The CODOH Revisionist Forum

It goes without saying that we have our differences with academia. Since we find ourselves disagreeing with the academic "consensus," the tendency in our circles is to dismiss academics as liars, cowards, etc. As for myself, my impression has long been that with academic publications the underlying research is often quite good in many respects, but the priors and the conclusions are often very questionable. I think it is definitely a mistake to write it off entirely.

A while ago, I read an article by Andrew Joyce where he talks about this matter briefly in the introductory paragraphs, and what he says might be surprising to some. Joyce (I think this is a pen name) is a PhD historian from Ireland who has written for many years for the Occidental Observer (Kevin MacDonald's publication). Joyce specializes in erudite explorations of "the Jewish question" (much like MacDonald).

Article: Andrew Joyce, "On Jews and Vampires," Nov 19, 2021
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... -vampires/

One of the primary features of my work at The Occidental Observer over the last nine years has been an attempt to show that our ideas are not disconnected from mainstream scholarship, and that plenty of truth can be found in mainstream texts.

He is not talking about Holocaust revisionism here, but the points could be generalized.

I therefore find it extremely amusing when my work is characterized as anti-Semitic or bigoted, given that my four primary positions and discussion points (Jews have lied to themselves and others about significant aspects of their history; anti-Semitism has a rational basis; Jews behave in a nepotistic fashion in academia and other spheres of influence; and, Jewish historiography is little more than a one-sided story of blameless victimhood) are derived not from “neo-Nazi” pamphlets, but from leading scholars from some of the world’s best universities. You could say I was “red-pilled” by the mainstream, which, we should remember, also once included Kevin MacDonald and his trilogy on the Jews until it was decided to ostracize MacDonald and his work in every way imaginable in order to reassert the lachrymose interpretation of Jewish historical karma.

MacDonald's books were originally published by Praeger and the first book was reviewed in academic journals.

Unfortunately, mainstream scholarship appears mortally terrified of praise from our supposed “fringe,” no matter how intensively we interact with its work, as evidenced in the recent Palgrave/Springer publication of Jews in Medieval England: Teaching Representations of the Other. In the book’s introduction, a pair of editors refer to my essay on Langmuir, remarking with horror that they discovered “the work of Hannah Johnson, a contributor to this volume, quoted approvingly on an anti-Semitic white supremacist blog.”[7] The terror here is surely rooted in the earth-shattering discovery that supposed “fringe” lunatics and bigots are extremely interested in facts, logic, and research, and they often sit at the very elbow of those who thought themselves so distant and superior. Given the intimate relationship between my work and mainstream scholarship, what use are accusations of anti-Semitism when, given my intensive use of large volumes of mainstream source material (and frequent praise of the same), the charge is dangerously likely to come back, like a boomerang, to these same accusers?

Here's a little secret: a lot of these academic publications contain many surprising facts. They might not have all of the facts together. They might downplay some of the most explosive material. They might put some politically correct spin on things. But they will often admit things you might not expect. One book Joyce has talked about quite a few times is Albert Lindemann's Esau's Tears. Lindemann is a mainstream history professor. Half Jewish. The book attempts to look at Jew-Gentile relations with objectivity and consider rational explanations for conflict, a corrective to the typical one-side Jewish-centered narratives that portray Jews as innocent victims of Gentile insanity or opportunism. (The meme version of this is "And then one day for no reason at all ..."). I remember reading one of the reviews of Lindemann's book and the guy was complaining about how Lindemann attacks the mainstream scholarship while most of his sources are ... mainstream scholarship. Even if there's something to that critique, I think it raises a major point about the gulf between specialized studies and narratives that are packaged for the public in mass media. It seems scholars actually do have a bit of leeway to tell some truth in the safely secluded venues of academic journals and books from university presses, but the more inconvenient facts don't ever seem to find a broad audience.

