Let's strategize how to be heard about the non-Jewish version of Holocaust

[Hektor]

Just a thought that comes up with me from time to time. To attack the fata morgana all at once is futile. It might be rather advisable to detail with details that can be shown to be wrong perceptions. I'm thinking here especially about the Western Camps like Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen Belsen, Mauthausen etc. One needs to pick up on reports and claims that those were "death camps with gas chambers". One can point out their function and conditions during the war. One can hint at the deterioration of conditions during the last stages of the war in Europe. And I think one can look at the role of Allied propaganda and psychological warfare (units) in the West.

"Denying homicidal gas chambers" in the Western Camps, while pointing out that official historiography located the Holocaust into what was behind the iron curtain in the cold war era, could be phrased in a way that it would be legally save to publish this kind of facts and rectifications.

IMO one could base it on Denierbud's Buchenwald Video, which may have to edit out some "legally" risky portions and be completed with more hints on source material, could be a good starting point.

Any thoughts on this?

[Lamprecht]

That could be a good strategy. Insist on all of the most absurd claims: 3-4 million at Auschwitz, steam/electrocution chambers, etc. Insist that is "what the evil nazis did to the poor, innocent jews" and label anyone who tries to insist otherwise as a "holocaust denying anti-semitic neo nazi who wants to kill 6 million jews"

[AstraPlaneti]

Hello everyone,

This is my first post on this forum but I have lurked for a long time and finally have something to add so I thought I'd weigh in. I have some experience with cults and with deprogramming people who have been indoctrinated and brainwashed so I think I have a fairly unique insight to offer.

I apologise if I broke the rule regarding lengthy posts. I have tried to be succinct.

It kind of works like this:
1. If a person's beliefs are based on the truth, then everything they believe is logically consistent. By this I mean that if their ideology was a box, and you were to break the box down into smaller compartments, each one of those smaller compartments will be logically consistent with every other compartment.
2. On the other hand, if a person's beliefs are not true, if they are based on falsehoods, then their belief structure will NOT be logically consistent. If you take their ideological box and break it down into smaller compartments then there will be at least two compartments that contain ideas and concepts that contradict each other.

This may at first seem silly. After all, it does seem unreasonable to think that there are people out there who believe contradictory things at the same time. It is difficult to imagine people being this dishonest to themselves. But this interpretation misses a key detail, namely, that the people who suffer from double-think do not realise that they suffer from double-think. Their ideology structures their mind in such a way that the two contradictory compartments never come into contact with each other. They will flip from one concept to the other without realising, as the situation demands, and they will never hold both ideas in their mind at the same time.

Here is an example to make clear what is it that I am talking about. At the moment there are crazy men in the west, who say that they are actually women. These people simultaneously believe:
1. That gender is a social construct
2. That they were born the wrong gender
Clearly, these ideas are contradictory. After all, how can people be "born the wrong gender" if "gender is a social construct"? Nonetheless, they genuinely believe both of these things simultaneously. However, they do not realise that there is a contradiction because their ideology structures their mind in such a way that they never hold the thoughts 1. and 2. at the same moment. If you speak to these people, and are observant, you can watch them switch from one idea to the other half-way through a conversation without even realising.

Fortunately, it is simple to deprogram people who have been indoctrinated like this. All you have to do is make it abundantly clear to them that their ideology is inconsistent, by putting them into a position in which they are forced to hold both ideas simultaneously. Nature abhors a vacuum and the human mind abhors inconsistency. As soon as they realise that their beliefs are inconsistent, their mind will go into overdrive to try and resolve the paradox.

Now, in practice, we cannot deal with the holocaust narrative story in this way because it is impractical. There is no practical way that the people on this forum could go through the process of decompartmentalising everyone who believes in the holocaust. There are hundreds of millions of people who have been indoctrinated into believing this stuff and we, on the other hand, are only a small group.

Fortunately, we live in the age of mass-communications technologies like the internet and social media and using these tools we can enormously extend our reach. One practical way that we could end the holocaust narrative story is by designing internet memes that decompartmentalise the people who view them and then spreading those memes through image board websites and social media. If we do this properly then people who come into contact with the memes will start the decompartmentalisation process and eventually, once they have deprogrammed themselves, will join our side and help us spread our memes even further.

Many of you will be skeptical that this could work. To those people, I would like to point out that there are multiple political activist groups who have stumbled onto and applied this strategy in recent years with enormous success. Here is an example of a de-compartmentalisation meme by fightwhitegenocide.com that targets people who have been indoctrinated to simultaneously believe
1. That White people are uniquely evil
2. That there is no such thing as race
The meme switches from one compartment to the other on every other line to make it abundantly clear to the viewer that these compartments exist within their mind and that they are inconsistent with each other.

Within the minds of the general public, the holocaust is represented by a small group of symbols. Imagine that you got 10,000 random people together and then asked them what first springs to mind when they hear the word "holocaust". They will say things like:
1. Auschwitz
2. Anne Frank
3. Schindler's List
4. The number "six million"
5. People being put onto cattle cars
6. Many others that I am missing.

These symbols represent the holocaust narrative in the minds of the public. Put rather bluntly, if people stopped believing in the stories attached to these symbols then they would also stop believing in the holocaust narrative. Here are some examples of talking points that discredit these symbols:
1. Schindler's List is based on a historical fiction novel named "Schindler's Ark" that was published in Australia in the 1980s.
2. Unanswerable questions, such as "Why does the Auschwitz 'death camp' possess recreational facilities for the prisoners?"
3. Slogans such as: "Gas chambers don't have wooden doors."
4. Here is a pictorial meme about Anne Frank. This meme contains easily verifiable information that directly contradicts the Anne Frank symbol that most people possess in their heads.

(At first glance some of these may not seem like a decompartmentalisation memes but they are. One compartment is contained in the meme and the other compartment is prominent inside the mind of the person viewing the meme.)

If you guys want to do something like this, then we should do up a more thorough list of the symbols that represent the holocaust narrative story in the minds of the public, start identifying the contradictory compartments in the holocaust-ideology and then start developing decompartmentalisation memes and spreading them through social media and image-boards. I cannot do this myself because I do not possess a thorough enough understanding of the ideology that we are attacking.

We would also need to ensure that other resources, (like the CODOH documentaries,) are readily available and easy to find because people who start the de-indoctrination process are going to actively seek out information to try to resolve the paradoxes in their beliefs that we point out.

[Pia Kahn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gwKU8DqHAw

This is a video showing yad vashems strategy for spreading Holocaust belief. A so called "scientist" calls anyone who doesn't believe an evil antisemite. The Jewish scientist actually tries to provide reasons.

1. Anyone who denies the Holocaust must believe that this horror story was invented by the Jewish people. Therefore, he must believe that the Jewish people are evil.

I tried to point out that the story may have been invented by a few jews or even by non-jews. Thus, the Jewish people as a whole cannot be held accountable. So her argument is wrong. What happened?

The post was immediately deleted.

In my mind, the fear that if the unique Holocaust story is busted, the Holocaust story will be a unique historical event, namely a unique lie and extortion racket. They don't want the Jewish people to be heald accountable for this unique lie.

I think we should ridicule the notion that any unbeliever must be a jew hater. He may just be ignorant, he may be sceptical of a unique historical event, which is historically very unlikely, Jesus resurrection comes to mind. If we can really bust this myth using the cognitive dissonance strategy, then we can really make progress.

[Lamprecht]

Fortunately, it is simple to deprogram people who have been indoctrinated like this. All you have to do is make it abundantly clear to them that their ideology is inconsistent, by putting them into a position in which they are forced to hold both ideas simultaneously. Nature abhors a vacuum and the human mind abhors inconsistency. As soon as they realise that their beliefs are inconsistent, their mind will go into overdrive to try and resolve the paradox.

Not necessarily. Some people have a very authoritarian view of knowledge, so instead of using their own reasoning ability, defer to experts. To them, "The Holocaust happened because all the experts say it did." And it ends there. The only way they will "Debate" this topic is to spam link after link from "Authoritative" (Jewish, Zionist) sources.

Point out some inconsistency to them and they will think you're a bad, evil person just trying to trick them into hating Jews. They may not have some sort of excuse as to why two things can be true at the same time: for example, the low cyanide readings in the alleged homicidal gas chamber walls compared to delousing chambers. They will just think "Well, I am not a chemist, I am not an expert. But the experts, who all accept that the Holocaust happened, surely have an explanation. I have faith in them, I trust them. I do not trust you, because you hate Jews!"

So, it's that terrible combination: [real or imagined] expert consensus, anyone who disagrees is evil, and people accepting these things and not even caring or trusting themselves enough to think for themselves.

The thought of "Holocaust denial" sends shivers down their spine. Claim Jews were not gassed, they will call you a "Disgusting" person. Point to arguments like lack of cyanide residue, inefficient ventilation, lying eyewitnesses and forced confessions and they do not care. What you are saying is evil, it's heresy, it's just a complicated trick you're using to deceive them.

The only way to change the minds of such people, and there are a lot of these people, is to convince them that all of the "Experts" and everyone else agrees with you. That's pretty much impossible, because they do not agree with us for various reasons.

You probably have heard of him, but if not, search YouTube for "Yuri Bezmenov" and watch the 1+ hour videos. There are a lot of short excerpts of the videos but he has 3 long (1-2 hour) presentations he did decades ago on this sort of topic; not the "Holocaust" but in radical egalitarianism.

Also see this quote by Sociology professor Dr Robert Hepp:
"Occasional experiments that I have conducted in my seminars convince me that 'Auschwitz' is ethnologically speaking one of the few taboo topics that our 'taboo free society' still preserves. While they did not react at all to other stimulants, 'enlightened' central European students who refused to accept any taboos at all, would react to a confrontation with 'revisionist' [denial] texts' about the gas chambers at Auschwitz in just as 'elementary' a way (including the comparable physiological symptoms) as members of primitive Polynesian tribes would react to an infringement of one of their taboos. The students were literally beside themselves and were neither prepared nor capable of soberly discussing the presented theses. For the sociologist this is a very important point because a society's taboos reveal what it holds sacred. Taboos also reveal what the community fears. Sometimes fear of perceived danger takes on the form of ticks and phobias that remind us of obsessive neurotics. However, it cannot be denied that numerous taboos have a function that preserves individuals from danger, and even where taboos are a part of an individual's make-up, it is difficult to ascertain if the fear of the one rests on the power of the other, or vice versa."

These symbols represent the holocaust narrative in the minds of the public. Put rather bluntly, if people stopped believing in the stories attached to these symbols then they would also stop believing in the holocaust narrative. Here are some examples of talking points that discredit these symbols:
1. Schindler's List is based on a historical fiction novel named "Schindler's Ark" that was published in Australia in the 1980s.
2. Unanswerable questions, such as "Why does the Auschwitz 'death camp' possess recreational facilities for the prisoners?"
3. Slogans such as: "Gas chambers don't have wooden doors."
4. Here is a pictorial meme about Anne Frank. This meme contains easily verifiable information that directly contradicts the Anne Frank symbol that most people possess in their heads.
when-you-get-sent-to-auschwitz-where-children-are-executed-32253575.png
(At first glance some of these may not seem like a decompartmentalisation memes but they are. One compartment is contained in the meme and the other compartment is prominent inside the mind of the person viewing the meme.)

Some of these are not good arguments in my view, even if they do convince some people. Suggested:

Best and worst / least successful arguments
viewtopic.php?t=12430

I can tell you what an experienced exterminationist would say:
1 - Schindler's list is a piece of entertainment, it's not a work by a historian. That's like saying WWII didn't happen because of Saving Private Ryan or whatever
2 - Auschwitz was separated into 3 camps, Birkenau being the "Death camp" and the facilities were for 'privileged' prisoners (British POWs, etc) or the guards
3 - In many instances the alleged homicidal gas chambers did not have wooden doors
4 - Anne Frank is an OK subject. I suggest you take the following route here, what I did (or rather quoted) in this post: viewtopic.php?&t=12625#p93191

We would also need to ensure that other resources, (like the CODOH documentaries,) are readily available and easy to find because people who start the de-indoctrination process are going to actively seek out information to try to resolve the paradoxes in their beliefs that we point out.

Definitely, videos are more important. Many people don't have the attention span to read long texts. CODOH is working on documentaries though.

I think if you can get someone to debate the topic, there is good results. Many people are not willing to. In order to get someone to debate, a good strategy is to make big, bold claims and then demand a refutation. Example:



I think those points summarize quite nicely why a person should at least consider the revisionist position. How can you accept all of them and still believe the Holocaust is "undeniable proven fact"?

[borjastick]

They will just think "Well, I am not a chemist, I am not an expert. But the experts, who all accept that the Holocaust happened, surely have an explanation. I have faith in them, I trust them. I do not trust you, because you hate Jews!"

Lamprecht

This is exactly the same scenario as the bullshit climate change argument. Namely that those who cannot think for themselves simply buy the argument that 'all scientists believe we are responsible for climate change'. This is of course nonsense as there are many many scientists who know the subject and don't believe that or anything like it. Just last week 500 scientists wrote to the UN asking for freedom to debate the climate change issue as the current data suggests that we are not heating the planet. The same applies to the holocaust except that most scientists won't even touch the subject for fear of reprisals in one form or another.

[Lamprecht]

This is exactly the same scenario as the bullshit climate change argument.

It's the same for just about every "controversial" subject. It is just the way that they think, the way their brains work, it's an authoritarian view on knowledge. Either change their perception on who is the true authority (after decades of them being told that you are an evil trickster in thousands of subtle ways) or there is not much to be done. These types of people are hopeless.

It may sound defeatist but it's just something anyone will come to understand if they have debated a lot, unless they are authoritarian themselves and their "debate" strategy is just one big appeal to authority over and over again. Not everyone is like this, but enough people are.

This is why the jewish supremacists love "democracy" - because in practice it is merely rule by the mass media. Modern "democratic" civilization is a show of fools, but people choose to believe it is not because we are social creatures and their peers and "experts" unanimously agree it is not absurd, that it's serious and not a joke.

Some people can just believe whatever they want to, they will accept comforting lies over inconvenient truths. They don't want to be correct, they want to be politically correct. They will conform their attitudes and beliefs to their peers.

[AstraPlaneti]

What you say is all well and good, but you are missing an important point. You are only considering your debate opponent and how your debate opponent will react to these arguments. You are not considering how the audience will react. This is important because in a debate, you are not trying to convince your debate opponent that you are right, you are trying to convince the audience that you are right.

When you are discussing things on the internet you are not in a closed room with your opponent. On any public forum there are hundreds or thousands of people listening in. In any debate that the people on this forum have with outsiders about the holocaust, our objective is not to convince our opponent that we are right. Our objective is to convince the audience to take the time to examine and look at the evidence with an open mind. I maintain that the weight of the evidence is in our favour and that if we convince enough people to look at the evidence with an open mind that we will win.

One way we can convince the audience to look at the evidence with an open mind is by making them aware of the cognitive dissonances that they are suffering from. As I said in my last post, nature abhors a vacuum and the human mind abhors inconsistency. If somebody is suffering from compartmentalisation and you make them aware of this, their mind will go into overdrive to try and resolve the paradox.

But do not take my word for it.

I have given some thought over the week or so about the Auschwitz symbol and have had a lot of conversations with people to try and understand how it is represented within their minds. Most people have this idea that Auschwitz was a kind of hell on Earth and that being sent there meant instant death. It occurred to me that the Auschwitz camp contained a number of facilities that don't fit in with the "death camp" story and that, in order to reconcile the "death camp" story with the existence of these facilities, the people peddling the "death camp" story have had to weave a elaborate web of lies. I've come up with a handful of talking points that can be used in debates with these people.

Try them out for yourself. Find a forum somewhere where people are discussing the holocaust. Then enter the forum, act all innocent-like, and ask the resident holocaust expert a few of the following pertinent questions:

1. Say "Why did all of the German 'death camps' contain recreational facilities for the prisoners?". If anybody expresses doubt, post a link to the video "Holocaust survivors who speak the truth". If somebody says that the facilities were for the guards fall back on (2) or (3) or ask them about the Auschwitz maternity ward.
2. Say, all innocent-like, "Is it true that Auschwitz had a brothel?". If they say it was for the guards, say something like "But I thought that Germany had anti-race mixing laws. Wasn't it illegal for the German guards to have sex with Jewish prostitutes?". If they say that the purpose of the brothel was to reward prisoners, quiz them on the exact meaning of the words "forced labour camp".
3. Post a photo of the Auschwitz swimming pool then smugly say something like "Don't let the diving board fool you. This is a water reservoir!" If anybody doubts that the Auschwitz pool exists, post a link to google earth that shows the pool.
4. Ask "If Auschwitz was a "forced labour" camp, then why were all of the inmates being paid?". If anybody in the audience expresses doubt, post a link to a mainstream website with a story about the concentration camp money.
5. Link to an article about Stanislawa Leszczyńska with the words "3,000 babies" underlined then say "I thought that all the pregnant women were killed on arrival and that anybody inside the camp who couldn't work for a million hours a day was instantly killed. Where did all of these pregnant women come from?"
6. Ask "Why were the prisoners of a 'super secret death camp' given access to a post-office?" If people doubt this, post a link to a website that discusses the Auschwitz "super secret death camp" mail service.

