Convincing others

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Asteri0n
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Convincing others

Postby Asteri0n » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:39 am)

prussian_blue wrote:So I'm asking you to help me convince him because he keeps insisting that I'm being lied to by "neo-nazi trolls on the internet". I'm asking about different articles, documents, actual proof that no jews were systematically killed. It would especially help if it comes from actual historians, real people and no "evil nazi links" ...


Well ok, if he doesn't want "evil nazi links" he should maybe read Jewish sources. I would start with this page:

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.de/2012/02/145-references-to-6000000-jews-prior-to.html?zx=d895f36ccd21778a

It lists 271 newspaper articles talking about "6 million dying Jews in Europe" prior to the announcement of the Nuremberg trials in 1945. Most of them predate World War II and even Hitlers accession to power. The list is from 2012. Now in 2016 there have been found even more sources. On the same blog you can also find jpg-scans of most of the newspaper articles. These aren't evil nazi sources, but this is western media. New York Times and others.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: Convincing others

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:01 am)

His argument seems to be that something so great involving so many people simply could not be fake.

I don't recall this forum looking at this angle much, but it's a huge reason people believe the lie. But if it was so great and involved so many people, why did it never make the front page of the New York Times top half, until psyche Warfare got involved at Buchenwald?

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Convincing others

Postby Kingfisher » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:30 am)

Inquisitor wrote:
prussian_blue wrote:His argument seems to be that something so great involving so many people simply could not be fake.

----------

I would turn that one on its head. Something so great involving so many people could not fail to leave a clear evidential trail.

The argument works in practice though. I used to think that since something so massive could not be hidden they couldn't possibly be asserting it without the evidence as it would then be obviously untrue. What I hadn't accounted for of course was that if you succeed in suppressing all discussion no one (almost) realises that the evidence is not there.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Convincing others

Postby borjastick » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:35 am)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:
His argument seems to be that something so great involving so many people simply could not be fake.

I don't recall this forum looking at this angle much, but it's a huge reason people believe the lie. But if it was so great and involved so many people, why did it never make the front page of the New York Times top half, until psyche Warfare got involved at Buchenwald?


I think he's using the old argument often repeated about the 'fake moon landings'. That is to say that people who are convinced the moon landings were real, in response to those who suggest it was faked in a film studio somewhere in the desert, say that this is impossible because hundreds and hundreds of people were involved in the space programme and they couldn't all have been in on it.

But the holocaust isn't a conspiracy in that way. The claims were fabricated and made after the event, have never been substantiated, no bodies or mass graves exist, nor do the means to kill the claimed millions and the method to dispose of so many bodies wasn't capable of doing so.

Then add in a dark period of legal procedure at Nuremberg and a very gullible public pre-internet where information was spoon fed to them and you have a situation where the stories become the fact.

Now we have much more freedom and the ability to access enormous amounts of data and info immediately and the story falls apart.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Convincing others

Postby hermod » 3 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:03 am)

prussian_blue wrote:His argument seems to be that something so great involving so many people simply could not be fake.


The thing so great & involving so many people is Shoah 2.0. The victorious Allies didn't come at Nuremberg with their Nazi conspiracy to exterminate the Jews (as the accusers themselves used to put it at that time) and all kinds of Hogan's-Heroes-style Nazi tricks intended to preserve the secrecy of their alleged mass slaughter (alleged genocidal code words and euphemisms in documents, obliteration units tasked with making the alleged Nazi graves disappear without leaving a trace, gas chambers disguised as shower rooms to fool the doomed Jews, etc.) because the 'Holocaust' was known to all as claimed in today's narrative.

This is the reason why Churchill could state before the House of Commons on August 1, 1946: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.

And that also dawned on Goering (and other Nazi leaders) gradually after the struggle was over. The only way Goering could reconcile what he had seen and heard at Hitler's side during the war and what was alleged by the victors and their star 'witnesses' at Nuremberg after the war, was by deducing that Himmler had done it behind his back and behind Hitler's back. Quite laughable but understandable.

The most logical conclusion is most often the correct one. If almost everybody - Roosevelt, Churchill, the International Red Cross, the Vatican, some non-Zionist Jewish leaders, etc. - behaved during WW2 as if no genocide was taking place (as claimed in Shoah 2.0), that's simply because no genocide was taking place, not because almost everybody was a bastard not caring at all about Europe's Jews or being even happy that the latter were being mass slaughtered in Nazi death factories (as claimed in Shoah 2.0). A few impressive wartime statements by some Allied leaders such as Churchill and FDR against their enemies of the day did not cost anything. That was just consistent with the essence of atrocity propaganda (i.e. them=evil, us=good), especially in times of war. But what they did and didn't do at that time is much more telling about what those high-ranking insiders knew to be true and false. Actions [and inactions] speak louder than words...
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Convincing others

Postby Hektor » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:51 am)

diaz52 wrote:
hermod wrote:
prussian_blue wrote: he keeps insisting that I'm being lied to by "neo-nazi trolls on the internet".


There is much pride, if not vainness, in the fanatical faith of Holocaust believers. Most people dislike the idea that they have been wrong for decades and they'll go to great lengths to avoid admitting they were wrong and hurting their self-esteem.


This is exactly right, from what I've found. There's a saying that its much easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they've been fooled. They just don't want to believe it, at least initially. All kinds of psychological defense mechanisms kick in to prevent them from accepting that they've been fooled.


Indeed psychological defense mechanisms. And lot's of logical fallacies are employed to stick to the party line. I just wonder about the "neo-nazi-internet-troll" excuse. Does he even know who those people are? I think not. So he doesn't know the motivation, skills, knowledge of those "users" anyway. However I think the strongest mechanism is rather sociological. Everyone else seems to believe it, so it's safe and convenient to believe it as well. Kind of the emperor-new-cloths-effect there, too, since only the "intelligent", "educated" people were able to see the new cloths. And one doesn't want to be one of the dumb guys, that just sees nakedness. What makes it more difficult is that it's not visually directly, but a vast set of information and data, which makes the whole thing more complex requiring a far bigger cognitive investment in the whole affair.

That's why it's useless to deal with 90% of the people who do not have the intellectual capacity dealing with the matter. One needs to address the educated elite. And they are hard nuts to crack, due to high-mindedness, arrogance, ability to make up counterarguments, precision-fallacies and of course they got far more to lose, when coming out of the closet.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Convincing others

Postby hermod » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:11 am)

Hektor wrote:Indeed psychological defense mechanisms.


True. A defense against 2 kinds of unpleasant feelings:

1) As said above, most people don't like conceding they were wrong.
2) Most people don't like thinking that their own government, academia and media lied to them. Probably a psychological defense mechanism intended to avoid becoming paranoid. The border between skepticism and paranoia is sometimes thin, and many people cancel the threat of becoming paranoid by just fleeing any kind of skepticism as feverishly as if it was a radioactive or epidemic area.


And lot's of logical fallacies are employed to stick to the party line. I just wonder about the "neo-nazi-internet-troll" excuse. Does he even know who those people are? I think not. So he doesn't know the motivation, skills, knowledge of those "users" anyway. However I think the strongest mechanism is rather sociological. Everyone else seems to believe it, so it's safe and convenient to believe it as well. Kind of the emperor-new-cloths-effect there, too, since only the "intelligent", "educated" people were able to see the new cloths. And one doesn't want to be one of the dumb guys, that just sees nakedness. What makes it more difficult is that it's not visually directly, but a vast set of information and data, which makes the whole thing more complex requiring a far bigger cognitive investment in the whole affair.


Lemmings hate loneliness. And as the surest way to avoid loneliness is to display the proper recognition signals of your group (the integration and regurgitation of the orthodox WW2 narrative is undeniably one of the most crucial recognition signals in today's Western societies), most people just opt for that path, the path of safety.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Free Speech
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Convincing others

Postby Free Speech » 3 years 8 months ago (Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:11 am)

Forensics of the alleged murder weapon and logistics of cremating.

I must have written this a hundred times:

It's not practical to exterminate thousands with louse disinfestant (Zyklon B, Hydrogen Cyanide), dumping it through holes in the ceiling (what holes?). Nazis would have used a blower/opening apparatus like that in the delousing chambers. Nazis would not have used Diesel exhaust (inert amounts of carbon monoxide, they use Diesels in underground mines), they would have used producer gas or an untuned car engine.

Another aspect is cremating thousands/day: there's no evidence (aerial photos, requisition supplies) showing enough coke to cremate thousands/day, the crematoria could not do it (it takes an hour/body), not practical to burn bodies in pits, especially when there is groundwater near the surface, such as at Auschwitz.

There's good videos about the logistics of cramming thousands into the alleged gas chambers, you'd have to really pack 'em in.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests