- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
It's a fantastic example. Examined in detail. Now you're mad and want more. Take a break.
Yeah he vouched for it. Then the thinking was revised. Thus revisionism.
The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers
- Thread starter RichardMongler
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
It's a fantastic example. Examined in detail. Now you're mad and want more. Take a break.
Yeah he vouched for it. Then the thinking was revised. Thus revisionism.
Mrolonzo,
It is cool that you like quoting this guy. But sometimes it is a bit much to have to go through all these pages upon pages. Which is why I (revisionist or deniers) am the only one in the thread who addressed your copypastas at length.
I recommend in the future you try to post 1 or 2 documents at a time, and also paraphrase the argument in your own terms, do not just copypasta. When you just do pure copypasta within any of your own analysis or argumentation it seems like you are quoting Mattogno as some kind of holy scripture.
It is cool that you like quoting this guy. But sometimes it is a bit much to have to go through all these pages upon pages. Which is why I (revisionist or deniers) am the only one in the thread who addressed your copypastas at length.
I recommend in the future you try to post 1 or 2 documents at a time, and also paraphrase the argument in your own terms, do not just copypasta. When you just do pure copypasta within any of your own analysis or argumentation it seems like you are quoting Mattogno as some kind of holy scripture.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
I could do, or I could just cite books and chapters, but this is an enormous subject and it saves time, while also getting you and everyone reading here the best information available.
You could stop scurrying to the HC bloggers every time, but then where would you be? You don't give a fuck about my takes anyway. Why would you? What are they worth? Very little. Most of the actual work in this subject has been done already by these men at sometimes great personal cost for the simple reason that they did work and drew conclusions some people don't like. If you or anyone doesn't want to read because it's too much, that's up to you. There is a 93 year old woman in jail right now for simply disagreeing with the holocaust narrative. There is an 105 year old man recently jailed too for being a guard.
So im not going to disrespect these people. Im going to spread their work for the good of mankind.
Mrolonzo this is a good example of your very high level of bias
I don't think we've ever linked to HC blog commentary in lieu of making an argument (like you just did with Mattogno). It's been for the documents they post scans of and translate. These documents are pretty easy to parse. We don't need an "expert" to decipher them for us
Yeah I mean also zo, nobody reads copypastas that long, except weirdos like me, and even I will only do it occasionally.
You can cite whomever you wish. But if you wish to be effective, you have to make your own arguments, or at least paraphrase Mattogno's arguments in summary form rather than simply posting dozens of full book pages.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Indeed, because Hc bloggers are not serious authors. Thus they've managed one awful screed and could only do it as a party of five.
And indeed, that's why your arguments are poorly informed.
Criticising me as biased is like criticising gravity for only going towards mass. My attitude is natural.
Which explains why I will answer any question, and you will avoid any question.
Actually you do. All documents need to be interpreted in the context of all others.
1. No. That's wrong. Everyone reads copypastas that long. The last excerpt I gave you was about six pages. A trifle.
2. You're just lazy and arrogant it appears. This conforms with the appearance of your general attitude.
3. I am effective.
4. I do not always have to make my own arguments.
For example, chugger posted the FG report as an example of an unassailable holocaust document, brought forth as a revelation by the bloggers in 2019. This document is dealt with specifically and in detail by revisionism. So I offered you the specific criticism.
6. Instead of trying to baffle everyone with your own ignorance you both should try sticking to the points of contention and avoid giving me your own stupid worthless takes.
7. I have told you before. You're not better than us. Youre not more moral,
you're not of better character. You don't know more. In fact you probably know alot less.
8. Your arrogance has led you down the path of thinking you don't need to read absolutely everything in this debate to find the true points at issue. For example, muh thermodynamics. Muh body count for square metre. Muh testimony.
9. Go away and read what I post and be thankful I don't just post entire books at you. Your profound ignorance and lack of humility upon history's most serious subject is an affront and disrespect to every single victim of war and the deceptions inherent in conflict.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
1. Look. With both of your unwillingness to read or think, or answer interesting questions as they come up, it's clear the debate is over between us. If you were truly interested in this you would enjoy answering every single question instead of having to have answers pulled from you like rotting teeth..
2. Which is fine, we still have other things to discuss if you're willing.
I'd be interested in your drives here, your wider political and historical perspective.
Are you liberal? Conservative? Left wing? Right wing? Communist? Anarchist? Libertarian? Monarchist?
3. You're clearly interested in the holocaust. So why don't you don't just do milk toast discussion with like minded people and ignore us? Why don't you send letters of love and appreciation to Deborah Lipstadt and Robert Van Pelt for destroying those evil Nazis?
4. And don't just say "because I find it interesting etc". That's not it. That's not it at all. Tell me what you really really think.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Imagine being so desperate to hope that people believe in the holocaust that you make a thread trying to make sure people believe...
only for some faggot to try and make it a second holocaust debate thread.
you are the lolcows
Do you think I've ever linked to HC blog commentary in lieu of making an argument of my own?
How many times do you think you've quoted Mattogno's commentary instead of making an argument of your own?
BTW I do read Mattogno. I can use the internet, holocaust handbooks are free in pdf on the site. He's good for a laugh, eg here in his commentary on Kube's report , where he says genocide isn't genocide because it was justified (hint: it's always "justified")
What's a question you think I have "avoided"?
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Make a thread then.
You are not important enough for a thread. lolcalves more than cows really.
Loronzo, if you answer every question, can you please answer my question about the Hans Frank document? It was not addressed in your copypasta.
As Frank (see attached), the head of Nazi-occupied Poland, says on 24 August 1942 - he is sentencing 1.2 million Polish Jews to death by starvation, and if they do not starve he hopes it will lead to a speeding up of anti-Jewish measures (deportations),
Do you interpret this document in a non-genocidal way? If so, can you explain how? Or do you think it "was forged"? If so, what is your evidence for that?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
Ok. Hans Frank is clearly addressed in the pages I gave you. But we can discuss this further, firstly;
1. Where is the exact verbatim translation of this page?
2. Why is it what appears to a carbon copy and only one page out of some 40 volumes of his diaries?
3. Why didn't you address the other information I gave you about Hans Frank at all?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
1. No you never have.
2. Many many times.
3. Exactly where are you quoting from here? Book, chapter paragraph please.
4. Anyway, Kube threatens to liquidate unauthorised and irregular transports and already must accept the authorised and regular transports without question. Which again disproved the holocaust because it makes no sense to threaten to kill people who are destined to die in any case.
Last edited:
I have to do some work tonight but I will promise to write out a translation of the relevant portion of the Frank document if you promise to give me your own assessment of the passage, not just copypasta.
There are many references to Jews in the Frank diaries. But why should he discuss this all the time? There was also a war going on, and like everyone he thought a lot about his personal affairs, and wrote about these in the diary.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
So you literally expected me to answer your question without the information you're promising to do tonight.
I'll give you my own little take if you tell me your response to what I posted about Hans Frank.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
This one?
Attachments
just text search "even in their brutality"
I'll repost the page since it's a clear checkmate for Mattogno stans (in that he doesn't question the authenticity of the document or that it refers to killing-very dumb of him)
and the part of the document he left out--more dishonesty/stupidity
report continues, with Mattogno omitting an important line (different translation here)
The Extermination of Jews and the Fight Against the Partisans in Byelorussia
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
LOL Mattogno - "The massacres, even in their brutality, were therefore motivated by the anti-partisan war and not by an extermination order of Jews for being Jews."
That this is the best spin your top guy can come up with is a said comment about the state of Holocaust denial. Even he cannot deny massacres of Jewish civilians - men, women, children, and elderly, to quote this document. which is of course genocidal.
And as Chugger says, Mattogno lied again - omitting a portion of the source where the Germans clearly state taht they want "Jewry in the Generalbezirk of Byelorussia" "eliminated" after they exploit them for labor. This is the same policy that was in place in Auschwitz for what it is worth.
Mattogno seems to understand that the fact that working Jews in some parts of the occupied USSR were temporarily spared does not disprove the exterminations of the non-able bodied Jews there (exterminations which Mattogno apparently admits occured in Minsk, among other places). Yet somehow he thinks the preservation of working jews in Auschwitz disproves exterminations of non-working Jews in Auschwitz.
Pathetic bias, dishonesty, and desperation.
That this is the best spin your top guy can come up with is a said comment about the state of Holocaust denial. Even he cannot deny massacres of Jewish civilians - men, women, children, and elderly, to quote this document. which is of course genocidal.
And as Chugger says, Mattogno lied again - omitting a portion of the source where the Germans clearly state taht they want "Jewry in the Generalbezirk of Byelorussia" "eliminated" after they exploit them for labor. This is the same policy that was in place in Auschwitz for what it is worth.
Mattogno seems to understand that the fact that working Jews in some parts of the occupied USSR were temporarily spared does not disprove the exterminations of the non-able bodied Jews there (exterminations which Mattogno apparently admits occured in Minsk, among other places). Yet somehow he thinks the preservation of working jews in Auschwitz disproves exterminations of non-working Jews in Auschwitz.
Pathetic bias, dishonesty, and desperation.