The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Krokodil Overdose]

More survives from less known camps like Natzweiller-strutthoff, Drancy in France, and Mauthausen in Austria. All of it is interesting to read if you have an interest in the holocaust, and very tedious and dry if you don't.

OK, informative, but I'm looking for a bottom line here. Given that there was a death camp network and it was used, it stands to reason that X people were sent to it, and of those, Y were killed meaning that Z survived. I'm looking for some kind of values for X and Z, which nobody seems to be interested in for reasons I'm not quite clear on.

I wasn't at all trying to frame the holocaust as anything more than what it actually is from what we have to go on about it, which is an industrialized attempt at mass murder. I mean, if you look at the industrial revolution, the wars contemporary with it, and then all of what the first world war was and revealed what we were capable of, it should come as no surprise that it would be attempted by some nation to use that knowledge to exterminate their enemies in an expedited fashion.One of the reasons it still resonates with some people is that that sort of cruelty was not unheard of by any means, but entirely new to be done in the manner it was, and with the scope and depth it has been alleged as.

True enough, but it's been 75 years. However new and novel it may have been then, three-quarters of a century on the bloom should have come off that particular rose, especially with subsequent events and revelations (the Great Leap Forward and the Killing Fields come to mind) should have brought new context and perspective to it. If we're being honest, the Holocaust was not particularly interesting, unique, or special in any way that doesn't involve cherry-picked criteria.

Just because the holocaust made minds reel doesn't mean that other genocides past and future pale in comparison to it.

Fine in theory, but that doesn't represent the reality that we live in. In 2020, the Holocaust is the de facto state religion of many european powers, is the only genocide whose denial is subject to social censure in nominally secular countries, was used to justify the foundation of a Middle Eastern ethnostate and is still used to this day to rent-seek off innocent people. Literally no other genocide is given that treatment.

 

[Occam's Spork]

Thanks for giving your answer, I'm always interested in reading personal accounts. No thoughts about the existence or non-existence of gas chambers?

Sorry, I was fairly tired when I wrote out the last reply to you and must have just missed this very pertinent question. I personally am inclined to believe in the existence of gas chambers at many camps, but Birkenau in particular. They were a common method of large scale delousing of fabric in Europe at the time, and also what Zyklon B's intended use was for. However, the evidence for actual mass gassing of people is very, very thin, and the method of supposed gassing at Birkenau at least, is suspect due to the claimed delivery method which was hazardous at best.

It's mostly based on survivor accounts (very many of them, which while not proof at least lends some credence to the allegations), and as even the holocaust revisionists/deniers in this and many threads keep bringing up, no one has yet been able to produce an ironclad document ordering the mass gassing of anyone in any camp, and at this point in the timeline, anyone claiming to be in possession of a document or documents claimed to be proof of any such order would be mercilessly scrutinized along with those orders, and rightly so.

OK, informative, but I'm looking for a bottom line here. Given that there was a death camp network and it was used, it stands to reason that X people were sent to it, and of those, Y were killed meaning that Z survived. I'm looking for some kind of values for X and Z, which nobody seems to be interested in for reasons I'm not quite clear on.

This is because of a few reasons, really. It is still possible to find incomplete transport records to and from many camps both in and out of the "death camp network" the issue there is that many people have tried to figure out the values of X and Z over the years, and have always come up with inconclusive results due to lack of information or, as many have alleged, Zionist suppression of the documentation, which also lets me segue fairly neatly into your next 2 points.

True enough, but it's been 75 years. However new and novel it may have been then, three-quarters of a century on the bloom should have come off that particular rose, especially with subsequent events and revelations (the Great Leap Forward and the Killing Fields come to mind) should have brought new context and perspective to it. If we're being honest, the Holocaust was not particularly interesting, unique, or special in any way that doesn't involve cherry-picked criteria.

One of the main reasons the data gets cherry picked, the enduring memory of it never seems to fade, and the reason it is still held up as such an enduring tragedy is fairly simple.

Dishonest zionist political propaganda. The evidence of this, if nothing else, in the wake of the Holocaust is frankly glaring. As I said in my prior textwall, it is very easy to twist it emotionally as a way to absolve the tribes from blame any time it becomes convenient for them. I firmly believe that they (any J.ew really) should be called out for their blatant emotional manipulation every time they try that angle to deflect. I dislike nazis greatly, but I'm not at all a fan of zionists either.

Fine in theory, but that doesn't represent the reality that we live in. In 2020, the Holocaust is the de facto state religion of many European powers, is the only genocide whose denial is subject to social censure in nominally secular countries, was used to justify the foundation of a Middle Eastern ethnostate and is still used to this day to rent-seek off innocent people. Literally no other genocide is given that treatment.

I agree with all of this except for the de facto state religion part. From where I sit, it's not really a religion so much as an authoritarian method of censorship that only favors J.ews and those who enjoy flagellation, inflicted by the state or themselves. Unfortunately, changing it via new information is only going to get more difficult as the years roll by. And, as said, there are great political reasons to attempt to suppress new information from coming to light and destroying the current narrative, which in many ways puts J.ews and their supposed allies on easy street with the ability to deflect criticism so quickly.

So, it would be very easy to simply call me a fence sitter for the thoughts I've shared so far in this thread, and I would fault no one for doing so, even if I happen to disagree. Going forward, I will continue to do intermittent research, and I will remain a skeptic of claims in either direction in the absence of solid proof.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I don't say this because of the inconsistent spelling.
You strike me as someone that is smart, but not as smart as he thinks.

Not s smart as I think I am?

:smuckles:.....but I've read Locke, I can't possibly be stupid.


Because of the dunning Kruger effect and British tendancies towards self-depreciation I honestly have no idea how smart I am or not. But more honestly my flaw looking at this posts is lazyness if anything, I'm giving this about 10-20% tops since I'm unwilling to do anything which requires effort or time. I might be not as smart as I think I am but it's unlikely we're ever going to see how smart I am from this, I really don't need to and frankly the moment this feels like work I log out.

Counter question, this is the second time you've tried to guestimate my mindset. With that in mind has it occured to you that I and other detractors could just be perfectly normal people and you're just completly wrong?

 

[Lemmingwise]

With that in mind has it occured to you that I and other detractors could just be perfectly normal people and you're just completly wrong?

I like the freudian slip, the implication of your words. On the one side we have perfectly normal people, completely in the right. On the other side we have abnormal people, completely in the wrong.

Do you really think it's hard for people who have an illegal position (in my case mostly just skeptical agnosticism) on of the defining events of our century, to imagine what the legal position is like?

So yes, I understand that there are perfectly normal people that believe the holocaust happened both in exactly the numbers and exactly the way as is the state mandated version of events. Only few people dare look at evidence pointing in a different direction.

Also, yes, I frequently try to rethink my position on topics and see if I think my current position is still tenable considering the evidence. How do you think someone ends up at an illegal position in the first place?

And yes, technically my position isn't holocaust denial, but the laws have in practise been applied broadly before to prosecute those with a wrong facebook message or such comparable to my position.

Because although I'm human and I make mistakes, I know I put considerable work into maintaining intellectual integrity. I know there are few things I can ever know for certain.

I have strong doubts you would maintain your position if you spent as much time on engaging with the people you disagreed with as you spent on this thread. You shared a video about david cole. Did you ever just watch his documentary? Or did you only listen to what others had to say about him?

Of course now you would maintain your position just to prove me wrong, even if you saw it, so maybe it's a bad example.

 

[Emperor Julian]

I like the freudian slip, the implication of your words. On the one side we have perfectly normal people, completely in the right. On the other side we have abnormal people, completely in the wrong.

Do you really think it's hard for people who have an illegal position (in my case mostly just skeptical agnosticism) on of the defining events of our century, to imagine what the legal position is like?

So yes, I understand that there are perfectly normal people that believe the holocaust happened both in exactly the numbers and exactly the way as is the state mandated version of events. Only few people dare look at evidence pointing in a different direction.

Also, yes, I frequently try to rethink my position on topics and see if I think my current position is still tenable considering the evidence. How do you think someone ends up at an illegal position in the first place?

And yes, technically my position isn't holocaust denial, but the laws have in practise been applied broadly before to prosecute those with a wrong facebook message or such comparable to my position.

Because although I'm human and I make mistakes, I know I put considerable work into maintaining intellectual integrity. I know there are few things I can ever know for certain.

I have strong doubts you would maintain your position if you spent as much time on engaging with the people you disagreed with as you spent on this thread. You shared a video about david cole. Did you ever just watch his documentary? Or did you only listen to what others had to say about him?

Of course now you would maintain your position just to prove me wrong, even if you saw it, so maybe it's a bad example.

Correct, it was an implicit not a fraudian slip,I figired passive aggresiveness was on the table when you pulled a spencer.

Personally I'm trying to wrap my mind around me explaining believing that illigality ensures legitimacy is a fallacy and them still keeping at it anyway,

Yeah....you mentioned that part, how do you reconcile the fact that those people are almost universally scumbags, Hacks, freaks and fucks-ups? Especially considering you suggested I look at the people that support my position critically. I mean your best and brightest is b-list talking head. How do you make that suggestion without a hint of irony?

Misguided fear of repetition of the events mostly. It's been pretty well explained. They banned it because they're terrified it'll help it to happen again.

I'm sorry something bad might happen to you, I genuinly don't think it should.....but you're still wrong.

I've spent about an hour maybe 2 here, over my life at conservative estimation I've spent 1-2 years studying nazi germany and the holocaust over varying levels of study, I spent a shit load more taking the denial arguements 'seriously' and constructing academic tier replies as a mental jog,

Counter suggestion study an actual credited historian because that Cole video was dogshit.

Possibly more likely I maintain my position because you're wrong, you seem to working on the idea that your moderated position holds more legitimacy because I'm more absolute in my approach, but here's the thing. That's just a moderation fallacy,

Argument to moderation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesnt matter if I'm percieved as unyielding because I refuse to admit 2+2 could be 8, because 2+2 is 4 even if you don't like that I called the people who said otherwise tards and you personally like Bavid bole and his well produced video series on how it makes 7. It also doesnt really make 2+2=8 legit if you go to jail for saying it.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Well you're wrong about the persecutions being 200 years before Constantine they actually continued right up until he total control of the Empire, since you got a single aspect of information wrong this discredits your entire arguement....if you were trying to prove it occured. Fortunatly this only applies when trying to prove events, when exposed as using a clumsy error I just don't acknowlague the correction and go back to asking where the bodies went. So I appreciate your help disproving the early persecutions. Marcus aurlius dindu nuffin.


.... I've got to know, you do know I'm deliberatly using bad arguements employed by Holocaust deniers right?




Well considering you call the English reformation a meme chuch where henry the 8th could fuck mad bitches, I'm sure you're aware of the complex social ramfications of apostasy vs heresy and conceed their are serious ramifications which in turn disproves the earlier perscutions occured.

"Well you're wrong about the persecutions being 200 years before Constantine they actually continued right up until he total control of the Empire"

Lol nigger it wasn't nearly to the same extent and we were clearly talking about wholesale genocides and not just various persecutions.

"I've got to know, you do know I'm deliberatly using bad arguements employed by Holocaust deniers right? [sic]"

The bad arguments you're using are not the same as what people questioning the Holocaust are using. Just video one of what @Lemmingwise posted is over four hours long, and questions the validity of specific primary sources which were used in both an official capacity, and make up a major portion of the accepted history.

"Well considering you call the English reformation a meme chuch where henry the 8th could fuck mad bitches, I'm sure you're aware of the complex social ramfications of apostasy vs heresy and conceed their are serious ramifications which in turn disproves the earlier perscutions occured. [sic]"

I'm very well aware of this. However, clearly you have to concede that the church was completely incapable of actually tamping down on dissenting opinions (valid or otherwise) after the massacres, and up until now. I mean shit, they couldn't even keep the narrative in check in the Joan of Arc scandal, and one of their lead prosecutors had his body thrown in a cesspit by angry peasants later on, and this was likely during the peak of their political influence. Contrasting this to post WW2 historical questioning, no one can contest anything about the Holocaust in any way shape, or form without getting absolutely slammed, and this is pretty much true anywhere you go in the world.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

I agree with all of this except for the de facto state religion part. From where I sit, it's not really a religion so much as an authoritarian method of censorship that only favors J.ews and those who enjoy flagellation, inflicted by the state or themselves.

Agree to disagree, though I will concede the point is largely semantic. From my perspective, it has a (negative) messiah, an origin of evil, anti-blasphemy laws, witch hunts/trials, and the buying (well, leasing) of indulgences. It may not be a religion in some academic sense, but there's no difference in practical terms.

Contrasting this to post WW2 historical questioning, no one can contest anything about the Holocaust in any way shape, or form without getting absolutely slammed, and this is pretty much true anywhere you go in the world.

Not really true. The Church of the Sacred Hitlerite Abomination is largely limited to Europe and the Anglosphere- which is a big area, but hardly universal. To people who never got involved in the European theater of WW2, it's just one historical footnote concerning faraway people they don't particularly give a shit about. One of my eye-opening experiences as a young 'un was living overseas among people who I discovered gave not a flying fuck about Jews, Nazis, Hitler, or the Holocaust. This is when I realized that it wasn't the unique, world-shattering, epoch-defining event that I had been assured that it was in school.

(Seriously, look up Korean Nazi cosplay sometime.)

 

[Lemmingwise]

The bad arguments you're using are not the same as what people questioning the Holocaust are using. Just video one of what @Lemmingwise posted is over four hours long, and questions the validity of specific primary sources which were used in both an official capacity, and make up a major portion of the accepted history

Just to be clear: I didn't post that video.

Yeah....you mentioned that part, how do you reconcile the fact that those people are almost universally scumbags, Hacks, freaks and fucks-ups

Because they become scumbags by virtue of challenging the official account of the holocaust. It's circular reasoning.

Same thing with Watson on DNA. Wins a nobel prize. But afterwards his perceived contribution is minimized, and he's considered a universal scumbag, hack, freak and fuck-up: not because he's proven wrong, but because his research is at odds with the political direction we're going. It's politics over science.

It's not that hard to sabotage someone's reputation.

Leuchter and Irving were respected in their respective fields before a part of their research became challenged. It's hard to on one hand read what one can about the Irving trial and watch the denial propaganda movie that may well have been made by bizarro goebbels.

I don't write this as a defense of any of them either. It's just that the question is flawed. What makes someone the reverse of a scumbag, hack, freak or fuckup? It isn't virtue, or skill, or honesty, it's reputation. And who control reputation?

It's easy to look at Trump, who regardless of skill at the job, did something stunning in becoming president. Yet if you trust his reputation in the news, he's a universal fuckup. Considering your perspective on republicans, I expect you to pretty much be in line with that perspective.

Of course I can't point to people that have the strongest influence on reputation. We can hammer down any hamsters that jump up and say the emperor isn't wearing clothes, but we can't point at any of the people that create the climate of aggressiveness towards those hamsters. And in particular the attacked hamsters can't. That only proves their guilt.

Honestly it's bullshit. And it's bullshit that you link to a video that you yourself have strong disagreement with based on what you've said. Yet refuse to even check out the primary source that the video is about, because supposedly that video is wrong about something. Why is the one flaw rule acceptable for one side and not the other? Your bias is clear. And then to participate in pages of discussion while refusing to even try to understand where people are coming from.

