How to Debate and Expose Holocaust Survivors
One of the things that every European and American child/teenager has to endure at some point of their schooling today is a lecture or presentation from a ‘Holocaust Survivor’ about their experiences. In spite of the fact that the media love to bewail the fact that the ‘Holocaust Survivors’ are ageing and will ‘no longer be with us’ soon. There still seems to be a very supply of suspiciously healthy victims of ‘constant terror and torture’ in an ‘industrial extermination system’ created by the evil Germans in the 1940s.
I thought to aid both those who are undergoing this ideological Rorschach test, as well as their parents, to write a little something on how I would go about questioning these lurid stories and wild fairy tales in such a way that brings little to harm to the questioners.
Now before I begin it is worth remembering two basic points.
Firstly that outright attacks on the 'Holocaust' will get you nowhere and achieve next to nothing with individuals regarded as secular saints like ‘Holocaust Survivors’. They simply have too much credibility, however false or nonsensical, to take on in an intellectual slagging match, because you will have practically everyone else on their side and staring at you like you are a modern day heretic regardless of how good your arguments are.
See you have to undermine their position like you would a castle, because the emotional defenses are formidable even if the intellectual ones are rotten and near enough non-existent. Charging in screaming ‘Liar’ is going to just get you impaled on the perceived moral rectitude of the ‘Holocaust Survivor’ and nothing more.
Instead you have to let the ‘Holocaust Survivor’ get themselves in trouble and this nicely brings me onto my second point: their basic story is likely to be true.
You have to remember that many ‘Holocaust Survivors’ were indeed imprisoned in the concentration camp system and that fact can often be backed up with evidence. So questioning this is simply going to make you look stupid nine times out of ten, because for every ‘survivor’ who claims they were brought up by wolves in a forest; there are nine who were actually in the Auschwitz system of camps.
The key thing to understand is that the basic detail of a survivor's story is not usually that crazy and is quite probably true unless you can prove categorically otherwise. It isn't that you need to suggest the 'Holocaust Survivor' wasn't in Auschwitz per se, but rather you simply have to ask the logical/necessary questions which derive from their so-called 'experiences'.
For example when a 'Holocaust Survivor' says that they were 'selected by Dr. Mengele' (which is more often than you'd think) then you can quite innocently ask them: why?
The reason you should ask is because from what the standard story says about Dr. Josef Mengele's experimentation we know that he selected identical twins (as this was, and is still, one of the best tests to see if a condition is genetic, environmentally caused or a combination of the two).
If the 'Holocaust Survivor' reveals they weren't an identical twin then you've got them. As you can innocently say something like: 'Sorry, but according to his jewish assistant Dr. Miklos Nyiszli and his own records; I thought Dr. Mengele only selected identical twins for his experiments? I am confused because you are telling me one thing, but yet other survivors and historians are telling me another. Please can you explain this to me as I am confused as to the situation?'
That is the essence of knowing how to talk to and expose 'Holocaust Survivors'; it is having a decent working knowledge of the 'Holocaust' narrative as usually claimed and allowing the so-called 'Holocaust Survivors' to get themselves in trouble with their consistency with the historical narrative (for example claiming Zyklon B was used at Belzec). The reason why this works so well is because many 'Holocaust Survivors' know precious little about the details of the accepted narrative of the 'Holocaust' and are not used to those around them knowing said detail and asking innocent questions based upon them.
In other words: it stumps them and forces them to scramble for an answer in a public arena.
A good example of this is when a female 'Holocaust Survivor' recently claimed to have been transited through the Treblinka death camp; she ipso facto denied the 'Holocaust'. Since while what she said is very likely true (and is consistent with both the German records and the revisionist view); it directly contradicts the foundational assertion regarding the 'Operation Reinhardt' camps (Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka). In that no jewish prisoners were transited through (i.e. only to not through) these camps and they were 'pure death camps' operated by the SS with a small number of jewish prisoners (Kapos) assisting.
Just knowing that and asking something like: 'Sorry, but according to pre-eminent Holocaust scholars like Yitzhak Arab and Raul Hilberg, no jews were transited through the Treblinka camp; instead they were all murdered by the SS as part of Operation Reinhardt. According to these scholars and other survivors: the only jews who were alive at Treblinka were the prisoners forced to be kapos. I don't understand why what you are telling us is different to what the historians tell us happened according to both other survivors and the documentation?'
Is the sort of tack that is extremely effective at undermining a 'Holocaust Survivor's' moral (and therefore their intellectual) authority and credibility among their audience and nor can you be blamed for asking such a question. You've demonstrated your knowledge of the 'Holocaust' and can back it up with the 'Holocaust' experts, while the 'Holocaust Survivor' is only left with a series of unpleasant options.
They can ignore the issue (which demonstrates they are likely hiding something and sows the seeds of doubt), they can change their story (which says they aren't a credible witness and sows the seeds of doubt) or they can claim the scholars and other 'Holocaust Survivors' are wrong (which makes them look unreliable as well as putting the seed of doubt into their audience about the 'Holocaust' narrative).
Either way you win and you win in such a way that no one can question your belief in the 'Holocaust' and therefore suggest you are a modern heretic (i.e. a 'Nazi', a 'bigot', an 'anti-Semite' and/or a 'Holocaust Denier'). You intellectually and morally crush your opponent not by going directly against them, but by effectively asking them to explain why their story contradicts the stories of others and accepted narrative of 'Holocaust historians' (i.e. asking how a secular saint could directly contradict other secular saints and the official catechism).
Essentially you force the 'Holocaust Survivor' onto the back foot and ask them to explain/rationalize their story. In other words they have to do all the hard work, while you can sit there looking the part of the concerned innocent 'Holocaust' believer who doesn't understand why the secular saint in front of them has just contradicted other saints and the official catechism of Holocaustianity.
And the best thing about this system is that it works regards of the place, time or your reason for being present and it only requires three basic ingredients.
1) A small time investment in reading and understanding one or two major works on 'Holocaust' to get the details down.
2) The ability to notice simple errors in detail and to ask logical questions derived from these errors.
3) The self-control to be polite, calm and collected, while asking very specific questions.
In other words: anyone can do it and nor does it require a lot of effort to do so.
This was originally published at the following address: http://www.semiticcontroversies.blog...holocaust.html