Negotiation

“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?”

Sieg

Sieg Heil!


4 responses to “Negotiation

  • Miecz Elizejski

    That’s an interesting observation about the word “denial.” The Jews use a manipulation by a previous Jew to further their self-serving manipulations, go figure. It was actually something I was most frustrated about concerning the Holocaust narrative, the second you question it, they say you “deny” which implies ignorance and hate on the accused’s part and not just being wrong. However, here you ave pretty much deconstructed that weapon… awesome!

  • The Irony of “Conspiracy” | Sword of Elysium

    […] related essay HERE as well as a close analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol HERE. This entry was posted in […]

  • aufihrhelden

    The above essay highlights one of the main tactics of World Jewry which is to avoid any kind of exchange of truthful and factual accuracy and to try and force attention onto the lies and slanders which they invent regarding the person who speaks the truth. Whether it be the banking system, global warming or The Holocaust Lie, the facts are never discussed, just emotive panderings. Sylvia Stolz was actaully prevented from presenting her evidence in court !

    It is imprtant to note that three levels of stupidity are displayed here by ‘The Foe’ :

    1. The pathetic tactics used to ensure (in their minds) that the truth is never heard in the first place ;

    2. The fact that ‘The Foe’ actually believes that their tactics work in the way that they believe them to work, no they do not ‘work’ it just that the majority of people in the West would just carry on as normal with their support, come what may anyway. What’s on television tonight ? ;

    3. The fact that ‘The Foe’ doesn’t realise that they could just announce, ‘Yes, The Holocaust is a total fabrication but, So What ?’, and nothing would change, essentially it would just mean clearer boundaries as to who is on what side in the next war, ie the next clash of forces.

    • delendaestziobot

      Yes, Kamerad Steve, I would agree with these points you have just made, and as you know from Chapter VI – Blood, Soil, Ashes and the Dead of Dresden – Third Reich Pilgrim Part I, the exact reason for the fabrication for the Holocaust is explained in depth. Which gets us to the situation where one has either read Third Reich Pilgrim or not, and of course the one who has not is basically left behind, its like somone who cannot read when everybody else can. And the Foe cannot understand this either, because it is stupid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: