Why Do you Guys Think the Holocaust is Fake?

[ConfusedJew]

To speak honestly about lies is not to spread hate; it is to seek a clearer, unvarnished truth—even if that truth is difficult to bear.

To assume something is a "lie" without proving both falsehood and intent is bad faith.

[ConfusedJew]

You do this "thing" where you simply declare, over and over again, the official platform and promoted worldview of Jewish-owned media conglomerates and their massive global networks. This is a hopeless effort to persuade anyone who has dedicated considerable time to understanding what is actually true about the Jewish collective. If followers of Judaism (Talmudism, followers of "Oral Torah"), as a generally sadistic cult, tend to bring problems wherever they arrive en masse over thousands of years, then there is nothing wrong (nor hateful) with acknowledging this pattern. To the extent this pattern can be measured or verified, it can be stated as a fact. As much distrust and frustration I have with the Jewish collective and its indisputable patterns of behavior, it is a lie (or ignorance) to say that I have ever been "motivated by a hatred of Jewish people as a whole". This is not to say you were referring to myself (or anyone in particular) specifically, or perhaps you were, but in any case, it is a debate you are not prepared to engage in, let alone win. Jews have patterns of behavior which have persisted for centuries through extremist cult views which are so incredibly consistent that some (e.g. Hitler/NSDAP) have concluded this must be a blood-driven (racial) matter -- something so prevalent among a group that ideology, alone, seems insufficient to explain it. My own view is that the "jury is still out" on this particular question (nature vs. nurture)... but the pattern of behavior is pervasive and undeniable, across geography and centuries of time.

This is racist and bad faith. While Jewish people have disproportionate influence and impact in the media largely due to the value on hard work and education, no single Jew acts on behalf of the entirety of the Jewish people and the media is not "Jewish owned". Most large media companies are public companies and have a very broad and diffuse base of owners.

Just not worth responding this kind of argument so I'm moving on with respect to this.

[ConfusedJew]

The Sandy Hook shooting was one of many which gained an extreme amount of mass media attention, and certain other mass media events which gained a similar degree of attention have had obvious problems in their official narratives. The overwhelming majority of people who have opinions either way on Sandy Hook have not investigated it either way. This means that the vast majority of opinions on this subject (either Sandy Hook or Alex Jones' controversy) have simply "chosen a side", only assuming their preferred premise (that Sandy Hoax's true events were or were not perfectly aligned with the official narrative). I personally have not looked into this, nor do I know what Alex Jones has said on the matter. The truth of it is relatively inconsequential on the bigger questions of global key players, key narratives, and key events (real or alleged) of politics and power structures but it is these things which are most in need of scrutiny and attention. Sandy Hook's true narrative is of little interest to the "powers that be", which is why I'm certain they'd prefer us discussing this over the Holocaust, the War on Terror, 9/11, who runs the media, why Netanyahu gets standing ovations in US Congress, etc.

There's really not much to look into. To give Jones so much coverage can only be an act of extreme ignorance or bad faith. Alex Jones admitted that he was wrong and justified his behavior based on a psychotic episode or something.

There was no remotely decent reason to question the Sandy Hook massacre and it clearly caused a ton of suffering to the families who lost children in the shooting.

I have two questions of principle here:

1. If you do think that he was having a psychotic episode and creating a lot of harm to innocent victims as a result, what do you do with somebody like that? If he was truly psychotic, I don't believe that he should be punished for legitimately holding a delusion but you want to address the harm that psychotic people do to society. Do you think he should have been institutionalized or censored for public safety? Punishing somebody for something that they can't control is cruel but you still need to do something about it.

2. Maybe you don't think that he actually believed what he was saying and that he simply didn't care about the harm that he was doing. Maybe he is just a sociopath that is willing to harm vulnerable people for money and fame. What do you do with people like that to prevent them from doing harm? Do you think that he should be heavily fined or imprisoned for acting in such a way?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/in ... ok-n989091

[ConfusedJew]

To speak honestly about lies is not to spread hate; it is to seek a clearer, unvarnished truth—even if that truth is difficult to bear.

Few things:

1. You are right that speaking honestly does not inherently spread hate.

2. But you can spread hate by "speaking honestly". Humiliating somebody publicly for making an honest mistake is to spread hatred about them. You can also spread hate to an entire group by blaming the entire group for actions by a single person of that group. Especially when the intent is to overpower or collectively punish that group.

3. Sometimes speaking truthfully, even if the intention is just to be constructive, can be cruel. Giving somebody very harsh feedback can undermine their self confidence in a way that creates shame. Speaking actual truth to power to expose abuse or corruption is one thing, but that's not always the case.

[Wahrheitssucher]

You do this "thing" where you simply declare, over and over again, the official platform and promoted worldview of Jewish-owned media conglomerates and their massive global networks. This is a hopeless effort to persuade anyone who has dedicated considerable time to understanding what is actually true about the Jewish collective. If followers of Judaism (Talmudism, followers of "Oral Torah"), as a generally sadistic cult, tend to bring problems wherever they arrive en masse over thousands of years, then there is nothing wrong (nor hateful) with acknowledging this pattern. To the extent this pattern can be measured or verified, it can be stated as a fact. As much distrust and frustration I have with the Jewish collective and its indisputable patterns of behavior, it is a lie (or ignorance) to say that I have ever been "motivated by a hatred of Jewish people as a whole". This is not to say you were referring to myself (or anyone in particular) specifically, or perhaps you were, but in any case, it is a debate you are not prepared to engage in, let alone win. Jews have patterns of behavior which have persisted for centuries through extremist cult views which are so incredibly consistent that some (e.g. Hitler/NSDAP) have concluded this must be a blood-driven (racial) matter -- something so prevalent among a group that ideology, alone, seems insufficient to explain it. My own view is that the "jury is still out" on this particular question (nature vs. nurture)... but the pattern of behavior is pervasive and undeniable, across geography and centuries of time.

This is racist and bad faith. While Jewish people have disproportionate influence and impact in the media largely due to the value on hard work and education, no single Jew acts on behalf of the entirety of the Jewish people and the media is not "Jewish owned". Most large media companies are public companies and have a very broad and diffuse base of owners. Just not worth responding this kind of argument so I'm moving on with respect to this.

This is the classic ‘strawman’ misrepresentation tactic.
CJ has ignored the actual point and instead put up his own distortion of it, which he then pompously says isn’t worth responding to.

Deceitful debate tactic 101.
.

[ConfusedJew]

An FAQ has been added to the Beginner's Guide.

I wrote most of this a while ago but had set it aside unfinished. Thank you for reminding me about it.

This is pretty much what I was looking for when I started this thread at the very beginning.

After following your contributions here at the CODOH forum, I doubt this is true.

Whether or not you believe it, doesn't concern me so much. I gathered most of those answers on my own over the course of participating on this forum but that FAQ was almost exactly what I was looking for at the beginning of my research here.

I don't have any more time to defend myself against baseless personal attacks. I'm clearly not stupid so to even entertain that kind of insult is not worth the time. Whether or not you believe I am lying is also uninteresting to me, but I don't think I have even intentionally misled anybody on this forum, let alone lied. I wouldn't benefit by doing that at all and I am not looking to derive some kind of sadistic satisfaction by making random people on the internet suffer. I do sense a lot of sadism coming from members of this community, but not all, but that's almost impossible to prove or disprove.

[Wahrheitssucher]

To speak honestly about lies is not to spread hate; it is to seek a clearer, unvarnished truth — even if that truth is difficult to bear.

3. Sometimes speaking truthfully, even if the intention is just to be constructive, can be cruel.
Giving somebody very harsh feedback can undermine their self confidence in a way that creates shame…

Nobody here has shown anything that implies disagreement with any of the above.

This is off-topic posing by CJ.

CJ’S DECEPTION: No person who has deeply researched the narrative known as ‘the holocaust’ thinks ALL of its aspects are “fake”. Yet that is the false premise that CJ is promoting with this topic.
This has been explained to him numerous times, AND ignored by him numerous times.

CONCLUSION: this person's engagement here is motivated by stupidity or dishonesty.

[Nessie]

...I don't have any more time to defend myself against baseless personal attacks. I'm clearly not stupid so to even entertain that kind of insult is not worth the time. Whether or not you believe I am lying is also uninteresting to me, but I don't think I have even intentionally misled anybody on this forum, let alone lied. I wouldn't benefit by doing that at all and I am not looking to derive some kind of sadistic satisfaction by making random people on the internet suffer. I do sense a lot of sadism coming from members of this community, but not all, but that's almost impossible to prove or disprove.

I cannot PM anyone, so I have encountered Wahrheitssucher before and how he is treating you, his use of language and the attacks, is exactly how he treated me. He will not stop.

[ConfusedJew]

I cannot PM anyone, so I have encountered Wahrheitssucher before and how he is treating you, his use of language and the attacks, is exactly how he treated me. He will not stop.

Yes, I simply won't respond to that kind of behavior or people on here who act like that anymore. Very immature and undignified behavior. I still plan to look into the forensic chemistry with HansHill when I get a chance but I have been very busy lately.

[Stubble]

To speak honestly about lies is not to spread hate; it is to seek a clearer, unvarnished truth—even if that truth is difficult to bear.

Few things:

1. You are right that speaking honestly does not inherently spread hate.

2. But you can spread hate by "speaking honestly". Humiliating somebody publicly for making an honest mistake is to spread hatred about them. You can also spread hate to an entire group by blaming the entire group for actions by a single person of that group. Especially when the intent is to overpower or collectively punish that group.

3. Sometimes speaking truthfully, even if the intention is just to be constructive, can be cruel. Giving somebody very harsh feedback can undermine their self confidence in a way that creates shame. Speaking actual truth to power to expose abuse or corruption is one thing, but that's not always the case.

It appears that you think the truth should be quiet lest it offend a mans ears.

On this point, we disagree.

That the truth may be construed as cruel by an observer that feels a sentimental attachment to a lie doesn't diminish any fact contained inside it.

One of the tragedies with our discourse is your misrepresentation that people are talking about this event not to suss out the truth or to winnow the truth from the lies, but rather simply to be ugly and hateful. Because they are driven not by the noble aim, but, by racial hatred, which you think is wrong.

If we were talking about myths and legends about the nazis murdering the Irish in homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms and killing some random number by this method, with out orders, materials or sufficient supporting evidence for many of those claims, I would be directing my anger at Irish people who lied to me and damaged my education while also exposing me to pornogaphic atrocity propaganda at a very young age (the subject was introduced in my social studies class at the age of 10, and I was shown naked bodies in various states, sometimes being bulldozed into mass graves. That was wrong.), as it happens, these people aren't Irish.

You misunderstand or purposely misrepresent the stance, in general I think, of holocaust revisionism generally.

Another point I want to press is that the 'evidence' that you presented here has ofted been incongruent with your claim. From the wannsee minutes, to the archeological evidence from Treblinka II, repeatedly you have taken a swing at the ball, and you have missed.

I don't consider this to be entirely your fault, you are presenting the evidence that you think is the most foundational to the story and you assume you were initially presented with the truth. When confronted on this, you triple or quadruple down, posting AI generated slop in your defense and don't even consider the idea that you may be wrong. You don't consult any revisionist literature and you are unfamiliar with the core arguments from the revisionist side of the coin, furthermore, you chose to simple side step that all together.

The lie repeated often enough will become truth. If not confronted for fear of offending someone, it will remain entrenched. Such is my perspective on it anyhow.

I don't engage in this discussion out of hate. Furthermore, my admitted bias does not come from hate. It is from the fact that to accept the holocaust as presented I would have to forgive 6,000,000 lies (I don't actually have a firm count of them, it may be more, or less than that specific number, I am using it in a symbolic rather than specific way).

[Archie]

This is pretty much what I was looking for when I started this thread at the very beginning.

After following your contributions here at the CODOH forum, I doubt this is true.

Whether or not you believe it, doesn't concern me so much. I gathered most of those answers on my own over the course of participating on this forum but that FAQ was almost exactly what I was looking for at the beginning of my research here.

