What is the best answer to - "Do you deny the holocaust"?

[Zulu]

So again, what is it that we want?
Answer: CONTROL

See how Bradley Smith and David Cole are on control on that DonahueTV Show circus(1994).

[Kingfisher]

The key is to be prepared ahead of time to offer a quick, clear and concise answer and then go on the attack, making your opponent go on the defensive.
...
Go on the offense and put your opponent on the defense.

The key word here is "opponent". If you are dealing with one of the opposition, whose mind is permanently closed, in a public forum, then you are probably right. If you are talking privately to an open-minded person who might be persuaded, then a softer, less aggressive line is called for.

[twila]

Kingfisher:

The key word here is "opponent". If you are dealing with one of the opposition, whose mind is permanently closed, in a public forum, then you are probably right. If you are talking privately to an open-minded person who might be persuaded, then a softer, less aggressive line is called for.

Yes, of course I agree with that.

The situation will dictate how you respond.

I should note that I started this thread with the intention of getting answers that would have been appropriate in a situation like Mark Weber's found himself in.

But even with that said, I find it very important to throw the question right back at the questioner no matter who it is or what the situation is.

The bottom line is, it is a disingenuous question, a trick question, a trap.

So you must be prepared to answer it in an unconventional manner that doesn't paint you in a corner or put you on the defensive.


Kingfisher:

Re the Weber interview, yes he did poorly, but I wonder what monitors he had and how much he could see of what was going on, which affects precisely this issue of control. At one point he did not realise which of his opponents was speaking, and when the ovens were shown he did not appear to know what was on the screen going out to the public. Perhaps he only had static talking-head shots of his opponents, or worst of all, sound only. he was definitely il at ease.

Again I agree. And I really can't judge because I have never been in that situation. It's easy for us to dissect this in hindsight.

That's why it's important to evaluate it and learn from it and why I started this thread.

Kingfisher:

Sorry. Accidental post in wrong thread. Pls delete.

That's OK, it's still relevent to this thread.

[twila]

Zulu:

See how Bradley Smith and David Cole are on control on that Donahue TV Show circus(1994).

Shill Donahue:

Well, it does seem incredible that anybody should ask the question, but they are - Did the holocaust really happen?

A - No, that is NOT the question. The question is:

Did the holocaust really happen the way the jews claim it did?


It is important that YOU take control and frame the question correctly before you provide an answer.

Bottom line: Do not answer a question that is disingenuous or not framed correctly.

[Dresden]

twila said:

"Well, what we do NOT want is to give our opponent the opportunity to successfully use an obviously disingenuous question that is designed to put us on our heels and take control of the debate from the get-go"

I disagree, twila. When someone asks me if I'm a Holocaust denier, I usually say "Yes"; and their next question is usually: "What about the piles of bodies?", or "What about all the eyewitnesses?", or "What about all the confessions?"; and then I answer their questions as best I can and direct them to books, articles, or websites such as:

http://www.codoh.com/
http://www.vho.org/
http://www.nazigassings.com/

"So "yes" is a good answer IF you're ready, willing and able to follow it up correctly.

If not, then you better have another answer that works for you"

That's right, twila. If you're not able to follow it up correctly, then your best bet, when asked if you are a Holocaust denier, is to say something like: "I'm researching the Holocaust right now, and it seems to be a Hoax to me, but if you want more information, I suggest you go to http://www.vho.org/ where they have books that you can read online for free. Read "Dissecting the Holocaust", and a lot of your questions will be answered".

But as soon as we can, we should inform ourselves enough to answer the most common questions, such as the ones above, so that our Truthseeking doesn't turn into a "hobby".

[twila]

Q: Do you deny the holocaust?

A: I accept the death toll figures claimed by the International Red Cross for the camps as being reasonably plausible. Do you deny that the IRC had access to the camps?

[mincuo]

I don't know what is the best answer, so what I often say could be off-topic.
When I am asked for "do you deny the Holocaust?" I answer, "I look precisely to establish the undeniable facts of the Holocaust, do you agree with this method?" Or do you think it is not a right method? What is your method about history?

[mincuo]

The key is to be prepared ahead of time to offer a quick, clear and concise answer and then go on the attack, making your opponent go on the defensive.
...
Go on the offense and put your opponent on the defense.

The key word here is "opponent". If you are dealing with one of the opposition, whose mind is permanently closed, in a public forum, then you are probably right. If you are talking privately to an open-minded person who might be persuaded, then a softer, less aggressive line is called for.

There are three immediate keys in my opinion
1) Try to reduce and than possibly eliminate as far as possible the emotional and unconscious , which is the main feature by which the holocaust is taught and absorbed .
2) Try to have the same level of conversation . A higher level and a lower one never lead to anything, and is often pejorative.
3) Avoid by all means to cause cognitive dissonance immediately . If you cause dissonance, then it's over . The rest is just wasted time.

So my previous post (my answer to the question "do you deny?" which is emotive is to rationalize) It is related to 1) 2) 3). The next step, for me, is not the Revisionist literature. But the Official history. People generally doesn't know anything real, only tales and emotions. The aim is that HE has to wonder why he has been hidden so much of the official history (..delusing chambers, the theatre, the sauna, the money.... and so on). I use photos. People's mind now is different from some year ago. The photos are useful, today people learn more visually than logically. This step raises the threshold of his cognitive dissonance and reinforces the level of the horizontal dialogue, not higher against lower. You begin to be accepted rationally by him, although the subject is very emotional.
.
Well sorry for my English, and for the simplification. IMHO these are just basic things if one wants actually lead someone to revisionism . Otherwise one will have very few results, I suspect, apart to be sure he is smarter and obtusely misunderstood.
.

[truth]

The problem is that a lot of verbal abuse is thrown around and that makes it so difficult to discuss the issue. In order to ask the right questions one needs a fear free environment to learn, question and share findings.

If somebody asks me, if I believe in the holocaust?, I would urge to define belief first (I do not consider war and holocaust to be part of my spiritual life). Then I would try to explain calmly that I am interested in the topic but not prepared to give an answer in an environment of inquisition as I suspect to be verbally abused.

We are having here a fight between logic and belief. The scientists and historians sure get different results about the history of the holocausts than those who believe in the Jewish prophecies (they need 2 Holocausts, 1 Armageddon more and then their Messiah comes after which we all get enslaved and used and thrown away like garbage). Imagine you take this Holocaust away from them. They so need it so urgently want for each their "chosen people" goal (they sure stay focused). If the Holocaust would be dismissed as lie, they would have to start all over again to create the 6 Million killed people in number. What a drag? Somehow, I tend to feel that I just want to give this number (6 million) to them just to make sure humanity does not need to suffer so much any longer from this planned nonsense - just to make peace - but then they would start all over because there needs to be as second one. It takes a lot of effort to create the prophecies and make it all believable. However, It will be such ad drag for humanity to continue forever to live such a dogmatic lie. It also does not bring you closer to your spiritual goal at all. Somehow, the Jewish religion has become a huge burden to humanity, as with the suffering they carefully plan to give to all of us, they can finally be the chosen ones. NO, the Holocaust is not a believe - it seems to be a dangerous religious dogmatic cult, which needs to be dismissed so humanity can be free and grow again spiritually. It is wise to not believe in dogmas no more as they are harmful as we have seen.

So the question, do you belief in the Holocaust? is not a scientific question but a religious one and that makes it so confusing to give a clear answer? It is best to be silent but in a way which shows that history is a "planned illusion at times." Perhaps, I would say that I don't believe in religious dogmas but in compassion for all people.

------
QUOTE, "All precious people killed as collateral damage are my friends and relatives. I love them the most, simply because they do not have a Holocaust Museum, are considered garbage. The good thing is at least their suffering is not up for sale. History sure seems to create the greatest of all illusions and for that illusion, wonderful people are forced to die - what a waste! Hence, do not believe anything easily. (~The Wild Mind)

[Lamprecht]

The right answer to the question "Do you deny the holocaust?" is "YES!!!"

That answer certainly does not explain much so further questions will inevitably follow. It is there and then that one can respond with simple followup answers like: "No one was ever killed in gas chambers by the Nazis" and "the total numbers of Jews who died during the war was minuscule compared to what is alleged" and so on. The "YES" answer does NOT imply that you totally reject every claim made in connection with the "holocaust." Many Jews were deported, some died, some were shot, some were treated badly. So, what? Isn't that rather normal in wartime?

If one tries to quibble by answering the first question with "Yes and NO" or with any of the other wimpy answers posted above, one is in effect digging a hole for oneself from which can only come up out slowly and with great difficulty, if ever. Prepare yourselves with quick, sharp and strong confident answers. The answers should be simple and easily comprehensible. Bradley Smith used to give such long-winded answers that he inevitably lost his audience.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

You can't argue with semantics like that. I know from personal experience that people will make assumptions before they ask questions, and if you tell them that you deny the Holocaust without specifying what specifically that means, they can easily turn the conversation into an onslaught of stupid questions like "How can you deny that there were camps!" or "what about the bodies!"
It all depends on who you're debating with though; if you're talking to people who know about the Holocaust and revisionism then "Yes" is the best answer, I agree. But the average Joe has no idea and saying "Yes, I deny the Holocaust" will make him think you're a neo-Nazi and he will likely be intolerant and ignore you.

[twila]

Lamprecht:

It all depends on who you're debating with though; if you're talking to people who know about the Holocaust and revisionism then "Yes" is the best answer, I agree. But the average Joe has no idea and saying "Yes, I deny the Holocaust" will make him think you're a neo-Nazi and he will likely be intolerant and ignore you.

Exactly, but to expand on that further, It all depends on who you're debating with AND the situation in which you are dealing with them.

There are two key points that you want to keep in mind when replying to the question.

#1 - Keep it simple.

#2 - Get control of the situation - IMEDIATELY

Nothing is more simple and nothing gets you in control of the situation faster than by reframing the question and immediately throwing it back at them.

Most people will be deaf to anything you say once you say "yes."

You may think and actually have a very good answer - very knowledgeable and well thought out, but that doesn't mean the person you're debating is going to listen or even hear what you have to say.

Everyone should have one standard well thought out answer to this question that they can use in every situation so they do not get caught flat footed. Then, if the situation allows, you can expound further. Have the same answer to start out with that gets you into imediate control with every single person regardless of who they are or what the situation is.

Again, the motivation for this thread was Weber's pathetic performance on Hannity and Colmes.

What kind of answer would you have given if you were him in that kind of a hostile situation?

[Haldan]

I think one other good answer to the question - "Do you deny the holocaust?" is: "No, I don't deny the Holocaust, I just don't believe in the Holocaust". It's simple and to the point and invites follow-up questions from the questioner.
It's also the basis in a video titled "Don't Deny the Holycost, just don't Believe Holocaust", see:
http://www.tubewatcher.tv/19195



Regards,
-haldan

[Kingfisher]

Excellent, Haldan. Expose the false dichotomy.

[twila]

Haldan:

I think one other good answer to the question - "Do you deny the holocaust?" is: "No, I don't deny the Holocaust, I just don't believe in the Holocaust".

The problem with answering "no" to the question is you have fallen in the trap.

It is a trick questison, much like - "Are you still beating your wife?"

It's along the same lines, but I think a better answer is:

Q: Are you a holocaust denier? / Do you deny the holocaust?

A: I do not deny the truthful version, but I reject the debunked, fraudulent version. Do you deny that the fraudulent version has been debunked?

So why is this a superior answer?

You haven't avoided the question, you've answered it. And with a real answer, not just a reply. You've thrown it back at them with your own question (and thus have taken control), but you didn't just answer a question with a question. (Which can be interpreted as avoiding the question, thus being seen as defensive and weak.)

You've also clearly established that you are not "denying" something that they think is undeniable. You've reframed the issue to not just one version of the holocaust (the fraudulent one), but two versions - the truth, and the debunked fruadulent one.

They are now on the edge of the trap and if they answer no, they have inadvertantly steped over to your side. If they answer yes, they have put themselves in a position where you can destroy them with facts that the fraudulent version has in fact been debunked.

You will have put yourself in an offensive position, ready to get as aggressive as need be (as the situation / person involved dictates) and put your opponent in a defensive position where you can then control the debate.

It's also very short and to the point (thus easily remembered - even in a strssful situation), is not overy aggressive and can be used in any situation against any opponent.

[Cloud]

Once your revisionist views become known, you'll be referred to as "Holocaust denier," anyway. This tactic is similar to how the Left uses the terms "racist," "Islamophobe," and "homophobe" and how jews use the term "anti-Semite" to brand their opponents. The strength of your arguments and the truth of your claims matters not, for you are now a racist/Islamophobe/anti-Semitie/etc. and can be effectively dismissed. And nobody wants to be associated with a racist/Islamophobe/anti-Semitie/Holocaust denier, right?