The power of the "Denier" label and people's confusion about the "Holocaust" / debate strategies?

[Lamprecht]

You will often notice something if you ever get into a discussion/debate with ordinary people on the "Holocaust" - by "ordinary people" I mean those who have not read much about the "Holocaust" story and couldn't name a single "Extermination camp" besides Auschwitz from memory. Probably they will go to Wikipedia and read the first 2-3 paragraphs under "Holocaust" and sit back and say "ah, yes, makes sense, the experts proved it" at the beginning of a discussion with you.

But has anyone noticed that an enormous impediment to the discussion is, in fact, the "Denier" label? And I notice this also when I see these exterminationist "Debunkings" of "denier memes" (examples: viewtopic.php?t=12399) - they always just ridicule the "denier" position into one of absurdity which no actual published revisionist will defend - aka a strawman.
Take for example an imgur album by SirAaronRichards which includes a document on a list of Auschwitz guards who were executioners for some inmates, he says:

Oh I'm sure deniers will start rambling on about the fact that the word "execution" could mean a ton of various things, for example the execution of some harmless work-duty...

But "Deniers" claim there were executions at Auschwitz for many reasons. Death row criminals (murderers, rapists, etc) would be sent there for months of forced labor before being executed. And escape attempts and many other reasons, this was during a war.

Other examples of this can be seen in the laughable "21 questions for revisionists" graphic: viewtopic.php?t=12911

Or even the Weber / Hannity interview where it was said that "Deniers" deny the crematoria, shows them on video saying "This is what Holocaust deniers pretend is fake": viewtopic.php?p=93879#p93879

Or Lipstadt's new book, where she lies, saying "For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong" viewtopic.php?t=12271

You can only wonder if these people are doing this on purpose, or are just being deceived by someone who was doing it on purpose....

In these sorts of "Debates" with regular people, in many cases I find myself forced to waste half of my responses correcting people, saying things like:
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Einsatzgruppen shot many people, including Jews in the East (disputing numbers and motives)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there were crematoria in the camps
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Germans had anti-Jewish policies and forced them into ghettos and camps (disputing claims of "extermination camps")
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there were piles of corpses and emaciated bodies, found and photographed during the liberation of these camps (disputing that they are gassed corpses)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that there was a state-sponsored euthanasia program for mentally ill, incurably sick, and severely disabled people (has nothing to do with a "Holocaust")
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that that "Final Solution" was a real policy (it meant resettlement/deportation/forced labor)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that a lot of people perished in the camps (disputing the estimated totals)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that thousands of "survivors" testified about these things listed above, and many/most were telling the truth (albeit with some exaggerations and even lies; - fewer than 5% of Auschwitz testimonies mention gassings)
- "Deniers" do not "deny" that Germans committed some war crimes (like all other sides / they would have been the only belligerents to not do so if that was the case)

For some people you can list all of these things that aren't disputed and they will respond:
So basically you're saying the Holocaust happened?
Yet you are a "Holocaust denier"

Other times these people will insist "Actually some DO say that" (referencing a few teenagers posting online) - these sorts of people are just dishonest to talk to in general, so I just tell them there's no published revisionists claiming that.


What are your strategies for dealing with this?
The following images can be posted:
1. download/file.php?id=2364
2. download/file.php?id=2164
I think they do a good job of explaining.

You can also demand they define the "Holocaust" but they will be as vague as possible, and essentially it would be a definition which encompasses all sorts of things that are not actually disputed as pointed out above. It will be "Every seemingly bad thing the NSDAP did" or "every imagined/real/exaggerated grievance or misfortune befallen onto European Jews 1933-1945"

You could also you take a route where you:
1. (optional) reject the "Denier" label completely
2. State something like "Actually I do not 'deny' probably about 90-95% of the things which you consider to be the 'Holocaust' - whether you realize it or not" / "I only deny 5-10% of the so-called 'Holocaust' actually"

Another strategy is to just shift the debate into a specific sub-topic like:
- Only dispute/talk about Treblinka 2, Belzec, and/or Sobibor and the alleged mass graves there
- Only dispute/talk about Auschwitz gas chambers
- Only dispute/talk about the 6,000,000 number
- Only dispute/talk about the "Final Solution" policy (it's harder to pull this one off without straying into "general Holocaust debate")

[Hannover]

Lamprecht:

Or Lipstadt's new book, where she laughably insinuates: "For deniers to be right, all survivors would have to be wrong": viewtopic.php?t=12271

In that situation all one has to do is ask:
'What 'survivors? Give us names and tell us what they actually said in their own words.'

Chances are those like Lipstadt can't even tell you, or they will dodge because they know that what a "survivor says either contradicts laws of science and logic, or contradicts what other lying "survivors" say and / or the 'holocaust' story itself.

Of course the ultimate point to then make about "survivors" Is:
'You have just debunked your own story.
There cannot be so many "survivors" when it's claimed that 'the Germans tried to kill every Jew they could get their hands on.'

- Hannover

‘O, what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive’

[Hektor]

It's a bait and Switch type of argument.
1. Define Holocaust as anything what was Axis/NS-policy on the Jews and what else you are accusing them on.
2. Stress the wicked extermination part, gas chambers, industrial scale, genocide, etc.

Now if somebody disputes what you are stressing (Gas chambers, six million, plan to exterminate all Jews), hold up stuff you can support as Axis/NS policy of Jews and claim that he was/is denying this. Don't be to concise and analytic with it, though. No fair treatment of deniers. No objectivity, No logic, please. Bait and Switch is a deceptive sales technique. It's not about telling the client what it really is, you are offering for sale.

Denier / Denial is dishonest communication as well. It is insinuating that the other party is disputing something despite better knowledge. This isn't the case with what Revisionists do, though. They know what is claimed, but they also know that there is no evidence or contrary evidence with regards to some of the core claims that are made. Again: Industrial style homicidal gassings, plan to exterminate all Jews, 6 million.

Revisionists do not dispute that NS/Axis had policy with regards to Jews which later included deportation and internments. That there was mortality in concentration camps isn't in dispute neither. Just that this has a historical context (epidemics, war time conditions), which is commonly omitted in the Holocaust narrative.

"Survivors"
This gets me every time: "If there wasn't a Holocaust, why are there so many Holocaust Survivors".
It's also the: "If the Nazis didn't gas six million Jews, why did the Allies put them on trial for it".
That there was intent on the Allied side to smear their enemy is also commonly ignored. Meanwhile the "evidence" for "the Holocaust" (Only called that later ) was provided by units whose task is deception and manipulation. The presence of members of the psychological warfare division should raise alarms, but with dim-wits it doesn't. It's actually key to understand how and why the Holocaust-Narrative arose.

Just a thought. Maybe we should work with the Holocaust as working-hypothesis and try to gather the evidence for this. Because that's actually were the Holocaust peddler are seriously missing out it seems.

[Libertas Aut Mors]

The problem with all of this is that it fundamentally misunderstands what the Holocaust actually is and why people believe in it. The Holocaust is not an historical event like the Napoleonic Wars, or the Mongol Conquests or the Soviet Purges or anything else. Every other historical event is seen with, at best, total indifference, which ironically is the best for objectivity.

The Holocaust is ideo-religious in nature, as is WW2 and the Nazis. You have about as much chance of convincing the average John Doe that the Holocaust didn’t happen as you have convincing a medieval peasant that Adam and Eve didn’t exist. It requires someone who is naturally a truth-seeker by nature, and someone who is unafraid of entertaining the taboo but possibly true (at least mentally). But these types are exceedingly rare, since the great majority of people are conformist and often rather cowardly.

The Holocaust and WW2 is a deeply cultural cornerstone of modern western civilisation, because it serves as the creation myth of modern liberal-internationalism and all the nations and organisations that believe in it, including big ones like the United Nations.

Historically, the only thing which undermines the religion or ideology of a system (whether it be the catholic supremacy of the Middle Ages or the communist control over Eastern Europe and Eurasia or anything else) is by undermining the system itself. The Holocaust, like everything else, is imposed upon us from the top down, and will remain an emotionally charged and unidimensional topic so long as the people in power continue to pump air into it. As soon as that air stops, it will deflate.

Until then, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath that the Holocaust will ever be widely rejected. I wouldn’t neurotically obsess over precisely which words we should use and which optics we should employ or what we should call ourselves, with the misconception that if we just get our words right and our optics perfect, we can usher in the “great awakening”. We could be perfect and the vast majority of people would still reject our message without even hearing us out.

I’m not saying this to be demoralising, and I’m certainly not saying we should be careless or tactless or cowardly. I’m simply saying that the Holocaust is part of a far bigger monster. If you want to slay the Holocaust, you have to slay the whole monster.

In the mean time, the best course of action is to do precisely what we’re doing now and so stay as objective about the issue as possible, and patiently answer the questions of any new comers that stop by. Beyond that, it would be best to narrow down the most compelling or thought-provoking evidence or arguments (in the form of sound-bites), and then distributing that to as many platforms as possible, like throwing seeds to the wind. Whenever it lands on fertile soil, it will grow. Like I said, this won’t cause a mass defection from the Holocaust industry, because the majority are interested in safety and conformity. However, it will sow the seeds so that intelligent and critically thinking people (who are usually the biggest movers and shakers politically anyway, and not the masses) will be armed with the truth and can do with it as they see fit, and perhaps they can even start challenging the liberal-internationalist order which the Holocaust depends upon.

We’re planting trees whose shade we may never enjoy, or at least that’s how I see it.

[Hektor]

Holocaust as Parareligion.

It's indeed a challenge to convince the Average Joe that
a) The evidence for the Holocaust is lacking.
b) That given the available evidence it is reasonable to conclude that it is a propaganda hoax.


The big issue is that people are trapped in a cult-like, parareligious belief system without even realizing it. Most folks think that they Holocaust is a part of history like e.g. the First World War, the Berlin Wall or the founding of the United State. All are events, items that are taken more or less neutrally as historical facts. There is good evidence for each. There may be embellishments and emotions around each, but they don't cloud rational thinking too much. With Holocaust it is different. It's seen as unique. It's the planned extermination of European Jews without any fault of their own and for no good reason at all. Hence what's unique is the wickedness of it's perpetrators. It's kind of a stand in replacement for the Jews killing Christ. Who was crucified by the Romans, under instigation by the Jewish leadership, while being innocent and only wanting to do good to the Jews and other people. Nowadays you can 'deny' the resurrection and crucifixion of Christ and people won't blink an eye about it, let alone try to persecute or hound you. Try the same with the alleged homicidal gassings and you stand a good chance to face all kinds of emotional to aggressive responses by people. Not only that, if it gets enough publicity you stand a good chance to be tried and penalized in a larger number of countries. Also, unless it is a specifically religious/Christian organization, denying Christ's crucifixion/resurrection won't be a disadvantage on the job market, no reason for ostracism whatsoever. In fact many Churches may still employ you knowing that you don't belief in that part of their faith (As long as you are doing your job and be a nice guy there.).

With the Holocaust it is different, if you are a known denier, you can count on refusal of employment, especially when it is a responsible position with public profile. The employer doesn't have to be Jewish or of some specific religious creed. It can be Christian, secular, atheistic, Protestant, Catholic, agnostic, pagan or whatever. They will act in a similar manner . Most employers, especially corporate employers, will refuse employment out of horror to think about 'Holocaust Denial' or because they fear repercussions for their organization, if they 'employ a Holocaust Denier'. It demonstrates that this is a quasi-religion a transcended-secular one by that.

Unless you dealing with an overly-emotional, fanatic or mentally ill individual. Discussing the topic is still possible. Just realize that most people assume the truth of the Holocaust a priori (Like dogmas are assumed in trad. religions). And that they based on this will look for arguments or debating points to support their presupposed notion.

Reasonably assume that they hear at school 'about the Holocaust', that they saw movies wherein this was portrayed or treated as a given, that they read in the newspaper about it and that they heard this while talking to other people that "Hitler gassed six million Jews". Most folks realize that what is taught at school, shown in movies and what's part of gossip isn't necessarily true, but usually this doesn't come with 'survivor testimony' or 'pictures, video footage of dead people' neither. The thing is that the Holocaust is accepted and presented by people that are commonly taken seriously like teachers, clergy, professors, reputable journalists, politicians or the like. They can't be all lying, can they?

So expect the following kind of arguments:
* Where did the Jews go, if they weren't all gassed (informal fallacy assuming missing people prove they've been killed)?
* Insinuating that one has to believe in a grand conspiracy to deny the Holocaust.
* Do all witnesses lie (Assuming that there are only witnesses that have 'seen it').
* Conflating deportation and camps with extermination.
* Dead people at the end of the war in camps are proof of extermination policy.
etc.
This usually grips people emotional... So stick to sober facts. Ask them if there was any forensic investigation that proved Jews had been gassed. Show them that trials affirmed that there wasn't (Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial)... That the Holocaust literature can't demonstrate it, just assumes that it is true a priori.
Tell them that no evidence isn't disproving it. But if such evidence is missing for something apparently of high importance to influential people, then there is something fishy.

You won't convince people 100% in one go, but the fact that they are confronted with someone that expresses dissident views and actually got arguments for his position does have some effect on people. It might be worthwhile to select people with a sufficient level of intellect and a grasp of logic. People that understand how human psychology works and that there are manipulative techniques to keep people in line to believe something. Because those folks may debate the issues with friends and they will be able to see that with those, they will experience exactly those manipulative techniques... People will get upset, but that's exactly what must happen as to change their mind again.

And indeed the Holocaust isn't some neutral claim/feature of history. It is a cultural icon, even more then that. It has the character of foundational Myth to post-war countries in the West. It was the idea that fueled the cultural revolution of the 1960s. It is the justification myth for post-modern intellectuals. Without it, there arguments won't work, in fact would sound rather stupid. ... It is part of a bigger Myth that is personified by Adolf Hitler (that's now the mythical figure, not the historical one... which needs to be distinguished) And yes, that's part of a bigger belief system. Hitler is a mixture of evil incarnate and Jesus in this. While good was commanded and done in the name of Jesus in the past. It works inverse with the post-war Hitler Myth. If Hitler was for it, people must be against this, since Hitler is the incarnation of evil. Anything Hitler was against does however score positive points. Hitler was for a Nation State, that's why virtue signaling do gooders must be for multiculturalism now. Hitler was against Jews and Homosexuals that's why people must embrace them nowadays. In fact people get indignant, if you say something against Jews or Gays nowadays. They became sort of Holy Cows for the hipsters of today.

As far as the Holocaust Cult and Faith are concerned, this will indeed only go away once the leadership strata publicly denounce it. At least a larger number of academics will have to do it. And that's not going to happen easily. For many there is too much vested interest in the legend. So they can not openly drop it. They won't do that, if anybody else seems still to believe it.

Sober investigation and rational arguments are good an necessary... But what brings down stuff held in piety, is actually ridiculing and desacrating it. With something like the Holocaust, this can however be a double edged sword. In fact even Hitler jokes do get frowned upon, as jokes can make him look human. The Holocaust protects itself by 'care and respect for the victims'. So there you have some mined territory that needs to be treaded carefully. But thought provoking ridicule is still possible. One may have to twist it a bit though.

Don't "Deny the Holocaust". Challenge 'the deniers'. Ask: "If they Holocaust didn't happen, why are there so many Holocaust Survivors still alive?".
You can also call out Holovangelists. To challenge Church folks, you need to be able to argue their theology skillfully. One needs to demonstrate that a part of their believers and preachers place more emphasis on believing the Holocaust, then believing key teachings of the Christian faith. History professionals and academics are another group that can be targeted. Pointing out that people are persecuted for challenging Holocaust Dogma may be a good start... But there is a copout for them, simply claiming that this isn't their area of expertise. Parents may be another group concerned with their kids being taught rubbish. But for them it's them being laymen, while the teachers will insist they teach what the "experts say".

For people in the political field, the problem is 'the Holocaust' being a subtext in anything they are dealing with. It is an unstated premise, skewing the playing field. Jewish interest groups are of course the once making lots of use of this. It shields them against critique, it helps them to push through pro-Israel policies. Immigration... "We can't stop this, because "Hitler". Sexual deviants may use similar tactics... Although they may have already some clout of their own helping them. Not being tough on crime is something the Nazis won't do, hence it is there, too.

In total one needs to reach organic intellectuals with this. Hence people in your town interested in history and having some influence on others. To approach those, you need to train people. To this, you need something like a think tank. There were Revisionist attempts to create institutes, but the success was rather limited so far.


On the other hand the power of the Holocaust Myth may fall quicker than it looks right now. This would be happening once the academic elites are in a crisis of legitimacy and credibility. A 'voice of reason' may also chip away on this. The American system is definitely moving into a crisis, right now. With the hegemonic culture becoming more insane and perverse, people start to loose faith in it. They also can see who is playing the leading roles in this.

[hermod]

The Denier Label is a "Move along, there's nothing to see here" (in French, "Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir ") trick devised to protect the Holohoax from debate because it is a fragile myth devoid of any solid evidence. Making most people consider the case closed is crucial to the survival of the Holohoax.

[Hektor]

The Denier Label is a "Move along, there's nothing to see here" (in French, "Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir ") trick devised to protect the Holohoax from debate because it is a fragile myth devoid of any solid evidence. Making most people consider the case closed is crucial to the survival of the Holohoax.

It seems to work with people, that are essentially superficial and 'go alongs' (which is a large portion). To me it was always a sign of dishonesty to work with labels and sloganizing. I can still handle people proclaiming different hypothesis or taking a stance on this in terms of whether it is empirically valid or not. But what turned me off with the Holcaust was the omnipresence of dishonesty and actually the effort that is spend to camouflage the deception giving it a pseudo-academic look to make even more educated people believe in it. The cheap shot movie productions are a totally different matter... They have influence of course, but they won't be sufficient, if they were in isolation.

[hermod]

The Denier Label is a "Move along, there's nothing to see here" (in French, "Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir ") trick devised to protect the Holohoax from debate because it is a fragile myth devoid of any solid evidence. Making most people consider the case closed is crucial to the survival of the Holohoax.

It seems to work with people, that are essentially superficial and 'go alongs' (which is a large portion). To me it was always a sign of dishonesty to work with labels and sloganizing. I can still handle people proclaiming different hypothesis or taking a stance on this in terms of whether it is empirically valid or not. But what turned me off with the Holcaust was the omnipresence of dishonesty and actually the effort that is spend to camouflage the deception giving it a pseudo-academic look to make even more educated people believe in it. The cheap shot movie productions are a totally different matter... They have influence of course, but they won't be sufficient, if they were in isolation.

The hardest thing with Holocaust believers is not to counter their arguments. It is to have them formulate real arguments for their blind faith instead of poor excuses for evading debate. They are like slime going through yours fingers. Almost impossible to talk to people who feel contempt for you prior to investigation and discussion.

"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."
— Herbert Spencer

[Hektor]

The Denier Label is a "Move along, there's nothing to see here" (in French, "Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir ") trick devised to protect the Holohoax from debate because it is a fragile myth devoid of any solid evidence. Making most people consider the case closed is crucial to the survival of the Holohoax.

It seems to work with people, ..... isolation.

The hardest thing with Holocaust believers is not to counter their arguments. It is to have them formulate real arguments for their blind faith instead of poor excuses for evading debate. They are like slime going through yours fingers. Almost impossible to talk to people who feel contempt for you prior to investigation and discussion.

"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."
— Herbert Spencer

Indeed, that's why one needs to filter out debate partners prior to spending more time with them. If somebody isn't interested in a sober, rational debate using logic and empirical evidence, than you'll probably waste your time with them. It's only of interest, if you enjoy studying deceptive debate tactics or informal fallacies. I got to admit that this makes me sick and tired pretty quickly.

The thing with debate tactics, deception and informal fallacies is that they can be pretty persuasive to the majority of people. So it's tempting to use those oneself. Unfortunately this will only muddy the waters even more. And well, it's funny how many people that can detect fallacies and trickery, when it's against their preferred thesis, will actually resort to exactly this, when they try to defend or push that preferred thesis. As far as the educated folks go, believing in the Holocaust is willful ignorance. I learned this in debates with people that have advanced degrees in historical disciplines over and over again. They'll claim that "the Holocaust is the best documented genocide in human history". Only to claim a few steps later that "The Nazis destroyed the incriminating evidence"... They'll point to Sykewar footage, when its useful, but evade, when you point to them that Holocaust Historians themselves don't believe that the dead in April 1945 did die from other reasons than an extermination program. They will claim that "the perpetrators confessed to their crimes", but dismiss the vast majority of testimony indicating that potential witnesses did not know about any extermination program. So one could go on.
There is however also plenty of Historians that realize that there is issues with the Holocaust Claims. But they also realize that claiming so publicly would effectively end their careers pretty quickly. If they don't get jailed or assaulted physically, they may get professional trouble. So they take disputing what is obviously false... to be a lost cause. They may raise their concerns in private conversation, but never would make a public statement in terms of this.

In the end you'll have to resort to dealing with people that can take punches personally and financially. But they are rather rare.
Meanwhile the Holocaust is like a drug, like a cult... Separating from it is difficult for those that swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And there are more of those among the group you need to target to change perception as a whole. E.g. you may change the mind on it of a businessmen or engineer pretty quickly... But you will struggle with people whose background is in social 'sciences' or who have a position one gets because one is compliant with present day ideology. The middle field is full of people that are terrified by the thought that their intellectual and political elites are full of people that are either too dumb, too lazy or to careless to realize that the 'Holocaust is a Lie'. So rather go with the flow, don't scratch were there is no sore. Still, being confronted with obviously intelligent and friendly people that "Deny the Holocaust" will have an effect on them. That's why the Holocaust Industry tries to portray deniers as dumb losers that lack empathy. The fact that they invested millions into making movies and writing books with this in mind is quite telling. Why didn't they use those resources to prove their point empirically and rationally? The answer is simple, because they can't. Doing this would force them to present evidences and arguments that can be challenged. And it would show sufficiently that the Fuehrer's new clothes aren't there to admire. Rather do the show with emotional storytelling and lots of innuendo. It works and has no substance that can be demonstrated to be false, at least not easily.

[fireofice]

One other problem is that these people now use the term "holocaust denial" to things they just don't like, even if it has nothing to do with the holocaust or not.

On the one hand, if you de-Judaize the holocaust, that's holocaust denial.

Deborah Lipstadt:

The de-Judaization of the Holocaust, as exemplified by the White House statement, is what I term softcore Holocaust denial.

She even says this form of holocaust denial does "not deny the facts".

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

Very strange form a "denial" that doesn't deny anything.

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

On the other hand, if you deny certain victim groups, like transexuals, were holocausted, that also makes you a holocaust denier.

https://twitter.com/PoesMyaa/status/1604857866342453250

It seems like you are a "holocaust denier" no matter what! Kind of similar to how you're also racist no matter what.

https://odysee.com/@puffinkins:b/Racist ... ter-What:2

If you say that there was a "double genocide" perpetrated by the Soviets as well, that is also holocaust denial.

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

With all these ridiculous definitions of "holocaust denial" it's no wonder people are confused on what real holocaust denial like what we engage in at this forum actually is.

[Iris]

fireofice:

With all these ridiculous definitions of "holocaust denial" it's no wonder people are confused on what real holocaust denial like what we engage in at this forum actually is.

One cannot "deny" something that doesn't exist or that has never been proven to be true.

It is true that the definition of deny includes:

1. To declare untrue; assert to be false.

But the "holocaust" is not a true / false event per se.

Context is everything here.

The definition also includes:

2. To refuse to believe; reject: deny the existence of.

3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

which is the context in which the true believers use the term.

Bottom line is, it is a disingenuous term and when people on our side of the fence use it, they're only helping the jews.

[fireofice]

One cannot "deny" something that doesn't exist or that has never been proven to be true.

This isn't true. You can very much deny things that don't exist or haven't been proven true. In fact, it's the only rational thing to do. I have no problem with the "holocaust denier" label, as long as it is clear what "holocaust" means. The "holocaust" means a planned extermination of Jews with gas chambers. I do indeed deny this. Just as I am also a "flat earth denier". I do indeed deny that the earth is flat just as I deny that the holocaust happened.

[Fred zz]

Deny the Holocaust and you are a denier. Deny 911 events and you are a truther.

[Hektor]

Deny the Holocaust and you are a denier. Deny 911 events and you are a truther.

It's the power of labels and the ability to do labelling that gives power. 'Denier" is quite an obvious exercise how it can be used deceptively. The issue at hand is that one can equivocate terms like denial. What they try to convey is of course is that Holocaust Dissenters dispute Holocaust Claims despite better knowledge (one definition of denial). We know of course that it is a little different. Another definition of denial is simply that someone says that something 'isn't like that'. Denial is also used in psychology and I think that's how they came up with the term.

Denial is the conscious refusal to perceive that painful facts exist. In denying latent feelings of homosexuality or hostility, or mental defects in one's child, an individual can escape intolerable thoughts, feelings, or events.

It actually demonstrates the arrogance of Holocaust Lobbyist, they treat anyone like patients. And the 'Deniers' are just more difficult patients than those that go with the program. It also demonstrates that the Holocaust thing is actually a mayor psy op. IMO this can also be shown from publicly accessible documents involving groups like the American Jewish Congress, Frankfurt School, Psychological Warfare operatives, etc.

The documentary material is there... And that from official sources. Perhaps one should compile and comment it? It's a piece of work that can yield an insightful booklet. Revisionists were aware of this for quite some time, but the subject wasn't at the center of interest, which was demonstrating that the evidence for 'the Holocaust' isn't actually there. So the question was merely historiographic and archaeological. To the general public this is however like quibbling over details. My take is that they would be more concerned, if they realized that they are being manipulated and gaslighted for political gains of interest groups that do not have their best interest in mind.

[borjastick]

It is also a massive psyop and con against the jews themselves by the jews. Any jew born since 1945 has from the moment they are able to be educated been subjected to a lie of enormous proportions such that one can only describe it as a forced mass psychosis on a minority ethnic group. Imagine thinking that the world hates you so much that a plan was thunk up and enacted so that six million of your own people were put to death. Worse still that as a jew you have to believe it and cannot ever disagree let alone check details for yourself.

All so that the state of israel could be formed, a state that you must support morally and financially and also turn a blind eye to the holocaust they are delivering to the Palestinian people who lost their country to accommodate your own type.