When someone is defending a lie, whether they’re aware of it or not, they will inevitability end up making all manner of mistakes. In this article I would like to explore what it looks like to defend a lie by using real-life examples (Twitter (X) interactions with internet Holocaust affirmers).
For my first example I will use an interaction I had with Isaac, whom I have reason to believe is Alex from Owns Gone Wrong. During the course of our conversation I discovered that Isaac is a Holocaust revisionist. There is a contingent of Holocaust affirmers who are also revisions as they create their own theoretical version of the Holocaust that they think could have been possible. Ultimately, it is pointless to debate these types, because if the Holocaust didn’t happen the way authorities said it did, then it didn’t happen. Arguing with a Holocaust affirmer-revisionist may be amusing at times, but since they are arguing for their fantasy version of history, it doesn’t do anything to settle the debate of the legitimacy the Holocaust narrative.
Isaac’s status as a Holocaust affirmer revisionist led to the amusing situation below. Because he is arguing for his own version of the Holocaust he doesn’t always accept the official narrative and ended up tasking me to prove a claim made by Holocaust officials. Why would I prove a claim that I don’t agree with? It’s all too absurd, Isaac. If you’re reading this, perhaps you don’t actually believe in “the Holocaust” yourself. It seems that you don’t believe in the veracity of the Holocaust canon, so instead of defending it, you have created your own version of the Holocaust to defend.
Our next specimen goes by the handle “Nessie” on Twitter (X). Nessie has said so many absurd things that it would take way too long to cover them all; in fact, their arguments became so tiresome that I had to mute them to save myself from a massive time dump.
Because Nessie is defending a lie they have continually committed the logical fallacy known as God of the Gaps, but replacing “God” with “the Holocaust.” Isaac is committing this fallacy by insisting that any gaps in knowledge from revisionists is evidence of his his belief, the Holocaust narrative. As I’ve said many times, the Holocaust narrative—homicidal gas chambers and genocide—is not the default. It is an accusation of a crime leveled by Germany’s wartime enemies. And it is an accusation that has never been proven in court. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the accusers and no one else.
In the interaction below (Mike Peinovich had to borrow my account to respond to Nessie because he was banned mid-argument), there are a few things I’d like to address. First, I must point out how humorous it is that Nessie responds to the charge of committing the God of the Gaps fallacy with another God of the Gaps fallacy by bringing up perceived gaps in knowledge from Holocaust revisionists. Second, even though it is not necessary to prove an alternate scenario to disprove a criminal accusation, Nessie’s claims of missing information are incorrect. For example, the much-touted Wannsee protocols, rather than being an order for genocide, is evidence of Germany resettling Jews to the East (and other countries). Nessie is either arguing in bad faith or ignorance, or maybe even both!
For my last exhibit (see image below), Nessie is attempting to legitimize Yankel Wiernik, who has been shown to be an unreliable witness and a liar, by claiming that ears being nailed to the wall was a figure of speech.
The tone of the paragraph in question does not indicate that Wiernik was not being literal:
The machinery of the gas chambers was operated by two Ukrainians. One of them, Ivan, was tall, and though his eyes seemed kind and gentle, he was a sadist. He enjoyed torturing his victims. He would often pounce upon us while we were working; he would nail our ears to the walls or make us lie down on the floor and whip us brutally. While he did this, his face showed sadistic satisfaction and he laughed and joked. He finished off the victims according to his mood at the moment. The other Ukrainian was called Nicholas. He had a pale face and the same mentality as Ivan.
(source)
Nessie is cherry picking here. For Nessie, the things that Wiernik says that are possible in reality, and helpful to the Holocaust narrative, are valid and should be taken seriously. Anything that is ridiculous and objectively impossible can be disregarded. Unfortunately for Nessie, it doesn’t work that way. Cherry picking of witness evidence makes it clear that someone is working backwards to defend their predetermined outcome. You don’t ask how the evidence can be used to prove the hypothesis. You let the evidence lead you to the truth, despite what you want that truth to be.
The actions of Isaac and Nessie clearly show that they are protecting a narrative and not seeking the truth. I’ve yet to encounter a Holocaust affirmer that is not doing the same and will never encounter such a person because they are defending a lie whether they realize it or not.