"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!

>>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...)