Source of "blond hair blue eyes" myth?

[Reviso]

Already in 1939, the makers of Chaplin's film had imagined the unimaginable nazi horrors.

[Hektor]

The issue is of course that the 6 million tale is peddled before it is alleged to have happened afterwards.
But don't think this will lead Holocaustians to reconsider their stance. They simply will claim that this was 'affirmed' after the war. That the prophets were right and in their eyes it increases the credibility of both the prophets and letter historians.

Yes, I know. There is no amount of [alleged] amazing coincidences the normies can't take and brush aside in order to save their favorite conspiracy theory and hence the main founding myth of their current moral standards. Always an astonishing lesson in denialism.

That sums it up:
* The pretend to be enlightened rationalists, but their narrative is a chain of miracles and improbabilities. It only gets believable, if you presume diabolical evil.
* The call everybody that doubts their narrative a conspiracy theorist, meanwhile their narrative itself is essentially a grant conspiracy theory.
* The myth serves the purpose of being a justifying belief for their politicized moralizing at the same time it is a hammer against personal virtue like loyalty to ones own group, love for ones relatives, patriotism, etc.

Already in 1939, the makers of Chaplin's film had imagined the unimaginable nazi horrors.

And that's what is actually a give away in all this. Of all imaginable horrors, they picked the once that would become those the Allies would ultimately accuse NS-Germany of. This while the vast majority of Germans were actually clue-less about this.

[hermod]

Already in 1939, the makers of Chaplin's film had imagined the unimaginable nazi horrors.

Or more accurately, the so-called "unimaginable nazi horrors" we're always told about were mere atrocity propaganda lies that were imagined long before WWII (i.e. mostly a rehash of the best atrocity stories from the previous world war) and allegedly proved by the false captioning of the titanic health disaster caused by the Allies in the last operational prison camps of a country deliberatly bombed back to the Stone Age (as later conceded by the notorious anti-Nazi Jewess Hannah Arendt).

https://postimg.cc/dL4vVcFS

https://postimg.cc/Mvt6YTwx

https://postimg.cc/vxBcXGVF

[hermod]

Yes, I know. There is no amount of [alleged] amazing coincidences the normies can't take and brush aside in order to save their favorite conspiracy theory and hence the main founding myth of their current moral standards. Always an astonishing lesson in denialism.

That sums it up:
* They pretend to be enlightened rationalists, but their narrative is a chain of miracles and improbabilities. It only gets believable, if you presume diabolical evil.
* They call everybody that doubts their narrative a conspiracy theorist, meanwhile their narrative itself is essentially a grant conspiracy theory.
* The myth serves the purpose of being a justifying belief for their politicized moralizing at the same time it is a hammer against personal virtue like loyalty to ones own group, love for ones relatives, patriotism, etc.

But tell them that the victors' indictement in Nuremberg entirely rested on the alleged existence of a grand Nazi conspiracy to perpetrate crimes (count one of the indictment) and they go crazy in the minute.

At the Nuremberg show trial, U.S. chief prosecutor Jackson had to explain that such a conspiracy case implies the postulate that the alleged crimes took place. The victors of WWII never tried to prove that those alleged crimes had actually taken place. Such a thing was postulated from day one. They rather tried to "prove" that some specific Nazi leaders had conspired to make those alleged crimes take place. Roughly, they did that by securing false testimonies from alleged insiders trying to get a softer treament for themselves and their families.

https://postimg.cc/k66SPyd2

https://postimg.cc/TKhhDYgR

https://postimg.cc/nXx9V3KN

[Hektor]

Yes, I know. There is no amount of [alleged] amazing coincidences the normies can't take and brush aside in order to save their favorite conspiracy theory and hence the main founding myth of their current moral standards. Always an astonishing lesson in denialism.

That sums it up:
* They pretend to be enlightened rationalists, but their narrative is a chain of miracles and improbabilities. It only gets believable, if you presume diabolical evil.
* They call everybody that doubts their narrative a conspiracy theorist, meanwhile their narrative itself is essentially a grant conspiracy theory.
* The myth serves the purpose of being a justifying belief for their politicized moralizing at the same time it is a hammer against personal virtue like loyalty to ones own group, love for ones relatives, patriotism, etc.

But tell them that the victors' indictment in Nuremberg entirely rested on the alleged existence of a grand Nazi conspiracy to perpetrate crimes (count one of the indictment) and they go crazy in the minute.

At the Nuremberg show trial, U.S. chief prosecutor Jackson had to explain that such a conspiracy case implies the postulate that the alleged crimes took place. The victors of WWII never tried to prove that those alleged crimes had actually taken place. Such a thing was postulated from day one. They rather tried to "prove" that some specific Nazi leaders had conspired to make those alleged crimes take place. Roughly, they did that by securing false testimonies from alleged insiders trying to get a softer treatment for themselves and their families.
....

I think there were some attempts at investigation, but they were quickly given up in favor of getting hostile witnesses making the wildest accusations.


And that charade was a rather successful one.
Even the Nuremberg accused started to believe that what the Allies alleged "did happen" even if it was without their knowledge. Several did dispute knowledge about the 'extermination program' alleged by the Allies. But video footage plus testimonies, plus perpetual repetition of the accusations did take their toll on them. That does not proof that 'it' took place. What that proves is that 'social psychology' works, if it is applied in a crafty and well-organized fashion. That's what psychological warfare did and they did it successful. So successful that even while the psychological warfare was rather blatant and deceptive, people seem not even to take not notice of it. They ignore that Allies and their media had ample motives to lie and accuse their enemies, they ignore even that psychological warfare was present whenever 'crime scenes were discovered'. They also ignore that thought reform (reeducation) was part of the Allied war and occupation effort long after 1945. When people are confronted with this, they sometimes will try to dispute this, realizing that this casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations. But more often they even embrace this. "Yeah, given what happened, the reeducation was for sure necessary'. It's as if those affected by it, get ego-defensive once confronted with the matter.

What Jackson and others said in Nuremberg (and put on record) is rather exposing in many ways. Jackson said that the trial is part of the Allied war effort. That it isn't bound to the rules of evidence. That it has no bearing on the respective legal systems of the prosecuting countries.

The IMT trial records are a huge give-away of the charade itself. It doesn't proof the guilt of the accused, neither of the validity of the accusations itself. But it does demonstrate that what really happened wasn't remotely what the accusation tried to push through. To know this and understand that a high input of reading, thinking, reflecting and some distance to prejudices and emotional investments is however necessary. Resources and capabilities the vast majority of people does not have. It is also as if they don't care about what really happened and what didn't. It is as if they want 'the Holocaust to be true' as if their whole world view, ego, lifestyle, value system depends on it. And in a sense lots of post WW2 Western thought and attitudes does. Judeophiles and those idolizing Israel would have a hard time, if it wasn't for the Holocaust. All the cosmopolitical and globalist policies would have to take nationalist or patriotic critique of their policies and goals seriously. Multiculturalism, Sexual Deviance, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism all would have a far more difficult, if they couldn't invoke Hitler and the Holocaust, which mostly happens implicitly. You can notice this within debates/disputes between culturally conservatives and culturally progressives.
Hitler and National Socialism ticked positively on almost any of the culturally conservative positions. And since Hitler/NS are evil this has to be dismissed or is 'indefensible'.

In fact occasionally social conservatives will point to something Hitler/NS allegedly did or said that deviated from cultural conservatism. I think there was some discussion in 1944, whether an exception to monogamy would have to be made after WW2, due to the huge loss in men of marriage age, which could mean that a lot of women wouldn't be able to find a suitable husband. But, well. It wasn't suggested as 'equally valid'. For most of it National Socialists supported traditional family. Father-Mother-Children. Respect for parents. Being a productive member of the community. Being loyal to community, folk and fatherland. Being honest, hard-working, modest in consumption.... With Reeducation and 'Recycling of History' ("Aufarbeitung der Geschichte") this all was given a bad name and the ideal became the 'self-realizing' individuals that lived out its supposedly raw desires. It was a weaponization of historiography against the historical identities and values of targeted people. Prime example being the Germans, but similar methods were used against other people, especially when they were White and from a occidental, christian heritage. It's virtually never applied to non-White, non-christian ethnicities as those aren't seen as that relevant and also not seen as a threat to globalist ambitions. The Key text for this is of course Theodor Adorno's "Was bedeutet Aufarbeitung de Geschichte?". It is very well formulated clad into language that hides the aggression, while actually letting you know what their plan is and what their goals are. Their first target were of course any positive memories of Germans about their recent pre-1945 past. But the link to NS was only superficially. The aim were sentiments linked to conservativism. Gaslighting Germans about National Socialism was only a milestone in this. With time that seems to have happened everywhere in Western countries. Partially because one academic elite copies the ideas and themes from other academic elites with some countries having a lead in this.

[hermod]

I think there were some attempts at investigation, but they were quickly given up in favor of getting hostile witnesses making the wildest accusations.

If there were some attempts at investigation, they hadn't made it to the Auschwitz-Belsen show trial at Lüneburg in September 1945. There, the Nazi gas chambers were "proved" by 2 divergent testimonies (Ada Bimko & Zofia Litwinska) at variance with the orthodox narrative. But the climax of the farce was reached when a British prosecutor (Colonel T.M. Backhouse) concluded with the words: "I think you will be satisfied by now that there was a gas chamber."

https://postimg.cc/1fQc7ZgP

https://postimg.cc/3yCK7MvZ

https://postimg.cc/ZCxP1D3N

https://postimg.cc/mPdYrzm2

https://postimg.cc/YGrtCXNB

https://postimg.cc/9R9Z1xCr

https://postimg.cc/N2wTn1jb

And that charade was a rather successful one.
Even the Nuremberg accused started to believe that what the Allies alleged "did happen" even if it was without their knowledge. Several did dispute knowledge about the 'extermination program' alleged by the Allies. But video footage plus testimonies, plus perpetual repetition of the accusations did take their toll on them. That does not proof that 'it' took place. What that proves is that 'social psychology' works, if it is applied in a crafty and well-organized fashion. That's what psychological warfare did and they did it successful. So successful that even while the psychological warfare was rather blatant and deceptive, people seem not even to take not notice of it. They ignore that Allies and their media had ample motives to lie and accuse their enemies, they ignore even that psychological warfare was present whenever 'crime scenes were discovered'. They also ignore that thought reform (reeducation) was part of the Allied war and occupation effort long after 1945. When people are confronted with this, they sometimes will try to dispute this, realizing that this casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations. But more often they even embrace this. "Yeah, given what happened, the reeducation was for sure necessary'. It's as if those affected by it, get ego-defensive once confronted with the matter.

They are always astonished when they're told that the 'crime scenes' they're brandishing as an ultimate weapon are mere pics of a health disaster in camps no longer labelled as death camps.