The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust" / debate strategies?

[Hektor]

It is also a massive psyop and con against the jews themselves by the jews. Any jew born since 1945 has from the moment they are able to be educated been subjected to a lie of enormous proportions such that one can only describe it as a forced mass psychosis on a minority ethnic group. Imagine thinking that the world hates you so much that a plan was thunk up and enacted so that six million of your own people were put to death. Worse still that as a jew you have to believe it and cannot ever disagree let alone check details for yourself.

All so that the state of israel could be formed, a state that you must support morally and financially and also turn a blind eye to the holocaust they are delivering to the Palestinian people who lost their country to accommodate your own type.

Agree, it's a means for those calling the shots there to contoll the flock.
In former Times that was done via religion (which includes forms of guilt tripping and gas lighting).
Rabbinical Judaism gave the Rabbis a position of authority and trust inside Kahal and Stetl.
Upholding a religion, which did consist of far more that the "Old Testament" (as many non-Jews tend to believe), but also lots of Jewish fables that are commonly linked with writ from the 'old Testament' though, required the guidance of rabbis and sages, giving those firm control over the community (via the Kahal system).
With the 'emancipation' of Jews, urbanization and assimilation, the religious grip faded away as well. I think that is where reform Judaism came in. It is essentially Judaism lite. And I find it similar to liberal Protestant denomination in many ways. They quite openly dismiss anything that 'can't be proven scientifically', actually meaning stuff that isn't in line with Naturalism. The religious grip isn't that strong neither, it's merely a membership were you perform some rituals, "because it is a tradition".

The Holocaust does wonders in this. It pretends to be History (in line with science, which we know it is not). So anything happening there sounds kind of believable (That is until one examines it rationally and asks for empirical evidence). It has however a strong emotional touch to it, with horror, drama, pity, mourning and well judging (those darn Nazis). There is a mystique around the whole matter. That's what I'd call parareligious. It is accepting to anyone from ultra-orthodox to atheists, regardless of political orientation or social class one can believe it. Also people from other religions "can believe it". There is martyrs, saints, apostles, witnesses that do 'evangelization', Holocaust Survivors always played a role in this. There is even an inquisition which goes after perpetrators and heretics (Holocaust Deniers). It got holy shrines and locations for pilgrimages were people can admire relics. And well, it got "moral lessons", if one really wants to call it that way. Some of the believers are real pietists about the Holocaust, especially academics from the humanities seem to have a thing for this. It also divides good an evil. The Jews are the good innocent victims of the evil Nazis with Hitler something like an incarnation of the devil... But funny enough a christ-like figure (in the mythology) as well.
Jews get an almost divine status in this, putting them above critique by others. In fact saying something negative about Jews becomes a taboo, a sacrilege and the adherents of the Holocaust cult act accordingly. It's almost obligatory to say bad things about Hitler, the Nazis and it isn't really a problem to disparage the Germans or people from Axis powers... Although they got their demi-saints as well, if they were 'in the resistance' like Bonhoeffer. Germans are acceptable as repentant sinners as long as they are ready to dispense their own existence. They of course have to pay indulgences, if they don't want to be ostracized and shunned by 'the world community'.

That's why Holocaust Denial isn't exactly a matter taken lightly. Holocaust Deniers are dangerous heretics, possible in a pact with the devil (Hitler). They have magical abilities (rational arguments) making them more believable. But fortunately Holocaustians know that this is a trick and are to holy (and clever) to fall for this.

And yes, there are signs of mass psychosis... With the Jews it seems to lead to more arrogance and function as a motivator to work on getting and maintaining power and influence in Western Societies. With Westerners it seems to have an intoxicating effect preventing them from standing up for their own interest and standing their ground politically and culturally. It primes them for philosemitism and xenophilia as well. And it made them more receptive for the cultural revolution of the 1960s. There is a book author here in South Africa that pointed that out already in the 1980s. He didn't take a stance on the Holocaust, but insisted that the belief in it had consequences for the ideological views that were dominant in Western societies after World War Two. To him it also explained lots of the hostility against South Africa by 'liberals' from Western Societies. I think he had especially the Netherlands in mind then... But Joe Biden also exposed lots of that vitriolic attitude... Biden famous lied about South Africa and his visit here. Funny how none of those libtards ever wondered, why they couldn't equally visit Communist Countries. Funny as well, how they wouldn't take a critical stance about Communism neither (And I'm talking their home countries). They wouldn't survive that politically I'd guess. Lots of the Anti-Apartheid movement was actually Communist and Jewish as well. Ironically this while South Africa and Israel had a working relationship in resource, technology and security matters.

[Iris]

One cannot "deny" something that doesn't exist or that has never been proven to be true.

This isn't true. You can very much deny things that don't exist or haven't been proven true. In fact, it's the only rational thing to do. I have no problem with the "holocaust denier" label, as long as it is clear what "holocaust" means. The "holocaust" means a planned extermination of Jews with gas chambers. I do indeed deny this. Just as I am also a "flat earth denier". I do indeed deny that the earth is flat just as I deny that the holocaust happened.

Apparently, you failed to notice this:

2. To refuse to believe; reject: deny the existence of.

3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

The word deny, when used in the context of the holohoax, is viewed by most people as denying reality, not questioning some aspects of the story.

The power of the label stems, in part, from the fact that "deny" has more than one meaning. The average Joe views "holocaust denial" not as skepticism of the official narrative, with some parts being true and others partially true and other totally untrue, but the rejection of truth and reality. Average Joe is not aware of the nuances of the debate, and has been led to believe it is an either/ or issue, i.e. to deny the holocaust is not just denying the reality of gas chambers and 6 million dead jews, but the very existences of the camps themselves and everything else associated with it.

Even though most people on this forum know exactly what you mean when you say:

I have no problem with the "holocaust denier" label, as long as it is clear what "holocaust" means.

the average Joe does have a problem with "holocaust deniers" because they have been brainwashed to believe such people are motivated by "hate" and "antisemitism."

The title of this thread is: "The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust" / debate strategies?" To suggest that we accept a label that is used so effectively against us is asinine. Anyone who has no problem with the label doesn't understand the bigger picture. and only reinforces the idea that revisionists are their own worst enemies.

[fireofice]

Whatever drawbacks come with being labeled a denier, you also run the risk of looking dishonest by denying that you are a denier. They'll say things like "why do shrink from the 'holocaust denier' label when you literally do deny the holocaust, which is gas chambers and an extermination program?" It also makes you look weak and without conviction. Just say "yes, I deny the holocaust, here's what it is and here's why I deny it". By trying and failing to avoid the "holocaust denier" label, you are giving credence that a "holocaust" of some sort happened. No, just deny that there was a holocaust. You will not defeat them by playing word games.

[hermod]

For info, the word 'denial' in the notorious Holocaust-denier label was borrowed from psychology by Zionist activist Deborah Lipstadt in the early 1990s (i.e. just after the devastating Zundel trials of 1985 and 1988) in order to make Holocaust revisionists look like crackpots who deny reality as a way to avoid a disturbing truth (i.e. who suffer from 'denialism,' as psychologists put it) and so protect Israel's founding myth from the lights of real debate and free research.

Denialism

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[1] Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2]

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of ideas that are radical, controversial, or fabricated.[3] The terms Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism describe the denial of the facts and the reality of the subject matters,[4] and the term climate change denial describes denial of the scientific consensus that the climate change of planet Earth is a real and occurring event primarily caused in geologically recent times by human activity.[5] The forms of denialism present the common feature of the person rejecting overwhelming evidence and trying to generate political controversy in attempts to deny the existence of consensus.[6][7]

The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas; such disturbance is called cognitive dissonance in psychology terms.[8][9]

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

Historical revisionism

Negationism and denial

The historian Deborah Lipstadt (Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, 1993), and the historians Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, 2002), distinguish between historical revisionism and historical negationism, the latter of which is a form of denialism. Lipstadt said that Holocaust deniers, such as Harry Elmer Barnes, disingenuously self-identify as "historical revisionists" in order to obscure their denialism as academic revision of the historical record.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... and_denial

https://postimg.cc/bsG3ZYcs

[Hektor]

Whatever drawbacks come with being labeled a denier, you also run the risk of looking dishonest by denying that you are a denier. They'll say things like "why do shrink from the 'holocaust denier' label when you literally do deny the holocaust, which is gas chambers and an extermination program?" It also makes you look weak and without conviction. Just say "yes, I deny the holocaust, here's what it is and here's why I deny it". By trying and failing to avoid the "holocaust denier" label, you are giving credence that a "holocaust" of some sort happened. No, just deny that there was a holocaust. You will not defeat them by playing word games.

That's part of the trick, when using weasel words or equivocations. That's why people could be scammed so well with terms like "racist", which is another loaded term easily equivocated.

Simply have term fitting a couple of definitions. Make sure those are both negative, neutral, positive definitions. If the term then gets rejected by those you are calling the term, they will have difficulties to make clear their own position to the audience.


Part of the power of those labelling terms is that people are afraid being called it. The common response is then that they back-off or compromise. Another response is getting angry, when you realize what sick and dishonest game is being played. And lets be honest, that name calling game is pretty annoying. But one needs to be careful when expressing anger. It can be used to let you look bad in public. And well, you also may look desperate in some way.

Best response is perhaps:"So you called me Holocaust Denier, have it your way, but how does it proof the Holocaust thesis to be true".
Bear in mind those throwing around labels are partially trained in verbal skills in rhetoric and they may have quite a lot of exercise in debating. So they always will be able to twist a debate in a direction that favors them or at least will not damage them too much.

They also may switch from debating tactics towards more relevant arguments. It's not that they are totally alogical or irrational. It's just that they use illogical, irrational, emotional points when it matters. It's usually pretty early in the logical chain of their arguments. That's why they insert imagery of victims and suffering or plain evil right in the beginning. With the Holocaust it's the image of the emaciated corpses that is introduced pretty early. It's then posed as evidence for homicidal gassings as part of an extermination program. Once people swallow this, you can tell them almost anything... Any empirical evidences will simply be reinterpreted as part or proof for the thesis. Since millions of people were at least remotely involved into this right from the beginning, the Holocaust is truly a 'social construct'. One that isn't finally deconstructed.... Be advised that a lots of beliefs that once were strong in Western societies have been deconstructed. Those weren't all explicitly religious. But they have in common that they lost their power after deconstruction. The challenge to 'the Holocaust' is that Holocaustians claim 'the moral high-ground' (As did the church in past ages). I think that's actually the key to their power there. The problem is that people can't go elsewhere for 'moral high ground' and if there are alternatives, they usually will affirm the Holocaust. Once other institutions with some esteem will flatly reject Holocaust Belief, the Holocaust will loose more of its power. The key here is the 'educated middle class'. People that are relatively well off and typically have college degrees, even postgraduate ones. The problem is however that they do resist changing their mind on things and especially are scared to express certain new opinions publicly. What they fear is ostracism and losing their career of course. That's why they are often over compliant in terms of expressed opinions. What keeps them in line, even if they don't hold that opinion any longer, is the belief that anyone else still holds that opinion. Once they actually feel that they aren't alone anymore, they actually may feel more free to express opinions on this. Once this happens on a massive scale, it's game over for the Holocaust. That's why they try to eradicate "Holocaust Denial" from social media. Because this is where people may pick up on the issue. To me it looks as if most people became 'Holocaust Deniers' by watching stuff on the internet... Those that can pose good arguments, obviously also have done some reading as well. It's little videos that seem to spread most. The problem is, if they are explicit with title and message, they will be blocked quickly. So it seems Revisionism needs to be packaged more. Some little rethink at a time.