hermod wrote:Hektor wrote:Name calling is standard practice of the Holocaust promotors for decades now. Anyone disagreeing with the thesis will be called a "Nazi that wants to gas Six Million Jews". Throw a tantrum, pick a fight and most people will throw the towel on debate pretty quickly. People will lose interest, since they got better things to do than dealing with people that are clearly obsessed about a subject and can't stand disagreement. And well, I think it is intentional. They know they have established perceptions in people's minds sufficiently, so they don't need to actually come up with sober prove for their point. All they need to do is be a bit technical, white knight for those poor Jews and then attack those that disagree with them using loaded terminology. Social Psychology will do the rest for them. People will disassociate with those that are called name over and over again, since they don't want trouble. Muddying the waters and other logical fallacies don't matter to them... they even consider those useful, since it yields results for them keeping people in the camp of Holocaust believers... And accepting cucked or woke views on politics. That's all they need.
The defenders of the Holohoax on the internet work as hard as possible to prevent any constructive and rational debate on the Holohoax from taking place. They just try to prevent informed people from undoing the Holohoax indoctrination operated by schools & mainstream mass media on a massive scale. In other words, there are not on the internet to debate about the 'Holocaust.' They are on the internet to demolish any debate on the 'Holocaust' by making it unreadable with boring flamewars.
They may indeed not be the primary target of choice. So debates with those people should be brutish, nasty and short. Give them a simple challenge to present serious forensic evidence. And if they try to weasel their way out, give'm the boot.
IMO there is far better audience and people to talk about. People that aren't affected as strongly by the Holocaust Cult as many, actually all, Nizkor Type are. What you see with the Holocultists is Baconian idols at work (read it up). The Holocaust Dogma beats any evidence, any time. At times I'm shocked that it even affects people that are quite rational otherwise. But there we are.
Whom we need to reach is people that already have their doubts about present views as disseminate through academia. After the COVID-scam and various other scandalous events one would expect that there already plenty of those. You need to reach those that can process intellectual information those and they will always be a minority. But they are an important minority, since those not interested in intellectual subjects that much look to them for leadership. My take is that the 'elites' realize this and that they also sense that they are loosing the grip on them. Actually it is not a grip, it's merely the ability to influence those 'organic intellectuals' . For decades they could do so via academia, literature, media and cultural production in general... But it doesn't work as easy in the past any longer. It worked, because people felt improving standards of living and were at least satisfied with their living conditions. They also thought that academics are at least moderately trustworthy people. And that there are at least some journalists in the pursuit of truth.
Think about:
The US didn't need legislation against Holocaust Denial for more than 7 decades. But now suddenly this is supposed to be an issue and necessary. The question is 'Why'?
* There is growing dissent with the Establishment in the US (as in numerous other countries).
* People with vested interest in 'the Holocaust' have more power and influence than in the past.
* Demographic change - resented mostly by Whites whose social and political power (mostly locally) diminishes.
* Resentment against cultural change.... The Gender and Homo-issues for example. BLM, etc.
* Getting sick and tired of obvious Jewish influence. WHy should they determine any policy for broader society?
That all may be turning into a cauldron... and the political elites realise this. They also realises that when people loose faith in the Holocaust, it will become more difficult to manipulate them. So rather legislate against this. And once you could ban Holocaust Denial, there is only few things you can't.
"First they came for the Holocaust Deniers....".
Years ago I predicted that multiculturalism would gradually turn into chaos or totalitarianism. And now it indeed does. I was shrugged off at the time, wondering what those people are saying now. Made up terms like 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' are used. Now they more rational-empirical approach would be to apply conflict-theory to this. Various ethnic groups fighting for resources and influence within a society. With homogeneous nation-states this isn't really an issue. Those in control are of the same ethnicity as those that are ruled. One only competes with those that are of the same ethnicity. The rules and practices are also more stable, which gives orientation on how to achieve and advance. With multi-ethnic societies that's a bit different. Ethnocentric networks will take over part of the economy and parts of the social structure. They may act quite self-serving in this of course. And one ethnic group may disparage the other. Normally this can quickly lead into conflicts between the groups. That's unless this isn't suppressed in some way. That's why multi-ethnic societies were mostly ruled despotically so any riot or strive could be suppressed pretty quickly. Now with postmodernist multiculturalism in Western democracies it is a bit different. They are more careful concerning the use of force, but their police forces are commonly pretty efficient. The strategy of choice is however gas lighting against the dominant indigeneous group that is. Large programs to tell them 'not to be racist' against 'the minorities' are implemented. It's a whole industry. Gas lighting goes with guilt tripping and this is part of a program to 'deconstruct' ethnic identity, where a major battlefield is historiography and how it is sold to the public. A typical guilt-tripping or shaming program would of course be 'Vergangenheisbewaeltigung' and the Holocaust in Germany. Tell the kids how horrible their grandparents where against the Jews and how wrong this all was. The kids may hear different narratives at home of course. Told by older relatives that did actually experience things itself. But this is to know avail. The elders aren't always knowledgeable enough to talk to the kids and well, they actually may not want to. Realizing that it is all lies, they would get angry, which they may not want to be. The indigenous ethnic group may be targeted for attacks, but instead of fighting back they more and more will simply evade the issue. Not all people can do that of course. Simply stop reporting on this extensively. Rather focus on events were the indigenous do fight back and label them then 'racist thugs' or something like that. Once the mass of people has swallowed that interpretation of reality, the gas lighting and manipulation should go easy. As long as 'the economy runs' this should actually go rather easily... What happens, when there are economic issues is of course another matter... And there more despotic means of control may come in. The violence will then be a welcomed justification for more control measures.
Additionally, the violence may silence the indigenous group even more. And I'm talking here about a group that 'held all the power' in that country. Despite being attacked, they don't fight back... at least not in a way one would expect, if those people functioned normally. This also creates a situation where the government can expand power, since people are silenced. They can of course only do so, if mass media and civil society organizations do play along. Centralization and control of education made that possible.
A shift in orientation to information may change the grip 'media leads' and 'academic authority' does have. And that's where other sources of information and knowledge can chip in. What keeps up the group is general worry of people about their future, shifting their focus even more to financial accumulation or 'prepping for the worst'. Intellectual subjects may suffer through this and people may tend to 'stick to what they are familiar with'. But one can't know, if one doesn't try. My trial of preference would be social conservatives with an open mind to alternative theories and who value logic and evidences. Those that pick as they like are a waste of time. You may persuade them for a moment. But as soon as they are exposed to the cultic mode of presentation they change their mind again.