It's just a little tiresome and no good will come of it. I called you not as smart as you think, you called it laziness. Does it matter which it is? The result is the same.

 

[Emperor Julian]

"Well you're wrong about the persecutions being 200 years before Constantine they actually continued right up until he total control of the Empire"

Lol nigga it wasn't nearly to the same extent and we were clearly talking about wholesale genocides and not just various persecutions.

"I've got to know, you do know I'm deliberatly using bad arguements employed by Holocaust deniers right? [sic]"

The bad arguments you're using are not the same as what people questioning the Holocaust are using. Just video one of what @Lemmingwise posted is over four hours long, and questions the validity of specific primary sources which were used in both an official capacity, and make up a major portion of the accepted history.

"Well considering you call the English reformation a meme chuch where henry the 8th could fuck mad bitches, I'm sure you're aware of the complex social ramfications of apostasy vs heresy and conceed their are serious ramifications which in turn disproves the earlier perscutions occured. [sic]"

I'm very well aware of this. However, clearly you have to concede that the church was completely incapable of actually tamping down on dissenting opinions (valid or otherwise) after the massacres, and up until now. I mean shit, they couldn't even keep the narrative in check in the Joan of Arc scandal, and one of their lead prosecutors had his body thrown in a cesspit by angry peasants later on, and this was likely during the peak of their political influence. Contrasting this to post WW2 historical questioning, no one can contest anything about the Holocaust in any way shape, or form without getting absolutely slammed, and this is pretty much true anywhere you go in the world.

And? I could have just as easily used a genocide for the parody.

Actually they are if you look at the thread but that video isnt very -good pretty much all the arguements I've heard presented elsewhere. It reminds me a lot of the greatest story never told. But it's pretty well edited and the authors a good speaker so people hear what they want to hear. I could throw a hundred books or documentries which go through the established historcity of the holocaust but I really wouldnt expect you too digest that for a number of reasons.

Okay even if I conceed your subjective point if we contrast the two then Christian persecution for disadence wins by a mile, being called an idiot and possibly facing jail is way nicer than being killed for heresy in a variety of disturbing ways. I'm not even sure why you'd think those things square up.

Because they become scumbags by virtue of challenging the official account of the holocaust. It's circular reasoning.

Same thing with Watson on DNA. Wins a nobel prize. But afterwards his perceived contribution is minimized, and he's considered a universal scumbag, hack, freak and fuck-up: not because he's proven wrong, but because his research is at odds with the political direction we're going. It's politics over science.

It's not that hard to sabotage someone's reputation.

Leuchter and Irving were respected in their respective fields before a part of their research became challenged. It's hard to on one hand read what one can about the Irving trial and watch the denial propaganda movie that may well have been made by bizarro goebbels.

I don't write this as a defense of any of them either. It's just that the question is flawed. What makes someone the reverse of a scumbag, hack, freak or fuckup? It isn't virtue, or skill, or honesty, it's reputation. And who control reputation?

It's easy to look at Trump, who regardless of skill at the job, did something stunning in becoming president. Yet if you trust his reputation in the news, he's a universal fuckup. Considering your perspective on republicans, I expect you to pretty much be in line with that perspective.

Of course I can't point to people that have the strongest influence on reputation. We can hammer down any hamsters that jump up and say the emperor isn't wearing clothes, but we can't point at any of the people that create the climate of aggressiveness towards those hamsters. And in particular the attacked hamsters can't. That only proves their guilt.

Honestly it's bullshit. And it's bullshit that you link to a video that you yourself have strong disagreement with based on what you've said. Yet refuse to even check out the primary source that the video is about, because supposedly that video is wrong about something. Why is the one flaw rule acceptable for one side and not the other? Your bias is clear. And then to participate in pages of discussion while refusing to even try to understand where people are coming from.

It's just a little tiresome and no good will come of it. I called you not as smart as you think, you called it laziness. Does it matter which it is? The result is the same.

No they become scumbags because they're scumbags

False equivelancy fallacy, once again a negative reaction would not negate a truth, if I kill my wife because she cheated on me. Does that make her innocent of adultry?

I don't think Trumps a particulary good leader for a number of reasons, even if the media's response is hystericl. You're still using a deductive fallacy that detractor reactions legitimizes perspective. It doesnt.

Irving got blown the fuck out in court when he tried to bring his hokey idea's to the test, he buried his own historical credability and this is before we consider how UK courts require penguin to prove Daves wrong rather than dave being proved to be right. It's actually quite funny if you read some of Irvings courtroom antics-at one stage he's tried to pretend he doesnt understand euphamisms on the internet.

Irving v Penguin Books Ltd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If I've got this right your response to most Holocaust deniers being human cancer is to claim it's just the media and they're not?

plenty of Good has come of this, I'm having a ball. I have no idea how smurt I am in my thunks but so far
-I've explained basic deductive fallacies several times and your response was to repeat the fallacy and try richard spencers insult from his sargon debate.
-One guy didnt get the joke and thought I didnt think the Roman state persecutions didnt occur.
-mr.moon1488 thinks the possibility of being burnt alive for heresy isnt as bad as going to jail and not being a christian prior to the 21st century is more pleasent than being a holocaust denier.

I may be not as smart as I think I am but I'm coming at this at about 10% since I'm unwilling to do any homework but my obvious parody and what it implies about Holocaust deniers from there response is really instructive.

EDIT-fun little line up of denial arguements debunked for anyone who doesnt want to spend 4-5 hours looking up primary resoarces because it's harder to counter bullshit than shit it out.

Imgur

Imgur: The magic of the Internet

imgur.com

 

[Lemmingwise]

If I've got this right your response to most Holocaust deniers being human cancer is to claim it's just the media and they're not?

No, my point is that it's not nearly as fruitful to discuss people as it is to discuss the facts and data since mudflinging (in either direction) is easy and lowgrade.

You have a long list of imgur files, some of which claim for example that the claims about something having appeared in newspapers are unsourced, while I have sourced one of those back to a newspaper. Meanwhile many of the claims may well have been created to make the other side seem dull, since none of the claims they're debunking are sourced.

This is why nobody on either side should engage only with the material of one side, because it's certain that only an unclear picture could emerge.

 

[RichardMongler]

Thus far, @Occam's Spork has the best posts ITT. Everything else in this thread is just noise.

No they become scumbags because they're scumbags
View attachment 1276272

All revisionists and deniers aren't created equal. Are you seriously comparing David Irving to belligerent wignats because they may share controversial (and possibly not even that aligned) views on the Holocaust? You're seriously diminishing your credibility there.

Although I'm glad David Irving was brought up. @Occam's Spork, would you care to share your thoughts on the lawsuit between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt? David Cole had touched on it in an article about the film made about the lawsuit in 2016. In a twist of irony, Mr. Cole wrote two years later in his piece about Ron Unz that denial will never go away no matter how hard anyone tries.

As to Mr. SirAaronRichards which I linked to in the OP as well as this post (for the record, he's also a Holodomor denier, so while his commentary affirming the Holocaust may be thoroughly accurate, he is far from immune to letting his politics cloud his judgement), would you care to pore over this and give your takes?

https://imgur.com/a/725A7

 

[Emperor Julian]

No, my point is that it's not nearly as fruitful to discuss people as it is to discuss the facts and data since mudflinging (in either direction) is easy and lowgrade.

You have a long list of imgur files, some of which claim for example that the claims about something having appeared in newspapers are unsourced, while I have sourced one of those back to a newspaper. Meanwhile many of the claims may well have been created to make the other side seem dull, since none of the claims they're debunking are sourced.

This is why nobody on either side should engage only with the material of one side, because it's certain that only an unclear picture could emerge.

Which is akward because pretty much all holocaust denil starts with an implication of bad faith and most have a conspiritorial element at best. So this point is stillborn.

most of the articles are pretty good, A lot of them specifically rebuke arguement you can find in the thread, It's a nice warm up act for a layperson but once again you've applied a standard so that you don't to holocaust denial which is prt the coarse for holocaust denial.

Well I've engaged with the holocaust denial and they actually looked worse, for example looking up David Irving makes him look a big bigger cunt than I recalled of the top of my head. I'd heartily recommend looking into holocaust deniers with academic eyes because they look terrible.

Thus far, @Occam's Spork has the best posts ITT. Everything else in this thread is just noise.

All revisionists and deniers aren't created equal. Are you seriously comparing David Irving to belligerent wignats because they may share controversial (and possibly not even that aligned) views on the Holocaust? You're seriously diminishing your credibility there.

You've made a holocaust denial thread in deep thoughts of kiwi farms, I'm suprised you didnt anticipate this trash fire. If anything it's going better than I though it would.

Well Daves a drunk fraud who discredited himself in court because he thought defending himself was the way to go, but is he really 'better' than some skinhead because he's read a book or two? I mean he's clearly an intelligent man with a normal upbringing and he's dedicated himself to spreading deliberate misinformation about events, a skinhead can at least be viewed as a victim of a system on occasion and rarely achieveme anything. Daves efforts have made the world a shittier place by producing an endless stream of disinformation ala kent horvid, you can actually see some of the damage in some of the more 'interesting' thread comments.
Plus is your standard is irving then it reflects really badly on everyone else. This is a man who allegidly damaged Goebels diary and once spent a lecture demanding the speaker to debate him.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

This is why nobody on either side should engage only with the material of one side, because it's certain that only an unclear picture could emerge.

Is it too much to ask for just one bit of paper, showing an order to gas prisoners?
How about someone showing me the location of one mass grave?

These aren’t trivial points, or arguing in the margins, these get to the very heart of the matter.

 

[A Welsh Cake]

Dropping the biggest Holocaustpill of them all rn.
The Nazis actually succeeded in murdering all of Trump’s chosen. Every single last one. They then started setting up their next plan.

You see, all that occultshit that the Nazis researched? Well they actually managed to find some things that worked; one of them being an artefact in Cyprus. The conflict there was a coverup for the Italians to deliver into the hands of Hitler: the Oracles Censer.
When salt water and goats fur is placed in the Censer it allows a person to see the future by wrapping it around their arm and drawing blood. Hitler made frequent use of this object, which is why he only wore long sleeved shirts, so as to hide the tell tale pentagonal scars from where the censer pierced his flesh.
Anyway, Hitler saw the future and the only way to resurrect himself. This is also why he Persona’d himself instead of being jailed for his crimes. He knew the exact ingredients and methods of creating himself anew. There was one thing that he needed to do to ensure his return and that is to have German agents in every corner of the world.
Thus began project Phoenix, or as it was directly called in Nazi documents, Project FlammenBirdwurst.

Project Phoenix was the idea to replace all the now dead Jews that they had expressly targeted (due to Hasidic bloodlines talent for Abjuration magic) with German actors. Now obviously the Germans didn’t have 6 million actors, so they had to create the plot that they had failed in Holocausting the Jews. This worked in their favour however as the allies set about rescuing these “prisoners”, and the Nazi sleeper agents were taken to America, Britain, China and the newly founded nation of Israel.

Don’t you think it’s a bit suspicious that a whole new country just appeared on the map? Usually countries take millions of years to form from tectonic plates but this previously undiscovered Eden just popped up. It’s almost as if a highly efficient group of people known for their never faltering work ethic created it no? Just some food for thought on that topic.
GERMAN food.

Anyway, now the Nazis have spread across the world, disguising themselves as the now extinct Jewish peoples. Ever wonder why the “Hebrew” originated people had names like EisenBERG or GoldSTEIN.
Those aren’t the Torah scrolls they’re reading in the Synagogues, it’s instructions from the animated Brain in a Jar of Himmler, enacting plans to gather what he needs for the fuhrers return. Now they run psy-op campaigns, with both their Disguised “Jewish” units and the new Nazi youth, causing dissonance large enough that the negative karma needed to raise Hitler as a Lich, Lichler, can easily be harvested by Second in command of the Fourth and Forever Reich: Angela “Pat your taxes Anglo” Merkel.

Remember dear reader:
If it’s a Kraut, kick it out.

 

[I-chi]

Of course it happened and it's retarded to outright deny it did; but fuck if we'll ever actually know what really happened these days because it's become such a politicized farce that I can't be bothered to give a shit about it anymore, nor did I really give that much of a shit about it when I was younger.

It happened. People died. Other people caused those people to die. Most of both parties are rotting in the ground or clinging desperately to a thread so short that their lives are probably being measured in days to weeks if not mere months. Neither of them have any impact on my lives and anybody who actively punishes themselves and those around them based on the actions of people decades ago are tards.

People don't want the facts, they want something they can custom tailor to suit their immediate political gain; and the J.ews were just the ones to figure out the quickest how to turn that into cultural capital. Same as the little faggots who run around these days calling everybody they dislike Nazi; and same as that pussy Godwin who revoked his own rule because it's easier to compromise your beliefs if all that really matters in the end is winning exceptional arguments. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where people are going to actually take their annoyance out on the big-nose individuals in a violent way again just for being reminded of the holocaust; but I sure can't wait for people to smile, nod their heads, and go on with their lives when a yid hyperventilates about something.

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

People don't want the facts, they want something they can custom tailor to suit their immediate political gain; and the J.ews were just the ones to figure out the quickest how to turn that into cultural capital.

I agree on this point.

For them it is a religious event. A modern day Exodus, if you will. But they are also smart enough to realise, the more time that passes the less of a tool of persuasion it becomes and the more it can be questioned. That’s why the push to legislate it as compulsory learning and constantly bring it up in the media so the goyim are never allowed to forget it.

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Is it too much to ask for just one bit of paper, showing an order to gas prisoners?
How about someone showing me the location of one mass grave?

These aren’t trivial points, or arguing in the margins, these get to the very heart of the matter.

Babi Yar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Posen speeches - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

Babi Yar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Posen speeches - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your first example, is again, apparently a mass grave where 70,000 bodies were buried but then dug up again and burnt on giant grilles (survivor testimony, I am not embellishing). Conveniently leaving no evidence. I’m pretty sure bullets don’t burn, but as of today no one has bothered to search the site for the thousands of shells that would have been used in the initial execution.

The second example isn’t even an order.
The Posen speech is over 3 hrs long and only 2 minutes mention the J.ews. There is some very dubious translations used I believe in order to make it seem like he meant extermination instead of evacuation. I don’t speak German and don’t want to get bogged down in semantics. It doesn’t mention gassing at all.

This can’t be that hard for you guys.

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Your first example, is again, apparently a mass grave where 70,000 bodies were buried but then dug up again and burnt on giant grilles (survivor testimony, I am not embellishing). Conveniently leaving no evidence. I’m pretty sure bullets don’t burn, but as of today no one has bothered to search the site for the thousands of shells that would have been used in the initial execution.

The second example isn’t even an order.
The Posen speech is over 3 hrs long and only 2 minutes mention the J.ews. There is some very dubious translations used I believe in order to make it seem like he meant extermination instead of evacuation. I don’t speak German and don’t want to get bogged down in semantics. It doesn’t mention gassing at all.

This can’t be that hard for you guys.

Evacuation to fucking where, Auschwitz?

 

[Flynt's Missing Pecker]

Evacuation to fucking where, Auschwitz?

They had already been evacuated out of their homes.

The ‘Final Solution’ was to move them out of Germany. Initially the plan was to make the French take them in Madagascar but then they decided to move them to the Soviet Union.