Boomer Internet 'Historian' Destroyed In His Comments After Calling Revisionists Crackpots

[phdnm]

Boomer Internet 'Historian' Destroyed In His Comments After Calling Revisionists Crackpots

Youtube: History Debunked
Jul 28, 2022
Should denying or minimising the Holocaust be a criminal offence?





Full size image

https://archive.org/details/boomer-internet-historian-destroyed-in-comments

[Atigun]

The Jews are between a rock and a hard place. Making it illegal to question the holyhoax creates suspicions that their claims of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false. However, making it legal to question the holyhoax will result in proof that their claim of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false. They have apparently gone with what they consider the lesser of two evils. You can have your suspicions but it's against the law to speak about them.

[Hektor]

The Jews are between a rock and a hard place. Making it illegal to question the holyhoax creates suspicions that their claims of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false. However, making it legal to question the holyhoax will result in proof that their claim of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false. They have apparently gone with what they consider the lesser of two evils. You can have your suspicions but it's against the law to speak about them.

Threatening people with violence, because they deny the Holocaust, puts the Holocaust thesis outside the realm of scientific thesis.

It's good that people notice this and tell it to people that believe it.

E Michael Jones denying the Holocaust:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2UAYtpJxkBMA/
He could also have challenged the notion that "The Nazis kept records of gassed Jews".... Which they didn't.

[hermod]

The Jews are between a rock and a hard place. Making it illegal to question the holyhoax creates suspicions that their claims of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false.

Not in non-Anglo-Saxon democracies, where gag laws are not regarded as the censorship of forbidden truths.

However, making it legal to question the holyhoax will result in proof that their claim of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false.

Not in Anglo-Saxon democracies, where (((they))) and their helpers easily make most people believe that Holocaust revisionism (renamed "Holocaust denial" and labelled as anti-Semitic hate speech for obvious reasons) is just a crackpot theory (by duping society so that "most people don't think such an inquiry to be worth considering or spending time looking at", as the guy in the video put it).

In other words, Holocaust revisionists are prevented from speaking in Europe minus UK and from being heard in North America and British countries. Different tactics, same result.

[borjastick]

My message would have been in his video comments somewhere too. I have been a watcher of Simon's vids for some time now and generally speaking he shines a much needed spotlight on a variety of historical and modern day social issues such as colonialism and black immigration etc.

However, he has a massive blind spot on both the holocaust and israel etc. He genuinely believes the holocaust shite and often quotes sections of books proving it from decades ago as if nothing has moved on or been discovered since. He also thinks israel is a truly wonderful utopia and jews are the greatest people ever made. A few weeks ago in support of the holocaust narrative he referenced a book by or about Franz Stangl and his confession and claimed that it proved that Treblinka was a mass murder location. When someone so obviously well read and full of brain box juice then makes ridiculous and so out of date observations about a big subject one wonders about his capacity to think with an open mind.

[Hektor]

....

However, making it legal to question the holyhoax will result in proof that their claim of 6 million being gassed and cremated is false.

Not in Anglo-Saxon democracies, where (((they))) and their helpers easily make most people believe that Holocaust revisionism (renamed "Holocaust denial" and labelled as anti-Semitic hate speech for obvious reasons) is just a crackpot theory (by duping society so that "most people don't think such an inquiry to be worth considering or spending time looking at", as the guy in the video put it).

In other words, Holocaust revisionists are prevented from speaking in Europe minus UK and from being heard in North America and British countries. Different tactics, same result.

That seems to be the modus operandi anyway. They know fairly well, that they can curb, but not 100% prevent dissemination of Revisionist literature. So slander, innuendo and rhetoric are far more important to them. If you can't prevent debate, make sure you can manage it. Manage especially people's cognitive processes on the matter. Legal Bans and occasional trials against Revisionists are good to keep it a loaded subject.

Their advantage is that cultural elites in Western country are heavily invested in the Holocaust Narrative, emotionally, but also in it as a justification tool for their ideologies. They won't drop that easily. They can't most of their postulates can't be justified without being fueled via the Holocaust.

[hermod]

That seems to be the modus operandi anyway. They know fairly well, that they can curb, but not 100% prevent dissemination of Revisionist literature. So slander, innuendo and rhetoric are far more important to them. If you can't prevent debate, make sure you can manage it. Manage especially people's cognitive processes on the matter. Legal Bans and occasional trials against Revisionists are good to keep it a loaded subject.

Their advantage is that cultural elites in Western country are heavily invested in the Holocaust Narrative, emotionally, but also in it as a justification tool for their ideologies. They won't drop that easily. They can't most of their postulates can't be justified without being fueled via the Holocaust.

So far, (((they))) could and did prevent that debate from taking place. (((They))) don't care about a few people talking about it on the far-right fringes of the internet. It amounts to nothing. (((They))) don't need to control what 100% of people hear. 99.9% is more than enough for (((them))) to own the West, advance their New World Order agenda, and get carte blanche for the further dispossession of the Palestinian people. Letting a few revisionists cry in the wilderness (because most people were led to believe they're just crackpot haters and won't waste their precious time listening to what some crackpot haters say) amounts to having their mouths closed by force (because they're in jail for telling a super-taboo truth aloud). Both kinds of censorship do the trick after all. Very few Brits and Yanks realize it, but debating the Holocaust is also forbidden in their own countries.

[Hektor]

That seems to be the modus operandi anyway. They know fairly well, that they can curb, but not 100% prevent dissemination of Revisionist literature. So slander, innuendo and rhetoric are far more important to them. If you can't prevent debate, make sure you can manage it. Manage especially people's cognitive processes on the matter. Legal Bans and occasional trials against Revisionists are good to keep it a loaded subject.

Their advantage is that cultural elites in Western country are heavily invested in the Holocaust Narrative, emotionally, but also in it as a justification tool for their ideologies. They won't drop that easily. They can't most of their postulates can't be justified without being fueled via the Holocaust.

So far, (((they))) could and did prevent that debate from taking place. (((They))) don't care about a few people talking about it on the far-right fringes of the internet. It amounts to nothing. (((They))) don't need to control what 100% of people hear. 99.9% is more than enough for (((them))) to own the West, advance their New World Order agenda, and get carte blanche for the further dispossession of the Palestinian people. Letting a few revisionists cry in the wilderness (because most people were led to believe they're just crackpot haters and won't waste their precious time listening to what some crackpot haters say) amounts to having their mouths closed by force (because they're in jail for telling a super-taboo truth aloud). Both kinds of censorship do the trick after all. Very few Brits and Yanks realize it, but debating the Holocaust is also forbidden in their own countries.

For the purpose you don't have to control even 99.9%... Even remotely this isn't necessary. You need to heavily influence what about 3% of people think. Those have to be those that are multipliers. To achieve this you need to tip the discourse within those 3% ... And that can be done by occupying a moralistic debate. Exactly what has been done with the Holocaust Narrative.

It first paid for Allied propaganda, than for reeducation. Really pushed was the issue since the 1960s of course. And that should tell you that it is an organized push. They pretend it is about "memory of the victims" and "educating people to be tolerant"...But it's pretty obvious that it is about control and manipulation, once you stop swallowing the myth. People that swallowed the fraud don't want to see it of course.

Most people have neither time nor interest to deal with the issue thoroughly. So they can be held at bay superficially. But it's obviously a key issue for those that control present day culture. Otherwise they wouldn't infuse this so heavily into school curricula or herd school classes into pilgrimages through concentration camps and Holocaust Museums. It doesn't really have educational value, you know less about the era or world war two than before that kind of gas lighting exercise. But it poisons the well in favor of the leftist/globalist position in several discourses. The interests served are clear when you look trough it:
* Gain sympathy for Jews to get them a victim role in people's minds. Which assist with Israeli policies towards Arabs, but also shields Jews in general from critique.
* Discredit any Nationalism (as long as it comes from Whites).
* Tip the scale in favor of leftist causes, especially those not directly related to economic questions (while they may profit as well).

Even if it isn't legally forbidden to discuss the Holocaust legally, taboos do the trick far more efficient that paper legislation could ever do on its own. And note how disingenuous the response is. "But we can discuss the Holocaust, you are just not allowed to deny it or talk irreverent about the victims". Question begging of its finest. It also shows the religious character of the whole affair. Presuppose a position. Shield that position from consideration of falsity by holding up that this would hurt supposed victims in some way. It's like entering the debate with e.g. a Catholic who will make as if you hurt his feelings, when you dispute Catholic dogma. Muslims do that in an even more blunt way. They display outrage once something negative is said about Mohammed or the Koran. That's how those religions won debates over centuries. Whenever their teachings and sacral positions were questioned or disputed they would play the piety card, preferably in a concealed way, where the audience wouldn't notice that there is that kind of manipulation at play. It is using human considerateness towards the feelings of others. In case of the Holocaust people feel compassion with others that suffered and they also don't want to hurt the feelings of those mourning. So in essence it is exploitation of humane decency. And that's how many cults work. They get you to buy into their lore, manipulate feelings and then exploit you shifting resources from your own to them as to expand the cult and to increase the revenue of their beneficiaries. It this case it isn't a guru that is the object of veneration or beneficiary, but whole classes of people. Those would be first and foremost Jews of course, but it is also other groups traditionally not revered in Western Culture. To some extent it also benefits those white-knighting for Jews or at least they try to benefit from this in doing so. Since this is entirely unproductive and only a transfer of wealth, cultural capital and power, there are also those damaged by this. And that's first and foremost Germany, but Western Nations in general. And it isn't only the money transferred or policy concessions that are damages, it also affects their cultural capital in terms of ideals, morals, world view. All tenets that societies need to function in the long run.

[Atigun]

That the Jews can control discussion and revision of the holyhoax is doubtful. Sites such as poal, Gab, the Daily Stormer et al. all give the holyhoax the horselaugh. There's no doubt that such discussions have become worrying to the Jews and their narrative. See:
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid: ... issent.pdf
A real whine-fest about the Gab site gaining users. The frantic denunciation of other free speech sites is gratifying. As Hannover has said, "The tide is turning".

[Hektor]

That the Jews can control discussion and revision of the holyhoax is doubtful. Sites such as poal, Gab, the Daily Stormer et al. all give the holyhoax the horselaugh. There's no doubt that such discussions have become worrying to the Jews and their narrative. See:
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid: ... issent.pdf
A real whine-fest about the Gab site gaining users. The frantic denunciation of other free speech sites is gratifying. As Hannover has said, "The tide is turning".

They'll know what institutions to control. They can't control what profs and students are thinking, although they can influence that. But they can adjust what those institutions are communicating externally. Internally they will have lots of folks that sympathize with the poor victims and will take a stand against anybody daring to question the narrative. Apparently "denying the Holocaust" was/is a more serious offense to the Vatican than doubting some Catholic core doctrines (or being a child molester, they still will try to forgive you and rehabilitate you. Actually assist you against facing prosecution for your crimes). Just look at the treatment of Richard Williamson by the pope:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Richard+williamson+pope

You can deny that Adam and Eve have sinned, but you can't deny that Adolf and Eva have 'sinned'. They are very concerned about them having some sort of posterity in the form of Holocaust Deniers.

And yes, the controllers of communication and doctrine in the secular world are really obsessed with keeping a grip on what people read, debate, watch, etc. They perfectly realize that their views and ideas won't stand a chance, if media, education and communication weren't as rigged as they are right now. They've seen what extremely biased publicity against Holocaust Deniers like in the Donahue show can do... So I doubt they will try having a fair fight between the two positions anytime soon. They may however face the music soon, when people loose faith in their political, academic and economic institution. This will however still take a few years... Which isn't the worst that can happen.

[borjastick]

He's at it again tonight by posting a video about anti-semitism and why it is misguided and morally wrong. He's going to do a part two tomorrow. It is a very odd thing that he is very verbose about criticising blacks and black immigration but cannot see the argument against israel and its jews or the reason for the establishment of the state of israel (the holocaust). He has a massive blind spot on these issues.

It's worth noting that a)he's getting smashed in the comments to his video and b)my comment was deleted by you know who...

Here's the comment just for the purposes of me enjoying getting my two penneth out there.

The jews have for many centuries managed to turn everyone against them. In modern times they did it spectacularly well by stealing Palestinian land and then continuing to do so and of course lying with panache and aplomb about their holocaust. It isn't difficult to dislike israel and the israeli jews. It's amazing that Simon thinks anti semitism only goes back 150 years. Jews have been disliked for two thousand years or more. They always tell you what happened to them but never tell you why, moreover they are incapable of changing themselves or their behaviour. I used to work just off Hatton Garden in London which is referred to as the jewish quarter. The jews there were always nice and pleasant to me and I had and have no issues with most jews around the world. israelis and hard supporters of the state of israel are an entirely different breed and are as obnoxious as they come.

[Hektor]

He's at it again tonight by posting a video about anti-semitism and why it is misguided and morally wrong. He's going to do a part two tomorrow. It is a very odd thing that he is very verbose about criticising blacks and black immigration but cannot see the argument against israel and its jews or the reason for the establishment of the state of israel (the holocaust). He has a massive blind spot on these issues.

It's worth noting that a)he's getting smashed in the comments to his video and b)my comment was deleted by you know who...

Here's the comment just for the purposes of me enjoying getting my two penneth out there.

The jews have for many centuries managed to turn everyone against them. In modern times they did it spectacularly well by stealing Palestinian land and then continuing to do so and of course lying with panache and aplomb about their holocaust.....israelis and hard supporters of the state of israel are an entirely different breed and are as obnoxious as they come.

Expect a strawman like "Anti-Semites hate Jews only because they are different"... Sure one would be able to find someone like that. Guess this is rather rare. On the other hand there are people just being aware on how Jews operate as a group and in relationship with people from groups that aren't Jewish. He'd group them together with the former under "Anti-Semites". That's of course intellectually dishonest, misguided and morally wrong.

Perhaps he should learn a few things about conflict theory, that different groups in society have different interest and can have conflicts about it. But that requires a bit more than using loaded language to throw labels around.

And while we are at it... Why isn't he talking about Anti-Gentilism? Or that Jews are trained to develop an attitude reviling non-Jews? That reflects of course in their behavior towards non-Jews who will of course resent this leading to attitudes, he'd arrogantly call "Anti-Semitism".

That attitude manifests itself e.g. in their aptitude to identify other nations as "Amalek", which they claim they have a duty to exterminate. Genocide is literally part of their religion. Oh, perhaps he should out since when Jews started to declare German people to be Amalek or Western people in general as Edom. Perhaps that makes the conflict Germans had with Jews more understandable.

Today, though Amalek definitely and unfortunately exists, we cannot say with certainty who, or where, all of them are. However, there is a noteworthy exception. When Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany visited Jerusalem during his journey to the Holy Land almost all the religious leaders of Jerusalem came to the city gates to greet him. Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (d.1932), the spiritual leader of Ashkenazic Jewry in Israel at that time, did not go. When asked about his refusal he answered that although the Kaiser himself was deserving of the honor bestowed upon him, “I have a tradition that Germany is Amalek.”
https://breslov.org/who-and-where-is-amalek-today/

Kaiser Wilhelm visited Jerusalem 1898. That's before World War One, before the NSDAP was founded. Germany was the most liberal country towards Jews at the time. But yeah, “I have a tradition that Germany is Amalek.” says the 'spiritual leader of Ashkenazic Jewry in Israel'.

[Revision]

Our opponents are deliberately trying to push our views to the fringes and paint our movement as "conspiratorial". Sadly too many of our people still believe more our opponent's propaganda of us than the views of our own researchers and writers.

Bradley Smith, the founder of CODOH, didn't even believe things like 9/11 truther stuff, and it's quite sad to see so many of you doing it. viewtopic.php?f=29&t=14547

One of the standard charges leveled against Holocaust revisionism by Deborah Lipstadt is that it is a groundless “conspiracy theory.” She describes “Holocaust deniers” as “a group motivated by a strange conglomeration of conspiracy theories, delusions, and neo-Nazi tendencies.”

https://codoh.com/library/document/jewi ... timony/en/

Thomas Dalton sums some tactics of our opponents in his book "The Holocaust: An Introduction: Exploring the Evidence" (p. 112):

Misleading presentation of revisionism and the leading revisionists: no mention at all of Mattogno, Rudolf, Graf, Kues, or Berg, nor anything at all on their many important publications through 2010. Silence on many of the same key issues: nothing on the ‘6 million,’ Hitler’s actual words, deportation plans, incriminating air photos, or the glaring absence of bodies or remains. And straw-man arguments: emphasis on ‘hoax,’ ‘myth,’ evidence fabrication, and the idea that ‘the Holocaust never happened.’

We should also stop using words that really HURT our cause. Thomas Dalton in his book "Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides" (p. 30):

"Traditionalists in turn leap on this hoax label and use it to their advantage. They take it to mean a kind of global conspiracy, a large-scale collective effort to deceive the general public. They say, 'Those deniers actually believe that the Jews could pull off this monumental fraud! They actually think that thousands of historians, writers, journalists, government leaders — everyone, in fact, who supports the standard view — are in on the scam, all conspiring to assist the powerful Jews. How stupid can they be?' And there is some weight to this. You cannot claim massive fraud without a solid basis for it. If someone lies, call it a lie. If someone utters a blatant absurdity, call it absurd. Revisionists risk looking foolish, and only hurt their cause, by arguing for a hoax."

[fireofice]

Bradley Smith, the founder of CODOH, didn't even believe things like 9/11 truther stuff, and it's quite sad to see so many of you doing it.

My position on 9/11 truther stuff is quite simple. We know the US and Israeli governments have worked with Islamic terrorists for their own ends before and after 9/11, so why not during 9/11? This is a very reasonable position to hold and not crazy in the slightest. It has only gotten the reputation of being crazy because others with claims about controlled demolitions and holograms get thrown in. But if you just narrow it down to what I've laid out, I don't see what there is to take issue with. In fact, the claim that they weren't involved in just that specific timeframe seems kind of weird to me.

[Revision]

I agree that those theories about "controlled demolitions" and "holograms" are way crazier than your view, but I still can't accept your view.

The United States helped islamic Mujahideen during the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989) to limit the expansion of their greatest rival, the Soviet union. Bin Laden was also fighting against that atheistic superpower, but he hated American imperialism also.

Bin Laden's teacher and mentor and co-founder of the Al-Qaeda was a Palestinian jihadist, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.

Why Do They Hate the US?: