"Truth"

J: Nazis genocided 6,000,000!
G: Why?
J: Hitler is evil!
G: Why?
J: Göring is evil!
G: Why?
J: Goebbels is evil!
G: Why?
J: A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!

>Nazis genocided 6,000,000!

Yes. That was very evil. Repeating a truth doesn't make it a lie. :)

>>2
So where is the "truth"?

>>3
You can't handle the truth because you don't want truth. I can't prove the Earth isn't flat but I'm not going to try to prove it's round because you like to be a baiting faggot who pretends he's being innocent in questioning the established history of the Earth while offering no evidence to the contrary. You're wasting our time.

Yes, we see your game faggot. You're not that clever. Have a nice day.

>>4
Shalom, kike!

>>5
Salam, Ahmed.

>>2
Then howsabout that truth being the SINGULAR, ONLY EVER Truth that you can go to jail for failing to believe in?

Such is the way Europe's democracies defend the Truth™.
- Claim that the earth is flat, and they'll slap you over the head with evidence to the contrary while they laugh at you.
- Claim that earth is 6000 years old, and they'll slap you over the head with evidence to the contrary¹ while they laugh at you.
- They drag a murder suspect to court and you demand proof, and they'll either submit the evidence, or else fidget visibly and let the suspect go, as appropriate.

- But ask for actual evidence of the Holocaust (y'know, in _addition_ to the KZ camps it's supposed to have happened in), and suddenly you're a criminal. With a criminal record.
Not to mention you get to be a Jew-hating Nazi, totally regardless of whether you ever really were or not.

This is supposedly, somehow, infinitely better than the Nazis.
Even though I never found out exactly how.



¹ For some reason, people seem to miss the obvious argument; Sir DeadJewOnAStick kept preaching something called "humility", right? Well;
- Scenario A states that our world is a tiny speck of dust on a tiny speck of dust, and even here, humanity was only added very late, as a sort of random afterthought.
- Scenario B claims that us humans are the very reason the whole universe was created in the first place. Specifically for us to subdue and rule.
Which is more humble? Which is more arrogant?
Which is the Darwinist view? Which is the Creationist view?
Just saying.

People always been to forget all the Slavs that the Nazi's genocided too......

....poor slavs.

>>8
Slavs are idiots, who defended the Jews. If not for stupid Slavs, there would be no Jews. The only way Slavs could redeem themselves before humanity is to do a real Holocaust.

>>9
Is this why neo-nazis are popular in Russia right now?

>>10
Alas, there are no real Nazis in Russia. All we have these Jews, like Martsinkevich and Potkin, who play Nazis to control patriotic (idiotic?) crowd.

>>10
I bet it has something to do with how the Commies had a problem when they wanted to teach their kids why exactly Nazis were eeevil, without also describing themselves.
- Anti-democratic. And therefore, not a democracy.
- Definitely liking that "strong man on top" arrangement.
- KZ camps for thought-criminals and other undesirables.
- State censorship of all media.
- Youth organisations to brain^H^H^H^H^H raise kids to become good citizens.
…etc.

They ended up with "Nazis bad cos OMFG SWASTIKAS" and the like. And now kids are going "The Commies said it, so it must be wrong". Especially when they can't find any _real_ reason why swastikas&stuff are so eeevil.

Add to that, when someone finds out about the swastika's 5000-year old history, PRE-HITLER.

>>12
Swastika is a symbol of Sun. And Sun is a real goyim God. Not your fucking Yahweh.

>>13
The swastika has 4 arms, akin to the 4 sides of a dreidel.

Busted.

Shalom Hymie! Fucking kike.

>>14
ARRRRGHHH.

What will I do?!  If I say that your argument is baseless because a correlation doesn't mean causation, all of MY arguments go TOO!

Cruel, cruel fate (which is likely Zionist controlled)

>>15
>>14
In b4 Shalom!

>>13
"My" Yahweh? How exactly was that post Yid, troll?

>>13-15
Semiologists posit it may have originally been a depiction of a stork in flight.

Also, >>13 should mind that a lot of religions married the icon to both the sun and to their choice solar deity and/or creation deity, which means it would be no different from the suggested alternative "Yahweh."  Only the latter matters to anyone anymore; there are far too many forgotten names and abandoned pantheons to count.

>>7
Yes, but have you ever taken the time to realize that you can be against holocaust denial laws, and still be against holocaust denial? I'm all for repeal of these laws in Europe so that people can counter your bullshit every time you spout it.

>>17
Sorry. I forgot you, Jews, refer to your Yahweh as "Hashem".

>>20
You still haven't answered my question, troll: How was that a Yid post?
Is it somehow Yid to point out how you own BS can bite you in the ass?
Is it somehow Yid to point out that Hitler did not invent the Swastika? (Hint: The name is from Sanskrit, which is an old language from India)

>>19
«My» bullshit? When «I» spout it?
So you're saying that it's somehow impossible to point out when one part is full of shit, without first being in bed with the other side?
That's just plain retarded. Even by 4chan's standards.

>>22
Not specifically you, I mean holocaust deniers in general. I'm posting from a phone, so I'm not being as coherent as I should be.

Also, «» quote guy, I thought you were a bit more rational than this? Unless I'm confusing you for a different «» quote guy on /newpol/.

>>21
In >>12 you talk like Nazis were something bad. Only Jews and idiots hate Hitler. For a Jew calling one a Hitler is an ultimate argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I.e. a Jew concludes any discussion by comparison to Nazis. There is a saying in Russia, that a true Jew, losing a chess party, will accuse his opponent being a Nazi.

>>24
So what you're saying, is basically that you want Yids to have some kind of monopoly on getting bad vibes from stuff like thought police (Gestapo), art police (Entartede Kunste) and KZ camps?
Wow. The unbeatable combination of trolling and retarded faggotry.

>>25
There is a difference between Nazis (nationalists) and Jewish corporate fascists. International corporate fascists dont care about nations, while Nazis wanted all country businesses to work for the national good.

>>26
There's also a difference between pointing out how superficial the actual differences were between the Soviet Union and the 3rd Reich, and being a Yid.

Not to mention that when you say "only Jews and idiots hate Hitler", then you're effectively saying that only idiots like democracy.

>>27
What is a "democracy"? Another myth like communism. I should especially note, that Lenin and the commies called their rule "democracy" (народовластие) and the Red Army was in fact called "People's Army", while Jewish commissars were called "People's  Commissars" as if people ever voted for them. When commies lost legal elections, they started a full scale revolution (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917).

>>28
So then; some dictator hijacked the term, and so therefore democracy is bad?
NotSureIfTroll.jpg

>>29
Yay! U.S. has democracy! Single party democracy. Jewish party democracy. Democracy = the rule of the Jews.

>>30
Here is a book about "democracy" in U.S.: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966707117/

One should also note, that most Jewish kids attend different schools and study by completely different programs/rule, so they are unaffected by these reforms. I.e. the Jews are being educated to be slave drivers, while goyim going to be slaves. Democracy!

>>30
Last time I checked, «democracy» meant «the people actually get a say about shit that matters». By that definition, we've got precious few actual democracies on the planet.

Those that tried, got shut down. Either by force (like Iran or Chile), or by cancerous subterfuge from corpolitical overlords (like the US).


Oh, and almost missed >>23…
I'm not a holocaust denier (atleast not yet), but I am allergic to bullshit.
Which is the main reason I kinda like the idea of judging people for what they do say and do, as opposed to making shit up.

>>32
Last time I checked, «democracy» meant «the people actually get a say about shit that matters».
I doubt corporatocracy Jews in U.S. really care much about people's opinion. As said a Russian-Jewish politician Vera Kichanova, "In a concetration camp of my dreams, the Jews will be Overseers" (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wera_Alexejewna_Kitschanowa)

>>33
When «democracy» means «people actually get a say in important matters», and upon closer inspection (like, say, any inspection) people actually don't get a say in important matters…

…then guess what: it's not a democracy!

>>32

I'm not a holocaust denier (atleast not yet), but I am allergic to bullshit.
What "bullshit" would that be exactly? What holocaust deniers say that what is well-researched, peer-reviewed and academically accepted is "bullshit"? Or the laws against holocaust denial are "bullshit"? If it's the latter, I certainly agree. And what do you mean by "atleast not yet"?
Which is the main reason I kinda like the idea of judging people for what they do say and do, as opposed to making shit up.
Okay. Not sure what you are suppose to mean by this.

>>35
Not sure what you are suppose to mean by this
Reading failure or something?
I am allergic to bullshit. Which is the main reason I like judging people for what they do say and do
Tl;dr: I don't like straw-man arguing.

not a revisionist
what do you mean by "at least not yet"?
When I hear two sides out, and one side is consistently full of BS, while the other side at least makes some sense, then guess which side I'll end up listening to?


What "bullshit" would that be exactly?
Isn't that obvious by now?

- Failure to Believe, is, to this date, the only jailable thought-crime in any of Europe's self-declared democracies. What for, really, if the evidence really is that solid?

- By pigheadedly nazifying Unbelievers, thereby dictating that only Hitler-lovers can possibly ever fail to Believe, we effectively end up declaring that the Holocaust was somehow the only evil thing that the Nazis ever did.

That last point is actually the biggest problem, as it inexorably leads us to conclude
- that the Chrystal Night was somehow not evil,
- that the SS, SA and Gestapo were somehow not evil,
- that the Entartede Kunst thingy was somehow not evil,
- that book-burning sessions are somehow not evil,
- that having all those concentration camps lying around in the first place, was somehow not evil…
…not to mention stuffing people into those camps, for felonies such as having the wrong skin tone, or some thought-crime, etc.


Srsly, all these things did happen. Not even revisionists even try to deny it.
And all of them were crimes against humanity. In their own right. No need for another crime topping that off, for it to be evil.

(…cont'd…)
However, it's not as if Hitler was the only-ever brutal dictator in human history. I outlined one example in >>12; All the things Hitler did, was also done by other dictators.

With the notable exception of massive-scale death camps. That alone is what really separates Hitler from such cozy allies of ours as Stalin (well OK, not an ally since 1945), Pinochet (who btw did the first 9/11, in 1973), Pol Pot (recognized as «legitimate ruler» of Cambodia, long after he was ousted… by the Vietnamese), those numerous proxy-war oh-so-not vassals all over the Third World, etc.


So to summarise:
It seems the Powers That Be need Hitler to be the be-all-end-all Complete Monster Of All Time.
They're not content with having him be a brutal dictator, those are a dime a dozen;
he has to be outright inhumanly evil.
Which I think is the real reason we get this oh-so-not Soviet-style propaganda campaign
against those pesky Unbelieving thought-criminals that stand to «demote» Hitler's evilness
from Satan's Older Brother to Saddam Hussein or Josef Stalin.
Which would have been bad enough, but nohoho.



Oh, and for the record, before I forget:
I seriously fail to see how a real Nazi would deny the Holocaust if it really did happen. What he would say, is that the Jews actually deserved exactly what they got, and to lament the fact that the 3rd Reich managed to kill only six million Jews.

The Revisionists (that I've bothered to hear out) are saying nothing of the sort.

>>37
Hitler was the only-ever brutal dictator in human history
Actually Lenin was much more evil and cagy, because Lenin:
1. deceived people. Seized power illegally, against voting result's or native population's will. Lenin ordered to shot striking workers, while Stalin sent workers to GULAG just for being a little late to work.
2. served invaders and genocided country's native population, in fact the best and most educated of population (like teachers, clergy, government, businessmen, scientists, mathematicians, writers).
3. from the beginning attempted invasion of Poland and funded revolution in Germany, which was completely responsible for the raise of Nazis. I.e. there would be no Hitler without communism.


Hitler:
1. Came to power legally, was welcomed by the people and succeeded restoring German economy and armed forces.
2. Genocided harmful outsiders, whom nobody of ethnic Germans wanted.
3. Had little choice or time, because commies planned World War 2 anyway to spread communism and amassed weaponry.

>>38
Hitler would also have had a harder time getting elected, were it not for the Treaty of Versailles going out of its way to degrade, cripple and humiliate Germany.

The Treaty's been said to be all about slapping Germany down for being clever. That case isn't exactly hard to make;

Until 1870, there was no Germany, just several independent German-speaking states. Enter then a unified Germany, enter also the War of 1870 (as in, two seconds after unification) where France attacked Germany, in order to keep Germany weak. That backfired badly, as the French hadn't had a proper war for well over a decade (read: inexperienced soldiers) while the Germans were fresh war veterans, and also had trains and telegraphs. Not to mention modern weapons.
The French were basically out-gunned.


Fast-forward some 44 years, and the young German nation has built itself up to become one of the (if not _the_) leading industrial nation. A serious competitor to both the French and the English. Not to mention the Upstart States of America.
It's 1914, and the pissing contest can begin.

When people talk about Hitler, I say he was the person who took Europe's long "glorious" history of fighting amongst itself to burn off international tension and spoiled it.  The events leading up to WWII had a certain tinge of comedy from a certain perspective, the kind of camaraderie you'd expect from a sitcom; then, it went far enough to stop being amusing.

>>36
Reading failure or something?
No, my reading comprehension is fine.
Tl;dr: I don't like straw-man arguing.
It's not "straw-man arguing"; I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean because you're being vague.
When I hear two sides out, and one side is consistently full of BS, while the other side at least makes some sense, then guess which side I'll end up listening to?
Care to cite any examples of this supposed "BS"?
Isn't that obvious by now?- Failure to Believe, is, to this date, the only jailable thought-crime in any of Europe's self-declared democracies. What for, really, if the evidence really is that solid?
I mentioned in >>19
I'm all for repeal of these laws in Europe
Of course, that's from strictly being a freedom of speech issue not from a zOMG! THOUGHT CRIME! crankish perspective. I've said for a while now (not specifically in /newpol/) that Europe should adopt a more American approach to free speech, which is near absolutist in constitutional scope and law, and the US should adopt some European things, like multi-party democracy, stronger labor rights, and better funding of sciencey related things and long-term R&D development of things that doesn't immediately care about short-term profit from such endeavors. I'm going a little off-topic here, but that puts some of my views into context on this issue.
- By pigheadedly nazifying Unbelievers, thereby dictating that only Hitler-lovers can possibly ever fail to Believe, we effectively end up declaring that the Holocaust was somehow the only evil thing that the Nazis ever did.
It does put into question your motivations, so the assumption that a Holocaust denier is a possible Nazi sympathizer isn't an absurd one. I'm not saying you are a Nazi sympathizer, there's been cases of even leftists and anti-fascists that have delved into the crankery that is Holocaust denial (an example being Paul Rassinier, ironically a camp internee himself!). Even in the unlikely possibility that the Holocaust is a complete hoax, Neo-Nazis would still have a lot to answer for National Socialism's other many documented atrocities.
That last point is actually the biggest problem, as it inexorably leads us to conclude
- that the Chrystal Night was somehow not evil,
- that the SS, SA and Gestapo were somehow not evil,
- that the Entartede Kunst thingy was somehow not evil,
- that book-burning sessions are somehow not evil,
- that having all those concentration camps lying around in the first place, was somehow not evil…
…not to mention stuffing people into those camps, for felonies such as having the wrong skin tone, or some thought-crime, etc.

This leads me to believe that you've never read any mainstream historian's writings on the Holocaust. In all the time I've cared to dedicate to the subject of the Holocaust, I've never read from any historian or heard in any documentary anyone saying that all these other things you mentioned are irrelevant or of absolutely no importance. I've read many things about the SA thugs that would beat minorities or political dissidents in the streets, or reading about the horrors of Kristallnacht. I've never read or heard once that the Holocaust was of more importance than anything that Nazis did previously. What I do often hear, though, is that these events lead up to the Holocaust and Final Solution.

The debate amongst established historians is whether or not the Holocaust came about from Hitler's intention himself, or that it was from the lower but still high ranking officials in the Nazi Party that eventually set in motion the Final Solution. This is more commonly known as the "Functionalism versus intentionalism" debate.

Revisionism, in the Holocaust denial sense, is a misnomer, because it implies that revisionism is not happening within the mainstream Holocaust historian community. For example, there were widespread rumors that the Nazis made lampshades and shrunken heads of their victims' remains, this has long now proven to be false; actual, historical revisionism in action.
And all of them were crimes against humanity. In their own right. No need for another crime topping that off, for it to be evil.
The Holocaust wasn't just "one crime", it was a perpetuated series of crimes spread over a wide area in labor, holding and extermination camps, shootings right on the open fields and in dug out pits, etc.

However, it's not as if Hitler was the only-ever brutal dictator in human history. I outlined one example in >>12; All the things Hitler did, was also done by other dictators.
Hitler is often the whipping boy in the game of totalitarian personality cults, but there's well documented atrocities committed by others. From various communist regimes, to Pinochet's free market dictatorship in Chile. It's all out there for anyone to read, with a quick search. These don't get talked about too much (especially Pinochet) because that's a little too close to home for the CIA and their coup operations.
So to summarise:
It seems the Powers That Be need Hitler to be the be-all-end-all Complete Monster Of All Time.
They're not content with having him be a brutal dictator, those are a dime a dozen;
he has to be outright inhumanly evil.
Which I think is the real reason we get this oh-so-not Soviet-style propaganda campaign
against those pesky Unbelieving thought-criminals that stand to «demote» Hitler's evilness
from Satan's Older Brother to Saddam Hussein or Josef Stalin.
Which would have been bad enough, but nohoho.

You're really getting pretty emotional about this. Hitler became the strongest, most well-known and most successful cult of personality in the 20^th century, hell possibly even the last two centuries. You really can't "demote" or diminish that. His charisma is something almost other worldly, no wonder he was able to command an entire nation for twelve years without *too much* opposition.
Oh, and for the record, before I forget:
I seriously fail to see how a real Nazi would deny the Holocaust if it really did happen. What he would say, is that the Jews actually deserved exactly what they got, and to lament the fact that the 3rd Reich managed to kill only six million Jews.

The Revisionists (that I've bothered to hear out) are saying nothing of the sort.
Those revisionists deniers are either too chickenshit to openly state their intentions, wanton iconoclasts looking for their 15 minutes of fame by being contrarian simply for the sake of being so, stupid, gullible consumers of low brow propaganda, suffering from some severe form of crank magnetism, or all of the above. If there's a "revisionist" that has some well-meaning intentions, I've yet to hear of such a person.

Tl;dr: I support repealing laws against Holocaust denial, but I am at the same time against Holocaust denial.

>>42
Don't overestimate Hitler. While Hitler wrote a book and gave a few emotional speeches, it were the German People who started the whole Nationalism thing and Hitler was just their true representative.

If you read Jewish authors at the beginning of 20th century, you'll already see their dissatisfaction with nationalistic Germany. That is precisely why Jewish revolution in Germany failed, succeeding in far more liberal Russia.


"So spoke the patriot, and in the hall,
The donkeys' applause roared loud.
They felt a nationalism surge within,
And stamped their hooves, quite proud."
  -- Heinrich Heine, Jewish journalist, essayist, and literary critic.

"I get most joy from the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to me that our kinfolk really are more sympathetic (at least less brutal) than these horrid Europeans. Perhaps things can only improve if only the Chinese are left, who refer to all Europeans with the collective noun 'bandits.'" --Albert Einstein

"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870...Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. ... The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting..." --Albert Einstein

"Nazis are the final expression of the deepest instincts of the German people. Hitler is the incarnation of greater forces than himself. The heresy he preaches is 2,000 years old. What is this heresy? Neither more nor less than the rebellion against Western civilization which began with Arminius...the dimensions of this war thus appear distinctly..." -- Clifton Fadiman, April 1942

"Germany must perish! The Germans (whoever they are : anti-Nazis, Communists and even philo-Semites) do not deserve to live. Consequently, 20,000 doctors must be mobilized after the war to sterilize 25 Germans a day each. In this way,not one German able to breed will remain within three months, and the German race will be totally eliminated within 60 years." -- Theodore Kaufman, Jewish-American businessman and writer, 1942

"Our Jewish interests demand the definitive annihilation of Germany; the whole German people poses a threat for us."  -- Vladimir Jabotinsky, Zionist leader, January 1934

"The only way to make Germans understand is to kill them. The only ultimate settlement would be to sterilize the Germans in the surgical meaning of the word." -- Clifton Fadiman, Jewish-American intellectual, author, editor, radio and television personality.

>>41
my reading comprehension is fine
If you say so.

you're being vague
How?
I've been rephrasing my arguments all over the threads that address the subject, because people keep misreading them. In ways that keep coming off as «didn't actually read the post», no less.
(And for the record, I'm not OP of any of these posts, it's just that there's a limit to how much bull I'll put up with.)
OK, let's try again;


It's not "straw-man arguing"
I was referring to how whenever someone fails to Believe, it's suddenly explicitly –not to say pigheadedly– forbidden to be anything else than some rabidly fanboi Neo-Nazi wanting his dearly beloved Hitler to be squeaky clean and innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. And then the more this «Neo-Nazi» in question keeps having to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-iterate that he actually has other motives (or worse, isn't a Neo-Nazi after all), the more pigheadedly he gets to be dictated that he «does not» have other motives, and that he «really is» a Neo-Nazi, totally regardless of whether he ever really was or not.

And then, after he's been successfully sentenced to being a Neo-Nazi, he's then sentenced for being a Neo-Nazi. Again, totally regardless of whether he ever really was or not.
In reality, this fits the description of a thought-crime. Which is one of several things we were supposed to've thrown out when the 3rd Reich fell.


Paul Rassinier, ironically a camp internee himself
The existence of concentration camps proves that there were concentration camps in existence. There's still a distance from there to any of them being specific (much less purpose-built) mass-extermination camps.

Even in the unlikely possibility that the Holocaust is a complete hoax, Neo-Nazis would still have a lot to answer for National Socialism's other many documented atrocities.
Which is also just about what I've been saying. (Proof-reading error or something?)
- The 3rd Reich has indeed got plenty to answer for. With or without the Holocaust.
- So do Neo-Nazis, if to a lesser extent; they've not had the system-wide power that the NSDAP had, but they've still committed crimes.

anyone saying that all these other things you mentioned are irrelevant or of absolutely no importance
Which is not what I was saying.
What I was saying, is that rhetoric can get really dumb really fast, if we don't pay attention.

So again: If «only Neo-Nazis can fail to Believe», especially with the implicit «only Hitler-loving fanboi Neo-Nazis can possibly Unbelieve», then we're effectively saying that «the Holocaust was the only evil thing the Nazis ever did».
Which, realistically, can only possibly mean that «not one of the other things they did, was evil». Like, say, those cosy little items on that list.


The Holocaust wasn't just "one crime"
The part of the 3rd Reich's track record that actually fits the name, is the part where all those «undesirables» were mass-exterminated in those infamous camps.
That part is what those pesky revisionists have been Unbelieving all along.

It is indeed the most monstrously horrid one of their crimes; but as such, it still really was just one of several.

>>42
Hitler is often the whipping boy in the game of totalitarian personality cults, but there's well documented atrocities committed by others.
Precisely.
Hence the comment that «it's not as if Hitler was the only-ever brutal dictator in human history or something».


Hitler became the strongest, most well-known and most successful cult of personality […] You really can't "demote" or diminish that
Which is also not what I'm doing.
I'm pointing out how the Official History bunch, is effectively doing that by not paying attention to its own rhetoric.
Hitler is often the whipping boy in the game of totalitarian personality cults, but there's well documented atrocities committed by others.
Precisely.

You're really getting pretty emotional about this
If so, then the emotion is «Holy fkin shit, don't you bloody retards realise what you're doing!?!"


Those deniers are either too chickenshit to openly state their intentions
Far too many of them have indeed been actual Nazis, or other anti-Semites. Two problems with this;

1: The aforementioned «rhetoric gone real dumb real fast»; «only fanbois can Unbelieve» becomes «Nazis need Holocaust to be evil», becomes «Holocaust was the only evil committed by the Nazis», becomes «none of the other things were really crimes, much less evil».
As one example, I checked the Last Man's Version Of The Truth (aka Wikipedia), and to my rather non-existent surprise, those particular useful idiots were given all the air-time.

2: It gives Unbelievers a bad name. This is a problem because it gives the oh-so-not Thought Police an(other) off-switch for people's brains.


If there's a "revisionist" that has some well-meaning intentions, I've yet to hear of such a person.
You could start by looking up a documentary called «One third of the Holocaust».


Tl;dr: I support repealing laws against Holocaust denial, but I am at the same time against Holocaust denial.
Me too, only I'm also against meeting them with bullshit dogma. Because that's doing us all a monstrous disservice.

>>44-45
Why are you quote mining the content of my posts? That's a deceitful tactic used by such persons as creationists, promoters of homeopathic medicine, and yes, self-styled "revisionists". I will do a full response to your posts later, but I kindly ask that you quote me in full context in future postings as I've done with yours in >>41-42

>>46
You may have noticed the length of those two posts? Or at least the fact they're split into two posts? Precisely because of the length?

There's simply so much to address that I have to only quote the parts relevant to my reply (what you call "quote mining") to avoid making the posts even longer.

It's not about deceit; Not only is it clear where exactly those quotes are from, it's also clear that those quotes are from two posts up. As in: Scroll up for context. Not much potential for deceit, unless you're counting on a downright criminally lazy audience.

>>47
unless you're counting on a downright criminally lazy audience.
Considering the site we're on, that's not a bad wager to make.

>>48
Good point, actually.

However, there's also the main law of averages: No matter how far down you stoop the average, someone will rise above it. _Someone_'s gonna read the actual post. Especially when it's just two posts up.

(But then there's the discussion in point, where core points keep being repeated, only to be misread, hence repeated, misread again (deliberately?), repeated again, misread again...)