Why Do you Guys Think the Holocaust is Fake?

[ConfusedJew]

I can always appreciate more Jewish media adding a Jewish-apologetic spin on history.

The video’s claim that 'systemic prejudice' caused the expulsions oversimplifies history to the point of absurdity and doesn’t invalidate concerns about Jewish behavior as a central factor. The recurring pattern of expulsion across hundreds of independent nations over centuries -- some ~700 distinct events (note: the video does NOT challenge the overall number of expulsions) -- suggests that our earlier interpretation is correct, even if expulsions were sometimes shaped by regional biases.

Did you actually watch the video? It very clearly disputes the 109 figure in the first 3 minutes? A lot of the expulsions happened in a period where humans were far more barbaric than they are today. Should we blame the white people of today for all of the barbaric things they have done like 100-200 years ago? I don't think that makes sense and would clearly be racist.

According to the stated or inferred justifications by the leaders and people of expelling nations, the top 5 reasons for the 600-800 likely valid Jewish expulsions are:

1. Economic Exploitation and Usury (40-50%): Perceived financial dominance or debt burdens.
2. Religious Differences and Heresy (20-30%): Refusal to convert or threat to religious unity.
3. Allegations of Ritual Murder and Host Desecration (10-15%): Baseless [?] accusations inciting violence.
4. Political Subversion and Disloyalty (10-15%): Accusations of aiding enemies or subversion.
5. Social and Cultural Isolation or Provocation (5-10%): Perceived refusal to assimilate or provocative behaviors.

So, a fair estimate of actual, distinct expulsions of Jews from nations in history is somewhere around ~700 instances, with ~70% of such instances reportedly due to subversive exploitation/usury (theft), disloyalty (treason), and provocation (troublemaking).

Many of the historical records show specific grievances explicitly, so it isn't just 'mass hysteria' of the kind, "let's blame our problems on the Jews for no reason at all! They'll be our scapegoat!" (which has never made any sense). [/quote]

Go pick a specific example in history that you think is especially horrible and we can go through that. I'm sure I can find a ton of examples where the Jews were treated very unfairly if not completely so. During the Black Plague people blamed the Jews because they didn't sick as often since they practiced good hygiene for religious reasons during a time when very few people did.

The timeline here is also over the course of thousands of years, across vast distances. Jews had every opportunity to establish good relations with their neighbors, and there is no question that their frequent wealth and opportunities might have given them the ability to do so. Yet somehow, they developed an extremely bad reputation over and over and over again. To claim that the host nations were always just petty, sadistic people who "took out their problems" on the Jews is the sickest form of mass 'gaslighting' I have ever encountered.

No it's not. They were forced into banking and finance because they were not allowed to own land during the Middle Ages or work in many other professions. Then people borrowed too much money and ran into financial problems. Instead of taking responsibility for their issues, they blamed it on the lenders. If there were specific predatory practices that you can point to, we can look at that, but you should be more specific than looking at a fake meme.

This shows exactly why it is so harmful to spread these false memes. It is simply untrue that Jews were expelled from 109 countries. For some reason, you never did your research and just assumed it was true. And then if you keep sharing it, like you did here, people will also just assume it's true and people will hate the Jews for something that is false. From what I've seen here, Archie is the only one here so far that has shown he is interested in the truth and won't just accept everything that aligns with his prior beliefs.

[ConfusedJew]

Ok, I'm starting to get bombsaway vibes from this clown. Same style of "argumentation."

What does that mean? What is Bombsaway?

If you have a problem with my style of argumentation, feel free to raise that issue, but I am presenting arguments with evidence.

[Stubble]

Ok, I'm starting to get bombsaway vibes from this clown. Same style of "argumentation."

I'm 70% sure these are the issued talking points, Patru uses the same arguments. You can check the 'on pogroms' thread to verify.

Edit: Archie, I missed the pivot and obfuscation. Mia culpa. Carry on Sir.

[ConfusedJew]

I'm 70% sure these are the issued talking points, Patru uses the same arguments. You can check the 'on pogroms' thread to verify.

I have no idea who these other people are. This is just factual history of the Jews that I am bringing to the table. So if other people are offering similar arguments, it might be that they have also studied history. You are welcome to use AI or whatever else you want to offer a rebuttal.

I think GabAI is designed for anti-semitism but the accuracy on that might be compromised. I haven't tried it yet myself.

[Keen]

Nobody can be 100% certain about anything.

Yet another lie.

If you told me that there was an elephant in my basement and I didn't see an elephant in my basement, I would be 100% certian that there was no elephant in my basement.

It's a thing called the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method CJ. I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand.

CJ:

You are saying that if you can't see X then X doesn't exist. That is a logical fallacy.

I said:

If you told me that there was an elephant in my basement and I didn't see an elephant in my basement, I would be 100% certian that there was no elephant in my basement.

CJ:

I don't think that you can be 100% certain of the absence of an elephant just because you don't see it.

What if the elephant is wearing an invisibility cloak?

Or what if the elepWhant is so small that you simply can't detect it or don't have the right tools to detect it?

If you told me that there was an elephant in my basement and I didn't see an elephant in my basement, I would be 100% certian that there was no elephant in my basement.

My not having visual confirmation of an elephant in my basement would meet the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard that there was no elephant in my basement, the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard that there was no elephant in my basement and the Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard that there was no elephant in my basement, as well as my personal 100% certainty standard.

And, if not seeing an elephant in my basement meets the Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard, then it can be said that I proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no elephant in my basement.

It's a thing called the convergence of the lack of physical evidence method CJ.

I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand.

[Stubble]

It's just so tiresome.

I've already rebutted this, and I don't feel compelled to rebut it again, especially in a thread where we are supposed to be talking about the holocaust tm.

Can't we talk about a cohort of missing jews instead?

[Archie]

Ok, I'm starting to get bombsaway vibes from this clown. Same style of "argumentation."

What does that mean? What is Bombsaway?

If you have a problem with my style of argumentation, feel free to raise that issue, but I am presenting arguments with evidence.

Bombsaway is a fervent Holocaust promoter who has posted on here a lot.
memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=77

These last few exchanges with you have reminded me of that guy in terms of dishonesty, pivoting, refusal to concede points, playing dumb, and so on.

I went out of my way to be as hospitable to you as possible, but you just wore out my patience with your last round prevarications. You can keep posting if you want, but I myself probably won't be spending too much more time replying to you unless you begin to show some willingness to engage in rational discourse (as opposed to just doing blatant Jewish apologetics).

"It is simply untrue that Jews were expelled from 109 countries."

But then when challenged you admitted that were a lot of expulsions. You refused to give us a "correct" number. And you changed your argument to be something about WHY Jews keep getting expelled which is separate from the factual question of WHETHER they were expelled or not. I suspect you are smart enough to understand that distinction, but you are deliberately confusing the matter and I think that reflects poorly on your intellectual honesty.

[Archie]

Ok, I'm starting to get bombsaway vibes from this clown. Same style of "argumentation."

I'm 70% sure these are the issued talking points, Patru uses the same arguments. You can check the 'on pogroms' thread to verify.

"Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck."

[Keen]

Evidence of absence is not proof of absence.

CJ:

what I see as the massive abundance of research including the disappearance of my own relatives.

Didn't you just say evidence of absence is not proof of absence?

So you're admitting that you can't prove that your relatives disappeared during the holohoax - correct?

[Callafangers]

This shows exactly why it is so harmful to spread these false memes. It is simply untrue that Jews were expelled from 109 countries. For some reason, you never did your research and just assumed it was true. And then if you keep sharing it, like you did here, people will also just assume it's true and people will hate the Jews for something that is false. From what I've seen here, Archie is the only one here so far that has shown he is interested in the truth and won't just accept everything that aligns with his prior beliefs.

This is 'pilpul' 101. We've seen it here repeatedly, Mr. Zoidberg. No one buys this nonsense but, in any case, thank you for keeping us all "fresh" in some of the important research.

You do understand that this conversation you created has added 13 pages of high-quality so-called 'antisemitic' content to the internet, right? You're doing great work, here.

As said before, you're going to need "Pilpul 2.0" if you expect to have much success here. Best of luck.

[ConfusedJew]

It's just so tiresome.

I've already rebutted this, and I don't feel compelled to rebut it again, especially in a thread where we are supposed to be talking about the holocaust tm.

Can't we talk about a cohort of missing jews instead?

Ya that's fine, let me do some research which might take me some time.

[ConfusedJew]

Didn't you just say evidence of absence is not proof of absence?

So you're admitting that you can't prove that your relatives disappeared during the holohoax - correct?

Anything is possible. Some things are just way more unlikely than others. That's why I said you can't know anything with 100% certainty. That's the actual truth.

[ConfusedJew]

As said before, you're going to need "Pilpul 2.0" if you expect to have much success here. Best of luck.

What is Pilpul 2.0? How does it relate to my argument? Do you have a counterargument?

[ConfusedJew]

These last few exchanges with you have reminded me of that guy in terms of dishonesty, pivoting, refusal to concede points, playing dumb, and so on.

I went out of my way to be as hospitable to you as possible, but you just wore out my patience with your last round prevarications. You can keep posting if you want, but I myself probably won't be spending too much more time replying to you unless you begin to show some willingness to engage in rational discourse (as opposed to just doing blatant Jewish apologetics).

"It is simply untrue that Jews were expelled from 109 countries."

But then when challenged you admitted that were a lot of expulsions. You refused to give us a "correct" number. And you changed your argument to be something about WHY Jews keep getting expelled which is separate from the factual question of WHETHER they were expelled or not. I suspect you are smart enough to understand that distinction, but you are deliberately confusing the matter and I think that reflects poorly on your intellectual honesty.

What do you mean by "blatant Jewish apologetics"?

It is untrue that Jews were expelled from 109 countries. I don't know the exact number, and will have to research that more. I was giving an example of a false and harmful meme that has been spread in anti-semitic communities. That is a fact. It is binary - it is either true or false and that assertion is false.

I didn't deny that Jews have been expelled from countries in the past. It was in the Grok post that I sent over as proof. There was no reason to concede anything in this case because I didn't say anything that was wrong. If I do, I will have no problem conceding. My issue is that those memes are misleading, greatly exaggerating, and sometimes completely fabricated like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The pursuit of truth is not just about cherry picking facts out of context. It also includes precision and making sure that claims aren't exaggerated or minimized.

I can tell you upfront, that I will not be able to list the exact number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust but we can try to find a reasonable range based on a reasonable estimate.

Also, please don't accuse me of lying. If I say something that you think is a contraction, point out the contradiction and I will either explain the nuance, clarify what I meant, or correct the mistake. I'm not here to lie or deceive you. I'm being bombarded from a million different angles so I'm not pivoting. To simplify things, I'll narrow the focus to the demographic question but I still need to research that more.

[Callafangers]

"Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck."

I think we need a larger excerpt:

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

[Mein Kampf, Ch. 2]

Pretty incredible.