Holocaust doubt?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kageki » 9 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:17 am)

I was watching this video of Bradley Smith and I was struck when he used the word "doubt":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7CdHhd8 ... r_embedded

I have never heard the term "doubter" before and it instantly resonated with me. I would be somewhat comfortable with calling myself a "doubter" as opposed to a "denier". Smith goes on to use both terms to describe some people.

How about using the term "Holocaust doubt" instead of "Holocaust denial"? Maybe not a complete replacement, but I think using the term at least sometimes would be helpful to revisionism.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:00 am)

Kageki wrote:I was watching this video of Bradley Smith and I was struck when he used the word "doubt":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7CdHhd8 ... r_embedded

I have never heard the term "doubter" before and it instantly resonated with me. I would be somewhat comfortable with calling myself a "doubter" as opposed to a "denier". Smith goes on to use both terms to describe some people.

How about using the term "Holocaust doubt" instead of "Holocaust denial"? Maybe not a complete replacement, but I think using the term at least sometimes would be helpful to revisionism.


Exactly wrong. Do you 'doubt' that the moon is made of green cheese?

The problem with the word 'denier' is not that it is too strong, it is that it is not strong enough. It is not enough to say that the holohoax did not happen, that is obvious to anyone who studies it for a bit, the whole thing is preposterous, and you only need to look at the hoax gas chambers at Auschwitz or Majdanek, or to read the writings of the most prominent 'eyewitnesses' to know it.

If someone believes the moon is made of green cheese, the real and interesting question is why do they believe such an absurdity. In the case of the holohoax that question is too often ignored, and the reason is a sytematic well organized program of propaganda that includes false 'eyewitness' testimony, torture of defendants, perjured trial testimony, hoax trials, Zionist control of government agencies (e.g. the WRB), a controlled press, and endless repetition of the lies in all the media. So, it is not enough to 'deny' the obvious lies, it is also necessary to identify the organizations and persons that have perpetrated the hoax.

So, I'm looking for a stronger word than 'denier', maybe 'accuser' but it isn't catchy. I accuse the Zionists of creating the hoax. There is some literature revealing their machinations, primarily 'Hoax of the Twentieth Century' by Butz and some writings by Weber. Most revisionists ignore the creation and maintenance of the hoax, and spend their time proving that the moon is NOT made of green cheese.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby PotPie » 9 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:42 pm)

The term "holocaust denier" comes from the Jewish anti-holocaust revisionist lobby. Its a heavily loaded term backed with no small amount of politics and personal anger. As such, there is no such thing as a "doubter." In their bipolar world you either believe as the enlightened masses do, or you're a "denier" and associated with all things evil that these lobbiers associate revisionsim with, ie Nazis, Islamofascism, etc.
Last edited by PotPie on Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kageki » 9 years 8 months ago (Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:48 pm)

SevenUp wrote:
Exactly wrong. Do you 'doubt' that the moon is made of green cheese?

The problem with the word 'denier' is not that it is too strong, it is that it is not strong enough. It is not enough to say that the holohoax did not happen, that is obvious to anyone who studies it for a bit, the whole thing is preposterous, and you only need to look at the hoax gas chambers at Auschwitz or Majdanek, or to read the writings of the most prominent 'eyewitnesses' to know it.

If someone believes the moon is made of green cheese, the real and interesting question is why do they believe such an absurdity. In the case of the holohoax that question is too often ignored, and the reason is a sytematic well organized program of propaganda that includes false 'eyewitness' testimony, torture of defendants, perjured trial testimony, hoax trials, Zionist control of government agencies (e.g. the WRB), a controlled press, and endless repetition of the lies in all the media. So, it is not enough to 'deny' the obvious lies, it is also necessary to identify the organizations and persons that have perpetrated the hoax.

So, I'm looking for a stronger word than 'denier', maybe 'accuser' but it isn't catchy. I accuse the Zionists of creating the hoax. There is some literature revealing their machinations, primarily 'Hoax of the Twentieth Century' by Butz and some writings by Weber. Most revisionists ignore the creation and maintenance of the hoax, and spend their time proving that the moon is NOT made of green cheese.


You can't be serious with that example. There is something called "reasonable doubt". I would also like to point out here again that even Bradley Smith used the term "doubter" in this video. Maybe he can comment on his use of the term "doubter" and "denier" then.

Part of my reason for this term is when some people think "deny" they think that you are also denying everything including just general persecutions, ghettos, deportations and just about anything. This comes up time after time when you engage in a discussion.

