Racist Zionist Deborah Lipstadt attacks revisionists in her new book: "Antisemitism: Here and Now"

[Lamprecht]

Deborah Lipstadt just released her new book on January 29th. She has a whole chapter devoted to Holocaust Denial, claiming that it is essentially just a form of anti-semitism.


According to a NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/book ... itism.html

Lipstadt’s new book, “Antisemitism: Here and Now” — completed long before the massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, but made all the more timely in its wake — underscores how vain that millennial hope was. Written as a series of letters to two composite characters, a “whip smart” Jewish college student and a well-meaning gentile law professor, Lipstadt’s book aims not to break new scholarly ground but to awaken her audience to the nature, persistence and scale of the threat, along with the insidious ways in which it seeks to disguise itself.
...
But Lipstadt isn’t just interested in compiling a list of insults, outrages and assaults. Anti-Semitism, to adapt a phrase, is the hate that dare not speak its name, and Lipstadt is at her best when she removes the guises under which it travels.

Actually, as we will see, she is only interested in compiling a list of insults, outrages, and assaults.


The text of the book can be found at one of these links:
https://archive.is/MqTYR or https://archive.is/NtyZy

I will quote from the relevant chapter and add my own comments.

Holocaust Denial: From Hard-core to Soft-core

A MATTER OF ANTISEMITISM, NOT HISTORY

Dear Professor Lipstadt:

Thank you for that sobering and thought-provoking series of letters. I’d like to move our conversation in a slightly different direction. I know that fighting Holocaust denial has long been a central focus of your professional life and that you have persistently confronted deniers and their historical distortions.

Please don’t think I’m minimizing your accomplishments in this area, but aren’t deniers the equivalent of flat-earth theorists who are peddling an utterly bogus and thoroughly discredited version of history? Why should we take them seriously and give their perverted and unquestionably false view of history the dignity of a response? How much of an impact do they really have?

Yours,

Abigail


Dear Abigail and Joe:

Abigail, you’re not the first person to ask me this question. Sometimes I ask it of myself. When I first began researching and writing on this topic, colleagues would frequently tell me I was wasting my time. “These people are dolts,” they would insist. “Forget about them.” In truth, I thought the same thing when I first heard of Holocaust deniers. I, too, dismissed them as not worthy of serious analysis. Then I looked more closely, and I changed my mind.

Denial flies in the face of basic logic. The Holocaust has the dubious distinction of being the best documented genocide in the world. For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong.1

All survivors do not need to be wrong. In fact, the first two "Holocaust Deniers" were survivors Josef G. Burg and Paul Rassinier. Further, I describe in my post here that under 5% of Auschwitz survivors even mention gas chambers. Further, a Jewish source even claims over half of testimonies at Yad Vashem are "unreliable":

Ratio of obvious liars to claimed "eyewitnesses"?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12170#p90722

Germar Rudolf also refutes this "best documented genocide in history" claim in his article here:

The Lies and Deceptions of Deborah Lipstadt
https://codoh.com/library/document/4637/


See also:

quotes for no evidence or little evidence of the 'holocaust'
viewtopic.php?t=11013#p82817

"Survivors" who deny the holocaust.
viewtopic.php?t=8600

Who else would have to be wrong? The bystanders, those non-Jews who lived in the cities, towns, and villages in eastern and western Europe and watched as their Jewish neighbors were being marched away, to be put on trains to concentration camps or to be shot in the woods and left to die in ditches.2 The scores of historians who have studied and written about the Holocaust over the past seventy years would either have to be part of this massive conspiracy or have been completely duped.

As seen above, there is no question that many survivors are wrong. I address this inherently fallacious point in my thread

Debating: Responding to arguments claiming there are no "reliable/respected sources" denying the holocaust?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12190


See also:

The Most Ridiculous Testimony
viewtopic.php?t=7033

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html

But, above all, the perpetrators themselves—those who actually admitted their guilt—would have to be wrong. Survivors say, “This was done to me.” Perpetrators say, “I did it.”3 In criminal cases, the perpetrator’s admission of guilt has more clout than the victim’s accusation. How can deniers explain that in not one war-crimes trial since the end of World War II has a perpetrator of any nationality denied that these events occurred? They may have said, “I was forced to kill,” but not one asserted that the killing did not happen.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would lie. I could also say:
It is not necessary to wonder how, technically, such mass lying was possible. It was technically possible because it took place.

It is also not true that nobody denied that genocide occured.

Read on:

D. Liptadt demolished on another lie: 'No perpetrator of any nationality ever said it didn’t happen'
viewtopic.php?t=12061

the misleading 'No Nazi ever denied gas chambers'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5595

"But, but, No Nazi ever Denied"- oogah boogah
viewtopic.php?t=5998

Finally, why has Germany shouldered the enormous moral and financial responsibility for the crimes committed in the Holocaust, if it did not happen?4 Of course, according to the deniers, the answer to this question is quite simple: German officials were forced into a false admission of guilt by “the Jews,” who threatened to prevent Germany’s reentry into the family of nations. But this, too, makes little sense. German leaders had to know that admitting to a genocide of such proportions would impose upon the nation a horrific legacy that would become an integral part of its national identity. Why would a country take on such a historical burden if it were innocent? Moreover, seventy years after the end of the war, with Germany now a global political and economic leader, it could have proclaimed that “it’s not true; the Jews made us say this back in 1945.” Instead, the German government created a massive memorial in Berlin to the murdered Jews.

Did they have a choice? I seem to remember the country being invaded on both fronts.

William Henry Chamberlin, explained the situation of former East Germany in 1963:

"The so-called DDR (initials for German Democratic Republic) is neither German nor democratic nor a republic. It is a totalitarian police regime, completely subservient to the will of a foreign power, the Soviet Union." (William Henry Chamberlin, The German Phoenix (Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1963), p. 129.)

Professor Arthur Butz described the political landscape of West Germany, where the USA and UK occupation powers had the right to manage Germany's domestic and administration affairs, as well as nullify German legislation:
"The entire political structure of West Germany was established by the U.S. government. This includes the control of newspapers and other media, the control of the schools, and the constitution of the Bundesrepublik. As a puppet creation, this ‘German’ political establishment necessarily had an interest in the lies of the conquerors and behaved accordingly." (Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), p. 293. Online: http://vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/)

There is yet another bit of illogic on which deniers depend. They demand to be shown the one specific piece of evidence that would prove to them there was a Holocaust: Hitler’s written order authorizing the murder of all of Europe’s Jews. In all likelihood, Hitler realized the folly of affixing his signature to such an order, which, had it become public, many might not have accepted. More important, historians are not troubled by the absence of such a document. They never rest their conclusions on one document, particularly in this instance, when the Third Reich left a vast cache of evidence attesting to a government-directed program whose goal was the annihilation of the Jewish people. Deniers, of course, will insist that “the Jews” have forged these documents. But if that were the case, why didn’t the Jews also forge the all-important document from Hitler himself?

Unsurprisingly, no document is mentioned by Lipstadt. Coincidentally, all the documents describing the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" speak in terms of expulsion or resettlement or deportation: not mass murder. The hoaxters sometimes claim that "resettlement" was a "code-word" for extermination, but that makes no sense. The allegation that "deniers" claim that jews, rather than the Soviet Union, are responsible for document forging is simply absurd.

The "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" - Extermination or Ethnic Cleansing? A Review
https://codoh.com/library/document/495/?lang=en

The list of illogical arguments goes on. Deniers contend that had the Third Reich, a regime they describe as the epitome of efficiency and power, wished to murder all the Jews, it would have ensured that no witnesses remained alive to testify about the death camps. Therefore, the fact that there were survivors alive at the war’s end constitutes proof that there was no genocide and that the survivors’ testimonies are lies. One need not be familiar with any documentary evidence to recognize the fallacious nature of this argument. The Third Reich was also intent on winning the war, which it did not do. Therefore, the assumption that the Third Reich succeeded at all it set out to do is false. Anything based on that premise is equally false.

