Gullibility, brain fade, and a lack of rational behaviour; the oddness of Believer mentality

[borjastick]

In just a very short week or so since this new site was set up by the very excellent efforts of Archie and Co we have seen the very encapsulation of Believer Mental Disorder or Holocaust Derangement Syndrome. It is apparent elsewhere too, in politics, especially in the US where it would seem to get anywhere and to assume the sort of financial support one needs for office one needs to bend the knee to the zionists and the country of occupation sometimes called israel.

HDS is an odd set of behaviour patterns that I would guess is not present in their normal day to day actions and discourse on other issues. But we see a complete lack of objectivity and logic when they get going on the holocaust. Normal brain activity ceases to function.

A good example of this, apart from Nessie for example, is the youtuber History Debunked which is the production of prolific author Simon Webb. He talks much sense and backs it up with facts and figures on slavery, immigration, current social issues etc and is well worth watching. But he is also an unashamed zionist and lover of the occupying state of israel. He often refers to the 'holocost' and states very clearly that he believes every word about it yet in doing so he goes completely off the rails by quoting from 40-50 year old books and references that have since been historically debunked, a delicious irony given his channel name, and will not even consider much of what he thinks happened in the holocaust clearly did not happen.

So my question to you is what happens in the minds of believers that stops them from acting normally when it comes to the holocaust? Is it that they are structurally bound to believe because they are jews, or believe without question things claimed in the holocaust narrative that are scientifically insane?

[Pineapple]

Another good example of this is the YouTuber "TikHistory". He makes very interesting and entertaining military themed videos but doesn't apply any of his logic to the Holocaust.

This is a TikHistory YouTube community post from 5 months ago:

"So now the argument is "the lack of proof is not proof that it didn't happen"

YES IT IS. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you have no evidence, your narrative is based in fantasy, not reality."

FYI, this is not about the Holocaust yet he does not apply the same logic to the Holocaust and clings on to intentionalism. It's simply baffling.

[bombsaway]

So my question to you is what happens in the minds of believers that stops them from acting normally when it comes to the holocaust? Is it that they are structurally bound to believe because they are jews, or believe without question things claimed in the holocaust narrative that are scientifically insane?

I would say I'm being consistent, across all genocides and historical events. EG I think the evidence for the Holocaust is stronger (in terms of quantity/quality) than the evidence for Armenian genocide, which I also believe in.

Probably this is relevant https://x.com/Visionaledge/status/1762479557813100913

Of course I would say it applies to revisionist mentality

ie the repeated insistence of "bodies disappearing without a trace" and the lack of introspection about their own narrative: you guys are saying something happened as well (the "resettled" Jews surviving) yet don't apply evidence threshold to this positive statement

[Callafangers]

I would say I'm being consistent, across all genocides and historical events. EG I think the evidence for the Holocaust is stronger (in terms of quantity/quality) than the evidence for Armenian genocide, which I also believe in.

Surely, you've seen Revisionists quote at least hundreds, if not thousands, of absolutely ludicrous (as in, impossible or extremely improbable) testimonial claims from Jewish 'survivors'. How many similar absurdities can you quote from Armenians?

Does your tally on 'Armenian absurdities' amount to even 0.1% of those said by Jews?

Also, which 'Holocaust' has it been illegal to question for the last century? Which one owns Hollywood?

In which situation, overall, have the victims [real or alleged] had the power to fabricate a narrative (and have clearly been using that power), versus one whose narrative largely speaks for itself, despite minimal resources and connections to power?

[borjastick]

Holocaust Derangement Syndrome

Here is some more info on how this phenomenon manifests itself and what is required for official certification of this almost incurable illness.

Those afflicted with HDS almost always display the following:

Step 1
Want the holocaust to have happened despite the fact that if it did happen 6m jews would have suffered and died. Accept that this is a price worth paying.
-Theodore Herzl wanted an end to jewish persecution and suffering and the abuse and violence to stop. Fair enough but oddly he knew that it must continue and even expand and be far worse in order for a jewish state of israel to come into being. It was in the zionist interests for a holocaust to happen hence the talk of 6m souls in peril etc for 120 years prior to the perfect storm arriving in the shape of the holocaust.

Step 2
Never ask for too much evidence or proof of mass murder claims. Plausibility and probability are enough to claim it happened and is definitely true. Witness statements for example are perfectly adequate. Employ a very low threshold of proof and accept any and all stories of killings and mass murder. Question no one and nothing.

Step 3
Block, wherever possible, all criticism and examination of jews, israel and above all the holocaust. Make it illegal where possible.

