Hello everyone,
This is my first post as part of this forum, I've been familiar with CODOH for about 3 years now ever since I was introduced to revisionist ideas. Since then CODOH has become my first reference point when it comes to WWII history and I greatly appreciate the writings and forum provided here.
An avid debater, I have spent a great deal of time debating WWII & the holocaust with people on social media. I keep my debates calm, mature and respectful. I usually start off by asking some probing questions to get a picture of the other person's knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately I'm usually met with swearing, hostility and in some cases threats of violence. This is something one can expect when challenging something as "sacred" as the holocaust narrative.
I'm not against believing in the holocaust if I see evidence for it, I'd be very very interested if someone had evidence for it, but unfortunately till this day I've been shown nothing. Instead the same old tired, twisted, ignorant arguments and contradictions are used. Unfortunately I have now found myself shadow banned on most social media platforms. I change my account, still banned. I change my IP address, same thing. They are deceptively hiding comments from others, but still leaving them visible to me in a pathetic attempt to hide their censorship.
Social media has allowed for a huge rise in objective and critical thinkers who have the ability so seek information free from bias and therefore come to their own conclusion...Is it possible that the powers that be are once and for all close to stopping that? In order to have a free discussion, one must go to websites like this, but those who are not introduced to revisionist ideas will probably never stumble across a website like this. We've got the powers that be doing their best to scare people away from CODOH and sites like Bitchute by relying on smear and scare campaigns.
What can be done to spread the truth in a world so heavily controlled by lies?
How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
And when fickle luck will desert us at last, then comforts of home are but memories past, and when the fatal bullet strikes us, then no one can save, our panzer will be our glorious grave.
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Sometimes you can't do anything because the website will just ban you. I have had luck with facebook debate groups. Most of them will just kick you out for debating the Holocaust but some won't, and right now it's not against facebook rules to "deny the Holocaust". But you do have to watch what you say because there are many other things that you can be banned for, I am currently serving a 30 day ban. If they don't like the things you post, you can get banned for saying things that other people say all the time. The rules are vague and selectively enforced. I made a fake account just for the purpose of using the debate groups.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
— Herbert Spencer
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
-
christianbethel
- Member
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm
- Location: Miami, FL, USA
- Contact:
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Simple: boycott social media. Social media can be considered to be a hybrid of cancer and AIDS and infects all it touches. Symptoms can include frivolity, vapidity, stupidity, closemindedness, and general indifference. It must be completely eradicated.
'Aryan' does not mean 'white'. The entire concept of 'whiteness' is racist. Hitler never identified as 'white'. Hitler was a radical leftist anti-racist, and I can prove it. Contact me privately for quotes.
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Panzer, which social media platforms shadow banned you?
I am contemplating to do the same thing, engaging in a debate, but have avoided it so far by fear of being banned, etc...
I am contemplating to do the same thing, engaging in a debate, but have avoided it so far by fear of being banned, etc...
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
If you want to openly contest the holocaust on social media sites like youtube, then the answer is simple: You cannot!
If you want to spread the news on social media, then you must be cunning. This is my tactic:
There are sites like the holocaust controversy bloggers who try to refute revisionist arguments. Most of the time their refutations are stupid. Thus, unwittingly, these sites are spreading revisionist arguments. You can refer to these sites in order to spread revisionist arguments without denying the holocaust. Pretend that you believe in the holocaust and state that these discussions and arguments are troubling you. Ask for advice and arguments against holocaust denial.
Then, you play the devil's advocate.... This is like a game of poker, so don't play the devil all the time. People will sense that. If they do, then you have to defend weak orthodox arguments once in a while.
All you want to do is unsettle people. Don't expect anyone to openly start doubting the holocaust. They wont.. The mere fact that they engage in the argument with you is a huge success.
If you want to spread the news on social media, then you must be cunning. This is my tactic:
There are sites like the holocaust controversy bloggers who try to refute revisionist arguments. Most of the time their refutations are stupid. Thus, unwittingly, these sites are spreading revisionist arguments. You can refer to these sites in order to spread revisionist arguments without denying the holocaust. Pretend that you believe in the holocaust and state that these discussions and arguments are troubling you. Ask for advice and arguments against holocaust denial.
Then, you play the devil's advocate.... This is like a game of poker, so don't play the devil all the time. People will sense that. If they do, then you have to defend weak orthodox arguments once in a while.
All you want to do is unsettle people. Don't expect anyone to openly start doubting the holocaust. They wont.. The mere fact that they engage in the argument with you is a huge success.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Here is a suggestion of how to start...
O.K. Here is a great starting point:
You quote Deborah Lipstadt: "The holocaust has the dubious distinction of being the best documented genocide in the world" - I am quoting her from memory, so check the wording.
Then, make reference to this cite, which attempts to refute revisionist arguments:
http://nizkor.com/features/techniques-o ... er-01.html
"The Mayer Gambit is often employed when deniers find themselves confronted with testimony which supports historical facts surrounding the Holocaust. One reason is because Mayer himself is Jewish - a Jew who questions the Holocaust surely cannot be called an antisemite, and so people will be more likely to accept Mayer's word. An equally large reason, though, is because they are hoping that most folks haven't read Mayer's book, and will not be able to check the honesty of their reference to it.
Greg Raven provided an example during an exchange with Dr. Keren, on April 26, 1994, when he offered:
Second, these citations are from testimony, and as such present many of the problems one would normally expect with testimony under similar conditions. As Professor Arno Mayer has written, "Most of what is known [on homicidal gassings] is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity...."
The citation appears to be genuine, this is not disputed by the holocaust denier slayers from the Nizcor project.
I like the Mayer Gambit. Those are actually pretty powerfull arguments. Are post war confessions and testimony really reliable? A jewish historian appears to say no, not in and of themselves. They must be scrutinized. A good documentation of the event should include contemporary documents, shouldn't it?
And then you may quote further:
"The deniers make much of the fact that there is no written order. However, there is testimony from Rudolph Höss that he received some orders verbally, and the Nazis destroyed much of the evidence of their crimes...."
Hmm, given the fact that testimony must be scrutinized and Höss' confession was the result of torture, that's a pretty lame argument, isn't ist? If they destroyed their evidence, then why didn't they destroy the mounds of construction plans and papers, which can be found in Pressacs magnum opus "Technique and operation of the gas chambers"? How can the holocaust be so well documented if the Nazis destroyed much of the evidence, Deborah Lipstadt?
The whole article, which is designed to refute revisionist arguments, is so weak that it is the perfect starting point for asking for more and better arguments against the evil deniers. These confessions by Arno Mayer should be troubling for many if not most believers who know their history from Schindler's list and Deborah Lipstadt.
You quote Deborah Lipstadt: "The holocaust has the dubious distinction of being the best documented genocide in the world" - I am quoting her from memory, so check the wording.
Then, make reference to this cite, which attempts to refute revisionist arguments:
http://nizkor.com/features/techniques-o ... er-01.html
"The Mayer Gambit is often employed when deniers find themselves confronted with testimony which supports historical facts surrounding the Holocaust. One reason is because Mayer himself is Jewish - a Jew who questions the Holocaust surely cannot be called an antisemite, and so people will be more likely to accept Mayer's word. An equally large reason, though, is because they are hoping that most folks haven't read Mayer's book, and will not be able to check the honesty of their reference to it.
Greg Raven provided an example during an exchange with Dr. Keren, on April 26, 1994, when he offered:
Second, these citations are from testimony, and as such present many of the problems one would normally expect with testimony under similar conditions. As Professor Arno Mayer has written, "Most of what is known [on homicidal gassings] is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity...."
The citation appears to be genuine, this is not disputed by the holocaust denier slayers from the Nizcor project.
I like the Mayer Gambit. Those are actually pretty powerfull arguments. Are post war confessions and testimony really reliable? A jewish historian appears to say no, not in and of themselves. They must be scrutinized. A good documentation of the event should include contemporary documents, shouldn't it?
And then you may quote further:
"The deniers make much of the fact that there is no written order. However, there is testimony from Rudolph Höss that he received some orders verbally, and the Nazis destroyed much of the evidence of their crimes...."
Hmm, given the fact that testimony must be scrutinized and Höss' confession was the result of torture, that's a pretty lame argument, isn't ist? If they destroyed their evidence, then why didn't they destroy the mounds of construction plans and papers, which can be found in Pressacs magnum opus "Technique and operation of the gas chambers"? How can the holocaust be so well documented if the Nazis destroyed much of the evidence, Deborah Lipstadt?
The whole article, which is designed to refute revisionist arguments, is so weak that it is the perfect starting point for asking for more and better arguments against the evil deniers. These confessions by Arno Mayer should be troubling for many if not most believers who know their history from Schindler's list and Deborah Lipstadt.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
PK:
Lipstadt's strategy is to completely distort the revisionists position, attack a strawman, and then refuse to debate them. You can see her ridiculous strategy in her new book:
Racist Zionist Deborah Lipstadt attacks revisionists in her new book: "Antisemitism: Here and Now"
viewtopic.php?t=12271
The entire quote is even worse:
"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."
This goes with what I just posted here: viewtopic.php?t=7687
You quote Deborah Lipstadt: "The holocaust has the dubious distinction of being the best documented genocide in the world" - I am quoting her from memory, so check the wording.
Lipstadt's strategy is to completely distort the revisionists position, attack a strawman, and then refuse to debate them. You can see her ridiculous strategy in her new book:
Racist Zionist Deborah Lipstadt attacks revisionists in her new book: "Antisemitism: Here and Now"
viewtopic.php?t=12271
The entire quote is even worse:
"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."
This goes with what I just posted here: viewtopic.php?t=7687
Lamprecht wrote:borjastick wrote:Depends entirely what they mean by 'the holocaust'.
Yep, it's the equivocation fallacy at work. First they say "Holocaust" was the alleged extermination of Jews. Then they include everything bad that supposedly happened to Jews in Europe during WWII as "The Holocaust" - the labor and internment camps, the ghettos, the Nuremberg laws, the crematoria, the deportations, etc - things which are undeniably real and conclusively documented. But when used in that sense, 90-95% of what can be understood as "The Holocaust" is accepted as true by "Holocaust Deniers." And that's a trick they always use. They group real and legitimate things in with the fake nonsense so they can point to the real things as "proof" that the other things happened. Show a person some mass graves/emaciated bodies at Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald or Dachau and he will be more likely to accept that 870,000 people were gassed and buried at Treblinka II.
I've heard the excuse a lot: "I don't need to show you mass graves at Treblinka II, we have mass graves from other sites so it's reasonable to think that they exist there as well"
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
— Herbert Spencer
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
christianbethel wrote:Simple: boycott social media. Social media can be considered to be a hybrid of cancer and AIDS and infects all it touches. Symptoms can include frivolity, vapidity, stupidity, closemindedness, and general indifference. It must be completely eradicated.
Now why should we boycott a service that essentially for free and can be useful to us?!
Boycott only makes sense, if you the target has significant opportunity loss in the course of the boycott.
No, we should use social media. If they ban expressions and information of a certain kind, we should make exactly that the point of discussion there.
Anyway, they tried to suppress freedom of speech in Communist countries, but people still found there way to communicate and in the end the people did dismiss Communism entirely.
-
christianbethel
- Member
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:17 pm
- Location: Miami, FL, USA
- Contact:
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
OK, how would you do it? How would you effect a complete restructuring of the rules and regulations of the Jewish operated outlets like Facebook? Would you capitalize on the fact that Holocaust deniers are allowed there?
'Aryan' does not mean 'white'. The entire concept of 'whiteness' is racist. Hitler never identified as 'white'. Hitler was a radical leftist anti-racist, and I can prove it. Contact me privately for quotes.
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Pia Kahn wrote:If you want to openly contest the holocaust on social media sites like youtube, then the answer is simple: You cannot!
You are right, I noticed that fact with the Reynouard's videos. They don't stay 2 h before they are removed. Nevertheless, I think you can write comments on videos made by believers. My last one was last week and it is not removed yet.
I don't use "social medias" like Facebook or Twitter but I am pretty sure that if you start a topic or a comment by "Do you think there are holes on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 at Krema II?" the results can be funny. I noticed that most of believers don't have a clue about what you are talking about. However the thing can be intriguing to them, some want to know more. Then, you can start to explain how are the things there.
Don't try to get to soon to the obvious conclusions. Just describe what everyone can see on that roof while visiting Birkenau.
Be prepared to refute the ludicrous "study" of those holes by Keren & Mazal. Don't forget, if they are no holes, all documents, all aerial photos, all eyewitnesses which could be advanced have no validity against a simple and verifiable material proof. There are no holes simply because they are not there.
Vincent Reynouard has a good video in French on that point mostly because he shows how "actually built" holes (not the misshaped Keren's ones) must be on a collapsed concrete ceiling by showing the perfectly visible square holes - with straight and plane edges - built on the ceiling of the ovens' room that collapsed near L1 at Krema II.
https://blogue-sc.com/2019/11/a-la-rech ... ous-perdus
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Well, I recently did the following on facebook.
The German public televesion station ARD published a public statement about Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf and stated why their studies are supposedly wrong. They referred to Richard Green who supposedly refuted them.
I just said that's fine and well. But, in order to be fair you have to know Rudolf' arguments too. So I briefly summarized some of Germar's important arguments. I proved that the exterminationist Green does not have any working theory explaining the different levels of cyanide in the homicidal gas chambers and delousing chambers.
I didn't draw any conclusion like Germar is right or Green is correct. I stated that any reader may now draw his or her conclusion. It was not deleted from facebook. I even got two likes from friends for this post.
O.K. Now everybody knows that I have been reading revisionist literature and thus suspect that I am a "denier". But, literally I didn't deny.
So if the German courts want to prosecute me they will have to punish me for merely presenting arguments not for literally denying the holocaust.
If I do end up in prison, I will let you know.
The German public televesion station ARD published a public statement about Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf and stated why their studies are supposedly wrong. They referred to Richard Green who supposedly refuted them.
I just said that's fine and well. But, in order to be fair you have to know Rudolf' arguments too. So I briefly summarized some of Germar's important arguments. I proved that the exterminationist Green does not have any working theory explaining the different levels of cyanide in the homicidal gas chambers and delousing chambers.
I didn't draw any conclusion like Germar is right or Green is correct. I stated that any reader may now draw his or her conclusion. It was not deleted from facebook. I even got two likes from friends for this post.
O.K. Now everybody knows that I have been reading revisionist literature and thus suspect that I am a "denier". But, literally I didn't deny.
So if the German courts want to prosecute me they will have to punish me for merely presenting arguments not for literally denying the holocaust.
If I do end up in prison, I will let you know.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Re: How to deal with the crushing of free speech on modern social media?
Lamprecht wrote:Sometimes you can't do anything because the website will just ban you. I have had luck with facebook debate groups. Most of them will just kick you out for debating the Holocaust but some won't, and right now it's not against facebook rules to "deny the Holocaust". But you do have to watch what you say because there are many other things that you can be banned for, I am currently serving a 30 day ban. If they don't like the things you post, you can get banned for saying things that other people say all the time. The rules are vague and selectively enforced. I made a fake account just for the purpose of using the debate groups.
I entirely agree. But it isn't only Facebook that does that.
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Archie, borjastick and 6 guests