I don't have any more time to defend myself against baseless personal attacks. I'm clearly not stupid so to even entertain that kind of insult is not worth the time. Whether or not you believe I am lying is also uninteresting to me, but I don't think I have even intentionally misled anybody on this forum, let alone lied. I wouldn't benefit by doing that at all and I am not looking to derive some kind of sadistic satisfaction by making random people on the internet suffer. I do sense a lot of sadism coming from members of this community, but not all, but that's almost impossible to prove or disprove.

All things considered, I think revisionists have generally done a good job of making sure there is accessible material available for people at all levels. Once someone finds CODOH, they should be able to get up to speed pretty quickly. You keep saying you had so much trouble doing this, but I can't say it matched my experience. Drawing an informed opinion on the matter can of course take longer though since you generally need to go through at least a good sampling of the primary and secondary sources. There's no real shortcut there, imo. I would say it is much, much more difficult to get a concise, readable overview of anti-revisionism. You can get summaries of the official Holocaust story pretty easily, but the mainstream material inevitably takes everything for granted and avoids all the things we talk about there. If you want to get "the other side" of the revisionist debate, you have to look at forums and blogs. There is anti-revisionist material to be sure, but it is, as a general rule, very scattered and not user-friendly. (I think this is by design).

As far as your experience here, I will just say that debates about this topic tend to be adversarial. The forum rules say not to attack other posters, specifically not their honesty or intelligence.

Guidelines for Interacting with Others

• Avoid profanity, ethnic slurs, and inappropriate language. Do not insult other posters. In particular, do not attack the intelligence or honesty of others. Rebut the "stupid" or "dishonest" post and allow others draw the appropriate conclusion. If a bad poster is "spamming" such volume of poor arguments and nonsense that it would be a waste of time to respond, notify a moderator.
• Refrain from unsupported disagreement. This means that if you disagree with something or think it is incorrect, you must explain why you disagree or show why it's incorrect. A mere expression of disapproval is not sufficient.
• Observe the principle of charity. "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available." ("Principle of charity," Wikipedia)

But these rules are the ideal and in practice it's every difficult to get people to be this polite. To attempt to enforce this strictly would require very heavy-handed moderation. Believe it or not, the exchanges here are not actually that bad. When I have debated this topic on anti-revisionist sites, I can tell you they were not welcoming or friendly.

[Callafangers]

You do this "thing" where you simply declare, over and over again, the official platform and promoted worldview of Jewish-owned media conglomerates and their massive global networks. This is a hopeless effort to persuade anyone who has dedicated considerable time to understanding what is actually true about the Jewish collective. If followers of Judaism (Talmudism, followers of "Oral Torah"), as a generally sadistic cult, tend to bring problems wherever they arrive en masse over thousands of years, then there is nothing wrong (nor hateful) with acknowledging this pattern. To the extent this pattern can be measured or verified, it can be stated as a fact. As much distrust and frustration I have with the Jewish collective and its indisputable patterns of behavior, it is a lie (or ignorance) to say that I have ever been "motivated by a hatred of Jewish people as a whole". This is not to say you were referring to myself (or anyone in particular) specifically, or perhaps you were, but in any case, it is a debate you are not prepared to engage in, let alone win. Jews have patterns of behavior which have persisted for centuries through extremist cult views which are so incredibly consistent that some (e.g. Hitler/NSDAP) have concluded this must be a blood-driven (racial) matter -- something so prevalent among a group that ideology, alone, seems insufficient to explain it. My own view is that the "jury is still out" on this particular question (nature vs. nurture)... but the pattern of behavior is pervasive and undeniable, across geography and centuries of time.

This is racist and bad faith.

The term "racist" is basically pointless to address unless you wish to clarify your specific definition of it. If we take the Cambridge dictionary definition:

(noun) someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result

...then I'd challenge you to explain exactly how/why you interpreted my quoted statement as "racist". It seems much more like you were just using this term because it is politically-charged, as a way to smear my statement without actually challenging it.

While Jewish people have disproportionate influence and impact in the media largely due to the value on hard work and education...

This statement requires an assumption which you provide zero evidence for. You're claiming the only reason Jews have media influence is due to "hard work and education". This is your attempt to hand-wave the impact of ideological and tribal motives, despite abundant evidence that these motives are not only present but heavily acted upon by Jews in general.

