How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[Stubble]

Non sequitur.

We are talking about 1) the Gestapo gas chamber in Paris and 2) Dachau...

[ConfusedJew]

Unfortunately, I feel that simple restatement would be insufficient. You appear to be incapable of understanding that fake gas chambers in the west, refuted after investigation, point to fake gas chambers in the east, never allowed to be properly investigated.

Of course, you also don't want to understand that, at all, for obvious reasons.

What evidence is there that there were "fake gas chambers in the west"?

[Stubble]

You know, Dachau, Bergen Belsen and the Gestapo torture chamber come to mind.

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2017 ... lsen-camp/



Buchenwald;





I think I'm done interacting with you again. Back in the foes list you go.

For people who will happen across this thread in the future, some media;






Some more food for thought;



The Montreal Gazette - Jan 19, 1985 - page 14

[Wahrheitssucher]

What do you guys think about the Holocaust consensus because it certainly is well established for a long period of time.

False premise. There isn't a consensus on "the Holocaust" and there never has been. There is a fake consensus that is maintained via coercion.

How can a consensus view be wrong ?

There is an interesting example that is comparable in certain particulars, which partially explains how a consensus can be “strong” and long-lasting.

It is the allegation that Brigitte Macron is actually a transgender person who was born male and who aged 30 underwent hormone treatment and surgery (including plastic surgery) to transition and appear female.

I thought on first hearing of it, that it was a bizarre and very unconvincing allegation. But last night I looked briefly at some of the evidence for it.

I say briefly as I’m not very interested either way in what is the actual reality here. But here is what I see as the similarity with the ‘holocaust’ narrative.

After watching part of one video promoting the allegation I looked at the rebuttals to see if there was a credible refutation. Just as I did with the holocaust narrative after first hearing revisionist arguments, I sought out and read the consensus rebuttals.
And in both cases it was the weakness and illogicality plus deceits of the ‘official’ rebuttals that confirmed something was seriously suspect.
First with Brigitte’s gender I read what had come from the Macrons themselves and then from msm, finally reading fact-checker sites like snopes.

Here are the similarities I’m seeing with the long-lasting, but unproven, consensus view that Jews were murdered in their millions by poisonous gas during WW2 as part of a plan to kill them ALL.

DECEITFUL USE OF LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT
Firstly, the main-stream media attempts at rebuttal of Macron’s male gender rely on clear deceits plus strawman misrepresentations. Just as defenders of ‘the holocaust’ do. Which raises the question: ‘why would you need to do that if the truth was on your side?’
The obvious answer is, you wouldn’t. You would ONLY need to do that if you were protecting a deception.
As an example, Brigitte Macron has three children. The deceitful media routinely argue this would be impossible, as a transgender man without a womb cannot conceive nor gestate, thus proving the allegation is literally stupid and insane. If you are a person who doesn’t know what the research alleges and are not a person who wants to delve very deeply, that appears on the face of it to be a slam-dunk argument. But… That is a strawman, as the allegation is Brigette FATHERED those children BEFORE transitioning.
Holocaust defenders routinely use the same tactic. One calling themself ‘confused jew’ has recently been doing it repeatedly here at CODOH.
Also the news reports start by describing the allegation as false before explaining why.
Just as with the holocaust. The implication in both cases is that only bad and crazy people doubt the official consensus. So we don’t need to refute it, but only describe it as false, bad and crazy.

CLAIM OF “HURT FEELINGS” AS A DEFENCE AGAINST INVESTIGATION
Secondly, the Macron’s response was to claim ‘hurt feelings’ and to threaten law-suits. Emmanuel Macron even sent a legally threatening letter to one American investigator and told her she couldn’t publish it. She did anyway. Nothing happened.
The ‘hurt feelings’ excuse is the prime ‘holocaust’ reason for silencing investigation. The deluded and/or delusional participant here at CODOH calling themself a confused jew has just used this ‘reason’. (here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=11078#p11078)

