Introduction, and the persistent problem of ‘the Grand Woof-woof’

Posted on March 28, 2021

Main Index – Click HERE

Introduction, and the persistent problem of ‘the Grand Woof-woof’

GAB has some really sophisticated observers, and they contribute keen insights, and on-point one-liners, that I for one am grateful for.
I submit many of these folk would express similar cautions about the ‘Echo Chamber‘ as I will discuss briefly here. The hazard (you see this all over the Internet) is that you get too many like-minded people together in the same spot, whose noisy mutual-agreeing tends to put differing, or contrary opinions off. Such contrary opinion-holders may even be met with instant hostility. This quickly leads to what I term, dryly, a ‘Mutual Admiration Society‘. Such a society may be satisfying, but it is always in danger of breathing in increasingly stale air.

Enter, that most divisive topic of all, the ‘six million Jews’.
I used to believe it. I grieved at what had occurred. Tears rolled down my Irish cheeks the first time I saw the “Schindler’s List” kids run and hide quickly, terrified, in the latrines.
I was terribly moved by the ‘frantic scratch marks’ left behind in the homicidal gas chambers, by dying Jews.
The list goes on.

Then I started digging. Along the way, kind Internet guides helped me along. There was that anonymous person, who (very gently) introduced in me the awareness of a very simple problem: it’s called ‘nails versus concrete’. Who wins?

My point is that I sympathize with who I was. I wasn’t a bad fellow. Quite a bleeding heart, I suppose. But also rather gormless. I didn’t really have a clue, but I felt (in my uninformed innocence) that I knew plenty enough to be furiously indignant with those neo-Nazi Holocaust Deniers.
Yes, it’s been a long road, since first I started asking questions.

The presence of Holocaust DEFENDERS is therefore in principle VERY WELCOME.

But now it gets… sticky. In our GAB Holocaust Group, (, we frequently run in to a TYPE of ‘Holocaust Defender’ who simply does NOT contribute anything meaningful. Sure, heaps of epithets. Condescension. Heavy Sarcasm. But when they are asked questions? When we refer them to Or the ‘Holocaust Normie Challenge List’? When we invite them to pick ANY topic they like? Any single one?

Forget it. Run-run-run. Over, and over again.

That simply does not help the conversation. Nor does it do anything to combat what I dread the most, the stale air of the ‘Echo Chamber’.

I was looking for a simple term to describe this phenomenon, and until somebody comes up with a better one? I’ll go with ‘the Grand Woof-woof.’

Here, have a look at this exchange in our GAB Holocaust group.

@Semidetached makes his first post:

“Oh, look. A classic piece of shit Jew hater. Block this sonofabitch.”

I debated ignoring him. But, I thought I’d try very gentle irony.

I quoted his remark, and wrote, above it:

“Clearly, the ‘other side’ are very confident of being able to easily refute our many factual & empirical objections to their Holocaust narrative.
They are clearly very eager to respectfully point out the errors we have innocently made.
With their sophistication, superior intelligence, I know we can look forward to reasoned, polite, constructive debate.

Oh, wait…”

Well, his buddy I guess, jumped in then.

@Pitenana wrote:

“All Nazi whitewashing arguments I’ve seen so far are either based on factual distortions by biased sources or point to insignificant details, and eventually deteriorate into a flood of canned memes and shitposting. Plus, even if I disprove your “factual objections”, will it change your opinion? Arguing with a cultist is rarely productive.”

I replied:

1) ‘white washing arguments’ implies we are liars. That’s kind of quite rude.
2) ‘factual distortions by biased sources’
Let’s hear a few. I’m curious. I never seem to get many such references. Lots of promises, but when it comes down to putting down the words?
never seem to get much.
3) point to insignificant details.
Here’s a list I have compiled so far. Pick any one.
4) ‘a flood of canned memes’
Plenty of written text available for your perusal.
5) ‘and shit posting’. Again, that’s awfully, unnecessarily, rude.
It doesn’t come across as that you are very confident of your facts, when your statements are laced through with generous helpings of open hostility. Rather condescending too, kind Sir.
6) “Plus, even if I disprove your “factual objections”, will it change your opinion?”
Most certainly. I shall be delighted. If you point out an error, in anything I write, I shall correct it, and be obliged to you.
7) ‘Arguing with a cultist is rarely productive’.
Again, very, very rude.
The solution is simple: “don’t argue.”
Read what I write. Point out errors. I shall be more than pleased to hear your rational input.
With a little less bluster, perhaps?”

I meant it. Why argue? Let’s ‘discuss’. In a calm fashion.  I might learn something.

Did I try? Hard? I think so?  'Worship'

His reply:

“As I said, there is absolutely no point in arguing with a cultist. I’ve been through that too many times to waste my efforts. Half the list of “talking points” on the linked site are so retarded that they don’t deserve a mouthful of spit, not to speak of debunking.
You have the right to an opinion. I have to the right to want you and your ilk isolated in a padded room.”

I shrug shoulders. Hell, I tried.

My final word was that I quoted his ‘reply’, and wrote:

Grand-standing ‘Woof-woof’

“This, below, is what I might term classic ‘Grand-standing Woof-woof’ followed by ‘run-run-run’.
1) Enter, grandly, upon the stage. Thrusting themselves forward.
2) The fine swagger, oozing confidence.
3) He speaks his lines: we, the simple, ragged, unwashed, humble ones, wait, eagerly.
He throws plentiful scorn and contempt our way. He implies, no he flat out states, that his knowledge and understanding of the Holocaust is vast. And that we, poor souls, are dim.
4) we, eager to test our knowledge, and learn, offer a carefully documented list of what we term Holocaust ‘sticking points’.
We respectfully ask him to pick any one. Any -single- one.
We wait.
5) ‘Grand Woof-woof’ then replies as below.
Some more quite uncalled-for insults, and, so it seems, exit stage left.
I did not insult him in the slightest. I was scrupulously polite.

What am I to make of this fine, but very brief it seems, swagger across the stage?”

And there I left it. I’m busy. Too busy for games.

It’s regrettable. I’d like to see some staunch ‘Holocaust Defenders’ turn up who are willing, and able, to address issues like intellectual adults. As opposed to petulant children.

A cynic might comment here that the way they behave? Straight into

Might suggest that the ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘Six Million’ is, in essence empirically wholly indefensible. And most of them know it.
They know the ‘Six Million’ is Swiss Cheese.
That their ONLY recourse is to take it quickly to the hyper emotional level.
Preferably, with sad, tearful interviews with ‘Holocaust Survivors’ carefully cherry picked.
Legions of whom have already been unmasked as complete fakes, I’m sorry to say.

The same cynic might add: “And that’s why it’s strictly illegal in many parts of Europe to even ask those questions. And why the ADL and the Jewish Lobby are hell-bent on bringing the same Holocaust Denial Laws into the US.”

You can query Jesus Christ, but don’t you dare touch the ‘Six Million’. That’s holy, son.

I have opened a section here in the notes for ‘Holocaust Defenders’ who can usefully advance the conversation.

Return to

Last edited by Francis Meyrick on March 28, 2021, 8:54 pm

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Home   Back to Tile Index