Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

This is the place for your questions, propositions, formal debate topics, etc. but they do have to be approved by the Moderator before they will be published visibly, and must not address opponents disrespectfully, if at all. The subjects have to be simple or straightforward and kept on topic.

Moderator: been-there

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

I think the following discussion from the so-called SKEPTICS FORUM is worthy of preserving.

I started posting there to attempt a genuine dialogue with others in order to see if I could learn something useful from those who have a diametrically opposite understanding to my own.
I chose the user name REALLY SKEPTICAL.

This particular topic of discussion attempted to look at an aspect of 'holocaust' belief that was not appreciated and so was quite quickly locked. (And this at a discussion forum ostensibly for SKEPTICAL and CRITICAL thinking. 🤔)

Interestingly, only once a genuine dialogue (without the usual insult) had begun to occur was it locked. Presumably that was considered too dangerous. I was then banned for contesting the closing down of the discussion, which I did with a post and a private appeal for impartiality to the administrator of the whole site.

Why would a forum that claims to promote skepticism and genuine, impartial skeptical analysis, feel a need to do that?

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

The topic was informed by the predominance of quite unhinged, hateful personal attacks from most of the participants. For an example of that look at this one responded to here.
But mainly it had been inspired by a failed attempt at logical, informed discussion with an academically qualified 'holocaust' university lecturer, Dr. Nick Terry.
One that ended with the following observation:
Really_skeptical wrote:The simple point is that you (and others) approach this historical subject with an ahistorical mind-set.
You approach it instead as a sacrosanct belief that may not be questioned, critically analysed, skeptically doubted or revised.
It started here and here.


It ended there with this observation:
Really_skeptical wrote:Dr. Terry constantly changes the topic and reframes the discussion. Now after numerous posts from him avoiding the obvious, now he wants to change the ground rules.
I suggest that it's yet more proof of his delusional denial.
Denial over and over and over. Topic after topic.
He most defintely has a much vaster and broader knowledge of subjects related to this imprecise thing called 'THE Holocaust' than anyone I have come across before. Yet that is offset by the fact that he often skews discussion by showing-off knowledge of things that are not contested, plus he often obfuscates and reframes any discussion that shines a too penetrating light on the obvious areas of inconsistency or error.
Just as PrudentRegret has shone a light here on Krema1 and Majdanek.
Just as I have done on the unreliability of Vrba/Rosenberg and the so-called Vrba-Wetzler report.

So obviously a person in denial can neither admit that nor even see that.
That is why I said some posts back in one reply to him, that just posting the facts will never be enough for people like him. They need therapy. They need cult exit counselling.

They genuinely can not see the reasonableness of PrudentRegret's argument and his intelligent, logical parsing of the known facts.

They are members of a cult that forbids critical analysis, that punishes dissent, that demonises skeptics of its core beliefs.

How is a high priest of the cultish-belief going to be able to see that? And even if they get a glimpse, how are they easily going to publically admit any of that after a life-time's professional career of preaching the faith?

The topic discussing the signs of cultish thinking that was locked and then caused the BANNING for appealing starts here: https://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... bf8fdc4324
Really_skeptical wrote: ↑
How do you get a fervent 'true-believer' of a mass-delusion to become aware of their cultish thinking when everyone 'OUTSIDE' of the group is regarded by those 'WITHIN' the group as a wicked, force of evil by the Cult and its leaders?
This is a perrenial problem for all victims of cultish thinking that demonises non-believers.

Most 'cults' are minority groups that exist on the fringes of society.
So how do you help a person come out of a cultish way of thinking that is based on decades of a MAJORITY societal conditioning, manipulation and subtle misinformation?
This is the situation that reformers faced in 18th and19th centuries when compulsory cultish Christian beliefs were incorporated into ALL facets of society in Europe and America.

Awakening from cultish-conditioning is naturally much more difficult when the cultish thinking, beliefs, and attitudes are 'hard-wired' into the victim by their society through numerous methods:
— compulsory childhood education programmes,
— mass-media reinforcement through adult 'entertainment' viewing and reading material,
— constant references to the cultish-think 'beliefs' in news items.
— societal 'ceremonies' and special 'memorial' days.

How do you help a person who for all of their lives has been subjected to an indoctrination into cultish beliefs that demonises non-believers through constant emotional manipulation through news, entertainment, education, reconstructed 'sacred' memorial sites, museums, 'special' memorial days, etc.?

Are just the actual facts sufficient against decades of such mind control?
1.) For people who are capable of independent thought and critical thinking, the actual facts can be sufficient.
2.) For the majority this will not be enough. The psychological effects of them leaving the emotional security of the 'herd' and the 'group think' is for them a formidable barrier to overcome.

What happens when just the actual facts WERE sufficient, but relentless persecution and ostracisation forces a recantation?
For those who are capable of independent thought and critical thinking the realisation of the cult-think can still be a 'step too far' and the persecution and pressure from the majority mind-set can force them to rejoin the cult for an easy life. This can manifest in two ways:
— 1.) their true understanding will be concealed from others and they will feign acceptance of the cult's creed by publically disowning their realisation of reality.
— 2.) they will practice a self-delusion upon themselves in order to fit in with the majority cult mind-set.

In the 1970's there was a policy popular in America that was expensive and involved kidnapping a person and submitting them against their will to a process called 'deprogramming'.
Deprogramming ...mostly involves hours and hours of intense "debriefing," during which a team of deprogrammers... use ethical psychological techniques to try to counter the unethical psychological techniques used by the cult. The goal is to get the cult member to think for themself and re-evaluate their situation.

Debriefing methods can include:
• educating the cult member on thought-reform techniques and helping them to recognize those methods in their own cult experience.
• asking questions that encourage the cult member to think in a critical, independent way, helping them to recognize that type of thinking and praising them for it.
Thankfully kidnapping and forced deprogramming by those believers in a 'majority' view is no longer considered legal.
Now the favoured approach is called Cult exit counselling.

Here is an excerpt of an article by an exit-counsellor who used to belong to the Moonie cult:
Combating Cult mind control — exit-counseling.
While people can be programmed or indoctrinated through repetition and use of the BITE model [Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional contro] set of techniques and behaviours, it is my understanding that the only respectful, non-traumatising way for someone to reassert their own analytical thinking is for them to make the connections themselves.
Working with respect and compassion, as well as, asking good questions and giving very long silences works far better than using content to persuade the person that their beliefs are wrong. Frontal assaults, like this, backfire. The person feels attacked and becomes very defensive; trusting less and withdrawing into cult thought-stopping rituals even more.
This exit-counsellor has some gound rules which are fascinating in regard to the type of conversations that go on here with cult believers and anyone who dares question the cult's core beliefs. They perhaps explain why appeal to reason, critical thinking and empirical facts are almost always met with abuse, hateful rhetoric and ridicule...
• Do not try to argue the facts and make them agree with you.
• Do not try to win the argument.
• Respectful discussions with an exchange of points of view is what you want to pursue.
• Enjoy each other’s company.
• After rapport and trust are rebuilt, I suggest picking topics like [political] brainwashing programs or Traffickers and how they recruit and abuse people to become their slaves.
• discuss the BITE model and phobias and Information Control.

The best technique is to ask questions with a sincere, curious tone, giving the person a long time to think about the answer. Step-by-step. Of course, there is much more, too.
That was the opening argument.
Look at the replies that followed.

The irony was that almost ALL the replies confirmed the proposition. Yet those replying didn't know they were doing that.
Although the suggested victims of cult-thinking reacted exactly as a cult-victim would, they were quite unaware of that. They reacted with complete denial of the proposition plus resorted to cultish illogical, ad hominem abuse towards the messenger.

Near the end of the permitted discussion, some actual intelligent dialogue was beginning to occur.
My guess is that is precisely why the discussion was closed down with a completely bogus reason.

And closed down by a moderator — or pool of moderators — who use an avatar of a fictional character who erases memories of anyone who sees the reality of what is going on.
How appropriate! 8-)


Closed with what I call a bogus reason because as long there was only abuse from the cult-victims towards the messenger, the topic was permitted. Many discussion topics at the SKEPTICS–Genocide/Holocaust sub-forum consist of almost nothing but abuse and insult. E.g. this one: https://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 65#p502648

Such almost totally ad hominem topics are permitted and the moderator/moderators even participate. But as soon as dialogue occurs that isn't showing the cultish true-believers in a good light and is possible influencing and awakening a believer to the situation they are in, THEN the discussion is locked down.
Cultish 101.

Denying-History wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:35 am
I only see hot air.
Really_skeptical wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:47 am
Do you realise what this means?

It means you have to deny the following:
– that cults exist.
– that cultish beliefs and mind controlling cult-group-think exists.
– that psychological issues are involved in exiting cultish mind-sets.
– that exit counselling techniques have been developed.
etc., etc.

I suggest you ask yourself this: why would anyone feel a need to deny the existence of such cult-related topics?
Really_skeptical replied » Thu Jan 09, 2020 3:26 pm

Even without seeing the hater posters who are on ignore after months of no-content ad hominem replies, I still see a great deal of hateful, personal abuse as replies here to this topic.

Sad that those people resorting to that can not see that they are thereby proving the premise of this topic. I mean they are proving that they are unable to respond with any reasonable, logical reply. And I mean that they are displaying all the signs of people who belong to a mind-controlling cult.

I will attempt to help such victims with more information, and logical analysis. I see from the exit-counsellors experience that that rarely helps. But maybe one or two might start to think it through reasonably and logically. :)

Take a look at the following and see if you can see any similarities
in the following B.I.T.E control methods — that a cult-think exit counsellor has categorised —
which fits the methods used for promoting cultish 'holocaust' belief and attitude.


Behaviour control
- Promote dependence and obedience.
- Modify behaviour with rewards and punishments.

Information control
– Deliberately withhold and distort information.
– Forbid you from speaking with ex-members and critics.
– Discourage access to non-cult sources of information.
– Divide information into Insider vs. Outsider doctrine.
– Generate and use propaganda extensively.
– Encourage you to spy and report on “misconduct” of others.

Thought control
– Instill 'black and white, 'us vs. them' and 'good vs. evil' thinking.
– Change your identity, possibly even your name*.
– Use loaded language and cliches to stop complex thought.
– Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thoughts.
– Allow only positive thoughts.
– Reject rational analysis, critical thinking and doubt.
* [most online H defenders invent anonymous user-names and many even have multiple sock-puppet identities despite them not being in any danger of prosecution or persecution/ostracisation].

Emotional control
– Instill irrational fears (phobias) of questioning or leaving the group.
– Label some emotions [natural thoughts] as evil, sinful, or wrong.
– Shower you with praise and attention [if you go along with the group belief].
– Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve.
– Teach that there is no happiness or peace outside the group.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

Here is a continuing examination of the similarities between cultish-thinking and defence/protection of what is called 'the holocaust'.

This was posted on Friday Jan 10th 2020 here
Keep in mind that what later came to be called 'the Holocaust' began with a great many fake accusations and faked evidence, fed to a gullible, traumatised public through authoritative 'news' articles in newspapers and in 'news reel' films, etc.

One example of that is the fake 'news' at the end of the war, falsely suggesting to the world population that all the concentration camps and labour camps then being liberated in Germany were 'extermination camps' where the inmates were supposedly deliberately "starved to death", "clubbed to death", "burnt to death", "tortured to death", or "gassed". E.g. Dachau, Buchenwald, Ohrdruf, Bergen-Belsen.

This news film below claims inmates at Ohrdruf camp were "starved, clubbed and burnt to death" .
This is the newsreel that Eisenhower personally authorised, saying that with this film as proof, no-one in the future would be able to deny these atrocities happened. An accusation it has long been acknowledged by academics was manipulative misinformation. Sadly — as replies here demonstrate — many cultishly still believe this propaganda.

Holocaust promoters appear to have now removed from the internet many of these Youtube films with their original, emotionally manipulative, false narration. I just searched and could mostly find footage now made available without the contemporary, embarrassingly false, narratives.
Here is one with narrative remaining, falsely claiming the inmates were "starved, clubbed and burnt to death" at Ohrsdruf camp.


Here is a newspaper article repeating the atrocity propaganda lie, calling Ohrdruf an "extermination centre":

Here is a report claiming falsely that Dachau was a "murder factory" camp of mass killings:

In the following 1945 news film, Buchenwald is described by the narrator as an "extermination centre". Dachau is described as a "factory of horror".
At 9:30 the lie of prisoners routinely being killed in gas chambers at Dachau is told to the film's gullible, primed audiences.


The film also shows German citizens being brain-washed into believing the now acknowledged false atrocity deceptions of human-skin lampshades made from inmates, and shrunken heads supposedly of camp inmates.

Such lies and deceptions are still believed by victims of this cult-think.
At least two cult-believers participating here, recently defended these lies passionately here at SKEPTICS(?) with insults against those not showing 'faith' in the cult-belief.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :


As we are witnessing here, in this topic discussion on cult-think, there are no reasonable, intelligent, logical replies coming from the cult-like believers of this narrative.

Instead, in reply to the suggestion that there are similarities between A.) 'holocaust' indoctrination with B.) expert-recognised examples of cult-thinking, the vast majority of replies consist of demonisation for not 'believing' together with immature abuse and insult.

Which, ironically, is one of the signs of cult-think.
Remember, destructive cults rely on deception, confusion, loaded language, disinformation, ad hominem attacks to keep their cults going and their true believers, believing.


On the diagram above it will be seen that the cult of 'holocaust' fits the definition of cult as it forbids critical thinking.

It encourages and promotes irrational hate and demonisation of anyone 'outside' or expressing 'doubt'. These are to be shunned as non-believers. Are to be hated as non-believers.

The cult of 'holocaust' demands complete obedience.

The cultish thinking has an emotionally loaded 'trigger word' that is a pejorative terminology applied to any person seen as threatening to the cult. The term is "denier", or in full "holocaust denier".
This is hatefully and scornfully applied to any person who questions, doubts or damages the cult's credibility in any way at all. People as diverse as Prof. Norman Finkelstein, Ken Livingstone, Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon, David Irving, David Cole, Joel Hayward to Wilhelm Stäglich have been smeared with this catch-all loaded trigger word.

Its votaries claim absolute authority only for themselves and fellow-believers.

Finally it allows no legitimate reason to leave the cult-think.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

Does the following post look to you like it is "obviously intended to attack other users"?
Really_skeptical wrote:
Nobody who is in a cult is aware that they are. Obviously.
That will apply to me, you, everybody.

Nor is anyone going to be aware that they are exhibiting the signs of cultish thinking. Again, that is to be expected.
That also applies equally to all of us.

But I hope people will acknowledge that negative, ridiculing, abusive types of replies to any reasonable, referenced discussion of cultish-thinking is to be expected from people who actually fit the profile. Can you get that?

So if you are one of those people who felt the need to respond here with superior put-downs and abuse, guess what? You maybe fit the profile.
And if you are one of those, maybe you might benefit from at least considering that?

Those of you who will reject such an idea immediately and with disdain, are sadly and ironically exactly the ones who most need to consider that. Its called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://miro.medium.com/max/1800/1*Wa0C ... 5LypMQ.gif

This isn't suggesting that the vast majority of the people on the planet who currently believe the consensus history of WW2 are members of a cult. No, no, no.
Most people naively accept the consensus position and get on with their lives. And that's quite normal.
Ignorant maybe? And gullible, maybe? ...but normal.
But it IS suggesting that the small minority who refuse to allow normal revision of that history are displaying cult-like behaviour patterns.

It IS suggesting that the small minority who spend a great deal of their time looking into and confirming that consensus belief and then add more energy online slagging off, abusing, attacking and generally feeling superior to any skeptics, doubters and non-believers of their chosen aspect of WW2 history, are displaying cultish behaviour, thinking and attitudes.

Seriously, if you are one of those people who deny I answer questions, after I have been doing that for months;
or maintain that I don't "take part in discussions" even as I am doing that;
or deny that I add anything of value even when I supply verifiable references to support my understanding;
or insist that I never have "anything concrete to say" immediately after I just supplied 'concrete' examples of Allied false, manipulative, deceitful 'atrocity' propaganda;
or who feel the need to attack me personally rather than respond reasonably to my point of view,
etc., etc., etc., — then ironically you are showing that you are the ones who are in denial.

And when you feel a need to ridicule expert opinion on cults, cult thinking and the psychological traits of cult manipulation techniques as "hot air" that also should give you cause for concern about yourself and your approach to this tyrannically controlled and protected aspect of WW2 history.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The two top indicators of cultish thinking are:
1. forbids critical thinking — regards any criticism of the cult beliefs as evil/bad.
2. inculcates an "us versus them" attitude in the believers.

I suggest to any of you that haven't got me on ignore and are reading this, that literally EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU who has ever replied to me here has those two traits in plenteous supply.

Traits of people who are susceptible to cultish thinking:
1. those who at some time needed to feel validated.
2. those who at some time were seeking a group identity.
3. those who often blame others.
4. those who often feel angry.
5. those who have low self-worth.
6. those who at some time felt a need to belong.
7. those who at some time couldn't think things through for themselves so looked to others or a group to do that for them.
8. those who at some time needed a scapegoat or an enemy to look down on to make them feel good about themselves.

And the good news is, that we change. We grow. We mature.
That means everyone is capable of recognising and coming out of any cultish-thinking patterns we may have unconsciously developed.

This post above from the SKEPTICS 'holocaust' discussion forum website, conveniently demonstrates that the moderator at Skeptic who closed it with the above reason is ironically displaying exactly the sort of authoritarian, mind-control tactics that the topic was intending to highlight.
So that worked out really well, then. :D
Confirmation that 'holocaust history' defenders display oppressive, intolerant, cultish behaviour. :)

Also further evidence that the avatar of a fictionalised character in the process of erasing the memory of people who have seen too much 'reality' is extremely appropriate. :ugeek:
Cultish thought control methods
1. Require members to internalise the group’s doctrine as truth.
a. Adopting the group's ‘map of reality’ as reality.
b. Instill black and white thinking.
c. Make believers decide between good vs. evil.
d. Categorise people into us versus them (insiders vs. outsiders).

3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words.
4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts.
5. ...techniques are used to ...undermine critical thinking...
6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created.

8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.
9. Forbid critical questions about... doctrine or policy.
10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, [denial] or not useful.
-- Steve Allan Hassan
[https://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/obs ... 790//quote]
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

I thought it useful to preserve some of this conversation from another forum about holocaust history.
Mainly because the discussion that it generated became such a clear example of the actual self-delusive, abusive, cultish thinking it was attempting to analyse.

I also wanted to preserve it as I feared a moderator there may delete the thread if they learn it is being copied here.

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

As examples of closed-minded, cultish-thinking compare the following post with the replies it received and which followed it.
Really_skeptical wrote:Just for the record, this particular topic of discussion is not about "denying" anything.

It is ONLY about analysing a suggestion that there has developed a tendency towards a cultish mindset when it results in members of that mind-set spewing hatred, condemnation and abuse over anyone who approaches a particular episode of WW2 history with skepticism.

That's it. That's all.

I understand if people who themselves are stuck in a cultish mindsight, will have difficulty understanding this, and will instead see it as an attack. But that is the catch 22: if YOU yourself ARE stuck in any form of cultish-thinking, you will be the last person to be able to see that.
Any mindset that refuses to allow ANY form of criticism or analysis of its beliefs can be described as cultish and self-deluding.

Any group that promotes abuse, persecution and demonisation of others for engaging in ANY criticism or analysis of its beliefs, is cultish and delusional.

Any society or nation that legalises abuse, persecution and demonisation of others for engaging in ANY criticism or analysis of its beliefs, has become cultish and tyrannical.


I hope we can at least have some agreement that it is hard for egocentric, opinionated, arrogant people with superiority complexes to ever admit flaws, errors or mistakes.

Similarly it is difficult for someone who is in a cult or part of a collective that exists by cultish-thinking, to be able to admit that to themselves.

In the same way that it is extremely difficult to explain to an arrogant stupid person that their thinking is illogical and stupid.

As has been pointed out before, this is an accepted fact of nature, that has been demonstrated convincingly by Dunning and Kruger.

