Many people are starting to realize in modernity that much of what they've been told is a lie, how deep that lie goes is something many aren't ready for. That's what I mean what I say "too soon". When you realize you've been lied to, it hurts already, knowing the extent is something that might be "too soon" for many.
A girl in my office just got back from Germany and talked about Auschwitz and how 1.25m Jews died there alone. Then went on to talk about a book she read about Jewish Holocaust survivors who were able to survive because of "love". So millions of jews died but the ones who survived were able to survive because they found love. That sounds reasonable? Not a story or anything... Just love others and you too can survive millions of people being slaughtered in internment camps.
“The idea that Germans were normal people and then one day they went absolutely crazy and started randomly hating Jews for no good reason and then they calmed down and now they are normal again is hilarious”
Anyone who tells you only in Germany there was a disdain for Jews in the 19th and 20th century is trying to lie to you. I never even knew about this until I actually looked into it a couple years ago, I always learned in school only in Germany there were anti semites etc.
Anyone who tells you that antisemitism wasn't rampant in the 19th and 20th centuries is lying to you. All the books are still around. You can read them. It's not even a solely German thing.
Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in the 1500's. He first sought to convert and redeem the jews, but later found that to be an exercise in futility.
En masse? Plenty of individual jews converted and were among the early settlers of America. Their families had already integrated and been living in Europe for centuries as Christians.
Exactly. School taught me otherwise and I had to seek out that knowledge myself. I'm not alone with being taught wrong, probably thousands upon thousands more never learned that..
Pbbt. There is no "before Islam had it's feud with X". The only time Islam doesn't have a feud is when Islam doesn't know what X is and hasn't met it yet.
Hillaire Belloc's 1922 book The Jews is a good look at this. Belloc wasn't a big fan of Jews, which is why he was the right man to write this - because he foresaw a genocide if things continued the way they were going, and decided that even if he didn't personally care for them, he didn't really want to see a genocide happen. It's a good look at the causes and degree of antisemitism in the early 20th century, throughout the Western world and not particular to just Germany.
The idea that the Australians were normal people, and then one day they went absolutely crazy and started blaming all their problems on the "unvaccinated", and then they calmed down is obviously impossible.
Well yeah -- pretty much all of the western world has been under a sustained propaganda campaign for the better part of a century now. They didn't just go absolutely crazy one day, they've been boiled slowly for decades.
Once you have the environment primed for a wildfire, all it takes is a spark to set it off.
Yes, that is the intent of the propaganda. That's how pre-genocidal rhetoric works.
The shit the establishment said about jews before the holocaust isn't as bad as the shit they say about whites. Might be a fucking fucking problem. Might be a good idea to learn from past events.
Starving people to death takes time. Dachau could wipe out an entire trainload of people within 45 minutes from arrival. Having to keep people alive for weeks or even months is a huge waste of resources when you can do it in less than an hour. It also allows the camps to swell, and potentially cause rebellions. Starving people is only one aspect of an effort to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
This is what happened in the Civil War, actually; one of the few Southern PoW camps had abysmal survival rates due to the fact that they just didn't have enough goddamn food to go around.
It's been a while since I cracked open the books, but IIRC, the commander in charge of said camp was one of the only Southern commanders that was executed after the war.
so that the winners could make themselves out to be the heroes while distracting everyone from all the atrocities they committed.
I never learned about the literal tornadoes of fire that the Allies inflicted upon a civilian population center when they firebombed the ever-loving fuck out of Dresden and then gunned down the survivors fleeing in the woods the morning after. Funny how they leave that part out of the history lessons in school.
This is a new interpretation: the Zionists had the Germans intentionally starve the jews to death to get the state of Israel as an elaborate plot. This is, frankly, the dumbest way to try and get statehood that I've ever heard but okay. The other stuff about allied countries not taking in jews is true. Yes Germany didn't exactly try to deport them, as much as exile them and rob them of all their possessions in Germany. Being socialists, the jews were considered a bourgeois race that had stolen all wealth they had accrued, thus all wealth could be taken back. And they would be deported to... Madagascar: a tribal and undeveloped island after being robbed of all worldly possession. In reality, deporting was never a solution because the goal was to exterminate jews as a whole because Judeo-Bolshevism suggested that they were a plague upon all nations already, so killing them would save Europe. Deporting them, on the other hand, would keep them alive, and keep them a threat to Europe.
This also ignores the fact that the holocaust was undertaken for speed and efficiency. Same reason you shouldn't be using bullets to shoot every jew in a war: you run out of bullets when you're trying to kill all the jews in Europe. Starvation is far too slow, and requires far too much space.
Even then, if we were to say that starvation as a method of execution was the only method in the holocaust, we can see that food was not rationed so tightly that it was impossible to feed jews. American POWs and Russian POWs were also starved in different rates depending on the political animosity that the Germans may have had towards the different groups. We see the Germans doing the same thing during WW1, as killing off the vast swathes of Russian prisoners by refusing to feed them happens in both wars, but it is the Russians being directly targeted with starvation over other groups. In WW2, the Jews get worse treatment than the Russians, which is really saying something.
So, all in all, there's plenty of issues with the original statement that could be disinformation, but there's other parts that aren't, but the real problem with it is actually just the fact that OP is asserting the jews conspired to commit the holocaust against themselves for Israel (which didn't exist yet).
This isn't so much about refuting claims as about responding to the idea that it's intentional disinformation. The claims are wrong, but are they disinformation, is it known to him to be intentionally false. Honestly, with Holocaust Deniers, it's hard to say. Genuinely, a lot of them are ideologically captured into this exclusively American National Socialist narrative that "the holocaust didn't happen but should have", where as none of the German National Socialists denied it. They accept why it happened, they accept that it should happen, but then they claim that somehow Hitler wasn't a massive hypocrite, tried to save the jews, but then the jews created this argument that he exterminated them.
That's certainly disingenuous enough to be considered something that is said to be intentionally false because it's so inconsistent, but adherence to Holocaust Denial seem to be entirely devoted to that contradiction (Excluding the weird realm of "holocaust skeptics" which aren't NatSocs but end up running around in circles trying to disprove it, and normally come to conclusions after years to: "Auschwitz doesn't real but Dachau is", or "It's not 6 million, it's 4 million, because we shouldn't count starvation or disease at concentration camps" or odd things like that... none of which are regularly presented here.)
So, I still want to explain my thinking about whether or not the comment is disinformation, opinion, or genuine belief, for transparency.
So why still remove the comment? Same reason I remove the comment even after explaining what it is when I remove it: that is still the official punishment for the comment.
Different experts, different evidence. How did I know that the "experts" that Pfizer paid to research the injections were right that there was no evidence to suggest that the injections would prevent infection? Because I saw their data. The "experts" that were brought on television were just wearing stethescopes and hadn't read a single thing. How about Climate Change? Why do I believe in it, yet I'm constantly shitting on claims about Climate Change? Because I read the data?
How do I know that the Holocaust happened? Physical evidence, witness testimony, admissions of guilt, planning and objectives, statements that the National Socialists made about needing to exterminate jews long before the first death camp was built?
There's as much evidence that the Holocaust happened as there is for the fucking moonlanding. There might even be more just because of sheer scale.
As for that specific number? It's the one that's been tested in the most detailed manner possible, including using the records of train embarkations and disembarkations. It also happens to be the smallest one so far. The Camp Commandant actually thought it might have been 3 million, and reduced it down to closer to 2 before he was executed. Even his figure was too high.
my take on the Ukraine conflict is that Russia basically won in their initial offensive by taking out Ukraine's military and air bases. however, backed by the United States and NATO, Ukrainian government refused to surrender and instead went full guerilla warfare mode. not wanting to fight in a major war against a major power after basically being defeated, the Ukrainian citizens tried to flee but were rounded up by the Ukrainian government and forced to fight. fast forward to now, Ukrainian government is fixated on perpetuating a losing war because the flow of money they get from aid is making them all rich, and the soldiers dying in the losing war is the most blatant form of blood money in modern history.
Didn't the war happened as a consequence of the USA blowing up that Russian pipeline to Europe? I expected Putin went something like "Welp, if I won't be allowed to make business this way, I'll ensure access to the Mediterranean sea for it."
This ones a new one too. Zelenski is attempting the demographic replacement of slavs with jews. Okay. Could be disinformation, but actually seems like regular crazy.
The r/conspiracy mod that Reddit got legacy media to lie on. Just like spez lied on Christian from the Apollo app thing to blackmail him, and had a temper tantrum when Christian proved Spez was a God Damned liar.
At 19:55 he estimates 40-50k Russians killed, but Prigozhin himself said 20k wagnerites had been killed just in Bakhmut. It doesn't seem like Bakhmut could represent 50% of all combat losses for Russia, but maybe - Pareto principle and all.
In addition, oryx documents visually confirmed losses of more than 10,000 Russian vehicles. It doesn't seem possible to have only a few people killed per vehicle destroyed - even just counting the crew of the vehicle gets you up there pretty fast.
At 31:44 he references a mexican cartel member allegedly having a javelin missile. This was a widely misreported story based on a video of a cartel member with what appears to be an AT4. The AT4 is used by at least 32 different countries, and cartels getting ahold of them is not new. Now, I would not want to be shot with an AT4, but it is unguided with an effective range of 300 meters, vs a javelin which is thermally guided and can hit targets at 2500-4000 meters depending on variant. Not exactly the same beast.
In addition, oryx documents visually confirmed losses of more than 10,000 Russian vehicles. It doesn't seem possible to have only a few people killed per vehicle destroyed - even just counting the crew of the vehicle gets you up there pretty fast.
I would recommend checking out some of the Chieftain's videos. Specifically his "Oh bugger. The tank is on fire." segments.
It takes a lot less to disable a vehicle - destroying a tire or breaking a tread - than to destroy a vehicle, but a crew will abandon a disabled vehicle long before it is destroyed by the next tank crew who thinks... "Is that vehicle dead, or just at a stop? Better put some HE through it to make sure."
The short version: not every destroyed vehicle means all crew died onboard.
Now do Germany... Or too soon?
Too soon? It's 80 years overdue.
Many people are starting to realize in modernity that much of what they've been told is a lie, how deep that lie goes is something many aren't ready for. That's what I mean what I say "too soon". When you realize you've been lied to, it hurts already, knowing the extent is something that might be "too soon" for many.
A girl in my office just got back from Germany and talked about Auschwitz and how 1.25m Jews died there alone. Then went on to talk about a book she read about Jewish Holocaust survivors who were able to survive because of "love". So millions of jews died but the ones who survived were able to survive because they found love. That sounds reasonable? Not a story or anything... Just love others and you too can survive millions of people being slaughtered in internment camps.
“The idea that Germans were normal people and then one day they went absolutely crazy and started randomly hating Jews for no good reason and then they calmed down and now they are normal again is hilarious”
Anyone who tells you only in Germany there was a disdain for Jews in the 19th and 20th century is trying to lie to you. I never even knew about this until I actually looked into it a couple years ago, I always learned in school only in Germany there were anti semites etc.
Anyone who tells you that antisemitism wasn't rampant in the 19th and 20th centuries is lying to you. All the books are still around. You can read them. It's not even a solely German thing.
Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in the 1500's. He first sought to convert and redeem the jews, but later found that to be an exercise in futility.
En masse? Plenty of individual jews converted and were among the early settlers of America. Their families had already integrated and been living in Europe for centuries as Christians.
Exactly. School taught me otherwise and I had to seek out that knowledge myself. I'm not alone with being taught wrong, probably thousands upon thousands more never learned that..
Pbbt. There is no "before Islam had it's feud with X". The only time Islam doesn't have a feud is when Islam doesn't know what X is and hasn't met it yet.
Hillaire Belloc's 1922 book The Jews is a good look at this. Belloc wasn't a big fan of Jews, which is why he was the right man to write this - because he foresaw a genocide if things continued the way they were going, and decided that even if he didn't personally care for them, he didn't really want to see a genocide happen. It's a good look at the causes and degree of antisemitism in the early 20th century, throughout the Western world and not particular to just Germany.
The idea that the Australians were normal people, and then one day they went absolutely crazy and started blaming all their problems on the "unvaccinated", and then they calmed down is obviously impossible.
Well yeah -- pretty much all of the western world has been under a sustained propaganda campaign for the better part of a century now. They didn't just go absolutely crazy one day, they've been boiled slowly for decades.
Once you have the environment primed for a wildfire, all it takes is a spark to set it off.
Yes, that is the intent of the propaganda. That's how pre-genocidal rhetoric works.
The shit the establishment said about jews before the holocaust isn't as bad as the shit they say about whites. Might be a fucking fucking problem. Might be a good idea to learn from past events.
The idea that people had to be killed via gassing is ridiculous when you consider they could just lock them up and simply not feed them.
Starving people to death takes time. Dachau could wipe out an entire trainload of people within 45 minutes from arrival. Having to keep people alive for weeks or even months is a huge waste of resources when you can do it in less than an hour. It also allows the camps to swell, and potentially cause rebellions. Starving people is only one aspect of an effort to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time.
This is what happened in the Civil War, actually; one of the few Southern PoW camps had abysmal survival rates due to the fact that they just didn't have enough goddamn food to go around.
It's been a while since I cracked open the books, but IIRC, the commander in charge of said camp was one of the only Southern commanders that was executed after the war.
Andersonville and to your point eyewitness accounts had guards dying due to lack of food. So no one had food.
I never learned about the literal tornadoes of fire that the Allies inflicted upon a civilian population center when they firebombed the ever-loving fuck out of Dresden and then gunned down the survivors fleeing in the woods the morning after. Funny how they leave that part out of the history lessons in school.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Post Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
This is a new interpretation: the Zionists had the Germans intentionally starve the jews to death to get the state of Israel as an elaborate plot. This is, frankly, the dumbest way to try and get statehood that I've ever heard but okay. The other stuff about allied countries not taking in jews is true. Yes Germany didn't exactly try to deport them, as much as exile them and rob them of all their possessions in Germany. Being socialists, the jews were considered a bourgeois race that had stolen all wealth they had accrued, thus all wealth could be taken back. And they would be deported to... Madagascar: a tribal and undeveloped island after being robbed of all worldly possession. In reality, deporting was never a solution because the goal was to exterminate jews as a whole because Judeo-Bolshevism suggested that they were a plague upon all nations already, so killing them would save Europe. Deporting them, on the other hand, would keep them alive, and keep them a threat to Europe.
This also ignores the fact that the holocaust was undertaken for speed and efficiency. Same reason you shouldn't be using bullets to shoot every jew in a war: you run out of bullets when you're trying to kill all the jews in Europe. Starvation is far too slow, and requires far too much space.
Even then, if we were to say that starvation as a method of execution was the only method in the holocaust, we can see that food was not rationed so tightly that it was impossible to feed jews. American POWs and Russian POWs were also starved in different rates depending on the political animosity that the Germans may have had towards the different groups. We see the Germans doing the same thing during WW1, as killing off the vast swathes of Russian prisoners by refusing to feed them happens in both wars, but it is the Russians being directly targeted with starvation over other groups. In WW2, the Jews get worse treatment than the Russians, which is really saying something.
So, all in all, there's plenty of issues with the original statement that could be disinformation, but there's other parts that aren't, but the real problem with it is actually just the fact that OP is asserting the jews conspired to commit the holocaust against themselves for Israel (which didn't exist yet).
Fuck off.
Your comment does a fine job refuting his claims (or providing an alternative explanation) so why the need to delete his comment?
Ya’ll stick together that’s for sure.
This isn't so much about refuting claims as about responding to the idea that it's intentional disinformation. The claims are wrong, but are they disinformation, is it known to him to be intentionally false. Honestly, with Holocaust Deniers, it's hard to say. Genuinely, a lot of them are ideologically captured into this exclusively American National Socialist narrative that "the holocaust didn't happen but should have", where as none of the German National Socialists denied it. They accept why it happened, they accept that it should happen, but then they claim that somehow Hitler wasn't a massive hypocrite, tried to save the jews, but then the jews created this argument that he exterminated them.
That's certainly disingenuous enough to be considered something that is said to be intentionally false because it's so inconsistent, but adherence to Holocaust Denial seem to be entirely devoted to that contradiction (Excluding the weird realm of "holocaust skeptics" which aren't NatSocs but end up running around in circles trying to disprove it, and normally come to conclusions after years to: "Auschwitz doesn't real but Dachau is", or "It's not 6 million, it's 4 million, because we shouldn't count starvation or disease at concentration camps" or odd things like that... none of which are regularly presented here.)
So, I still want to explain my thinking about whether or not the comment is disinformation, opinion, or genuine belief, for transparency.
So why still remove the comment? Same reason I remove the comment even after explaining what it is when I remove it: that is still the official punishment for the comment.
The current estimate is 1.1 million
I don't really care what the real numbers is; IMO it's kind of irrelevant.
But why would anybody believe that number when we know for a fact that "experts" lie about everything, constantly?
Different experts, different evidence. How did I know that the "experts" that Pfizer paid to research the injections were right that there was no evidence to suggest that the injections would prevent infection? Because I saw their data. The "experts" that were brought on television were just wearing stethescopes and hadn't read a single thing. How about Climate Change? Why do I believe in it, yet I'm constantly shitting on claims about Climate Change? Because I read the data?
How do I know that the Holocaust happened? Physical evidence, witness testimony, admissions of guilt, planning and objectives, statements that the National Socialists made about needing to exterminate jews long before the first death camp was built?
There's as much evidence that the Holocaust happened as there is for the fucking moonlanding. There might even be more just because of sheer scale.
As for that specific number? It's the one that's been tested in the most detailed manner possible, including using the records of train embarkations and disembarkations. It also happens to be the smallest one so far. The Camp Commandant actually thought it might have been 3 million, and reduced it down to closer to 2 before he was executed. Even his figure was too high.
I think the correct term is gorillion.
The Romans conducted massive human sacrifices.
The Aztecs killed thousands of prisoners, and also ate some.
The National Socialists killed 6 million jews, and caused a war that killed 55 million people total, 35 million of which were German.
The International Socialists in China killed 35 million people, and there wasn't even a war. That is the one we don't talk about.
"What a ridiculous notion!"
"Who cares?!!"
You're a denialist for the crimes of Socialism. Simple As.
my take on the Ukraine conflict is that Russia basically won in their initial offensive by taking out Ukraine's military and air bases. however, backed by the United States and NATO, Ukrainian government refused to surrender and instead went full guerilla warfare mode. not wanting to fight in a major war against a major power after basically being defeated, the Ukrainian citizens tried to flee but were rounded up by the Ukrainian government and forced to fight. fast forward to now, Ukrainian government is fixated on perpetuating a losing war because the flow of money they get from aid is making them all rich, and the soldiers dying in the losing war is the most blatant form of blood money in modern history.
how off am i?
Russia did not want the bio labs near them. They were owned by the US. It's a proxy war. It's Biden war, and Biden should be paying for it.
Didn't the war happened as a consequence of the USA blowing up that Russian pipeline to Europe? I expected Putin went something like "Welp, if I won't be allowed to make business this way, I'll ensure access to the Mediterranean sea for it."
No, the pipeline (Nordstream) got blown up after the invasion started.
Huh. Looks like I was way off.
What legacy media shows, and the truth haven't been the same in a long time.
That was designed to cause the energy crisis in Europe. But, it certainly didn't help.
Don't forget how Zelenski is culling the slavic population to open the door for Israeli immigration after reconstruction begins.
but they already have israel.
Now they'll have two.
Well, now they can have a Judea of the North, too.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
This ones a new one too. Zelenski is attempting the demographic replacement of slavs with jews. Okay. Could be disinformation, but actually seems like regular crazy.
Fuck off back to reddit, you shabbos goy faggot.
The main interesting part the general said is :
Ukrainian troops are just surrendering en masse - they know the Russian soldiers treat them very well.
Pretty good. Just include the ethnicity of the Uke leadership and you're golden.
"Identify the donors and their motives"
I know a guy who's already done that and you'd never believe what they ALL have in common
No way!
Yahweh!
On the donors and their lies 🤭
He's just saying what those of us that read axos threads before they were deleted on Reddit already knew.
axos threads?
The r/conspiracy mod that Reddit got legacy media to lie on. Just like spez lied on Christian from the Apollo app thing to blackmail him, and had a temper tantrum when Christian proved Spez was a God Damned liar.
r/conspiracy is a joke now. The comments are actively brigaded with admin approval and likely assistance.
Actually lets be honest all of Reddit is a joke now.
Axo was posting all the good stuff. Any posts I made, I used his as an example.
We'll keep fighting until every last Ukrainian is dead.
Don't read the early life Wikipedia entry, lol.
At 19:55 he estimates 40-50k Russians killed, but Prigozhin himself said 20k wagnerites had been killed just in Bakhmut. It doesn't seem like Bakhmut could represent 50% of all combat losses for Russia, but maybe - Pareto principle and all.
In addition, oryx documents visually confirmed losses of more than 10,000 Russian vehicles. It doesn't seem possible to have only a few people killed per vehicle destroyed - even just counting the crew of the vehicle gets you up there pretty fast.
At 31:44 he references a mexican cartel member allegedly having a javelin missile. This was a widely misreported story based on a video of a cartel member with what appears to be an AT4. The AT4 is used by at least 32 different countries, and cartels getting ahold of them is not new. Now, I would not want to be shot with an AT4, but it is unguided with an effective range of 300 meters, vs a javelin which is thermally guided and can hit targets at 2500-4000 meters depending on variant. Not exactly the same beast.
I would recommend checking out some of the Chieftain's videos. Specifically his "Oh bugger. The tank is on fire." segments.
It takes a lot less to disable a vehicle - destroying a tire or breaking a tread - than to destroy a vehicle, but a crew will abandon a disabled vehicle long before it is destroyed by the next tank crew who thinks... "Is that vehicle dead, or just at a stop? Better put some HE through it to make sure."
The short version: not every destroyed vehicle means all crew died onboard.
Well if they use the same drones Ukraine is using to 'win'....
I really hate the fact that I can't double time this video.
twitter allows that now…
Nah. It's not giving me any controls apart from CC, mute, play, and pause.
You don't have a little gear icon on the bottom right?
Not on mobile
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Post Approved: These are all reasonably debatable statements.
Why is the false reporter not made public?
Cuz that would hurt their feelings