Struck by the complete lack of logic in any of their claims, I initially dismissed the Holocaust deniers and their theories out of hand. Then two respected historians suggested that I take a closer, more systematic look. They wondered how deniers—given the implausibility of their arguments—had been able to attract any adherents at all. Though still skeptical, I took up their challenge and thought this would be, at most, a two-year project before I moved on to other matters. I was wrong.

It soon became apparent to me that deniers were a new type of neo-Nazi. Unlike previous generations of neo-Nazis—people who celebrated Hitler’s birthday, sported SS-like uniforms, and hung swastikas at meetings where they would give the Sieg Heil salute—this group eschewed all that.5 They were wolves in sheep’s clothing. They didn’t bother with the physical trappings of Nazism—salutes, songs, and banners—but proclaimed themselves “revisionists”—serious scholars who simply wished to revise “mistakes” in the historical record, to which end they established an impressive-sounding organization—the Institute for Historical Review—and created a benign-sounding publication—the Journal for Historical Review.6 Nothing in these names suggested the revisionists’ real agenda. They held conferences that, at first blush, seemed to be the most mundane academic confabs. But a close inspection of their publications and conference programs revealed the same extremism, adulation of the Third Reich, antisemitism, and racism as the swastika-waving neo-Nazis. This was extremism posing as rational discourse.

Ah, yes, more ad hominems. Anyone who dares to question the official dogma is a "neo-Nazi extremist" -- and yet, she has provided no actual reason to believe the holocaust. The nazis already had these prisoners in concentration camps, killing those who survived would have been a lot easier than successfulling winning a 2-front war.

Abigail, in your letter you compliment me for consistently confronting deniers. While I have spent time exposing their lies and inconsistencies, I have not entered into debate with them. They will tell you that I am afraid to. The truth is that they are liars, and one cannot debate a liar. It is akin to trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall. Generally speaking, people differentiate between facts and opinions—you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. But in the case of deniers, there are facts, opinions, and lies. In 2000, when I was on trial in London for libel, having been sued by David Irving—then one of the world’s leading Holocaust deniers—for having called him a denier, my defense team and I tracked all of his “proofs” back to their sources and found that embedded in the claims he made about the Holocaust were falsifications, inventions, distortions, changes of dates, or some other form of untruth. Once these lies were exposed, his arguments collapsed.

By this logic, the fact that Lipstadt has just been caught lying about how "no nazi or survivor denied..." her arguments have collapsed. Pathetic.

Among the leading purveyors of Holocaust denial arguments are far-right, neo-Nazi, and white power groups. Their adulation of Nazi ideology, “Aryan” superiority, and, above all, Adolf Hitler make them perfect candidates for denial. They are masters of inconsistency. They argue that murdering the Jews would have been entirely justified but that it never happened. I suppose you could call this the “no, but” argument: “No, it didn’t happen. But it should have.”

There is plenty of racial hatemongering among those who push the standard holocaust narrative.

Famous holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel himself said that every Jew should hate Germans... not nazis, but Germans: viewtopic.php?t=7168

There is also no question that many orthodox Jews are racial supremacists, including rabbinical authorities. Lipstadt does not castigate these "leading purveyors" of judaism. See: http://www.cwporter.com/jewrac.htm

It should be obvious that Holocaust denial is, quite plainly, a form of antisemitism. It’s not about history. It’s about attacking, discrediting, and demonizing Jews. The claims of the deniers—that the Jews planted evidence, got German prisoners of war to admit to crimes they did not commit, and forced Germany to shoulder a tremendous financial and moral burden when the war ended—are predicated on the notion of the mythical power of the Jews, which, they firmly believe, was extensive enough to realize this vast conspiracy. Unconcerned about how their actions would affect millions of people and with only their own political and financial benefit in mind, the Jews created the myth of the Holocaust in order to obtain a state of their own and extract vast amounts of money from Germany. Then, according to this so-called “theory,” they proceeded to displace another people from their land in order to gain sovereignty for themselves. These assertions rely on classic antisemitic tropes, the same ones found throughout two thousand years of antisemitic accusations. Just as the Jews persuaded the Roman Empire, then the rulers of Palestine and much of the rest of the world, to do their bidding and crucify Jesus, so, too, they persuaded the Allies to create evidence of a genocide for their own financial and political gain.

Of course, it was not simply "the Jews" but all of the allied governments, mainly America, Britain, the USSR. The lampshades and soap at Buchenwald as well as the "Gas chambers" at Dachau, which are universally discarded as hoaxes even by historians that believe the holocaust narrative, were fabricated by the USA. The USA also helped the USSR cover up the Katyn massacre.


How much of it was a Soviet invention?
viewtopic.php?t=11629

US 'helped Russia cover up Second World War Katyn Forest massacre'
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 22111.html

Now back to your question: Should we be worried about these people? To be honest, while I don’t think they are an imminent threat, I do believe that there is room for concern. Deniers have learned to use social media to their advantage. On Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2017, a survivor was interviewed on a BBC radio program. The producers were “shocked” by the “staggering” number of “brazen” Holocaust denial and antisemitic phone calls and social media posts they received. Though they had previously broadcast programs on the Holocaust and had received some antisemitic and denial comments, this response, one producer told me, was “unprecedented…unlike anything we have seen before.” They were so deeply unsettled that they invited me to appear on a subsequent program that addressed Holocaust denial.7 But denial is not something engaged in only by the Far Right. In many segments of the Muslim community, including among European Muslims, there is also an inclination to deny this historical reality. There are schools in Europe where teachers find it difficult to teach about the Holocaust because the students insist that it never happened, and the material the teachers present is dismissed by the students as false.8 As has become evident in recent years, there are those on the far left who also engage in denial. During a BBC interview in September 2017 on leftist antisemitism within Britain’s Labour Party, Ken Loach was asked to comment on a session at the party’s annual conference where a participant called for a “yes or no” discussion of the Holocaust. Loach’s rather ambiguous response: “I think history is for us all to discuss, wouldn’t you?”9

Ultimately, it’s hard to gauge whether deniers have increased in number or are just good at using social media to make themselves seem more numerous than they actually are. While either alternative is disturbing, the deniers clearly feel more emboldened than ever before.

Deniers are not the equivalents of flat-earth theorists, nor are they just plain loonies. Theirs is not a cognitive error that can be rectified by showing them documentation or evidence. They are, pure and simple, antisemites, and their agenda is to reinforce and spread the very antisemitism that produced the Holocaust. They can’t be completely discounted.

Yours,

DEL

No wonder Lipstadt refuses to debate. All she does is:

- Make totally false statements & hasty generalizations
- Calls anyone that disagrees with her a "neo-Nazi" and "anti-Semite" by invoking the false equivalence fallacy
- Claims she cannot debate because her opponents are "liars"

It almost reads like satire, but I think she actually believes this.


Recommended reading:

Does the strong Jew tendency towards mental illness assist in their 'holocaust' fantasies?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12239

[borjastick]

As they say 'attack is the best form of defence' and so she goes into full attack mode immediately, indeed it is her preferred starting point as you have clearly shown so far. Lipstadt starts off the bat with 'they are anti-semites' which is a very well used and often successful position to take as it sates most who look at holocaust denial as a problem. It helps people pigeon hole deniers as jew haters which makes them fell comfortable with it.

The problem is that if Lipstadt denated or discussed holocaust questions and doubts she would get hung out to dry and she knows it so the best way to deal with it is to not deal with it. Calling anyone like us an anti semite does just that.

[Pia Kahn]

This is nothing new. I have two things to say about Mrs. Lipstadt.

1. She calls her opponents names instead of presenting her arguments.

2. She refuses to debate her opponents.

These two indisputable facts suffice to bury her credibility as a "professor" or "scientist".

We should just ignore her. She has nothing to say that has any substance.

[JLAD Prove Me Wrong]

This is nothing new. I have two things to say about Mrs. Lipstadt.

1. She calls her opponents names instead of presenting her arguments.

2. She refuses to debate her opponents.

These two indisputable facts suffice to bury her credibility as a "professor" or "scientist".

We should just ignore her. She has nothing to say that has any substance.

I don't know why any person would listen to her or appreciate her. She is a Jewish supremacist who support Israeli apartheid. She is also incredibly boring, but in some ways, her work is counterproductive. Because of her, so many people have seen how ugly the Industry really is, and have looked into Holocaust denial because she defamed Irving many years ago. It's unfortunate he lost, but I do believe many people have 'woken up' as a result of the trial.

This article covers her in much more detail. She is less popular than chicken manure!

https://web.archive.org/web/20071022025 ... -than.html

Deborah Lipstadt is less popular than Chicken Manure

By Curt Maynard


I’ve been saying for awhile that the alleged popularity of many public figures today is more of a chimera than anything else, just today another glaring example presented itself. Hard core Zionist and liar extraordinaire Deborah Lipstadt wrote an article entitled Jimmy Carter’s Jewish Problem that was given prominent space in the Washington Post on Saturday, January 20, 2007.

In reality, Deborah Lipstadt is something of a nonentity, well-known only among Zionist Supremacists in academia and the media and a few holocaust Revisionists, but every now and again the mainstream Zionist media drags her out of well deserved obscurity to write an article about what else, anti-Semitism. On January 20th she set her delusional sights on Jimmy Carter who recently wrote an honest book entitled "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." Which focused on the influence Zionists enjoy in the American government and media and how that plays directly into the terrorist and apartheid politics embraced by the state of Israel. I won’t dwell on Carter’s book in this piece as it really only emphasizes truths that have been written about by thousands of others long before Carter ever put pen to paper. In fact, Carter could only be said to have arrived at these ideas as a result of “standing on the shoulders of giants” that preceded him.

In any case, Lipstadt’s entire thesis in “Jimmy Carter’s Jewish Problem,” rests on the idea that anything Israel does is justified because, you guessed it, Jews suffered during the holocaust. I’m dead serious. Lipstadt states clearly that Carter’s concise narrative documenting the many crimes against humanity committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians is “unfair,” because Carter doesn’t emphasize the holocaust and how it allegedly affected world Jewry. She writes:
“Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," while exceptionally sensitive to Palestinian suffering, ignores a legacy of mistreatment, expulsion and murder committed against Jews. It trivializes the murder of Israelis. Now, facing a storm of criticism, he has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense.

One cannot ignore the Holocaust's impact on Jewish identity and the history of the Middle East conflict. When an Ahmadinejad or Hamas threatens to destroy Israel, Jews have historical precedent to believe them. Jimmy Carter either does not understand this or considers it irrelevant.”

She then continues by adding that Carter was insensitive because his book only made “two fleeting references to the holocaust.” Well reader, believe it or not, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, and Charles de Gaulle are all guilty of insensitivity too, as not one of them bothered to leave a single reference whatsoever to the holocaust in their extensive memoirs, but don’t expect Lipstadt to mention this fact, it might knock some of the outrage out of her sails or worse, alert her readers to the fact that the aforementioned never even bothered to mentioned this allegedly “well documented” event, in their own war time diaries.

The funniest thing about the Post dragging Deborah Lipstadt out of the bowels of Emory University to write this article about Carter is that nobody has heard of her, she only becomes a “somebody” when the Zionists need her to excoriate someone for holocaust skepticism or accurately and honestly exposing the subversive behavior of some Zionist liar that screwed up badly enough to get caught doing whatever it was he or she was doing. How do I know nobody pays attention to Deborah Lipstadt in the real world, despite her prominent position as a holocaust expert in the fantasy world created by our media? Well, allow me to explain. Deborah Lipstadt has had a blogsite for quite sometime now, she uses it to post her missives, and has done so for more than two years. The funny things is, I seem to be it’s only visitor, no matter how often I go there, no matter what time of day, I literally have never seen anyone comment on her articles. Don’t believe me? See for yourself.

Believe what you like, but from my humble point of view there are really only two reasons why Lipstadt’s own blog hasn’t attracted enough interest for anyone to comment on any of the essays within. Number one, nobody is visiting her blog, which by the way is supported by Alexa.com a website ranking instrument which has ranked her site as the 2,712,744th most popular site on the Internet, making it even less popular than a Seattle based website devoted to chicken manure which actually ranked in several hundred thousand places in front of Lipstadt’s blog.

My point of course is that nobody knows who Deborah Lipstadt is, and what’s more, nobody cares. Lipstadt only becomes a somebody for those few moments a moron stupid enough to still be reading newspapers scans the article’s headline, although I am anything but well known, and am not a tenured professor, I’m certain that more people will actually read this essay than will read Lipstadt’s latest piece in the Post. The only reason I came across it is that I happen to have google working for me, google sends me anything with the name Deborah Lipstadt attached to it that appears in the news. Trust me, I rarely get anything on her, maybe something every couple of weeks at the most.

The other possibility as to why I never find any comments on Deborah Lipstadt’s blog may be because so few visitors have anything positive to say about her or her essays. I generally send her a few negative comments every couple of weeks, but as yet, she hasn’t posted a single one of my critiques.

Thus, I am left with one or two conclusions at most, she either has no readers, or the readers that do visit her blogsite don’t leave positive comments. Personally, I think it’s a bit of both, with the former being the greater reason.

So what does this tell us? If we are to believe the media, Deborah Lipstadt is a leader in her field, she’s a well respected expert on the holocaust and an advisor to all kinds of important people and groups on the issue of anti-Semitism. Oddly, the very people she smears and accuses of embracing pseudo-scientific approaches to historiography and/or being of no importance whatsoever in the field of holocaust history are far more popular with the Internet surfer than she is. Ernst Zundel, a man doing time at this very moment in a German prison for questioning some very questionable aspects of the OJV [Official Jewish Version] of what happened in Germany during the Second World War is far better known than this trollop [in the untidy and slovenly sense]. A quick check on Alexa.com revealed quickly that some of the most obscure revisionist websites out there are still infinitely more popular than Lipstadt’s blog, which not only suggests that she herself isn’t well known, but her ideas aren’t nearly as well known and/or well received by the public as the media would have you and I believe.

The long and short of it is that Deborah Lipstadt is a nobody - she isn’t well known, she isn’t widely read, despite all of the free and very positive publicity she receives from the media and publishing industry, and therefore she isn’t very important. Personally I think this is the way we should treat her - whenever anyone brings up the name Lipstadt, wave your hand in dismissal, and tell whoever it was that brought up her name that Lipstadt is less relevant than chicken manure and therefore unworthy of any intelligent person’s attention. Bye-bye Lipstadt.
The holocaust purveyors are being exposed - they cannot address the valid questions that revisionists have put forth, because there are no valid answers, only smear and innuendo, nothing more. The holocaust purveyors would love for the public to believe their continuous lie that to address the holocaust skeptics means that one is giving them the credibility they don’t deserve, but isn’t that exactly the case with Deborah Lipstadt, aren’t we told that she’s an expert, that she’s well respected, aren’t we led to believe this by the fact that she is given considerable attention and prominent space in a major American newspaper? But isn’t the truth really that she has been given far too much attention and credibility? I think so, and if you’re thinking properly, you’ll think so too.

With that, I’ll leave the reader with a paragraph from the book “Everything you ever wanted to know about Jews, but were afraid to ask because you thought you’d be called anti-Semitic” by J0hn "Birdman" Bryant, a helluva good guy with special insight into the modern Zionist question:

The establishment Jewish [read Zionist if you prefer] position is, of course, that the revisionists, in addition to being anti-Semitic scumbags and reincarnations of the Devil himself, are of such a low order that their arguments do not deserve to be answered… this is most likely establishment Jewry’s best strategy, since all their attempts to answer the revisionists [in the past] have so far ended in defeat…


P.S. I’m available for any mainstream television interviews, but don’t expect me to apologize for anything I’ve written, because I won’t.

[Hektor]

This is nothing new. I have two things to say about Mrs. Lipstadt.

1. She calls her opponents names instead of presenting her arguments.

2. She refuses to debate her opponents.

These two indisputable facts suffice to bury her credibility as a "professor" or "scientist".

We should just ignore her. She has nothing to say that has any substance.

Indeed, she and the rest of the Holocaust Lobby generally aren't interested in a sober debate. Name calling and personal attacks, poisoning the well, hurling an elephant and all kind of dishonest debating tactics are the repertoire of their game.

They won't people to believe that there isn't any legitimate reason to question or even dispute the Holocaust Narrative. While some details can be changed at times the Holocaust archetype of a deliberate extermination program of Jews is not to be touched upon. Certain details are also above questioning, especially the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. But I notice they aren't that pushy on this detail anymore. It's the "millions have been murdered" (due to irrational hate for Jews or people that deviate from some fictitious NS ideal) them that is in itself fluid. That's why one gets the debate carousels, where people are hopping from one claim (they can't prove) to the other. Find out the claims about Belsen are fraudulent, move it to Buchenwald, Dachau or go straight to Auschwitz. Can't prove the industrial style gassings in Auschwitz, move it to Treblinka, no mass graves in Treblinka - get the Holocaust by bullets on the table. Their advantage is that the well has already been poisoned even before the alleged extermination program supposedly started. That then culminated with the propaganda movies about diseased/starved prisoners from Western concentration camps at the end of WW2. Nuremberg Trials. Follow up show trials in Jerusalem and Frankfurt. books, movies and the sporadic news articles on another person standing accused of "war crimes" or "atrocities". For most the subject is so morbid and nerve wrecking that investigation or debate is avoided right from start. Rather accept the narrative and simply move on. Don't bother with the pressing questions. Any manipulation technique from the book is brought into play. A common gimmick is to let "Holocaust Survivors" speak to audiences telling sad stories, especially to children. That of course gives the narrators some sort of moral authority by "being the victim" that isn't to be questioned. That those "Holocaust survivors" have been coached or have embellished their stories doesn't come to the mind of the gullible audiences. At least nobody dares to speak out there. Any critique is attested to be an expression of "Antisemitism" of sorts.

Really the whole affair has the character of a cult.
- Leaders are not to be questioned.
- Doctrine is not to be questioned
- Emotional manipulation techniques are applied / This is a form of covert intimidation
- Heretics or non-believers are ostracised
- The flock is fleeced
- Mystery (outrageous atrocity claims are mysterious to most) Miracle (The existence of Holocaust survivors is a miracle of sorts) Authority (Martyrs, Academics and observance by authority figures give the Holocaust an aura of authority) are present.
- Endless shaming and guilt tripping.

[Archie]

Deniers are not the equivalents of flat-earth theorists, nor are they just plain loonies. Theirs is not a cognitive error that can be rectified by showing them documentation or evidence. They are, pure and simple, antisemites, and their agenda is to reinforce and spread the very antisemitism that produced the Holocaust. They can’t be completely discounted.

I can’t tell if she means to say deniers are evil anti-Semites in addition to being loonies or if we aren’t loonies at all but rather something entirely different.

If you define anti-Semitism as anything inimical to Jewish interests then Holocaust denial by definition is anti-Semitic. If you define it as a strong personal hatred towards Jews, then revisionists do not have to be anti-Semitic. It’s very possible to do revisionism without being critical of Jews. You can make arguments about cremation capacity and so forth and leave it at that. But if the Holocaust is shown to be false, the natural question is then to ask how everyone came to believe in it. And imo that question can’t really be properly addressed without getting into Jewish power and their dominance in the media and in other domains.

[Lamprecht]

If you define anti-Semitism as anything inimical to Jewish interests then Holocaust denial by definition is anti-Semitic.

I disagree. I guess in the short term Jews do benefit from this myth, but in the long term if they continue suppressing honest academic inquiry and demanding reparations, it will end up costing them. It is such a ridiculous hoax, the exterminationists have built a house of cards and are only building it higher and higher. Sooner or later a strong enough breeze will cause it to completely collapse. That is why they believe it is necessary to protect their narrative from dissent, from any speech which may expose some component of their storyline as fraudulent. Some may actually accept that their H religion is only make-believe; but why else would they feel threatened by revisionism? The H cannot stand up to honest, real-world examination.

[DogmatischenSchlumer]

I don't think that the definition of anti-Semitism is the problem, it's been used since it's origins for many different reasons, by Germans, German-Jews, Jews and non-Jews in general, denoting mere opposition to Jewish theological views, their culture's moral (or the lack of it), to talk about the German Spirit in comparison of the Jewish Spirit, maybe since the World Wars it's more racially directed. But I still don't think it matters, why?
Because no matter in what sense this term is being used (even if acknowledged by both parties) the term just denotes an anti-Jewish position and because of certain lobbies psychotic behaviour (regarding censorship for political gains), simply opposing anything related to Jews is condemned as wrong.
So in most cases I agree with how the term is utilised and the problem simply relies on how one cannot criticise Jews nor anything related because of the foundation myth that is the holoco$t.

I share Lamprecht's opinion here:

I disagree. I guess in the short term Jews do benefit from this myth, but in the long term if they continue suppressing honest academic inquiry and demanding reparations, it will end up costing them.

It doesn't matter what one has to say about the holoco$t, Israel, the Jewish diaspora, the Jewish neocons or the marxists, one will be forced into being really careful by talking about such subjects because pissing off the wrong lobby can ruin one's life.
Such thing is only getting out of control as of late, with how social media is growing. I'm pretty sure that one can hardly say the word "Jew" on YouTube or Twitter without the algorithms panicking.
This obscurantism will only backfire, I've spoken with many Jews who complain about this issue, sure there are illiterate people out there who believe the PoZ to be accurate, that all Jews follow to a T everything the Talmud says, and so on.
But if these lobbies "true intention" is to get rid of anti-Semitism in general, they're causing the contrary.
And whenever a Jew points these things out, he will be commonly labelled a "self-hating Jew".

We can argue that Jewish psyche among the diaspora is destined to be like this and there's nothing to do about it other than having Jews move to Israel as was intended by Nazis and Zionists, but at this point, the holoco$t and anti-Semitism have become tools for the most influential people (Jews and non-Jews alike) to further their political agendas.

Everyday it passes, more subjects become dogmatic and the censorship only gets crazier (look at this COVID issue we're dealing with now).
In the coming years a really big change must happen for the truth on many subjects to be discussed freely, right now this goes beyond Jewishness, Nations, etc. Speaking the truth is no longer enough to make big changes, so I'm really wondering how things will develop because I don't think there's many possibilities that the people "in charge" will have a change of faith and allow their scheme to be dismantled.