"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.