That's why I made this thread, he still thinks Hitler was brainwashed into what he's known to be. That's one reason why I found the image so fascinating, a redditor realising Hitler was humanly genuine not pure evil.
The anon still presents a more nuanced position than you can get from most normies, which deserves credit. Even through I've learned a great many censored things about WW2, and related subjects, the arguments I've had with people on this subject (before and after being red pilled on it) does present a conclusion neither side likes. Hitler, NSDAP, and the German people weren't evil incarnate, but they weren't perfect angels either, free from any blemish or mistake.
People and history are more nuanced than many of us like to admit, as it makes arguing for our positions much harder. This goes for either side of a debate, especially one as censored, propagandized, and extremely tribal as this one. Entrenched idealists like to paint in black and white. That's great for logic and truth along the lines of math and philosophy, but not so great when it comes to the real world, where lots of seemingly contradictory things can be true all at the same time.
There's a reason all discussion of Hitler's motives ends at "because he hated the joos". Any average person, if a blind test was done, would most likely agree with him on a lot of things.
He was a pro-woman shill who thought the Jews were to blame for women not being valued enough. He did a speech on it, it's directly adjacent to Judeo-Patriarchy Theory.
He was basically like the sad cuckolds who are obsessed with silencing me here. "Waaaahhhh people aren't supporting women!"
"Because he hated the jews" is absolutely a critical aspect of why he did what he did (which was murder millions of them and plunge Europe into war). The jews were a bourgeois race, and so their extermination was a categorical imperative. He hated the jews as any Leftist would hate the bourgeois. We can talk about why he hated the jews additionally, but most of the time Leftists and NatSocs need to stop there because otherwise they'd have to admit his Socialism.
"Because he hated the jews" is absolutely a critical aspect of why he did what he did (which was murder millions of them
Any forum with absolute free speech, that doesn't censor this discussion, has had robust debate about this topic, and many people have presented extremely compelling evidence that this isn't what happened, and that it was physically impossible for the Germans to do. This is one of the central ways for how most of were convinced, how we began to reject the lies surrounding WW2, and realizing how thoroughly propagandized our society is.
and many people have presented extremely compelling evidence that this isn't what happened, and that it was physically impossible for the Germans to do.
Total fucking nonsense.
First of all, the Germans managed to kill twenty million Russians, and that was predominantly through regular warfare. Russians exterminated over a hundred thousand Poles in about a year through traditional execution methods. The Khmer Rouge managed to exterminate 20% of their own population in 5 years. The NatSoc atrocities in Greece and Crete demonstrate the capacity for wanton murder and intentional starvation, and that's still not really part of the Holocaust. Those are just other mass killings.
The idea that the Germans simply weren't capable of killing millions of a specific demographic in their own territories (while actively murdering other demographics anyways) is asinine and darkly comical.
Mass executions of jews were more than entirely doable, the unique part of the holocaust was that it was the capital investment of murder as if it were a commodity. A factory of death is not a misnomer, it's not easy to just kill many hundreds of people and dispose of the bodies in a timely manner. The NatSocs mentioned in their own documents that the work of mass executions just through bullets was rather difficult and demoralizing work, especially as time went on. Making it possible for fewer people to kill more in an efficient way was a the goal. One of the benefits of the Sonderkommando system in the extermination camps was that they would be the ones handling most of the bodies, and so would endure the brunt of the psychological damage... then they too would be executed after a few weeks, keeping the demoralization of the NatSoc troops to a minimum. These notes where actually what led to the Milgram experiment on deference to authority.
Again, it is only at this point that we go back to "compelling evidence". The evidence we have is from the bodies, the mass graves, the witnesses, the logistical records, and importantly: the confessions! If they write what they are doing in their own handwriting and admit to it, that's a pretty good indicator they did it. The best evidence from Holocaust Deniers is "hurr durr wooden doors" and "hurr durr it's an Olympic sized swimming pool". Fuck off, we both know this is a lie. Even "Holocaust Skeptics" have to come to the eventual conclusion that "all the records of passengers stop in specific places, and then they never seem to be deported anywhere else". Even David Irving, as much of a liar as he is, admits that Dachau was absolutely an extermination camp. Turns out that a camp that's barely a couple acres can't just store a hundred thousand people in it without overcrowding.
Holocaust Denial is the only "conspiracy theory" that I've ever seen built entirely out of motivated reasoning. All others have an autistic focus on detail that they don't understand or confuse themselves with. Holocaust Denial is about being proud of ignorance publicly, while demanding the atrocities privately. "It didn't happen but it should have"
I can disprove the Holocaust narrative with just a calculator. Take the number of crematoria the Nazis had, the amount of time and fuel it takes to cremate one body (even using the lower numbers for the more advanced and efficient modern crematoria), and calculate how many people the Nazis could cremate within the given time frame they had. It's physically, temporarily, and thermodynamically impossible for the Nazis to have done what is claimed. I can break this down, very specifically, if you want. Just ask.
The official Holocaust narrative is that most of the deaths in the concentration camps were due to gassing, and that the Nazis cremated the bodies. It's also claimed that the Nazis, in full retreat, to hide their "war crimes", dug up the people they previously killed, and put them in crematoria, to "burn" the bodies, to "hide the evidence". It's also claimed the Nazis did most of these killings, while in a multi front war, with strained supply lines, using railways heavily damaged due to Allied attacks, while short on fuel and manpower (remember the Battle of the Bulge?), and in retreat during the latter stages of the war.
The mass graves found don't account for the claimed number of dead.
There are mass graves, counting in the hundreds of thousands, but that was due to the heavy conflict from the war. Even "Holocaust deniers" like myself still claim that roughly 250,000 people died in the camps, but that's mostly attributed to starvation (from broken supply lines) and typhus outbreaks due to lice, which is what Zyklon B is actually used for (fumigating clothing to kill lice).
Furthermore, actual experts in execution methods have examined the Nazi "death camps", and said they couldn't do what is claimed. Look at actual execution gas chambers. They don't use wooden doors. They also don't use Zyklon B, which has problems reaching deadly inhalation levels within the air, especially when it's cold, like it is during European winters.
On top of this, the camps had hospitals, swimming pools, maternity wards, and other non-essential buildings and activities. If the Nazis were exterminating jews and other undesirables, why would they give them all of these things, and not just kill them outright? It makes zero sense. It makes much more sense that they were labor camps, especially since the Nazis were short on manpower in the latter stages of the war.
There are also tons and tons of lies many jews have told about the Holocaust, either for clout, to push the narrative, and/or to get reparations. Thus far, Germany has paid 80 billion Euros worth of Holocaust reparations. Quite a lucrative business, but this is assuming a motive purely on greed. When fully analyzed, greed doesn't explain everything. Such lies include "masturbation machines" used to kill young jewish boys (fake), rollercoasters of death that fling helpless passengers into a pit of fire (fake), making jews into lampshades and soap (fake), giant electric chairs that could electrocute dozens of people at once (fake), open fire pits to "cremate" the dead (this is physically impossible to do), bodies used to fuel fires to burn more bodies (this doesn't happen, it takes fuel to burn a body, and a controlled enclosed environment to create the necessary pressures and temperatures to properly cremate), Anne Frank's journal (fake), etc. Furthermore, the "admissions" of Nazis after the war was due to extreme torture, and many of the admissions were written in languages the German POWs couldn't speak. In one instance, of all the German POWs examined, all but 2 had their genitals mutilated beyond repair. The Nuremburg trials also threw out common legal chain of custody rules, so the Allied accusers could say anything they wanted, present any evidence they wanted, even if it was fake. The documents you're citing are pretty much all fake.
It gets even more ridiculous because the official Holocaust historians claim that intact bones weren't found because the Nazis had numerous bone crushing machines. Most people don't know this, but cremating a body leaves the bones intact. However, not a single bone crushing machine has ever been found.
This is all just icing on a very sick cake, however, because nothing refutes the mathematics of the Nazis being incapable of cremating the number of dead that is claimed. I don't care what else is said. Nothing else refutes this fact.
It's not like this is a bridge too far, either. We all know by now that the people in power lie about everything. Why wouldn't they lie about WW2 or other history? They have every motivation to do so. It's why there are so many WW2 propaganda pieces put out every year (movies, TV shows, video games), portraying Nazis as evil, to reinforce the propaganda we were taught in school about WW2. Propaganda is only effective if its constantly reaffirmed, otherwise people break the conditioning. Fortunately, due to the internet and actual free speech sites, more people are breaking the conditioning anyway.
I can disprove the Holocaust narrative with just a calculator. Take the number of crematoria the Nazis had, the amount of time and fuel it takes to cremate one body (even using the lower numbers for the more advanced and efficient modern crematoria), and calculate how many people the Nazis could cremate within the given time frame they had. It's physically and thermodynamically impossible for the Nazis to have done what is claimed. I can break this down, very specifically, if you want. Just ask.
Oh my god, another one. That makes two of you unmitigated fucking retards that doesn't understand that there's more than one death camp, and more than one method of execution, and more than one way of disposing of corpses. How the fuck any of you can say "you learned about the Holocaust all the time", while never managing to learn anything about the Holocaust besides one number, one camp, and one method is beyond me.
What's even stupider is that you managed to make the exact same mistake that Soviets made when calculating the deaths at Autchwitz that put their number 4 times higher than reality.
You can't deboonk the holocaust because you literally don't know anything about it.
This includes your insane comments about rollercoasters. What you don't realize (because you've never looked into the holocaust) is that the only people who have ever said anything about that shit are Holocaust Deniers. No legitimate source has ever mentioned any of that shit. Actually atrocities like removing gold fillings, stealing all jewelry, forced prostitution, pressure chamber experiments, chemical experiments, random murders, and the mass executions are all verifiable.
It gets even more ridiculous because the official Holocaust historians claim that intact bones weren't found because the Nazis had numerous bone crushing machines. Most people don't know this, but cremating a body leaves the bones intact. However, not a single bone crushing machine has ever been found.
You know that bones don't typically cremate (at certain temperatures), but you don't know the literal thousands of bodies and skeletons that were dumped into mass graves, that the allies had to disinter and move with bulldozers? Apparently you actually believe that there's no bodies from the holocaust. Like I said, you literally do not know anything about the holocaust. You don't know enough about the holocaust to challenge it.
The documents you're citing are pretty much all fake.
I'm citing witnesses. I'm citing the accused. Hell most of the shit at Nuremburg wasn't so much related to the Holocaust as it was related to the start of the war. Again, this weird obsession with denying something that none of the NatSocs themselves ever denied. None of the people actually charged with crimes against humanity regarding the holocaust said, "you guys made this whole thing up, these camps don't even exist, there aren't bodies". They said: "I didn't commit those crimes, but I saw others doing it", or "I wasn't there", or "I did it because I was required to", or "I was just following orders." You would think some of the defendants would have rejected the claims. You don't know enough about Nuremburg to criticize it.
This is all just icing on a very sick cake, however, because nothing refutes the mathematics of the Nazis being incapable of cremating the number of dead that is claimed. I don't care what else is said. Nothing else refutes this fact.
Again, your ignorance of the event is a refutation of your calculation. You are more back-asswards on this than the people that said Kyle Rittenhouse shot 4 black people in a mass shooting in Kenosha. You literally do not understand enough of the basics of the event to accurately criticize it.
But there are actual Jews who went on record claiming to be Holocaust survivors who were actually just clout chasers or sympathy chasers. So it's.not stupid for someone to bring it up.
Or the constant beating of it into people's heads at a young age. I had three holocaust survivors speak to me at two different schools when in mid/HS. I've never had a survivor of communism, or an escape from east Germany, or a survivor of 9/11.
So that's super suspicious.
Another thing I've learned is that typically whatever is banned in the public sphere, is accurate. For example in 2020/2021 people weren't allowed to post on social media that hydroxy chloroquine worked against COVID. Or mention other alternatives like Ivermectin. Governors made it illegal for doctors to prescribe it as treatment even though off label treatment is super common like Ozempic for fucking weightless, which actually caused a shortage for people who supposedly actually need it to treat diabetes. But hey, off label is fine if it kills diabetics, so long as other people lose weight. And the Holocaust is at the tippy top of things you are not allowed to question. It's illegal in some countries. It's banned on many platforms. When people even try to discuss it they're shutdown rudely by people like you. The ADL tries to ruin your life. That's super suspicious.
The victims of death camps were primarily murdered by gassing, either in permanent installations constructed for this specific purpose, or by means of gas vans.
Like I said, the official Holocaust narrative is that most of the deaths were from gassing. The fact that you don't know this is quite odd. Also, killing someone in a poorly constructed room with Zyklon B pellets/crystals is insanely difficult, if not impossible.
The specific names of the death/extermination camps are Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, and Auschwitz.
Chelmno
It's claimed 180,000 to 340,000 deaths were at Chelmno, which operated from December 8, 1941, to April 11, 1943. The Wiki page for Chelmno says:
The bodies were cremated on open air grids constructed of concrete slabs and rail tracks; pipes were used for air ducts, and long ash pans were built below the grid...To hide the evidence of the SS-committed war crimes, from 1943 onward, the Germans ordered the exhumation of all remains and burning of bodies in open-air cremation pits by a unit of Sonderkommando 1005...Eventually, the camp authorities bought a bone-crushing machine (Knochenmühle) from Schriever and Co. in Hamburg to speed up the process.
Oh look, the bone crushing machine lie.
As I've said previously, it's impossible to fully cremate human remains in open air. Full cremation requires pressures and temperatures that can only be reached in enclosed crematoria, which still leaves bones intact. There's flesh left over in open air pyres/cremations, it's not all ash and bone. The "official" Holocaust account still uses this lie. Yet, you claim to be ignorant of this.
A study conducted by Alunni, et al. examined the forensic science behind cremations on wooden pyres. The study concluded the average pyre does not completely destroy a human body effectively...remains being more charred rather than completely oxidized by high temperatures, are in anatomically correct positions, poor bone fragmentation
Lets look at India, that still performs lots of open air cremations. Here's a link from CNN:
a traditional pyre takes six hours and burns 500-600 kilograms of wood
That's just for one body, which isn't even fully cremated, and it requires 1,100-1,320 pounds of wood. I've also seen estimates for open air cremations that are even longer, just for one body. Do you have any idea how many trees would have to be cut down to fuel the open air pits to cremate the claimed number of dead? It would have deforested massive areas around the camps, especially in such a concentrated timeframe as is claimed the Nazis did these cremations. It also would result in even more ash leftovers from the burned wood, resulting in mountains of ash that couldn't just be swept away.
Lets say 1 million people were cremated in open air pits, requiring an average of 1,210 pounds of wood per person. That requires a total of 1,210,000,000 lbs of wood. Assuming only 1% of the initial wood weight is turned to ash (a very low estimate, as 6-10% is the accepted value), that leaves roughly 12,100,000 lbs of ash, just from the wood. Wood ash is also very light by volume, so that amount of wood ash would be absolutely massive by volume.
Belzec
It's claimed 430,000 and 500,000 jewish deaths were at Belzec, which operated from March 17, 1942 to the end of June, 1943. The Wiki page admits:
All corpses buried at Bełżec were secretly exhumed and then gradually cremated on long open-air pyres, part of the country-wide plan known as the Sonderaktion 1005....Bone fragments were pulverised and mixed with the ashes to hide the evidence of mass murder.
Again, they're trying to claim the Nazis did something that's physically and thermodynamically impossible, and that they used bone crushing machines which were never found.
Sobibor
It's claimed 170,000 to 250,000 deaths were at Sobibor, which operated from May ,1942 to October 14, 1943. The Wiki page admits:
The vast majority of prisoners were gassed within hours of arrival...After only a few months of operation, the wooden walls of the gas chambers had absorbed too much sweat, urine, blood, and excrement to be cleanable...the Nazis assembled a forest commando who worked there cutting timber for heat, cooking, as well as cremation pyres...after the killing in the gas chambers, the corpses were collected by Sonderkommandos and taken to mass graves or cremated in the open air.
This Wiki page admits to gassing as the main means of killing (which you deny), the use of wooden enclosed gas chambers (which is a hilarious lie), that they used wood to burn the bodies (they'd run out of forest before running out of bodies to cremate), and that they, again, used open air pyres to cremate the bodies. LOL.
Treblinka
It's claimed 700,000 and 900,000 jewish deaths were at Treblinka, which operated from July 23, 1942 and October 19, 1943. The Wiki page admits:
Jews were murdered in its gas chambers...they cut wood to fuel the cremation pits...bodies were exhumed in 1943 and cremated on large open-air pyres along with the bodies of new victims...The bodies were placed on rails over wood, splashed with petrol, and burned...crushed the remaining bones with mallets
Again, the same lies. You can't just "splash petrol" on a corpse and expect it to cremate in the open air.
Majdanek
It's claimed 78,000 to 360,000 deaths were at Majdanek, which operated from October 1, 1941 to July, 22 1944. The Wiki page admits:
Until June 1942, the bodies of those murdered at Majdanek were buried in mass graves (these were later exhumed and burned by the prisoners assigned to Sonderkommando 1005)...murdered with Zyklon B...From June 1942, the SS disposed of the bodies by burning them, either on pyres made from the chassis of old lorries or in a crematorium. The so-called First Crematorium had two ovens which were brought to Majdanek from the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. This facility stood in „Interfield I", the area between the first and the second fenced camp section; it is no longer in existence today...In autumn of 1943, the first crematorium at Majdanek was replaced by the New Crematorium. It was a T-shaped wooden building with five ovens.
Oh look, the Zyklon B lie again.
But, finally!, a "death camp" that used crematoriums (something that can actually cremate a body). So, from June, 1942 to autumn 1943 (lets assume November 1st), the camp had two ovens, and from autumn 1943 to July, 22 1944 it had 5 ovens. Lets use the cremation times for modern crematoria (giving as much leeway for the official account as possible), it takes roughly 2-3 hours to cremate a body (lets use 2 hours for even more leeway for the official account). Modern crematoria require a cooldown time between each body, to clean the oven, but lets assume these were magic crematoria, that didn't need to be cleaned or cooled off between each body.
The camp had 2 ovens for 518 days, and 5 ovens for 264 days. For the first 518 days, the camp could cremate 12,432 bodies (518days * 24hrs/day / 2hrs/cremation * 2ovens). For the last 264 days, the camp could cremate 15,840 bodies (264days * 24hrs/day / 2hrs/cremation * 5ovens). The total number of bodies the camp could cremate is 28,272. That number is far, far below the "official" claimed number of dead (78,000 to 360,000).
The official number of cremated is a lie. All it takes is simple math to disprove the lie, giving every leeway to the Nazis to break the laws of thermodynamics and time to cremate more than is possible.
Auschwitz
It's claimed 1,100,000 deaths were at Auschwitz, which operated from May, 1940 to January, 1945. The Wiki page admits:
Construction of crematorium I began at Auschwitz I at the end of June or beginning of July 1940...was in operation from August 1940 until July 1943, by which time the crematoria at Auschwitz II had taken over...By May 1942 three ovens had been installed in crematorium I, which together could burn 340 bodies in 24 hours...By June 1943 all four crematoria were operational, but crematorium I was not used after July 1943. This made the total daily capacity 4,416, although by loading three to five corpses at a time, the Sonderkommando were able to burn some 8,000 bodies a day. This maximum capacity was rarely needed; the average between 1942 and 1944 was 1,000 bodies burned every day...The first experimental gassing took place around August 1941, when Lagerführer Karl Fritzsch, at the instruction of Rudolf Höss, murdered a group of Soviet prisoners of war by throwing Zyklon B crystals into their basement cell in block 11 of Auschwitz I...The morgue was later converted to a gas chamber able to hold at least 700–800 people...Zyklon B was dropped into the room through slits in the ceiling...Any bits of bone that had not burned properly were ground down in wooden mortars.
LOL, they claim all of the bone remains were crushed using "wooden mortars". 1.1 million people's bones, ground to dust using mortars. Fucking LOL. The insanity of the official claims.
In any case, lets look at the numbers of cremated in the "official sources". In the above quote, it says the 3 ovens of crematoria I could cremate 340 bodies in 24 hours. That's impossible. 3 ovens * 24hrs / 2hrs/cremation = 36 bodies every 24 hours. To hell with the lies. The "official historians" overvalued the possible number of cremations by a factor of 9.44. Furthermore, you can't just pack in more than one body into a cremation oven. The ovens themselves are ridiculously small, wouldn't fit that many bodies, even starved bodies. You also can't just throw in more bodies into an oven and throw in more fuel, expecting to get the exact same cremation times for 1 body. The official claims are obvious lies.
Let's use this source on the number of ovens Auschwitz had:
In summer 1940 the SS took delivery of one double-muffle oven manufactured by the Topf company in Erfurt. Its official incineration capacity of over 100 corpses per day proved insufficient, and in fall 1940 the Auschwitz SS ordered a second double-muffle oven. A third (summer 1941) brought the official daily cremation capacity to 340 corpses....The 52 ovens built in the five crematoria of Auschwitz, with a total incineration capacity of 4,756 corpses per day, testify to the genocidal purpose of the Nazi state.
So, 52 ovens total for all give crematoria.
Lets use this source on when the various crematoria were active at Auschwitz:
Crematorium I operated from August 15, 1940 until July 1943...Crematorium II functioned from March 1943 through November 1944...Crematorium III functioned from June 1943 through November 1944...Crematorium IV functioned, with interruptions, from March 1943 until October 7, 1944...Crematorium V functioned, with interruptions, from April 1943 until January 1945
Crematoria I was operational for 1,079 days, crematoria II for 640 days, crematoria III for 548 days, crematoria IV for 586 days, and crematoria V for 671 days.
We know crematoria I had 3 ovens, but it's difficult to find accurate sources for how many ovens crematoria 2-5 had, so lets assume an average of 12.25 ([52-3]/4), which won't change the total number much given that crematoria 2-5 operated roughly the same number of days. Lets also assume, again, that these are magic ovens that can operate 24/7 without needing cleaning or cooling off, and all ovens were used from start to finish dates. So, crematoria I could cremate 38,844 bodies in 1079 days, crematoria II 94,080 bodies in 640 days, crematoria III 80,556 bodies in 548 days, crematoria IV 86,142 bodies in 586 days, and crematoria V 98,637 bodies in 671 days. That's a total of 398,259 bodies the Nazis could theoretically cremate. This number is woefully short of the claimed 1.1 million, and assumes heavily in favor of the official account.
Just to be clear on the situation of the latter parts of the war, lets use this source on why Nazi Germany lost:
Nor did Germany's commandeering of the economies of other European countries do much to redress the balance. The Germans' ruthless requisitioning of fuel, industrial facilities and labour from France and other countries reduced the economies of the subjugated parts of Europe to such a state that they were unable – and, with their workers becoming ever more refractory, unwilling – to contribute significantly to German war production...Above all, the Reich was short of fuel. Romania and Hungary supplied a large proportion of Germany's needs. But this was not enough to satisfy the appetite of the Wehrmacht's gas-guzzling tanks and fighter planes.
Germany lost because they were short on manpower, labor, resources, supplies, and fuel. They couldn't expend the fuel needed for the war effort on cremating bodies in their non existent "death camps". The above Wiki pages admit, in clear language, from "official sources", that the majority of the bodies were killed by gassing using Zyklon B (which is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible), cremated in ovens (that were seemingly operated by magic, using fuel the Nazis didn't have), or cremated in open air pits (which doesn't work for cremation), and they exhumed the bodies after death to "hide the evidence", during a time when the Nazis were on the backfoot, being beaten on every front and/or retreating, while short on fuel, manpower, labor, and supplies, with their railways and supply lines being attacked and broken. The notion that the Nazis were able to achieve what is claimed is absurdly ridiculous. Apparently their super evil gave them magical powers to overcome impossibilities.
Oh my god, another one. That makes two of you unmitigated fucking retards that doesn't understand that there's more than one death camp
I, and all other Holocaust "deniers", well understand the official position. We're well aware that the "official" Holocaust account says there was more than one death camp. We can disprove the numbers of dead under the official accounts in totality (adding up the crematoria of all death camps), or by individual "death" camps. Not sure why you think that I think there was only one camp.
and more than one method of execution, and more than one way of disposing of corpses.
Typical. Pro Holocaust narrative pushers never, ever, acknowledge that they have to perpetually change the "truth" of the events to account for holes in their theory. The official Holocaust narrative has always said the primary method of execution was gassing, and the primary way of body disposal was cremation. There's no getting around this. It's been beaten into the heads of every single Westerner since Holocaust propaganda became prevalent around the 70s (odd that it didn't start right after the discoveries of all those "death camps" at the latter parts of WW2, or right after WW2), it's been the primary messaging of the Holocaust, and taught in all Western schools. If you admit that your pet theory has to be continually adjusted, then you're tacitly suggesting that your theory is wrong.
You can't deboonk the holocaust because you literally don't know anything about it.
What a strange assertion, when I know more about your theory than you do, or more than you claim. You've already bought into the adjustments to the theory to prevent it from being completely debunked.
This includes your insane comments about rollercoasters. What you don't realize (because you've never looked into the holocaust) is that the only people who have ever said anything about that shit are Holocaust Deniers.
Wrong. Jews were the ones that made those ridiculous claims. Quotes, pictures, and sources have been posted tons all over the chans (pretty much the main free speech forums that were able to discuss this topic) for years and years.
No legitimate source has ever mentioned any of that shit.
LOL. Classic. Appeal to authority fallacy. "Only sources that say what I want are 'legitimate'". Double LOL.
Have you completely ignored the last 3 years of Covid lies? The governments, media, pharmaceutical and medical industries, all over the world, straight up lied to people, repeatedly, for years, leading to the deaths of thousands, or millions (hard to tell given how much they've censored, covered up, and lied about). You're actually suggesting that people are incapable of lying, in "official" sources, "legitimate" studies, "concrete" evidence. Triple LOL.
Actually atrocities like removing gold fillings, stealing all jewelry, forced prostitution, pressure chamber experiments, chemical experiments, random murders, and the mass executions are all verifiable.
Governments have never, ever lied. Governments have never, ever lied about their political opponents, wartime opponents, or created straw men caricatures of either, or conjured fake evidence to paint their opponents in negative light. Governments have never, ever lied to their own people, or used propaganda to get their people to think the way they want. Good lord you're dense.
but you don't know the literal thousands of bodies and skeletons that were dumped into mass graves
Hey, thanks for acknowledging that thousands of bodies were found, a number absurdly, drastically short of the claimed millions of dead. A tacit admission, but a welcome one. You're too dense to see it though, considering you thought that argument worked in your favor. Holocaust "deniers" already acknowledge that lots of people died in WW2. Big shocker! We already acknowledge that mass graves exist, but are accounted by the dead from the war, not from extermination camps.
I'm citing witnesses.
Witnesses that have been repeatedly caught lying. Furthermore, actual experts and witnesses that say things contrary to the official Holocaust narrative have been censored, attacked, and had their lives ruined. Why do you believe the "official" witnesses, but not the people who had their lives ruined? What about the expert leaders of the Allies (Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle) who wrote memoirs after WW2, and not one of them mentioned the Holocaust, the mass extermination of jews and other undesirables by the evil Nazis? Wouldn't those experts want to claim credit for defeating the evil Nazis and saving all the people they planned to exterminate? Weird. Are you not admitting your own bias, only wanting to believe people who support your position, but ignore everyone else?
I'm citing the accused.
You mean the Nazis that gave confessions under duress of torture? You mean the Nazis that wrote confessions in languages they couldn't speak? You mean the "evidence" that could be conjured up from thin air because all Western legal precedent for fair trials was thrown out the window at Nuremberg?
Again, your ignorance of the event is a refutation of your calculation. You are more back-asswards on this than the people that said Kyle Rittenhouse shot 4 black people in a mass shooting in Kenosha. You literally do not understand enough of the basics of the event to accurately criticize it.
Admit that you're afraid of even asking me to refute the numbers based on simple math, and we can move on. Or, have the courage to challenge your own theory by asking me to do it. I dare you. That, or tacitly admit that you're an intellectual coward, incapable of admitting you're wrong, or even challenging your own ideas and beliefs.
24 downvotes suggest that a few people here probably think the Nazi "final solution to the Jewish question" was a good idea. All you need to do to gauge Hitler's jew-hatred is listen to a couple of his speeches lambasting and scapegoating them. Oh, there's the bit about concentration camps and gas chambers, too.
Every reasonable and literate person understands that Hitler was a human being and not some sort of super-villain. Efforts to make him supernatural have to do with the embarrassment of having to acknowledge his humanity and the fact that anyone is capable of committing atrocities, especially if you are several layers removed bureaucratically from the evil. You make a decree and leave Himmler and the SS to work out the details.
You also need to understand that in Mein Kampf Hitler was creating a PR portfolio for political purposes.
Hell, even Wolfenstein understood that he was human in their comical and crazed portrayals of him.
The dumbest shit here is that they know I'm fucking right. If they read Mien Kampf, then they know that I'm laying it out accurately. Some of them did, so in response, we can understand that their downvotes are performative garbage. I'd be upvoted if I said it was a good thing. There is no debating the facts, they just don't like having it shoved back in their face. Kinda like the way Goering didn't when he was shown footage of the death camps.
I think the doubt is more in the number.
6M Jews. Hmm.
As of today, there are what, 118K Jews in Germany, 6.3M Jews in ISRAEL, and 16M total Jews in the world?
Even in the US where they number the most 5.7M for a non Jewish state they are 1.7% of the population. Probably less.
And that's basically the same everywhere. Roughly 1% of any given country's population. A little more or less here or there. The population size of Germany pre WW2 is suspiciously hard to get reliable info on but roughly 60M. 1% of that would be 600,000. And we could extrapolate to France Poland etc. To be honest, I don't think there were 6M Jews to be found in Europe at the time.
There's no real arguments about the 6 million number, counting non-jewish holocaust deaths is more contentious because some people just don't want to include any non-jewish deaths in what counts as the holocaust, rather than just additional killings.
The problem is you have a ton of false presumptions here of what you think the number of jews in a country should be, and that's just not the case, especially when you start broadening the definition of who a jew is under the Nuremburg Laws.
At the time, I don't remember the exact figure, but there would have been well over ten million jews in Europe at the time. And in this case (because the Nazis are counting them this way), we have to consider anyone of any parental heritage to a jew, even if non-practicing. Many jews would have self-identified as such, though in Germany, there were many jews that didn't (which is why the Nazis built entire departments to find jews that weren't self-identifying and were non-practicing, all through lineage) were calling themselves "Germans of the mosaic faith" and identifying as German... because they actually did see themselves as German, not jewish. Capitalization was intentional there because they were subscribing to an idea of Germanism.
IIRC, there were over a million jews in Germany as well. Poland, on the other hand, while not being majority jewish, had probably the single highest number of jews per capita in Europe. This is one of the primary reasons that there were so many concentration and extermination camps built in the country. IIRC, there were at least 4 million jews in Poland alone. Again, don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but were somewhere vaugely around 30% of the population.
And this is a critical point, Hitler wasn't trying to push jews just out of Germany. The logic of judeo-bolshevism is that no jew can exist anywhere. If you remove jews from Germany, and let them settle in Poland, then they will cross the border. You have to get rid of all of them, everywhere, all at once (which is what Kristallnacht was about, but just for everywhere in Germany). He's trying to "save Europe", by removing or killing every jew in Europe. This is also why he didn't just focus on mass relocation, like other genocides do. If you just remove and displace people, there's a chance they could return, or gather into an army, or become the majority demographic somewhere. Historical evidence does show that even if jews are forcibly relocated, they will often return. So, relocation doesn't solve the judeo-bolshevism problem that states that all jews, everywhere, will always seek to destroy nations, and will travel to nations in order to parasitize and destroy them. You can't allow any single jew alive. You have to kill all of them.
Hence, why the NatSocs where forcing Italy to export Italian Jewish Fascists to be sent to extermination or concentration camps. They didn't just kill jews in Germany, or in Poland, but in every single country that they could get the puppet governments to agree to. This is also why Poland experienced such a massive population loss from the war. It's actually one of the only countries losses from war are rivaled by losses explicitly from the Holocaust.
it's almost as if pure evil caricatures are extremely rare in history. That everyone that has ever done something great, good or bad, has done it for a multitude of nuanced reasons. it's almost as if looking at history through the lens of purely good or evil is pointless; that the real lessons are in understanding the true reasons why people did what they did, from every angle, and judging them after you know the facts.
Luckily the facts on Hitler are insurmountable and obvious. Turns out, like with Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Ivan The Terrible, and others; he was absolutely one of those pure evil characters that are rare in history.
"But you don't understand. Mao didn't know about the killings! Overall, he did more good than bad! His ideas were good, but things just didn't work out!" Nope, fuck all of those shithead apologetics.
the facts on Hitler are insurmountable and obvious
Insurmountable? Obvious? Like we haven't had decades of propaganda, misinformation, half-truths, and sometimes straight up lies being fed to us?
When did doubt, skepticism, and disbelief fall out of favor with the common man? When did it become fashionable to be a good little drone, to toil until you broke, being fed with syrup and dyes? Do you really think Hitler was a cartoon villain? Really? That one day, for no reason at all, he just decided that a whole demographic of people needed to die? No reason, just 'cuz?
Do you believe things because the talking heads in the box tell you they happened? Do you believe inflation isn't real because KJP says it isn't as bad as it feels?
Turns out, like with Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Ivan The Terrible, and others; he was absolutely one of those pure evil characters that are rare in history.
Real people aren't one dimensional Overwatch characters.
It's one of the things that helped me connect the dots, to put the perfectly fitting puzzle pieces together. Before becoming red pilled on WW2, I already knew that the people in power lied to us, about everything, in the news, in media, in government, about our history (specifically about slavery and the civil war), but I still adamantly believed what I was told about WW2 history, for reasons I could never adequately explain. Then, through curiosity, I began to visit demonized free speech forums, where I was exposed to censored information and discussion, including everything surrounding WW2, and the world began to make a lot more sense.
Looking back, it's rather astounding how flimsy the current "conservative" normie right position is, about how contradictory my position was before. It posits the well supported position that the people in power are liars, that they have control of pretty much all aspects of society, and yet WW2 history is sacrosanct. The lesson is clear as day: don't trust liars. And yet, many on the right continue to trust liars on specific subjects. It's rather maddening. Fortunately, though, more and more are waking up.
Skepticism is fine, but why are you trying to rehabilitate Hitler's public image or deny what the Nazis did from the burning of the Reichstag to the capture of Berlin?
You're making his point. You're question is loaded. "Why try to rehabilitate his image" implies he is horrible to begin with and doesn't even attempt to ponder if he was actually as bad as we've been taught. You ask as if it's a foregone conclusion. We're not even sure what happened with the Hawaii fires and that was just 2 weeks ago with smart phones and internet etc. But we're supposed to just accept whatever we're fed about the Holocaust?
I understand that propaganda is a part of any war, but I'm not quite ready to revise my opinions on WWII, Hitler, and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands.
When did doubt, skepticism, and disbelief fall out of favor with the common man? When did it become fashionable to be a good little drone, to toil until you broke, being fed with syrup and dyes? Do you really think Hitler was a cartoon villain? Really? That one day, for no reason at all, he just decided that a whole demographic of people needed to die? No reason, just 'cuz?
We could have asked that to the people who voted for him. Don't even almost
Do you believe things because the talking heads in the box tell you they happened?
No you faux sentimental, twat. We have evidence. We have records. We have witnesses. We have bodies. And best of all: we have confessions. That's my favorite part of all this. You will stand there with a thumb up your dick and pretend like you have intellectual grace like, but you're just an old-style sophist. As a sophist of the modern era, you run apologetics for someone who never asked for an apology, and would refuse to give one. None of the people you are begging the question for deny their crimes, nor their objectives, nor their rationale. The only thing they ever said is that they weren't responsible because Hitler was just so persuasive. They still signed the orders, they still made the budgets, they still attacked civilians, and they still slaughtered millions, jews or otherwise, because they all believed it was the right thing to do at the time.
Oh I know, why can't we just believe the lies and half truths of the propagandists you like? Why can't we just accept the deceptions of the regime that literally invented all modern political propaganda and most film making techniques. Because those lies formed the basis of the unelected, revolutionary, Nazi regime. It was a very progressive, modern, and intellectual movement that many experts thought was for the best in Germany. Gobbels saw to that that the National Socialist state would be a technocratic one. It's why many experts and authorities in Austria simply bent over for Anschluss. In fact, since you mentioned "ticking the box", the single most infamous bit of ridiculous ballot engineering took place under the Anschluss annexation. But I suppose I should continue to reject the evidence and accept the claims of the old experts who were explicitly lying.
But why can't I just play moral relativism, and stand just stand around "just asking questions?" Because I have answers. Answers we both know you would be giddy to see replicated; because that's the real point. You're not intellectually curious, you're singularly driven, as all sophists are. You're engaging in rhetorical warfare to hopefully worm your way into getting a future of blood and death, because it's the one you want. It's the one they wanted to.
I don't understand why some people feel the need to whitewash Hitler's Third Reich. Of course he was a human being. That's part of the horror of his rise and fall, the fact that most anyone is capable of dehumanizing his perceived enemies. It's what we need to do if there's any sort of conscience at all or if we need to create "plausible deniability."
They need to read William Shirer's book, at least.
They're white washing it because they are trying to renormalize the violence. That, and it's a troll on the Marxists and Communists, that are happy to do much the same to their asserted bourgeoise, but not go to the mechanized effort that the Germans specifically decided to go with.
Hitler was a dumbass, and the war he initiated combined with his brutally authoritarian policies in the homeland definitely makes him one of the great assholes and losers of History, but I think you missed the point of my comment.
it's very important to focus on the "why" of History. In the case of Hitler, he was voted into power by a populace that was tired of being absolutely fucked by the politics of the Great War aftermath, fucked by the banks inflating their currency into oblivion, and fucked by rampant degeneracy in their major cities (sound familiar?). To my knowledge, his initial actions improved Germany immensely, enough for him to be praised by foreign leaders and propaganda rags like Time Magazine. But he got too zealous. where he was initially trying to catch the economic saboteurs and kid fuckers, he was soon catching all dissidents to the state, all jews, and all gays. 99.9% of the people he rounded up were not a threat to Germany or the German populace. Combine that with him making military enemies out of Europe and Russia simultaneously, and he ended up fucking Germany worse than when he had inherited it.
The narrow-minded view of good versus evil really only exists in Hollywood and Religion. people who view history in this lens are very prone to the crusader's fallacy, where they will be the ones committing the atrocities while believing that they are the good guys this time.
I lost a long winded reply, so I'm going to make this shorter.
Everything you said is wrong and/or a continuance of one group's propaganda or another. Hitler was never voted into power. The NSDAP never had a majority. The western elites favored Hitler, Mussolini, and Fascism because it was progressive. The NSDAP never stopped degeneracy, they continued it in private among themselves. There are no economic saboteurs in reality. The SDP controlled the banks and set the inflation rate. They did that to punish the Entente countries for the reparations payments by making those payments worthless. It also funded their socialist programs. After even more concessions were made by the Entente, the SDP fixed the economy by having the "Hunger Chancellor" cut programs and government spending. Hitler stepped in after the recovery and had his own Great Reset politically and economically; seizing control over society with emergency declarations and the institution of a new currency. He never went to far, he went exactly as he said he would because he declared that all jews were a literal bourgeois race that needed to be physically removed from all of Europe. He converted more Socialists and Communists than he killed because his war was with the jews in his mind. He made enemies only because Stalin and the West were wildly gullible. Instead of backing off a war (that he needed to save his economy and political stability), he chose voluntarily to risk it with everyone. Then when he lost he basically ordered Germany to be destroyed.
You can stand here and pretend that Hitler might not have been evil, but his actions, policies, and words are clear as day. The crusades are sometimes absolutely moral and righteous.
How compelling, I didn't know you could shit out your mouth like that. How does your father appreciate that? Does he think it's the same as your asshole when he fucks it?
Well, only in so much as "Alex Jones is right about the Star Wars Trilogy" Vice is critical in authoritarianism, because it grantees a point of weakness in your subordinates that you can attack them for later, or make them dependent on you for.
Hitler wasn't going to let anyone be a potential rival, even if he could control him with kids. Even if he let others fuck kids. This specific pedophile is part of a previous time period where Hitler wasn't the most important person in the room, and he knows a lot of dirt on a lot of other people (as a prolific pedophile would).
Vice is critical in authoritarianism, because it grantees a point of weakness in your subordinates that you can attack them for later, or make them dependent on you for.
Then reddit wanted more (((advertising))) and here we are. Another corrupted, subverted, "cleansed" woke-happy environment that requires constant censorship, double standards of rule enforcement, and removing all subs that disagree with the government/corporate narratives.
Reading it was a big wake up call for me too. At first I thought "Well if they're vilifying Trump so much, I'm sure that happened a lot in the past too" and tried reading it with an open mind. I found myself nodding a lot when he was decrying how awful journalists are. A lot of the specific German politics at the time lost me though.
For anybody interested in more I would suggest watching The Greatest Story Never Told. Still take it as propaganda of course, but the other side of the media and hollywood entertainment.
I would suggest watching The Greatest Story Never Told.
Right . . . Hitler's image needs some rehabilitation.
FFS, of course he was a human being. We are all capable of great evil, and attempts to rehabilitate his image come from the fear of realizing that yes, junior, you too are capable of the most unspeakably violent crimes if conditions are right and you have layers of sycophant bureaucrats to carry out your commands and a press to give them positive spin or bury their consequences. The more compartments, the more layers, the more PR flak-catchers, the more plausible the denials.
Have you considered the fact that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf as a PR piece?
My point is that Hitler's actions as Fuhrer outweigh those of his well-intended youth, and that his purpose in writing his autobiography was to present an image to the public that they would find favorable--the same with most if not all autobiographies of politicians.
What does Trump or my opinion of him have to do with any of this?
and that his purpose in writing his autobiography was to present an image to the public that they would find favorable
But does that make anything he said wrong? Were any of the problems he was decrying complete falsehoods conjured from literal nothing? If so, were all of the Germans who came to follow him also just that stupid they believed outright lies based on nothing?
Or do you think journalists actually are people deserving of human rights? Because that's a bold position to take.
What does Trump or my opinion of him have to do with any of this?
Because your inability to see people saying "he said some stuff that I kinda get" without going screaming about how evil he is is the exact same as a TDS screaming about DRUMPH BAD. The kind of people who'd say Haiti isn't a shithole because he said it was, just because ORANGE BAD.
And because the guy you replied to outright said people's response to Trump is what made him reconsider Hitler, due to the similarities in the narratives surrounding them and people's emotional crying about them.
I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood."
And WW II ended nearly 80 years ago. I can see now, in real time, Trump being unfairly criticized, in fact persecuted, for all sorts of stupid reasons. My opinions of Adolph Hitler rely on what I have read in history, mainly Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
"Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood."
Literally no one is saying that. People are saying they get what he is saying, and that he spoke some truth. An evil man can still be on point about some shit, that doesn't mean you like him.
My opinions of Adolph Hitler rely on what I have read in history
And people are saying they don't trust how history was written, some because they are seeing history written in real time about Trump and how inaccurate it is. If you think Trump won't be written about as a racist insurrectionist who almost destroyed America and that will be taught in history classes, then you are naive.
The "victors" who wrote the history have made themselves untrustable to a lot of people by painting everything in extremes and hyperbole, while also being assholes, so its only natural that people would go back and be shocked to find history isn't quite so black and white and is even relatable.
Because Trump has been painted as the second Hitler and everything about him is maligned. His policies, his tweets, his haircut, how he eats his steak, his businesses, his kids, etc. He is probably the most maligned person in history behind Hitler and Jesus. So it's an apt case study comparison.
Hitler was trying to breath new life into his people. He sincerely loved the German people and wanted them to prosper and reclaim their old glory. I actually find that very admirable. And as someone who frankly doesnt dismiss the notion of Jews at the time trying to bastardize Germany, I can at least sympathize with what he intended to do. Jews do it in the US currently, to this very day. Is it a stretch to suggest they did the same thing in 1930s Germany?
I used to read Hitler speeches to people but I always just replaced "jews" with "globalists" (if speaking to right-wingers) or "neoliberals" (if speaking to left-wingers) and everyone would always profoundly agree with Hitler's speech.
Isn't it sad to see how simple-minded they all became? We can't point out the obvious nor elephant in the room because it's "controversial", and of course this has been planned way longer than we can imagine.
Most socialists hated the banks and those who ran them, Jews owned most of the banks. It's been a known thing since at least Shakespeare's time. He had an entire play based on the idea.
So I'm about a fifth if way through MK and from what I can tell so far the guy is not evil, not stupid. And honestly quite brilliant. His portrayal if Jews is spot on. Their overall slipperiness in the way they "debate" for example is perfect, having met many Jews in my life I can personally attest to this. The purpose of a nation. The purpose of a people. The undermining and hollowing out of culture and tradition.
A decade ago I was in the Hitler is worse than the devil crowd like every other western educated idiot out there.
Now, and I'm being honest, I don't think the Holocaust was what they said it was. I'll wager That about 250,000 Jews were in fact rounded up and mostly killed but more because they were communist sympathizers and duplicitous traitorous cunts, and not because they were Jews. In which case, good for Hitler.
I'm from the US and while not every Jew is bad per say, even the seemingly normal ones definitely have some sort of resentment towards the west as a whole. Probably because they were raised thinking that Christians bad, Christians holocausted Jews etc. But if white Christian Americans supposedly saved them from white Germans, why would they have this level of animosity towards white Christians? And why would the ones that escaped.to the US want so badly to ruin the people/nation that saved them?
It really is hard to put into words what exactly the thing is about Jews that makes be untrusting of their motives.
Here's some lightning round bullet points
They don't give straight answers
They'll squirm out of answering them
If you logically corner them, they'll just get fed up, feign unfair treatment, and leave
They hate Christianity
They hate whiteness
They hate nationalism
They try to stop things that allow people to achieve financial sovereignty
They always support policies that weaken a nation
They always support values and behaviors that corrupt society
Why are so many lawyers? Lawyers are cunts by their vary nature so a group that prefers to be cunts is sus
Evil doesn't just naturally have the power to control, it usually requires a very charismatic person like Hitler to get the ball rolling then half truths and a convincing convenient lie like the country's misfortunes are down to a certain race or that men have oppressed women forever into slavery or that the environment can only be 'saved' if we sacrifice what we own....
Sometimes I think hermits are the most intelligent humans on Earth as they seem to know this and have peace'd out to middle of nowhere than deal with people being constantly convinced to hurt each other for a scapegoat mentality.
Sounds like one of you stormfags trying your hand at appearing to be a centrist and failing.
This idiot clearly didn't read Mien Kampf because he's retarded enough to say that Hitler sounded nuanced and not super racist, that, really, he didn't even have that big of a problem. It was just the media.
You fucks will endlessly quote this very book about how Hitler came to hate jews, and it had nothing to do with the media, but everything to do with his personal encounters with jews in the SDP and among the intellectual class. In Mien Kampf, Hitler is ranting and railing all the fucking time. Sometimes about the Jews, sometimes the Socialists, the Communists, and the Trade Unionists. That's the point. It's Hitler. He's the master of the emotional tirade. He can do other types of speeches, but not in this book.
Only a fucking mind-breaking retard, or a disingenuous stormfag, would claim that Hitler isn't really super racist, despite alleging that jews are an inherently inferior and subversive race's who's single goal is to destroy nations and kill all human civilization. And, that there needs to be a cleansing of the jew from Europe if all human civilization is to be saved. Also, that Aryans, the magical frost giants of northern Europe strode across all of Eurasia founding every single nation that exists. Yeah dawg, he's basically a colorblind centrist.
If you want to understand the mind of evil in a more eloquent way, just watch Othello. Iago is one of the greatest villains in literature. Hitler is just riling himself and others up.
I no longer read any more ramblings from you. You are just another wordy DrJester to me and I've observed and argued with lot of you all plenty of times already both here and on twitter to know arguing with you goes nowhere. You notice that I'm painting a lot of you with the broadest of brushes, because just this year alone proved me again and again, arguing with you means 90% of the time using a lot of logical fallacies, reading passive aggressive insults here and there and some kindergarten namecalling somewhere. Shit's getting stale and very predictable, it's high time you notice this and make some genuine argument or something.
Which is why lawyers make things as long and arduous and convoluted as possible. And I wonder if a certain racial demo has an inclination towards being lawyers...
For example, "You are an asshole" is concise but rather broad in its possible interpretations. Some "truthful things can be stated simply and concisely," but discussions of Hitler, his public image, and refuting claims that "Hitler was just a misunderstood, ordinary guy who was forced into the stuff he did" can't.
Gizortnik is what you get, when you want to imagine arguing with Destiny in written format. The deceitful thing is that It's all that excessive points you have to address when you just want to argue a single specific point. The fact that I have to point this simple concept is how fucked up the modern debate is.
Okay, example. "Blacks commit a lot of crime" simple statement. True on it's face. Now, one can be (((deceitful))) and say
well blacks don't commit a lot of tax fraud.
Well what about whites?
Or, how black are they really? They probably have some whitening them from the days if slavery.
What do you mean by black? Are Indians black? What about this and that.
Etc etc.
But the fact is ordinary people.know the simple statement to be true. Blacks rape at higher rates than other groups. And murder. And assault. And loot. And armed robbery. And when the kayman says blacks commit a lot of crime we all know exactly what is being referred to. But a deceitful person will feign ignorance or outrage at the assertion and argue over tedious nuance.
Gizortnik's rhetorical style is not totally logical. He makes dozens of points that appear to be directly applicable but can't sit still to discuss any particular one for long. He knows this is frustrating, so I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about persuading anyone or is a victim of crippling Adderall abuse.
There are times when it's helpful to write a 3000 word rant... arguing online is not one of them.
I dunno . . . I find many of his rants informative and entertaining. I'm not exactly pressed for time, so length doesn't bother me if the message is interesting, clear, and persuasive.
No I have seen Gizortnik trying to make hair-splitting argument, whataboutism and all those fallacies even in the situation where the other party was trying to argue without pulling any disingenuous move. And I'm not just referring to Gizortnik here either. He just assumes I am because I used "lot of you" to refer to the tribes because I don't think I've ever argued with him. It's always the same with you people, you always go for personal attack like here when your brethren is being attacked in some manner then spam the hell out of my thread like a sperg.
I admit I devolve into personal attack when I'm arguing with someone like DrJester. I don't mean to be mean but I have to say something about my observation of the tribes. It's always noticeable with them. They get insanely spergy when they sense they are being attacked. Doesn't just happen here or twitter. It even happens in Kiwifarms. It gets incredibly easier to tell who's white and who's ((white)) even without knowing their real names or faces because of the way they react and I just lurk and observe there. And I even see few posters in Kiwifarms that like to make verbally dense arguments like Gizortnik does. In short do learn to make good and concise arguments if you want a good debate without resorting to infantile namecalling.
I've observed and argued with lot of you all plenty of times already both here and on twitter to know arguing with you goes nowhere.
I don't have a twitter. I would also like to point out that I've never been passive aggressive. Just aggressive. Know who you're talking to before you start whining to me about someone you think is me.
it's high time you notice this and make some genuine argument or something.
I'm only name calling because you deserve to be mocked and belittled for your disingenuous bullshit. You know that we can all read Mien Kampf right? I have a copy. All those "wordy" parts you've chosen to dismiss and ignore are all the parts with the detailed analysis. I know it's wasted breath on your motivated reasoning, but it's still important to put out there.
He's not evil for the sake of being evil. He's evil because he's a resentful, backstabbing shit, that takes things way to personally, and harbors secret jealousy and hatred that eats at him.
He's not super "complex" but the thinking that goes into doing evil is absolutely well demonstrated with his soliloquies.
McCarthy was right AND he "over-reached." He may have had better PR had he exercised a bit of rhetorical restraint. His fag buddy Roy Cohn didn't help.
I think you've confused him overreacting with everyone else under reacting and taking insufficient action. Or better, you're confusing over reacting with poor messaging/marketing. It's not that he over reacted but his messaging clearly was ineffective. So with an awkward combination of hindsight (you know now what was done, nothing) and ignorance (you know not how bad the problem really was), people look at him and say wow he was nuts. When in reality he was dead accurate and everyone else was a fool to not believe him.
That's why I made this thread, he still thinks Hitler was brainwashed into what he's known to be. That's one reason why I found the image so fascinating, a redditor realising Hitler was humanly genuine not pure evil.
So close, yet so far away.
The anon still presents a more nuanced position than you can get from most normies, which deserves credit. Even through I've learned a great many censored things about WW2, and related subjects, the arguments I've had with people on this subject (before and after being red pilled on it) does present a conclusion neither side likes. Hitler, NSDAP, and the German people weren't evil incarnate, but they weren't perfect angels either, free from any blemish or mistake.
People and history are more nuanced than many of us like to admit, as it makes arguing for our positions much harder. This goes for either side of a debate, especially one as censored, propagandized, and extremely tribal as this one. Entrenched idealists like to paint in black and white. That's great for logic and truth along the lines of math and philosophy, but not so great when it comes to the real world, where lots of seemingly contradictory things can be true all at the same time.
There's a reason all discussion of Hitler's motives ends at "because he hated the joos". Any average person, if a blind test was done, would most likely agree with him on a lot of things.
He was a pro-woman shill who thought the Jews were to blame for women not being valued enough. He did a speech on it, it's directly adjacent to Judeo-Patriarchy Theory.
He was basically like the sad cuckolds who are obsessed with silencing me here. "Waaaahhhh people aren't supporting women!"
"Because he hated the jews" is absolutely a critical aspect of why he did what he did (which was murder millions of them and plunge Europe into war). The jews were a bourgeois race, and so their extermination was a categorical imperative. He hated the jews as any Leftist would hate the bourgeois. We can talk about why he hated the jews additionally, but most of the time Leftists and NatSocs need to stop there because otherwise they'd have to admit his Socialism.
Any forum with absolute free speech, that doesn't censor this discussion, has had robust debate about this topic, and many people have presented extremely compelling evidence that this isn't what happened, and that it was physically impossible for the Germans to do. This is one of the central ways for how most of were convinced, how we began to reject the lies surrounding WW2, and realizing how thoroughly propagandized our society is.
Total fucking nonsense.
First of all, the Germans managed to kill twenty million Russians, and that was predominantly through regular warfare. Russians exterminated over a hundred thousand Poles in about a year through traditional execution methods. The Khmer Rouge managed to exterminate 20% of their own population in 5 years. The NatSoc atrocities in Greece and Crete demonstrate the capacity for wanton murder and intentional starvation, and that's still not really part of the Holocaust. Those are just other mass killings.
The idea that the Germans simply weren't capable of killing millions of a specific demographic in their own territories (while actively murdering other demographics anyways) is asinine and darkly comical.
Mass executions of jews were more than entirely doable, the unique part of the holocaust was that it was the capital investment of murder as if it were a commodity. A factory of death is not a misnomer, it's not easy to just kill many hundreds of people and dispose of the bodies in a timely manner. The NatSocs mentioned in their own documents that the work of mass executions just through bullets was rather difficult and demoralizing work, especially as time went on. Making it possible for fewer people to kill more in an efficient way was a the goal. One of the benefits of the Sonderkommando system in the extermination camps was that they would be the ones handling most of the bodies, and so would endure the brunt of the psychological damage... then they too would be executed after a few weeks, keeping the demoralization of the NatSoc troops to a minimum. These notes where actually what led to the Milgram experiment on deference to authority.
Again, it is only at this point that we go back to "compelling evidence". The evidence we have is from the bodies, the mass graves, the witnesses, the logistical records, and importantly: the confessions! If they write what they are doing in their own handwriting and admit to it, that's a pretty good indicator they did it. The best evidence from Holocaust Deniers is "hurr durr wooden doors" and "hurr durr it's an Olympic sized swimming pool". Fuck off, we both know this is a lie. Even "Holocaust Skeptics" have to come to the eventual conclusion that "all the records of passengers stop in specific places, and then they never seem to be deported anywhere else". Even David Irving, as much of a liar as he is, admits that Dachau was absolutely an extermination camp. Turns out that a camp that's barely a couple acres can't just store a hundred thousand people in it without overcrowding.
Holocaust Denial is the only "conspiracy theory" that I've ever seen built entirely out of motivated reasoning. All others have an autistic focus on detail that they don't understand or confuse themselves with. Holocaust Denial is about being proud of ignorance publicly, while demanding the atrocities privately. "It didn't happen but it should have"
Not even gonna bother reading this drivel anymore.
Yeah, he's one of the best writers on this board, but he's completely unhinged about this topic.
I can disprove the Holocaust narrative with just a calculator. Take the number of crematoria the Nazis had, the amount of time and fuel it takes to cremate one body (even using the lower numbers for the more advanced and efficient modern crematoria), and calculate how many people the Nazis could cremate within the given time frame they had. It's physically, temporarily, and thermodynamically impossible for the Nazis to have done what is claimed. I can break this down, very specifically, if you want. Just ask.
The official Holocaust narrative is that most of the deaths in the concentration camps were due to gassing, and that the Nazis cremated the bodies. It's also claimed that the Nazis, in full retreat, to hide their "war crimes", dug up the people they previously killed, and put them in crematoria, to "burn" the bodies, to "hide the evidence". It's also claimed the Nazis did most of these killings, while in a multi front war, with strained supply lines, using railways heavily damaged due to Allied attacks, while short on fuel and manpower (remember the Battle of the Bulge?), and in retreat during the latter stages of the war.
The mass graves found don't account for the claimed number of dead. There are mass graves, counting in the hundreds of thousands, but that was due to the heavy conflict from the war. Even "Holocaust deniers" like myself still claim that roughly 250,000 people died in the camps, but that's mostly attributed to starvation (from broken supply lines) and typhus outbreaks due to lice, which is what Zyklon B is actually used for (fumigating clothing to kill lice).
Furthermore, actual experts in execution methods have examined the Nazi "death camps", and said they couldn't do what is claimed. Look at actual execution gas chambers. They don't use wooden doors. They also don't use Zyklon B, which has problems reaching deadly inhalation levels within the air, especially when it's cold, like it is during European winters.
On top of this, the camps had hospitals, swimming pools, maternity wards, and other non-essential buildings and activities. If the Nazis were exterminating jews and other undesirables, why would they give them all of these things, and not just kill them outright? It makes zero sense. It makes much more sense that they were labor camps, especially since the Nazis were short on manpower in the latter stages of the war.
There are also tons and tons of lies many jews have told about the Holocaust, either for clout, to push the narrative, and/or to get reparations. Thus far, Germany has paid 80 billion Euros worth of Holocaust reparations. Quite a lucrative business, but this is assuming a motive purely on greed. When fully analyzed, greed doesn't explain everything. Such lies include "masturbation machines" used to kill young jewish boys (fake), rollercoasters of death that fling helpless passengers into a pit of fire (fake), making jews into lampshades and soap (fake), giant electric chairs that could electrocute dozens of people at once (fake), open fire pits to "cremate" the dead (this is physically impossible to do), bodies used to fuel fires to burn more bodies (this doesn't happen, it takes fuel to burn a body, and a controlled enclosed environment to create the necessary pressures and temperatures to properly cremate), Anne Frank's journal (fake), etc. Furthermore, the "admissions" of Nazis after the war was due to extreme torture, and many of the admissions were written in languages the German POWs couldn't speak. In one instance, of all the German POWs examined, all but 2 had their genitals mutilated beyond repair. The Nuremburg trials also threw out common legal chain of custody rules, so the Allied accusers could say anything they wanted, present any evidence they wanted, even if it was fake. The documents you're citing are pretty much all fake.
It gets even more ridiculous because the official Holocaust historians claim that intact bones weren't found because the Nazis had numerous bone crushing machines. Most people don't know this, but cremating a body leaves the bones intact. However, not a single bone crushing machine has ever been found.
This is all just icing on a very sick cake, however, because nothing refutes the mathematics of the Nazis being incapable of cremating the number of dead that is claimed. I don't care what else is said. Nothing else refutes this fact.
It's not like this is a bridge too far, either. We all know by now that the people in power lie about everything. Why wouldn't they lie about WW2 or other history? They have every motivation to do so. It's why there are so many WW2 propaganda pieces put out every year (movies, TV shows, video games), portraying Nazis as evil, to reinforce the propaganda we were taught in school about WW2. Propaganda is only effective if its constantly reaffirmed, otherwise people break the conditioning. Fortunately, due to the internet and actual free speech sites, more people are breaking the conditioning anyway.
Oh my god, another one. That makes two of you unmitigated fucking retards that doesn't understand that there's more than one death camp, and more than one method of execution, and more than one way of disposing of corpses. How the fuck any of you can say "you learned about the Holocaust all the time", while never managing to learn anything about the Holocaust besides one number, one camp, and one method is beyond me.
What's even stupider is that you managed to make the exact same mistake that Soviets made when calculating the deaths at Autchwitz that put their number 4 times higher than reality.
You can't deboonk the holocaust because you literally don't know anything about it.
This includes your insane comments about rollercoasters. What you don't realize (because you've never looked into the holocaust) is that the only people who have ever said anything about that shit are Holocaust Deniers. No legitimate source has ever mentioned any of that shit. Actually atrocities like removing gold fillings, stealing all jewelry, forced prostitution, pressure chamber experiments, chemical experiments, random murders, and the mass executions are all verifiable.
You know that bones don't typically cremate (at certain temperatures), but you don't know the literal thousands of bodies and skeletons that were dumped into mass graves, that the allies had to disinter and move with bulldozers? Apparently you actually believe that there's no bodies from the holocaust. Like I said, you literally do not know anything about the holocaust. You don't know enough about the holocaust to challenge it.
I'm citing witnesses. I'm citing the accused. Hell most of the shit at Nuremburg wasn't so much related to the Holocaust as it was related to the start of the war. Again, this weird obsession with denying something that none of the NatSocs themselves ever denied. None of the people actually charged with crimes against humanity regarding the holocaust said, "you guys made this whole thing up, these camps don't even exist, there aren't bodies". They said: "I didn't commit those crimes, but I saw others doing it", or "I wasn't there", or "I did it because I was required to", or "I was just following orders." You would think some of the defendants would have rejected the claims. You don't know enough about Nuremburg to criticize it.
Again, your ignorance of the event is a refutation of your calculation. You are more back-asswards on this than the people that said Kyle Rittenhouse shot 4 black people in a mass shooting in Kenosha. You literally do not understand enough of the basics of the event to accurately criticize it.
But there are actual Jews who went on record claiming to be Holocaust survivors who were actually just clout chasers or sympathy chasers. So it's.not stupid for someone to bring it up.
Or the constant beating of it into people's heads at a young age. I had three holocaust survivors speak to me at two different schools when in mid/HS. I've never had a survivor of communism, or an escape from east Germany, or a survivor of 9/11.
So that's super suspicious.
Another thing I've learned is that typically whatever is banned in the public sphere, is accurate. For example in 2020/2021 people weren't allowed to post on social media that hydroxy chloroquine worked against COVID. Or mention other alternatives like Ivermectin. Governors made it illegal for doctors to prescribe it as treatment even though off label treatment is super common like Ozempic for fucking weightless, which actually caused a shortage for people who supposedly actually need it to treat diabetes. But hey, off label is fine if it kills diabetics, so long as other people lose weight. And the Holocaust is at the tippy top of things you are not allowed to question. It's illegal in some countries. It's banned on many platforms. When people even try to discuss it they're shutdown rudely by people like you. The ADL tries to ruin your life. That's super suspicious.
It's stupid to deny the holocaust based on clout chasers. There are 9/11 clout chasers too, that doesn't mean 9/11 didn't happen.
Screw it. I'll do the math for you anyway. I'll break it down camp by camp.
Here's an excerpt from the Wiki page on Nazi extermination camps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
Like I said, the official Holocaust narrative is that most of the deaths were from gassing. The fact that you don't know this is quite odd. Also, killing someone in a poorly constructed room with Zyklon B pellets/crystals is insanely difficult, if not impossible.
The specific names of the death/extermination camps are Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, and Auschwitz.
Chelmno
It's claimed 180,000 to 340,000 deaths were at Chelmno, which operated from December 8, 1941, to April 11, 1943. The Wiki page for Chelmno says:
Oh look, the bone crushing machine lie.
As I've said previously, it's impossible to fully cremate human remains in open air. Full cremation requires pressures and temperatures that can only be reached in enclosed crematoria, which still leaves bones intact. There's flesh left over in open air pyres/cremations, it's not all ash and bone. The "official" Holocaust account still uses this lie. Yet, you claim to be ignorant of this.
Here's what Wikipedia says on open air pyres:
Lets look at India, that still performs lots of open air cremations. Here's a link from CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/09/12/world/asia/india-funeral-pyres-emissions/index.html
That's just for one body, which isn't even fully cremated, and it requires 1,100-1,320 pounds of wood. I've also seen estimates for open air cremations that are even longer, just for one body. Do you have any idea how many trees would have to be cut down to fuel the open air pits to cremate the claimed number of dead? It would have deforested massive areas around the camps, especially in such a concentrated timeframe as is claimed the Nazis did these cremations. It also would result in even more ash leftovers from the burned wood, resulting in mountains of ash that couldn't just be swept away.
Lets say 1 million people were cremated in open air pits, requiring an average of 1,210 pounds of wood per person. That requires a total of 1,210,000,000 lbs of wood. Assuming only 1% of the initial wood weight is turned to ash (a very low estimate, as 6-10% is the accepted value), that leaves roughly 12,100,000 lbs of ash, just from the wood. Wood ash is also very light by volume, so that amount of wood ash would be absolutely massive by volume.
Belzec
It's claimed 430,000 and 500,000 jewish deaths were at Belzec, which operated from March 17, 1942 to the end of June, 1943. The Wiki page admits:
Again, they're trying to claim the Nazis did something that's physically and thermodynamically impossible, and that they used bone crushing machines which were never found.
Sobibor
It's claimed 170,000 to 250,000 deaths were at Sobibor, which operated from May ,1942 to October 14, 1943. The Wiki page admits:
This Wiki page admits to gassing as the main means of killing (which you deny), the use of wooden enclosed gas chambers (which is a hilarious lie), that they used wood to burn the bodies (they'd run out of forest before running out of bodies to cremate), and that they, again, used open air pyres to cremate the bodies. LOL.
Treblinka
It's claimed 700,000 and 900,000 jewish deaths were at Treblinka, which operated from July 23, 1942 and October 19, 1943. The Wiki page admits:
Again, the same lies. You can't just "splash petrol" on a corpse and expect it to cremate in the open air.
Majdanek
It's claimed 78,000 to 360,000 deaths were at Majdanek, which operated from October 1, 1941 to July, 22 1944. The Wiki page admits:
Oh look, the Zyklon B lie again.
But, finally!, a "death camp" that used crematoriums (something that can actually cremate a body). So, from June, 1942 to autumn 1943 (lets assume November 1st), the camp had two ovens, and from autumn 1943 to July, 22 1944 it had 5 ovens. Lets use the cremation times for modern crematoria (giving as much leeway for the official account as possible), it takes roughly 2-3 hours to cremate a body (lets use 2 hours for even more leeway for the official account). Modern crematoria require a cooldown time between each body, to clean the oven, but lets assume these were magic crematoria, that didn't need to be cleaned or cooled off between each body.
The camp had 2 ovens for 518 days, and 5 ovens for 264 days. For the first 518 days, the camp could cremate 12,432 bodies (518days * 24hrs/day / 2hrs/cremation * 2ovens). For the last 264 days, the camp could cremate 15,840 bodies (264days * 24hrs/day / 2hrs/cremation * 5ovens). The total number of bodies the camp could cremate is 28,272. That number is far, far below the "official" claimed number of dead (78,000 to 360,000).
The official number of cremated is a lie. All it takes is simple math to disprove the lie, giving every leeway to the Nazis to break the laws of thermodynamics and time to cremate more than is possible.
Auschwitz
It's claimed 1,100,000 deaths were at Auschwitz, which operated from May, 1940 to January, 1945. The Wiki page admits:
LOL, they claim all of the bone remains were crushed using "wooden mortars". 1.1 million people's bones, ground to dust using mortars. Fucking LOL. The insanity of the official claims.
In any case, lets look at the numbers of cremated in the "official sources". In the above quote, it says the 3 ovens of crematoria I could cremate 340 bodies in 24 hours. That's impossible. 3 ovens * 24hrs / 2hrs/cremation = 36 bodies every 24 hours. To hell with the lies. The "official historians" overvalued the possible number of cremations by a factor of 9.44. Furthermore, you can't just pack in more than one body into a cremation oven. The ovens themselves are ridiculously small, wouldn't fit that many bodies, even starved bodies. You also can't just throw in more bodies into an oven and throw in more fuel, expecting to get the exact same cremation times for 1 body. The official claims are obvious lies.
Let's use this source on the number of ovens Auschwitz had:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/auschwitz
So, 52 ovens total for all give crematoria.
Lets use this source on when the various crematoria were active at Auschwitz:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/crematoria-and-gas-chambers-at-auschwitz-birkenau
Crematoria I was operational for 1,079 days, crematoria II for 640 days, crematoria III for 548 days, crematoria IV for 586 days, and crematoria V for 671 days.
We know crematoria I had 3 ovens, but it's difficult to find accurate sources for how many ovens crematoria 2-5 had, so lets assume an average of 12.25 ([52-3]/4), which won't change the total number much given that crematoria 2-5 operated roughly the same number of days. Lets also assume, again, that these are magic ovens that can operate 24/7 without needing cleaning or cooling off, and all ovens were used from start to finish dates. So, crematoria I could cremate 38,844 bodies in 1079 days, crematoria II 94,080 bodies in 640 days, crematoria III 80,556 bodies in 548 days, crematoria IV 86,142 bodies in 586 days, and crematoria V 98,637 bodies in 671 days. That's a total of 398,259 bodies the Nazis could theoretically cremate. This number is woefully short of the claimed 1.1 million, and assumes heavily in favor of the official account.
Just to be clear on the situation of the latter parts of the war, lets use this source on why Nazi Germany lost:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed
Germany lost because they were short on manpower, labor, resources, supplies, and fuel. They couldn't expend the fuel needed for the war effort on cremating bodies in their non existent "death camps". The above Wiki pages admit, in clear language, from "official sources", that the majority of the bodies were killed by gassing using Zyklon B (which is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible), cremated in ovens (that were seemingly operated by magic, using fuel the Nazis didn't have), or cremated in open air pits (which doesn't work for cremation), and they exhumed the bodies after death to "hide the evidence", during a time when the Nazis were on the backfoot, being beaten on every front and/or retreating, while short on fuel, manpower, labor, and supplies, with their railways and supply lines being attacked and broken. The notion that the Nazis were able to achieve what is claimed is absurdly ridiculous. Apparently their super evil gave them magical powers to overcome impossibilities.
I, and all other Holocaust "deniers", well understand the official position. We're well aware that the "official" Holocaust account says there was more than one death camp. We can disprove the numbers of dead under the official accounts in totality (adding up the crematoria of all death camps), or by individual "death" camps. Not sure why you think that I think there was only one camp.
Typical. Pro Holocaust narrative pushers never, ever, acknowledge that they have to perpetually change the "truth" of the events to account for holes in their theory. The official Holocaust narrative has always said the primary method of execution was gassing, and the primary way of body disposal was cremation. There's no getting around this. It's been beaten into the heads of every single Westerner since Holocaust propaganda became prevalent around the 70s (odd that it didn't start right after the discoveries of all those "death camps" at the latter parts of WW2, or right after WW2), it's been the primary messaging of the Holocaust, and taught in all Western schools. If you admit that your pet theory has to be continually adjusted, then you're tacitly suggesting that your theory is wrong.
What a strange assertion, when I know more about your theory than you do, or more than you claim. You've already bought into the adjustments to the theory to prevent it from being completely debunked.
Wrong. Jews were the ones that made those ridiculous claims. Quotes, pictures, and sources have been posted tons all over the chans (pretty much the main free speech forums that were able to discuss this topic) for years and years.
LOL. Classic. Appeal to authority fallacy. "Only sources that say what I want are 'legitimate'". Double LOL.
Have you completely ignored the last 3 years of Covid lies? The governments, media, pharmaceutical and medical industries, all over the world, straight up lied to people, repeatedly, for years, leading to the deaths of thousands, or millions (hard to tell given how much they've censored, covered up, and lied about). You're actually suggesting that people are incapable of lying, in "official" sources, "legitimate" studies, "concrete" evidence. Triple LOL.
Governments have never, ever lied. Governments have never, ever lied about their political opponents, wartime opponents, or created straw men caricatures of either, or conjured fake evidence to paint their opponents in negative light. Governments have never, ever lied to their own people, or used propaganda to get their people to think the way they want. Good lord you're dense.
Hey, thanks for acknowledging that thousands of bodies were found, a number absurdly, drastically short of the claimed millions of dead. A tacit admission, but a welcome one. You're too dense to see it though, considering you thought that argument worked in your favor. Holocaust "deniers" already acknowledge that lots of people died in WW2. Big shocker! We already acknowledge that mass graves exist, but are accounted by the dead from the war, not from extermination camps.
Witnesses that have been repeatedly caught lying. Furthermore, actual experts and witnesses that say things contrary to the official Holocaust narrative have been censored, attacked, and had their lives ruined. Why do you believe the "official" witnesses, but not the people who had their lives ruined? What about the expert leaders of the Allies (Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle) who wrote memoirs after WW2, and not one of them mentioned the Holocaust, the mass extermination of jews and other undesirables by the evil Nazis? Wouldn't those experts want to claim credit for defeating the evil Nazis and saving all the people they planned to exterminate? Weird. Are you not admitting your own bias, only wanting to believe people who support your position, but ignore everyone else?
You mean the Nazis that gave confessions under duress of torture? You mean the Nazis that wrote confessions in languages they couldn't speak? You mean the "evidence" that could be conjured up from thin air because all Western legal precedent for fair trials was thrown out the window at Nuremberg?
Admit that you're afraid of even asking me to refute the numbers based on simple math, and we can move on. Or, have the courage to challenge your own theory by asking me to do it. I dare you. That, or tacitly admit that you're an intellectual coward, incapable of admitting you're wrong, or even challenging your own ideas and beliefs.
Best I can do is 250,000 Jews.
It's okay for you to be an idiot. Well, maybe not in Germany, but for me, it's okay for you to be an idiot.
24 downvotes suggest that a few people here probably think the Nazi "final solution to the Jewish question" was a good idea. All you need to do to gauge Hitler's jew-hatred is listen to a couple of his speeches lambasting and scapegoating them. Oh, there's the bit about concentration camps and gas chambers, too.
Every reasonable and literate person understands that Hitler was a human being and not some sort of super-villain. Efforts to make him supernatural have to do with the embarrassment of having to acknowledge his humanity and the fact that anyone is capable of committing atrocities, especially if you are several layers removed bureaucratically from the evil. You make a decree and leave Himmler and the SS to work out the details.
You also need to understand that in Mein Kampf Hitler was creating a PR portfolio for political purposes.
Hell, even Wolfenstein understood that he was human in their comical and crazed portrayals of him.
The dumbest shit here is that they know I'm fucking right. If they read Mien Kampf, then they know that I'm laying it out accurately. Some of them did, so in response, we can understand that their downvotes are performative garbage. I'd be upvoted if I said it was a good thing. There is no debating the facts, they just don't like having it shoved back in their face. Kinda like the way Goering didn't when he was shown footage of the death camps.
I think the doubt is more in the number. 6M Jews. Hmm.
As of today, there are what, 118K Jews in Germany, 6.3M Jews in ISRAEL, and 16M total Jews in the world?
Even in the US where they number the most 5.7M for a non Jewish state they are 1.7% of the population. Probably less.
And that's basically the same everywhere. Roughly 1% of any given country's population. A little more or less here or there. The population size of Germany pre WW2 is suspiciously hard to get reliable info on but roughly 60M. 1% of that would be 600,000. And we could extrapolate to France Poland etc. To be honest, I don't think there were 6M Jews to be found in Europe at the time.
There's no real arguments about the 6 million number, counting non-jewish holocaust deaths is more contentious because some people just don't want to include any non-jewish deaths in what counts as the holocaust, rather than just additional killings.
The problem is you have a ton of false presumptions here of what you think the number of jews in a country should be, and that's just not the case, especially when you start broadening the definition of who a jew is under the Nuremburg Laws.
At the time, I don't remember the exact figure, but there would have been well over ten million jews in Europe at the time. And in this case (because the Nazis are counting them this way), we have to consider anyone of any parental heritage to a jew, even if non-practicing. Many jews would have self-identified as such, though in Germany, there were many jews that didn't (which is why the Nazis built entire departments to find jews that weren't self-identifying and were non-practicing, all through lineage) were calling themselves "Germans of the mosaic faith" and identifying as German... because they actually did see themselves as German, not jewish. Capitalization was intentional there because they were subscribing to an idea of Germanism.
IIRC, there were over a million jews in Germany as well. Poland, on the other hand, while not being majority jewish, had probably the single highest number of jews per capita in Europe. This is one of the primary reasons that there were so many concentration and extermination camps built in the country. IIRC, there were at least 4 million jews in Poland alone. Again, don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but were somewhere vaugely around 30% of the population.
And this is a critical point, Hitler wasn't trying to push jews just out of Germany. The logic of judeo-bolshevism is that no jew can exist anywhere. If you remove jews from Germany, and let them settle in Poland, then they will cross the border. You have to get rid of all of them, everywhere, all at once (which is what Kristallnacht was about, but just for everywhere in Germany). He's trying to "save Europe", by removing or killing every jew in Europe. This is also why he didn't just focus on mass relocation, like other genocides do. If you just remove and displace people, there's a chance they could return, or gather into an army, or become the majority demographic somewhere. Historical evidence does show that even if jews are forcibly relocated, they will often return. So, relocation doesn't solve the judeo-bolshevism problem that states that all jews, everywhere, will always seek to destroy nations, and will travel to nations in order to parasitize and destroy them. You can't allow any single jew alive. You have to kill all of them.
Hence, why the NatSocs where forcing Italy to export Italian Jewish Fascists to be sent to extermination or concentration camps. They didn't just kill jews in Germany, or in Poland, but in every single country that they could get the puppet governments to agree to. This is also why Poland experienced such a massive population loss from the war. It's actually one of the only countries losses from war are rivaled by losses explicitly from the Holocaust.
it's almost as if pure evil caricatures are extremely rare in history. That everyone that has ever done something great, good or bad, has done it for a multitude of nuanced reasons. it's almost as if looking at history through the lens of purely good or evil is pointless; that the real lessons are in understanding the true reasons why people did what they did, from every angle, and judging them after you know the facts.
Luckily the facts on Hitler are insurmountable and obvious. Turns out, like with Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Ivan The Terrible, and others; he was absolutely one of those pure evil characters that are rare in history.
"But you don't understand. Mao didn't know about the killings! Overall, he did more good than bad! His ideas were good, but things just didn't work out!" Nope, fuck all of those shithead apologetics.
Insurmountable? Obvious? Like we haven't had decades of propaganda, misinformation, half-truths, and sometimes straight up lies being fed to us?
When did doubt, skepticism, and disbelief fall out of favor with the common man? When did it become fashionable to be a good little drone, to toil until you broke, being fed with syrup and dyes? Do you really think Hitler was a cartoon villain? Really? That one day, for no reason at all, he just decided that a whole demographic of people needed to die? No reason, just 'cuz?
Do you believe things because the talking heads in the box tell you they happened? Do you believe inflation isn't real because KJP says it isn't as bad as it feels?
Real people aren't one dimensional Overwatch characters.
It's one of the things that helped me connect the dots, to put the perfectly fitting puzzle pieces together. Before becoming red pilled on WW2, I already knew that the people in power lied to us, about everything, in the news, in media, in government, about our history (specifically about slavery and the civil war), but I still adamantly believed what I was told about WW2 history, for reasons I could never adequately explain. Then, through curiosity, I began to visit demonized free speech forums, where I was exposed to censored information and discussion, including everything surrounding WW2, and the world began to make a lot more sense.
Looking back, it's rather astounding how flimsy the current "conservative" normie right position is, about how contradictory my position was before. It posits the well supported position that the people in power are liars, that they have control of pretty much all aspects of society, and yet WW2 history is sacrosanct. The lesson is clear as day: don't trust liars. And yet, many on the right continue to trust liars on specific subjects. It's rather maddening. Fortunately, though, more and more are waking up.
Skepticism is fine, but why are you trying to rehabilitate Hitler's public image or deny what the Nazis did from the burning of the Reichstag to the capture of Berlin?
You're making his point. You're question is loaded. "Why try to rehabilitate his image" implies he is horrible to begin with and doesn't even attempt to ponder if he was actually as bad as we've been taught. You ask as if it's a foregone conclusion. We're not even sure what happened with the Hawaii fires and that was just 2 weeks ago with smart phones and internet etc. But we're supposed to just accept whatever we're fed about the Holocaust?
I understand that propaganda is a part of any war, but I'm not quite ready to revise my opinions on WWII, Hitler, and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands.
We could have asked that to the people who voted for him. Don't even almost
No you faux sentimental, twat. We have evidence. We have records. We have witnesses. We have bodies. And best of all: we have confessions. That's my favorite part of all this. You will stand there with a thumb up your dick and pretend like you have intellectual grace like, but you're just an old-style sophist. As a sophist of the modern era, you run apologetics for someone who never asked for an apology, and would refuse to give one. None of the people you are begging the question for deny their crimes, nor their objectives, nor their rationale. The only thing they ever said is that they weren't responsible because Hitler was just so persuasive. They still signed the orders, they still made the budgets, they still attacked civilians, and they still slaughtered millions, jews or otherwise, because they all believed it was the right thing to do at the time.
Oh I know, why can't we just believe the lies and half truths of the propagandists you like? Why can't we just accept the deceptions of the regime that literally invented all modern political propaganda and most film making techniques. Because those lies formed the basis of the unelected, revolutionary, Nazi regime. It was a very progressive, modern, and intellectual movement that many experts thought was for the best in Germany. Gobbels saw to that that the National Socialist state would be a technocratic one. It's why many experts and authorities in Austria simply bent over for Anschluss. In fact, since you mentioned "ticking the box", the single most infamous bit of ridiculous ballot engineering took place under the Anschluss annexation. But I suppose I should continue to reject the evidence and accept the claims of the old experts who were explicitly lying.
But why can't I just play moral relativism, and stand just stand around "just asking questions?" Because I have answers. Answers we both know you would be giddy to see replicated; because that's the real point. You're not intellectually curious, you're singularly driven, as all sophists are. You're engaging in rhetorical warfare to hopefully worm your way into getting a future of blood and death, because it's the one you want. It's the one they wanted to.
Very well-put, as usual.
I don't understand why some people feel the need to whitewash Hitler's Third Reich. Of course he was a human being. That's part of the horror of his rise and fall, the fact that most anyone is capable of dehumanizing his perceived enemies. It's what we need to do if there's any sort of conscience at all or if we need to create "plausible deniability."
They need to read William Shirer's book, at least.
They're white washing it because they are trying to renormalize the violence. That, and it's a troll on the Marxists and Communists, that are happy to do much the same to their asserted bourgeoise, but not go to the mechanized effort that the Germans specifically decided to go with.
Hitler was a dumbass, and the war he initiated combined with his brutally authoritarian policies in the homeland definitely makes him one of the great assholes and losers of History, but I think you missed the point of my comment.
it's very important to focus on the "why" of History. In the case of Hitler, he was voted into power by a populace that was tired of being absolutely fucked by the politics of the Great War aftermath, fucked by the banks inflating their currency into oblivion, and fucked by rampant degeneracy in their major cities (sound familiar?). To my knowledge, his initial actions improved Germany immensely, enough for him to be praised by foreign leaders and propaganda rags like Time Magazine. But he got too zealous. where he was initially trying to catch the economic saboteurs and kid fuckers, he was soon catching all dissidents to the state, all jews, and all gays. 99.9% of the people he rounded up were not a threat to Germany or the German populace. Combine that with him making military enemies out of Europe and Russia simultaneously, and he ended up fucking Germany worse than when he had inherited it.
The narrow-minded view of good versus evil really only exists in Hollywood and Religion. people who view history in this lens are very prone to the crusader's fallacy, where they will be the ones committing the atrocities while believing that they are the good guys this time.
I lost a long winded reply, so I'm going to make this shorter.
Everything you said is wrong and/or a continuance of one group's propaganda or another. Hitler was never voted into power. The NSDAP never had a majority. The western elites favored Hitler, Mussolini, and Fascism because it was progressive. The NSDAP never stopped degeneracy, they continued it in private among themselves. There are no economic saboteurs in reality. The SDP controlled the banks and set the inflation rate. They did that to punish the Entente countries for the reparations payments by making those payments worthless. It also funded their socialist programs. After even more concessions were made by the Entente, the SDP fixed the economy by having the "Hunger Chancellor" cut programs and government spending. Hitler stepped in after the recovery and had his own Great Reset politically and economically; seizing control over society with emergency declarations and the institution of a new currency. He never went to far, he went exactly as he said he would because he declared that all jews were a literal bourgeois race that needed to be physically removed from all of Europe. He converted more Socialists and Communists than he killed because his war was with the jews in his mind. He made enemies only because Stalin and the West were wildly gullible. Instead of backing off a war (that he needed to save his economy and political stability), he chose voluntarily to risk it with everyone. Then when he lost he basically ordered Germany to be destroyed.
You can stand here and pretend that Hitler might not have been evil, but his actions, policies, and words are clear as day. The crusades are sometimes absolutely moral and righteous.
He can't, he's admitted to enjoying being "Mr. Subverter" and getting everyone to hate him.
This is like crack to him getting to whine about how dumb everyone is but him (and his apparent personal dick sucker he brought along).
How compelling, I didn't know you could shit out your mouth like that. How does your father appreciate that? Does he think it's the same as your asshole when he fucks it?
Because you can't compete? Have a hard time reading anything but comic books? Or are you too lazy or distracted to read a few paragraphs?
Maybe you should hang out on X.
This fact is what makes the case of Ernst Rohm so interesting. Hitler outed his bro as a homo pedophile as part of his liquidating of the SA.
Well, only in so much as "Alex Jones is right about the Star Wars Trilogy" Vice is critical in authoritarianism, because it grantees a point of weakness in your subordinates that you can attack them for later, or make them dependent on you for.
Hitler wasn't going to let anyone be a potential rival, even if he could control him with kids. Even if he let others fuck kids. This specific pedophile is part of a previous time period where Hitler wasn't the most important person in the room, and he knows a lot of dirt on a lot of other people (as a prolific pedophile would).
I don't get this reference.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RZuny72AwTiZ/
He basically walks through how malicious revolutionary governments work.
Right. J. Edgar Hoover knew this well.
Understatement of the year.
800 upvotes? And still allowed to exist on reddit? How was this possible?
If you notice at the top, that reddit post was made 9 years ago. Makes me a bit curious what this redditor became now.
It was nine years ago.
ah, from the before times
I feel like that scene when Obi-Wan gets PTSD.
Then reddit wanted more (((advertising))) and here we are. Another corrupted, subverted, "cleansed" woke-happy environment that requires constant censorship, double standards of rule enforcement, and removing all subs that disagree with the government/corporate narratives.
After a certain amount of time, reddit locks the ability to interact with older posts across the board.
So as long as it isn't straight up deleted, it doesn't matter when it was screenshotted, it'll still be a time capsule of the time it was taken.
Reading it was a big wake up call for me too. At first I thought "Well if they're vilifying Trump so much, I'm sure that happened a lot in the past too" and tried reading it with an open mind. I found myself nodding a lot when he was decrying how awful journalists are. A lot of the specific German politics at the time lost me though.
For anybody interested in more I would suggest watching The Greatest Story Never Told. Still take it as propaganda of course, but the other side of the media and hollywood entertainment.
Right . . . Hitler's image needs some rehabilitation.
FFS, of course he was a human being. We are all capable of great evil, and attempts to rehabilitate his image come from the fear of realizing that yes, junior, you too are capable of the most unspeakably violent crimes if conditions are right and you have layers of sycophant bureaucrats to carry out your commands and a press to give them positive spin or bury their consequences. The more compartments, the more layers, the more PR flak-catchers, the more plausible the denials.
Have you considered the fact that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf as a PR piece?
And does that make what he is saying wrong? Do truthful statements become false because a No-no person says them?
Because it sounds like you'd argue the sky is green if Trump said it was blue.
My point is that Hitler's actions as Fuhrer outweigh those of his well-intended youth, and that his purpose in writing his autobiography was to present an image to the public that they would find favorable--the same with most if not all autobiographies of politicians.
What does Trump or my opinion of him have to do with any of this?
But does that make anything he said wrong? Were any of the problems he was decrying complete falsehoods conjured from literal nothing? If so, were all of the Germans who came to follow him also just that stupid they believed outright lies based on nothing?
Or do you think journalists actually are people deserving of human rights? Because that's a bold position to take.
Because your inability to see people saying "he said some stuff that I kinda get" without going screaming about how evil he is is the exact same as a TDS screaming about DRUMPH BAD. The kind of people who'd say Haiti isn't a shithole because he said it was, just because ORANGE BAD.
And because the guy you replied to outright said people's response to Trump is what made him reconsider Hitler, due to the similarities in the narratives surrounding them and people's emotional crying about them.
I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood."
And WW II ended nearly 80 years ago. I can see now, in real time, Trump being unfairly criticized, in fact persecuted, for all sorts of stupid reasons. My opinions of Adolph Hitler rely on what I have read in history, mainly Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
Literally no one is saying that. People are saying they get what he is saying, and that he spoke some truth. An evil man can still be on point about some shit, that doesn't mean you like him.
And people are saying they don't trust how history was written, some because they are seeing history written in real time about Trump and how inaccurate it is. If you think Trump won't be written about as a racist insurrectionist who almost destroyed America and that will be taught in history classes, then you are naive.
The "victors" who wrote the history have made themselves untrustable to a lot of people by painting everything in extremes and hyperbole, while also being assholes, so its only natural that people would go back and be shocked to find history isn't quite so black and white and is even relatable.
Because Trump has been painted as the second Hitler and everything about him is maligned. His policies, his tweets, his haircut, how he eats his steak, his businesses, his kids, etc. He is probably the most maligned person in history behind Hitler and Jesus. So it's an apt case study comparison.
But Trump has not begun a world war or given orders to exterminate entire populations of the country.
Trump is unfairly criticized; comparing him to Hitler is idiotic and simple-minded. In what ways has Hitler been unfairly criticized?
Hitler was trying to breath new life into his people. He sincerely loved the German people and wanted them to prosper and reclaim their old glory. I actually find that very admirable. And as someone who frankly doesnt dismiss the notion of Jews at the time trying to bastardize Germany, I can at least sympathize with what he intended to do. Jews do it in the US currently, to this very day. Is it a stretch to suggest they did the same thing in 1930s Germany?
I used to read Hitler speeches to people but I always just replaced "jews" with "globalists" (if speaking to right-wingers) or "neoliberals" (if speaking to left-wingers) and everyone would always profoundly agree with Hitler's speech.
Isn't it sad to see how simple-minded they all became? We can't point out the obvious nor elephant in the room because it's "controversial", and of course this has been planned way longer than we can imagine.
Most socialists hated the banks and those who ran them, Jews owned most of the banks. It's been a known thing since at least Shakespeare's time. He had an entire play based on the idea.
The Jewish socialist never made the connection.
oh no, they're playing both sides, jew bankers would often fund jew commies to subvert the host nations
Jew bankers funded weird stuff. The banking Jews didn't really like the poor Jews, but would happily fund a set of ships going west from Spain.
So I'm about a fifth if way through MK and from what I can tell so far the guy is not evil, not stupid. And honestly quite brilliant. His portrayal if Jews is spot on. Their overall slipperiness in the way they "debate" for example is perfect, having met many Jews in my life I can personally attest to this. The purpose of a nation. The purpose of a people. The undermining and hollowing out of culture and tradition.
A decade ago I was in the Hitler is worse than the devil crowd like every other western educated idiot out there.
Now, and I'm being honest, I don't think the Holocaust was what they said it was. I'll wager That about 250,000 Jews were in fact rounded up and mostly killed but more because they were communist sympathizers and duplicitous traitorous cunts, and not because they were Jews. In which case, good for Hitler.
I'm from the US and while not every Jew is bad per say, even the seemingly normal ones definitely have some sort of resentment towards the west as a whole. Probably because they were raised thinking that Christians bad, Christians holocausted Jews etc. But if white Christian Americans supposedly saved them from white Germans, why would they have this level of animosity towards white Christians? And why would the ones that escaped.to the US want so badly to ruin the people/nation that saved them?
It really is hard to put into words what exactly the thing is about Jews that makes be untrusting of their motives.
Here's some lightning round bullet points They don't give straight answers They'll squirm out of answering them If you logically corner them, they'll just get fed up, feign unfair treatment, and leave They hate Christianity They hate whiteness They hate nationalism They try to stop things that allow people to achieve financial sovereignty They always support policies that weaken a nation They always support values and behaviors that corrupt society Why are so many lawyers? Lawyers are cunts by their vary nature so a group that prefers to be cunts is sus
Most of the tribes are made up of these cancerous being of caliber like this, I think there really needs to be timeout for people like that.
I’m amazed this made it to +800 karma
Evil doesn't just naturally have the power to control, it usually requires a very charismatic person like Hitler to get the ball rolling then half truths and a convincing convenient lie like the country's misfortunes are down to a certain race or that men have oppressed women forever into slavery or that the environment can only be 'saved' if we sacrifice what we own....
Sometimes I think hermits are the most intelligent humans on Earth as they seem to know this and have peace'd out to middle of nowhere than deal with people being constantly convinced to hurt each other for a scapegoat mentality.
CuntPro's daily attempt at trying to make us disbelieve our lying eyes.
Sounds like one of you stormfags trying your hand at appearing to be a centrist and failing.
This idiot clearly didn't read Mien Kampf because he's retarded enough to say that Hitler sounded nuanced and not super racist, that, really, he didn't even have that big of a problem. It was just the media.
You fucks will endlessly quote this very book about how Hitler came to hate jews, and it had nothing to do with the media, but everything to do with his personal encounters with jews in the SDP and among the intellectual class. In Mien Kampf, Hitler is ranting and railing all the fucking time. Sometimes about the Jews, sometimes the Socialists, the Communists, and the Trade Unionists. That's the point. It's Hitler. He's the master of the emotional tirade. He can do other types of speeches, but not in this book.
Only a fucking mind-breaking retard, or a disingenuous stormfag, would claim that Hitler isn't really super racist, despite alleging that jews are an inherently inferior and subversive race's who's single goal is to destroy nations and kill all human civilization. And, that there needs to be a cleansing of the jew from Europe if all human civilization is to be saved. Also, that Aryans, the magical frost giants of northern Europe strode across all of Eurasia founding every single nation that exists. Yeah dawg, he's basically a colorblind centrist.
If you want to understand the mind of evil in a more eloquent way, just watch Othello. Iago is one of the greatest villains in literature. Hitler is just riling himself and others up.
I no longer read any more ramblings from you. You are just another wordy DrJester to me and I've observed and argued with lot of you all plenty of times already both here and on twitter to know arguing with you goes nowhere. You notice that I'm painting a lot of you with the broadest of brushes, because just this year alone proved me again and again, arguing with you means 90% of the time using a lot of logical fallacies, reading passive aggressive insults here and there and some kindergarten namecalling somewhere. Shit's getting stale and very predictable, it's high time you notice this and make some genuine argument or something.
Would you say that even if you backed one of them into a rhetorical corner, he would have no recollection of it the next day?
I see what you did there ;)
I'm pretty sure verbosity is a sign of deceit. Truthful things can be stated simply and concisely.
Which is why lawyers make things as long and arduous and convoluted as possible. And I wonder if a certain racial demo has an inclination towards being lawyers...
Right.
For example, "You are an asshole" is concise but rather broad in its possible interpretations. Some "truthful things can be stated simply and concisely," but discussions of Hitler, his public image, and refuting claims that "Hitler was just a misunderstood, ordinary guy who was forced into the stuff he did" can't.
It's less about this specific instance and more about Gizortnik's pattern of excessive verbosity whenever he starts being deceitful or wrongheaded.
I genuinely don’t know what exactly is “deceitful” about what he’s saying
Gizortnik is what you get, when you want to imagine arguing with Destiny in written format. The deceitful thing is that It's all that excessive points you have to address when you just want to argue a single specific point. The fact that I have to point this simple concept is how fucked up the modern debate is.
Okay, example. "Blacks commit a lot of crime" simple statement. True on it's face. Now, one can be (((deceitful))) and say
well blacks don't commit a lot of tax fraud.
Well what about whites?
Or, how black are they really? They probably have some whitening them from the days if slavery.
What do you mean by black? Are Indians black? What about this and that.
Etc etc.
But the fact is ordinary people.know the simple statement to be true. Blacks rape at higher rates than other groups. And murder. And assault. And loot. And armed robbery. And when the kayman says blacks commit a lot of crime we all know exactly what is being referred to. But a deceitful person will feign ignorance or outrage at the assertion and argue over tedious nuance.
Hey, you forgot accusing you of saying things you never said and then accusing you of being a gaslighter if you say you didn't!
That's an important part of his repertoire.
Gizortnik always argues logically. All I see from you is personal attack and whinging.
Gizortnik's rhetorical style is not totally logical. He makes dozens of points that appear to be directly applicable but can't sit still to discuss any particular one for long. He knows this is frustrating, so I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about persuading anyone or is a victim of crippling Adderall abuse.
There are times when it's helpful to write a 3000 word rant... arguing online is not one of them.
I dunno . . . I find many of his rants informative and entertaining. I'm not exactly pressed for time, so length doesn't bother me if the message is interesting, clear, and persuasive.
It's fine as long as you're not arguing with him, which means contesting the claims he makes.
No I have seen Gizortnik trying to make hair-splitting argument, whataboutism and all those fallacies even in the situation where the other party was trying to argue without pulling any disingenuous move. And I'm not just referring to Gizortnik here either. He just assumes I am because I used "lot of you" to refer to the tribes because I don't think I've ever argued with him. It's always the same with you people, you always go for personal attack like here when your brethren is being attacked in some manner then spam the hell out of my thread like a sperg.
I admit I devolve into personal attack when I'm arguing with someone like DrJester. I don't mean to be mean but I have to say something about my observation of the tribes. It's always noticeable with them. They get insanely spergy when they sense they are being attacked. Doesn't just happen here or twitter. It even happens in Kiwifarms. It gets incredibly easier to tell who's white and who's ((white)) even without knowing their real names or faces because of the way they react and I just lurk and observe there. And I even see few posters in Kiwifarms that like to make verbally dense arguments like Gizortnik does. In short do learn to make good and concise arguments if you want a good debate without resorting to infantile namecalling.
"You people"? Have you seen "The Pawnbroker"?
((white))?
Later.
I don't have a twitter. I would also like to point out that I've never been passive aggressive. Just aggressive. Know who you're talking to before you start whining to me about someone you think is me.
I'm only name calling because you deserve to be mocked and belittled for your disingenuous bullshit. You know that we can all read Mien Kampf right? I have a copy. All those "wordy" parts you've chosen to dismiss and ignore are all the parts with the detailed analysis. I know it's wasted breath on your motivated reasoning, but it's still important to put out there.
He's not evil for the sake of being evil. He's evil because he's a resentful, backstabbing shit, that takes things way to personally, and harbors secret jealousy and hatred that eats at him.
He's not super "complex" but the thinking that goes into doing evil is absolutely well demonstrated with his soliloquies.
I feel like that's kind of a cop-out. All characters in lesser hands are worse off. Look at all of our comic book and video game characters.
McCarthy was right AND he "over-reached." He may have had better PR had he exercised a bit of rhetorical restraint. His fag buddy Roy Cohn didn't help.
I think you've confused him overreacting with everyone else under reacting and taking insufficient action. Or better, you're confusing over reacting with poor messaging/marketing. It's not that he over reacted but his messaging clearly was ineffective. So with an awkward combination of hindsight (you know now what was done, nothing) and ignorance (you know not how bad the problem really was), people look at him and say wow he was nuts. When in reality he was dead accurate and everyone else was a fool to not believe him.
OK.
I'll admit I don't know how many commies were actively trying to overthrow the USG in the "McCarthy era."
I'll have to get back to you after reading up on his actual claims and what the reality may have been.
And even if you did read up a lot of these weren't exactly advertised.