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

[twila]

Cloud:

Once your revisionist views become known, you'll be referred to as "Holocaust denier," anyway... Right?

Wrong.

Now stay on the topic of this thread.

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

[mincuo]

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?

The question "do you deny the Holocaust" poses him on an undue superior dialectic position. You are the accused, he is the judge. You should not grant this right, he is not entitled. It is wrong to deny an answer or to be rude.
But if you simply answer, you de facto are conceding his superior moral position. That is the reason why I answer clearly and then I ask a question to him. (In the previous post it was the method. It's my field. You can translate in this way "do you deny that to look precisely to the facts is a good method?" It's a rethoric question, he is forced to agree on the method, and it's my field (rationale is my field, his field is emotional).
That was one of my possible answers, only an example, but the scheme is ALWAYS to regain horizontality and to switch slowly to rationale and a common language, but my preferred language, rationale, not his usual language, emotional. Who spoke of "control" "opponent" "enemy" "shocking" doesn't know very much. He will probably continue to speak just another language. He will speak of blue stains, cyanide, the measures of the ovens, maps, numbers,..., in front of a man who understand only a child snatched from his mother's breast and killed horribly. That's ridicolous.
I'm not named AntiSemite or NeoNazi. It is no accident
I saw the other posts here. I doubt that anyone here made so many converts to Revisionism. I don't doubt instead that they were abandoned even by previous friends. It is no accident.
Anyway, as i said, the Revisionist made a very splendid historical research, they have convincing reasons on their side, but made very few results, compared to their works, even considering the opposite power. Fundamentally they are about all a bit presumptous and a bit ignorant about some basic issues, IMHO.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

An even better answer than simply "YES" as I suggested earlier is to say "YES, because...no one was kiilled in gas chambers, ...or because there were no autopsies to show that even one person was killed in a Nazi gas chamber,... or because there were still more than one million Jewish holocaust survivors alive in 2003... or whatever." Take your pick!

In other words, say "YES" but follow up immediately with at least some of your reasons. If you try to avoid the question by asking another question or changing the subject, you really look weak and stupid just like Mark Weber.

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

[Dresden]

Haldan said:

"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"

That's the best answer so far, Haldan; it's better than mine and Fritz Berg's "Yes".
I remember watching that video, but I never tried that in my "evangelizing". I'm gonna start using that beginning today.

twila said:

"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?"

I disagree, twila. Haldan's answer is equivalent to saying "No, I've never been married"

[twila]

SteveF:

"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.

What kind of follow-up questions do you think Hannity and Colmes would have asked Mark Weber if he had given that answer?

They would have just gone on attacking him with questions like - "What? Are you telling me you don't believe that there were camps? Are you telling me tha you don't believe there were stacks of bodies?" Are you telling me you don't believe that jews died? Are you telling me that you don't believe bla bla bla...

I don't think that answer is bad, and in some situations it may be "the best answer." I just don't think it difuses a situation like Mark Weber found himself in and it does not establish control.


FPB:

In other words, say "YES" but follow up immediately with at least some of your reasons.

Again I agree that that is not a bad answer, and in some situations it may be "the best answer." But do you think Hanity and Colmes would have given Mark Weber the chance to immediately follow it up with his reasons for saying it?

I don't. I think they would have shouted him down and not given him a snowballs chance in hell to give his reasons for the answer.

I think your answer has throw your opponent off balance and it should contain a question that gives you control of the situation so you can go on the offensive and not be forced to be defensive. And I don't think you should "invite" follow-up questions because you cannot control what those questions are. You should "invite" answers - answers to your own questions.


SteveF:

That's the best answer so far, Haldan; it's better than mine and Fritz Berg's "Yes"... I'm gonna start using that beginning today.

Excellent. This thread has given you the opportunity to think about how to improve your "evangelizing" and you've come away with something that you believe to be an improvement. I may not agree with you, but that's OK with me. (I’m not trying to be critical, I’m just giving you my “evaluation” so-to-speak.) I just think this is the kind of thing we should all work on to improve so we become better at what we say and how we say it. We don’t want to have a “Mark Weber moment” and embarrass ourselves or hurt the cause or miss opportunities to teach.

We all know that we have the truth on our side. We just need to keep improving on our delivery.

[Dresden]

twila said:

"What kind of follow-up questions do you think Hannity and Colmes would have asked Mark Weber if he had given that answer?"

I wouldn't know "Hannity and Colmes" from Adam and Eve, twila. As for Mark Weber, I think he's lower than whale s%#t. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic of this thread; I didn't know it had to do with training expert Revisionist on how to conduct interviews on TV and radio; I thought it had to do with us lowly individual Truthseekers.

"This thread has given you the opportunity to think about how to improve your "evangelizing" and you've come away with something that you believe to be an improvement. I may not agree with you, but that's OK with me"

I don't mind if you disagree with me, twila. I enjoy your comments a lot! I just wonder why you do disagree with me. How often do you speak to people in public or at work about the Holocaust?.....or should I ask: Have you EVER spoken to anyone about the Holocaust?

The reason I ask, is because your Holocaust "debating" seems to be done in a vacuum, where when someone asks you a question, and you answer it.....your lips become super-glued shut, and you're unable to answer another question.
But when I say I deny the Holocaust, I'm either called a "brain-dead idiot", a "f****ing nazi", or I'm asked one of the following questions, in descending order of frequency: "What about the piles of dead bodies?". "What about all the pictures and films of all the dead bodies, and gas chambers?", "What about all the survivors and eye-witnisses?", "But all the Nazis confessed!", and "The Holocaust has been proven a million times over!", oh, and "Did you watch Schindler's List?"

I try to answer their questions as best I can; and then I ask them if they have a computer. If they say "no", I let the discussion fizzle out. If they say "yes", then I write down some websites for them to visit; one of my favorites is: http://vho.org/dl/ENG.html where they can read books online for free; and I always recommend "Dissecting the Holocaust", then I offer to exchange email addresses, if they want to. Most of the time they say "No, I'll just check this s**t out.....later, dude!"

When you talk about the opponent taking control of the situation.....I don't have the foggiest idea as to what you're talking about!

Peace, twila!

[Haldan]

Haldan said:

"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"

That's the best answer so far, Haldan; it's better than mine and Fritz Berg's "Yes".
I remember watching that video, but I never tried that in my "evangelizing". I'm gonna start using that beginning today.

Thank you. This also makes the person asking the question use more thought in the next question - one inevitable follow-up question from the initiator is: "OK, I see. Why do you not believe in the Holocaust?"
This opens up a whole front for you to display with the best of your abilities the fallacies in the Holocaust story. It's one of the best answers because most ordinary folks just throws a fit if you say "Yes, I deny it!" and may make them not wish to approach it any further or listen to any of your other arguments.
That's what I think, for what it's worth.

Best wishes,
-haldan

[twila]

Steve F:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic of this thread; I didn't know it had to do with training expert Revisionist on how to conduct interviews on TV and radio; I thought it had to do with us lowly individual Truthseekers.

"The best answer" would be an answer that would work in the most hostile situations. If your going to train, why not train to be the best? If you prepare yourself to handle the situation that Mark Weber found himself in, then anything less will be a piece of cake.

Haldan:

This also makes the person asking the question use more thought in the next question - one inevitable follow-up question from the initiator is: "OK, I see. Why do you not believe in the Holocaust?"

One shouldn't be preparing to deabte their mother. Do you really think that Hannity and Colmes would have asked that question? And in such a polite manner? The moment you say that you do not believe in the holocaust someone like that will be on the attack. That is the problem with that answer. Like I said earlier, it's not a bad answer, and in some cases it may be "the best" answer. But it is not the best answer for hostile situations - i.e. - all situations. Why have different answers to different situations when you can have one go to answer that will prevent you from being ambused and having a Mark Weber moment?

Haldan:

one inevitable follow-up question from the initiator is...

You never know what follow-up questions are going to be asked.

Look at what happened to David Irving when that slime ball Max whatshisname interviewed him. David Irving sat there and let Max control the situation and never asked any questions himself. His answers were actually good, but he was on the defense and he looked weak and unconvincing. That kind of situation is a recipe for disaster.

Any reply to "Are you a holocaust denier? / Do you deny the holocaust?" that doesn't include a question that leads the discussion where YOU want it to go and does not put YOU in control of the situation is not "the best answer."

Steve F:

Have you EVER spoken to anyone about the Holocaust?

Of course I have, and I've made many mistakes while doing so.

One of the biggest mistakes I've made in the past is thinking that the person I'm talking to is actually listening and open to what I say and is understanding and accepting my well thought out answers. And another mistake is believing that the person is actually interested in the truth and is asking me questions because they want to educate themselves. What I've found is, most of the time, they are not really listening to me and have no interest in learning or changing their minds about the hoax. They're more interested in just finding out where I’m coming from. Like I'm some kind of a curiosity to them.

Don't fall into the trap that just because your knowledgeable on this subject and the person is hearing what you say that they are actually listening to you or are ready, willing and able to accept and acknowledge what you are saying. If you want to CHANGE the way people look at and think about the hoax, you have to FORCE them to acknowledge what you are saying. But that force has to be subtle. I'm not talking about hitting them over the head with the truth. That can be counterproductive. You get them to understand and acknowledge what you are saying by making them ANSWER your questions - not you answering their questions. It's subtle and takes practice and I am by no means an expert at it but I am trying to improve. It all comes down to the old saying, you need to work smarter, not harder.

We must remember that we are not trying to educate people per se, we are trying to DE-PROGRAM them. They don't just have to learn, they have to UN-LEARN before they can learn and your strategy has to reflect that fact.

So you have to analyze not only what you say, but how you say it.

I'm not here trying to tell others that what I say is right and what they say is wrong. What I'm trying to do here is to get people to think about what it is they say and how they deliver their message and how their delivery can be improved.

So how can you improve your message and delivery? What do you want? (control) What are the psychological barriers that you are up against and need to overcome?

If you practice and prepare for the worst case scenario that the true believers can throw at you, you can handle anything.

[twila]

Think about this:

Why do hoaxers rarely come here?

And when they do, how do they act?

They don't come here because they are forced to answer questions.

They don't like having to admit things to us, but more importantly, they don't like having to admit things to themselves.

That's why all they can do is their childish hit and run tactic of asking a question and running away.

Think about that.

[Mkk]

This is a hard question. Imagine being in the Middle Ages and being asked if you denyed Christ.

I might say:

"This is a free country and I am allowed to question what I want when I want. I am allowed to question, the existence of God, Aliens, Witches, all kind of things more important than if a certain amount of people were persecuted and killed in what happened to be the bloodiest war in history. In my opinion much to do with this part of history is wrong and distorted and we want to set the record straight".

[SnakeTongue]

Answer: CONTROL

Interviewer: Do you deny the holocaust?

Interviewee: I beg your pardon, but the holocaust is not an argument to be accepted or refuted.

Interviewer: So do you deny the systematic extermination of the Jewish people during WWII?

Interviewee: I deny as much someone denies the systematic extermination of lice during WWII.

Interviewer: But no one deny the systematic extermination of lice during WWII...

Interviewee: How do you know that?

Interviewer: No historian ever admitted such thing.

Interviewee: Which chemical product was used to systematically exterminate the lice during WWII?

Interviewer: ...

--------------------------------------

Do not assume the expected outcome from the question. The answer yes or no is going to allow the interviewer to proceed as defined by the script. Since the question is etymologically absurd, the tactic is to deflect the expected outcome back to the interviewer. In other words, expose how much dull the interviewer was with the initial enquire. When the interviewer is exposed, take advantage of the situation and ask a question which is not absurd. In the above dialogue the interviewee took control of the situation to indicate how much absurd is to debate the assertion that Jews were exterminated with a pesticide, but it is not absurd to debate the assertion that lice were exterminated with a pesticide.

[mincuo]

There were and still there are are good Revisionists historians. They have done a good research, they wrote many books, and analyzed in a convincing way all the aspects of the Holocaust. That was their task, and that material exists and is amply sufficient. Then there are those who should disseminate this knowledge and convince people.They were good enough in publishing, but they had not much success in convincing. They think that the persons are believing because they do not know the real facts.
They have not still realized that that's not the main problem.
They have not yet figured out that if one wants to know the facts he can do quite easily, and has almost no need for them, only of Google and Youtube. And, to say the true, the very important facts, and sufficient, are barely one o two, as Butz showed, not hundreds.
They have not yet understood that the Holocaust is not a matter of facts , but mostly of unconscious emotions implanted. They have not yet realized that the problem is that people are not mentally prepared to know the facts, that they emotionally reject them and that the immediate knowledge of the facts causes them a cognitive dissonance.
The Holocaust is not “facts”, it is sorrow , pity , terror , pain, suffering , despair, love , tragedy , horror , death , mercy....All emotions, not facts.
So here is a typical dialogue (in brackets what the listener really understands).
The blue stains on the wall...(sorrow), the sixteen copy of the Wannsee conference...(pity), the exhaust gases of the diesel engine... (terror), the fuherbefel...(pain), the Luther memorandum... (suffering), the delousing chambers...(despair), the Zyklon B...(love), the holes in the leichenkeller 1 of the Krema 2....(tragedy), the fences surrounding....(horror), the Kula columns (death), the amount of wood to incinerate...(mercy). The dialogue reaches the end (in the best cases) and the listener is very angry. The revisionist goes home and thinks : " I forgot many important issues and may be I have not explained well. The next time I have to remind me of the water table and the drainage system, for example ".
The better results came surely not from these kind of Revisionsts, but from those men who are in the gray zone, Filkestein, Atzmon, Shahak, Pappe, Sand ... They find a way of dialogue and their purpose is to say that the revisioniosm is not evil, and must be respected . That's all they can. But it is the key. Then maybe one wants to know the facts. Not so difficult.
Of course, some astute revisonists not surprisingly hate them and attack them, because they are not the heroes of the pure truth. In the meantime they make no effort to understand the real problem and to find their own path of dialogue. They will continue for eternity with their erudite monologue.

[twila]

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

A: I do not deny any proven historical event. Do you deny..? (This is where you ask a question that puts your opponent on his heels and directs the "discussion" to your area of expertise - with you in control.)

And the best follow-up question that I can think of at the moment is:

Do you deny that the fraudulent version of the holocaust has been debunked?

[neugierig]

This should go over well with all the heathens. When debating “The Holocaust” with friends or relatives, I usually say: I believe in God, all else needs to be proven, i.e., substantiated.

I heard some interesting responses, my youngest brother told me he has seen the shoes and glasses at Auschwitz.

Regards
Wilf

[neugierig]

I need to qualify what I wrote: When I say God, I am not referring to Yahweh, this murderous entity Jews believe in, and I make that clear. This then gets me into trouble with the so-called Christians also. At the end I am not just a filthy “Holocaust” denier but also someone who is convinced that Yahweh is the incarnation of Hades.

Regards
Wilf