tbh probably Historical Revisionism. If its a novel or something whatever, but Adrian Zenz is a dangerous person and people like that deserve punishment. And obviously not just punishment, the state should prove him wrong in a court and sentence him (not death penalty imo but if enough people requested it I really wouldn’t put up much of a fight)
I thought historical revisionism was more of a neutral thing, it can be good or bad. I mean, Grover Furr is considered revisionist and we cite him sometimes.
I thought about that as I wrote it out, in that case it’s a LOT tougher to refute his claims outright. Adrian Zenz must’ve A.) moved a decimal point one to the right or he B.) Lies purposefully. And once you read enough of his research it’s clear that if one figure is a lie, that he went out of his way to cement it into his claim. Grover Furr’s Bloodlies uses a lot of primary sources that are tough to debunk unless you refuse any Soviet evidence whatsoever.
tbh probably Historical Revisionism. If its a novel or something whatever, but Adrian Zenz is a dangerous person and people like that deserve punishment. And obviously not just punishment, the state should prove him wrong in a court and sentence him (not death penalty imo but if enough people requested it I really wouldn’t put up much of a fight)
I thought historical revisionism was more of a neutral thing, it can be good or bad. I mean, Grover Furr is considered revisionist and we cite him sometimes.
I thought about that as I wrote it out, in that case it’s a LOT tougher to refute his claims outright. Adrian Zenz must’ve A.) moved a decimal point one to the right or he B.) Lies purposefully. And once you read enough of his research it’s clear that if one figure is a lie, that he went out of his way to cement it into his claim. Grover Furr’s Bloodlies uses a lot of primary sources that are tough to debunk unless you refuse any Soviet evidence whatsoever.