...no single Jew acts on behalf of the entirety of the Jewish people...

This is a strawman -- I never claimed this. Jews are individuals however they are also a collective. Understanding both levels is important.

...and the media is not "Jewish owned". Most large media companies are public companies and have a very broad and diffuse base of owners.

This is blatantly ignorant, at best. Jews owned the majority of media companies before media corporations and conglomerates existed. And in the age of corporations and conglomerates, Jews are most of the chairmen and CEOs, and are furthermore disproportionately represented on the executive boards of these organizations (often 30-40% or more of the entire board, despite Jews as just ~2% of the USA population and ~0.1% globally). This is true for all of the major media companies and has been the case as long as media has existed.

[Callafangers]

The forum rules say not to attack other posters, specifically not their honesty or intelligence.

I think I need to step up and acknowledge that I may have crossed this line a time or two when exposing the behavior of ConfusedJew. While I feel I have done reasonably well to support all of my assertions with a trail of evidence as it has unfolded here in this forum, I recognize that this kind of focus can detract from the core mission of exposing the Holocaust, specifically.

I will be more sensitive to the mission here (and forum rules) going forward and I appreciate the clarification/reminder.

[Archie]

The forum rules say not to attack other posters, specifically not their honesty or intelligence.

I think I need to step up and acknowledge that I may have crossed this line a time or two when exposing the behavior of ConfusedJew. While I feel I have done reasonably well to support all of my assertions with a trail of evidence as it has unfolded here in this forum, I recognize that this kind of focus can detract from the core mission of exposing the Holocaust, specifically.

I will be more sensitive to the mission here (and forum rules) going forward and I appreciate the clarification/reminder.

I myself have been guilty a few times of questioning Nessie's intelligence and bombsaway's honesty. I try not to do this, but everyone has their limits, especially when the other side is taking cheap shots at us. The main thing we want to avoid is an arms race of insults and attacks. Overall, I think we do okay for a forum dedicated to such a controversial subject. I'm not naive enough to think everything is going to be perfectly harmonious on here.



The post that prompted the reminder was actually this one which made me chuckle since it contradicts the rules so specifically.

Which either proves:
1.] you are of low intelligence, and this explains why you learnt NOTHING;
or
2.] you are lying.

[Archie]

I don't really have the mental capacity to read through all these diverse arguments.

Can you present me with the 3 strongest reasons why you think the Holocaust didn't happen and we can go from there?

Something like an FAQ would be helpful so that each point can be addressed clearly.

An FAQ has been added to the Beginner's Guide.

I wrote most of this a while ago but had set it aside unfinished. Thank you for reminding me about it.

I see you locked it, as you do not want a direct challenge to its multiple errors, chief of which is so-called revisionist inability to revise the history of the Jews arrested by the Nazis and produce an evidenced chronology that concludes with millions of Jews till alive in 1945.

This is a lie;

Revisionists point out that the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust (to the extent there has even been any attempt to justify it in terms of evidence) largely consists testimonies collected after the war, a surprisingly weak and unreliable foundation for such extraordinary claims. These witnesses simply do not hold up under scrutiny as their stories are full of serious contradictions, errors, and absurdities.

There is far more evidence from sources other than witnesses, than you suggest and there is a high level of consistency amongst the eyewitnesses, who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, as to what happened. They all describe the same process, varying only in details, which is to be expected.

That is a curated section of the forum for newcomers. I do not want it cluttered up with endless replies. If people want to read what you have to say, they can read the rest of forum where, in case you hadn't noticed, you have posted more than anyone else. Yet you complain because we did not let you write the introductory material on a revisionist website. You of all people cannot complain that we have not let you say your piece.

Calling other posters liars is a violation of the forum rules. You in particular have a bad habit of accusing people of "lying" merely for disagreeing with your opinions. We say the evidence is weak. You say we are "lying" because, in your opinion, it is strong. Grow up.

You dispute my claim that the Holocaust historiography, especially on the gas chambers and other key points, has long been dominated by testimonial evidence. Do you really doubt this? Would you like me to develop this point further and show that you are wrong and it is you who is misrepresenting the mainstream literature?