I understand what you are saying though. That is also to say that I truly understand your position, but you also need to understand that not everyone does. Using the term "doubt" I think would have a bigger reach because it takes a bit just to get past and understand what "deny" really means in this case. An analogy is like how one can write a difficult, lengthy book, but not a whole lot of people would actually read it. A movie on the other hand everyone watches and has a far broader reach then a 400 page book in fine print. "Doubt" would be the movie. I disagree that even a stronger term is helpful in the sense of achieving a bigger audience. That's exactly what I find the problem is with revisionism. If you understand that there is propaganda and you are interested in breaking through it then what I feel is better is to go "softer" and not stronger.

I firmly believe that your angle of the incessant use of the the term "Zionist" only turns people away from revisionism. People won't even listen to you and that's not what you want is it? If people don't even listen then we can't even have a dialogue.

As I said, I personally understand where you are coming from, but I think it is better to tone it down because I don't think it helps the cause. It's a vast topic and not everyone is going to agree with everything about it, but you can certainly agree that what is important is to just get people to listen right? That I still believe that in order to achieve that is to go "softer" and use a term like "doubter" instead of "denier".

The only way to tell off course is to judge the results of whether going "stronger" is better then "softer". Heck a whole lot of people don't even know what a Zionist is.

mincuo
Member
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:30 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby mincuo » 9 years 8 months ago (Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:34 am)

I agree with Kageki. To me is even too much strong "doubter" and I prefer something like "asker". Holocaust is in the soul of the people, it is part of their values, sentiments, emotions. All those sentiments aren't because they read good books, nor because they use logic, just the opposite. Revisionists need to build a bridge not to shock the people. What they got in this way? Not too much. They shouldn't even speak about Revisionism, IMHO, with a guy for the first times. The official history contains thousands facts unknown to the normal people. It is important they know at least those facts and it doesn''t matter whether are true or false, what is important is thiose facts were hidden to him. Why? That is the first very powerful argument, IMHO. Why don't you know the delousing chambers? Why don't you know Zyklon isn't a homicidial "gas" coming from showers? Why don't you know the hospitals, brothel, library, shop, the money camp? Why don't you know the family camp in BIIb? Let me show, here the pictures. Why they hidden to you? If the crime was so proved what matters the theatre or the swimming pool, the crime is not diminished by a theatre. So what? Why they hidden to you?
This is the kind of approach, IMHO, because you are moving on THEIR responsability, you are denying nothing, they cheated him, not you. You are buying confidence, they are less reliable than he thought, less trasparent, they had to hide something. Why? Then, with calm you will introduce some doubts. And since the official history, you know, is already full of contradictions, you don't yet need Revisionist shocking arguments, only a bit of logic is just enough. Make questions to him, simple questions, let he answer to you, don't laugh or mock if the answers are silly, be calm, be respectful and then patiently reply, but not complicately. He has to begin to ratiocinate, and stop believing. It is not a easy task for him, not easy, because he "want believe" desperately he want believe. They are his values, you have to understand, it's a delicate moment to win. So if you are rude you offer him the unconscious escuse "you are evil, all is clear now, I can continue to believe". (sorry for my bad English)
Beati monoculi in terra caecorum

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

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 8 months ago (Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:37 am)

PotPie wrote:The term "holocaust denier" comes from the Jewish anti-holocaust revisionist lobby. Its a heavily loaded term backed with no small amount of politics and personal anger. As such, there is no such thing as a "doubter." In their bipolar world you either believe as the enlightened masses do, or you're a "denier" and associated with all things evil that these lobbiers associate revisionsim with, ie Nazis, Islamofascism, etc.

PotPie hits the nail on the head. By accepting the opponent's terminology, along with its accompanying assumptions, you are making his job easier and your own harder. It's the black or white of "denier". You either believe or "deny" and there is no room in between for doubt. If there is no room in between for doubt how can anyone ever cross? I was a doubter for years. It began in the nineties, when I heard the Holocaust being used to whip up sympathy for Israel. I moved a step further when Finkelstein published The Holocaust Industry. Although I didn't question the Holocaust myself I found the assertions of Lipstadt, Evans et al. that to debate with deniers was to give them undeserved legitimacy and that simple minds could be led astray by them to be, shall we say, lacking in scholarly integrity. I also got fed up of being served it on a daily basis on TV. (That has subsided somewhat in recent years.)

By the time I decided to find out what the deniers had to say, around the time Irving was jailed, I proceeded with caution, using anonymisers. I was quite surprised to find that what they in fact said (in the VHO pamphlet) was quite different from what I had been led to think. My mind was open: I neither accepted nor rejected. It was only after a considerable amount of study, beginning with a short work by Graf and with Rudolf's Lectures, that I began to see that there was a serious intellectual basis.

Eventually, about a year ago, after viewing both of Denierbud's movies I came over. Especially the Buchenwald one, as that explained convincingly how the propaganda myth took off.