Step 4
Smear anyone who disbelieves holocaust claims as jew haters and anti-semites, and do the same for those who criticise israel and its policy of ethnic cleansing and murder of Palestinians.

[bombsaway]

I would say I'm being consistent, across all genocides and historical events. EG I think the evidence for the Holocaust is stronger (in terms of quantity/quality) than the evidence for Armenian genocide, which I also believe in.

Surely, you've seen Revisionists quote at least hundreds, if not thousands, of absolutely ludicrous (as in, impossible or extremely improbable) testimonial claims from Jewish 'survivors'. How many similar absurdities can you quote from Armenians?

Does your tally on 'Armenian absurdities' amount to even 0.1% of those said by Jews?

I just looked for a minute and found this

At one point, we came upon a small hole in the ground. It was a little deeper than average height and 25-30 people could easily fit in it. We lowered ourselves down into it. There was no water in it but the bottom was muddy. We began sucking on the mud. Some of the women made teats with their shirts filled with mud and suckled on them like children. We were there for about a half hour. If we hadn’t been forced out, that would have been our best grave.
Many days later we reached the Euphrates River and despite the hundreds of bodies floating in it, we drank from it like there was no tomorrow. We quenched our thirst for the first time since our departure. They put us on small boats and we crossed to the other side. From there we walked all the way to Ras-ul-Ain.



It seems like the kind of story that revisionists would point to as being absurd, and maybe it is. I have the expectation that witness testimony is going to contain these kinds of aberrations. It's not a reason to disbelieve. It would be reason to disbelieve if the witness testimonies "converged" around unreasonable methods, like the Nazis being able to burn bodies without the use of fuel, or poison being used that was not really poisonous, etc, but they don't. From what I've seen, revisionists focus on the exceptions and the lack of knowledge from victim groups to make these arguments (IMO it isn't reasonable for Jewish SK to have great knowledge about how gas vans worked).

Also, which 'Holocaust' has it been illegal to question for the last century? Which one owns Hollywood?

In which situation, overall, have the victims [real or alleged] had the power to fabricate a narrative (and have clearly been using that power), versus one whose narrative largely speaks for itself, despite minimal resources and connections to power?

As I see it, the capacity to fabricate doesn't mean fabrication occurred. For me to believe in that you have to show evidence of such fabrication. I haven't seen even convincing arguments about a single document being fabricated in some way.

It's also not illegal to question, in the vast majority of countries. It's more socially stigmatized, that's ok.

[Callafangers]

I just looked for a minute and found this

At one point, we came upon a small hole in the ground. It was a little deeper than average height and 25-30 people could easily fit in it. We lowered ourselves down into it. There was no water in it but the bottom was muddy. We began sucking on the mud. Some of the women made teats with their shirts filled with mud and suckled on them like children. We were there for about a half hour. If we hadn’t been forced out, that would have been our best grave.
Many days later we reached the Euphrates River and despite the hundreds of bodies floating in it, we drank from it like there was no tomorrow. We quenched our thirst for the first time since our departure. They put us on small boats and we crossed to the other side. From there we walked all the way to Ras-ul-Ain.



It seems like the kind of story that revisionists would point to as being absurd, and maybe it is. I have the expectation that witness testimony is going to contain these kinds of aberrations. It's not a reason to disbelieve. It would be reason to disbelieve if the witness testimonies "converged" around unreasonable methods, like the Nazis being able to burn bodies without the use of fuel, or poison being used that was not really poisonous, etc, but they don't. From what I've seen, revisionists focus on the exceptions and the lack of knowledge from victim groups to make these arguments (IMO it isn't reasonable for Jewish SK to have great knowledge about how gas vans worked).

If that is your best example of Armenian 'absurdity', it would align with the least-ridiculous-tier testimony that revisionists point to regarding the 'Holocaust'. Where is the little boy who was "born in a bucket of piss" at Auschwitz? Where are the buckets of limbs jumping about? Where are brain-smashing machines, human-fusing experiments, baby skeet-shooting, titty wallets with nipple buttons, shit-covered diamonds, killing three babies with a single bullet, surviving fifteen gassings, etc.? Have the absurdities I just mentioned accounted for even 0.1% of those said by Jews of their 'Holocaust'? Here are just a few more:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/absur ... laims/214/

If you are attempting to draw an equivalency, you are failing miserably.

Also, which 'Holocaust' has it been illegal to question for the last century? Which one owns Hollywood?

In which situation, overall, have the victims [real or alleged] had the power to fabricate a narrative (and have clearly been using that power), versus one whose narrative largely speaks for itself, despite minimal resources and connections to power?

