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

[Lemmingwise]

I guess a better word than overt would have been intentional

Fine, I'll let you change your statement. You still haven't answered it, so I'll ask it again.

You say you have never seen evidence of jews acting with intentional hostility towards white people.

And then when offered one such example, you say that there have been white people who acted with hostility against blacks. That really does nothing to support the fact that you never saw any evidence does it?

This reminds me of that old russian proverb. I'm sure you know which one.

For a long time (after the initial hazing) I did begin to think that you really were some twitter refugee that loved to argue this subject, and engaged in it with intellectual honesty. Despite the accusations from @Menotaur I do make a continual effort of challenging my biases.

But how quickly do you jump from "I have never seen evidence of jews acting with overt hostility to whites" to "acting with intentional hostility" to "yeah but whites have been hostile, too".

You would think that someone with intellectual honesty when confronted by an example would sit back for a moment and think or say "yeah, I guess now I have seen an example. The world is different than I thought."

I could list you hundreds of other examples. From the book written by ariel toaff who examined the historical practice of blood libel, to the lectures given by noel ignatiev where he taught students that "treason to whiteness is a loyalty to humanity" and "the task is to bring this minority (ed: black people) together that it makes it impossible for this legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself".

That of course recalls malcolm x, who said that while he was aware of jewish interests supporting black emancipation, but also that they do it for the careful strategic reason so they could focus white aggression/animosity against blacks rather than jews.

But to you these conflicts are never even zero sum games. Even when jews do these things, it is not hostility or aggression. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread who denies there has been aggression against jews; even the sceptics, revisionists and the staunch "there wasn't a holocaust" groups seem to agree that there was.

But somehow you are unwilling to acknowledge any aggression from jews against others.

Maybe they really are a chosen people that they are so uniquely virtuous that they never exhibit hostility.

And if they did it wasn't intentional.

And if it was, then its okay because whites did it against blacks.

Lmao.

 

[Rapechu]

How many atrocities of this nature do you have proof of? Maybe some more contemporaneous murders of Ukrainians? (not Poles, who they had a much worse relationship with)

Holodomor | Facts, Definition, & Death Toll

Holodomor, man-made famine that claimed millions of lives in the Soviet republic of Ukraine in 1932–33. Because the famine was so damaging, and because it was covered up by Soviet authorities, it has played a large role in Ukrainian public memory, particularly since Ukraine gained independence...

www.britannica.com

The largest genocide in history was conducted by the USSR against Ukraine. What do you mean do I have any examples of soviet atrocities against Ukrainians? LMAO are you for real?

For that matter the USSR did target Poles with genocide too

The Polish Operation

The NKVD's Polish Operation was the first genocide against the Polish nation, and claimed the lives of 200 thousand Poles.

ipn.gov.pl

I'm not even going to get into the more sordid details of soviet sadism, like Nazino, which was a tiny island where thousands of people were dumped with no food or winter clothes and forced to kill and eat eachother like some sort of demented gladiator arena while the guards watched and laughed.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Fine, I'll let you change your statement. You still haven't answered it, so I'll ask it again.

You say you have never seen evidence of jews acting with intentional hostility towards white people.

And then when offered one such example, you say that there have been white people who acted with hostility against blacks. That really does nothing to support the fact that you never saw any evidence does it?

This reminds me of that old russian proverb. I'm sure you know which one.

For a long time (after the initial hazing) I did begin to think that you really were some twitter refugee that loved to argue this subject, and engaged in it with intellectual honesty. Despite the accusations from @Menotaur I do make a continual effort of challenging my biases.

But how quickly do you jump from "I have never seen evidence of jews acting with overt hostility to whites" to "acting with intentional hostility" to "yeah but whites have been hostile, too".

You would think that someone with intellectual honesty when confronted by an example would sit back for a moment and think or say "yeah, I guess now I have seen an example. The world is different than I thought."

I could list you hundreds of other examples. From the book written by ariel toaff who examined the historical practice of blood libel, to the lectures given by noel ignatiev where he taught students that "treason to whiteness is a loyalty to humanity" and "the task is to bring this minority (ed: black people) together that it makes it impossible for this legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself".

That of course recalls malcolm x, who said that while he was aware of jewish interests supporting black emancipation, but also that they do it for the careful strategic reason so they could focus white aggression/animosity against blacks rather than jews.

But to you these conflicts are never even zero sum games. Even when jews do these things, it is not hostility or aggression. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread who denies there has been aggression against jews; even the sceptics, revisionists and the staunch "there wasn't a holocaust" groups seem to agree that there was.

But somehow you are unwilling to acknowledge any aggression from jews against others.

Maybe they really are a chosen people that they are so uniquely virtuous that they never exhibit hostility.

And if they did it wasn't intentional.

And if it was, then its okay because whites did it against blacks.

Lmao.

If Chugger isn't a heeb himself, then he's a very dammed good imitation of one. Literally pulling the 'Flows like slime through clenched fingers' part of 'I began to hate them' with impeccable precision.

Does anyone here think they can actually convince this JIDF nigger?

 

[Chugger]

Fine, I'll let you change your statement. You still haven't answered it, so I'll ask it again.

You say you have never seen evidence of jews acting with intentional hostility towards white people.

And then when offered one such example, you say that there have been white people who acted with hostility against blacks. That really does nothing to support the fact that you never saw any evidence does it?

This reminds me of that old russian proverb. I'm sure you know which one.

For a long time (after the initial hazing) I did begin to think that you really were some twitter refugee that loved to argue this subject, and engaged in it with intellectual honesty. Despite the accusations from @Menotaur I do make a continual effort of challenging my biases.

But how quickly do you jump from "I have never seen evidence of jews acting with overt hostility to whites" to "acting with intentional hostility" to "yeah but whites have been hostile, too".

You would think that someone with intellectual honesty when confronted by an example would sit back for a moment and think or say "yeah, I guess now I have seen an example. The world is different than I thought."

I could list you hundreds of other examples. From the book written by ariel toaff who examined the historical practice of blood libel, to the lectures given by noel ignatiev where he taught students that "treason to whiteness is a loyalty to humanity" and "the task is to bring this minority (ed: black people) together that it makes it impossible for this legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself".

That of course recalls malcolm x, who said that while he was aware of jewish interests supporting black emancipation, but also that they do it for the careful strategic reason so they could focus white aggression/animosity against blacks rather than jews.

But to you these conflicts are never even zero sum games. Even when jews do these things, it is not hostility or aggression. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread who denies there has been aggression against jews; even the sceptics, revisionists and the staunch "there wasn't a holocaust" groups seem to agree that there was.

But somehow you are unwilling to acknowledge any aggression from jews against others.

Maybe they really are a chosen people that they are so uniquely virtuous that they never exhibit hostility.

And if they did it wasn't intentional.

And if it was, then its okay because whites did it against blacks.

Lmao.

You just mistakenly conflated two of my posts.

I brought up the lynching of Jesse Washington in response to @Rapechu 's example of the Pole tortured by "Jews". The point was that these are isolated incidents that we cannot use to categorize an entire group of people.

"Blood Passover" has come up in my discussions with Holocaust deniers. It's about events that happened 700 years ago. Even if true, there's no evidence that this was a wider trend in the Jewish community.

Clearly there have been many Jews who hated white people on a "local" level. I get this, it's true for all races. Discrimination exists, period. But when I hear about the Jews from you guys, it's always ah they introduced degeneracy into the media, or multiculturalism, or are behind these disruptive (left-leaning) political movements. To this they ascribe primary motivation of 'white hostility'

Ignatiev is an interesting example, I really know nothing about him but this is from the wikipedia

So again, maybe he's wisely covering up his hatred of whites, but it's also possible he is motivated by true justice. Some white nationalists (like https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT ) are against and criticize white colonial ambitions, right?

 

[Willie Thrills]

"Blood Passover" has come up in my discussions with Holocaust deniers. It's about events that happened 700 years ago. Even if true, there's no evidence that this was a wider trend in the Jewish community.

Well that's just an enormous fucking lie, not even remotely true, it has well-documented events as recently as the 20th century with rumours persisting to the modern day.

Hundreds of events, across different continents, with confirmed incidents in three continents (if not four, I'd have to check for America) - how can anybody treat this guy as anything but an outright liar?

This is straight up bullshit, he is outright lying and whereas he had a point with Washington, I'm now willing to believe Washington never even existed and the entire event was fabricated. I'd need a full HD Video to believe this cunt!

 

[Chugger]

Holodomor | Facts, Definition, & Death Toll

Holodomor, man-made famine that claimed millions of lives in the Soviet republic of Ukraine in 1932–33. Because the famine was so damaging, and because it was covered up by Soviet authorities, it has played a large role in Ukrainian public memory, particularly since Ukraine gained independence...

www.britannica.com

The largest genocide in history was conducted by the USSR against Ukraine. What do you mean do I have any examples of soviet atrocities against Ukrainians? LMAO are you for real?

For that matter the USSR did target Poles with genocide too

The Polish Operation

The NKVD's Polish Operation was the first genocide against the Polish nation, and claimed the lives of 200 thousand Poles.

ipn.gov.pl

I'm not even going to get into the more sordid details of soviet sadism, like Nazino, which was a tiny island where thousands of people were dumped with no food or winter clothes and forced to kill and eat eachother like some sort of demented gladiator arena while the guards watched and laughed.

My post was in response to your statement that 'yeah of course I believe the Jews nailed children to the wall and executed people with hand grenades', so I was looking for examples like this

I wouldn't want to downplay Soviet crimes whatsoever, 2 of my grandparents went into the Gulag system. Soviets may have committed genocide against Ukraine to tamp down on Ukrainian nationalism, though there also seems to have been a political purpose (Ukrainians were resisting forced collectivization). This appears to be the case with Nazino, which seems more an example of Soviet incompetence than anything else, and highlights the difficulties of deporting urban dwelling type populations to remote isolated locations where they're not well equipped to survive (cough cough Madagascar cough cough)

 

[Chugger]

Well that's just an enormous fucking lie, not even remotely true, it has well-documented events as recently as the 20th century with rumours persisting to the modern day.

Hundreds of events, across different continents, with confirmed incidents in three continents (if not four, I'd have to check for America) - how can anybody treat this guy as anything but an outright liar?

This is straight up bullshit, he is outright lying and whereas he had a point with Washington, I'm now willing to believe Washington never even existed and the entire event was fabricated. I'd need a full HD Video to believe this cunt!

You guys are very skeptical about atrocity stories so you should have some sympathies here

Blood libel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tens of thousands (or millions) have been tried and sentenced to death for being witches, is that compelling evidence that witchcraft existed and was widespread?

 

[Willie Thrills]

You guys are very skeptical about atrocity stories so you should have some sympathies here

Blood libel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 2778396

Tens of thousands (or millions) have been tried and sentenced to death for being witches, is that compelling evidence that witchcraft existed?

View attachment 2778398

Yes, you fucking retard, witchcraft exists and it's a horrific thing to see or hear of.

It isn't magical, it's drugging and torturing people to near-death. Witchcraft was "Ye Olde" version of giving a teenaged girl heroin and pimping her out.

How do you not know this?

 

[Chugger]

Yes, you fucking retard, witchcraft exists and it's a horrific thing to see or hear of.

It isn't magical, it's drugging and torturing people to near-death. Witchcraft was "Ye Olde" version of giving a teenaged girl heroin and pimping her out.

How do you not know this?

And then the teenage girl is killed for making a pact with Satan, while the abuser goes free?

 

[Willie Thrills]

And then the teenage girl is killed for making a pact with Satan, while the abuser goes free?

Yes, sometimes. Usually if the abuser is wealthy, or in this case, since you're an overt liar who is making me want another Holocaust, a deliberate and slanderous lie towards an individual which was recorded as fact.

It wasn't good and I feel like you are still lying - I would like you to find me the full report of exactly this occurring, of a teenaged girl being drugged and pimped out (or in other cases, enslaved as house servants) and then punished for it while the abuser goes free, in a situation within which the abuser was not a wealthy landowner.

