists are the thought criminals it persecutes. And yet most of you don'give a damn, do you?
