BA's case for orthodoxy

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 3 months 3 days ago (Tue Mar 07, 2023 3:28 am)

hermod wrote:[....
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated (liquidiert) whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor.


Clearly, in Goebbels' mind, evacuation eastward does not preclude mass killing. To me this is blatant use of euphemistic language and casts doubt about similar language seen in his diaries. But at times he is explicit about the fate of the Jews


According to Goebbels' personal press expert (a man informing Goebbels on enemy propaganda on a daily basis), Moritz von Schirmeister, Goebbels and his close collaborators made several inquiries about the alleged German death camps "at the RSHA or other authorities concerned " and "again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." "



....[/quote]

Hans Fritzsche made similar statements at the Nuremberg trial. He only found out in Nuremberg about 'extermination'.
And apparently they made enquiries. It is of course suggested that the RSHA was lying about the camps. Since all NS-organizations were smashed 1945, who could possibly contradict them. Virtually nobody.

What duped the Nuremberg accused was the 'Nazi Concentration Camps' movie made by the Allies:


It even got Nordhausen in as example for "Nazi atrocities". Well, I don't think it is a dispute that the death was due to the Allies bombing an infirmary with prisoners. What the footage actually proved is that the Allies were pathological liars. They had no problem of skewing any information in a way that was suitable for the narrative they were trying to create.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 3 months 3 days ago (Tue Mar 07, 2023 8:57 am)

Hektor wrote:
hermod wrote:
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated (liquidiert) whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor.


Clearly, in Goebbels' mind, evacuation eastward does not preclude mass killing. To me this is blatant use of euphemistic language and casts doubt about similar language seen in his diaries. But at times he is explicit about the fate of the Jews


According to Goebbels' personal press expert (a man informing Goebbels on enemy propaganda on a daily basis), Moritz von Schirmeister, Goebbels and his close collaborators made several inquiries about the alleged German death camps "at the RSHA or other authorities concerned " and "again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." "




Hans Fritzsche made similar statements at the Nuremberg trial. He only found out in Nuremberg about 'extermination'.
And apparently they made enquiries. It is of course suggested that the RSHA was lying about the camps. Since all NS-organizations were smashed 1945, who could possibly contradict them. Virtually nobody.



That doesn't change the point that Goebbels believed the Nazi extermination of the Jews was just a big Jewish propaganda lie, according to the information (exterminationists say "disinformation") available to him at that time.



Hektor wrote:What duped the Nuremberg accused was the 'Nazi Concentration Camps' movie made by the Allies:


It even got Nordhausen in as example for "Nazi atrocities". Well, I don't think it is a dispute that the death was due to the Allies bombing an infirmary with prisoners. What the footage actually proved is that the Allies were pathological liars. They had no problem of skewing any information in a way that was suitable for the narrative they were trying to create.


That's how it was reported by Allied newspapers...



... until Eisenhower finally realized that such horrific scenes of war devastation could be used to deceive the public in order to legitimize the unprecedented titanic Soviet-Allied destructions in Germany and the postwar brainwashing ("re-education") of the German people with a fabricated moral high ground of the Soviet-Allied side (No superheroes without supervillains, isn't it?).





Image
https://postimg.cc/G9Y9bQfG
(published in 1949, not 1943)
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 3 months 2 days ago (Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:22 am)

hermod wrote:
Hektor wrote:
hermod wrote:

Clearly, in Goebbels' mind, evacuation eastward does not preclude mass killing. To me this is blatant use of euphemistic language and casts doubt about similar language seen in his diaries. But at times he is explicit about the fate of the Jews


According to Goebbels' personal press expert (a man informing Goebbels on enemy propaganda on a daily basis), Moritz von Schirmeister, Goebbels and his close collaborators made several inquiries about the alleged German death camps "at the RSHA or other authorities concerned " and "again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." "




Hans Fritzsche made similar statements at the Nuremberg trial. He only found out in Nuremberg about 'extermination'.
And apparently they made enquiries. It is of course suggested that the RSHA was lying about the camps. Since all NS-organizations were smashed 1945, who could possibly contradict them. Virtually nobody.



That doesn't change the point that Goebbels believed the Nazi extermination of the Jews was just a big Jewish propaganda lie, according to the information (exterminationists say "disinformation") available to him at that time.


The fact that they don't stipulate clearly that Goebbels viewed it as a propaganda lie, demonstrates that they are dishonest even from their POV. You can hold the view that the Holocaust is true. But be at least honest that the top NS-figures DID NOT believe in this.

hermod wrote:
Hektor wrote:....
It even got Nordhausen in as example for "Nazi atrocities". Well, I don't think it is a dispute that the death was due to the Allies bombing an infirmary with prisoners. What the footage actually proved is that the Allies were pathological liars. They had no problem of skewing any information in a way that was suitable for the narrative they were trying to create.


That's how it was reported by Allied newspapers...




So claiming Nordhausen as an extermination camp wasn't an innocent mistake?
It is however a give away that the Allied outrage about "Nazi atrocities" was nothing, but a dishonest charade. The motive was highly political and for those involved shear opportunism to advance their careers. I'm sure, if a sykewarrior wanted to become a journalist or be promoted. Having "I discovered the gas chambers in Germany" would give him a boost in reputation.



hermod wrote:... until Eisenhower finally realized that such horrific scenes of war devastation could be used to deceive the public in order to legitimize the unprecedented titanic Soviet-Allied destructions in Germany and the postwar brainwashing ("re-education") of the German people with a fabricated moral high ground of the Soviet-Allied side (No superheroes without supervillains, isn't it?).


...


But I noticed something from past debates. Once you demonstrate to your listeners that the claims about a specific camps were nothing but propaganda lies, they simply jump to another camp, but Buchenwald, but Dachau, but Auschwitz, but Treblinka, etc. If they run out of camps, they jump to "But what about Hitler's war for world conquest". It's quite ridiculous, but it seems people are simply wired like this. It does however seem that people that were confronted with 'Holocaust Denial' and heard some sound counter arguments, tend to be more open for arguments on a later stage. It also seems that the Holocaust poison is less effective on them. Meaning they are not as receptive to adapt the 'political morality' based on Holocaust Dogma.

But to say it again. Those pushing Holocaust Dogma are not honest in their presentation of the evidentiary record. They leave out that the top NS-figures did not believe in it and that those accused in Nuremberg were actually taken by surprise. Additionally they leave out that the propaganda movies were strongly dishonest in their presentation of 'evidence for Nazi atrocities'. The economic situation of early 1945 in Germany is completely ignored, while it is actually pretty plausible that distribution of food within Germany became more difficult. It isn't astonishing that prisoners became sick, starved and died. What is astonishing is that there were ANY survivors at all given the context in which things were happening.

Omitting this is highly dishonest intellectually. But then, if you are pushing a malicious agenda honesty is only of interest to you as appearance to your audience. It's irrelevant for the story that you puzzle together to make your case.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 3 months 2 days ago (Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:21 am)

Hektor wrote:The fact that they don't stipulate clearly that Goebbels viewed it as a propaganda lie, demonstrates that they are dishonest even from their POV. You can hold the view that the Holocaust is true. But be at least honest that the top NS-figures DID NOT believe in this.


If they do that, they can't distort the statements made by some top NS-figures to "prove" and "document" their dear unproven and undocumented myth.


Hektor wrote:So claiming Nordhausen as an extermination camp wasn't an innocent mistake?
It is however a give away that the Allied outrage about "Nazi atrocities" was nothing, but a dishonest charade. The motive was highly political and for those involved shear opportunism to advance their careers. I'm sure, if a sykewarrior wanted to become a journalist or be promoted. Having "I discovered the gas chambers in Germany" would give him a boost in reputation.


It certainly was. That's the reason why some syke warriors also claimed that the Allied "liberators" captured Nazi gas chambers in Belgium (Breendonk, Antwerp) and in Western camps such as Buchenwald and Belsen.







Image
Liberation of Buchenwald
U.S. soldier asking camp inmates: "Where are the gas chambers? "



Hektor wrote:But I noticed something from past debates. Once you demonstrate to your listeners that the claims about a specific camps were nothing but propaganda lies, they simply jump to another camp, but Buchenwald, but Dachau, but Auschwitz, but Treblinka, etc. If they run out of camps, they jump to "But what about Hitler's war for world conquest". It's quite ridiculous, but it seems people are simply wired like this. It does however seem that people that were confronted with 'Holocaust Denial' and heard some sound counter arguments, tend to be more open for arguments on a later stage. It also seems that the Holocaust poison is less effective on them. Meaning they are not as receptive to adapt the 'political morality' based on Holocaust Dogma.

But to say it again. Those pushing Holocaust Dogma are not honest in their presentation of the evidentiary record. They leave out that the top NS-figures did not believe in it and that those accused in Nuremberg were actually taken by surprise. Additionally they leave out that the propaganda movies were strongly dishonest in their presentation of 'evidence for Nazi atrocities'. The economic situation of early 1945 in Germany is completely ignored, while it is actually pretty plausible that distribution of food within Germany became more difficult. It isn't astonishing that prisoners became sick, starved and died. What is astonishing is that there were ANY survivors at all given the context in which things were happening.

Omitting this is highly dishonest intellectually. But then, if you are pushing a malicious agenda honesty is only of interest to you as appearance to your audience. It's irrelevant for the story that you puzzle together to make your case.


The Holohoax is their most cherished belief and the alleged Supreme Evilness of Nazism is at the core of their moral standards and values. As any religious fanatic, they'd rather let their relatives be killed than their most cherished beliefs be demolished. Talking to them is no dialogue. They're not debating. They're just preaching. Antirevisionist propagandist Robert Jan Van Pelt once said that "we" (i.e. normies) would have to go to a madhouse without the Holocaust as a moral compass. I think that he was right on that one.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

hannef
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2023 5:46 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hannef » 3 months 11 hours ago (Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:39 am)

bombsaway wrote:
Lamprecht wrote:Speculation is necessary here since you refuse to provide a case for the pits.


I don't know where you're getting this impression. I'm just trying to answer your questions at this point, and I'm sorry for not responding to everything or even most of what you have to say. I simply don't have time (your posts can be very long, and if I wanted to answer sufficiently, my responses would be much longer). 

I will now provide my case in very broad strokes and hopefully you understand where I'm coming from. I believe in the orthodox hypothesis in a probabilistic sense, based on a few things: 

1, the collective strength of the witness and documentary evidence that supports this hypothesis. Testimonies and documents don't carry much weight alone, but when combined with others the probative value increases incrementally. If there are hundreds of documents or testimonies, the evidentiary case becomes very strong. 

2, I don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox, and very few that do in a modest way (one example would be Himmler's "transit camp Sobibor" )

3, that no viable counter hypothesis has been presented really dampens the overall revisionist critique. As I said before I have a strong assumption that in modern times, the fate of millions will be traceable in terms of witness and documentary evidence. So any hypothesis that doesn't fulfill this condition is untenable for me. It's not that it has been proven false, just that I can't accept it as true, especially if it's competing against a theory that does explain in detail what happened to these people.

As for the pits themselves, they are part of the orthodox narrative. I think if one accepts the historicity of a genocidal program at extermination centers, the existence of pits at these camps automatically becomes likely. That witness testimony and documents exist evincing mass burial and body disposal makes this likelihood an all but certainty for me.


Thank you for this outline. With the below, I refer only to homicidal gas chamber claims.

1. people going missing + a rumour extant in the camps = conclusion = over time people believing it to be the truth. as for documents, see point two.

2. orthodoxy provides zero documents explicitly referring to gassing, even in the British decodes. if "liquidieren" is code, why is it so obvious; if it is not code, why not say one of these words with clearer meaning. And why does the original German word differ so much over the body of documents. It should be explicit and clear with no room for misinterpretation.

töten - kill, kill off, deaden
umbringen - kill, murder, slay, make away with
vernichten - destroy, annihilate, crush, kill, exterminate, obliterate
erschlagen - kill, slay, strike dead
killen - kill, murder, do in, hit, bump off
totschlagen - kill, swat, beat to death
schlachten - slaughter, butcher
zerstören - destroy, ruin, demolish, wreck, spoil, raze
morden - murder, kill, slay
erlegen - kill, shoot, bag
zunichte machen - destroy, negate, cancel out, undo, wipe out, kill

there are many documents showing no gassings to the same degree as the orthodox documents show gassings. e.g. postcards from camps; aerial photographs of camps; Red Cross examinations. there are also a lack of documents where we may expect to see them, were gassings taking place, e.g. letters sent abroad from contractors who visited the camps to deliver goods or repair equipment or utilities; a mention of gassings in Churchill's The Second World War (although he may have wanted to avoid drawing attention to "G-Day," which is almost completely buried to this day); personal letters sent from camp staff to their relatives telling them of the gassings and to keep it a secret. remember that civilian international mail was not censored or restricted.

3. I understand your position. and for a while I grappled with that too. But remember the iron curtain. also all the people who were reunited. and the people who died from disease. is it possible the British understated the number that died at Bergen-Belsen, for example, to avoid embarrassment, despite that it was already higher than the German figure there. The counter-hypthesis is simple: where are the bodies at Treblinka? 650,000 buried there. show it to be true and I will probably shut up for good...

You're right that it isn't proven false. But to consider something proven true with eyewitness and document presumption... this was in the 1940s, not the 1800s. We should have something scientific to back up the claims.

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Zulu » 3 months 6 hours ago (Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:28 pm)

Jäger wrote:
PrudentRegret wrote:
bombsaway wrote:2 hectares is 20,000 square meters, that's a big space.


How much space does it take to bury the ashes of 700,000 people? Serious question, I'm not sure.

According to this source (https://doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/publications/Chapter_21_Disposal_of_Dead_Persons.pdf) I just found, a cremains container must have a minimum capacity of only 0.0049 cubic meters. If you scale that up, it would only take 3,430 cubic meters to contain the ashes of 700,000 people. Even accounting for a crude and less-than-perfect cremation procedure, and many bodies not cremated at all, and various proportions of these mixtures, out of 20,000-some meters (if that is indeed all there is), and not accounting for cremation ashes scattered in fields, roads, etc. it seems to me like there would be enough space.


Don't forget that those corpses were buried BEFORE allegedly being burned. The initial pits have a far larger volume than the one you mention for the ashes. By modern means like GPS (Ground Penetrating Radar) it is possible to detect nowadays the previous pits and define their dimensions thanks to the difference of density of the ground. That system was firstly used by an Australian revisionist Richard Krege at Treblinka and was lately used by Caroline Sturdy Cole including aerial measurement. No large pits consistent with the exterminationist narrative were ever found. BTW, nothing was found concerning the expected quantity of teeth or bones remains.

Furthermore, in order to burn 700.000 corpses, 105.000 tons of dry wood would be needed. I take an underestimated need of 150kg per corpse. In India they use 400 kg to cremate 1 body in similar conditions. The exterminationists don't explain from where all that dry wood came from. The zone around that camp doesn't show any trace of huge deforestation. No trace of documents for providers, orders, bordereaux, transports of such a quantity of material.
That simple fact casts serious doubt about the main "testimonies" of that alleged operation like those of Samuel Rajzman or Jankiel Wiernik who have NEVER mentioned the huge manpower needed for the handling of such a quantity of wood. They tells about small branches under rails while for each corpse moved, at least 3 times more weight of wood would have to be handled which means 3 times more men allowed than for the handling of corpses. How can an "eyewitness" could forget that fact?

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 532
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Zulu » 3 months 6 hours ago (Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:39 pm)

Some Dude wrote:
Lamprecht wrote:Consider that that there is no actual date, because it did not happen.


Um, what?

We don't know the date on which Shakespeare was born, although we can make an educated guess. Does that mean he wasn't born, since we don't have an actual date?

But nobody claims that the the birth of Shakespeare is the most documented fact in history. If it were, that date would be perfectly established.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:03 am)

There is no way that several hundred people are killed in an area and nobody finds the graves afterwards.

So, if the claims were true plenty of evidence would have been found for decades, not just some shallow graves and then claiming that this somehow proves millions were killed.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Mar 12, 2023 8:51 am)

Hektor wrote:There is no way that several hundred people are killed in an area and nobody finds the graves afterwards.

So, if the claims were true plenty of evidence would have been found for decades, not just some shallow graves and then claiming that this somehow proves millions were killed.


The liars told the world almost 2 years before the end of WWII that they wouldn't provide any physical evidence for their allegations.

"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:23 am)

hermod wrote:
Hektor wrote:There is no way that several hundred people are killed in an area and nobody finds the graves afterwards.

So, if the claims were true plenty of evidence would have been found for decades, not just some shallow graves and then claiming that this somehow proves millions were killed.


The liars told the world almost 2 years before the end of WWII that they wouldn't provide any physical evidence for their allegations.




Now that's highly interesting.

They actually realized that evidence would be a problem. Hence simply claim that the dog ate the homework.

Amazing that even educated people fall for this kind of trick.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3233
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby borjastick » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:22 am)

Hektor wrote:
hermod wrote:
Hektor wrote:There is no way that several hundred people are killed in an area and nobody finds the graves afterwards.

So, if the claims were true plenty of evidence would have been found for decades, not just some shallow graves and then claiming that this somehow proves millions were killed.


The liars told the world almost 2 years before the end of WWII that they wouldn't provide any physical evidence for their allegations.




Now that's highly interesting.

They actually realized that evidence would be a problem. Hence simply claim that the dog ate the homework.

Amazing that even educated people fall for this kind of trick.


And yet in an open location with visual access from most sides there were no pictures taken and no records from locals of smoke, smell and disruption caused by the necessary hundreds or thousands of tons of wood required to do the job which would have taken months.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 2 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:34 am)

borjastick wrote:....

And yet in an open location with visual access from most sides there were no pictures taken and no records from locals of smoke, smell and disruption caused by the necessary hundreds or thousands of tons of wood required to do the job which would have taken months.



I recall somebody posting a rather suspicious letter telling that they should take care of 'foul stench' at some place far away of himself.


I just wondered. Assume it was a real letter: Is this really what they have to go to to prove that there were mass executions at some place?

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:34 am)

Hektor wrote:
hermod wrote:The liars told the world almost 2 years before the end of WWII that they wouldn't provide any physical evidence for their allegations.




Now that's highly interesting.

They actually realized that evidence would be a problem. Hence simply claim that the dog ate the homework.

Amazing that even educated people fall for this kind of trick.


The dog ate my homework analogy is a very good one. :cheers:
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 5168
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby Hektor » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Mar 14, 2023 3:17 am)

With a dry morbid subject a little humor can't be wrong. But be careful, like many cults, Holocaustianity hates humor like it's from the devil. They want you to approach the matter with a serious face, bleeding heart, pity, shame and to 'pay respect to the victims'. Anyone cracking a joke, will approached like a rude, if not 'terrible person'.

There is of course a reason they hate humor. It's because of it's unfreezing effects. And they don't want this to happen, after they have done some 'refreezing' themselves on people. Their unfreezing works with shock and awe done via the propaganda movies. Which they deceptively call 'historical information'. It of course includes the sykewar footage on 'concentration camps', which is misleading as it suggests 'starving people' in the camps were the result of a (NS-German) extermination policy. Which they clearly were not.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: BA's case for orthodoxy

Postby hermod » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:45 am)

Hektor wrote:With a dry morbid subject a little humor can't be wrong. But be careful, like many cults, Holocaustianity hates humor like it's from the devil. They want you to approach the matter with a serious face, bleeding heart, pity, shame and to 'pay respect to the victims'. Anyone cracking a joke, will approached like a rude, if not 'terrible person'.


Yeah, I know. I like it when some "progressivists" who spent most of their lives mocking and defiling all that is dear to me go crazy because some clueless teenagers made a few selfies when touring a former German concentration camp. Taking a shit in their cathedrals always infuriates them very much. :bootyshake: :lol:
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed.
"

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests