Selling Revisionism

[A.N. Field]

I would very much like to know what "slogans" and approaches people have found effective. I think we have a marketing challenge more than anything else at this point. A collection of well-crafted questions, etc. to penetrate the conditioning might be very useful.

Please delete if this exists already.

[EtienneSC]

There has been some use of slogans by Robert Faurisson: "No holes, no holocaust", for example, and his 60 words on the historical lie. David Irving had some more offensive comments that I would say were clearly counterproductive.

As for lists of questions, there are quite a few on this site. David Cole's list is one of the better known.

In my view, it is information and argument that persuades people in the long run, but there is certainly also a legitimate PR task. The internet and video are one means of reaching an audience.

[Kingfisher]

Unless slogans are carefully thought out their effect can be negative. Bearing in mind that the target audience not only believes in the Holocaust story but has been conditioned to find any questioning of it offensive, the use of terms like "hoax" is counter-productive. It's a shame that the Bible of Revisionism uses it in its title.

Things like "Hollowco$t" are even more negative. Any slogan at all that appears to attack Jews is a no-no, however strong your own conviction that it is accurate. Astro3 has even gone so far as to say "Don't use the J-word".

Slogans, like any other form of propaganda, should be strictly limited to the issue. Other "conspiracy theories" and issues relating to Israel and Jewish power must be strictly compartmentalised. The Holocaust is an issue of historical fact ("What happened?") unaffected by anyone's opinions on anything else. You may think there is a connection with 911, but leave it out or you have immediately lost all those who think "911 troofers" are nutters.

"No holes, no Holocaust" is not a bad slogan, but it is simplistic. There really is more to it than that. In short, slogans are dangerous and can easily rebound against you.

Maybe slogans in the form of a question? Harwood's "Did six million really die?" is a pretty good opener.

[borjastick]

There is a whole load of difference between the masses who accept the holocaust position and those who believe it. The average Joe, who may or may not have any deeper interest in the issue accepts the holocaust almost by osmosis. They are exposed to it in their teen years as they are religion and just sort of jog along with it. That doesn't mean that with a free enquiring mind in later life they won't be open to some genuine skepticism on the matter.

The internet has made the big difference to revisionism as it allows quick and easy access to both sides of the argument. There are many people who have come to question the holocaust simply because they heard that it might not be true. The flat earthers will never be convinced; they are not the target audience anyway.

Youtube is out biggest friend in my opinion.

Think of selling revisionism as a chain letter of sorts. We tell a few people directly and indirectly and they then pass it on. Before you know it 10,000 have got the message and they then tell ten people each and so on.

I am very positive about the end game coming very close to us now, after all from just two years ago when I look back the gains have been astonishing.

[Landulf]

They always, well some do, teach kids to question everything so my slogan is: "Question everything, except the holocaust".

[Landulf]

Hope I got that right. English is not my native language.

[SilenceIsALie2]

My personal "slogan" for not only the Holocaust but any and all controversial/taboo/censored subjects is quite simple -

"Those who cannot debate, bring forth the hate." (or "let loose the hate")

This does not directly target anyone or any specific topic but still gets the general message across quite well in my opinion.

Peace

[A.N. Field]

Thank you all for the input. I agree with all that was said

My favorite list is the one Edgar Steele did on How not to be Interviewed by CNN about the Holocaust.

I'm pondering the wording of a question on the absurdity of the Germans wasting fuel transporting and killing Jews while fighting a two-front war.

Maybe Anthony Lawson's "Were the Germans really so stupid..." is a good opener.

I've also think if we could write a couple of humorous lines/questions it might help. Something along the lines of "~ is asking obvious questions about ~! Burn the heretic!"

Felt I was able to make a few people aware of the media lies regarding the current wars using ridicule with the "another Hitler" line. "Assad is another Hitler. He's gassing his own people. He's taking over the world." Repeat substituting Quaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Putin, etc.

[cold beer]

I always felt that the accusation leveled by Jews of German civilian complicity in the 'holocaust' should be bounced back:
'Not all Jews were mass murders of the NKVD but their silence was tantamount to complicity'
It would be interesting to see the reaction to the equivalent.
Not that it would ever happen in the real world but imagine a survivor telling a group of grade school student about Jews standing silent as millions of Christians were being murdered by Bolsheviks.

[A.N. Field]

Russian Christian Holocaust Denial?
Hungarian Holocaust Denial?
Spanish Christian Holocaust Denial?

I did love that Learning About the Holocaust animation

[Zulu]

I would very much like to know what "slogans" and approaches people have found effective. I think we have a marketing challenge more than anything else at this point. A collection of well-crafted questions, etc. to penetrate the conditioning might be very useful.

IMO, well documented videos put on internet are lethal weapons against the H.
Among others, I like a lot those from David Cole or Eric Hunt in English, and Vincent Reynouard in French. Their virtue is to create doubt in the viewers which leads to the desire to know more about revisionism. The points must be exposed simply and the argumentation well documented. Direct attacks against Jews must be avoided in order to give no chance for the usual "antisemitism" libel, a too easy possible ad hominem attack offered for dismissing the bottom of the issue usually employed as diversion by the believers .
On that line, there are several Reynouard's videos which treat of which value and credibility can be attributed to "testimonies" regarding the storyline of the H.
Another is: "At Nuremberg, the existence of gas chambers has not been demonstrated". This is a simple demonstration of how this myth came at this trial as "judicial notice" sustained essentially by "testimonies" or "confessions" whose authors were never cross-examined. Moreover, at this trial nothing was presented as material evidence nor were forensically examined the alleged "weapons of crime". On that aspect, beside the phony American documentary on the gas chamber of Dachau, it was the reign of reports issued from so called "Special State Commissions" of Soviet origin which had miraculously acquired the status of "authentic evidences" through the article 21 of the Tribunal statute.
All these points are well addressed in that video which deserves to be subtitled.

A Nuremberg, l'existence des chambres à gaz n'a pas été démontrée
http://archive.org/details/ANurembergLe ... ontree2012

A proof that the Reynouard's videos are lethal is that they are quickly censured by Youtube in France and Belgium. A solution is to upload them in archive.org
I never miss an opportunity to give the links of good revisionist videos in several French speaking newsgroups of large audience like fr.soc.politique or fr.sci.histoire

Another way of selling revisionism is to put simple but troubling questions on holocaust matters in newsgroups of big audience.
Lately I sent a post to several newsgroups including fr.sci.zetetique (skeptic audience) which refers to the Thomas Jefferson quote "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
This was an indirect way to question the Gayssot Act and what it is supposed to protect under a state controlled censorship.

Are "Truths" imposed by power "real"?

Do you know, in History, examples of "truths" imposed by ruling powers (religious, political ...) which were ultimately proved "real" once past the repression against their "deniers"?
I just can give some well-known cases of imposed "truths" which were contradicted once censorship disappeared:

- Geocentricism imposed by the Catholic Church (Giordano Bruno, Galileo, ...)
- The Lysenkoism, "biologic science" imposed by Stalinism
- Katyn, official "History" imposed by Stalinism after Nuremberg in all countries under soviet control .

These examples are not valid because the "truths" imposed were proven false. I don't know any case which could answer to my question...

Your turn ...

[yellow submarine]

All these points are well addressed in that video which deserves to be subtitled.

A Nuremberg, l'existence des chambres à gaz n'a pas été démontrée
http://archive.org/details/ANurembergLe ... ontree2012

We subtitled that film just the other day



If you have time to do a translation of other videos you find important, I'll be happy to set the subtitles. just send me a link to the video along with your translation

[Hektor]

Selling?

Who would be your target market?

[Hannover]

Selling?

Who would be your target market?

Everyone who believes in the impossible fantasy.

- Hannover

[A.N. Field]

I spent an hour and a half with a relative over the holidays on the subject. No success despite having my brother along who seconded what I was saying. Did get the wife's attention when I mentioned the never mentioned Jewish Bolshevik slaughter of Russian Christians.

Anyway, I followed up with a carefully crafted letter, a new copy of Did Six Million Really Die?, and a carefully sequenced DVD with videos.

No response. And this is someone who I respect as not taking crap and having German ancestry.

I begin to think that we need short, sharp, funny (if possible) hooks that penetrate the layers of brain fat that have been developed.