Full Thread: #1 Holohoax Thread
View Single Post
Old July 25th, 2012 #64
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
8. The sort of revisionist arguments being shopped around by Hadding Scott that allow him to say "serenely" that "the Holocaust did not happen," that "zero people died in the Holocaust," etc., are premised on verbal slight of hand. He stipulates that the Holocaust was the attempt to kill every Jew on the planet, and since the Germans obviously were not trying to do that, there was no Holocaust. Or, the Holocaust means killing Jews in gas chambers, and since that did not happen, there was no Holocaust. He even claims that the world's most famous Holocaust victim, Anne Frank, was not a Holocaust victim because she did not die in a gas chamber or Hitler was not trying to kill every Jew. Sensible people look at arguments like that and ask: "But what about the big pile of Jews that revisionists admit actually died?" Aren't they "Holocaust enough" for whites to feel guilt and self-hated?
They died from disease in prison camps. Where do you get "holocaust" out of that? Do you really that's something that ordinary people can't understand - the NS used gas on clothes to kill lice that spread the very disease killing the campers? And that jews lied and said this gas that was in fact hygienc was used to murder them? Why is Hadding the bad guy for playing with the term? The effectiveness of the Holocaust is based on its NOT being defined. Just being repeated. Millions of times a day. Through all mass media. But who ever heard it formally defined? This is how you get across a hoax. The second you try to nail it down, as Hadding shows, there ain't no there there. Nothing. Not a damn thing. Some bodies in a camp? Christ, there were bodies all over Europe. Some bodies in a camp don't mean anything - until some group of kikes concocts a bogus 'narrative,' and sets it to film and violin. And you object to Aryans fighting back with mere facts? What, do you have your own private definition of "holocaust"? You can just decide the term is still justified, even though the main two pillars it rests on -- the 6m and the gassing -- have been kicked out? And don't cite me Irving. You'll remember the kikes say that he is a "discredited" historian. So we can't trust anything he says, particularly when it might not be legal for him to write anything else.

There was no special jewish suffering in WWII. So there is no justifiable term to describe that non-existent suffering. Any term that is concocted by jews is a propaganda term directed against innocent Whites. The special suffering was on the part of the victims of the relatives of the same jewish liars who concocted 'holocaust.' They are the ones who deserve a designer term for the misery they suffered, starving and dying by their millions in Russia and Ukraine, in what we should call the Kulakaust. That was the real European genocidal atrocity horror of the 20th century.

No jew ever, anywhere should be allowed to get away with the monstrous imposition and effrontery that 'holocaust' represents.

Quote:
No rational person is fooled by that nonsense. The fact that this kind of sophistry
Jews claim 6 million were murdered. Mostly in gas chambers. They claim their kin were made into soap bars and lampshades. Every one of these claims is revealed to be a lie. By revisionists. And you're talking about sophistry? You're missing the point: not a single claim made by organized jewry about what happened to jews in WWII has stood up to scrutiny. Yet you're willing to grant them the basis of their claims, without there being any evidence behind it.

Quote:
9. So let's grant for the sake of argument that, when their work is done, revisionists establish that the Germans never intended to kill every Jew on the planet, or even every Jew in Germany; that there were no homicidal gas chambers and gas vans; that the survivors and Allies and Jewish leaders made up a lot of outlandish lies; etc. I submit -- and they admit -- that "Holocaust enough" would remain.
See, the thing is, you're trying to argue conclusions on stuff you simply aren't educated on. Your consulting with this or that important man isn't enough for you to draw the conclusions you have, and write the way you do about people who actually have studied.

Quote:
I'm not "conceding" that. Revisionists concede it. I am just bearing the bad news and claiming that revisionism is NOT ENOUGH to deal with the Holocaust problem. The revisionists can win every argument, and there will still be Holocaust enough for them to SELL our people on a one way guilt trip to oblivion. So we need to work on our people to prevent them from BUYING it.
So the jews are succeeding in selling "holocaust" big lie on its merits? Not because they control press, pulpit and politician and public schools?

I'm sorry, Greg, you have fallen into Lake Taylor, and frankly I'm afraid you've drowned.

You're blaming whites for being lied to, and saying that the truth won't change their minds. Of course it will. It just has to fight uphill since jews control all the high points, and whites fear to go against perceived authority. But it's that way for everything we do as racialists.

The right way to look at it is to see the incredible potential in people understanding that if jews would lie about this biggest thing...what else wouldn't they lie about? The 'holocaust' is a perfect avenue in for newbies, and great introduction to the criminal genetic clan that is trying to genocide us. Let's use it.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 25th, 2012 at 08:20 PM.