Hadding wrote:It seems to me that arguments based on the content of the alleged Goebbels Diaries are the strongest kind of argument.
I don't have much trust in statements about the origins of the diaries and who had the diaries when. This kind of statement has at times turned out to be false.
For example, in my article about David Irving, I point out that David Irving initially claimed that the Flemish man who gave him the alleged Eichmann memoirs was a friend of Eichmann's family, whereas today that man is no longer claimed to have known the family at all.
Meanwhile I get the impression that the text basis isn't really a friend of the Holocaust narrative at all.
Hadding wrote:The arguments for the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels Diaries remind me of Christian attempts to argue that the miracles in the Bible must be accepted as true because of how the text was transmitted. If the text itself has problems that destroy its credibility, then hearsay about its origins is not going to impress me.
That's not or at least not the main arguments of Christian apologists. The argument is that the miracles are exceptional acts where God takes direct command over nature. Miracle isn't a term from the biblical text at all, it stems from commentators, The texts are to believed on the basis of faith, revelation, introspection. It's the *Holy Ghost* that does do the conviction of truth there. Historical criticism of the bible works with the *present* view of ancient history and uses that as a measure against the Textus Receptus.
For the Holocaust narrative something else is claimed. Holocaust proponents pretend to have a pure naturalistic world view (Although we know of incidents were the "victims" were miraculously not gassed, saved, etc. ) What the texts, witness narratives and expert opinions claim is that gassing and other killing methods were ordinary technological application in the service of some mystical evil (Nazism). So in the end they have to be able to stand up towards scientific inquiry based on these premises.
But obviously that's something the Holocaust enforcers won't easily allow for. If they can't strangulate debate with structural violence (shaming, ostracism, or impairing the doubters civic life in any way, get them fired, alienate customers, suppliers, etc.), they will use the power of omnipotent government to do so. That works as long as the herd doesn't sense danger or importance in this. But given the commentaries under news articles, there is a growing number of people that get pretty pissed by this.
Now the Churches don't jail dissenters. What they would do is dismantle or excommunicate some people for their dissent, but generally they tolerate this. This is stark contrast to Holocaustianity. There is no mercy for dissenters, all that stops the from burning them at the stake is the fact that this would definitely backfire in their face. So they follow a bureaucratic approach or simple propaganda and indoctrination techniques to prejudice the massive, stereotype the issue and prevent the masses from using common sense or even scientific methods on the issue.