Here is an example of that: it is a fact is that I have never, ever come across a single defender of the enforced, pseudo-historical narrative called 'THE Holocaust' who correctly understands the empirical paradigm.
Not one person.
Yet everyone of these people firmly asserts that they DO know what empiricism means, despite the other fact that when asked they cannot provide any empirical evidence on specific points in support of their beliefs.
That fact alone speaks volumes.

Another great irony is that any intelligent, analytical, critical evaluation of the details of this ahistorical, compulsory, quasi-religious belief-system is regarded as 'hate speech'.
When the reality demonstrated with regular clarity here is that any skepticism of this belief-system is often met with quite deranged, visceral hatred by the cultish 'true-believers' here.

It is the believers with a cultish mind-set here at SKEPTICS who regularly resort to hateful language and who show they feel hatred of other people who aren't as confident as them of the historical veracity of the mass-gassing claim.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:: ↑ Mon Jan 13, 2020
...people in this forum have different ideas and beliefs;
don't necessarily agree on details of the history under discussion or what it all means;
have long and difficult debates about differences;
and may change their conclusions through debate, or remain unconvinced.
Really_skeptical wrote:Again, this reply I think shows the same narrow, delusional, self-referential and therefore cultish mind-set.

Disagreement within mutually accepted and confined parameters — ones that accord with and do not question the basic, mutually-accepted 'cult' beliefs — is not a refutation of what is being suggested here.

You really can't see that?

That is like arguing that because there were "different ideas and beliefs" with "long and difficult debates" within the Mormon church, or the The Peoples' Temple of Jim Jones, or Church of Scientology, therefore that proves there was no evidence of cultish attitudes within those cult memberships.
Which I myself think is an extremely obvious non sequitur.

That it isn't obvious to you, and that you need this explaining to you, further supports my analysis of what has been and still is occurring here.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient
is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion,
but allow very lively debate within that spectrum...”

― Noam Chomsky, The common good
Sergey_Romanov wrote:So you still have to provide evidence of a "cultish mind-set" and you still have provide evidence that we are believers and not you.
Really_skeptical wrote:I do not have to provide anything. It's a suggestion that you can investigate or ignore.
Only the cult-victim can choose whether to recognise their condition and come out of it... or not.
And they usually need therapy from trained therapists. I am not that.
I am suggesting ALL of you replying here are displaying cultish thinking. I have explained why. It's up to you to see if my suggestion has any value or not.

And what I see as ironic is that you yourself are displaying what I am suggesting is cultish thinking in almost every reply. Yet in almost every reply here you keep asking for evidence of it.
Do you see the problem?


The abuse I get varies from mild ridicule to full on hatred and outraged insults.
In almost every post you abuse me as a liar.
To know that I am lying you would have to know my inner thoughts. I could just be wrong or mistaken.

So I again suggest to you that it is a self-delusional person with a cultish mind-set who would think he could read the minds of people he regards as demonic outsiders/non-believers.

Can you consider that and try it on?
PREMISE 4. It is the characteristic of a cultish mind-set to think they can read minds of people they have never met who live hundreds of miles away from them and can distinguish when someone is lying and when they are simply wrong about something, just from a post on a chat forum.
And I just asked you for evidence of what exactly I am supposed to be 'denying'. You avoided that.
You also couldn't provide examples or quotes of my alleged hateful abuse.

Here is a recent example of a reply showing that against me: https://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 10#p746391

To give you an extreme example as a test, can you see how the following is lacking in self-awareness: "Where am I being abusive you crazy, lying, racist denier? Show me one example, you disgusting, antisemitic, neo-Nazi, Hitler-loving scum."


"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

I'm watching the Netflix documentary on the show-trial in Israel of John Demjanjuk.
Look at the title!!! :o :?

What a deception!

What a circus!!

It is even called a 'show-trial' by some of the participants being interviewed.

I'm on the second episode.
It explains how hard it was to hire an Israeli lawyer who would take on Demjanjuk as a client.
No-one wanted to get involved. Finally they found one lawyer who admitted when he had read about the extradition case from America he was convinced Demjanjuk was guilty and WAS 'Ivan the terrible'. He says he was 100% convinced.
But then he says that after being asked to take on the case as a defence lawyer and AFTER he looked at the evidence he explains very quickly he realised the evidence against him was fraudulent. He says it was so obvious!

During the trial when all these 'survivors' were getting into the witness box and getting angry and then giving emotional exaggerated testimony through tears, telling ludicrous tales of wicked cruelty, this lawyer interrupts and appeals to the Judge to explain what is the purpose of this 'undisputed' testimony. The trial is one of identification, not of listening to endless emotional stories.
The Judge is outraged and admonishes him.
The Jewish lawyer bravely persists and says it is obvious the testimony is not for the purpose of a fair trial but for the benefit of the twelve cameras — waves his arm, pointing to them — that are beaming the trial to the TV sets around Israel and the world. The Judge gets more annoyed and admonishes him more strongly, plus threatens to use the law against him if he says something similar again.
This is Israeli 'holocaust' justice.

These people are traumatised victims of a cult, where they themselves want to be centre-stage as victims.

Watching this documentary is disturbing.
These people are clearly way beyond reason.

We are shown old men claiming to have been at Treblinka and witnessing Ivan the terrible forcing people into the gas chambers with a sword and with a bayonet and a spear and torturing people so that their flesh is hanging off them BEFORE they were gassed.
Then one of them slips up. He narrated giving testimony in a holocaust trial in Florida. The American defence attorney asks him nonchalantly how he travelled there. The man replies "By train". Apparently it was a turning point in the trial.
The old man genuinely believed he had travelled from Israel to Florida by train!!?

The Jewish Israeli defence lawyer was later attacked prior to the appeal with acid in the face. He nearly lost the sight of one eye. His attacker was one of the so-called 'holocaust survivors' who had been at the trial. The attack happened at the funeral of a murdered retired Israeli Jewish Judge who was murdered by other Israeli Jews because he had agreed to appear as a witness for the defence at John Demjanjuk's appeal.
This is what these people are like. Murderous, self-deceiving, lying, traumatised seniles who are beyond reason.

This courageous Jewish Israeli defence lawyer spells it out in the documentary.
At 23:20 the Jewish Israeli lawyer for the defence makes the following statement concerning these 'holocaust' 'survivor' witnesses:
Some of the witnesses were liars.
Some of the witnesses were seniles.
And some of the witnesses were seniles and liars.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

Here is further evidence of the cult-like, manipulative tactics employed to perpetuate 'faith' in this 'holocaust' belief-system.
In this case it concerns cult-like tactics being used upon impressionable Jewish Israeli teenagers to indoctrinate them and to emotionally manipulate them into 'holocaust belief' through encouraging strong feelings and tears.
When the number of sites that participants see is of supreme value, a frequent reaction is boredom. At the Warsaw Ghetto cemetery, after a long night without sleep, Dr. Yaron witnessed a familiar situation: one student said “I’m so bored here – I don’t know what I’m doing here!”
Her friend added “It’s not interesting. I don’t know what to do with myself”.

In response to these complaints, the guide reminded them, half seriously, half in jest: “The agreement was that we’ll bore you to death, and you’ll stand and listen as if you are enjoying it.”

“Do we have to travel all the way to here to love the Land of Israel?” one student asked.

One way to help diffuse the boredom while still sticking to the tight schedule is to include lots of personal stories and quotes from survivors, typically taken from information handed down from one generation of guides to the next.
But after three or four days, even this tactic loses its potency, and the students’ resistance grows.

During a trip organised by the high school in central Israel, Dr. Yaron writes, teachers resorted to shouting. “We’re talking about the Holocaust – this is an embarrassment!” the principal yelled.

The ceremonies held at the camps are the main tool for creating an “experience.”
They need to be “short, send a clear message and be moving,” one guide said. But that requires order and discipline.

At Auschwitz, during the “every person has a name” ceremony traditionally held in a darkened hall in one of the barracks, a few students clapped after a fellow student spoke movingly about some of his relatives who were killed in the Holocaust. The guide was furious, Dr. Yaron writes in his book.
“We don’t clap” he roared.
“This isn’t a theater and it’s not stand-up comedy. How many times have I told you that? Let me explain the rules once again: Everyone ends by saying, ‘May their souls be a link in the chain of life.’ And then everyone answers 'amen'.”

The emotional experience is heightened by singing Israel's anthem at the end of every ceremony, and sometimes after other activities during the trip as well. Students are told they have to sing “Hatikva” with special pride.

But the clearest expression of that “pride” is apparently reserved for the waving of the Israeli flag.
“Poland, for me, is waving the Israeli flag and proving that the people of Israel live” one principal said, summing up the trip.

“The flag is waved with great pride, and sometimes even defiantly,” said one guide.

It seems that the question of who or what exactly is being defied – Poles, Germans, Arabs, the entire world or all of history – is less important.
“I hold the Israeli flag up and wave it really high. I actually stretch my arm as high as possible, so people will see,” a religious student said, during a visit to Treblinka.
“It’s true dedication. My arm is already aching. Like me, there’s another five or six with Israeli flags. Everyone insists on holding it up until the end. So people will see!”


But the acid test of the trip, it emerges, is how much you cried.
The students have learned to expect tears, and when they don’t come, some of them lose patience.
Others blame themselves for not feeling what was expected of them.
“I was disappointed with myself that I didn’t manage to digest the magnitude of the event,” one student admitted. “I was expecting this shock, this hammer blow to the head, so the trip would have meaning.”

On another trip, after visiting “the holy grail of the death camps,” as one teacher defined Auschwitz-Birkenau, many of the participants complained of “disappointment” and “frustration.” Said one: “I wanted [to feel] death, something powerful that would rend my heart.”

“I thought maybe something was wrong with me,”
his friend added. “I didn’t know if it was because of me or because of the general atmosphere. I was pretty disappointed with myself and the others. Maybe it’s because I’m doing something wrong.”

During the first days of these excursions, some leaders threaten that any severe disciplinary infraction will result in the student being flown back to Israel at his parents’ expense. But on the last night or two, after several intense days and a roller-coaster of emotions, these threats lose their sting.
“The end is the most dangerous,” one teacher admitted. “We have to be on the [hotel] floors. The students let themselves fall apart.”

Another teacher said she learned something important about herself during the trip: “I can also get by without sleep.”

Some of the guides put the students through what Yaron calls “scenes of horror”: in the cattle car of a train on display at a camp, or alongside the death pits. The 2016 documentary “#Uploading_Holocaust” (Mahaneh Meshutaf), a compilation of short clips filmed by students on their trips to Poland, demonstrates this quite well.
In a cattle car packed with teenagers, the guide is seen speaking with a trembling voice and his eyes shut: “At this moment I want to be Moisheleh. Where did they take them? Mommy, why me? Why me and not my big brother?”

“I want you to begin to feel!” the guide exhorts the group.

At another site, the students are asked to talk about “their children” who were murdered. They break down and cry.
“I can make them break down easily” said a guide named Liron, quoted in Yaron's book.
“I allow myself to reach the limit, but I don’t cross it: I will never push a child into the corner of the railcar or into a gas chamber, and tell him: ‘Imagine that you, yourself were here.’ I play a recording of the rattling of the train, but not sounds of shooting. It’s too scary.”

Liron added that even though “it is possible to use emotional manipulation on the trip” he never looks to stir up the teens.
“Naturally a trip with such a high level of emotion also involves problems and risks among a small minority of participants. Over the years, I have seen two cases of teens who went crazy, and it was necessary to fly them home. A lot of less serious situations arise as well: Sleeplessness, anxiety, trembling and a lack of desire to continue on the trip.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.pr ... -1.8478098
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »

We have just witnessed here how a holocaust 'history' academic responds when their belief-system is exposed to critical questioning and their methodology is exposed as illogical. The response is the predictable resort to pure ad hominem insult. And this from a trained, qualified academic of the topic!
See here and the ad hominem reply here.

As holocaust skeptics know, even an open, honest, intelligent, noble, courageous and public attempt to examine what is called 'THE Holocaust' is forbidden. No matter how that is done, no matter how logically, academically and empirically that is analysed: only ONE conclusion is permitted.

When fraudulent and bogus aspects of the WW2 history that come under the rubric of 'holocaust' were succesfully and convincingly exposed by Ernst Zündel, he was 'punished' by a delusional society that couldn't tolerate the truth. He and his lawyer Doug Christie's public defeating and public humiliation in a court of law of so-called experts and supposed key eye-witnesses — using historical fact; logic; testimonial, documentary and forensic evidence — was not appreciated. Zündel was attacked, threatened, subject to arson and finally was SECRETLY judged to be a 'national security risk' based upon unrevealed evidence. What sort of free society and allegedly 'irrefutable history' needs to do that? :o
He was then arrested, imprisoned without trial, locked in solitary confinement for two years before being exiled to Germany to face a show-trial and a subsequent five year prison sentence.
This I suggest is irrefutable proof of a sick society. One that feels a desperate need to protect a pseudo-historical narrative from any form of critical analysis.

The judicial ill-treatment and societal persecution of brave Mr. Zündel and a host of other noble, courageous, honest pursuers of truth and justice — e.g. Wilhelm Stäglich, Thies Christophersen, Walter Lüfftl, J.G. Burg, Professor Joel Hayward, Professor Anthony Hall, Sylvia Stolz, Ursula Haverbeck, Professor Robert Faurrison, etc., etc., — is as shameful as it is indicative of a delusional state of collective denial.

Check out this similar situation.

Xu Xiaodong
Here is a comparative example of how a society that shares a mass-aberration, reponds to having it's sacred beliefs exposed as fraudulent and self-delusional. It is the case of a Chinese MMA professional fighter who exposed the cult of martial arts and its bogus 'masters' in China. He also was persecuted by the State of China for 'disrepecting Chinese culture'!! :?
His crime was to challenge certain so-called martial arts 'masters' who were making money posing as fight experts. He offered them an opportunity to defeat him in a fight contest.
You can see some of the filmed results here below.

For easily defeating and beating up these so-called 'expert' frauds, he was threatened with death, had a bounty put out on him, lost societal credit points so that he could not travel by plane or train, could not purchase a broadband account,etc., etc.

Holocaust delusional belief and cultish denial
The similarity is plain to see. But there is one big difference.
The big difference is that since the Zündel court cases, Holocaust academics and experts will not dare to engage in a genuine, open fair contest and debate with skeptics. They will not go in the 'ring' as these delusional martial art 'masters' did.
I assume that is because these martial arts people were genuinely self-deluded. They genuinely thought they could win a fair fight.
So called holocaust experts like Lipstadt won't dare do that, as presumably they know they will be defeated and humiliated. That is why Lipstadt declined to say a single word in Irving's libel case against her. Her team of Jewish backers instead paid a bunch of bully boy 'academics' with a large team of paid researchers to spend a year sifting every sentence a libelled man had ever written privately and publically, in order to attack and discredit one man.

"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10473
Joined: 20 Aug 2018, 04:56
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by Huntinger »

Reproduced from Veterans Today..…by Jonas E. Alexis & Thomas Dalton
6 million lies
Alexis: I knew that the six-million figure was being circulated long before World War II even started. I knew that it was being perpetuated during World War I, but you trace it back to the late 1800s. You argue that the New York Times was propounding these falsifications way back in 1889. You add:

“Two years later, in 1891, we read about the sorry state of ‘Russia’s population of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 Jews,’ and of ‘the fat that about six millions persecuted and miserable wretches’ still cling to their religion, against all odds.’”

Walk us through the historical record and tell us how this figure has been used as a weapon in the psychological war.

Dalton: The 6-million figure, as the number of Jewish Holocaust deaths, is the lynchpin of the entire story. Without millions of innocent deaths, the Holocaust becomes much less evil, and perhaps even just a side-note to WW2. Most important, if the number ultimately is shown to be untenable, the whole story collapses. Our ‘experts’ would be shown to be either liars or incompetents. And we would realize that the wool had been pulled over our eyes for decades. So we need to understand something about its origins and justification.

Our basic question, then, is this: Where did the 6 million come from in the first place? That is, when did it first appear? One would naturally presume it to be impossible to calculate the death toll in the midst of a raging world war. Even in the immediate aftermath, we would know little for certain. Surely we would not take, for example, the Nazis’ word for it; they would be inclined to either minimize the death toll or, if coerced, exaggerate it. The many camp survivors would clearly not be of much help; as prisoners, they would have been in no position to know such things as overall death tolls.

Therefore, one would expect a dependable answer to come only from a detailed investigation of all the death sites, including forensic data, mass grave exhumations, autopsies, and so on. This would then be compared with surviving Nazi documentation, photographs, and other evidence. A proper postwar investigation would clearly take months, if not years. Only then could we be confident of an estimate of 6 million.

Oddly, this is not what has been done. Far from it. In fact, nearly the opposite of the above has occurred. The victorious Americans relied heavily on biased Jewish and Soviet sources, and on captured and abused Nazis. They conducted no forensic investigations, no autopsies, and no unearthing of mass graves. The Americans relied strictly on hearsay evidence to establish the all-important Jewish death toll.

All this would be bad enough, but the story gets much stranger still. As you say, the number was circulated years, even decades prior to WW2. This is a fascinating and highly revealing situation.

The first mention of 6 million suffering Jews comes way back in 1889. In a short article, the New York Times asks “How many Jews are there?” The low estimate of “the ubiquitous race” is 6,000,000. “With the exception of half a million,” it adds, “they are all in a state of political bondage.” Then in 1891, as you point out, we read about “six millions persecuted and miserable wretches” in Russia.

Such stories were useful to the newly-emerging Jewish Zionist movement, which wanted to promote tales of Jewish suffering in order to encourage migration to Palestine (there not yet being a nation of Israel).

Referring to the Jews of Russia, Zionist Stephen Wise said this in 1900: “There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism” (Jun 11; p. 7). In 1901, the Chicago Daily Tribune reported on the “hopeless condition” of the “six million Jews in Russia” (Dec 22; p. 13). In 1905, Zionists began to fret that “Russia, with its 6,000,000 Jews,” wasn’t promoting emigration (Jan 29; p. 2).

Periodic and often minor anti-Jewish actions were always portrayed in the most dramatic terms; the NYT despaired over “our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia” (Mar 23; p. 7). In 1906 we read of “startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews”; it is a “horrifying picture” of “renewed massacres” and “systematic and murderous extermination” (Mar 25; p. SM6).

In 1910, we find “Russian Jews in sad plight,” and we are saddened over “the systematic, relentless, quiet grinding down of a people of more than 6,000,000 souls” (Apr 11; p. 18). In 1911 the NYT reported that “the 6,000,000 Jews of Russia are singled out for systematic oppression and for persecution by due process of law” (Oct 31; p. 5). It’s amazing to think that, even by 1910, there was a clear emphasis on “6 million” and “systematic extermination” with respect to the Jews.

Then World War I began. We read of the plight of “more than 6,000,000 Jews who live within the war zone” (2 Dec 1914). The next month carried more reports of “more than 6,000,000 are in the very heart of the war zone”; they are consequently “subjected to every manner of suffering and sorrow,” and all Americans are called upon to help (Jan 14; p. 3).

In 1916, we read that “the world is silent” despite the fact that “nearly six million Jews are ruined, in the greatest moral and material misery” (Feb 28; p. 8). A year later, Rabbi Samuel Schulman exclaims that “six millions of Jews are living in lands where they are oppressed, exploited, crushed, and robbed of every inalienable human right” (Jan 22; p. 6). In May of 1917, we hear that “six million Jews—half the Jews of the world—are calling to you for help” (May 21; p. 1).

By September, the situation was being described in the strongest possible terms; women and infant Jews must be saved, we are told, “if the Jewish race is to survive the terrible holocaust of the world war” (Sep 24; p. 20). No one today realizes that a Jewish “holocaust” is said to have occurred in both world wars.

After WW1, the famous number then shifted to a new region. In September 1919, we find that it is now the Ukrainian and Polish Jews who are subject to misery; “6,000,000 are in peril” (Sep 8; p. 6). We are further horrified to read that “the population of 6,000,000 souls in Ukrania and in Poland…are going to be completely exterminated.” Once again, 6 million Jews under threat of extermination.

The trend continued for years, too numerous for me to elaborate here. References include the following:

“unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease [for] about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of the earth” (12 Nov 1919).
“typhus menaced 6,000,000 Jews of Europe” (12 Apr 1920).
“hunger, cold rags, desolation, disease, death—six million human beings without food, shelter, clothing” (2 May 1920).
“Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre” (20 Jul 1921).
“over 6,000,000” Russian Jews “neglected” (16 Sep 1924).
This brings us to the Nazi era, where the ‘6 million’ appears once again—and long before WW2. The first reference comes just two months after Hitler assumed power in January 1933. The NYT reports on a “Hitler protest” vote by some local New York government officials. Rabbi Stephen Wise issued an appeal: “We in America have taken the lead in a battle for the preservation of German Jewry,” adding that his group “is now active in relief and reconstruction work in Eastern Europe where 6,000,000 Jews are involved” (Mar 29; p. 9).

Three years later, we read in the London Times of “6,000,000 unwanted unfortunate” Jews, and of “these 6,000,000 people without a future” (26 Nov 1936; p. 15). On that same day, the NYT reported on a speech by British Zionist Chaim Weizmann, who “dwelt first on the tragedy of at least 6,000,000 ‘superfluous’ Jews in Poland, Germany, Austria.” In February 1937, we hear that “five to six million Jews in Europe are facing expulsion or direst poverty” (Feb 26; p. 12).

In 1938, the NYT ran an article headlined “Persecuted Jews Seen on Increase” (Jan 9; p. 12). “6,000,000 victims noted,” they said—referring to a combined total in Germany, Poland, and Romania. The very next month we hear about “a depressing picture of 6,000,000 Jews in Central Europe, deprived of protection or economic opportunities, slowly dying of starvation, all hope gone…” (Feb 23; p. 23).

By May, it was the “rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe today which has deprived more than 6,000,000 Jews and non-Aryans of a birthright” (May 2; p. 18). Later that year, the London Times printed an account of the “treatment of German Jews”; “the problem now involved some 6,000,000 Jews,” they wrote (Nov 22; p. 11). Bear in mind: the start of World War II was still nearly a year away.

Into early 1939, the London Times continued to report on Weizmann’s view that “the fate of 6,000,000 people was in the balance” (Feb 14; p. 9). War began in September of that year, and anti-Nazi propaganda accelerated. In mid-1940, the NYT quoted Nahum Goldmann: “Six million Jews are doomed to destruction if the victory of the Nazis should be final” (Jun 25; p. 4).

This was still at least one full year before Hitler allegedly decided to begin his program of Jewish mass murder—according to our experts. How could Goldmann have known what was to come?

In January 1942, we read that Heinrich Himmler “has uprooted approximately 6,000,000 human beings” and shipped them into occupied Poland, “where they necessarily starve and freeze to death and die of disease” (Jan 18; p. SM10). By mid-1942, it was “a vast slaughterhouse for Jews” in Europe; one million were reported dead, and the remainder of the “6,000,000 to 7,000,000” at risk (Jun 30; p. 7).

By December the Jewish death toll was reported as 2 million, representing one third of the 6,000,000 “in Hitler’s domain.” It was, said the NYT, “a holocaust without parallel” (Dec 13; p. 21).

The sad tale continued throughout the war years:

Hitler intends “the extermination of some 6,000,000 [Jewish] persons in the territories over which [his] rule has been extended” (London Times, 25 Jan 1943).
“Save doomed Jews,” says Rabbi Hertz; the world “has done very little to secure even the freedom to live for 6,000,000 of their Jewish fellow men” (Mar 2; p. 1).
Two million are dead, “and the four million left to kill are being killed, according to plan” (Mar 10; p. 12).
“Five and a half million Jews in Europe are reported to have been put to death” (10 May 1944; p. 5)—still one full year before the end of the European conflict.
And again later: “Dr. A. Leon Kubowitzki…reported that 5,500,000 Jews had been killed in Nazi controlled countries” (Nov 27; p. 14).
Then the first definitive claim—in January of 1945, four months before the end of the war: “6,000,000 Jews Dead” (Jan 8; p. 17). Jacob Lestchinsky claimed that the prewar population of 9.5 million had been reduced to 3.5 million. No mention of how he came to this figure, amidst the chaos of an ongoing war. In April, the NYT headlined a story: “5,000,000 Reported Slain at Oswiecim [Auschwitz]”—an incredible miscalculation, even assuming the correctness of the present-day figure of 1 million.

In May we read something of an official declaration from Lord Wright of the UN War Crimes commission: “It has, however, been calculated that in all about six million Jews were deliberately slaughtered in [gas chambers] and other ways” (May 13; p. SM4). Calculated by whom? On what basis? And using what hard evidence? He does not say.

This is the short version of the story. From there, the number shows up in the Nuremberg trials, becomes “documented”, and thus accepted as fact ever since.

It’s clear why no one wants to talk about this. If people realized that the 6 million had been in circulation for some 50 years prior to WW2, they might begin to question its accuracy—as they should. The obvious conclusion is that the number had a purely symbolic character, representing something like ‘all the Jews’ or ‘lots of Jews’. It was never intended as a factual figure.

Given this, we can likely conclude that the actual death toll was much less. And there is plenty of other evidence to suggest that this is exactly the case.

Holocaust in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria? Nah. These people weren’t “chosen.”
Alexis: You have provided enough evidence against the six-million figure here, and he who has ears to hear, let him hear. He who has the mind to think and use reason, let him think and use reason.

The fact is that we have been inundated with comfortable lies for far too long, and it is high time that people of reason and people who are of the truth stand for that which is intellectually rigorous and morally satisfying. If we continue to allow the people who have rejected metaphysical Logos to rewrite history, then lies, hoaxes, and complete fabrications will be passed on to the next generation as brute facts. As Friedrich Nietzsche himself conceded, when metaphysical Logos plays no part in one’s historical and philosophical enterprise, then lies can become the truth and vice versa.

There is indeed an industry out there that will do virtually anything to produce deliberate lies, colossal hoaxes, and crafty deceptions in order to perpetuate a pernicious ideology. If you do not think so, then consider this:

When Ruth Shalit graduated from Princeton University Phi Beta Kappa in 1992, one could compare that event to the time when Archimedes discovered the beauty of mathematics. Alicia Shepard of the American Journalism Review declared,

“Practically overnight she became a star—a TNR [The New Republic] associate editor writing cover stories for the political weekly as well as for the New York Times Sunday magazine, with a $45,000-a-year contract to do pieces for GQ.”

Many of the articles she wrote, however, were complete fabrications and she was later labeled as the “journalistic Unabomber.” In Shalit’s own words,

“I started as an intern but knew this was my fantasy scenario, getting asked to stay. As an intern I threw my heart into it. I was bloodless. I just pounded the pavement and cranked out stories.”[4]

Shalit was not the only journalist from the New Republic who was caught fabricating stories. Stephen Glass, who earned a law degree from Georgetown University and who attended the University of Pennsylvania before that, was declared by Vanity Fair as

“the most sought-after young reporter in the nation’s capital, producing knockout articles for magazines ranging from The New Republic to Rolling Stone.”

Yet there was one problem: “Trouble was, he made things up—sources, quotes, whole stories—in a breathtaking web of deception that emerged as the most sustained fraud in modern journalism.”

When the whole media found out about Glass’s obvious fabrications, he was confronted by his manager, Charles Lane. And Glass was on the defensive line, asking Lane to protect his reputation:

“You know, Chuck, I just feel really attacked. And you’re my editor and you should be backing me up.”

Buzz Bissinger of Vanity Fair declared,

“This, after all, was Stephen Glass, the compelling wunderkind who had seeped inside the skins of editors not only at the New Republic but also at Harper’s, George, Rolling Stone, The New York Times, and Mother Jones.

“This was the Stephen Glass who had so many different writing contracts that his income this year might well have reached $150,000 (including his $45,000 New Republic salary). This was the Stephen Glass whose stories had attracted the attention not just of Random House—his agent was trying to score a book deal—but of several screenwriters…

“The New Republic, after an investigation involving a substantial portion of its editorial staff, would ultimately acknowledge fabrications in 27 of the 41 by lined pieces that Glass had written for the magazine in the two-and-a-half-year period between December 1995 and May 1998.

“In Manhattan, John F. Kennedy Jr., editor of George, would write a personal letter to Vernon Jordan apologizing for Glass’s conjuring up two sources who had made juicy and emphatic remarks about the sexual proclivities of the presidential adviser and his boss.”

How far was Glass able to go? Almost all the way:

“Glass created fake letterheads, memos, faxes, and phone numbers; he presented fake handwritten notes, fake typed notes from imaginary events written with intentional misspellings, fake diagrams of who sat where at meetings that never transpired, fake voice mails from fake sources. He even inserted fake mistakes into his fake stories so fact checkers would catch them and feel as if they were doing their jobs.”

In 2003, Glass finally did an interview with 60 Minutes in which he declared,

“My life was one very long process of lying and lying again, to figure out how to cover those other lies.” How, then, did Glass build this lying process, particularly over the years with no suspicion? Simple:

“I would tell a story, and there would be fact A, which maybe was true. And then there would be fact B, which was sort of partially true and partially fabricated. And there would be fact C which was more fabricated and almost not true. And there would be fact D, which was a complete whopper. And totally not true. And so people would be with me on these stories through fact A and through fact B. And so they would believe me to C. And then at D they were still believing me through the story.”

Glass, who had been a fact-checker before, knew how to get by and deceive even his own publishers:

“I knew how the system worked. And I made it so that my stories could get through. I invented fake notes. I later would invent a series of voice mailboxes and business cards. I invented newsletters. I invented a website. For every lie I told in the magazine, there was a series of lies behind that lie that I told—in order to get it to be published.”

Charles Lane, after discovering that Glass had concocted nearly every single story, wrote, “If it was sunny outside and Steve and I were both standing outside in the sun and Steve came to me and said, ‘It’s a sunny day,’ I would immediately go check with two other people to make sure it was a sunny day.”

Holocaust lies, fabrications and deceptions work almost in the same way. Their proponents always start with a little bit of truth, such as Jews suffered and died in Nazi Germany and in concentration camps, but they always change the rules as the Holocaust game goes on.

A person has to be clinically insane to deny the fact that Jews, as well other ethnic groups, suffered and died under Nazi Germany. But should that be proof enough to universally declare that six-million Jews died during the war? Shouldn’t people of reason ask for serious backup? And should people be called anti-Semites for asking the Holocaust establishment to provide solid evidence?
Talmudic mantra over time

𝕸𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖊 𝕰𝖍𝖗𝖊 𝖍𝖊𝖎ß𝖙 𝕿𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊
Amt VI..Ausland-SD
User avatar
Posts: 10431
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Holocaust 'history' – an example of cultish thinking?

Post by been-there »



A peculiar phenomena that anyone following the conversations here or at the so-called SKEPTICS forum will notice is that all those who defend the holocaust mass-gassing narrative, appear to have difficulty acknowledging any point or argument in the revisionist position. They display a resistance to acknowledging ANY point or argument, no matter how insignificant.
It is as if acknowledging even the simplest fact or point appears to them like stepping on to a slippery slope that they fear could lead to admitting OTHER major errors in their beliefs.
And presumably this is based in a fear that admitting small points will inevitably lead to being forced to concede major points, which in turn could lead ultimately to their own ‘conversion’.
I wonder if this can be explained by concluding that a.) the more stupid person is the more b.) they rely on beliefs to get through the uncertainty of life. And therefore their resistance to applying logic and reason is borne out of fear of the unknown.

Another phenomena others may have noticed is that the closer any particular revisionist argument is to being irrefutable, the more the response is the classic logical fallacies of personal abuse (ad hominem) and arguing back against their own distorted misrepresentation (strawman).

So I am wondering whether if an intelligent person realises they have been in error, are they more capable of acknowledging that and correcting the error than an unintelligent person?
Or is the egocentric refusal to admit error as strong in equal measure with both stupid and smart people?

Does the degree of intelligence in a human create a tendency towards natural skepticism rather than stubborn belief?

As a friend of mine’s great grandfather observed:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:
it is those who know little, not those who know much,
who so positively assert... this or that...”

It appears to be a flaw of human nature that the more unintelligent a person is, the more they have a need to rely on fixed beliefs. Presumably because their inability to reason for themselves makes the plethora of subjects needing reason to be applied to make sense of the world, seem overwhelming. Thus they require ‘authorities’ to decide for them. This would explain why the vast majority of people prefer to believe what they are told to believe, rather than reason for themselves. Because the majority of people have only enough intelligence to learn what others teach them, not to think independently. Thus we get societies built on passing on the knowledge of innovative thinkers, who ironically often faced derision, ridicule and even resistance in their own time. Galileo and Darwin are obvious examples.

As Bertrand Russel observed, “people will rather die than think for themselves... and most of them do.”

There are of course many different types of human intelligence: there is musical intelligence, verbal intelligence, spatial intelligence, social intelligence, linguistic intelligence, artistic intelligence, etc., etc.

But generalising, I wonder if it is fair to say that intelligent people tend to approach life more analytically in contrast to emotionally. If so, that could explain why the tendency to more analytical thinking will in turn lead to a lower degree of irrational belief. That being so because higher intelligence is more attracted to knowledge defined by empirical tests and logical reasoning and that tendency will filter out beliefs based on illogicality.

That will also explain why less-intelligent people will have an attraction to illogical group-beliefs. And the reason why those beliefs become prevalent is because they meet the immature psychological needs that many humans have — the need to have a sense of certainty, of security, of surety, of acceptance within the group. When those certainties do not exist, they are invented.
And then passionately and fiercely defended.

As we see with the illogical, irrational and unempirical ‘holocaust’ belief.




Post Reply