(This article was originally posted on November 22, 2022. It has been updated with new information.)
I have written about how French Holocaust revisionist, Robert Faurisson, got his debate opponent, Mikkel Andersson, to say that he sees no distinction between evidence and testimony. This was a huge admission that indicates that the Holocaust relies on testimony, and we all know that testimony is an unreliable form of evidence.
In 1979 Faurisson caused two French Jewish intellectuals, Léon Poliakov and Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and 32 historians to sign their approval to this intellectually bankrupt statement after a back and forth of revisionist and anti-revisionist articles.
Bill, my robot assistant agreed that this is an example of circular logic:
History is filled with bloody wars and terrible tragedies. Why is it then that this one particular event should enjoy academic, social and legal protection from inquiry and debate?
I found this an interesting answer to this question on Quora of all places. This person brings up five arguments to ban Holocaust revisionism and why they aren’t justified rationales.
There is a reason for the suppression of Holocaust revisionism that the Quora user didn’t mention. Open discussion and debate about the Holocaust can not be allowed because the Holocaust narrative can not hold up to open discussion and debate. This reason for suppression actually makes sense. Orthodox Holocaust historians will never put this on the table as to why they suppress dissident viewpoints, however, for obvious reasons. Instead they will furnish you with the five reasons listed by our Quora user and hope that will be good enough. And for most people it will. But if you are here, reading holocaust.claims posts, I know that you are not like most people.