“Denial” is an ordinary English word meaning to ‘refuse’ or ‘refute’, declare not to be true. See Negation.
Negation is the opposite to affirmation in the sense of ‘not at all’, also ‘negative’.
Then there is a modern Freudian usage of the word “denial” which is the refusal to accept a painful or humiliating truth. A psychological medical condition said to be a “state of denial” or simply “in denial.” The last phrase is post-modern – 1990’s and is unrelated to the original English word, which simply means to refuse, or do away with, dispose of, reject, disown, refute.
Now we have a political application arising from the Freudian; “Holocaust denial”, “Aids denial” and more recently, “global warming denial” and “climate change denial”. And the false premise here is that Statement A must be true because of the refusal which is B, which is a logical fallacy. And this is derived from Freudian misunderstanding of language definition.
An abstract noun has now been coined; “denialism”, in the meantime “affirmation” the counterpart is used with a kind of religious fervour – “affirmative action” for example.
An accusation of “denial” seems to be a serious matter, recently a fellow countryman of mine was jailed for three years under the charge of “denial”, or refusal. The thing being denied is obviously so blatantly true that it is a crime to not affirm it, a ‘thought crime’ motivated by hatred of truth and justice, and tracing back to the Freudian sense; some type of insanity or madness – “state of denial,” – so we get to the stage where one is charged as criminally insane because of a refutation, a reply in the negative, a negation, a rebuttal.
I am sure that any intelligent human can see where exactly the madness lies. So what to do? well seeming that the word “denial” is of no particular importance, it’s a common word, a mongrel word really, a cross between Latin and French, and as it has been obviously hijacked, then there is no need to use it in regard to aforementioned subjects, or if any foe decides to use it, they obviously have no comprehension of the word, therefore they cannot understand the term if we use it, choose instead another word:
Foe: – “Do you deny ……..?” “Are you a …… denier?”
Aryan: – “What language are you speaking?, did Freud invent a new language?”
Foe: – “What is your opinion on the Holocaust?”
Aryan: – “My attitude is one of reserved negation”
Already one can see that the language is being changed in the Aryan’s favour, by the second question and answer the hijacked word “denial” has been eliminated.
Never consent to a logical fallacy, never consent to the Foe’s false terminology, figure out a way to eliminate it.
Relevant Blog post: http://swordofelysium.blogspot.com/2011/02/irony-of-conspiracy.html
The Rudolf Report – The Myth of the “Gas Chambers” : http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr
“Hey are you a ………. denier?”
“Is it not a thought crime for you if you accept my erudite rebuttal?”