Some others:
7. If somebody brings up the number "six million", say something like "lol. a few years ago it was 11 million" then post a link like this: https://www.jta.org/2017/01/31/united-s ... historians

Remember, you are not trying to convince your debate opponent of anything. You are trying to convince the audience to investigate this issue with an open mind. Rhetorical questions like these can go a very long way.

Point out some inconsistency to them and they will think you're a bad, evil person just trying to trick them into hating Jews. They may not have some sort of excuse as to why two things can be true at the same time: for example, the low cyanide readings in the alleged homicidal gas chamber walls compared to delousing chambers. They will just think "Well, I am not a chemist, I am not an expert. But the experts, who all accept that the Holocaust happened, surely have an explanation. I have faith in them, I trust them. I do not trust you, because you hate Jews!"

One way around this is to post information by Jewish revisionists, like that video that David Cole made back in the 1990s when he went to Auschwitz. As you say, people have been psychologically conditioned to think that anybody who doesn't believe in the Holocaust is an anti-semite. Posting links to holohoax videos with Jewish presenters completely bypasses that part of their conditioning.

[Lamprecht]

What you say is all well and good, but you are missing an important point. You are only considering your debate opponent and how your debate opponent will react to these arguments. You are not considering how the audience will react. This is important because in a debate, you are not trying to convince your debate opponent that you are right, you are trying to convince the audience that you are right.

It is not enough to destroy the absurd beliefs of the average person, but also the "Official story" which, I agree, is not even what most people believe. You should be prepared for those who are more "skilled" or have read more of the literature. I have debated both types of people quite often over the years. Yes, they do deserve a different approach.

I suggest you check out the following users, who recently came to this forum and tried to debate. Naturally, they got destroyed:

Wyatt: search.php?author_id=4556&sr=posts
Pon: search.php?author_id=4559&sr=posts

Back to general debates. Yes, a very large number of people think such things like: Anne Frank was gassed, but according to the "official story" she was not. And many would think that people were gassed at Buchenwald or Dachau if they happen to even remember the names of these camps. You can point out that these things are not true, but they are not even part of the actual, official "Holocaust" story. So indeed, sometimes you will debate with someone who does not know much about the story but really, really wants to believe it. They will often fill in gaps in the story you point out with their own assumptions, some that are at odds with the official story that exterminationists have been developing for decades.

When debating with someone who actually knows a lot of the "Official" story (who are the ones I actually prefer to debate myself) you will not go very far with weaker arguments, and using them may make your position look weakers and theirs strong. I do not question that maybe some people you can convince by pointing out "The Auschwitz sign changed from 4 to 1 million, but the 6 million number didn't change. What's up with that?" and it may confuse them, but it will not confuse a seasoned exterminationist debator and they actually prefer these sorts of "easy pickings" arguments.

I have been in places with big debates containing multiple people and what do the exterminationists like to do? Address only the weakest, worst arguments by "DenierS" and ignore the rest. And after refuting/addressing a weaker revisionist argument they will follow up "And see, this is why 'denial' is based on lies and hatred, blah blah blah".

We don't get the luxury of making mistakes or poorer arguments like the exterminationists do, who are able to fling crap at a wall until something sticks.


I will point again to my thread here, on good vs bad arguments: viewtopic.php?t=12430

For #1-3:
You may be able to confuse a person who has not done the research with some of those simple questions, but as I said the exterminationists have had decades to come up with silly excuses.
The brothel, pool, and soccer field there are already canned explanations for that. They'll say "Birkenau was the extermination camp" and the other camp was not for that purpose.

For #4:
Not all of the inmates were paid. There is a discussion on this: viewtopic.php?t=12395

Also they can just say others were gassed immediately and the minority that wasn't picked for slave labor was allowed to do some of these things. And once again they can point out that Auschwitz was 3 sub-camps and only Auschwitz #2 was a "pure extermination camp".

For #5:
There are already canned responses here, and it's entirely dependent on testimony and a paucity of documents. Auschwitz survivor Hermann Langbeln himself had a chapter in his 2004 book "People in Auschwitz" about those born there. He said Jewish women weren't allowed to give birth, and if they did the pregnancy was somehow concealed. There are also silly stories of women killing their babies so they wouldn't get killed, or they mercy killed them so they wouldn't just starve to death.

