This forum is great of course, it is a massive repository of arguments and sources refuting the standard Holocaust narrative. In fact, in virtually every debate I have on the holocaust, I refer back to various threads on this website for points; CODOH remains an invaluable treasure-trove of information, it is usually the first place I search when confronted with obscure documents/testimonies I haven't seen before. I suspect a lot of you who debate the holocaust elsewhere do the same thing.
My sock account is currently banned from facebook, where I post in half a dozen different debate groups. When I make a topics on the Holocaust, usually 90-95% of responses are in the "Holocaust is real" camp, but with a small minority of people (usually between 1 and 5) expressing agreement.
A lot of people who do post in support of the standard narrative simply can not be swayed by logic and reasoning, they will never change their minds. Their argument is often something like: "The only reason you would believe hitler didn't gas millions of jews in fake showers is because you personally want to kill jews" - which is basically analagous to "Holocaust denial must be illegal, or else it will happen again!" Alternatively, they don't have an argument at all, they just come in to say "wow, your post makes me so angry, you're sick!" etc.
This isn't in any way astonishing, it has long been established that some people can't be convinced with arguments based on logic & reasoning. I have written about this before on this in a post entitled Is the Holocaust a religious belief?
The only hope for changing these people's minds is to convince them that either: (1) everyone else disagrees with them, or (2) the 'experts' or 'authority' on the subject disagree with them. Sometimes this mental proclivity directly manifests itself in their arguments, where they say something along the lines of claiming the position is untenable because:
"There are no trustworthy sources that agree with you" or
"Your sources are not academic / peer reviewed" or
"Holocaust denial is not respected by any authoritative institution" or
"Holocaust denial is a fringe conspiracy theory not taken seriously by >99% of qualified experts"
Probably, most of the people who will see the threads do not reply, so the people making these faith-based arguments only serve as a tool to use, someone to respond to and refute in a public setting to show the audience (that does actually not engage in the debate) which position is most logically sound.
What do you say in response to these sort of "arguents" besides pointing out the fallacious nature of these claims? Namely:
- Appeal to authority fallacy [argumentum ab auctoritate] - when "an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true... even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true." (https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relev ... authority/)
- Attacking the person [argumentum ad hominem] - "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of seeking to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument" (https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html)
- Appeal to popularity [argumentum ad populum] - "The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude" (https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)
- Stacking the Deck [Card Stacking] - "When writers give only the evidence that supports their premise, while disregarding or withholding contrary evidence, they are stacking the deck" or "In this fallacy, the speaker "stacks the deck" in her favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point and listing only those examples that support her case." (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/logf02.htm & https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html)
This would specifically apply if they claim that the professors, chemists, engineers, historians that deny the holocaust are not "experts" in their own right, but the ones with comparable qualifications are.
I also mention the laws against "Holocaust denial" in much of Europe, and the persecution of revisionists. For a historian (with a family, mortgage, bills to pay, etc) to see someone else get their lives absolutely ruined for simply stating that "nazis didn't gas jews" that's enough for them to keep their mouth shut a lot of the time.
Video: "The Grand Taboo" - The International Persecution of Holocaust Revisionists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwentslVpXw or Bitchute mirror or mirror2
Official list of Revisionist scholars persecuted / imprisoned for questioning the "Holocaust"
New DVD - The Persecution of Revisionists: The Holocaust Unveiled
Holocaust Denial Laws - The Expansion
Wikipedia: Laws against Holocaust denial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_agai ... ust_denial
Another related claim (used in conjunction with the above fallacious arguments) is that all holocaust deniers are "Neo-Nazis" (whatever that means) -- implying that they are all just bias-motivated ideologues. In response to this, I point out the diversity of revisionists.
The JEWISH REVISIONISTS thread
10. Who are the Holocaust Revisionists?
Some Revisionists suffered persecution by the National Socialist regime as well as internment in concentration camps (Paul Rassinier, Josef G. Burg). Others are Army veterans of World War II, from both the German and Allied armies (Werner Rademacher, Wilhelm Stäglich, Douglas Collins.)
Some Revisionists are professors (Prof. Robert Faurisson, Prof. Arthur R. Butz, Prof. Christian Lindtner, Prof. Costas Zaverdinos) and some have Ph.D degrees (Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Stephen Hayward, Dr. Herbert Tiedemann). Some are Diploma Chemists, Physicists and Engineers (Michael Gärtner, Germar Rudolf, Arnulf Neumaier, Friedrich Berg), Historians (Mark Weber, Robert Countess, Carlo Mattogno), as well as teachers in other fields, such as Jürgen Graf.
To add to this, I was discussing the Rudolf report two days ago, and when my opponent claimed "no experts take that book seriously" I checked this link and noticed half a dozen quotes by professors provided in the "Voices" section at the bottom of this page:
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz
Another line of evidence is mentioning the many examples of revisionists causing the standard holocaust narrative to be changed by the believers themselves. Examples:
Other Victories for Revisionism
The Victories of Revisionism (continued)
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/201 ... inued.html
And, of course, besides people alive today, some argue that the nazis and jews who were in the camps are the only "Experts" in a sense, as it is simply impossible to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that something occurred in the past if there was no actual photos or video of it happening. Camp prisoners & Nazis themselves, despite all of their contradictions and lies, really were the only ones to see what actually happened. Of course, some nazis did deny the gas chambers, as did some people in the camps (mentioned above). More info:
"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
fewer than 5% of Auschwitz survivor testimonies mention gas chambers at all // Re: Ratio of obvious liars to claimed "eyewitnesses"?
So, in summary, I want to know how you all would respond when confronted with the argument (if you can call it that) "Your position is fringe and not taken seriously by the experts" To add to my points, condensed:
- It is either a crime or social suicide to deny the holocaust in the west, so we don't know for sure who actually believes it (holocaust denial laws, persecution of/threats against revisionists)
- It is simply not true (list the minority of qualified experts, eyewitnesses, etc that deny the 6m + gc)
- The argument is irrelevant and fallacious; Arthur Schopenhauer: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I will also leave with a quote, because I think it is relevant. It is from a book published in 1928 titled Propaganda, by the Jew Edward Bernays:
‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
‘We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society....
‘Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world....
‘Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers....
‘The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the group.... So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?
‘The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits....
‘No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion....
‘Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life.’