Doubter, sceptic, questioner... These are all terms that have their place. I'm still a sceptic, as that's my fundamental philosophical position. I don't believe; I weigh evidence and form a judgement. I hold that judgement provisionally, on the understanding that if I am presented with convincing evidence to the contrary, I will examine it objectively. I get extremely annoyed with commenters on site's like Randi's and Sherman's who call themselves sceptics but scream abuse and prejudice when the Big H comes up.

(Post-edited, but only for typos)

Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kageki » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:58 am)

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments Kingfisher. I don't personally like putting a stake in things because I realize you should change your beliefs accordingly.

I could see how even "doubter" would be too strong and "questioner" might be better. In native english, "skeptic" would be appropriate. It's actually interesting because there was at one time a "denial" thread on Shermer's skeptic forums about open pit cremations at Auschwitz due to the water table. When you logically think about it, "skeptic" actually fits for the Holocaust because the Holocaust really is a conspiracy. To say "I'm skeptical about the Holocaust" would probably gain a lot more audience then to hear "deny".

I have been having a "discussion" over at JREF and believers strongly objected when I stated that a lot of people don't even know that Auschwitz was a labor camp or that Zyklon B was a pesticide. These were some basic facts that I was never told about that made me start to think. Most people just accept "history" the way they are told so it's a huge shock to think that perhaps they are lies. It's been kind of my personality to question everything, but I realize that most people aren't like that. That's why I feel that the "strong" term like "denial" isn't helpful. Anyways it's just my opinion, but don't delude yourself into thinking that shouting "Zionist" in people's face is going to get them to listen.

*Kingfisher, you have my official apology, but if you like your avatar then that is off course your choice.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:06 am)

Michael Hoffman on 'holocaust denial'..... this is pretty amusing ... I won't call Hoffman a holocaust denier because he says that no respectable holocaust denier (oops) uses the term .... and like most revisionists he doesn't crack a smile .... even when dealing with the gross absurdities of the holohoax .... anyhow.... you'll probably enjoy, as I did ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4XreA-oC4

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

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:00 pm)

Thank you, Sevenup.

I particularly liked "No serious historian advocates Holocaust denial." This is known as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

A: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
B: But Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
A: Well no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm
Last edited by Kingfisher on Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:03 pm)

Kageki wrote:*Kingfisher, you have my official apology, but if you like your avatar then that is off course your choice.

Actually I've grown to like him. Moles dig deep. Just like Revisionists. :)

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

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:17 pm)

Kageki wrote:... believers strongly objected when I stated that a lot of people don't even know that Auschwitz was a labor camp or that Zyklon B was a pesticide.

I thought everybody knew the gas came out of the shower heads.

Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kageki » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:07 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:
Kageki wrote:... believers strongly objected when I stated that a lot of people don't even know that Auschwitz was a labor camp or that Zyklon B was a pesticide.

I thought everybody knew the gas came out of the shower heads.


My point was that people don't know that Zyklon B was a pesticide and was ALSO used for that purpose in killing lice to combat typhus. That 95% of the gas was used for delousing.

I'm actually confused about the disguised shower gas chambers because I thought they also dropped cans through holes in the roof. Is it supposed to be both?

Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kageki » 9 years 8 months ago (Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:24 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:Thank you, Sevenup.

I particularly liked "No serious historian advocates Holocaust denial." This is known as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

A: No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
B: But Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
A: Well no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/notruescotsman.htm


This is exactly what believers do when you try to engage in a discussion with them. Never heard of this so thanks.

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

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby Kingfisher » 9 years 8 months ago (Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:28 am)

Kageki wrote:
Kingfisher wrote:
Kageki wrote:... believers strongly objected when I stated that a lot of people don't even know that Auschwitz was a labor camp or that Zyklon B was a pesticide.

I thought everybody knew the gas came out of the shower heads.


My point was that people don't know that Zyklon B was a pesticide and was ALSO used for that purpose in killing lice to combat typhus. That 95% of the gas was used for delousing.

I'm actually confused about the disguised shower gas chambers because I thought they also dropped cans through holes in the roof. Is it supposed to be both?

I'm sorry, Kageki. I should have put a winking smilie. :)

I believe most of the world at large still has this image of gas coming out of the shower heads, which I think must have been promoted in the post-war years. Very few people who have not actually taken the trouble to find out know it was an insecticide. And of course the Industry are in no rush to enlighten them on this, in case they start asking too many questions.

But no true believer says it came out of the shower heads. It's just a popular image that they don't try very hard to discourage.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Holocaust doubt?

Postby The Warden » 9 years 8 months ago (Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:53 pm)

What do I care what I'm labeled for questioning alleged "facts"?
No label is credible until the information is either solidified or refuted 100%.
Labels are a simple dodging technique used by people who perpetuate lies.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests