[Wutang]

(04-07-2014 04:50 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Looking at modern Chin in that light is dull witted at best. Those smaller nations that compose the larger Chinese republic today saw their lands as autonomous as any other country would. to attempt differentiating who is 'less bad' by who they went to war with, by those means, is intellectually dishonest

Even during the periods when China was divided up into seperate kingdoms such as the Warring States Period or the Three Kingdoms, people still saw themselves as Han Chinese. A person might have been citizen of the Kingdom of Wei or the Kingdom of Shu but they knew that Chinese is their ethnic identity.

[All or Nothing]

(04-05-2014 04:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

1. It does not appear that a website named "jewwatch" has a balanced point of view.

2. If the quotes are accurate, what do random cherrypicked opinions of people from 1919 prove? Some rabbi saying something in 1919 proves what? You could "prove" anything about Christianity if you picked enough strange quotes from priests and ministers over the years.

3. It's not surprising that Bolshevism, initially a small movement of urban intellectuals based on Marxism had a lot of support among Jews. First, the Jews lived in the cities and as I said, many were intellectual. Second, the Czarist monarchy was historically anti-Semitic and would unleash pogroms against Jews. Third, the Czars were despots whom a lot of people wanted to replace.

4. When Stalin established a Jewish region in the USSR, where did he put it? Way out in Siberia.

5. Jews ended up being persecuted by Stalin. The lone Jew at the top of the revolution, Trotsky, got killed by him. Later on, Stalin had scores of Jewish writers and doctors killed, see "the Doctors' Plot."

6. Toward the end, the USSR made life tough for Jews and established an official "Soviet Anti Zionist Committee."

I will admit that using a site whose name is "jewwatch" is not the best place to gather unbiased information on historical events.

Otherwise, you did not refute the idea that I put forward.

The idea being, a Jewish elite overthrew the Russian government in order to establish their own rule where they subsequently massacred over 20 million Christian men.

Rather, you made an attempt to justify what happened.

What I do not understand is why the Holocaust is a horrific event that occurred that cannot be justified while the genocide of 20 million Christian men at the hands of a Jewish elite is glossed over and can be totally justified.

[soup]

Still don't really understand why all these people believe in god in the first place.

[All or Nothing]

(04-08-2014 01:33 AM)soup Wrote:  

Still don't really understand why all these people believe in god in the first place.

It is based on how the human mind formed evolutionary.

A key part of the brain is its capacity to apply figurative meaning to tangible things.

It is why we have language. Language is applying figurative meaning sounds coming out of our mouths.

In relation to this forum, it is why we can learn Game. Game is essentially approaching large numbers of women in the hopes of obtaining sex. By approaching large numbers our brain begins to recognize patterns in female behavior and subsequently applies meaning them in relation to how often we achieve sexual success. It is kind of nerdy to think about, but I think it is cool nonetheless.

This unique aspect of the human mind was a core reason why the Homo sapiens superseded the Neanderthals and in turn totally exterminated their population.

Also, nice try changing the subject.

My point in the previous post still stands.

[Sp5]

(04-08-2014 01:30 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

1. It does not appear that a website named "jewwatch" has a balanced point of view.

2. If the quotes are accurate, what do random cherrypicked opinions of people from 1919 prove? Some rabbi saying something in 1919 proves what? You could "prove" anything about Christianity if you picked enough strange quotes from priests and ministers over the years.

3. It's not surprising that Bolshevism, initially a small movement of urban intellectuals based on Marxism had a lot of support among Jews. First, the Jews lived in the cities and as I said, many were intellectual. Second, the Czarist monarchy was historically anti-Semitic and would unleash pogroms against Jews. Third, the Czars were despots whom a lot of people wanted to replace.

4. When Stalin established a Jewish region in the USSR, where did he put it? Way out in Siberia.

5. Jews ended up being persecuted by Stalin. The lone Jew at the top of the revolution, Trotsky, got killed by him. Later on, Stalin had scores of Jewish writers and doctors killed, see "the Doctors' Plot."

6. Toward the end, the USSR made life tough for Jews and established an official "Soviet Anti Zionist Committee."

I will admit that using a site whose name is "jewwatch" is not the best place to gather unbiased information on historical events.

Otherwise, you did not refute the idea that I put forward.

The idea being, a Jewish elite overthrew the Russian government in order to establish their own rule where they subsequently massacred over 20 million Christian men.

Rather, you made an attempt to justify what happened.

What I do not understand is why the Holocaust is a horrific event that occurred that cannot be justified while the genocide of 20 million Christian men at the hands of a Jewish elite is glossed over and can be totally justified.

You did nothing to establish your idea.

Stalin was the absolute dictator of the USSR during the time of the kulak massacres, ruling by terror. If you don't know that "kulaks" means without looking it up, you are not equipped to discuss this matter. The kulaks were not killed because they were Christian, but because they were relatively wealthy landowners. Some of the kulaks were Jews. Stalin was not a Jew, he was Georgian.

[All or Nothing]

(04-08-2014 02:21 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

You did nothing to establish your idea.

Stalin was the absolute dictator of the USSR during the time of the kulak massacres, ruling by terror. If you don't know that "kulaks" means without looking it up, you are not equipped to discuss this matter. The kulaks were not killed because they were Christian, but because they were relatively wealthy landowners. Some of the kulaks were Jews. Stalin was not a Jew, he was Georgian.

Alright, I cannot keep up the charade.

Looks like I am going to have to crack open a couple history books on Eastern European history.

[TonySandos]

(04-08-2014 12:22 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 04:50 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Looking at modern Chin in that light is dull witted at best. Those smaller nations that compose the larger Chinese republic today saw their lands as autonomous as any other country would. to attempt differentiating who is 'less bad' by who they went to war with, by those means, is intellectually dishonest

Even during the periods when China was divided up into seperate kingdoms such as the Warring States Period or the Three Kingdoms, people still saw themselves as Han Chinese. A person might have been citizen of the Kingdom of Wei or the Kingdom of Shu but they knew that Chinese is their ethnic identity.

That's still not accurate. You altogether neglected Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongol and Hui people.

[berserk]

(04-07-2014 11:08 PM)Faust Wrote:  

So on the surface, it seems like a fairly plausible argument! But Athlone McGinnis's article for RoK, which I assume was written in response, makes what seems to me to be a much stronger argument. He links their success to IQ and possibly cultural factors.

How do you think Athlone would react if I used the same arguments and said that the reasons blacks do the worst is because they are less intelligent and because of their culture?

This is why you need to be consistent in your arguments.

While a smart and well written guy like Athlone can get away with this kind of sophistry with a large number of readers, other smart guys are going to see the argument he is presenting and ask him to be consistent with it i.e. make the same argument for blacks but in reverse.

If he doesn't want to do that, then really, what weight does his argument carry - at all?

None.

[Teedub]

(04-08-2014 04:37 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:08 PM)Faust Wrote:  

So on the surface, it seems like a fairly plausible argument! But Athlone McGinnis's article for RoK, which I assume was written in response, makes what seems to me to be a much stronger argument. He links their success to IQ and possibly cultural factors.

How do you think Athlone would react if I used the same arguments and said that the reasons blacks do the worst is because they are less intelligent and because of their culture?

This is why you need to be consistent in your arguments.

While a smart and well written guy like Athlone can get away with this kind of sophistry with a large number of readers, other smart guys are going to see the argument he is presenting and ask him to be consistent with it i.e. make the same argument for blacks but in reverse.

If he doesn't want to do that, then really, what weight does his argument carry - at all?

None.

I've PMd you some friendly advice.

[iknowexactly]

(04-07-2014 05:45 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Men just have a predisposition to kill each other. Has been going on for thousands of years.

Doesn't matter what race they may be.

Actually, the majority of people very rarely have a particular urge to go out and kill anyone-- I work with serious criminals ( I've talked to hundreds of murderers) and even THEY don't feel violent impulses a high percentage of the time except for the .0001% at the tail of the bell curve. There i'm talking about the few dozen most violent people out of the whole state of california--35+ million people.

Of course, a person who feels truly murderous and who will go through with it even one minute a year has to be confined all the time.

Most of the time people would rather negotiate differences and get on with eating, fucking and gossiping than smash each other's heads in.

There are sets of circumstances and individuals that lead up to people feeling violent towards each other.. I tend to call them "leaders". It's 'leaders" that turn people against each other, or galvanize their low grade resentment into action like Hitler did.

[TonySandos]

Indeed. Violence deserves it's own study or subdivision in collegiate studies. It's incredibly misunderstood

[iknowexactly]

(04-08-2014 06:06 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Indeed. Violence deserves it's own study or subdivision in collegiate studies. It's incredibly misunderstood

There are peace studies programs, but government needs to have people somewhat ready to commit violence to further its own ends.

The processes by which people turn others against each other is very interesting, but studying it means studying propaganda, which means criticizing government and the wealthy.

[TonySandos]

Oh I'm no antiviolence believer. Well, hypothetically I do believe that someday people may accomplish the feat, but for now society could benefit from understanding it more-why it happens and when it's necessary. That paradigm shift must take place first I believe

[Flint]

(04-04-2014 10:12 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It's clear you're not a history buff, because nothing you wrote above is close to being accurate. Far from not letting Jews leave, the Nazis were actively encouraging Jews to leave the country throughout the 1930s. At the Evian Conference in 1938, over 30 countries met to discuss allowing German Jews into their countries as political refugees en masse.

Hitler's direct quote regarding the conference: "I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships."

So not only was Hitler not closing the borders to Jews, he offered to send them away on luxury cruise ships. The problem is that no country in the West wanted them. Then the war broke out with hundreds of thousands of Jews still living in Germany. Hitler viewed them as a potential threat as spies and saboteurs, and interned them in concentration camps like the U.S. did with its Japanese population.

You talk big about debunking mainstream media propaganda, being red-pill and not believing what everybody tells you but when it comes to your own questionable interpretation of history you leave out important facts when it just fits to your argument.

As for the Evian Conference, you make it sound like Germany initiated it, but they were not even invited. Certainly, the participating countries were responsible for not helping the refugees but I don't see how that in the least could exculpate the Nazis from invading the entire continent and massmurdering the Jews of other countries. Even if we assume that Evian would have been successful and the German Jews were able to emigrate, Hitler would still have ordered to attack Eastern Europe and let their Jews get slaughtered.

Why should that Hitler quote alter our understanding of the historical events of that time? Are you seriously trying to tell us that the Nazis in reality wanted to pay luxury cruises for Jewish refugees and that only the evil liberal academics and historians don't want us to know that? In several forum threads you rightly argue for questioning mainstream media ideologies but you readily swallow the words of a dictator and believe him like the Stalin did when he signed the Non-Agression Treaty with Germany. Hitler held dozens of speeches in which he vowed that Germany will always be peaceful in his reign. Everyone knows how serious he was about that.

Your Holocaust narrative that the Nazis were just suspecting Jews of being spies and therefore ordered to intern them in concentration camps (where they, according to what you imply, only accidentally died) is beyond ludicrous and not backed by the evidence. In fact, Hitler made it from early on clear in his books and his speeches that he does not only want to remove all Jews from Germany but that national socialist foreign policy requires to free all of Europe from Jewish life which is only possible through the means of aggressional war and genocide. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WW2 is indeed another shameful chapter in the history of your country but I can't see that Roosevelt ever tried to put Japanese children into gas chambers, so the comparison is flawed. Also, the Holocaust did not start with the establishment of the death camps but already with the mass executions of Jewish civilians in the German occupied territories.

I can't respond to all your other conspiracy theories, so I stop here for now.

[svenski7]

(04-07-2014 10:43 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

Very interesting video! Thank you for sharing this tiggaline!

(04-07-2014 07:49 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

Of course, there are many who say there never were any death camps. That movement seems to gaining ground and momentum, with this film coming out just recently.

http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/

The gas chamber at the concentration camp I visited was pretty realistic.

Oh, and the Jewish woman who talked about Treblinka and how the Germans made them shit in same bowls that they put their food in was convincing.

More people need to get out of Alabama, travel and see visit these historic places. Got to the East Front in Russia or Ukraine. Visit a concentration camp or gulag location.

Most people posting denialist videos haven't left the trailer park and have an IQ of no greater than 80.

[Samseau]

(04-07-2014 05:14 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

What about the Spanish in Central and South America or the British and other Europeans carving up Africa?

All caused by political gridlock in Europe. The 100 years war had left the future of Europe uncertain and uncontrolled, so European powers needed a way to make more money than their enemies that did not involve Europe.

Thus the Spanish took the risk of financing the voyage to India in order to find a trade route to Asia that went around the Middle East, since after the fall of Constantinople Islam controlled the Middle East entirely. And the fall of Constantinople was a result of white Christians sacking the city 250 years prior and then controlling it for another 50 years with pure oppression. The population of Constantinople fell from 400K in 1200 to around 50K by 1450. Easy pickings for the Muslims.

Once the Spanish discovered America, and the cheap labor being sold out of Africa (blacks were selling blacks are firesale prices), they decided to colonize their newfound lands in order to gain the upper hand in Europe.

And it worked, for a little while. Spain did become the super power of Europe for nearly 100 years before the other European powers developed their own colonial profits.

Later on, the carving up of Africa occurred during the pre-lude to, during, and after the Napoleonic wars.

All subjugation of foreign peoples by whites always started with white on white conflict. Until people understand this it is impossible to really understand the white race. Today is the most peaceful time between white peoples in the history of the entire race, with the exception of some periods of Rome (the leadup to Imperial Rome was peaceful within Rome). But these periods are merely exceptions to the rule.

[The_CEO]

(04-07-2014 07:49 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I guess those Nazi arguments didn't work very well. The only thing comparable to the Nazi exterminations was the trail of tears, but even that wasn't close to the scale of the death camps.

Of course, there are many who say there never were any death camps. That movement seems to gaining ground and momentum, with this film coming out just recently.

http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/

The "many" being holocaust denialists.

Thanks to the Nuremberg trials (circa 1945), it's part of the historical record.

"In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers (with carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines) began at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in Poland. As victims were "unloaded" from cattle cars, they were told that they had to be disinfected in "showers." The Nazi and Ukrainian guards sometimes shouted at and beat the victims, who were ordered to enter the "showers" with raised arms to allow as many people as possible to fit into the gas chambers. The tighter the gas chambers were packed, the faster the victims suffocated.
The Nazis constantly searched for more efficient means of extermination. At the Auschwitz camp in Poland, they conducted experiments with Zyklon B (previously used for fumigation) by gassing some 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 ill prisoners in September 1941. Zyklon B pellets, converted to lethal gas when exposed to air. They proved the quickest gassing method and were chosen as the means of mass murder at Auschwitz. At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz.

The Germans had ordered that Treblinka II be dismantled in the fall of 1943. From July 1942 through November 1943, the Germans killed between 870,000 and 925,000 Jews at the killing center. Treblinka I, the forced-labor camp, continued operations until late July 1944. While the killing center was in operation, some of the arriving Jews were selected and transferred to Treblinka I, while Jews too weak to work at Treblinka I were periodically sent to Treblinka II to be killed. During late July 1944, with Soviet troops moving into the area, the camp authorities and the Trawniki-trained guards shot the remaining Jewish prisoners, between 300 and 700, and hastily dismantled and evacuated the camp. Soviet troops overran the site of both labor camp and killing center during the last week of July 1944."

Further Reading
Evans, Richard J. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.
Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993.
Shermer, Michael, and Alex Grobman. Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Zimmerman, John C. Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies, and Ideologies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000.

[Samseau]

Can we please keep Holocaust denialism out of this thread? The Germans themselves kept meticulous records. There isn't much to dispute here.

[Bushido]

(04-07-2014 07:49 PM)tiggaling Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I guess those Nazi arguments didn't work very well. The only thing comparable to the Nazi exterminations was the trail of tears, but even that wasn't close to the scale of the death camps.

Of course, there are many who say there never were any death camps. That movement seems to gaining ground and momentum, with this film coming out just recently.

http://gaschamberhoax.com/jewish-gas-chamber-hoax/

It was only a matter of time before we got to this. That "film" sure looks legit to me.

What I have never understood is why hardcore neo-nazis would want to deny the Holocaust. Wouldn't it be something for them to rejoice in?

The Japanese far right are the same though. Endless circular arguments and nitpicking of evidence about Japanese atrocities. Nanking never happened according to them.

[tiggaling]

(04-08-2014 12:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Another massive conspiracy depending on hundreds of thousands of people lying or remaining silent, including Generals Eisenhower and Patton, Field Marshal Montgomery and many many UK and US soldiers! Who knew?

It didn't really take anyone lying or remaining silent on the allied side, as the death camps were only found on territory that the soviets captured. (such as in Poland)

This documentary does strongly suggest that Eisenhower was in on the propaganda to demonise the Nazi's, which is well documented.

And you are basically saying that you think that politicians like Eisenhower do not lie?

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.html?page_id=1003

[tiggaling]

"Holocaust" is a term that only began being utilised in the mid 1970's. "Holocaust Denier" is a term that Deborah Lipstadt used, to make people like David Irving perhaps seem more foolish and stupid than he would like to be! He sued her because of it! and lost (of course)

Samseau, The problem here is that there isn't any documentary records of the death camps.

Strangely enough, the rational wiki entry which is against "holocaust deniel" clearly demonstrates how very feeble the evidence is for death camps. I think most people looking at this might be quite shocked, as we are taught the evidence for death camps is set in stone.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

[The_CEO]

(04-08-2014 08:48 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 12:01 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Another massive conspiracy depending on hundreds of thousands of people lying or remaining silent, including Generals Eisenhower and Patton, Field Marshal Montgomery and many many UK and US soldiers! Who knew?

It didn't really take anyone lying or remaining silent on the allied side, as the death camps were only found on territory that the soviets captured. (such as in Poland)

This documentary does strongly suggest that Eisenhower was in on the propaganda to demonise the Nazi's, which is well documented.

And you are basically saying that you think that politicians like Eisenhower do not lie?

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.html?page_id=1003

US ARMY DIVISIONS RECOGNIZED AS LIBERATING UNITS  
INFANTRY DIVISIONS:
 
1st Infantry Division
Liberated Falkenau an der Eger (Flossenbürg subcamp)
2nd Infantry Division
Liberated Leipzig-Schönefeld (Buchenwald subcamp)
Spergau (labor education camp)
4th Infantry Division
Liberated Dachau subcamp
8th Infantry Division
Liberated Wöbbelin (Neuengamme subcamp)
26th Infantry Division
Liberated Gusen (Mauthausen subcamp)
29th Infantry Division
Liberated Dinslaken (civilian labor camp)
30th Infantry Division
Liberated Weferlingen (Buchenwald subcamp)
36th Infantry Division
Liberated Kaufering camps (Dachau subcamps)
42nd Infantry Division
Liberated Dachau
45th Infantry Division
Liberated Dachau
63rd Infantry Division
Liberated Kaufering camps (Dachau subcamps)
65th Infantry Division
Liberated Flossenbürg subcamp
69th Infantry Division
Liberated Leipzig-Thekla (Buchenwald subcamp)
71st Infantry Division
Liberated Gunskirchen (Mauthausen subcamp)
80th Infantry Division
Liberated Buchenwald
Ebensee (Mauthausen subcamp)
83rd Infantry Division
Liberated Langenstein (Buchenwald subcamp)
84th Infantry Division
Liberated Ahlem (Neuengamme subcamp)
Salzwedel (Neuengamme subcamp)
86th Infantry Division
Liberated Attendorn (civilian labor camp)
89th Infantry Division
Liberated Ohrdruf (Buchenwald subcamp)
90th Infantry Division
Liberated Flossenbürg
95th Infantry Division
Liberated Werl (prison and civilian labor camp)
99th Infantry Division
Liberated Dachau subcamps
103rd Infantry Division
Kaufering subcamp
104th Infantry Division
Liberated Dora-Mittelbau
ARMORED DIVISIONS:
 
3rd Armored Division
Liberated Dora-Mittelbau
4th Armored Division
Liberated Ohrdruf (Buchenwald subcamp)
6th Armored Division
Liberated Buchenwald
8th Armored Division
Liberated Halberstadt-Zwieberge (Buchenwald subcamp)
9th Armored Division
Liberated Falkenau an der Eger (Flossenbürg subcamp)
10th Armored Division
Dachau subcamp
11th Armored Division
Liberated Gusen (Mauthausen subcamp)
Mauthausen
12th Armored Division
Liberated Dachau subcamp
14th Armored Division
Liberated Dachau subcamps
20th Armored Division
Liberated Dachau
AIRBORNE DIVISIONS:
 
82nd Airborne Division
Liberated Wöbbelin (Neuengamme subcamp)
101st Airborne Division
Liberated Dachau subcamp

[tiggaling]

None of the German camps like Buchenwald or Dachau were death camps. This is not disputed anyone in this day and age.

[Roosh]

I agree that holocaust denialism is a not a topic I want discussed on the forum, especially with the kind of trollish delcaration that tiggaling has made.

[berserk]

(04-08-2014 05:48 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 04:37 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(04-07-2014 11:08 PM)Faust Wrote:  

So on the surface, it seems like a fairly plausible argument! But Athlone McGinnis's article for RoK, which I assume was written in response, makes what seems to me to be a much stronger argument. He links their success to IQ and possibly cultural factors.

How do you think Athlone would react if I used the same arguments and said that the reasons blacks do the worst is because they are less intelligent and because of their culture?

This is why you need to be consistent in your arguments.

While a smart and well written guy like Athlone can get away with this kind of sophistry with a large number of readers, other smart guys are going to see the argument he is presenting and ask him to be consistent with it i.e. make the same argument for blacks but in reverse.

If he doesn't want to do that, then really, what weight does his argument carry - at all?

None.

I've PMd you some friendly advice.

Thank you for that and I agree. It was a needless confrontational comment. I just enjoy a good (heated) debat, in real life too, but things don't come across with a smile on the internet. I'll take a timeout from this section again.