What Does "Holocaust Denier" Really Mean?

[hermod]

But there is no persecution of 'Dead-Elvis-Deniers' nor are there books written about them. Dead-Elvis-Denialism is not seen as a threat, there is no mileage to be gotten out a dead Elvis. And I'm sure it would be possible to actually prove that Elvis is dead and how he died. So that trick got its limitation.

Of course that trick has its limitation, but it is still good enough to make Holocaust revisionists look like lunatic fringe clowns and to keep normies away from their writings.

Albeit it isn't as limited as the association of 'Holocaust-Denialism' with Ufologists. Because there it turns out that Ufologists actually argue like Holocaustians themselves. They got plenty of 'witness statements' in fact far more than there are homicidal gas chamber witnesses. They would argue that the evidence for Ufos is hidden by government agencies, which is akin to claim that the 'Nazis, hid all the evidence' and were using 'cryptic language', when talking about 'the final solution' (supposedly meaning physical destruction).

The parallel should indeed be too striking to be overlooked. I like telling normies that the homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz are like the alien spaceships of Area 51.

Indeed, those sweeping statements are designed to shut up people and to stump people from not further investigating the question themselves. Negative Association and rhetorical exercises are the way to go for the Holocaustians. They go to great length with this. Wouldn't it be easier to present sound, hard evidence of your claims instead? I mean, don't they want to know what happened themselves or are they just to happy to believe that six million Jews were gassed? When confronted they may reply that 'perhaps it wasn't exactly six million', 'perhaps they weren't all gassed'. But that's all the concession they will allow. What counts for them is the 'moral truth of their claim'... In other words Holocaust = really, the worst event in human history.

What Debbie Lipstadt calls softcore denial. Just an alternative version of the "truth is in the middle" fallacy.

Yes, that's were the 'ulterior motives' are the Holocaust Believers suspect are with those 'denying the Holocaust'. Allies had ample reasons to make up atrocity stories about their enemy 'the Nazis'. One being to gas light the Germans so they would shut up about what had been / is being done to them. Turn the country into a moldable object using social psychological methods of attitude change and thought reform on a macro social level. At the same time you can get a nice story of 'your own troops fighting incarnation of evil'... And well, the Jews got their way of a critique-shield and legitimation for Zionism in their own ranks as well to those they wanted to use as Allies.

Another reason was that they always do that. They did it during all the previous and following wars they fought. Believing that they wouldn't have used the very powerful weapon of psychological warfare called "atrocity propaganda" during the most titanic war ever fought is more than far-fetched if I'm asked. The gas-chamber story can even be traced back to the Allied campaign of WWI atrocity propaganda (as you know) !!

https://postimg.cc/q6kLvy8m

[hermod]

From the Witch's mouth...

Germar Rudolf put it best:

"To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was -- as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives -- though quite a few of them certainly are -- but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible 'moral' spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research."

Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp. 37-38. Cf. Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Lambrecht (ed.), The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Techinical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (The Barnes Review, 2011), pp. 36-37.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. What matters are the facts and how honestly the people who engage with them behave in presenting them. But this, of course, a very subjective thing.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14939#p108877

[Hektor]

Accusing Revisionists of "White-Washing Hitler and National Socialism", is a tacit admission that 'Hitler and National Socialism' have been smeared black by those that somehow find the arguments otherwise rather persuasive. And it indicates that they aren't exactly honest in their portrayal neither. The argument isn't really a sign of confidence in their position I would say. Are they plagued by their own unbelief?


"Why would Jews make up this Myth". Well most Jews from the era, did not do that, They only heard about this after the war. Although some may have heard rumors also earlier. So it's rather a. Why did some Jewish elites do that?
Isn't the motive obvious: Social Control in the post-modern era. And pushing through group interest, to server their own interests. E.g. erecting the 'state of Israel'. Without the Holocaust this would crumble pretty quickly. And that can't be allowed. There is of course others that also have a vested interest in the Myth. They wouldn't survive the crumbling of the myth financially or politically, neither. So certainly they will make sure that the Myth perpetuates. Lipstadt and their publisher, just as numerous other publishers have to interest to be looked at as the scoundrels they are so rather make other people look back. Crying wolf has always been the method of thieves to distract from themselves.

[hermod]

THE LIES & DECEPTIONS OF DEBORAH LIPSTADT - PART 1

THE LIES & DECEPTIONS OF DEBORAH LIPSTADT - PART 2

On April 7th of 2017, U.S.-American professor of Jewish history and Holocaust research Deborah Lipstadt appeared on TED-x Talks, where she related her experiences surrounding her courtroom battle against British historian David Irving. The event took place at the Sheldonian Theatre, which is the official ceremonial hall of the University of Oxford in England.

Presented by Germar Rudolf & Castle Hill Publishers (2017), He discusses some of the claims she made during that speech, which lasted only some 15 minutes. It is demonstrated that many of her claims are not only false, but are actually deeply rooted in prejudice and a profoundly anti-academic attitude. - CODOH - Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

Sources
https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... pstadt/en/
https://archive.org/details/TheLiesAndD ... adt--Part1

With her book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt tried to show the flawed methods and extremist motives of “Holocaust deniers,” who, so the book’s description claims, have “no more credibility than the assertion that the earth is flat.”

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... pstadt/en/
https://archive.org/details/LipstadtsLi ... tionsPart2