Why not denier ?

[Kloker]

I have a question to the revisionists, (I am a revisionist myself). Why are you so against being called holocaust-deniers.

I am aware that it is used by exterminationists to smear revisionists. What I as a revisionist appreciate with that designation is its strong religious connotations.

More than one have pointed out that the present-day holocaust-cult has a quasi-religious character. We get this very appropriate bi-polar.

Revisionists - Exterminationists
Deniers - Believers

The believers are in a very succesfull way using the religious dimension, but we can easily turn it against them.

We are the cool-headed sceptics, they are the hot-headed religious extremists. And it fits so perfectly into the history and traditions of science and religion. We are the followers of Gallilei and the enlightment and they are the followers of the inquisition and the witchcraft-trials.

Any comments ?

[Hannover]

The typical canard used by Jews is to claim that Revisionists "deny" the existence of everything about the Jews' experience in WWII, the camps etc. But no one says what the Jews claim, it's a classic false, strawman argument.

Revisionists do not "deny" that Jews were deported to labor camps and encouraged to leave Europe. There is no question that the National Socialists wanted the Jews out of Europe. The Zionists also wanted the Jews out of Europe.

What Revisionists do deny is:

- the unfounded and frankly, laughable '6,000,000'
- the ridiculous & irrational allegations of homicidal 'gas chambers'
- the unsubstantiated claim of a state planned genocide if Jews

My response to anyone who asks if I "deny" the so called holocaust is to ask them to define what they mean by the 'holocaust'. If any of those 3 items are part of that definition, then I say: 'yes, then I am a denier and you can't prove that any of those points are fact.....next'.

Hannover

[TMoran]

kloker wondered:
'I have a question to the revisionists, (I am a revisionist myself). Why are you so against being called holocaust-deniers.'

As for myself I have no problem with being called a denier. As Hannover points out the term was coined by the likes of Deborah Libpstadt to incite the thought that deniers deny everything.

This is the concise essence of what I think a Holocaust denier is -

One who recognizes there was no program of mass extermination of Jews and there were no gas chambers.

[Sailor]

More than one have pointed out that the present-day holocaust-cult has a quasi-religious character.

This is probably so:
"That we are dealing with a 'new religion' is doubtlessly finally clear if one finds in the new Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion a separate article about "Holocaust theology".".


Denier
I do not deny anything I believe to be true. I affirm that which I believe to be solidly establishable in the historical continuum; I deny that which I believe cannot be thus established. Is this unreasonable?

The German word for "denier" is "Leugner", which in turn is related to "Lügner" (liar). With other words, for the German Holocaust believer the Holocaust denier is actually a liar. For example the German Holocaust believer thinks that the denier knows that there were Auschwitz gas chambers, but denies their existence.

Skeptic
For myself I prefer the term 'skeptic': The truth of all knowledge must always be in question. I doubt, I question: I am skeptical.

Revisionist
This designation should be reserved for historians in my opinion.

[steve]

I will try to answer this.

For a few years lately, the term 'denial' has become very fashionable.

For example. If a drunk kept claiming he was NOT an alcaholic, he is said to be 'in denial'.

Or, if a possible gay kept denying he was homosexual, he is said to be 'in denial'.

The way the phrase is used is to imply that the person 'in denial' is denying some sort of fact. A fact that is difficult to face up to.

So, in the case of the term 'denier', as used against revisionists, the underlying message I think is two-fold.

1) That the revisionists simply won't face up to the 'fact' that the Germans killed 6,000,000 of God's special darlings for the sole reason that they were Jews. And in this case, the denial is implied to be intentional.

2) Refering to them as 'deniers' serves to reinforce the 'fact' of the so-called Holocaust. After all, who would refer to anyone as a 'denier' unless the thing being denied was an 'etched in stone' fact.

The reason the revisionists get mad at this is because it is yet one more typical, dirty trick the Holocaust Hucksters use to keep the Big Lie going.

I, for one, do not get especially upset at the use of the term 'denier'. The Magical Gas Chambers, the 6e6, the giesers of blood, the murdering bear and eagle, the lampshades, the thumb switches, the scrubbing of floors with toothbrushes, the 6,000,000 - 3,000,000 still equaling 6,000,000, etc. etc. etc. So they call us 'deniers'. What do you expect?

Steve

[TMoran]

Sailor said among other things:
'Skeptic

For myself I prefer the term 'skeptic': The truth of all knowledge must always be in question. I doubt, I question: I am skeptical.'

==============================================

The word 'skeptic' is a great word to use. I often use it myself. The thing that makes it so wonderful is that we have as one of the foremost, if not the foremost anti-deniers, Michael Shermer, who is head of the "Skeptics Society" and publisher of "Skeptic Magazine" and author of two books where he attacks Holocaust skeptics.

Michael Shermer, master skeptic is the foremost anti-skeptic in the world.

In spite of all that it is still okay to use the word 'denier' on occasion so as to make it clear that you are not intimidated by it. Like David Irving using the cartoon caricature by one of his detractors as his logo. You take their weapon and run with it.

[Scott]

With other words, for the German Holocaust believer the Holocaust denier is actually a liar. For example the German Holocaust believer thinks that the denier knows that there were Auschwitz gas chambers, but denies their existence.

Yes, the intellectually "linear" do have a great problem understanding that some people might have different opinions than they do. They want to see the world pigeonholed in terms of monolithic and orthodox facts, without admitting that the truth is an ongoing process of skepticism and contingent hypothesis.

[Metal Murphy]

I realize this is a really old topic but I wanted to say my piece on it.

I object to the term "denier" because of its negative connotations. Sure, the Jews had a hard time (much of it self-inflicted) but no one tried to murder them wholesale.

I prefer the term "revisionist" because it suits me. I am trying to "revise" history to its proper place.

[Hegwood]

I'm not sure that being a "denier" has any more negative connotations that being a "revisionist" while it might be more accurate and honest.

The essence of the holocaust is that the National Socialist government killed millions of people simply because they were Jewish. I am not aware of any reliable evidence that they killed a single person simply for being jewish. Just because a person dies while incarcerated, whether the incarceration was justified are not, does not constitute intentional murder.

If anyone knows of such evidence please let me know. Until then I consider myself a holocaust denier.

Hegwood

[Metal Murphy]

Exactly. A lot of people died during the war. To me the fallacy of the Holocaust lies with the centering on the gas chambers....yet not a single one of them has been proved.

[Hegwood]

Mr. Murphy,

You don't quite get it! The holocaust is not a fallacy, it is a lie! It's not a matter of the gas chambers being unproved! The gas chambers did not exist. No one was gassed in the Auschwitz morgues, nor anywhere else. This has been clearly established by Leuchter, Rudolf, and others.

But the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers are not the place to start debunking the holocaust. The place to start is the alleged "Death Camp Treblinka". I know I have made this point before and it does not seem to get much traction. But there is no easier way to debunk a story than to simply point out it is impossible. It did not happen because it could not happen.

Before I go further let me ask you if you have any concept of how difficult it is to cremate human corpses or animal carcasses? Do you understand that they will not burn even under the most favorable conditions?

Hegwood

[Hektor]

I have a question to the revisionists, (I am a revisionist myself). Why are you so against being called holocaust-deniers.

I am aware that it is used by exterminationists to smear revisionists. What I as a revisionist appreciate with that designation is its strong religious connotations.
....

It got more then the religious connotations. Denial CAN mean, dispute despite better knowledge, implying that we are somehow dishonestly call "the Holocaust" into doubt. It also got a psychoanalytical connotation. Fred did A, but Fred is in denial by not admitting it. So that's typical lying language used there. It's the same they do with words like "Racist", "Sexist", "White Supremacist" - the whole language of the New left is riddled with terms of deception. That's a tactic to set the playing field for lies.

[borjastick]

Mr. Murphy,

You don't quite get it! The holocaust is not a fallacy, it is a lie! It's not a matter of the gas chambers being unproved! The gas chambers did not exist. No one was gassed in the Auschwitz morgues, nor anywhere else. This has been clearly established by Leuchter, Rudolf, and others.

But the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers are not the place to start debunking the holocaust. The place to start is the alleged "Death Camp Treblinka". I know I have made this point before and it does not seem to get much traction. But there is no easier way to debunk a story than to simply point out it is impossible. It did not happen because it could not happen.

Before I go further let me ask you if you have any concept of how difficult it is to cremate human corpses or animal carcasses? Do you understand that they will not burn even under the most favorable conditions?

Hegwood

I agree entirely with you and have also made this point more than once before. Treblinka is the biggest hole in the story. Treblinka is almost laughable in its stupidity, it simply couldn't be true as described or for that matter anything close to it. It falls into the category of 'the bigger the lie the easier it is to gain acceptance'.

On the subject of the word 'denier' I don't accept that it has the same meaning and force as 'revisionist'. Denier is a pejorative term spat out by those who think they are superior and know better to demean the likes of those who think clearly and freely, us. It is today also used by climate change heatists, those who think the world is overheating and it's all our fault. The word denier can and is used as a one word slayer.

[Metal Murphy]

Mr. Murphy,

You don't quite get it! The holocaust is not a fallacy, it is a lie! It's not a matter of the gas chambers being unproved! The gas chambers did not exist. No one was gassed in the Auschwitz morgues, nor anywhere else. This has been clearly established by Leuchter, Rudolf, and others.

I'm aware of this. However, my expectation is that if you say something existed then you have to prove its existence. Rebuttals exist to Leuchter and Rudolf, what I want is proof from the exterminationalist that their assertion is true. Not one that I've seen can.

But the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers are not the place to start debunking the holocaust.

The "gas chambers" of Auschwitz are the most widely known, Auschwitz is the ultimate symbol of the Holocaust. It's what people think of when they hear "Holocaust."

The place to start is the alleged "Death Camp Treblinka". I know I have made this point before and it does not seem to get much traction. But there is no easier way to debunk a story than to simply point out it is impossible. It did not happen because it could not happen.

Treblinka was a transit camp. Any idea that you could gas people with Diesel engines are absurd. Berg debunked that long ago.

Before I go further let me ask you if you have any concept of how difficult it is to cremate human corpses or animal carcasses? Do you understand that they will not burn even under the most favorable conditions?

Hegwood

I'm aware. This idea of a "Jew BBQ" is absurd.

[cold beer]

I'm not a denier, I'm a rational observer reaching logical conclusions based on physical evidence or lack thereof

Or if you want to go by way of an example:
When james Comey is asked if Clinton turned over all work related emails, he doesn't say "I deny she turned over all state department emails".
He says "no, tens of thousands of emails were deleted"