Who is to Blame for the Orthodox Historical Narrative?

[Cowboy]

You guys seem triggered that you weren't able to convince me.

Let's be really honest here. You didn't come on to this forum to have your mind changed, you created an account under the impression that you wanted to "learn" about why we didn't believe in the orthodox narrative. You then resorted to AI to spew out all of your arguments (none of which are new) because you don't have the mental capacity to read through revisionist literature and understand it. You said so yourself when you first got here:

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

I gave you guys an attentive audience for quite a long time but still you have no answer for where all the millions of recorded Jews went if they weren't killed...

"If you can't tell me exactly where every Jew went then they were gassed to death"

I laid out what you need to do in order to develop more thorough research and communicate it to the mainstream public in a more credible way. You have a lot of work to do to have a shot.

Communicating this research to the public might be easier if, I don't know, it wasn't illegal to do so across most of the west? Also, who are you to come here and lecture on credibility? You were completely unaware of any arguments that revisionists made until 3 months ago, and now you want to be the arbiter of credibility and presentation of argument? When the walls of censorship fall, I believe that revisionist research and knowledge will be seen as superior compared to that of those hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. It's already happening in the shadows, and becoming increasingly more public, especially amongst young people. There are "holocaust denial" clips making rounds on Instagram and X which have tens/hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. Your side is losing, so maybe it's you who has to "consider doing more thorough research and communicating it to the mainstream public in a more credible way". Schindler's List isn't going to cut it anymore. Clock is ticking!

[ConfusedJew]

Let's be really honest here. You didn't come on to this forum to have your mind changed, you created an account under the impression that you wanted to "learn" about why we didn't believe in the orthodox narrative. You then resorted to AI to spew out all of your arguments (none of which are new) because you don't have the mental capacity to read through revisionist literature and understand it.

Not true, I really did come here to learn and understand how and why you guys thought the way you do. I've been honest about my prior beliefs and those haven't changed at all. I read through enough of it to understand the kinds of arguments that are made and how they are structured. The specific details of pseudoscience are not of great interest to me but I was generally intrigued by how deep things had gone. Ultimately, I find the mainstream scientists a lot more compelling although you did point out that they have been a little sloppy in some areas. Not close enough to debunk their whole opinions though IMO.

"If you can't tell me exactly where every Jew went then they were gassed to death"

This is a huge overstatement. Millions have gone missing to never appear again other than a tiny number of surprise reunions. With ancestral DNA analysis, you'd easily find missing relatives that had been separated geographically. I found distant relatives that I didn't know about, but alas, very very few were Holocaust survivors. Fuck, I even have a living relative that was a Holocaust survivor and was a baby during the war. You guys should really visit a Holocaust museum, the archives, go speak to a real survivor and I dare you to tell them to their faces that the Holocaust didn't exist.

Communicating this research to the public might be easier if, I don't know, it wasn't illegal to do so across most of the west? Also, who are you to come here and lecture on credibility? You were completely unaware of any arguments that revisionists made until 3 months ago, and now you want to be the arbiter of credibility and presentation of argument? When the walls of censorship fall, I believe that revisionist research and knowledge will be seen as superior compared to that of those hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. It's already happening in the shadows, and becoming increasingly more public, especially amongst young people. There are "holocaust denial" clips making rounds on Instagram and X which have tens/hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. Your side is losing, so maybe it's you who has to "consider doing more thorough research and communicating it to the mainstream public in a more credible way". Schindler's List isn't going to cut it anymore. Clock is ticking!

The Holocaust denial side isn't "winning". It's edged back onto Twitter because Elon is wildly incompetent at managing that business. He should have stuck to hard engineering but it's a free country.

As for whether or not it should be illegal to openly deny the Holocaust, I am leaning towards that not being the case as long as somebody sincerely believes it and it is not done out of malice, but I do find it to be a very dishonorable waste of time. I'm not threatened by truth but anti semitism is a lot more dangerous and almost always buried in untruth.

[HansHill]

The Holocaust denial side isn't "winning".

Kids today think Adolf Hitler is cool.

[ConfusedJew]

The Holocaust denial side isn't "winning".

Kids today think Adolf Hitler is cool.

Even if that were true, it doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen.

[AreYouSirius]

For sure! That podcast debate was BONKERS in the best way. Didn't Dr. Vann insist this was a "conversation" and not a debate because he was so out of his depth? Link for those who haven't seen:

I haven't watched this, but it would be like somebody debating a flat earthed. They would be so well versed in pseudoscientific arguments and fake experimental data that an average person, even properly a well trained physicist, would struggle to debunk it.

“Somebody debating a flat earthed.”

Mmmkay.

How do you know what happens in the conversation if you haven’t watched the conversation nor browsed the transcript?

[TlsMS93]

Communicating this research to the public might be easier if, I don't know, it wasn't illegal to do so across most of the west? Also, who are you to come here and lecture on credibility? You were completely unaware of any arguments that revisionists made until 3 months ago, and now you want to be the arbiter of credibility and presentation of argument? When the walls of censorship fall, I believe that revisionist research and knowledge will be seen as superior compared to that of those hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. It's already happening in the shadows, and becoming increasingly more public, especially amongst young people. There are "holocaust denial" clips making rounds on Instagram and X which have tens/hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. Your side is losing, so maybe it's you who has to "consider doing more thorough research and communicating it to the mainstream public in a more credible way". Schindler's List isn't going to cut it anymore. Clock is ticking!

On Facebook, the Auschwitz State Museum page launched a project called "StopDenial," essentially a step-by-step guide to refuting revisionist allegations. So they're very concerned.

[HansHill]

Communicating this research to the public might be easier if, I don't know, it wasn't illegal to do so across most of the west? Also, who are you to come here and lecture on credibility? You were completely unaware of any arguments that revisionists made until 3 months ago, and now you want to be the arbiter of credibility and presentation of argument? When the walls of censorship fall, I believe that revisionist research and knowledge will be seen as superior compared to that of those hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. It's already happening in the shadows, and becoming increasingly more public, especially amongst young people. There are "holocaust denial" clips making rounds on Instagram and X which have tens/hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. Your side is losing, so maybe it's you who has to "consider doing more thorough research and communicating it to the mainstream public in a more credible way". Schindler's List isn't going to cut it anymore. Clock is ticking!

On Facebook, the Auschwitz State Museum page launched a project called "StopDenial," essentially a step-by-step guide to refuting revisionist allegations. So they're very concerned.

Like I said in one of these dumpster fire threads: Buckle up, its going to get wild.

[Cowboy]

You guys should really visit a Holocaust museum, the archives, go speak to a real survivor and I dare you to tell them to their faces that the Holocaust didn't exist.

This sort of rhetoric doesn't faze me anymore because I have become immune to this sort of emotional propaganda from the Holocaust narrative. Above all else, the primary reason that people believe in the Holocaust isn't because of the "extensive documents", rather it is emotional blackmail. The movies, survivor stories, and museums that are thrown at us when we are a young age are meant to get us to buy in to the narrative. They tug on your emotions, so it discourages you from even thinking about dissenting viewpoints. Further, it causes us to view people with dissenting viewpoints as evil people with evil intentions. I often find a hard time finding truth behind the shadow of emotional blackmail.

The Holocaust denial side isn't "winning". It's edged back onto Twitter because Elon is wildly incompetent at managing that business.

Are you insinuating that revisionist content should be censored on social media? If you were so confident in your side, then you should welcome opposing viewpoints in the open so they can be shut down in debate. Instead, what I see from affirmers (who are mainly Jewish) is a need for that type of content to be censored. This is the only event/narrative in history that isn't allowed to be up for open debate, so that should tell us all we need to know.

As for whether or not it should be illegal to openly deny the Holocaust, I am leaning towards that not being the case as long as somebody sincerely believes it and it is not done out of malice, but I do find it to be a very dishonorable waste of time.

The obvious position on this matter is that nothing about history should be illegal to question. The motives behind the questions are largely irrelevant if it leads to the prevailing of truth. If somebody sincerely believes that the holocaust did not occur like it is taught, then logically they would have questions about other topics. The Holocaust is an event that plays a large part in the foundation of our post-WWII western world. If that narrative were to collapse, then a lot of other narratives about immigration, Hitler, Israel, etc. would also collapse. Preventing people from denying the Holocaust via the law is, in part, meant to uphold this status quo.

