Israel has lost a war and didn’t destroy humanity with nukes. Happened not too long ago.
Asking questions about certain discrepancies (but not looking for an answer) is “refuting the evidence” now?
You have deep methodological problems, or decided not to use any but agenda based sacred opinions.
How do you disprove the testimony of someone who is dead. You raise him from the dead and ask him if he really said that without coercion and if he still maintains this ideas?
What you do, is analyze the text itself
Remember than in courts, you have to present convincing evidence that something happens. Innocence until proven guilty and absolute right to question the evidence. The holocaust case fail in both of this requirements,
There is forensic evidence reported that gas chambers were used to kill people. There were modifications of the chambers used for sterilization found shortly after the Iron Curtain fell. Before that, though, there was no evidence beyond testimony.
What evidence? For some reason the traces of zyklon-b are lower in the proposed gas chambers than the delousing chambers. If you were to actually gas people you could only do it once for 30 minutes for every 24 hours (I think these numbers are correct, in one of the videos I posted David Cole interviews an expert at one of the gas chamber tourist sites in Auschwitz about this). Yet, it’s claimed that there were dozens of gassings a day that led to the mass amount of those killed by zyklon-b. So called eyewitness testimonies made these claims. So, if it is true that you could only gas one group of people a day that would account for the lower traces of zyklon-b than the delousing chambers, but why is the amount of zyklon-b in the delousing chambers still higher than the gas chambers? Would’t both need the same time to air out before they are entered again? What eyewitness testimony is there? The camps had barracks and delousing chambers for the prisoners, and even a swimming pool. It’s claimed that a train would arrive with new inmates, and they would have been taken off the train and directly into the gas chambers, so what about the previous inmates already living in the barracks?
Maybe it was done in minimal amounts for experiments or maybe the people going in were already dead. In any case, it makes no difference to me which way out of 101 ways prisoners were killed. But if I were a prisoner, I would prefer some quick gas rather than slow starvation/disease.
A short story of how it was agreed to sell the idea of the “holocaust” to the public.
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/HomePage28April2009/holocaust_lie/holocaust_lie.htm
You can read a whole lot of evidence and refutations, I give you two now as examples, of course, you have to be willing to listen to the other side of the accusation, are you civilized enough to do that?
re: nazi confessions:
faced with hanging, ending up in the soviet penal system, or worse, seeing the family end up there, the accused germans listed may have elected to sign whatever was put in front of them, convinced that absolute acquittal were impossible if the story-line itself were challenged. mitigation of sentence seems a logical reason to go along with the prosecution line. a light sentence in return for corroborating the official version of the narrative.
from memory, oberhauser copped a four-year sentence. on the face of it, the leniency would seem to indicate some sort of plea-bargaining occurred, considering the gravity of the charges.
even the most obvious questions like why tattoo internees and why rail them all over europe from camp to camp if execution were the motive just beg for the occam’s razor treatment. and yet the party-line scholars come up with the most convoluted rationales to accommodate these enigmas.
starvation across the entire german population was the reality of losing a war on multiple fronts. why is it hard to imagine internees starving when the general popular was only slightly better off?
why would germans come up with some infernal, but complicated solution for execution of internees, when they were perfectly capable of shooting/hanging partisans, a regular practice, especially on the eastern front? and why delouse prisoners if you were going to kill them? even historians who embrace the orthodox version acknowledge that most of the zyklon b was for delousing, germans not having ddt as did the americans.
and why did the nazis bother interning the sick, elderly and the infants? why not just shoot them? their utility as slave-labour would be submarginal.
to be quite clear, i believe most jews as well as gentiles believe the official story in perfectly good faith. revisionist material is not easy to access (net-nannies block it as “hate” material), and those who get too inquisitive find themselves objects of scorn and calumny.
note in particular the comment of ben potts.
A small, simple theory, that explains the big picture.
WW2 was a (one-sided) civil war between jews, the powerful group betrayed and sacrificed the mind-my-own-business integrated jews who were not taking orders from them and living in peace.
That’s the tragedy of the jews, they suffer the consequences while their rich friends get the benefits.
It’s incredibly similar and related to statism and war.
In war, soldiers suffer for politicians actions.
In zionist plot for world control, innocent jews suffer the consequences, the anger of the masses and the betrayal of their “friends”.
Zionists wanted to move their jews out of Germany to Palestine, individuals don’t matter to them, (I say for a reason they are the most statists)
To force them to move, they, who control banking, media, governments, etc… raise anti-jewish sentiments and help Hitler into power.
Germans were justly angered by Versailles and their betrayal, rightly so. But it was incentivated by jewish media campaigns and boycotts against Germany. They were directing the whole thing, from cushy sofas in America, their “brothers” of Germany were nothing for them, a necessary sacrifice for “the cause”. They knew from the beginning who would win the war, they had both the USA and Soviet Union, they got a war where they mad a lot of money, got a lot of countries into debt (to them), therefore in their control, and invaded whole Europe, still do. Germany is still under occupation and the government as phony as the Afghanistan or Iraq, they keep their troops and tell the kids what to learn in school and put into prison those who resist.
They retook a country they lost, gain the empathy and compassion of the world, at one point where they were losing it.
It was an inside job, a criminal group of powerful jews engineered the whole thing, sacrificed not just their own, but millions, for power.
And now about the holocaust. Jews were detained, to be deported to other countries which accepted them. Germans wanted them out, not murdered. They were kept in camps, with clothings, beds, space, until a country gave them asylum or accepted them.
America could have taken all of them, or Britain. Why the hell didn’t?
Because they were ordered to, Roosevelt was even ordered to lower their immigration.
It’s common sense, if they wanted to kill, they could have, easily and cheaply, they detained them until an agreement was made for their acceptance and new life in another country. Everybody happy (except the individuals innocent jews of course, taken out of their homes, but that was engineered as a necessary sacrifice in the plan of their jewish “friends”).
War broke out, the camps move more to work labor, ammunition, other, etc…
Carpet bombing, destruction of infrastructure, bombing of cities, no farming, no food, no water, illness, deaths in the camps, as in the cities, towns and everywhere.
Troops advance and what do they find? Everything in ruins and people starving. They NEVER show a video of starving german civilians in towns and cities, and in that context later the starving prisoners too. No, they only show, out of context the starving prisoners. That is deceit and manipulation, is racism, is giving more importance to the jewish prisoners than the starving germans kids in the nearby town, both were starving. But they present only one side, because they are one-sided. They are not interested in the truth or liberating anybody, they created the war! And now they rip their benefits.
No one can negate the massive jewish influence and control all along history and clearly today.
But at the same time, no one can say all jews are bad, because they are not, 90% will be great guys but unfortunately unaware of who cause their suffering. It’s a moral obligation to expose those who organize and profit from the war, who direct the governments, is there a state behind the states, that has to be investigated, antisemitism is not an excuse, it’s even more an obligation, because this people will suffer again by the crimes and plots the jewish conspiracy makes.
CIA recognizes MOSAD can ask any american jew for help and even if they refuse, they will not betray them.
Many people will understand things like that as a proof they can not be trusted and are a whole with the conspiracy, so they will end in the same box and innocents suffering while the responsible criminals hide in foreign countries.
The majority of the people are not libertarian and don’t have strong individualism, they think in groups, collectives as we know.
If it were different we would be living in an libertarian free world! But unfortunately not.
So, what to do?
It’s hard, we are talking about the state makers, those who control who wins the presidency, the election campaigns, it’s a real powerful enemy.
Advance individual rights so collective statist measures won’t be taken or allowed.
Shrink the state, don’t allow concentrated power.
Don’t be bought, strong morals, more important than money, which they print. They can have all the money they want, it will be worthless to them if they can’t use it to buy what they want.
Research, read history, the originals sources, the documents.
Read those who were right. Would you recommend reading any keynesian who was blind and didn’t see the housing bubble? Or would you recommend reading those who were right and had been warning all along and even more had a theory of why such things happen?
Exactly the same, you have “accidental history” the official/mainstream that “explains” the crisis as speculators and investors together suddenly, one day, started acting weird and brought a crisis, or the Austrian explanation of business cycle. In history you have the conspiracy history that things happened because someone wanted them to happen, someone acted to make them happen, they don’t just appear out of nothing. Poor peasants don’t suddenly organize finding money and weapons instead of potatoes in their lands. You know the FED wasn’t created because students of economics organized, studied and suggested it would help the economy, that is how it was sold. But it was created for other reasons, the official version is the lie told. It’s time to stop looking at the lies and look behind the curtain.
We don’t trust the state to offer the solution to the problem they cause.
Don’t trust the zionist’s solution (censorship and total control) for a problem they created.
Look at the problem, the zionists and stop them hurting their people and everybody.
Want to stop antisemitism? Stop the aid and support to Israel. Stop the holocaust-denial laws. Free the political prisoners.
Start a new, clean, you can not cure a wound while it is bleeding, you have to stop the bleeding first. You can not stop antisemitism when antisemitism is being created at the same time. Take down the bankers, take down those who give bad names to the jewish, and you will save them.
L.
O.
L.
Why you always refuse to analyze WW2? Your articles always refuse to dig into the german and jewish question .
"Propaganda posters depicting German jackboots crushing small-town American churches, or Germanic invasion forces converging on New York City, were distributed throughout America’s cities. Another such poster depicted the Germans and Japanese looming ominously over the United States, one with a pistol and the other with a bloody dagger, reading, “Our homes are in danger now!” The Roosevelt administration made it clear that the intentions of the Axis powers were to threaten the freedoms of Americans proper.
Creating a threat was necessary if Roosevelt was to persuade the noninterventionist doves, many of whom still peppered the bureaucracy. Indeed, after the First World War only a direct threat could justify American involvement in a new European war. To this end, Roosevelt’s administration managed not only to run a considerably large propaganda campaign, but also to coax the Japanese into a clear provocation.
The Roosevelt administration’s campaign of escalation toward war culminated with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and a number of other American territorial assets in the Pacific Ocean. A direct attack on the United States provided all the justification necessary to intervene both in the Pacific and in Europe. The result was a two-theater war, costing the United States nearly 300,000 lives (and many more wounded), and leaving Europe and Japan almost completely shattered. All the while, the American state continued to grow in size, power, and capability."
Why was Germany choosen as they enemy and not the Soviets? Why weren’t the Soviets choosen as the enemy first? They were the biggest threat.
Why choose Japan and Germany as enemies? Japan had a war with Russia and was a defence against communism in China. Germany was a defence against Communism in Europe. Everything seemed to either go comptelety wrong, or have been directed to help communism. 2/3 of Europe given to the communist, Korea, China given to the Communist.
Whose side was Roosevelt on? If he really wanted a war for political and internal reasons, he could have go to war against the soviets.
Great analysis there.
At least stay focused on the original topic.
Another subject that is usually forgotten and shouldn’t is the catholic one.
Check a map of faiths before and after ww2.
Catholic influence and catholic countries were wiped out completely.
Italy, Germany, were highly catholic, Hitler was, the Nazi uniform included Crosses.
There had been war between judaism and the church for a long time, wearing a sign of being jew was not a new invention, it was brought back from not that far ago, so were the ideas of a christian and not jewish europe, and a limitation of jewish influence on europe, with displacements, ghettos or sending them back to their original place, some say Khazaria, Eastern Europe. A place for them, europe for europeans and a jew country for jews.
If we don’t live in a libertarian utopia and governments rule, control the media, licenses, education… if you take the government, you can impose a big change of values, from marriage, family, healthy eating and cooking, saving and almost home schooling or at least big paternal influence… to a “liberated” state owned children in broken families in a morally broken family with no defense against the media and education campaign of debt, consumerism, hedonism, free-sex and materialistic culture. The same way to control a country, through owning the debt, to control society, for a future one world tyranny. You can’t negate the big changes of values since WW2, You can’t negate how now the enemies are Islam, countries without central banking and with religious/moral defenses against materialistic debt-based way of living. A way of living very beneficial to those who print the money. They want the money they print to buy everything, so they convince us to be materialistic and attack all that stand in the way.
This thread somehow managed to get 14 pages…