Addendum: Joyce's Views on the Holocaust

Joyce generally avoids discussing the historicity of the Holocaust in his articles. Until fairly recently it was the editorial policy of the Occidental Observer not to touch revisionism. Joyce did write a lengthy review of David Cesarani's Final Solution (he had says he met him multiple times). He focuses more on the prewar policies and notes that Cesarani is somewhat revisionist in acknowledging that the anti-Jewish measures of the early to mid 1930s were generally more mild than is commonly presented. Based on certain things he has said on podcasts and elsewhere, Joyce seems to be a non-believer, but again he doesn't explicitly deny it in writing.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... e-of-five/

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Most of the evidence or arguments used in revisionism have their roots in some way in that of establishment academics, scholars, etc. Even more directly, there is no doubt revisionist literature (such as that of the Holocaust Handbooks series) would never have been so robust if not for specific challenges to revisionism over many years from orthodox scholars. These challenges posed by the orthodoxy have led revisionists to have to respond to them, which often leads to important ideas and staples in revisionist literature. Beyond that, though, there is the obvious benefit of this heated exchange to our shared/mutual, more objective understanding of the truth on all sides. Exterminationists have had to make concessions on certain points, just as revisionists have. And with that, we jointly press further into a more accurate understanding of what has (and has not) happened, or what may (or may not) have.

I may not show it but I have a lot of gratitude for the contributors over the years from the "other side" of the debate. There are times where I have had to really stop and second-guess my position on specific areas within revisionism, or to shift/adapt my position entirely on others. Each "side" (and each individual within it) is defending a paradigm they have overall found disproportionate accuracy and logical consistency within (some others, perhaps, have personal or emotional motivators) but the debate gets complex and I have found no one who bats a 1.000 (for folks across the pond, this means being perfect - a baseball reference). It is a bizarre sort of camaraderie that all of us here share such a deep level of interest in essentially the same topic, yet still often feel a need to retain a combative mindset, likely driven by the politics (actual or implied) associated with all of this.

There are several mainstream books I'm looking into now. I am constantly amazed at how much "untapped" information there is which is relevant to revisionism. The reason I love this work is because it is a largely unexplored frontier. This is one of the perks of working in a repressed/persecuted field of research -- there are tons of amazing discoveries yet to be seen or published (within a revisionist lens or framework), all over the place. Finding time (or financial, social support, etc.) to research and publish it is another story, but it's there, if you can manage.

You're absolutely right. Andrew Joyce is probably the most 'academic' of all the writers at TOO and an absolute genius at utilizing mainstream scholarship to explain the Jewish question. One relevant article by Joyce in the context of the Holocaust is his review of Ben Ginsburg's How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Jewish Passivity in the Face of Nazism. In the book, Ginsburg essentially outlines in detail the Jewish powerbrokers that fought Germany before and during the war, namedropping hundreds of historically obscure Jews in the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, other parts of continental Europe and the U.S. who wielded enormous power over the historical trajectory that lead up to WWII but also explaining that Jews were very much directly involved in leadership positions in horrific partisan warfare in German-occupied parts of Europe ranging from France to Ukraine and Belarus. Ginsburg does this to demonstrate that Jews were not the passive onlookers of history that Jewish histories often portray them as, and Ginsburg's book very much represents an alternate strand of Jewish historiography that seeks to vindicate European Jewry as patriotic warriors rather than sheep willingly being led to the slaughter.

As to your main argument, it's absolutely true that tidbits of 'redpilled' information can be found in mainstream scholarship, but what I've noticed is that this type of information is often buried in very specialized studies and scattered across different disciplines. Another example of unintentionally redpilled scholarship, which Joyce has unpacked in some of his earlier works from back in 2012, is John Doyle Klier's studies on the Russian pogroms of Jews in the late 19th century. Klier was a fascinating character because he was a semi-famous scholar of Jewish history but was not ethnically or religiously Jewish. What's clear from Klier's works is that he very much did not consider Jewish representations of their own history as particularly reliable, and flat out tells us in his books on the Russian pogroms that they were for the most part simply made up, and that powerful Jews in Britain, Germany and America sought to utilize the supposed Russian pogroms to ease Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe into primarily Britain and America. Through the early use of mass media propaganda campaigns and political/financial pressure, Jews in Britain were able to pressure the British government into accepting Jewish 'refugees' from the Russian Empire. But the British government's own expert commission, consisting of gentiles, who visited the Russian Empire to inquire into the details of the 'pogrom' accusations, found virtually no evidence of mass slaughters of Jews. Jews in Britain even sent their own investigatory commission to 'prove' the pogroms were real.

The saddest part about all this is that Joyce virtually disappeared about 2 years ago, and there was speculation he had been killed or silenced for his works. Macdonald was unable to get a hold of him for months, despite Joyce being one of the editors of The Occidental Quarterly. Macdonald later confirmed Joyce was apparently safe but it's been tacitly understood that he was threatened to stop writing about the Jewish question, and we're still not sure if Joyce is ever coming back. Joyce was in my view the most gifted of the current writers at TOO, but there are many others who deal with the Jewish question in a scholarly manner. Jason Cannon and Tobias Langdon come to mind, apart from Macdonald himself.

Oh, and as an addendum, Joyce is definitely a non-believer and is probably more well read on revisionism than he lets on. I've seen him mention 'the formation of Prussian Blue' in passing.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:07 am
The saddest part about all this is that Joyce virtually disappeared about 2 years ago, and there was speculation he had been killed or silenced for his works. Macdonald was unable to get a hold of him for months, despite Joyce being one of the editors of The Occidental Quarterly. Macdonald later confirmed Joyce was apparently safe but it's been tacitly understood that he was threatened to stop writing about the Jewish question, and we're still not sure if Joyce is ever coming back. Joyce was in my view the most gifted of the current writers at TOO, but there are many others who deal with the Jewish question in a scholarly manner. Jason Cannon and Tobias Langdon come to mind, apart from Macdonald himself.

Great post OP, and agreed. It's all the more interesting (and arguably satisfying) when using mainstream sources to unfurl some aspect of the narrative, such as the meta analysis I posted recently of >100 mainstream studies of diesel exhaust on human subjects!!

Just to add to this point re AJ - on a recent (late 2024) podcast, MacDonald stated that AJ was back and publishing under a pseudonym. This leads me to believe that AJ in fact is not a pen name, but that is yet to be discerned, it seems!

HansHill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:29 pm

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:07 am
The saddest part about all this is that Joyce virtually disappeared about 2 years ago, and there was speculation he had been killed or silenced for his works. Macdonald was unable to get a hold of him for months, despite Joyce being one of the editors of The Occidental Quarterly. Macdonald later confirmed Joyce was apparently safe but it's been tacitly understood that he was threatened to stop writing about the Jewish question, and we're still not sure if Joyce is ever coming back. Joyce was in my view the most gifted of the current writers at TOO, but there are many others who deal with the Jewish question in a scholarly manner. Jason Cannon and Tobias Langdon come to mind, apart from Macdonald himself.

Just to add to this point re AJ - on a recent (late 2024) podcast, MacDonald stated that AJ was back and publishing under a pseudonym. This leads me to believe that AJ in fact is not a pen name, but that is yet to be discerned, it seems!

I heard the same thing, but AJ is definitely a pen name. There's no doubt about that. But given his notoriety I'm sure Macdonald simply meant that he's started writing under a different pen name. Although, I'm not too sure where that would be, as TOO is pretty much the only scholarly publication that deals with the JQ, as far as I'm aware. That being said, Joyce's identity was known to U.S. authorities, because he mentioned getting into visa troubles when traveling back and forth between the U.S. and Ireland. From what he divulged in podcasts, he worked at a U.S. university and was married to an American woman. My guess, and this is pure speculation, is that 'certain actors' considered Joyce a threat, probably because he was a legit history PhD with incredible talent and charisma. There's no doubt in my mind he or his family was threatened. He was also working on a massive book on the JQ which Macdonald signaled he would be reluctant to publish without Joyce's consent, but that was before he confirmed Joyce was fine.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:07 am As to your main argument, it's absolutely true that tidbits of 'redpilled' information can be found in mainstream scholarship, but what I've noticed is that this type of information is often buried in very specialized studies and scattered across different disciplines. Another example of unintentionally redpilled scholarship, which Joyce has unpacked in some of his earlier works from back in 2012, is John Doyle Klier's studies on the Russian pogroms of Jews in the late 19th century. Klier was a fascinating character because he was a semi-famous scholar of Jewish history but was not ethnically or religiously Jewish. What's clear from Klier's works is that he very much did not consider Jewish representations of their own history as particularly reliable, and flat out tells us in his books on the Russian pogroms that they were for the most part simply made up, and that powerful Jews in Britain, Germany and America sought to utilize the supposed Russian pogroms to ease Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe into primarily Britain and America. Through the early use of mass media propaganda campaigns and political/financial pressure, Jews in Britain were able to pressure the British government into accepting Jewish 'refugees' from the Russian Empire. But the British government's own expert commission, consisting of gentiles, who visited the Russian Empire to inquire into the details of the 'pogrom' accusations, found virtually no evidence of mass slaughters of Jews. Jews in Britain even sent their own investigatory commission to 'prove' the pogroms were real.

His articles on the pogroms have many really obvious parallels to the Holocaust legend. When I first read it, I don't think I was even firmly revisionist yet and I remember thinking that was one of the best articles in favor of Holocaust revisionism I had read even though it doesn't even discuss the Holocaust directly. I was waiting for a sequel where he would draw the obvious connection but it never came. But in less formal venues, yes, he would definitely drop hints.



It's very telling that even someone like Joyce whose writings are already wildly taboo has to avoid directly getting into Holocaust revisionism. I have heard people even make the argument before, "Hey, if the Holocaust is fake, why is it that the smartest PhD guys even on the far-right don't endorse it?" And if you don't know any better, that actually seems like a pretty strong point. The reality is a lot of them don't believe and are quiet about it for legal or tactical reasons.

From what I can tell, Kevin MacDonald is more or less agnostic on Holocaust revisionism. He took the standard Holocaust narrative for granted in his trilogy. Now, he seems to be at least open to revisionism (Dalton seems to have influenced him). I recall he was asked about it on a podcast and he said (more or less) that he hadn't looked into it enough to take a firm position and it wasn't something he wants to take on at his age. I can understand that sentiment, especially since some of these scholarly types tend to be very cautious and don't like being wrong.

There are indeed many concessions made by the mainstream on revisionism. Here is one article with several examples:

https://codoh.com/library/document/is-t ... ocumented/

In the above article, Browning conceded that there were problems with Hoss's testimony. Here are some more concessions he's made:

Many aspects of Gerstein's testimony are unquestionably problematic. [In making] statements, such as the height of the piles of shoes and clothing at Belzec and Treblinka, Gerstein himself is clearly the source of exaggeration. Gerstein also added grossly exaggerated claims about matters to which he was not an eyewitness, such as that a total of 25 million Jews and others were gassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerstein_Report

Browning gently adds this cautionary caveat about the value of Eichmann’s testimony: “As with any detailed eyewitness testimonies after so many years, Eichmann’s various accounts differ from one another and are not free of puzzling contradictions with other evidence [p. 363].”
...
“Even more than most memoirs,” our Holocaust historian pointed out in an obscure 2003 essay, “the Eichmann testimonies, both before and after capture, are consciously calculated attempts at self-representation, self-justification, and legal defense. It must be said as emphatically as possible that, at the core of these testimonies, there are three monstrous falsehoods that are central to his whole enterprise.”
...
Even Browning’s colleagues, the mainstream historians of the Final Solution, are very skeptical of Eichmann’s testimonials, for he admitted: “When I [Browning] have suggested to my colleagues that we must take seriously Eichmann's repeated testimony to the effect that he learned from Heydrich in the fall of 1941 of Hitler's order for the physical destruction of the Jews, I have met with either embarrassed silence or open skepticism. How can I be so gullible? Don't I know that Eichmann's testimony is a useless conglomeration of faulty memories on the one hand and calculated lies for legal defense and self-justification on the other? From it we can learn nothing of value about what actually happened during the war, only about Eichmann's state of mind after the war. These are documents that reveal how Eichmann wished to be remembered, not what he did.”

In this eye-opening essay, Browning concluded: “Clearly, anyone who wants to dismiss Eichmann’s testimonies on the grounds of their demonstrated unreliability and shameless self-serving lies can easily do so, and many of my colleagues have done precisely this.”
...
In The Origins of the Final Solution, Browning cites an example where a German official did over-estimate the number of Jews shot on the Eastern Front by German forces. The over-estimation is contained in the “Hahn summary report” of December 10, 1941. Five Einsatzgruppen reports were summarized by Franz Rademacher's assistant, Fritz Gebhard von Hahn. At this point we let Browning continue with his story: “He [Hahn] extrapolated, however, from the examples of EK 2 and 3 in the Baltic, and wrongly, concluded that each individual Sonderkommado had on average liquidated 70,000 -80,000 Jews. The result was an over- rather than underestimate of the number of Jews murdered, but clearly Hahn had not failed to grasp the significance of the reports concerning the intended fate of Soviet Jewry [p. 402].”

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... ristopher/

In regards to a note by von Thadden referencing gassing rumors, Browning concedes as follows:

Many Jews were killed in the Minsk area by firing squad, but there is no record that the Germans actually erected gas chambers there. Kube must have known about the gas chambers elsewhere and used the Italian inquiry about the piles of Jewish baggage to present the Italians with as graphic, complete and convincing information about the killing of the Jews as he could. Whatever the veracity of the incident in Minsk, it is clear that rumors of the gas chambers circulated unofficially through the German bureaucracy and that Rademacher was privy to such rumors.

Hence he concedes that this note is not definitive proof of gassings, but could be based on rumors.

Ronald Headland in his book Messages of Murder concedes that the Einsatzgruppen reports are not completely reliable in terms of the numbers killed.

Headland recognizes that “there is also evidence to suggest that some of the Einsatzkommando and Einsatzgruppen leaders deliberately exaggerated the numbers of persons shot for their own self-aggrandizement”
...
“the claim that the numbers were exaggerated would also seem to have some basis in fact. Sources other than those used at the trial suggest that numbers were altered to produce a more favorable picture. Some historians have quite readily accepted that exaggerations took place in order to prevent [sic; read: convey] an impressive picture of the Kommando’s activities.”

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-einsatzgruppen/

On cremation ovens at Auschwitz, the mainstream publication The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide concedes that the Auschwitz cremation capacity was not enough to cremate all the Hungarian Jews.

The Nazis’ main problem: they were killing more people in the gas chambers than they could burn in the furnaces. The crematoria simply could not keep up with the task.

https://codoh.com/library/document/fate ... -birkenau/

Of course, it's kind of implied that this is the story anyway, since it's also claimed that open air pyres were used for those that could not be cremated, but this book makes it explicit. Although if the cremation ovens were as super efficient as the witnesses said, it seems strange that they would need open air pyres. Whatever.

There is also Pressac who has been shown several times on this forum to making several concessions. Although it's unclear exactly how mainstream he is. He is used by the mainstream, but his conclusions don't always seem to line up with it. Rudolf believes he was a secret revisionist double agent:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-double-agent/

Archie has also given examples of Reitlinger making concessions on Meldung 51 not being entirely reliable as well as citing a document about reducing deaths in the camp.

Raul Hilberg's admission:



And finally, I suggest reading "2.19. Revisionism by the Orthodoxy" from "Lectures on the Holocaust" which also gives more examples relevant to this topic.

Most of the pogrom/JQ discussion has been moved to the Jewish history forum.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=173

The intention of this thread was more to talk about how revisionists can make use of mainstream scholarship.

fireofice wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:55 am There is also Pressac who has been shown several times on this forum to making several concessions. Although it's unclear exactly how mainstream he is. He is used by the mainstream, but his conclusions don't always seem to line up with it. Rudolf believes he was a secret revisionist double agent:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-double-agent/

Archie has also given examples of Reitlinger making concessions on Meldung 51 not being entirely reliable as well as citing a document about reducing deaths in the camp.

I discussed Reitlinger and Pressac a fair bit here as well as some of the "functionalist" work which is also quite useful to us.
viewtopic.php?t=70

And I reviewed one of Broszat's articles here:
viewtopic.php?t=38

I consider Pressac to be a revisionist in a sort of broad sense.