As I see it, the capacity to fabricate doesn't mean fabrication occurred. For me to believe in that you have to show evidence of such fabrication. I haven't seen even convincing arguments about a single document being fabricated in some way.

It's also not illegal to question, in the vast majority of countries. It's more socially stigmatized, that's ok.

You're disregarding an undeniable pattern, bombsaway. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge the pattern is evidence that you recognize doing so would be problematic for your position. But the pattern is there, and its convincing as a problem to anyone who sees it.

And with your "not illegal to question, in the vast majority of countries", are you being serious, here? All of the countries where investigation is most important (Poland, Germany, much of eastern Europe), it is illegal. Anywhere where the "Holocaust" is most relevant at all to people, it is illegal to question it. You can point to Brazil, Indonesia or South Korea and say, "see, it's legal there!", but we both know this is ridiculous since such a history (and however it actually happened) is hardly relevant to most Koreans, etc.

But bombsaway, these points I'm making to you now are so completely obvious that it's hard to believe you did not already think of them as you wrote your replies to me, above. This is why I suspect you are not honest, as I've indicated repeatedly over the past year or two.

[bombsaway]

I just looked for a minute and found this

At one point, we came upon a small hole in the ground. It was a little deeper than average height and 25-30 people could easily fit in it. We lowered ourselves down into it. There was no water in it but the bottom was muddy. We began sucking on the mud. Some of the women made teats with their shirts filled with mud and suckled on them like children. We were there for about a half hour. If we hadn’t been forced out, that would have been our best grave.
Many days later we reached the Euphrates River and despite the hundreds of bodies floating in it, we drank from it like there was no tomorrow. We quenched our thirst for the first time since our departure. They put us on small boats and we crossed to the other side. From there we walked all the way to Ras-ul-Ain.



It seems like the kind of story that revisionists would point to as being absurd, and maybe it is. I have the expectation that witness testimony is going to contain these kinds of aberrations. It's not a reason to disbelieve. It would be reason to disbelieve if the witness testimonies "converged" around unreasonable methods, like the Nazis being able to burn bodies without the use of fuel, or poison being used that was not really poisonous, etc, but they don't. From what I've seen, revisionists focus on the exceptions and the lack of knowledge from victim groups to make these arguments (IMO it isn't reasonable for Jewish SK to have great knowledge about how gas vans worked).

If that is your best example of Armenian 'absurdity', it would align with the least-ridiculous-tier testimony that revisionists point to regarding the 'Holocaust'. Where is the little boy who was "born in a bucket of piss" at Auschwitz? Where are the buckets of limbs jumping about? Where are brain-smashing machines, human-fusing experiments, baby skeet-shooting, titty wallets with nipple buttons, shit-covered diamonds, killing three babies with a single bullet, surviving fifteen gassings, etc.? Have the absurdities I just mentioned accounted for even 0.1% of those said by Jews of their 'Holocaust'?

I actually think you hit the big ones. As I said I looked for a minute or two. If I could spend tens of thousands of hours looking I'm sure I would find more. If the Armenian genocide had been of a larger scale like the Holocaust there would be more still. If witness testimonies were given to the extent of Holocaust my expectation would be more still. If the Armenian genocide had been as technical as the Holocaust, there would be more still, because witnesses would have to account for these aspects and could be expected to fail to do so.

Also in my mind you are focusing on specific testimonies. If you focus on things witnesses "converged upon" then your list would be less impressive from a rev perspective.

This is not a debate thread so I'll just explain to you why the "legality" arguments aren't convincing to me. There are other reasons for banning denial other than a conspiracy to try to cover things up. Firstly there is the matter that you can't deny Soviet crimes in many of these places either.
eg from Poland

a) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:
- Nazi crimes,
- communist crimes,
- other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes

Now you might say this is part of the Jewish conspiracy, they're running cover from the Jews and trying to create some plausible deniability. Maybe. But you're in speculative land.

In the case of Germany, there are other reasons for banning Holocaust denial than conspiracy. They very well might have judged that it's not a good look for Holocaust deniers to be popping up in the country that committed the genocide. They might have been afraid of a rebirth of National Socialism.

I don't agree with these laws, to be clear, but I think you're in speculative land if you think they're compelling evidence of a conspiracy. Just my view, hope it is enlightening to people

[Callafangers]

I actually think you hit the big ones.

Another lie, and another one which you know is a lie. Anyone who has done even modest searching into the absurd 'survivor' claims each has a hundred more just like those I already provided. It is far too uncomfortable debating with someone who lacks integrity to even occasionally be honest.