# Is Hate Crime a Media Creation & Does it Discriminate against the Majority ?



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

I've always felt quite uneasy about the term hate-crime as we already had laws (in the UK) covering discrimination based on race, sex etc & it seems like these hate crime laws themselves are actually based on discrimination. As a white man, if I decided to launch an unprovoked attack on another white man, it would be treated as an assault or similar but if it was a black man, it would most likely be investigated as a hate crime, at least initially & if it made the news, the media would definitely try to spin it as one. But isn't this actually racist ? Is this not treating people differently based on their skin colour ? There's no such thing as a love crime, so why do we need so called hate crime laws ? Isn't it a crime involving hate if you violently attack someone in the street who is the same race, sexual persuasion & religion as yourself ?

This article that I've just read has made me question a few things a little deeper & I wondered what people's thoughts were on this subject ?
As a straight, white, atheist, male, I know full well that I could potentially be found guilty of a hate crime against many different groups, from blacks to trans. But if I have less protection than minorities, surely this is discrimination against people like me & a long way from the equality mantra that is constantly being pushed ? I've never heard a terror attack against white Brits be described as a hate crime but on the rare occasion it's a white Brit who is the terrorist, it's generally always called a hate crime based on racism & white supremacy. Why's that then & surely if this is actually discrimination, won't this breed more resentment towards the protected minorities, who seem to have more rights in law than the majority ?

The article is solely about the situation in the USA.




Spoiler: The Article



*Is ‘hate-crime’ a media-creation?Do we accept the designation of ‘hate crime’ simply because state and corporate sponsored outlets ask us to, or do we interrogate beyond the proffered narrative?*

As part of Remarks by President Trump on Mass Shootings in Texas and Ohio on August 5th, President Donald Trump announced that.


> Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay


Normally it might have been expected that the mainstream media would run with Trump’s support of the death-penalty-for-hate-crimes as proof positive that the man is off his rocker. Instead, the statement garnered barely a flicker of public notice. Did anyone in authority bother to confirm that the shootings were indeed motivated by ‘hate?’
As the mainstream media consistently rush to judgment, speculation too often becomes fact before all the evidence is considered (ie Russiagate) as the MSM is relied on to provide factual and critical background information.
And yet since 65% of the American public believe that the MSM is peddling fake news begs the question of why should detailed reporting on these tragic events be left to a discredited media establishment or that their information on these recent shootings be considered truthful?

Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be a ‘hate’ crime without providing evidence of the hate – as the Divide and Rule Game continues undeterred sowing division and conflict among the American people.
It remains unclear exactly why either tragedy is being specifically labeled a “hate” crime instead of felony murder as if there is a larger agenda to establish ‘hate’ as a bona fide.

Obviously, such barbaric mass killings are not normal behavior as the rationale for such conduct must stem from some deep emotional depravity just as the epidemic of suicides of young white males who have lost hope in American society makes no more sense.
There is an endemic crisis throughout the country and the political class are responsible. Decades after federal government elimination of grants for community mental health programs, ‘hate’ is the favorite determinant factor as the world’s most violent nation creates a generation of emotionally or mentally unstable young men, many of whom may be on mind-numbing psychiatric drugs.

Since the MSM has failed to inform the American public of advanced mind control practices; perhaps the MSM itself and the young shooters are part of widespread experiment using MK Ultra or other state-of-the-art brain manipulation techniques.  How would the American public ever know which might be true?
The 21 year old El Paso shooter was immediately identified  as a right wing Trumper acting on behalf of the President’s “hate” rhetoric and that he had posted an anti-immigration racist tract entitled  _An Inconvenient Truth_ – all of which turned out to be something less than the truth.
Decrying mass immigration as an environmental plea for population control sounds more like something John Muir might have written rather than a hate-filled racist diatribe justifying the slaughter. 
Perusing the alleged politically charged manifesto included such statements:


> Our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country…If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.


There is, however, a problematic psychiatrist father of uncertain character in the background as the shooter drove 650 miles from his home to El Paso before committing the crime and surrendering to authorities.

On the other hand, the Dayton shooter also defies the usual partisan identity and has been acknowledged as a 24-year old member of the Democratic Socialist Party, a Bernie and Elizabeth Warren supporter and was dressed and masked as an Antifa member at the time of the shooting.  His weapons and ammo magazines appear to have been legally acquired, he had a high school history as a bully who kept a hit list and made violent threats.

Meanwhile,  the Democrats who consider themselves the responsible party on gun control,  failed to restore the assault gun ban when they had the votes in 2010 as they prefer fanning the flames of more ‘hate’ by blaming Trump’s loose lips even though the once-revered ACLUdoes not oppose the Second Amendment.

One wonders that if the El Paso shooter can be tagged with being influenced by Trump rhetoric, did the Dayton shooter receive his inspiration from Antifa or perhaps Elizabeth Warren?   It is too much to expect any rational media voice to inquire – all of which brings us back to the President’s Remarks endorsing the death penalty.
How exactly did this ‘hate’ language make its way into Trump’s remarks as “hate” has become a preoccupation of American society and the Administration as its Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism’s very life purpose is to root out hate – not hate of all kinds but only that of the Jewish variety.

Historically, the American criminal justice system, flawed as it is, requires any jury in a criminal case to consider the Defendant’s level of conscious intent to commit a criminal act as well as the illegality of the act without specificity to the psychological issues of that intent.
Originally, hate crime laws were expected to offer special protection based on an individuals’ sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability or racial identity as perceived by the perpetrator. 

In a manner that does not occur in normal criminal proceedings, defining the “hate” component of a crime requires a distinct determination that the defendant’s actions were solely motivated by thoughts of ‘hate.’
In a worse case scenario, is Trump suggesting that the death penalty may be applied to what is determined to be a hate crime even if that crime has not resulted in a death?  
The reality is that hate crimes may be difficult to distinguish from a run-of-the-mill felony murder, thereby increasing the hate crime penalty makes little sense since first degree murder is already subject to the death penalty. Therefore, it appears that a redundant death penalty for a crime that would already call for the death penalty is little more than…overkill.

In other words, hate crime prosecution necessarily relies on criminalizing thoughts as the NSA claims it has already developed remote neural monitoring revealing one’s most hidden private thoughts or an iphone may be bugged with implants to reduce impulse control.
Many legal scholars would respond that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment already provides all American citizens with the guaranteed right to equal protection under the law (ie Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) and therefore such hate laws are unnecessary and may be unconstitutional.
Since the Constitution already protects the rights of aggrieved parties, why would Congress initiate an entirely new category of duplicative Hate Crime laws unless they needed the extra legislative accomplishment to justify their existence or to satisfy prominent politically-connected constituencies or to create a nefarious political agenda.






> Is ‘hate-crime’ a media-creation?
> 
> 
> Normally it might have been expected that the mainstream media would run with Trump’s support of the death-penalty-for-hate-crimes as proof positive that the man is off his rocker. Instead, the sta…
> ...


----------



## The Last Stand (Aug 26, 2019)

By law, a "hate crime" is a crime taken on towards a marginalized group based on their race or religion. If there is proof that the crime was racially motivated, then it would be charged as a "hate crime."


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 26, 2019)

The idea of a hate crime itself isn't a media creation, obviously all crimes are done out of a degree of hatred, but we wouldn't call crimes "hate crimes" just because hate is required to commit some of them. They're just crimes. It's called a "hate crime" because you're hateful of _who_ that person is, not because they fuckin' bumped into your car or something (and don't be a wise-ass and say "but they _are_ _a dick _for bumping into my car", I mean in a race and religion sense).

Honestly, it's just the media that's discriminating against the majority, not hate crimes. You're a bit dense man.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Aug 26, 2019)

No, it's not a media creation. The media opportunistically promotes it for ratings and because they're fellow travelers with the woke brigade, but they didn't originate the concept.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 26, 2019)

> why do we need so called hate crime laws



Okay imagine this. You're a judge or maybe respected journalist or academic. You got to your position in part due to your connections to one of the wealthiest families. They want to do social engineering and/or censor certain topics. How do you propose to do that in a way that doesn't meet abject resistance from the entire population?

That's what you need them for.

Especially if are in 70's and you want to facilitate mass immigration to achieve some of the goals mentioned in Coudenhoven-Kalergi's book praktischer idealismus. How could you possibly create a completely welcoming culture without having tools to silence some of the reasonable and factual objections that people can raise, particular when pointing to such things as crime stats?

The word racist was an essential tool that Trotsky utilized to attack homogeneity.

Hate crime laws as they relate to race are a part of the legal framework to institutionalise that attack on homogeneity.



> Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”



https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch01.htm


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (Aug 26, 2019)

I think "Hate crime" has a role to play

IN SENTENCING


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

The Last Stand said:


> By law, a "hate crime" is a crime taken on towards a marginalized group based on their race or religion. If there is proof that the crime was racially motivated, then it would be charged as a "hate crime."



But don't you think it actually discriminates against whites ? I'm not sure what the situation is in the US but here in the UK,  I never hear non-whites being accused of hate crime against white people. Which in my book, is actually racist & not based on "equality." 
Just today, someone was stabbed by a group of gypsies, or travelers to use the PC term. Now if a gypo had been stabbed by a non-gypsy, it would be classed as a hate crime but not when it's the other way round. Don't you think this is actually racial discrimination ? The very thing that is constantly pushed as being wrong.


----------



## BoingoTango (Aug 26, 2019)

Ah you're from the UK, perhaps you remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Tommy Robinson who used to constantly spout "Anti-racist is codeword for Anti-white"

I don't think for anyone with half a brain it's news that all this "anti-racist" shit is just a way to get revenge and fuck over white people, while all the while having dumbass white fucks go along with it. It's a really good scheme and it's embarrassing watching my people for it.


----------



## Clop (Aug 26, 2019)

Hate crimes are just moralfagging through the courts because for some reason people seriously think adding "racist" to "murderer" makes it so much worse. Some lives are more equal than others.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> The idea of a hate crime itself isn't a media creation, obviously all crimes are done out of a degree of hatred, but we wouldn't call crimes "hate crimes" just because hate is required to commit some of them. They're just crimes. It's called a "hate crime" because you're hateful of _who_ that person is, not because they fuckin' bumped into your car or something (and don't be a wise-ass and say "but they _are_ _a dick _for bumping into my car", I mean in a race and religion sense).
> 
> Honestly, it's just the media that's discriminating against the majority, not hate crimes. You're a bit dense man.



It's not me asking if it's a media creation, it's the journo that wrote the piece. But yeah, even though I might be a bit dense, I still think that made up words & terms that are mainly used to discriminate against people like me are actually wrong & go against mainstream thinking.



BoingoTango said:


> Ah you're from the UK, perhaps you remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Tommy Robinson who used to constantly spout "Anti-racist is codeword for Anti-white"
> 
> I don't think for anyone with half a brain it's news that all this "anti-racist" shit is just a way to get revenge and fuck over white people, while all the while having dumbass white fucks go along with it. It's a really good scheme and it's embarrassing watching my people for it.



It sounds like something Tommy might say, yes, but it's also been said by many others. And to be honest, I think it's a true statement for some so called anti-racists, particularly whites suffering from white guilt. And it would be fair to accuse several black, UK politicians of being anti-white racists due to their OTT anti-racist statements. Saying that though, on the whole, I agree with you.


----------



## ES 195 (Aug 26, 2019)

Media creation? No. Tool of the media for sensationalism? Yes.
It also helps the courts and prisons by making crimes more sensational and adding onto prison times and sentences. It's just another stupid term used to manipulate the emotions of the courts and the people into getting them to react a certain way; definitely discriminates against the majority. A crime motivated by racism is disappointing and stupid. A hate crime is evil and infuriating. It's simply just another propaganda term.


----------



## Slowpoke Sonic (Aug 26, 2019)

A "hate crime" for example would be a white person burning down a mosque, but if it were a person of color, it wouldn't be considered one, and wouldn't recieve any attention. Well yes it pretty much *does *discriminate the majority, but I don't really think that it was invented by modern media. If it was created by the media, it wouldn't be mainstream. Probably created by some bored woke liberal who probably saw a black guy getting killed on the news. 

Hate crimes are just crimes but they made it sound fancier just so they could make braindead liberals woke af


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> It's not me asking if it's a media creation, it's the journo that wrote the piece. But yeah, even though I might be a bit dense, I still think that made up words & terms that are mainly used to discriminate against people like me are actually wrong & go against mainstream thinking.



It isn't a made-up word you knobgnosher it's _literally something you can get prosecuted for._ What do you want then? People to stop calling them "hate crimes"? What's gonna resolve this ever so destructive discrimination?


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> It isn't a made-up word you knobmucher it's _literally something you can get prosecuted for._ What do you want then? People to stop calling them "hate crimes"? What's gonna resolve this ever so destructive discrimination?



It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently. Like I said earlier, we already had laws covering racial motivations in a crime & should have left it at that but no, someone had to move the goal posts in an attempt to make it seem that whites committing crime against non-whites is somehow more important & worse than if it was the other way round. So yes, I would like to see people stop calling them hate crimes & go back to calling them racially motivated, you ugly spastic.


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently. Like I said earlier, we already had laws covering racial motivations in a crime & should have left it at that but no, someone had to move the goal posts in an attempt to make it seem that whites committing crime against non-whites is somehow more important & worse than if it was the other way round. So yes, I would like to see people stop calling them hate crimes & go back to calling them racially motivated, you ugly spastic.



Chill out, it's just a shorter way of saying it and you are thinking way too much about a shortened way of saying "racially motivated crime". Nobody's gonna be asked but you to say "racially motivated attack" rather than "hate crime". They mean the exact same, why are you letting the media change the meaning of "racially motivated crime"?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently. Like I said earlier, we already had laws covering racial motivations in a crime & should have left it at that but no, someone had to move the goal posts in an attempt to make it seem that whites committing crime against non-whites is somehow more important & worse than if it was the other way round. So yes, I would like to see people stop calling them hate crimes & go back to calling them racially motivated, you ugly spastic.


Sure it's a made up word. All words are. And it's a fairly young word too.

It doesn't really work to go back. Particularly not because hate crime is a larger category that also includes sexual identities, ridiculous as some of those may be.

What it should be is a shield for vulnerable groups. What it is, is a legal sledgehammer to use against non-minority groups, considering none of the racially motivated attacks like the livestreamed disabled guy that was attacked and blamed for being a trump supporter (don't think he even was pro-trump) or any of the racially motivated sex scandals like Rotherham, these never get categorized as hate crimes, because hate crime laws are a one way sledgehammer.

And if any minority group achieves numbers to become majority, then it'll become a sledgehammer to use against specific minority groups (white/straight)


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> Chill out, it's just a shorter way of saying it and you are thinking way too much about a shortened way of saying "racially motivated crime". Nobody's gonna be asked but you to say "racially motivated attack" rather than "hate crime". They mean the exact same, why are you letting the media change the meaning of "racially motivated crime"?



I am chill bro, honestly. Just a bit of bantz. It's not just a shorter way of saying it though, in my opinion that is.

Personally, I have no real problem with a judge dealing with a crime that is obviously motivated by racial hatred but think the term hate crime is far too broad & does actually discriminate against whites & atheists, who don't have the luxury of the protection that blacks & Muslims & Jews have. In my mind, that is racial discrimination based on my skin colour & my beliefs, or lack of them. Which shows an extreme lack of equality, in my faggy little island anyway.


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> I am chill bro, honestly. Just a bit of bantz. It's not just a shorter way of saying it though, in my opinion that is.
> 
> Personally, I have no real problem with a judge dealing with a crime that is obviously motivated by racial hatred but think the term hate crime is far too broad & does actually discriminate against whites & atheists, who don't have the luxury of the protection that blacks & Muslims & Jews have. In my mind, that is racial discrimination based on my skin colour & my beliefs, or lack of them. Which shows an extreme lack of equality, in my faggy little island anyway.



I think you're giving the word too much power. Yes, admittedly in media "hate crime" is synonymous with "white man did bad" but all you can really do is like... not accept that as the definition. 

Wouldn't say that Jews and Muslims have protection here, much more sympathy sure, but what can you do? I've yet to see anything actually damaging to white people outside of travellers.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> I think you're giving the word too much power. Yes, admittedly in media "hate crime" is synonymous with "white man did bad" but all you can really do is like... not accept that as the definition.
> 
> Wouldn't say that Jews and Muslims have protection here, much more sympathy sure, but what can you do? I've yet to see anything actually damaging to white people outside of travellers.



Well, I think the whole hate crime thing is damaging, not just to white people but to race & inter-faith relations too. I can only guess that you're in the US, so please remember that we don't have free speech in the UK anymore, it has been destroyed by so called liberals who can often be members of the Conservative party, so basically, it's far too easy to shut people down here with cries of "racism," or Islamophobia etc. etc.

It's nearly impossible for anyone to have a reasonable debate about race or religion here & if you're in the public eye, you aren't allowed an opinion that goes against the mainstream view, or the Twitter mob, or even the man, will have you sacked. Just today, I was reading about a Christian doctor who was sacked for daring to suggest the idea that there are only 2 genders & he refused to call men pretending to be women "her." And yet a Pakistani doctor who sexually assaulted a nurse, was found guilty & entered onto the sex offenders register, was allowed to keep his job as he used the "cultural differences" excuse. Even though it's against NHS/government policy to employ known sex offenders. It's double standards & breeds resentment.


----------



## Foxxo (Aug 26, 2019)

Hate crimes are something that our society is really sensitive about, because the 1960's are the only part of U.S. history that's given any depth of coverage in most of school.

And I'm not saying that knowing the rest of U.S. history would turn you into a /pol/lack, I'm just saying that our culture hyper-focuses on it because it's the only thing that's prominent in most of our minds.


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> Well, I think the whole hate crime thing is damaging, not just to white people but to race & inter-faith relations too. I can only guess that you're in the US, so please remember that we don't have free speech in the UK anymore, it has been destroyed by so called liberals who can often be members of the Conservative party, so basically, it's far too easy to shut people down here with cries of "racism," or Islamophobia etc. etc.
> 
> It's nearly impossible for anyone to have a reasonable debate about race or religion & if you're in the public eye, you aren't allowed an opinion that goes against the mainstream view, or the Twitter mob, or even the man, will have you sacked. Just today, I was reading about a Christian doctor who was sacked for daring to suggest the idea that there are only 2 genders & he refused to call men pretending to be women "her." And yet a Pakistani doctor who sexually assaulted a nurse, was found guilty & entered onto the sex offenders register, was allowed to keep his job as he used the "cultural differences" excuse. Even though it's against NHS/government policy to employ known sex offenders. It's double standards & breeds resentment.



Yes, _we_ have free speech. People say we don't all the time but honestly, I don't see where we don't have free speech, what's making anybody think that?

Yeah, that case is bullshit and the Pakistani doctor should have been imprisoned or at least fired, but these problems aren't widespread. It could always be worse, just suck it up unless it's a problem for nearly everyone.


----------



## spurger king (Aug 26, 2019)

"Hate crime" is a made up term to criminalize acts of self-defense.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> Yes, _we_ have free speech. People say we don't all the time but honestly, I don't see where we don't have free speech, what's making anybody think that?
> 
> Yeah, that case is bullshit and the Pakistani doctor should have been imprisoned or at least fired, but these problems aren't widespread. It could always be worse, just suck it up unless it's a problem for nearly everyone.



But how can we honestly say that we have free speech if we have laws on hate speech ? I think we pretend we have free speech but haven't since the 90's when we adopted European rulings on human rights. 
Yes, we can say virtually anything negative about the queen or government but can we do the same for Islam or Judaism without being accused of so called hate speech ? 

Anybody that says that the UK has free speech is kidding themselves. With the exception of inciting violence, we should be allowed to say anything we want to without fear of arrest or prosecution & if there are restrictions on our speech, which there is, then we don't have free speech, it's all or nothing imho. 

I'm not sure we can tell how widespread these problems actually are, we'd have to look at every news source every day to get an idea & even then, it's very often not reported. To be fair, I've seen stories that have affected plenty of black people in the same way as the Christian doctor, so it's not exactly a racial problem but it seems like the Christians are the ones who have the lesser rights among UK religious groups & they're the most criticised too. 

I can suck it up, it is what it is but I'm not happy about it & it's becoming easier for the government to keep removing our rights a little at a time. We've even got Manchester police tweeting that they want people to report "non-crime hate !" I mean wtf does that term even mean ?


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> But how can we honestly say that we have free speech if we have laws on hate speech ? I think we pretend we have free speech but haven't since the 90's when we adopted European rulings on human rights.
> Yes, we can say virtually anything negative about the queen or government but can we do the same for Islam or Judaism without being accused of so called hate speech ?
> 
> Anybody that says that the UK has free speech is kidding themselves. With the exception of inciting violence, we should be allowed to say anything we want to without fear of arrest or prosecution & if there are restrictions on our speech, which there is, then we don't have free speech, it's all or nothing imho.
> ...


But hate speech laws can be enforced the right way. For example,   they can be used to prosecute Wahhabi Imans for preaching hatred, or those who advocate pushing collective guilt on whites for the crimes of their ancestors.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Aug 26, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But hate speech laws can be enforced the right way. For example,   they can be used to prosecute Wahhabi Imans for preaching hatred, or those who advocate pushing collective guilt on whites for the crimes of their ancestors.


Nah, that's gay.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> But hate speech laws can be enforced the right way. For example,   they can be used to prosecute Wahhabi Imans for preaching hatred, or those who advocate pushing collective guilt on whites for the crimes of their ancestors.



We didn't need extra laws to prosecute a hate preacher, that would have previously been covered by something like incitement/encouragement of violence but honestly, this country took about 10 years to deport Abu Hamza, a notorious hate-preacher, so even with hate-speech laws, it doesn't always work the way we'd like it to. 

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted or even silenced for blaming all whites for any crimes their ancestors may or may not have committed. In fact, those type of sentiments are almost encouraged here, sadly.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted or even silenced for blaming all whites for any crimes their ancestors may or may not have committed. In fact, those type of sentiments are almost encouraged here, sadly.


Well, should they be? Do you want it both ways? I understand that you don't like that people say that shit but as long as it's not incitement to violence what's the issue?


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 26, 2019)

Exigent Circumcisions said:


> Well, should they be? Do you want it both ways? I understand that you don't like that people say that shit but as long as it's not incitement to violence what's the issue?



Should people be prosecuted for blaming whitey ? No, of course not, that would be super fucking exceptional. 
Do I want what both ways ? No & yes but I'm not bi. 
If you're asking me do I object to niggers & leftists constantly blaming whitey for everything, then fuck yeah. Do I believe they should have the right to spout stuff I don't like or want to hear ? Yes. I believe in free speech as long as it's not inciting violence, I'd be a hypocrite if I said different. I'd also like the right to argue against these pricks but due to my countries ridiculous laws, I can't really, not without being accused for some 'ism or possibly arrested. I just want equal rights for all, including whites.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (Aug 26, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> We didn't need extra laws to prosecute a hate preacher, that would have previously been covered by something like incitement/encouragement of violence but honestly, this country took about 10 years to deport Abu Hamza, a notorious hate-preacher, so even with hate-speech laws, it doesn't always work the way we'd like it to.


Laws against hurty words and meany punches are fake and gay.

If people are incompatible and do not get along, they should be separate.

The hook-handed Sunni dog would have been locked up or exiled quick smart had he tried that shit in Iran.


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> But how can we honestly say that we have free speech if we have laws on hate speech ? I think we pretend we have free speech but haven't since the 90's when we adopted European rulings on human rights.
> Yes, we can say virtually anything negative about the queen or government but can we do the same for Islam or Judaism without being accused of so called hate speech ?
> 
> Anybody that says that the UK has free speech is kidding themselves. With the exception of inciting violence, we should be allowed to say anything we want to without fear of arrest or prosecution & if there are restrictions on our speech, which there is, then we don't have free speech, it's all or nothing imho.
> ...



God you're a pussy, if you wanna be a victim so much wear a sign saying "curb stomp me please". 

Yes, we can criticise Islam and Judaism, you probably yell a bunch of slurs and claim that it's criticism while huffing your own fumes dude. If you are actually criticising though, why do you care if someone says you're committing hate speech? Ignore them. What are they gonna do? Report you? The police aren't as incompetent as you think. 

Listen, mate, buddy, chum, _Christians have the same rights as anyone else here._ Ex-Catholic here, and in no way was anyone ever oppressed. Sure, maybe the media isn't as delicate with Christians as much as Muslims or Jews but what are they gonna do? Dismantle the religion? Nobody's gonna stop believing because nobody has before.

Sauce? Even if that's true, who actually gives a shit about what the police say outside of "don't commit crimes"? What, do you?


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 27, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> God you're a pussy, if you wanna be a victim so much wear a sign saying "curb stomp me please".
> 
> Yes, we can criticise Islam and Judaism, you probably yell a bunch of slurs and claim that it's criticism while huffing your own fumes dude. If you are actually criticising though, why do you care if someone says you're committing hate speech? Ignore them. What are they gonna do? Report you? The police aren't as incompetent as you think.
> 
> ...



I'm a pussy because I've got a different opinion to you ? How very mature. 

I suppose you've forgotten about Boris Johnson's comments about the niqab looking like a letterbox & the Met police investigating as to whether he'd committed a hate crime or not ? Or the constant cries about Corbyn being anti-Semetic when the founder of Momentum is a Jew ? Yes, we can say anything we like about Jews & Muzzies without fear of repercussion, of course we can. Lol. 

Why do I care about so called hate speech ? That ought to be obvious really but I think I'd be wasting my time explaining. Thanks for your invaluable input though. 

If you think I'm lying about Manc police, look it up yourself if you're that bothered because I don't care what you believe.


----------



## Trappy (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> If you think I'm lying about Manc police, look it up yourself if you're that bothered because I don't care what you believe.


Don't forget Wiltshire police posting threats on Twitter and South Yorkshire police urging people to report "non-crime hate incidents". 









						Wiltshire Police - #StayHomeSaveLives on Twitter
					

“You can't hide from us if your spewing abuse from behind a computer screen. Our boys & gals in blue will find you 💻 👀#999WhatsYourEmergency”




					twitter.com
				












						South Yorkshire Police - #StayHomeSaveLives on Twitter
					

“In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it #HateHurtsSY”




					twitter.com


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 27, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> _Christians have the same rights as anyone else here._ Ex-Catholic here, and in no way was anyone ever oppressed. Sure, maybe the media isn't as delicate with Christians as much as Muslims or Jews but what are they gonna do?



He's british and there christians don't have the same rights as muslims (or jews) in practise. Just look at Lauren Southern being banned from the country from christian/muslim swapping from "god is gay" to "allah is gay", whereas the original "god is gay" protest received no legal repercussions.


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> I'm a pussy because I've got a different opinion to you ? How very mature.
> 
> I suppose you've forgotten about Boris Johnson's comments about the niqab looking like a letterbox & the Met police investigating as to whether he'd committed a hate crime or not ? Or the constant cries about Corbyn being anti-Semetic when the founder of Momentum is a Jew ? Yes, we can say anything we like about Jews & Muzzies without fear of repercussion, of course we can. Lol.
> 
> ...



Oh come on, saying the niqab looks like a letterbox is just a wee disrespectful and it was unnecessary. You're forgetting these guys are prominent figures hated by the media, of course they're going to claim anything _they_ say is offensive. 

No, I refuse to think you actually believe you're oppressed because of the words "hate speech", it's stupid. 

Again, no, since nobody is going to listen to the police. Nobody does, everybody hates them, especially minorities.



Lemmingwise said:


> He's british and there christians don't have the same rights as muslims (or jews) in practise. Just look at Lauren Southern being banned from the country from christian/muslim swapping from "god is gay" to "allah is gay", whereas the original "god is gay" protest received no legal repercussions.



Well I guess that sucks for her, but I really don't see any other rights of ours being taken away that are actually problems.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 27, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> Well I guess that sucks for her, but I really don't see any other rights of ours being taken away that are actually problems.



That's moving the goalposts pretty far and pretty quickly from "there is no difference in rights" to "the difference in rights won't grow, and even if they do some of those changes aren't actually problems".


----------



## RandallB (Aug 27, 2019)

Is OP's super recent join date and broken english making you suspicious this is some chinese/russian shit stirrer?

I have to imagine so, because this sounds like something from like 10 years ago. "Hey fellow white men, I just now realized all these anti-discrimination laws contain discrimination!"


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 27, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> That's moving the goalposts pretty far and pretty quickly from "there is no difference in rights" to "the difference in rights won't grow, and even if they do some of those changes aren't actually problems".


Sure, what do you want me to spell out that I've changed my mind? You convinced me, good job.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 27, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> Oh come on, saying the niqab looks like a letterbox is just a wee disrespectful and it was unnecessary. You're forgetting these guys are prominent figures hated by the media, of course they're going to claim anything _they_ say is offensive.
> 
> No, I refuse to think you actually believe you're oppressed because of the words "hate speech", it's stupid.
> 
> ...



I didn't mention the media, I said the police decided to investigate if it was a hate crime. Please pay attention. 

You refuse to think ? Yep, we finally agree on something.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 27, 2019)

PinstripeLuns said:


> Sure, what do you want me to spell out that I've changed my mind? You convinced me, good job.



You can see my history and see that when people do admit mistake or are otherwise contrite, I do nothing but positively praise the response.

I wouldn't have rubbed your face in it if your response didn't sound like "so what!?", as in still refusing to acknowledge it. That's why the "actually problems" comment surprised me, as if the difference just established isn't actually a problem itself.

Typically when people recognize an injustice that previously escaped their attention, they don't still give a half-hearted defense. I mean, respond how you want to, but it does strike me as odd for someone that changed their mind as you say. Perhaps I read more into it and something got lost in interpretation, that's how it seemed to me.

Why else ask in regards to "actually problems"? Isn't this actually a problem? If there is one example that you didn't know about, how many more of them could be out there?


----------



## Trappy (Aug 27, 2019)

RandallB said:


> Is OP's super recent join date and broken english making you suspicious this is some chinese/russian shit stirrer?


Reddit boomer take


----------



## Travoltron (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> It is a made up term though & didn't exist until fairly recently.


You're right about this and I don't know exactly why you're getting ratioed.
"Hate Crime" is basically a modern invention that didn't really get implemented until the 21st century. South Park had an episode (Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000) about why the concept was retarded. That was back in 2000 when the topic was still being debated.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 27, 2019)

Travoltron said:


> You're right about this and I don't know exactly why you're getting ratioed.
> "Hate Crime" is basically a modern invention that didn't really get implemented until the 21st century. South Park had an episode (Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000) about why the concept was exceptional. That was back in 2000 when the topic was still being debated.



Thanks. Here's a couple of examples that I hope you guys in the US never have to accept as lawful. 

On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemoutha large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[14][15][16]

On 23 April 2018, Scottish YouTuber Mark Meechan of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire was fined £800 after being found "grossly offensive" for posting a YouTube video that was viewed over 3 million times depicting him training his girlfriend's pug to respond to the phrase "Sieg Heil" by lifting his paw in a Nazi salute. [26] Tory MP Philip Davies requested a review of freedom of expression in parliament in response to the conviction.[27] Comedians Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel tweeted in support of Meechan.[28][29][30] Tom Walker, Shappi Khorsandi, and Stephen Fry defended Meechan and criticized other comedians for their silence on the issue.[31][32][33] Meechan, who plans to appeal, was sentenced to pay an £800 fine on April 23, 2018.[34][35] A crowd of about 500 people protested the move in London.[36]

In 2017, 19-year old Croxteth resident Chelsea Russell quoted a line from Snap Dogg's song "I'm Trippin'" on her Instagram page. The line, which read "Kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga", was copied from a friend's page as part of a tribute to Frankie Murphy who was killed in a car accident at age 13.[37][38] Hate crime investigators were alerted to the presence of the slur and charged Russell with "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network". Defence lawyer Carole Clarke stated that she received a request from one of the arresting officers that the word "nigga", the subject of the trial, not be used in court.[39] In April 2018, District Judge Jack McGarva found Russell guilty and delivered a sentence which included a £585 fine, a curfew and an ankle monitoring bracelet.[40] However, Russell's conviction was overturned by Liverpool Crown Court on 21st February 2019.[41]

At one time, just insulting somebody was considered as a hate crime by law but thankfully, our House of Lords had it amended & removed. 

It just seems ridiculous that you can be sent to prison here just for offending someone who belongs to a protected class. Or actually, I don't think any one person needs to complain of being offended for something to be considered a hate crime. Clownworld.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> On 23 April 2018, Scottish YouTuber Mark Meechan of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire was fined £800 after being found "grossly offensive" for posting a YouTube video that was viewed over 3 million times depicting him training his girlfriend's pug to respond to the phrase "Sieg Heil" by lifting his paw in a Nazi salute. [26] Tory MP Philip Davies requested a review of freedom of expression in parliament in response to the conviction.[27] Comedians Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel tweeted in support of Meechan.[28][29][30] Tom Walker, Shappi Khorsandi, and Stephen Fry defended Meechan and criticized other comedians for their silence on the issue.[31][32][33] Meechan, who plans to appeal, was sentenced to pay an £800 fine on April 23, 2018.[34][35] A crowd of about 500 people protested the move in London.[36]


Confession time: I didn't know Dankula's real name (and iti din't help that I misread the date as 200, so my first reaction to this was wondering what the fuck the deal is with you Brits and Nazi pugs


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 27, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Confession time: I didn't know Dankula's real name (and iti din't help that I misread the date as 200, so my first reaction to this was wondering what the fuck the deal is with you Brits and Nazi pugs



So out of interest, do you think he should have been dragged before a court for what I'm fairly sure was just a joke ? Yes, it was probably in bad taste but honestly, you've got more chance of getting away with violently attacking someone here than you have just for having a dark sense of humour that might upset a few people. 

I believe him when he said he did it to wind his girlfriend up, as it was her dog & the Nazi salute was quite funny IMO. Saying "Gas the Jews" was probably taking it a bit far but it's just black humour.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> So out of interest, do you think he should have been dragged before a court for what I'm fairly sure was just a joke ? Yes, it was probably in bad taste but honestly, you've got more chance of getting away with violently attacking someone here than you have just for having a dark sense of humour that might upset a few people.
> 
> I believe him when he said he did it to wind his girlfriend up, as it was her dog & the Nazi salute was quite funny IMO. Saying "Gas the Jews" was probably taking it a bit far but it's just black humour.


Oh no, absolutely not, the ruling was bullshit, I was just amused that apparently making pugs do Nazi shit was apparently a thing that frequently happens over there


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 27, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Oh no, absolutely not, the ruling was bullshit, I was just amused that apparently making pugs do Nazi shit was apparently a thing that frequently happens over there



Well, our royals first set the standards with Nazism, so...


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 27, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> Well, our royals first set the standards with Nazism, so...
> 
> View attachment 909931
> 
> View attachment 909933



It's really not comparable to 1933. Context of what nazi and nazi salute is, was completely different.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 28, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's really not comparable to 1933. Context of what nazi and nazi salute is, was completely different.



I know buddy, it's just a minor shitpost really. But at the time, our royals were actually sympathetic to the Nazi's, three of Prince Philips sisters married high ranking Nazi officers, one even to the head of the SS. They attended funerals of  Nazi's & socialised with them & as I'm sure you probably know, they have a German background & changed their name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to the less Germanic sounding Windsor during WW1. Former palace workers allege that there's a large collection of Nazi memorabilia in Buckingham Palace too. The queen did her bit during WW2 but the fact is that they were very close to the Nazi's at one time.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 28, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> So out of interest, do you think he should have been dragged before a court for what I'm fairly sure was just a joke ? Yes, it was probably in bad taste but honestly, you've got more chance of getting away with violently attacking someone here than you have just for having a dark sense of humour that might upset a few people.
> 
> I believe him when he said he did it to wind his girlfriend up, as it was her dog & the Nazi salute was quite funny IMO. Saying "Gas the Jews" was probably taking it a bit far but it's just black humour.


I think that black humor should be allowed but actual Naziism should be outlawed as hate speech. Counting racism as free speech is unique to the First Amendment of the US Constitution and I don’t think that would work in a different culture such as British culture. As I said in another thread, Britain would be better off as a traditional autocratic monarchy because that system does not pretend to give people political freedom and as your examples from the U.K. show, the worst tyranny comes from a government pretending to give people political freedom.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 28, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I think that black humor should be allowed but actual Naziism should be outlawed as hate speech. Counting racism as free speech is unique to the First Amendment of the US Constitution and I don’t think that would work in a different culture such as British culture. As I said in another thread, Britain would be better off as a traditional autocratic monarchy because that system does not pretend to give people political freedom and as your examples from the U.K. show, the worst tyranny comes from a government pretending to give people political freedom.



To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what our laws are on Nazism but neo-Nazi groups are swiftly proscribed & being a member can often mean jail just for being part of the banned group. The trouble is, if Nazism were banned, it could only follow that communism should be banned, as it's responsible for more deaths & at least as many atrocities as the Nazis were. Ironically, the cliched Che Guevara t-shirt is still popular with many of the Commie type, woke, SJW crowd, who fail to realise that he hated blacks & homos & may have murdered some too. One day, I shall troll an SJW in a Che t-shirt & see if I can make their head explode. 




> A FANATICAL neo-Nazi couple who named their baby son Adolf in honour of Hitler have been jailed for membership of a terrorist group.
> Adam Thomas and Claudia Patatas both had a ‘long history of violent, racist beliefs’, judge Melbourne Inman QC told them during sentencing.
> Thomas, 22, was jailed for six years and six months for membership of banned far-right group National Action, while Patatas, 38, was given five years.







> Neo-Nazis who named son Adolf are jailed for joining terrorist group
> 
> 
> A FANATICAL neo-Nazi couple who named their baby son Adolf in honour of Hitler have been jailed for membership of a terrorist group. Adam Thomas and Claudia Patatas both had a ‘long history of violent, racist beliefs’, judge Melbourne Inman QC told them during sentencing. Thomas, 22, was jailed...
> ...


----------



## NZ 144 (Aug 28, 2019)

A “hate crime” is a term used by the Jewish media to label actions that they don’t approve of. It was originally created to give National Socialists longer sentences in prison, but was also picked up by the media. As for discriminating against the majority, that is some humanist bullshit.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Aug 28, 2019)

As a side note, the way UK legislation works for it to be a "Hate Crime", your target needs to be one of the protected minorities highlighted within the Equality act; That is LGBT, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Middle Easterners and those of mixed race (far easterners don't seem to be included). If they're not listed as a protected category, it's not possible for a hate crime to have been committed thus black on white crime isn't a hate crime, but a white on black crime is initially assumed to be one.

It does get more confusing and there is a pecking order when minorities attack each other though; LGBT critique of Islam has been clarified as being a hate crime from previous court battles in the UK but at the same time extreme Islamic preaching against LGBT and westerners has been deemed permissible. Black Evangelical Christians preaching on things like Trannies have been deemed found of incitement to hatred whereas White Scottish Catholics doing it have previously been found guilty of it.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 28, 2019)

Otto1488 said:


> A “hate crime” is a term used by the Jewish media to label actions that they don’t approve of. It was originally created to give National Socialists longer sentences in prison, but was also picked up by the media. As for discriminating against the majority, that is some humanist bullshit.



So are you saying that the hate crime laws we have in Britain don't discriminate against white Brits ? I think @Fagatron  has summed up the situation perfectly. These made up laws do not protect the majority, they oppress them & stop them from voicing legitimate concerns & criticism.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Aug 28, 2019)

@Otto1488 I don't know if it's more an American phenomenon with Jews being a super protected class beyond critique, but Jews in the Europe and especially in France and the United Kingdom get a pretty rough time.

Anti-Semitism is openly tolerated here, if not actively supported by mainstream parties like Labor. Corbyn doesn't even hide the fact receives funding from groups like Hamas and attended events led by extreme anti-zionist and anti-Semitic groups. It's illegal in most places to promote things like the _Protocols of Zion_ as being truth or denying the Holocaust but it's a rare day (outside Germany) anyone of the protected class most often behind it actually gets in trouble for it.

When Jews say it's dangerous to openly advertise their faith in Europe they're not joking, I've seen how just being whiter than the neighbours with a big nose in the wrong migrant-dominated area will get you into trouble let alone wearing a star of david or kippah.

I'm sure you can guess which peaceful religious sect is behind most of it.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Aug 28, 2019)

I remember saying something like this before: I think the whole notion of "hate crime" can be divisive, dividing groups of people who weren't necessarily involved into the "oppressors" and the "marginalized." It's better to just prosecute a crime for what it is (assault, murder, etc), instead of raising identity politics.


----------



## nonvir_1984 (Aug 28, 2019)

OP says "There's no such thing as a love crime". Actually, some jurisdictions do recognize such crimes. They are usually caught under the general heading of crime passionel. These are crimes - acts the law prohibits - where the  defendant has as an excuse for committing the crime such as sudden anger or heartbreak. Such crimes eliminate the element of "premeditation" and can be provoked in some cases by seeing someone one loves be unfaithful, threatened or harmed (and you spring to their defense). To be sure, there are crimes passionel that do not arise out of love but anger, remorse, guilt. As well, some countries permit a defense of mercy killing, when done out of love not gain or revenge or some such.
As for the question. Trivially, yes - the term was coined by journalists - and policy advoates:
The term "hate crime" was coined in the 1980s by journalists and policy advocates who were attempting to describe a series of incidents directed at Jews, Asians and African-Americans. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines hate crime (also known as bias crime) as "a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-hate-crime​But the idea of a special class of crime pertaining to unlawful treatment  because of race, color, religion, or national origin appeared in 1968, when Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the first federal hate crimes statute. https://www.justice.gov/crt/hate-crime-laws
In other countries such crimes of bigotry are referred to as racial villification ocrimes - or more generally vilification crimes, because Islam is not a race.
That was then.
Now, the term is overused and is being used to silence debate and discussion and also to refer to crimes that may not be hate crimes at all - such as rape. It becomes a hate crime if the rape is motivated by  the victim's ethnicity or race. "Hate crime"  confuses motivation (why you act) with intent (what you want to achieve). Most crimes called "hate crimes" nowadays do not spring from hate, as a visceral emotion of disgust and loathing - a hateful motivation; but from bigotry, beliefs about groups of people and the members of the group.
In my view, we need to abandon this term or define it more carefully and focus it's use. Instead concentrate on the intent - and use the emotion as an aggravating factor.
As for whiteies having a monopoly on it, that is just nonsense. Rwanda the Balkans, Iran ("Death to America") and a mess of other places all wallow in hate crimes, but it is convenient for SJWs to blame whitey.

Blacks have been charged with hates crimes in the US (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z4jadx/can-you-commit-a-hate-crime-against-a-white-person)
1,150 black people were convicted of hate crimes in 2009 alone. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120515090939AAmRzx2
Eric Lin, 35, an Asian Nazi from Florida was arrested by the FBI. He had sent messages expressing his support for Trump, his Nazi beliefs, his plans to kidnap the woman and his plans to kill all Hispanics. He also wrote: “I will stop at Nothing until you, your family, your friends, your entire WORTHLESS LATIN RACE IS RACIALLY EXTERMINATED!” He wrote in another message before threatening to keep nonwhite people “in line”. Lin does not appear to have been charged with haate crimes, oddly.

OP asks "won't this breed more resentment towards the protected minorities, who seem to have more rights in law than the majority?"
Yes it is doing just that. The double standards in a range of things, including hate crimes, are in fact drawing people to extreme right ideology and fueling resentment and also validating various conspiracy theories, which inturn draw support and supporters and make matters worse.
Banning extreme right and deplatforming people is also having the same effect.
Although some on the right bemoan this, there are others who welcome it and actively campaign for it, as they see it as part of a non-violent for now  accelerationist program, hastening the end of a sick system.
Enough sperging.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 28, 2019)

Fagatron said:


> @Otto1488 I don't know if it's more an American phenomenon with Jews being a super protected class beyond critique, but Jews in the Europe and especially in France and the United Kingdom get a pretty rough time.
> 
> Anti-Semitism is openly tolerated here, if not actively supported by mainstream parties like Labor. Corbyn doesn't even hide the fact receives funding from groups like Hamas and attended events led by extreme anti-zionist and anti-Semitic groups. It's illegal in most places to promote things like the _Protocols of Zion_ as being truth or denying the Holocaust but it's a rare day (outside Germany) anyone of the protected class most often behind it actually gets in trouble for it.
> 
> ...



Interesting. I agree with much of this but as far as Britain goes, I wouldn't say that anti-Semitism is tolerated here, except when it's Muslims doing it but they're allowed to get away with insulting everybody because people don't want to upset them as they're pretty much the only group who'll turn to extreme violence if you piss them off. One bloke got sent to prison for a few years after sending ex-Labour MP Luciana Burger some offensive tweets & I can think of plenty of other incidents where people have been punished.

I tried to do a bit of research into the subject a while ago but it was virtually impossible to find out what all the people who get accused of anti-Semitism have actually said but the few things I could find that had been said, did not warrant police investigation IMHO & were just silly words or even just valid criticism of Israel. Do you think I'm anti-Semitic if I say I don't think circumcision of children for religious reasons should be allowed in the UK ?

I don't much like Corbyn & really don't want to defend him but I honestly think this is a media witch hunt against him, helped along by other Labour members. Don't forget that the guy who founded Momentum, the group mainly responsible for his election to leader, was started by a Jew. I can think of a few incidents where his actions or words are very questionable but honestly don't think he hates British Jews & seems to have a good relationship with some of them.

Again, I agree with most of your points but I can see plenty of Jews on the streets of Britain but have also seen a couple of videos of them being abused, generally by Muslims but that can happen to white atheists like me as well. The situation in mainland Europe does seem a lot worse than the UK though & think we all know why.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 28, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what our laws are on Nazism but neo-Nazi groups are swiftly proscribed & being a member can often mean jail just for being part of the banned group. The trouble is, if Nazism were banned, it could only follow that communism should be banned, as it's responsible for more deaths & at least as many atrocities as the Nazis were. Ironically, the cliched Che Guevara t-shirt is still popular with many of the Commie type, woke, SJW crowd, who fail to realise that he hated blacks & homos & may have murdered some too. One day, I shall troll an SJW in a Che t-shirt & see if I can make their head explode.


Of course, I support banning communism in Britain as well. There are many communists who deny atrocities such as the Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution and denying such mass murder is as bad as denying the Holocaust.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 28, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> Of course, I support banning communism in Britain as well. There are many communists who deny atrocities such as the Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution and denying such mass murder is as bad as denying the Holocaust.



I'm not too keen on banning things tbh, even if I don't like them, it's a slippery slope towards a totalitarian state when only government approved views are allowed. One thing I would ban though is Wahhabism/Salafism, in fact, if I was in charge, I'd probably ban Islam from England completely. It's the only way to prevent terror attacks, paedo rape gangs & other crime. For me, protecting Brits from rape, terror or death is far more important than upsetting a minority of people who have plenty of other Islamic shitholes for them to choose to live in. 

"Holocaust denial" has turned into an umbrella term that now also covers people who just want to question the facts. I think there are only a very small number of people who could accurately be called deniers & I question the 6 million number myself, amongst a few other things. I didn't used to, I just accepted it until I spent some considerable time looking at the hard facts that are available & I think that banning questions or discussion about the Holocaust is very wrong & actually quite dangerous. There is no other historical event that's illegal to question, so why is this one ?


----------



## MZ 052 (Aug 28, 2019)

"hate crime" is newspeak for "heroic act of resistance"


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 28, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> I'm not too keen on banning things tbh, even if I don't like them, it's a slippery slope towards a totalitarian state when only government approved views are allowed. One thing I would ban though is Wahhabism/Salafism, in fact, if I was in charge, I'd probably ban Islam from England completely. It's the only way to prevent terror attacks, paedo rape gangs & other crime. For me, protecting Brits from rape, terror or death is far more important than upsetting a minority of people who have plenty of other Islamic shitholes for them to choose to live in.
> 
> "Holocaust denial" has turned into an umbrella term that now also covers people who just want to question the facts. I think there are only a very small number of people who could accurately be called deniers & I question the 6 million number myself, amongst a few other things. I didn't used to, I just accepted it until I spent some considerable time looking at the hard facts that are available & I think that banning questions or discussion about the Holocaust is very wrong & actually quite dangerous. There is no other historical event that's illegal to question, so why is this one ?


I think that Muslims should be given the choice to assimilate into Western Culture or get deported. They should get surveyed on their views and those who believe in having Sharia law being installed in Britain or do not respect the age of consent law should get deported. The niquab that covers the entire face should be banned like it is in France. 

What the term holocaust denial means is denying that the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jewish race as their Final Solution. There is overwhelming evidence of pictures, footage, and testimony from both the victims and the perpetrators that Jews, as well as Poles, other Slavs, and others were killed in extermination camps.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 28, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I think that Muslims should be given the choice to assimilate into Western Culture or get deported. They should get surveyed on their views and those who believe in having Sharia law being installed in Britain or do not respect the age of consent law should get deported. The niquab that covers the entire face should be banned like it is in France.
> 
> What the term holocaust denial means is denying that the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jewish race as their Final Solution. There is overwhelming evidence of pictures, footage, and testimony from both the victims and the perpetrators that Jews, as well as Poles, other Slavs, and others were killed in extermination camps.



That's what holocaust denial _should  _mean but today it's also used as a slur against anyone who questions the facts. From my own research, I'd say there was a genocide against European Jews which could probably rightly be called a holocaust but I don't think 6 million were killed. If my opinion (which might be wrong) was broadcast to the world, I would be labelled a holocaust denier, at least in Europe & outside of England, I could face arrest & imprisonment.


----------



## PinstripeLuns (Aug 29, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> You can see my history and see that when people do admit mistake or are otherwise contrite, I do nothing but positively praise the response.
> 
> I wouldn't have rubbed your face in it if your response didn't sound like "so what!?", as in still refusing to acknowledge it. That's why the "actually problems" comment surprised me, as if the difference just established isn't actually a problem itself.
> 
> ...



Ok, good for you. It's a problem for Lauren but like, come the fuck on. Oh no, we can't say "Allah is gay" but they can say "God is gay! Who cares? Why would anyone care? Ignore it. You can worship if you want, you think someone saying "God is gay" is really damaging? I get pissed when people say it, when people say "God is a woman" too, but what can anybody do about it?

Yeah, sure, not fair for people being unable to say "Allah is gay" and get off scot-free but why would you? To get back at people saying "God is gay"? Aren't you supposed to not be all wrathful and shit? OP just wants to be some kinda victim.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 29, 2019)

I thought God loved us all

Not gonna lie, that's gay as fuck


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I think that Muslims should be given the choice to assimilate into Western Culture or get deported. They should get surveyed on their views and those who believe in having Sharia law being installed in Britain or do not respect the age of consent law should get deported. The niquab that covers the entire face should be banned like it is in France.
> 
> What the term holocaust denial means is denying that the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jewish race as their Final Solution. There is overwhelming evidence of pictures, footage, and testimony from both the victims and the perpetrators that Jews, as well as Poles, other Slavs, and others were killed in extermination camps.





Rancid Flid said:


> That's what holocaust denial _should  _mean but today it's also used as a slur against anyone who questions the facts. From my own research, I'd say there was a genocide against European Jews which could probably rightly be called a holocaust but I don't think 6 million were killed. If my opinion (which might be wrong) was broadcast to the world, I would be labelled a holocaust denier, at least in Europe & outside of England, I could face arrest & imprisonment.



I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.

If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would  shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.




Encyclopedia Brittanica:






Cambridge dictionary:





Oxford dictionary:







What Rancid Flid is right about is that the definition of "holocaust denial" includes claims of the genocide being exaggerated.

For example, the jewish David Cole mostly took umbrage with the fact that newly built buildings were presented as original gas chambers at auschwitz (and they admitted as such in his documentary).

It's weird that just 6 months ago I saw this video on youtube and someone had the comment (paraphrasing) "Huh, look at what show could be made in the past, that wouldn't be possible today!", I thought the comment was hysterical exaggeration, but now the video isn't even on youtube anymore.









						vasili
					

David Cole and Mark Weber on Montel Williams debate the Holohoax 1992




					www.bitchute.com
				




Pointing out such a thing is holocaust denial, in practice. People have been sent to prison for such claims.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 29, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.
> 
> If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would  shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.
> 
> ...



I suppose that the word 'holocaust' is a bit like the word 'racist' in that it's definition can vary between people & sources. I used it, rightly or wrongly, to refer to the mass-murder of Jews & if this definition is correct, then it'd be fair to use it for gypsies & other minority groups who were killed en-masse during WW2. I get exactly where you're coming from though & what Holocaust with a capital H refers to. 

Thanks for the video, I'll watch it tomorrow. Interesting to see that it's from as long ago as '92 & I'm sure we couldn't allow such a debate to be televised in Europe during current year. That would be too much for many people & would immediately be branded as anti-Semitic before it was even broadcast.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 29, 2019)

Foxxo said:


> Hate crimes are something that our society is really sensitive about, because the 1960's are the only part of U.S. history that's given any depth of coverage in most of school.



Complete, utter tripe.
Most US schools do a very extensive cover of everything up to around Reconstruction and then peter out.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 29, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.
> 
> If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would  shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.
> 
> ...





Rancid Flid said:


> I suppose that the word 'holocaust' is a bit like the word 'racist' in that it's definition can vary between people & sources. I used it, rightly or wrongly, to refer to the mass-murder of Jews & if this definition is correct, then it'd be fair to use it for gypsies & other minority groups who were killed en-masse during WW2. I get exactly where you're coming from though & what Holocaust with a capital H refers to.
> 
> Thanks for the video, I'll watch it tomorrow. Interesting to see that it's from as long ago as '92 & I'm sure we couldn't allow such a debate to be televised in Europe during current year. That would be too much for many people & would immediately be branded as anti-Semitic before it was even broadcast.


I’ll watch that video, but the person who uploaded it is clearly biased as shown in the description of the video. The 6 million number comes from estimates of the Jewish population from before and after the war. They estimate that more than 5 1/2 million died, which has been rounded up to 6 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Jewish_population

5 1/2 million is still a huge genocide and matches the Cambridge and Oxford definitions of the Holocaust. I don’t think it is illegal to say that 5 1/2 million died instead of 6 million.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> snip



I think you'll find it an interesting video. The topic and origin of the 6 million number comes up around at the 9 minute mark in the video.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I’ll watch that video, but the person who uploaded it is clearly biased as shown in the description of the video. The 6 million number comes from estimates of the Jewish population from before and after the war. They estimate that more than 5 1/2 million died, which has been rounded up to 6 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Jewish_population
> 
> 5 1/2 million is still a huge genocide and matches the Cambridge and Oxford definitions of the Holocaust. I don’t think it is illegal to say that 5 1/2 million died instead of 6 million.



That Wiki article is pretty useless as an argument though because it only seems to list the world population of Jews, not the population of Europe. The genocide was against European Jews, so citing the worldwide numbers is irrelevant. 

The plaque outside Auschwitz has had the numbers changed at least once, possibly twice. So why hasn't the 6 million number been revised & lowered ? 





From what I've read on the subject, the Soviets vastly inflated the figures for deaths at concentration camps & it wasn't until the Berlin Wall came down that anybody in the west got to see the real records of numbers.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 29, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I think you'll find it an interesting video. The topic and origin of the 6 million number comes up around at the 9 minute mark in the video.


I got to the 9 million mark where Mark Weber points out that the number came up in the Nuremberg trials and then cites a professor who said that the estimate is crude. He then diverts the topic by talking about the memorial museum, and the number of Americans, British, and Chinese who died in the war. I’ll continue watching. 


Rancid Flid said:


> That Wiki article is pretty useless as an argument though because it only seems to list the world population of Jews, not the population of Europe. The genocide was against European Jews, so citing the worldwide numbers is irrelevant.
> 
> The plaque outside Auschwitz has had the numbers changed at least once, possibly twice. So why hasn't the 6 million number been revised & lowered ?
> 
> ...


How many died at Auschwitz is a different matter than how many died overall as there were other major camps. Raul Hillberg estimated that 1.1 million Jews died in Aushwitz all the way back in the 1950s. 

The idea that decrease of the European Jewish population is less than the estimated 5 1/2 decrease in the world’s Jewish population, is far fetched because that would mean that there would be a significant reduction of the Jewish population outside Europe and there wasn’t a genocide going on outside Europe.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I got to the 9 million mark where Mark Weber points out that the number came up in the Nuremberg trials and then cites a professor who said that the estimate is crude. He then diverts the topic by talking about the memorial museum, and the number of Americans, British, and Chinese who died in the war. I’ll continue watching.
> 
> How many died at Auschwitz is a different matter than how many died overall as there were other major camps. Raul Hillberg *estimated* that 1.1 million Jews died in Aushwitz all the way back in the 1950s.
> 
> The idea that decrease of the European Jewish population is less than the estimated 5 1/2 decrease in the world’s Jewish population, is far fetched because that would mean that there would be a significant reduction of the Jewish population outside Europe and there wasn’t a genocide going on outside Europe.



Hillberg _*estimated*_  1.1 million ? That doesn't prove anything though, it's an estimate.  The Auschwitz death toll can't be a different matter though can it ? If they originally said that 4 million died there, then reduced it to 1.5 million, then surely this would affect the 6 million number ? 

Like I said earlier, I question the numbers & a few other things & while technically, this shouldn't make me a Holocaust denier, legally, it does. Is it right that questioning a historical event should be illegal ? I've no problem saying that Jews were subject to a genocide but just because I have a few unanswered questions, I'm a criminal in most of Europe. Which is crazy IMO.


----------



## Foxxo (Aug 29, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Complete, utter tripe.
> Most US schools do a very extensive cover of everything up to around Reconstruction and then peter out.


I'm talking about the formative years, before junior high. I agree with you for high school, though my AP U.S. teacher was great.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 29, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> I got to the 9 million mark



Heh.

You might note the harsh resistance just for questioning the 6 million though, so mentioning Hillberg makes sense, which you seem to agree with.


Anyways, I'm curious to hear your guys thoughts after seeing it.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 30, 2019)

Foxxo said:


> I'm talking about the formative years, before junior high. I agree with you for high school, though my AP U.S. teacher was great.



In that case, then in my school we were taught Colonial/Revolutionary/Antebellum in fourth grade and Civil War in fifth grade.

Junior high history classes had a very wide array of subjects, including things like the great African empires (Ghana, Mali, and Songhai), Mesopotamia, the Hellenic world, and the Byzantines.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 30, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> Hillberg _*estimated*_  1.1 million ? That doesn't prove anything though, it's an estimate.  The Auschwitz death toll can't be a different matter though can it ? If they originally said that 4 million died there, then reduced it to 1.5 million, then surely this would affect the 6 million number ?
> 
> Like I said earlier, I question the numbers & a few other things & while technically, this shouldn't make me a Holocaust denier, legally, it does. Is it right that questioning a historical event should be illegal ? I've no problem saying that Jews were subject to a genocide but just because I have a few unanswered questions, I'm a criminal in most of Europe. Which is crazy IMO.


It means that a higher number of people died at other camps. When I mentioned Hillberg, I was demonstrating that the Soviet plaque that says 4 million was never used as an accurate historical source by western historians, so the replacement plaque with lower numbers does not lower the number of 6 million. 

I do not know how much education there is in most Europe that answers your questions but I assume that in Germany, there is extensive education on the subject that answers all those questions, making deniers without excuse. 


Lemmingwise said:


> Heh.
> 
> You might note the harsh resistance just for questioning the 6 million though, so mentioning Hillberg makes sense, which you seem to agree with.
> 
> ...


I watched the entire video last night.       I mentioned my observations of the first 9 minutes in a previous comment. 

The revisionists were slam dunked when survivors came on the show and talked about losing most of their families and knowing about the gas chambers.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 30, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The revisionists were slam dunked when survivors came on the show and talked about losing most of their families and knowing about the gas chambers.



Thank you for your thoughts.

Considering all the provably testimony that was accepted as proof at Nuremburg (things like making people into soap) that were later proven to be untrue, I didn't find their testimony by itself convincing. Particularly since they were unable to answer Cole's questions and responded to some reasonable comments by calling him a denier.Pparticularly in light of some of the glaring inconsistancies shown by Cole's Auschwitz Documentary (I found Weber a lot less convincing than Cole).

I also found it very telling that the audience holocaust survivor started to make an argument that the Ukranians kinda deserved to be genocided by (soviet) jews for being collaboraters to Nazi Germany during the war. That was the most glaring inconsistancy in my eyes, that on the one hand someone affirms a genocide, but has questions about the details and is villified for it and on the other hand someone defends a genocide and doesn't receive flak for it.

I guess your mileage varied from my own. I appreciate the comments and to read your view.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 30, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Thank you for your thoughts.
> 
> Considering all the provably testimony that was accepted as proof at Nuremburg (things like making people into soap) that were later proven to be untrue, I didn't find their testimony by itself convincing. Particularly since they were unable to answer Cole's questions and responded to some reasonable comments by calling him a denier.Pparticularly in light of some of the glaring inconsistancies shown by Cole's Auschwitz Documentary (I found Weber a lot less convincing than Cole).
> 
> ...


So are you suspecting that every survivors was lying? That is absurd because there are many more survivors who gave testimony of the genocide going on in the camps. 

I do think the comment about the Ukrainians deserving to be genocide was stupid. The genocide of many Ukrainians by the Soviets called the Holodomor actually happened a decade before the war and it was the reason why many Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis in the war because they understandably considered the Nazi invaders to be liberators.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 30, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> So are you suspecting that every survivors was lying? That is absurd because there are many more survivors who gave testimony of the genocide going on in the camps.



This is literally impossible, as different survivors contradict each other (there are also survivors who talk about how kind the german prison guards were, in helping to set up theatre plays and the like. For a less incendiary example,  there are also numerous significantly contradicting accounts about the layout of the camps from survivors).

Of course considering the vast amount of people involved it also isn't strange to have such wildly different accounts, but there are also some accounts that directly contradict each other.

What it means is that I don't find testimony by itself proof and that some testimonies are accurate and some are false.

Though the fact that they were unwilling to honestly talk with Cole and instead label him a denier, though his comments and questions were very reasonable, is what suggests to me that these specific persons are closeminded in their approach and likely to be acting/talking in bad faith.

To get back to the original topic, I think that's the problem with any form of hate speech legislation, in that they're comparable to blasphemy laws in some ways, where honest good faith inquiry can be labelled hate speech and can be either prosecuted or censored.


_PS. you are right about the holodomor happening before. For some reason I always seem to think that happened after. Makes even less sense to use nazi collaboration as a defense for the holodomor in light of that._


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Aug 30, 2019)

The way I look at it is this:

Is the current leader of a democracy likely a dumb cunt with an ugly face who gets to say retarded shit on TV all the time? Probably, every President during MY lifetime has been. Is it likely that the leader of a democracy is a power-hungry narcissist that is in in it more for the money and/or ego boost than genuinely caring about the people of the country they purport to lead? Most likely, imo. Would the only reason that I'd piss on most politicians if they were on fire be that the asshole waiting in the wings is probably even worse? Again, the answer is yes.

But here's the rub. A dictator is all that and worse, plus you're stuck with the asshole. I don't like Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Trump, but at least they're all _very different varieties_ of asshole. If I'm stuck being ruled by some cunt, I'd rather it be a dude I only have to deal with for a maximum of 8 years before I have a whole different set of things I hate about a dude to bitch about. At least it's more entertaining, I'd be pretty pissed at Daddy Kim's schtick by now were I a Norkie.


----------



## Rancid Flid (Aug 31, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Heh.
> 
> You might note the harsh resistance just for questioning the 6 million though, so mentioning Hillberg makes sense, which you seem to agree with.
> 
> ...



I've watched the vid now & it was an interesting discussion & I hope this doesn't sound pretentious but I didn't hear anything from Weber & Cole that I've not heard before. Probably because I dip into the IHR site from time to time & have read a fair bit of Weber's writing. They were honest & open about their beliefs & don't deserve to be labelled as deniers.

Apart from Cole, i didn't think any of the Jews came across very well, particularly the loathsome Dr. Thaler, who by name-calling & refusing to engage in debate, came across as very untrustworthy & unconvincing. And that awful woman : "I'm proof of muh holocaust," lol. You're still alive aren't you ? Or you were back in '92. In fact, it's surprising how many people actually survived The Holocaust. 

Shout out to the black guy for bringing up the Jewish involvement in the slave trade, a business they've been involved with for centuries. 

The 3 points that Cole mentioned: 
1 - There was no policy to exterminate Jews. I'm not sure but they shipped a fair few out to what is now Israel back in the 30's, instead of killing them. 

2- The gas chambers. There is no hard proof of any gas chambers, just eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I'd like to ask about the finger nail marks in the walls at Auschwitz, in the rebuilt "gas chamber". Why are the marks so even when our thumbs are so much shorter than our fingers ? An obvious fake. Then there's the wooden doors... 

3- The 6 million. @Lemmingwise, have you seen any of the old pre-war newspaper headlines that mention the exact same number, over & over again ? There seem to be quite a few. Do you think these are real or fake ? They look real to me but I'm not 100% sure. I've a feeling this particular number has some significance to them. 












".... a monopoly on mass murder." There's no business like Shoah business. 

Then there are all the hoaxers who've been caught out pretending they were there but have been shown to be liars. There was Joseph Hirt, who fairly recently got exposed as a fraud & he'd been touring US schools for many years, frightening young children with horrific photos of all the Typhus victims, including large, blown up photos that he told them were actually him. He claimed he lied to keep the memory of holocaust alive but how can we forget it when it's shoved down our throats so much ? It's not like there's a shortage of holo-memorials & museums is there ? What a wanker. Oy. 




> Man who claimed to have escaped Auschwitz admits he lied for years
> 
> 
> Joseph Hirt said he fabricated story of being sent to camp and meeting Nazi doctor Josef Mengele to ‘keep memories alive’ about history of the Holocaust
> ...




If the Nazi's really wanted to kill all Jews, then surely they'd have found a more efficient way than shipping them all over Europe in trains ? And why should the Dutch national railway have to start paying reparations for their involvement in this ? It's not like they had a choice & it was a long time ago.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 31, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> Do you think these are real or fake?


I know either they are real or someone managed to internationally modify convincing fakes in multiple online newspaper archives. I've verified in three different archives to have such articles pre-1939.

It was where I got my first taste for reading old newspapers. It's really strange to read for example in a newspaper what Italy's new racial policy in regards to jews is as if you're reading the new state budget.

The significance of the number 6 is obvious in judaism. 6 pointed star. The 600,000 people supposedly on exodus from egypt. You could read entire books as the number 6 having significant interest to jewish people.



Rancid Flid said:


> If the Nazi's really wanted to kill all Jews, then surely they'd have found a more efficient way than shipping them all over Europe in trains



Where and how you kill people does have significance. The highest rates of suicide in the US military are drone operators. Snipers are in 4th place. I heard this from a friend, so take with a grain of salt and verify for yourself, though I find news articles that seem to support it. So even when people are at a distance and with a joystick in their hand or so far that they judge the death of a sniper target by whether the blob slumps in the distance, the psychological effects are significant.

I think a society with the great war fresh in their memory would be well aware of that.

Therefor I find the argument that if the Germans intended mass murder, that shipping them first to where there would be a disposal method not uncredible at all.

It's just the autistic response to inquiry that tells me at least some parts of the official story are not true.

And yes the numerous survivors that turned out to be lying and even admitted it doesn't really help.

.


----------



## AF 802 (Aug 31, 2019)

Hate crimes aren't a media creation. However, they've really expanded it to where everything and anything is a hate crime, whether there's proof of racial motivation or not.

If someone acts like the Christchurch mosque shooter or the El Paso Walmart shooter, where they clearly want to kill people out of hatred for these groups, then yeah, that's a hate crime. But if some Christian shop doesn't want to serve a homosexuality-related request based on beliefs? No, just explain calmly your beliefs, and tell them the alternative places that will serve them.

There has to be something behind it to be a crime, and not just because someone says something mean.


----------



## MW 590 (Aug 31, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> This is literally impossible, as different survivors contradict each other (there are also survivors who talk about how kind the german prison guards were, in helping to set up theatre plays and the like. For a less incendiary example,  there are also numerous significantly contradicting accounts about the layout of the camps from survivors).
> 
> Of course considering the vast amount of people involved it also isn't strange to have such wildly different accounts, but there are also some accounts that directly contradict each other.
> 
> ...


The supposed contradictions are due to the fact that people have faulty memory, especially in a traumatizing situation. When there is a crime, eyewitnesses often have contradictory memories but that does not means that the crime did not happen. There is a consistency since nearly all the survivors report that they saw mass murder happening.

It is perfectly understandable why  were hostile towards Cole. If you lost many family members in a massacre and someone claimed that the massacre was a hoax, wouldn’t you be pissed off and act hostile towards them?


Rancid Flid said:


> I've watched the vid now & it was an interesting discussion & I hope this doesn't sound pretentious but I didn't hear anything from Weber & Cole that I've not heard before. Probably because I dip into the IHR site from time to time & have read a fair bit of Weber's writing. They were honest & open about their beliefs & don't deserve to be labelled as deniers.


You said earlier that Holocaust denial should be defined as denying that the Nazis intended to commit genocide against the Jews. That is exactly what they were doing. Mark Weber specifically denied that it was their official policy.


> Apart from Cole, i didn't think any of the Jews came across very well, particularly the loathsome Dr. Thaler, who by name-calling & refusing to engage in debate, came across as very untrustworthy & unconvincing. And that awful woman : "I'm proof of muh holocaust," lol. You're still alive aren't you ? Or you were back in '92. In fact, it's surprising how many people actually survived The Holocaust.


I said this to Lemmingwise and I’ll say it to you. It is perfectly understandable why  were hostile towards them. If you lost many family members in a massacre and someone claimed that the massacre was a hoax, wouldn’t you be pissed off and act hostile towards them?


> Shout out to the black guy for bringing up the Jewish involvement in the slave trade, a business they've been involved with for centuries.


That was off topic. Furthermore it is preposterous to blame the Jews for the slave trade just like it is preposterous to blame white Christians as there were also Arabs, Turks, and even other Africans involved. 


> The 3 points that Cole mentioned:
> 1 - There was no policy to exterminate Jews. I'm not sure but they shipped a fair few out to what is now Israel back in the 30's, instead of killing them.


The Haavara Agreement happened back in 1933. The decision to exterminate them happened in 1941 which replaced previous plans such as Madagascar plan. 


> 2- The gas chambers. There is no hard proof of any gas chambers, just eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I'd like to ask about the finger nail marks in the walls at Auschwitz, in the rebuilt "gas chamber". Why are the marks so even when our thumbs are so much shorter than our fingers ? An obvious fake. Then there's the wooden doors...


The Nizkor Project found evidence of cyanide in the locations of the gas chambers. 


> A document advancing the cyanide gas theory is the Leuchter report by Fred A. Leuchter, a paper stating that no traces of cyanide were found when he examined samples taken from one of the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1988. This is often cited as evidence that gas was not used in the chambers, as no trace amounts remain. Despite the difficulty of finding traces of this material 50 years later, in February, 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Institute of Forensic Research in Kraków, redid the analysis.[51] Markiewicz and his team used microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide in samples from the suspected gas chambers, from delousing chambers, and from control areas elsewhere within Auschwitz. The control samples tested negative, while cyanide residue was found in high concentrations in the delousing chambers, and lower concentrations in the homicidal gas chambers. This is consistent with the amounts required to kill lice and humans.[52]


3 holes at a gas chamber at Birkenau has been identified.


> Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.[56]


----------



## Rancid Flid (Sep 1, 2019)

@Jacob Harrison There are still questions that need answering regarding whether the Nazi's were committed to the total extermination of the Jews because there is no official document that was signed by Hitler to prove this. Just because I'm mentioning this doesn't mean that I don't think that this is something that some Nazi's wanted to do, I'm just questioning what the official policy was as there is no hard proof.

My definition of Holocaust denial is different to what is now official policy on this & in my opinion, it's a term that should be reserved for those who deny that there was a genocide against the Jews, it shouldn't be used against people who question the numbers involved. I thought that in the video, both Weber & Cole admitted that a mass murder happened but they have valid questions about several aspects of the official Holocaust narrative. 

The Jews in the video did nothing to help their narrative. By acting hostile & refusing to debate, they've made me feel even more suspicious of them. Neither Weber or Cole said that there was no massacre, they're just questioning some of the evidence because it's very thin. Don't you think that the Nazi's would have filmed or taken photos of Jews in the gas chambers if they were carrying out a genocide in that specific way ? They might well have done but that evidence hasn't come to light. 

Yes, bringing up Jew involvement in the slave trade was off topic but he didn't even try to put the blame on the Jews for this, he was just stating a fact, as was I about their past history involving slave trading. 

You say : "The decision to exterminate them happened in 1941. " Do you have a reliable source for this ? Who made the decision & who signed off on it ? 

Zyklon B is cyanide based & as it was used for delousing, I'm not surprised that traces were found, so this proves nothing at all. I'm fairly sure it can occur naturally in nature at low levels too. 




> 3 holes at a gas chamber at Birkenau has been identified



Maybe so (maybe not) but this doesn't prove that the holes were specifically there for the introduction of gas. Your Wiki link for this ( #56) goes to a BBC article that simply states exactly what the Wiki says. There is no extra information in the BBC source, no names of who wrote the paper or how they came to the conclusion that the holes were for gas. It's basically just a statement with nothing to back it up. 

Why did the Auschwitz museum lie for many years in leading people to believe that the "gas chamber" they can visit was where millions died ? It was rebuilt after the war, with added fingernail scratches for dramatic effect, poorly done too. I just can't find any hard evidence for gas chambers, only witness statements & some of the witnesses say they never saw any gas chambers at all.




> *Here is witness testimony of a Jewish man who says Jews were not systematically exterminated in the concentration camps.*
> _“My name is Robert Litoff.  I was born in New Haven, Connecticut in 1945 of two Jewish parents but am now a non-practicing Jew. As far as I can trace, all my ancestors are Jews. I graduated Phi Beta Kappa in psychology from the University of Connecticut.
> The claim that 6 million Jews died during World War II is wrong.
> During the war period, before and shortly afterward, 5 million Jews went to Israel, and the Jewish population of North America increased from 4 million to 6 million.  Jews also went to Brazil, Argentina, Australia and other nations. This accounts for the decrease of 6 million Jews in Europe.  The world Jewish population was 15 million circa 1929 but it reached an estimated high of 18 million in 1989, an increase of 16%, which would have been impossible if 6 million Jews died in World War II.
> ...






> *Holocaust Witnesses*
> Can we really believe other eye witness accounts? I will mention one here to show you how laughable most of them are. In his Book Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eye Witness Account by Miklos Nyiszli he claims that 20,000 were killed every day for 4 years which would mean 29 million deaths.  Historians know that the camps were only open for 2 years at the most.
> Alleged Holocaust witness Dario Gabbai claims that 3 or 4 bodies were cremated in cremation ovens in 30 minutes at Auschwitz. However anyone who knows anything about cremation knows that it take between 1 and 2 hours to cremate one body with today’s advanced cremation ovens.  So it would take up to 8 hours to cremate 4 bodies.  But they were using ovens from 70 years ago which were not as advanced. Theses witness statements are just laughable.
> Elie Wiesel is another so called survivor of the Holocaust and in his fairy tale Jews were burnt alive in pits by the Germans. Time has shown Wiesel to be a barefaced liar.
> ...






> *World War 2 Leaders say No Gassings*
> World War 2 leaders never mentioned the alleged holocaust of the Jews in gas chambers according to research by Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus at the University of Ulster.  Professor Lynn states as follows:
> _‘I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi, ‘gas chambers,’ a, ‘genocide of the Jews,’ or of, ‘six million,’ Jewish victims of the war”._
> This is astonishing. How can it be explained? Eisenhower’s, ‘Crusade in Europe,’ is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s, ‘Second World War,’ total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume, ‘Memoires de guerre,’ is 2,054 pages.
> ...




http://www.searchforthetruth.co.uk/holocaust


----------



## MW 590 (Sep 1, 2019)

Rancid Flid said:


> @Jacob Harrison There are still questions that need answering regarding whether the Nazi's were committed to the total extermination of the Jews because there is no official document that was signed by Hitler to prove this. Just because I'm mentioning this doesn't mean that I don't think that this is something that some Nazi's wanted to do, I'm just questioning what the official policy was as there is no hard proof.


The reason why Hitler never signed a document was because he wanted to keep the Holocaust a secret. This has been admitted by Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS. 


> “We will never speak of it publicly . . . I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. The Jewish race is being exterminated—that is clear, it’s in our program–elimination of the Jews and we’re doing it, exterminating them . . . This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written . . .”[4]





> My definition of Holocaust denial is different to what is now official policy on this & in my opinion, it's a term that should be reserved for those who deny that there was a genocide against the Jews, it shouldn't be used against people who question the numbers involved. I thought that in the video, both Weber & Cole admitted that a mass murder happened but they have valid questions about several aspects of the official Holocaust narrative.
> 
> The Jews in the video did nothing to help their narrative. By acting hostile & refusing to debate, they've made me feel even more suspicious of them. Neither Weber or Cole said that there was no massacre, they're just questioning some of the evidence because it's very thin. Don't you think that the Nazi's would have filmed or taken photos of Jews in the gas chambers if they were carrying out a genocide in that specific way ? They might well have done but that evidence hasn't come to light.


Weber said at the beginning of the video that the deaths at the camps were caused by allied bombings of supplies instead of murder by the Nazis. That is denial that mass murder took place. 


> Why did the Auschwitz museum lie for many years in leading people to believe that the "gas chamber" they can visit was where millions died ? It was rebuilt after the war, with added fingernail scratches for dramatic effect, poorly done too.


That is because the Nazis converted the chamber into an air raid shelter, so the museum rebuilt it to look like how it originally was. https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ab10-gas-chamber-fake/


> I just can't find any hard evidence for gas chambers, only witness statements & some of the witnesses say they never saw any gas chambers at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will research the arguments you quoted but after clicking the link you posted, I don’t trust that site as it is clearly a Neo Nazi site that promotes the conspiracy theory that the Jews run the world, among other conspiracy theories. But here is testimony from SS Officers about the gas chambers.


> Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS. Camp physician and SS-UntersturmführerHans Münch considered the facts of Auschwitz "so firmly determined that one cannot have any doubt at all", and described those who negate what happened at the camp as "malevolent" people who have "personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence".[188] Zyklon B handler and SS-OberscharführerJosef Klehr said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or in the wrong".[189] SS-UnterscharführerOswald Kaduk stated that he did not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people.[190] Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröningto publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers,[191] stating:
> I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there.[192][193]


----------



## Rancid Flid (Sep 1, 2019)

Jacob Harrison said:


> The reason why Hitler never signed a document was because he wanted to keep the Holocaust a secret. This has been admitted by Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS.
> 
> 
> Weber said at the beginning of the video that the deaths at the camps were caused by allied bombings of supplies instead of murder by the Nazis. That is denial that mass murder took place.
> ...



I'll have to watch the start of the video again but I'm fairly certain that what Weber said was that most of the photos we've seen of masses of dead bodies are of inmates who either died from Typhus or starved to death because the Allies had bombed the train tracks & roads, so no food or supplies could get through. At no point do I remember him denying that a mass murder had taken place. 

I'm having internet problems today, the site I linked to was the only one I could get to load but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a neo-Nazi site, although I'd agree that it's got an anti-Jew feel to it. Then again, you keep quoting Wikipedia, one of the most unreliable of well known sources on the net & probably run by Marxist Jews. There is some disgraceful propaganda on many Wiki pages, on all sorts of subjects & as I pointed out earlier, their source for the holes in the roof story is a BBC article which oddly enough, was written by a woman with a very Jewish name. What a useless source that is. Why don't they link to whoever is saying they found evidence for the holes in the roof being used to introduce gas to kill Jews ? Because there is no hard evidence, that's why. 

If you're interested in doing a bit more research, here's a couple more links that are a little less "far-right". One of the problems is with this is that it's a very toxic subject & it's quite difficult to find revisionist material online as much has been hidden away. Plus, it can be a career ending move for historians if they even start asking the wrong questions. It's an interesting subject, though it's a bit like going down a rabbit warren with many tunnels to choose from. I've ended up with more questions than answers tbh & I doubt I'll ever find out the real truth. Shalom.

https://codoh.com/

http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml


----------



## Basil II (Sep 1, 2019)

Ima play devil's advocate for a second, IMO the difference between hate crimes and normal crimes is that hate crimes are motivated by an ideology and have a much higher chance of repeat offenders. Think about it, Joe frags his wife for fucking another dude is murder and a horrible crime, but he's probably not gonna be a repeat offender, as opposed to something like Abdullah mowing down kuffar by the dozens in the name of Allah, if you don't lock him up for life or kill him he's just gonna do it again.

Not that hate crimes are actually enforced like this, that would make sense.


----------



## Basil II (Sep 1, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I'd hate to disagree with you both here, but holocaust itself is defined as the systematic state-sponsored killing of millions of Jewish men, women, and children.
> 
> If for instance, the early lowball red cross death count of under 30,000 would  shown to be accurate, it would no longer meet the definition.
> 
> ...


I like how everyone forgets about all the non jews killed during the holocaust like Slavs, Gays, Cripples, Gypsies.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 1, 2019)

Basil II said:


> Ima play devil's advocate for a second, IMO the difference between hate crimes and normal crimes is that hate crimes are motivated by an ideology and have a much higher chance of repeat offenders. Think about it, Joe frags his wife for fucking another dude is murder and a horrible crime, but he's probably not gonna be a repeat offender, as opposed to something like Abdullah mowing down kuffar by the dozens in the name of Allah, if you don't lock him up for life or kill him he's just gonna do it again.
> 
> Not that hate crimes are actually enforced like this, that would make sense.



I don't disagree, though by that definition things like Rotherham are also hate crimes and they are never judged to be that in court.


----------



## Basil II (Sep 1, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I don't disagree, though by that definition things like Rotherham are also hate crimes and they are never judged to be that in court.


That's because Britain is a shithole. As someone pointed out earlier Black on White crimes motivated by racism get properly judged as hate crimes in the U.S.


----------

