What Does "Holocaust Denier" Really Mean?

[fireofice]

As an actual holocaust denier, I can give a pretty good definition of what being a holocaust denier actually entails. It means denying that there was an intentional extermination program to exterminate the Jews, there were no gas chambers, and the actual number of Jews that died during the war is far less than six million.

However, many people seem to want to obscure this for their own political purposes. They just accuse people of being "holocaust deniers" if they hold views on the Nazis that have nothing to do with the holocaust. Here is one example:

anyone who attempts to cast doubt on the absolute fact that the nazis were right-wing fascists is a not only a nazi apologist, they're a holocaust denier

https://twitter.com/shaun_vids/status/1 ... 6600633353

Or if you believe in the "double genocide" theory, that also makes you a holocaust denier.

https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

Also, Deborah Lipstadt on "softcore denial":

It does not deny the facts, but it minimizes them, arguing that Jews use the Holocaust to draw attention away from criticism of Israel.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... al/514974/

None of these things have anything to do with actual holocaust denial.

What do your opinions on whether the Nazis were right wing or not have to do with the holocaust? Absolutely nothing. Rainer Zitelmann wrote a whole book called "Hitler's National Socialism" arguing that Hitler's political views don't fall into neat "right or left" categories.

https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-National ... 1852527900

Here is a short article he wrote arguing for that position:

https://mises.org/wire/was-hitler-really-right-wing

As far as I can tell, Zitelmann is a mainstream historian and not considered to be some fringe crank, even if not all historians agree with him. Now whether you agree with his position or not, nowhere is there any argument one way or the other about whether the holocaust happened. In fact, "denying the holocaust" would get Zitelmann reduced to pariah status, which doesn't seem to be the case. Shaun's statement is just pure stupidity.

Then there's the "double genocide" theory. The theory being that the Soviet Union committed atrocities comparable to the holocaust. Now this makes absolutely no sense. As an actual holocaust denier, I don't believe in "double genocide". I don't believe the Nazis committed any genocide at all. Believing in this theory is completely incompatible with holocaust denial, yet they call it "holocaust denial" anyway.

And for Lipstadt, she says "softcore denial" does not "deny the facts". So how is it denial then? And how does believing that the holocaust is used to draw attention away from Israel have anything to do with the fact of whether the holocaust actually happened or not? It doesn't, but she wants to piggyback the term to things she personally doesn't like.

So as can be seen, many people seem to want to use the term "holocaust denial" for things that have nothing to do with the holocaust. But what are the implications of using this strategy? It seems like it will numb people to the term. This could possibly be a benefit to us. I don't see how they can maintain the taboo nature of being an "evil" holocaust denier if they are just going to apply it to mundane things like Hitler's political beliefs.

[Fred zz]

I prefer "Plausible Holocaust denier"

[DissentingOpinions]

For me, I categorize deniers as those like Jim Rizoli:

1) Rizoli is known for his blatant anti-semitism and regularly stirs the pot by incorporating his ad-hominems into his videos. When you're so hateful towards Jews that you become the denier stereotype, you are not a revisionist.
2) Rizoli piggybacks off of the content of other revisionists without providing anything new to the table. Interviews with other revisionists do not count.
3) Deniers use memes as a substitute for well-thought-out material, such as books, documentaries, essays, and blogs.

These 3 things separate revisionists from deniers.

[borjastick]

I don't label myself as a 'Denier'. I call myself a 'Revisionist'.

When discussing the holocaust with a believer, not that often because I cannot take the stupidity that usually accompanies such an interaction, I first say that we should agree on what the holocaust was. Once that is done, we can discuss the details etc.

I don't say I deny there was a holocaust because, putting myself in the shoes of jews in Europe at the time, they would probably say that whatever the death toll there was a massive attack on jews. Undeniable in my view.

What I take issue with is the claims of gas chambers and millions of deaths, mainly due to the complete lack of evidence. At this point they almost always use the crap argument that it doesn't matter if 1m or 6m died. Complete tosh, it absolutely matters because it changes everything.

[Hektor]

For me, I categorize deniers as those like Jim Rizoli:

1) Rizoli is known for his blatant anti-semitism and regularly stirs the pot by incorporating his ad-hominems into his videos. When you're so hateful towards Jews that you become the denier stereotype, you are not a revisionist.
2) Rizoli piggybacks off of the content of other revisionists without providing anything new to the table. Interviews with other revisionists do not count.
3) Deniers use memes as a substitute for well-thought-out material, such as books, documentaries, essays, and blogs.

These 3 things separate revisionists from deniers.

It's the reason why exterminationists don't want to say revisionist. They want to create the image of deniers being some crude, uneducated Jewhaters who, "despite the overwhelming evidence" do "deny the Holocaust", because they want to "be mean to the victims".
So what is done is to assume that the thesis is correct a priori - No challenges allowed to that 'truth'. Whoever challenges the truth, must be 'in bed with evil' in some way.

Rizoli comes over as too crude to many and hence is the ideal target for the 'guilty by association' tactics. The Holocaust Lobby on the other side can employ 'refined people' to promote their story and in that they pull every trick available for public relations. So whom are people going to believe more. The crude, 'hateful' antisemite or those 'nice and educated' people that only want to preserve the memory of the 'six million Jews gassed by the evil Nazis'?

....
I don't say I deny there was a holocaust because, putting myself in the shoes of jews in Europe at the time, they would probably say that whatever the death toll there was a massive attack on jews. Undeniable in my view.
....

And it isn't really in dispute.
The NS-attitude to the Jews did however not hang in thin air.
If you want to talk about Anti-Semitism, lets first discuss Anti-Gentilism. E.g. declaring the Germans to be "Amalek".
Germans that never had any contact with Jews, were normatively not "Anti-Semitic".

But Jews that never met any Germans, were taught to hate the Germans (and Goyim in general). Several told me about this. They also never understood why.

[hermod]

"Holocaust denier" is a slanderous name coined by some Zionist propagandists such as Deborah Lipstadt in order to demonize and belittle anyone who disbelieves and/or challenges any of the WWII historical narratives supposed to support Jewry's manufactured moral high ground and right to seize, occupy and ethnically cleanse Palestine. The term "Holocaust denial" derives from the medical word "denialism" --- defined by psychologists as "a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth " in order to "protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas (called cognitive dissonance) " --- and was of course chosen in order to make the disbelievers and challengers of Israel's founding myth look like mere crackpots denying proven facts (aka "the reality of the Holocaust," as Holohoaxers pompously say).

https://postimg.cc/crnrGTxC

[Whodunnit?]

Last year I watched the debate between Rizoli and the "optically refined" jew Matt Cockerill from the youtube channel "History Speaks". It's probably the only Holocaust-denial content on youtube.

I knew right away that the tactic here was put a polite, educated jew against a brash working class guy who's known for using slurs like "ya knucklehead" whenever he tries to debunk holocaust claims.

And Rizoli starts off bad, jelling into the camera - but in the second half he kind of pinned him down sucessfully on some topics, like the capacity of the crematories in Auschwitz. Of course Cockerill uses the explanation that they shoved stacks of 3-5 bodies into one muffle and the rest is Nazi space magic. Unfortunately Rizoli didn't ask him why the Germans went to these great lengths to reinvent cremation, instead of just just building more ovens. I wonder what Cockerill would have answered. They have an answer for everything. But why does everything the Nazis did require mental gymnastics?

I am not a fan of Rizoli, but he's got this kind of "street wisdom" which middle class-people lack. He probably grew up in a neighborhood where people were trying to bullshit you at every corner. He noticed that Cockerill's tactic was to overwhelm him with the large number of "Nazi documents" and "testimonies" - and his reaction was not to explain why these documents exist, his answer was simply "all documents, all testimonies can all be bullshit, so let's talk about the science" - this evaporated (no pun intended) 10 minutes of Cockerill's introduction, this was where he wanted to win over the viewers and probably lead the discussion, but the scientific part was where Cockerill was struggling. Maybe that's my bias.

People with dissident believes are often outsiders, extreme personalities, or just a bit quirky. All of them have character flaws, and it is easy to use these flaws to make them look like nutjobs.

But talking about the original question:

Holocaust denier is simply a label. The important part here is that labelling is an essential part in opinion making. A Holocaust denier is a shady person, he is a liar, a Hitler (=Satan)-lover and jew-hater, he is either dumb and spiteful, or intelligent, but then he skillfully twists the truth, like a silver-tongued devil - and as Deborah Lippstadt explained it in her TED talk, the only reason why they do all of this is because they want to (quote) "do it again". So they are also dangerous.
If you believe them, you might become one of the bad guys in "Schindler's List II".
It's just a label. The word alone has to create a pavlovian response.

[hermod]

Last year I watched the debate between Rizoli and the "optically refined" jew Matt Cockerill from the youtube channel "History Speaks". It's probably the only Holocaust-denial content on youtube.

I knew right away that the tactic here was put a polite, educated jew against a brash working class guy who's known for using slurs like "ya knucklehead" whenever he tries to debunk holocaust claims.

And Rizoli starts off bad, jelling into the camera - but in the second half he kind of pinned him down sucessfully on some topics, like the capacity of the crematories in Auschwitz. Of course Cockerill uses the explanation that they shoved stacks of 3-5 bodies into one muffle and the rest is Nazi space magic. Unfortunately Rizoli didn't ask him why the Germans went to these great lengths to reinvent cremation, instead of just just building more ovens. I wonder what Cockerill would have answered. They have an answer for everything. But why does everything the Nazis did require mental gymnastics?

Ironically, during the First World War, a premise of the notorious corpse-factory story (the Auschwitz hoax of WWI) was a ghastly story asserting that the Evil Germ-Huns had concealed a part of their war casualties by secretly cremating many of their dead soldiers in John Cockerill's blast furnaces at Seraing, near Liège in Belgium.

https://postimg.cc/3W71RSv1

https://postimg.cc/LgXmDknW

John Cockerill (industrialist)

John Cockerill (3 August 1790 – 9 June 1840) was an English-born industrialist who became a prominent businessman in Belgium. Born at Haslingden, Lancashire, England, he was brought by his father (British entrepreneur William Cockerill) to the Liège region, where he continued the family tradition of building wool-processing machinery. He founded an ironworks named John Cockerill & Cie. (English: John Cockerill & Company).

Life and career
At the age of twelve, John Cockerill was brought to Verviers (subsequently part of Belgium) by his father William Cockerill, who was successful as a machine builder there. In 1807, aged 17, he and his brother Charles James Cockerill took over the management of a factory in Liege.[1] Their father retired in 1813, leaving the management of his business to his sons.[2]

In 1814, the brothers bought the former palace of the Prince Bishops of Liege at Seraing.[6] The chateau became the plant headquarters and the ground behind it the factory site[7] (founded 1817); it was to become a vertically integrated iron foundry and machine manufacturing factory. William I of the Netherlands was joint owner of the plant.[1] A machine manufacturing plant was added in 1819, and in 1826 (begun 1823[8]) a coke fired blast furnace.[9] By 1840, the plant had sixteen steam engines producing total power 900 hp (670 kW) in continual work and employed 3000 persons.[2]

In 1823, his brother Charles James retired,[9] having been bought out by John in 1822.[10] After the Belgian Revolution of 1830, the new Kingdom of Belgium claimed the property of William I,[8] and in 1835, John Cockerill made himself the sole owner of the works.[1] He also was a founder of the Banque de Belgique,[8] in 1835.[11]

During John Cockerill's lifetime, the factories produced not only spinning engines and steel, but steam engines (including air-blowers, traction engines, and engines for ships);[12] in 1835, Belgium's first steam locomotive Le Belge was made.[13][14] He also had interests in collieries and mines, as well as factories producing cloth, linen and paper.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cock ... ustrialist)

[Fred zz]

If you do not believe the holocaust, you are a denier
If you do not believe the 911 official story, you are a truther

[Hektor]

"Holocaust denier" is a slanderous name coined by some Zionist propagandists such as Deborah Lipstadt in order to demonize and belittle anyone who disbelieves and/or challenges any of the WWII historical narratives supposed to support Jewry's manufactured moral high ground and right to seize, occupy and ethnically cleanse Palestine. The term "Holocaust denial" derives from the medical word "denialism" --- defined by psychologists as "a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth " in order to "protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas (called cognitive dissonance) " --- and was of course chosen in order to make the disbelievers and challengers of Israel's founding myth look like mere crackpots denying proven facts (aka "the reality of the Holocaust," as Holohoaxers pompously say).....

Of course the coining of the term 'Holocaust Denier' had an ulterior motive on the side of the Holocaust promotors. When your assertion gets challenged call the challengers names. But be careful, don't appear to0 harsh and angry there. Rather conceal your anger and aggression in something that sounds sciency. 'Holocaust Denialism' sounds pretty smart, so it will be used even by people that don't share the anger about heresy as hardcore Holocaustians do. So the term will spread easily. And most people don't analyze the meaning of words the are using, they mostly parrot what they have picked up somewhere. And your analysis is correct. "Denial" implies disputing *against* better knowledge about the subject. That is however not what revisionists do. They look at the evidence presented and unsurprisingly find it wanting. They also look at the bigger picture an notice that there is something fishy with that narrative and how it came about. "Denialism" being a term from psychology is also revealing. It's an admission that promoting the Holocaust narrative has actually a psychotherapeutic agenda in it. It also shows that they view other people as patients or class them as people that 'need help' (from them that is). So there is a bit of arrogance in that attitude. And it shows what they are actually busy with. It's called gas lighting. Target people for manipulation and exploitation. Since it would be criminal and lead to resistance, if you do that too openly: Gas lighting is a way to go. Make the target believe that they did do something horrible and hence 'owe you something'. Or make other people think that a target did do something horrible to you and hence they owe you compassion and help, due to this. This actually reveals a personality disorder: passively-aggressive personality. Playing the victim is part of it. I think there is quite some literature on this. Usually this happens in interpersonal relationships. But some people seem to have taken this far beyond this. It was dragged on the political and cultural level and now is 'a thing' there. It useful to several groups. One group being Jewish elites that can use it to control lower level Jews, but also use it against non-Jews to push through their group interest among them. Additionally this was a useful tool for the Left to disparage Anti-Communists and push through Neo-Marxist agendas. One can bash 'Folk, Family, Fatherland' with it, since the National Socialists adored it. But you can even strike at Christianity with it, since a Christian per definition has to oppose Judaism as rejection of Christ. That's if that Christian adheres to the New Testament. And that document does oppose several other leftist notions as well. E.g. that the problems stem in society from sin and not from 'structures of society'. You have to get rid of that, if your vision for society is leftist. It should be noted that one can get rid of this in more than one way. Discredit beliefs or change them gradually to accommodate your 'new thinking' in it. There is a reason why Marxists hate the 'folk, family, fatherland'. Folk provides broader community in which conflicts can be resolved peacefully and even be prevented. Family shields the children against outside influences. And fatherland gives a anchor for loyalty and identity. Remove this and class struggle goes easier, control over children moves to the state or other institutions and 'new identities' can be molded easier as well.


Lipstadt is doing the bidding for the group she is benefitting from. After all she got quite some rewards for her work and publicity stunts.
That of course doesn't mean she's 'telling the truth' , but rather than anything she says is subject to 'what's in her interest'.

Essentially she's an apologist for orthodox, exterminationis historiography and she will do anything at here disposal to keep that boat afloat.

[hermod]

If you do not believe the holocaust, you are a denier
If you do not believe the 911 official story, you are a truther

Those who don't believe the 9/11 official narrative call themselves truthers, but mainstream mass media and their audience just call them 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[hermod]

"Holocaust denier" is a slanderous name coined by some Zionist propagandists such as Deborah Lipstadt in order to demonize and belittle anyone who disbelieves and/or challenges any of the WWII historical narratives supposed to support Jewry's manufactured moral high ground and right to seize, occupy and ethnically cleanse Palestine. The term "Holocaust denial" derives from the medical word "denialism" --- defined by psychologists as "a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth " in order to "protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas (called cognitive dissonance) " --- and was of course chosen in order to make the disbelievers and challengers of Israel's founding myth look like mere crackpots denying proven facts (aka "the reality of the Holocaust," as Holohoaxers pompously say).....

Of course the coining of the term 'Holocaust Denier' had an ulterior motive on the side of the Holocaust promotors. When your assertion gets challenged call the challengers names. But be careful, don't appear to0 harsh and angry there. Rather conceal your anger and aggression in something that sounds sciency. 'Holocaust Denialism' sounds pretty smart, so it will be used even by people that don't share the anger about heresy as hardcore Holocaustians do. So the term will spread easily. And most people don't analyze the meaning of words the are using, they mostly parrot what they have picked up somewhere. And your analysis is correct. "Denial" implies disputing *against* better knowledge about the subject. That is however not what revisionists do. They look at the evidence presented and unsurprisingly find it wanting. They also look at the bigger picture an notice that there is something fishy with that narrative and how it came about.

Yes, it was devised as a deceitful way to evade debate (because the Holohoax can't stand debate, as vastly demonstrated during the Zundel trials in the 1980s) without looking too obviously like politically-motivated liars running away in order to protect an untenable lie from public debunking and exposure. Lipstadt and the likes want most people to falsely believe that Holocaust revisionists are just like the people who believe that Elvis Presley is still alive and hiding somewhere. When someone believes that lie, he/she won't even bother to listen to Holocaust revisionists and will keep believing until the end of his/her life that he/she has seen the Holocaust with his/her own eyes. In other words, the Guardians of the Holohoax Temple managed to convince most people with the label "Holocaust deniers" that the people revealing the tricks of the illusionist are nothing but wackos who only tell nonsensical lies for malevolent purposes. Best way to make them keep regarding the illusionist as a magician.

"Denialism" being a term from psychology is also revealing. It's an admission that promoting the Holocaust narrative has actually a psychotherapeutic agenda in it. It also shows that they view other people as patients or class them as people that 'need help' (from them that is). So there is a bit of arrogance in that attitude. And it shows what they are actually busy with. It's called gas lighting. Target people for manipulation and exploitation. Since it would be criminal and lead to resistance, if you do that too openly: Gas lighting is a way to go. Make the target believe that they did do something horrible and hence 'owe you something'. Or make other people think that a target did do something horrible to you and hence they owe you compassion and help, due to this. This actually reveals a personality disorder: passively-aggressive personality. Playing the victim is part of it. I think there is quite some literature on this. Usually this happens in interpersonal relationships. But some people seem to have taken this far beyond this. It was dragged on the political and cultural level and now is 'a thing' there. It useful to several groups. One group being Jewish elites that can use it to control lower level Jews, but also use it against non-Jews to push through their group interest among them.

When you've just firebombed millions of civilians to death in the name of peace and justice, you can only gas-light the survivors and tell them that they deserved it. No surprise. What wife beater in the word doesn't blame his wife for her own beating when he finally calms down?

Additionally this was a useful tool for the Left to disparage Anti-Communists and push through Neo-Marxist agendas. One can bash 'Folk, Family, Fatherland' with it, since the National Socialists adored it. But you can even strike at Christianity with it, since a Christian per definition has to oppose Judaism as rejection of Christ. That's if that Christian adheres to the New Testament. And that document does oppose several other leftist notions as well. E.g. that the problems stem in society from sin and not from 'structures of society'. You have to get rid of that, if your vision for society is leftist. It should be noted that one can get rid of this in more than one way. Discredit beliefs or change them gradually to accommodate your 'new thinking' in it. There is a reason why Marxists hate the 'folk, family, fatherland'. Folk provides broader community in which conflicts can be resolved peacefully and even be prevented. Family shields the children against outside influences. And fatherland gives a anchor for loyalty and identity. Remove this and class struggle goes easier, control over children moves to the state or other institutions and 'new identities' can be molded easier as well.

Rabbi Karl Marx of course didn't care about the welfare of working-class Goyim. He merely devised a political fraud fueling and weaponizing social unrest. All good predators know that they need to isolate their preys from their herds if they are to have a good meal soon afterwards. So Jews know that they need to divide and conquer others if they are to rule over the world some day as their end-times prophecies say. Knowing this, no surprise the Marxist scam always isolates Goyim from their folk-family-and-fatherland "herds." Easier preys that way...

Lipstadt is doing the bidding for the group she is benefitting from. After all she got quite some rewards for her work and publicity stunts.
That of course doesn't mean she's 'telling the truth' , but rather than anything she says is subject to 'what's in her interest'.

Essentially she's an apologist for orthodox, exterminationis historiography and she will do anything at here disposal to keep that boat afloat.

The nickname of that repellent Zionist propagandist should be "Damage Control Debbie."

[Whodunnit?]

I think some of you are overthinking it. Lippstadt just follows the rules of propaganda.

Look at this article, it's quite interesting

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

...because it goes over the techniques of propaganda, while containing propaganda itself. ("...for example, Goebbels....")

Propaganda never appeals to intellect, it tries to create visceral reactions.

"Holocaust denier" is a label, but it is also a group of like-minded people. So you don't have to look at the individual cases. This group lies for malicious reasons, so "Holocaust denial" is also a conspiracy. That's all you need to know about someone who disagrees.

In my opinion, the most important thing is that Deborah Lippstadt said "the only reason why they deny the Holocaust is because they want to do it again". Now what does that mean? It means that believe in the Holocaust has a protective function for jews. There she admitted it. It's like a protective wall, and the deniers have realized that if you want to go after the jew, you have to tear it down first. The question now is: why do jews need that protective wall, and what reason would there be to even go after jews again, Mrs.Lippstadt? Does denying the Armenian genocide also put the armenian people at danger of getting genocided again?

I have another example for how emotive terms are used in opinion making. Google "Hitler" and "furious". Have a good laugh at what you'll find, because I did. I highly doubt there is any english language mainstream book on Hitler and "Nazi Germany" without the combination of the words "Hitler" and "furious". I don't think it is a coincidence, or a pun.
Germans were furious, so they elected a "Fuhrer", the personification of the "furor teutonicus", the angry German people. And here is your official reason of why WW2 even happened. You are supposed to think that WW2 just happened because a whole country threw a big hissy fit, just because they couldn't accept that they lost WW1 fair and square, and was lead by a raging lunatic who just wanted to kill people out of anger. Every child understands this.

Why did Germany attack Poland? Something happened, and Hitler was furious at the Poles, so all Poles were sentenced to either death or slavery. Why did he attack Norway? Something happened, and Hitler was furious, so he stripped the Norwegians of their land and liberty. Why did he want to kill all the jews? Something had happened, and Hitler was furious at them, so he wanted to kill them all.

In German language history books and articles, it's the use of "Überfall". "Überfall" is a word that doesn't have an English equivalent, Überfall is a criminal assault. A bankrobbery for example is a "Banküberfall". If someone beats an old lady over the head to steal her purse, it's a "Raubüberfall". The use of the term "Überfall", insinuating criminality, was first used to frame the invasion of Poland and later the USSR. Recently, I've noticed that even Germany's 1940 offensive against France is called "Überfall". In the German version of WW2, everything Germany did was illegitimate and criminal. Even an offensive against a country that had declared war on them.

So it's just weaponized language to generate immediate visceral reactions, and make critical thinking more difficult, or for some people impossible.

Jews are protected by a wall of 6 million bricks. You are not supposed to threaten that wall. This is what a Holocaust denier is. Someone who threatens that wall in any way, shape or form. He can be jewish himself.

[Hektor]

"Holocaust denier" is a slanderous name coined by some Zionist propagandists such as Deborah Lipstadt in order to demonize and belittle anyone who disbelieves and/or challenges any of the WWII historical narratives supposed to support Jewry's manufactured moral high ground and right to seize, occupy and ethnically cleanse Palestine. The term "Holocaust denial" derives from the medical word "denialism" --- defined by psychologists as "a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth " in order to "protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas (called cognitive dissonance) " --- and was of course chosen in order to make the disbelievers and challengers of Israel's founding myth look like mere crackpots denying proven facts (aka "the reality of the Holocaust," as Holohoaxers pompously say).....

Of course the coining of the term 'Holocaust Denier' had an ulterior motive on the side of the Holocaust promotors. When your assertion gets challenged call the challengers names. But be careful, don't appear to0 harsh and angry there. Rather conceal your anger and aggression in something that sounds sciency. 'Holocaust Denialism' sounds pretty smart, so it will be used even by people that don't share the anger about heresy as hardcore Holocaustians do. So the term will spread easily. And most people don't analyze the meaning of words the are using, they mostly parrot what they have picked up somewhere. And your analysis is correct. "Denial" implies disputing *against* better knowledge about the subject. That is however not what revisionists do. They look at the evidence presented and unsurprisingly find it wanting. They also look at the bigger picture an notice that there is something fishy with that narrative and how it came about.

Yes, it was devised as a deceitful way to evade debate (because the Holohoax can't stand debate, as vastly demonstrated during the Zundel trials in the 1980s) without looking too obviously like politically-motivated liars running away in order to protect an untenable lie from public debunking and exposure. Lipstadt and the likes want most people to falsely believe that Holocaust revisionists are just like the people who believe that Elvis Presley is still alive and hiding somewhere. When someone believes that lie, he/she won't even bother to listen to Holocaust revisionists and will keep believing until the end of his/her life that he/she has seen the Holocaust with his/her own eyes. In other words, the Guardians of the Holohoax Temple managed to convince most people with the label "Holocaust deniers" that the people revealing the tricks of the illusionist are nothing but wackos who only tell nonsensical lies for malevolent purposes. Best way to make them keep regarding the illusionist as a magician......

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. 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). 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.


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.


Karl Marx was the grandson of Rabbis, became Christian with his father, but apostated as a young man from this. So he may indeed have had some knowledge about prophesies or rather the interpretation thereof. Friedrich Engels came from a pietist family and apostated as well. It was the hay-days of industrialisation an 'capitalism' if you want. Also a progressive era. Many people became modest to very wealthy... And actually the conditions for workers did improve as well... Although that's a thing Marxists like to ignore. They try to exploit the resentment among industrial workers with their employers to form a political movement with it. There was of course a labour movement already, but it's left-wing only grew successfully, if there was a major crisis making people unemployed or dropping the wages. Marxism was more something for intellectuals, which were partially well-off progressives that didn't really care about workers, neither. It lead to the Communist Party, but there was always a Marxist influence with socialist parties as well. Some workers were parotting the slogans, but I get that they didn't buy Marxism as the 'intellectuals' did... Who were more into getting bureaucracy jobs anyway.

[hermod]

From the Witch's mouth...