I'm not threatened by truth but anti semitism is a lot more dangerous and almost always buried in untruth.

With the access and openness of the internet nowadays, it does seem like that the more people learn about the hidden truths behind history, they become more "antisemitic" regardless of their motives. I don't see this as a coincidence. The house of cards has been stacked so high that it's no longer possible to be forthcoming about truth, whatever that may be.

[Cowboy]

Communicating this research to the public might be easier if, I don't know, it wasn't illegal to do so across most of the west? Also, who are you to come here and lecture on credibility? You were completely unaware of any arguments that revisionists made until 3 months ago, and now you want to be the arbiter of credibility and presentation of argument? When the walls of censorship fall, I believe that revisionist research and knowledge will be seen as superior compared to that of those hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. It's already happening in the shadows, and becoming increasingly more public, especially amongst young people. There are "holocaust denial" clips making rounds on Instagram and X which have tens/hundreds of thousands of likes and shares. Your side is losing, so maybe it's you who has to "consider doing more thorough research and communicating it to the mainstream public in a more credible way". Schindler's List isn't going to cut it anymore. Clock is ticking!

On Facebook, the Auschwitz State Museum page launched a project called "StopDenial," essentially a step-by-step guide to refuting revisionist allegations. So they're very concerned.

shutitdown.jpg (90.86 KiB) Viewed 60 times

[DavidM]

Where did this idea of the Holocaust come from? Why did people make it up? How did thousands of people, including alleged perpetrators decide to confess to the Holocaust? Is there any other recorded hoax in the course of human history that has been at a fraction of this scale?

I don't see how this is humanly possible, let alone plausible. Will somebody please explain to me how anybody could possible even do this?

Hello CJ-
Bradley Smith gave an answer in a letter to Holocaust Education Trust of Ireland.

"Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as 'anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,' that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of that history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view."



I am not sure if you consider schools of religion belief "hoaxes" but witnessing miracles is very common...but
let's take witchcraft. I assume you don't believe in real witches but at one time millions of people believed in witchcraft because acts of witchcraft magic had been "witnessed." Books were written proving that witches roamed Europe. Look up Malleus Maleficarum, In trials people confessed to being witches even without actual torture.

We could on to examine other shorter lived witnessing usually associated with getting us into a war or keeping the masses
supportive of sending people off to die. Remember the Maine, The Tonkin Gulf Incidents, Weapons of Mass destruction...

As they say, the first casualty of war is the Truth.

People who claim to has witness amazing impossible events are...mistaken at best

[Nessie]

I believe the Orthodox historical narrative, because it is evidenced. I do not believe so-called revisionist alternative versions, because they cannot evidence any of them took place. Primarily, they cannot evidence millions of Jews alive in camps and ghettos in 1944, which is what there would have been, if millions were not killed.

"I believe"

You don't have the murder weapon

I have multiple eyewitnesses to mass murder. There are photos and film of shootings. There are documents recording shootings, the use of gas vans and the construction of gas chambers at A-B. There are the physical remains of gas chambers, including those used to euthanise the disabled.

You don't have the bodies
You don't have the remains

Huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains have been located at the AR camps and Chelmno. Mass graves are still being identified across eastern Europe.

You don't have the physical record

Cope more.

It is you who has to cope, with no evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944 and liberated in 1945.

[Wahrheitssucher]

The Holocaust denial [revision] side isn't "winning".

Kids today think Adolf Hitler is cool.

Even if that were true, it doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen.

You guys should really visit a Holocaust museum, …go speak to a real survivor and I dare you to tell them to their faces that the Holocaust didn't exist.

Wow!!!
The debate is NOT about whether “the Holocaust” happened or not. Nor whether it ever “existed”! Sheesh! How many times?

This has been explained repeatedly to Confused Jew.
How fascinating that this is beyond their capacity to comprehend.

It does rather explain the inability of this person to understand the basics of every area of revisionist argument that has come up.

Perhaps CJ has learnt critical thinking skills by studying those of Donny T being parodied in this ‘cartoon’: