The Holocaust: How Psychological Warfare Shapes Belief and Culture

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
I have long ago concluded that debating intelligently, reasonably and fairly with die-hard holyH defenders is an unproductive, and endless activity. The reason why I have concluded that is three-fold:

1.) after about a decade involved in and following discussions on three different holyH discussion forums I have never seen any holyH promoter/defender change their mind — not ever! And not any aspect, detail or fact.

2. I have never come across a holyH defender who demonstrated genuine interest in ascertaining truth and accuracy. All — without exception — instead demonstrated their motives were just to contradict any compelling argument on the revisionist side;

3. I therefore concluded that most die-hard holyH believers either a.) know the narrative of mass-gassings is a false one and are ‘debating’ for other reasons, or b.) are so emotionally invested in the ‘eternal-suffering poor-jew’, holyH, mass-gassing belief-system that facts, evidence and reason will NEVER sway them as what they ACTUALLY need is some sort of therapy. A sort of cult-exiting therapy.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Arthur Butz had reached a similar conclusion way back in 1976:

“…public opinion [concerning THE Holocaust] has become distorted
by the media’s generation of [much] verbiage, generated over several decades,
with the consequence that unusual and elaborate therapy is required.
However, it is very important that this select group not lose sight of the fact that
the subject is quite simple and that only a cultural illness has made
the great efforts of revisionists necessary.”

~ Arthur Butz,
‘The hoax of the twentieth century: the case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry’.
(Pg.388, Publ.2015, Castle Hill Publishers.)

P.S.
The above assessment doesn’t apply to the person replying here at CODOH with a username beginning with the letter ‘N’. The following reply — previously given — imo, better does that.

.
COMPARABLE EXAMPLE
Imagine a group of people are suspected and accused of mass-murder — at a specific time and location — of people claimed to be missing.
Now imagine that in the course of an investigation the accused group are able to irrefutably prove their innocence with a well-attested and empirically verifiable, undeniable, alibi. Their alibi evidence proved they were not there at the alleged time and place of the alleged mass-murder of the claimed missing persons.

In such a situation their innocence would be accepted and admitted. Nothing else would be required of them to prove their innocence. The evidence would be accepted by all sane, fair, honest, reasonable people as proof enough that they were innocent of the crime they had been accused of.

But imagine the same scenario with someone coming along — claiming to be an ex-police inspector with a university degree — who argued that the accused group were STILL GUILTY UNLESS they could explain and prove with ‘evidence’ where the alleged missing persons now were.


THE ACTUAL SITUATION
This is exactly the situation with the holyH mass-murder allegation against the German Third Reich and the accusation of mass-murder of approx. 4 million jews in so-called ‘death camps’.
The alleged mass-murder ‘weapon’ and the method of mass-murder and body disposal has been definitively proven to be physically impossible. Plus there are no remains nor corpses of the alleged millions of ‘missing’ victims.
In this situation of an empirical ‘alibi’ — plus there being no remains of more than a tiny fraction of the alleged ‘missing’ 4 million jews at any of the alleged murder sites — still we have imbecilic nitwits declaring that the accused are STILL GUILTY UNLESS they can prove where the missing persons ‘went’.

This is the basis of the idiotic — and I would add wicked — argument that die-hard holyH defenders have reduced themselves to. Their ‘then where did they go?’ argument.

It is imo both stupid and evil.

This is another sign that the vast majority of the online defenders of this pseudo-historical, quasi-religious, holyH narrative are seriously deluded dimwits with no honesty or intellectual acuity.

.
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE DISCUSSIONS HERE
I see three alternative understandings regarding the holocaust’ narrative:
1. It is completely true and accurate and anyone who doubts ANY of it is a ‘denier’ and an anti-semite.
2. It is partially true: some parts of the narrative have been: distorted; invented; exaggerated; misremembered.
3. It is completely false.

I suggest that anyone who asserts either alternative 1. or 3. can safely be disregarded as an intellectual simpleton.

Sadly, two of the exterminationalists who are prominent posters here DO appear to fit into this category
as they appear to assert option 1.