 

[JohnDoe]

And then the teenage girl is killed for making a pact with Satan, while the abuser goes free?

Real quick question bro. Are you Jewish?

 

[Chugger]

Yes, sometimes. Usually if the abuser is wealthy, or in this case, since you're an overt liar who is making me want another Holocaust, a deliberate and slanderous lie towards an individual which was recorded as fact.

It wasn't good and I feel like you are still lying - I would like you to find me the full report of exactly this occurring, of a teenaged girl being drugged and pimped out (or in other cases, enslaved as house servants) and then punished for it while the abuser goes free, in a situation within which the abuser was not a wealthy landowner.

When people were burned for being witches, they were burned because people believed they were literally in league with Satan lol. It's possible lots of them were abused or weird social rejects, but that's why they were killed

 

[Chugger]

Real quick question bro. Are you Jewish?

Yes. Jewish traced back 100 generations to pure rabbinic bloodline, live in Israeli settlement, paid 1 dollar per word by the JIDF for these posts (I make around 300k per year)

 

[Willie Thrills]

And then the teenage girl is killed for making a pact with Satan, while the abuser goes free?

Also worth going into detail since cunts like yourself cannot be observed in a vaccuum without any arguing against and will likely do a Hebrew shuffle to avoid the fact you've lied overtly about the history of witchcraft, not knowing that people who actually know what it means will find it outright offensive.

Witchcraft is not magic, in reality, but people at the time didn't distinguish between obscure practices and magic - addiction was not fully understood, and witchcraft would involve using addictive substances alongside violence to literally enslave people.

Jews did enjoy this, usually when people were largely unaware of concepts like addiction and when Jews would use them, they saw it as "fair play" and "Well, she shouldn't have said yes" - this is why so many accusations come alongside "Ravaging a child" or some kind of young woman being the target. It was date rape, usually by Jews, using imported goods which Jews had access to and nobody else knew existed. For this reason, I believe many Jews are drawn to certain industries - medical, psychiatry and the use of drugs to get what they want.

Worth mentioning that the Germans started doing something similar and it didn't end well for the Jews - turns out, use of drugs for a specific goal can have impressive results, like using meth to increase your combat capabilities. Whereas Jews would usually use drugs subtly to influence people into making decisions against their best interests, in WWII, Germany went all-out and used them to great effect in combat.

When people were burned for being witches, they were burned because people believed they were literally in league with Satan lol. It's possible lots of them were abused or weird social rejects, but that's why they were killed

aka "We're not sure exactly where you got these drugs or how they work, most of us can't read and our only perspective for pure evil is Satan himself, but Mr Cohen, you are without a doubt the most disgusting being I have ever encountered. I cannot consider you as anything BUT a metaphysical demon for how evil you are."

 

[Willie Thrills]

Yes. Jewish traced back 100 generations to pure rabbinic bloodline, live in Israeli settlement, paid 1 dollar per word by the JIDF for these posts (I make around 300k per year)

He's asking because of your behaviour and words. You play on the idea that people are stupider than you, with a sort of arrogance that makes everybody around you disgusted at your sheer audacity.

Your response was so out of the ordinary that he HAD to think you were Jewish - Jews are the largest ethnic group with such a strong "supremicist" view - somebody had replied to you confidently on a point you clearly know nothing about, and instead of backing away like most gentiles would, you doubled down and pressed the issue by outright lying about something you had read, in an attempt to goad some kind of "admittance" that these events had occurred as you described.

This sort of behaviour is most common among Jews in English-speaking countries - except Indians who do something similar. It's a technique of confidently stating absolute bullshit, knowingly, with the hope that your opponent will be so intimidated by your chutzpah that they will yield and give in. I believe the term is pilpul.

 

[Chugger]

Your response was so out of the ordinary

that witches were burned because people believed that they were in league with Satan and practiced magic? ok bro

here's a good article for you https://www.takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad/

 

[JohnDoe]

Yes. Jewish traced back 100 generations to pure rabbinic bloodline, live in Israeli settlement, paid 1 dollar per word by the JIDF for these posts (I make around 300k per year)

Are you being sarcastic? It isn't a question that requires too much in way of a response. A yes or no is sufficient. Why so sensitive about the query?

 

[Johan Schmidt]

Are you being sarcastic? It isn't a question that requires too much in way of a response. A yes or no is sufficient. Why so sensitive about the query?

He's clearly a kike.

 

[Willie Thrills]

that witches were burned because people believed that they were in league with Satan and practiced magic? ok bro

Again, witchcraft was the best thing they could use to describe crimes which we now have specific terms for - the most exact would be "Spiking" or "Date Rape" - things which you likely have a lot of experience with. They weren't doctors, they were people being abused by Jews and had a poor understanding of the methods used - so they just labelled it all as witchcraft and killed them, usually rightfully, for it.

I know that you likely had some fantasies about finding "primitive people" and using your modern knowledge of medicine to drug and abuse them, but in reality, they'd wisen up and kill you for it and label it as justified under religious reasons - they'd just say it was religious if they didn't quite understand it.

 

[Rapechu]

View attachment 2778373

Re Ignatiev: I really hate this smarmy pseudo-intellectual douchebaggery "we don't hate white whites for your skin color, we just hate your entire culture and ascribe all sorts of negativity to it and to you". It's like when people say "Someone needs to shoot these kikes... in minecraft", yeah yeah, we all know what you mean, it's not clever and it's not hiding anything, it's really transparent and crude.

At any rate, I don't think it's fair to ascribe to every individual, guilt for their entire race. There are plenty of jews, for example, David Cole (a documentarian), and Josef Ginsburg (who himself had been imprisoned in Auschwitz) who spoke their honest opinions against the holocaust narrative even when it meant they would face physical harassment and intimidation by their own people. I think that the selfless and honest actions of a few proves the worth of judging people as individuals.

Re the lynching of blacks in the USA: This is a big difference here, because these lynchings were carried out by vigilante mobs against suspected murderers and rapists. The tortures the soviets conducted were done by official order of the communist government, against POWs and political dissidents. In fact, this isn't even technically a war crime, because the USSR never signed the geneva convention, so they actually had no legal obligations under international law not to torture people in the most inhumane ways possible. Kind of messed up. This was actually the justification the Germans used for their actions, which was, the Soviets weren't even signatories of the treaty, so they shouldn't be protected by it either, given all the horrible things they've done and were continuing to do. (The Germans were wrong though, they actually did have an obligation under the Geneva convention, even to non-signatories, but the German argument was a moral argument rather than a legal argument).

What we can see by looking at how history unfolded, is a clear escalation of conflicts in the eastern front. Prior to WW2, Nazi propaganda was pretty mild. "Jews are swindlers", "Jews are profiteers", "jews stabbed us in the back during the Great War", in general, jews in west and central Europe were accused of being white collar criminals, or sell-outs to the enemy, and the solution was deportation, nobody was really targeting them for anything other than harassment and humiliation (to give an example Krystalnacht was ordered by Goebbels, who ordered no jews be killed or physically injured, unless they fought back, only their property was to be destroyed; and this was done behind Hitler's back, when he found out, he was furious, and nearly kicked Goebbels out of the party, and Hess circulated a letter to all Gauleiters never to do such a thing again). Then after Barbarossa, Nazi propaganda changed to "jews are the instigators of the most horrific crimes against mankind and need to be stopped at any cost". I don't think it would be possible to spread such an idea against a completely innocent people, any sort of lie has to at least have the illusion of being plausible, so it has to be based on a kernel of truth. If the jews weren't heavily involved in communism, and if the communists weren't absolutely brutal to Europeans, then it wouldn't have been possible for the Germans to have invented this idea. We hear of stories of escalating killings between jews and Ukrainians because there are decades of bad blood already there. On the other hand, in Poland, for example, we often hear of local Poles protecting jews because under the Polish government, the jews and the Poles were able to live together in peace. So I don't think it's reasonable to expect that the Germans and Ukrainians were densely unaware of the politics of their own backyard, and just arbitrarily decided to flip out and kill an entire race based on nothing but lies against a group of people who had nothing but goodwill for them.