Daniel Hettmannsperger III shared my profile as a post (click here), tagged our mutual friends, and accused me of being a holocaust denier. I lost over 200 friends within 8 hours. I am saddened, but I’m also excited because all the hype has given my blog and YouTube a shitload of traffic. (Thanks, Werbenjagarhettmannjenson. You are number 1!)
I need to thank Sarah L. for defending me. She posted screenshots of my previous comments showing that I am not a denier; I explicitly say gassings and mass-shootings occured in the east, we have the documents. In her own words, which contain too much truth, she said, “I don’t think he is a denier…I think he is awkward and pedantic…and an actual revisionist….he believes accuracy is essential because otherwise people CAN deny it completely. Really the opposite of a denier. Heck, he’s not exactly Nordic, he would likely have been killed in the camps himself.”
After Sarah’s heartfelt words, Daniel then said, “He claims there were “actually only 5 death camps”. That number including “labor camps” is actually 71.”
No, Smitty, 6 death camps. That is information released in the 50’s by the Israelies, French, Soviets, and etc. You claim to have a degree in history, yet you know nothing of history. There were not 71 camps overall, there were over 20,000.  I can understand a “historian” making a small mistake, but a mistake that vast is ridiculous. Can you even history, bro?
After the “historian” forgot where he put his degree, Von-Doom posted a comment. I like Von-Doom. He’s an intelligent cat, and I have always enjoyed seeing him on my feed. But, unfortunately, his comment was flawed.
Von-Doom wrote in response to my 6 death camps in all remark: “Auschwitz, Belzec, Bergen-Belsen, Warsaw, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno… That’s seven death camps I named just from the top of my head…. I’m simply stating that he’s just FACTUALLY WRONG.”
Now here I will need to summon the late Christopher Hitchens in order to defend my position. In 2001 Hitchens wrote a piece for the L.A. Times where he discussed revisionism. Here is the essential excerpt:
“…let us summarize the best case that the revisionists can make. Would it surprise you to know that:
1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald;
2) there were no Jews made into soap;
3) the “confession” of Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, was extracted by force and contains his claim to have killed more Jews than was “humanly” possible?
These are, however, the now-undisputed findings of all historians and experts on the subject. And if they are sound, then it means that much “eyewitness” testimony is wrong.” 
Therefore Von-Doom adding Belsen into his list of seven was inaccurate–my figure of 6 remains intact (although some top scholars have tried to refute that 6 figure; they try to lower the figure, not increase it). Also, Warsaw didn’t have an extermination camp with gas chambers, you’re thinking of Majdanek.
I gave Daniel the info up above in a private message. He didn’t read it, he deleted the message, or so he said. That is understandable; the ego is a precious thing, it doesn’t like being proven wrong.
All of this ruckus has showed me: I know a lot of atheists, but not a lot of free-thinkers.
This is the only historical event that is taboo to honestly discuss and critique using scholarly work as the base. Why?
Would anyone get upset if I said 49,999,999 million Native Americans died instead of 50 million? What if I said only 10 million died in this area instead of that area, with this type of weapon or that weapon, across the Americas? Would anyone get upset if I said only 5,999,999 Jews perished during World War II or World War I? How about 5,999,998? How far should anger flow at someone for only having an opinion on history? Should I even be thrown in jail for having an opinion on history?
Well in much of the EU (and Canada, Australia, etc.), it’s possible to be arrested for thought-crime. So-called democracies with Orwellian laws? So-called free-thinkers who do not wish to think?
On that note, I’ll let Hitchens once again speak for me:
“…It’s not the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear; and every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your action because you deny yourself the right to hear something.
…And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.”–That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might be, might contain, a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard anything else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely moral majority. One of the proudest moments in my life, that’s to say, in the recent past is defending the British historian David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcomed thought on Austrian soil. He didn’t actually say anything in Austria. He wasn’t even accused of saying anything. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law that says only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Terellian republic.–The republic that gave us Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, a man wanted in several countries for war crimes. You know, the country that has Jorg Haider, the leader of its own Fascist party, in the cabinet that sent David Irving to jail.
…Now to this proud record they can add they have the courage, finally, to face their past and lock up a British historian who has committed no crime but that of thought and writing–and that’s a scandal.”