The Nizkorite type spooks who patrol the newsgroups routinely for politically incorrect victims have developed certain rather transparent techniques.
The choice of first instance is always to rein in every novice poster who even remotely looks like he might have Revisionist insurrection in his veins and channel him to alt.revisionism. There, the hyenas take over.
If that doesn't work, the howling and mudslinging begins right on site. I recently experienced something like that in one of the genealogy groups and was amazed at its effectiveness. The fellow didn't know me from Adam, but he was sure that I had horns. I have never seen mice scurry so fast!
If that doesn't work either - for one, a common outcome is that we look good by sheer comparison because, as a rule, we try to be polite and mannerly - it's endless runarounds as in ". . . define this. . . " and ". . . what do you mean by that. . . " and ". . . cite your primary sources. . . " They'll run you ragged if you permit that one!
There are a number of other techniques, already ably described and archived by some of our better cyber fighters. These essays are a treat to read - one day they'll make a book!
One of the subtler techniques our enemies employs is this fine strategy - sample espoused below:
Holocaust Enforcer, on his best behavior:
"I certainly don't want to go to alt.revisionism to discuss this any further. Perhaps we can continue the debate via private email."
ASMarques, Revisionist, not to be deterred:
Why should we be hiding any discussions about the "Holocaust"? It *is* a topic of paramount historical and legal importance, since it's still being used for very practical ends and we are constantly told "not to forget".
Why then does everybody immediately hide under the bed when the words "Holocaust denial" are pronounced in public?
I personally don't care about constant redefinition and mutually contradictory new concepts behind the "Holocaust" concept. I *know* what it has meant on an everyday basis for decades, and I *know* it's the most nearly successful Orwellian distortion of reality one can find in recent history.
I believe the "Holocaust" largely deserves a dishonourable place in history as the greatest religious/political/economical hoax of modern times. Having an effective name offered on a plate with which to designate the phenomenon sounds like a good idea to me.
I don't think the opportunity to nail this particular Frankenstein monster to the dissection table should be missed. Fade-out into oblivion will not be a happy-ending. It will be the worse next thing to the complete triumph of a new organised zombie cult or -- if you wish -- religion.
"The Holocaust" is a proper name with a single specific meaning like "the big Lisbon earthquake of 1755" (true) or "the big New York earthquake of 1997" (false, even though a lot of New Yorkers died in 1997 as they do every year, and some minor seismic activity must have been detected as always everywhere on Earth).
"The Holocaust" too, designates a well-defined set of events, and the events it designates happen to be false, just like the big NY earthquake of 1997.
Every time anyone tries to get away with an evasive cop-out like ". . . that's not what I mean by the 'Holocaust'", this should be countered by the clear assertion that the "Holocaust" is not an open notion, re-definable at will: IT'S THE NAME GIVEN TO THE PURPORTED PLANNED EXTERMINATION OF MILLIONS OF JEWS BY THE GERMANS THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL MASS-PROCESSING OF THE VICTIMS IN GIANT HOMICIDAL GAS CHAMBERS.
If this is felt to be an eventual limitation of the concept, well, there are limitations inherent to the choice of proper nouns to designate supposedly precise historical events!
What a pity no one ever thought about the future problems an amoeba-like "Holocaust" concept, devoid of form and free of all constraints, would be running into, once it had a name!...
Unless a stand is made on the all-important precise meaning of the word which should not be open to discussion, we might as well be ready to retreat from "Holocaust" to "Holocaust" until the word will simply mean "the eternal visitation on the living by the ghosts of dead Jews produced by mass deportation and a large war" - with the result that a gigantic humbug and hypocritical justification for a lot of suffering, injustice and undue appropriation of wealth will have been allowed to settle into comfortable retirement after successfully performing its function.
If this "attenuated" meaning is the one the perpetuators of the hoax wish to attribute to the "Holocaust" word, then the reply should be "welcome to revisionism and please do not use the word "Holocaust" in order to avoid any confusion with the mythological concept that has been known under that name for over 50 years; please do not say that the big New York earthquake of 1997 is absolutely true but happened in Lisbon in 1755, for the simple sake of clarity".
"Holocaust" denial is no more than the logical consequence of an open mind and a revisionist examination of the cold facts. And, yes, a critical open mind should be like a sieve, not a funnel or a black hole.
Thought for the Day:
"One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives."
(Mark Twain)