Poster: both said that there is no need for further investigation and no, I am not going to trawl through threads to find their exact words.... [snip]
Reply: I have NEVER argued that “there is no need for further investigation”.
I have repeatedly stated the EXACT OPPOSITE!! Viz. that it is in my opinion long since past time for a full, transparent, open investigation without bias, hindrance or ridiculous intervention nor censoring of the findings by Jewish organisations.
So another straight up lie by this seriously perceptually-impaired person.
Poster answered: OK, so at no time have you argued that being asked "what did happen?" inside the AR camps and A-B Kremas and where the Jews went if not gassed, is reversing the burden of proof?
Last Edit: Jul 2, 2022 19:25:14 GMT by 𝗛𝗔𝗟: Remove personalities. Judge the merits on the words alone.
In the news at the moment is Rebekkah Hardy a famous football-players wife who betrayed a friend (Mrs Rooney) by leaking Rooney’s private messages on a closed Instagram account to sleazy ’gossip’ newspapers. Roony set a trap to see which of her friends were leaking. When she FACTUALLY revealed that it was the Hardy account, Rebekkah instead of accepting the exposé chose to double the injury by suing Rooney for libel. The chutzpah is phenomenal: first the betrayal of privacy for cash, then the complete denial PLUS suing for more cash AND creating more grief. It is sign of a compulsive liar.
Recently another famous woman did something very similar: I’m talking of Amber Heard. She physically abused her famous husband, then accused him of that when he told her he was divorcing her. She then escalated the grief she was causing him by wrecking his career and accepting a bogus judgement by a British female Judge in a British court that falsely corroborated Heard’s false accusation that her husband was a wifebeater.
She then increased the damage and injury to his career by repeating the false accusation in a publication in America for cash. So... He took her to court in America for libel and WON!
Anyone who saw Heard’s court testimony could see she was a manupulative, conniving LIAR!! To a quite crazy degree. But when she was exposed as such, and lost the case, did she stop her lies and false accusations? No! She still repeated them in TV interviews!!
.. .. .. .. ..
One thing these two lying women have in common is that even when their lies have been soundly refuted, they can not admit it. They just lie bigger.
Heard and Hardy both deny the evidence showing they both lied while under oath! They seem to think just repeating their same lie and re-accussing their victim more vehemently will somehow convince people. 🤦♂️🤪 It is crazy behaviour.
And it seems to me to be predominantly feminine behaviour: once they have started a lie, they won’t retract it. Instead they increase it/amplify it.
.. .. .. ..
I see a similar thing going on here at RODOH. A person (we all know who) will never admit when they have been caught out lying, inventing, dodging and being in error — not about the holocaust narrative, not about human biology, not about simple word definitions, not about anything. This person also just lies bigger and accuses others of doing what in reality THEY THEMSELVES are guilty of.
This person claims to be University educated, police-trained, and male. I doubt all three claims. And if I am correct, then this person can not admit now that those three claims are lies: as they have been repeating them for too long. I sse it as the same pattern of behaviou shown by Heard and Hardy.
And I see this as symptomatic of the type of mind-set that has looked at all the factual refutations of holyhoax lore but can not bring themself to admit the reality of the factual refutations. This amount of blatant lying by this one individual just seems to be a feminine version of it.
Ironically the psychological profile has been identified with a term that ’Holyhoax-believers’ like to accuse skeptics of their belief with.
Anybody trying to reason with H-believers about aspects of the protected holocaust-narrative and experiencing the repeated refusal by all online defenders to admit numerous simple facts of science and reason if they contradict the narrative, will understand that the issue is psychological not historical.
And there is a term for this type of delusional psychology. Here is an excerpt from an article on it:
Denial is a defence mechanism in which an individual refuses to recognise or acknowledge objective facts or experiences. It’s often an unconscious process that serves to protect the person from discomfort or anxiety.
The concept [of denial] arose from the work of Sigmund Freud, whose daughter, Anna Freud, developed the idea of defence mechanisms: unconscious strategies whereby people protect themselves from anxious thoughts or feelings.
Anna believed that denial unconsciously protected the ego from discomfort and distress by rejecting aspects of reality itself. Denial was primarily used in childhood and adolescence, she believed, and could be damaging when employed regularly in adulthood.
Although many of Freud's ideas have been disproven, psychologists today still believe that defence mechanisms like denial are a valid concept.
Denial can encompass truths too difficult for an individual to confront or to accept.
In many instances, denial leads to short-term satisfaction but long-term pain. In the end, confronting reality — even when it’s difficult — is the best path forward.