BLUSTER AND INTIMIDATION INSTEAD OF EVIDENCE
Thirdly, and finally, if the allegation was false, it should be very EASY to disprove. JUST PROVIDE REFUTING EVIDENCE! But the Macron’s appear to have NEVER done that. Instead they resort to using libel lawsuits.
It would be better to just show credible, untampered, corroborative legal documentary proof like the wedding certificate, and birth documents of the children from her/his first marriage? Or credible, verifiable photos and films of her/him pregnant? As far as I am aware, the Macrons haven’t done that. But as I wrote I only briefly looked into this yesterday, so I’m neither well-informed nor particularly interested in Macron’s gender.
I am just interested in mundane truth and how powerful people can manipulate the opinions of the masses.

I see a similarity of approach with the Macrons and their use of the levers of power and mass-communication to suppress research, to jewish organisations and theirs.
It is the same tactic of resorting to intimidation and criminalisation instead of conclusive empirical proof that the guardians of the ‘holocaust’ claims use. Why not just provide evidence of mass-graves at Treblinka containing the cremains of the alleged 750,000 to 900,000 jewish holocaust-victims allegedly buried there? Discussion would be over.
If the core allegation of the holocaust narrative (viz. mass-gassings of 3 to 4 million jews in Aktion Reinhardt death camps) is true, the evidence of many tons of ash with bone-shards and millions of teeth at the claimed ‘death camp’ sites would be convincing PROOF of it.
But instead jewish organisations refuse permission to investigate to critical investigators and have erected monuments and other memorial paraphernalia to inhibit archeological investigation.
Why would they need to do that if they believed their own narrative?
They would believe the the evidence supported them and would invite it, NOT prohibit it. This alone should make honest, reasonable people realise the core holocaust allegations are decidedly dubious.
The same applies to the Macron gender debate.

CONCLUSION: In both cases it seems to me that it is only someone who has something to hide who would try to prevent investigation. Only a lie needs laws to protect it from critical research.

——————————————————————————
P.S.

…amazingly enough it seems the "informal and unofficial barriers to free expression" in that era were insufficient to maintain the lies and so Holocaust promoters have had to resort to increasingly heavy-handed censorship.
And potential academics are screened ever more aggressively for ideological criteria.

Fascinating! Thanks for this. That’s news to me.

[Nessie]

False premise. There isn't a consensus on "the Holocaust" and there never has been. There is a fake consensus that is maintained via coercion.

There isn't a consensus and there is a consensus. In a way that is correct. There is a consensus on certain events of the Holocaust, such as registration of Jews, mass arrests, what happened at TII and the Dutch transports to Sobibor. There is less of a consensus on the planning of the Holocaust and when it started.

[Archie]

False premise. There isn't a consensus on "the Holocaust" and there never has been. There is a fake consensus that is maintained via coercion.

There isn't a consensus and there is a consensus. In a way that is correct. There is a consensus on certain events of the Holocaust, such as registration of Jews, mass arrests, what happened at TII and the Dutch transports to Sobibor. There is less of a consensus on the planning of the Holocaust and when it started.

Hmm, looks like Nessie is slightly updating his talking points after being debunked. I guess he is capable of learning (at a glacial pace).

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=406

[Nessie]

False premise. There isn't a consensus on "the Holocaust" and there never has been. There is a fake consensus that is maintained via coercion.

There isn't a consensus and there is a consensus. In a way that is correct. There is a consensus on certain events of the Holocaust, such as registration of Jews, mass arrests, what happened at TII and the Dutch transports to Sobibor. There is less of a consensus on the planning of the Holocaust and when it started.

Hmm, looks like Nessie is slightly updating his talking points after being debunked. I guess he is capable of learning (at a glacial pace).

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=406

Show me where I have ever said that there was consensus about the start date and over planning. You cannot, because I have not made that claim, it is a straw man fallacy from you. So, I have not been debunked.

[Keen]

It's also pretty extraordinary to claim that 6 million people just disappeared from the Earth

It's also pretty extraordinary to claim that 2.145 million jews just magically disappeared after being covered with "a thick layer of sand."

Cj, would you please tell us how this "magic sand" works?