For #6:
They could point out what I said for #4. They can say every letter was carefully read by the Germans and anything incriminating was thrown out and the writer punished. They can say they let them do this to make it seem like it was just an ordinary prison.

For #7:
yes that is a good point, that they just totally lied about the "5 million non Jews" claim. I discuss it here: viewtopic.php?t=12403

For many of these I already elaborated on my issue with using these arguments in the thread I mentioned on the subject.


I think there are better arguments which you have not mentioned, specifically about Auschwitz:

- The lack of significant cyanide levels on the gas chamber walls: viewtopic.php?t=4111

- The total absurdity of the alleged gassing process, especially the tiny elevator: viewtopic.php?t=12724

- The utterly ridiculous ventilation system of the alleged gas chamber: viewtopic.php?t=5493

- The Germans destroyed the crematoria but left "Gas chambers" intact: viewtopic.php?t=12617

- The issues with the cremation capacities of the furnaces (a bit more technical): viewtopic.php?t=12778

- The lack of massive quantites of human remains as alleged at Auschwitz: viewtopic.php?t=12278

- And, of course, the documentary evidence firmly supporting the "Final Solution" being resettlement/deportation, not extermination: viewtopic.php?t=12296

As for Jewish revisionists, we have a thread on that too. Actually, it's a sticky: viewtopic.php?t=6912

[AstraPlaneti]

I think there are better arguments which you have not mentioned, specifically about Auschwitz:

- The lack of significant cyanide levels on the gas chamber walls: viewtopic.php?t=4111

- The total absurdity of the alleged gassing process, especially the tiny elevator: viewtopic.php?t=12724

- The utterly ridiculous ventilation system of the alleged gas chamber: viewtopic.php?t=5493

- The Germans destroyed the crematoria but left "Gas chambers" intact: viewtopic.php?t=12617

- The issues with the cremation capacities of the furnaces (a bit more technical): viewtopic.php?t=12778

- The lack of massive quantites of human remains as alleged at Auschwitz: viewtopic.php?t=12278

- And, of course, the documentary evidence firmly supporting the "Final Solution" being resettlement/deportation, not extermination: viewtopic.php?t=12296

As for Jewish revisionists, we have a thread on that too. Actually, it's a sticky: viewtopic.php?t=6912

All of these arguments are very compelling. I would argue that the chemical tests, on their own, are enough to settle the matter in our favour. But if your purpose is to convince the wider public to investigate this issue in more detail, this line of argumentation is ineffective for two reasons:
1. The average person doesn't know anything about the chemical properties of Zyklon B, or how ventilation systems work in crematoria, or how long it takes to cremate a human body. All of these things are outside of the experience of ordinary people.
2. The average person hates numbers. There is a small percentage of the population (including myself) who enjoy numbers, statistics and data. But people like that are maybe 2% of the population. The other 98% of the population actively hate mathematics. The moment you start discussing cremation rates, or the quantities of bodies, or what percentage of cyanide residue can be found in the masonry &c., the audience will immediately change channels, turn of the radio or go to another website. If your objective is to convince the audience to look into the holocaust in more detail or watch some of codoh's documentaries then this is a losing strategy.

A much more effective tactic is to act like an inquisitive child and ask your opponent a series of simple rhetorical questions, that the audience can readily understand, like this:

Revisionist: Why does Auschwitz have a swimming pool inside it?
Exterminationist: The guards built it so that they could go swimming
R: What about the camp library? How do you explain that?
E: The guards would borrow books
R: What about the maternity ward? Was that also, for the guards?
E: No, the jewish women had babies. And then the Nazis killed them
R: I thought pregnant women were killed on arrival at the camp. So where did all the pregnant women inside the camp come from?
E: [some rubbish about women concealing pregnancies all the way through the third trimester or something]
R: And what about the brothel? Why is there a brothel inside a "death camp"?
E: That was to reward the prisoners
R: What kind of "death camp" has recreational facilities inside it for the prisoners?
E: The guards needed to motivate them
R: Do you even know what the words "forced labour" mean? Are you telling us that holding a gun to their heads, wasn't enough to motivate them?
E: It was a reward for cooperative prisoners
R: How do you explain the camp currency? If Auschwitz was a forced labour camp then why were the people there getting paid?
E: Only some of the prisoners were paid
R: And what did those prisoners spend their money on? Was there, like, a Cantina inside the camp or something?
E: Yes, but that was for the guards
R: How about the mail service. If Auschwitz is a "super secret death camp" then why, why is there a post office there?
&c.

Ignore the revisionist and exterminationist who are arguing for a moment and ask yourself, how would the audience react to this conversation? They've all been told that Auschwitz was a death camp and that being sent there meant instant death. Now, they've hearing about libraries, maternity wards, swimming pools and so forth and as the conversation goes on the exterminationist looks increasingly ridiculous and he tries to reconcile all of this stuff with the holocaust narrative.

People who hear a conversation like this are far more likely to seek out and watch a CODOH documentary than people who listen to a formal academic debate about the chemical properties of Zyklon B or cremation rates.

All of the holocaust related "Ay Tone" memes that have started to circulate on social media are based around simple rhetorical questions like these. Log onto duckduckgo.com and search for "Ay Tone" and you'll see a few of them. I created many of them, and they have now been seen by millions of people and will continue to circulate online for years or decades. Many of the people who see them will investigate this issue in more detail. In my first post a few days ago, this was the sort of strategy I was advocating. We can identify contradictory beliefs within the holocaust narrative (the holocaust narrative held by the wider public, I mean, not the official story) and then create and spread memes like this to decompartmentalise people.

[Lamprecht]

In regards to: the average person doesn't care about the scientific/mathematical/technical arguments

Maybe so. But in such a case I recommend this second one: viewtopic.php?t=12724

Use those arguments I find weaker if you want, but just be prepared in case someone actually has stronger arguments against them.

[borjastick]

Why don't we hear from non Jewish concentration camp survivors?

[stinky]

Borjastick, you have a very good grasp of things, and would be able to slap down the stronger hoax arguments. To be able to cut through to a broad range of 'normies', what percentage of people have a good understanding of the topic?
The vast majority don't have stronger arguments.
They have been (repetitively) subjected to psychological/emotional manipulation & have a superficial grasp of what is said to have happened.
Much of it wrong, even by the orthodox narrative (lamp shades / soap / showers).
We don't hear from non-J survivors because of (((media))). Also, the obvious pit-falls of painting a different (real) picture of events.

[Pia Kahn]

!Interesting discussion. Let me chime in:

For #4: "Also they can just say others were gassed immediately and the minority that wasn't picked for slave labor was allowed to do some of these things. And once again they can point out that Auschwitz was 3 sub-camps and only Auschwitz #2 was a "pure extermination camp".""

I would respond:

a) If Birkenau was a pure extermination camp, then why did they build lots of buildings for housing the inmates?

b) If anyone, who wasn't useful for slave-labour, was killed, then why was sick little child Anne Frank moved from Auschwitz to Bergen- Belsen, why wasn't she gassed immediately? You could point to the death records, which show that lots of people were not killed on arrival who couldn't work. And you could point to the fact that Jewish children were born in Auschwitz.

The major problem is: If you want to exploit Jewish labour, then you can't kill the labourers. That's a contradiction. All the excuses and justifications are more or less easily refuted.

Another point, which is interesting:

Auschwitz had a huge hospital, in which Jews who got sick, were treated, for example Ellie Wiesel. Why weren't the sick jews just killed? For any details, you could point to Mattogno's book.

Sure, they may find an excuse for each problem, but Astra's example shows that this will not be very convincing. The problems will stick in the minds of many listeners.

One major obstacle are the eye witnesses, in particular the post war confessions, e.g. Hoess.

Therefore, I believe that discussing the reliability of confessions and explaining false confessions is a major obstacle for opening people's minds.

Good Day.

[Lamprecht]

Sure, they may find an excuse for each problem, but Astra's example shows that this will not be very convincing. The problems will stick in the minds of many listeners.

This is true. It takes a long time for many to come around. Pointing out these amenities is useful but I personally don't like to make it a central argument.

One major obstacle are the eye witnesses, in particular the post war confessions, e.g. Hoess.

Therefore, I believe that discussing the reliability of confessions and explaining false confessions is a major obstacle for opening people's minds.

This is true. People immediately say: "How can it be a lie? What about the documents, testimony, confessions, photos?"

On the documents you can point to all "Final solution" documents defining it as resettlement: viewtopic.php?t=12296

On photos, you can explain the camp situation at the end of the war, and how they are not from "death camps": viewtopic.php?t=12624

On false confessions: viewtopic.php?t=12804

On testimony you can point out that most is "unreliable" according to jewish historians but a good strategy is to specifically adress any testimony provided