51 minutes ago
3:15 No one says that, Delousing chambers were completely different buildings, on the original Auschwitz plans, the "gas chamber" is labelled as leichenkeller 1, which was sort of a morgue.
6 days ago
Why use ad hominem attacks and litter your video with expletives, why not show evidence that it happened instead of your ranting and swearing with meme's in the background. You're a fool
54 minutes ago (edited)
Revisionists (or deniers) (except neo-Nazis) don't "let Hitler off the hook". The Nazi's did plenty of horrible shit. murder of thousands of innocents on the Eastern Front, Eugenics, human experimentation, they just don't believe that anyone was ever gassed. And there aren't "mountains of evidence" just eyewitness reports that are possibly false and a (acknowledged by pretty much everyone as a reconstruction) gas chamber and NO documentary evidence contrary to what you say in your video. No one denies internment camps, No one denies executions, no one denies deaths, they just deny gas chambers. You claim that it denies scientific method but you just speak that in your experience you just state that you haven't met anyone who reached their conclusion honestly. How do you know, did you inject them with fucking truth serum? Heinrich Himmler committed suicide before he could give a confession and the others were possibly tortured. Hitler did say, in the 20's something about a solution for the Jews, but it's possible he meant deportation instead of genocide, deportation being a much more affordable option.
1 week ago
Its illegal to investigate the holohoax. Why if it happened there should be nothing to hide right?
Fred Luchter went to Auschwitz and took sample of the "gas chamber" and a sample of the de-lousing room where Zyklon B was used to washed clothes to kill lice that was spreading typhoid disease.
GUESS WHAT!!!! The de-lousing room was covered with blue residue from Zyklon B and the gas chamber walls had no chemical residue on them at all.
The holohoax didnt happen. The real death toll at the camps were 296,077. And they died from starvation and typhoid disease.
If I recall correctly, those are the documented Red Cross numbers.
1 week ago
Holocaust is bullshit in the fact that the death numbers changed far too many times to ever hold any validity and there have been countless documentaries that suggest that it would have been impossible for the Germans to cremate the amount of dead that the shills would have you believe so if that makes me an "Asshole" or and "Idiot" in anyone's eyes just remember opinions are like assholes and I probably think the same of yours as you do mine!
1 week ago
First of all, you started off with a nice straw man and ad hominem, exactly like a 'irrational religious fundie'. It's a tribalistic attitude: "You're either with me, or you're a fucking nazi!". If you want to have a real intellectual discussion, and be taken seriously, you shouldn't start off by going full retard. Fred Leuchter, one of the experts on the subject and execution devices said that to get rid of cyanide the gas, you'd need a very high chimney of some kind to pump out the gas safely. There was no such chimneys in the aerial photographs of camps like Auschwitz in 1944. How else could they get rid of the gas? Fred Leuchter and David Irving both deny the holocaust, and many other non conformist historians, I guess they're just 'irrational nazi's' then? And what samples? The samples Leuchter got go against this. I'm not saying the holocaust never happened, and I'm not a holocaust denier, I'm merely skeptical about everything we have been told, since throughout history, it's well known that the ones in power spread bullshit and propaganda to make the ignorant masses think one thing instead of another.
Think about it, if the nazi's won ww2, wouldn't they be bullshitting about what really happened in ww2? Wake up, question everything, don't think something purely because the mainstream accept this. Most mainstream historians are quoting from eachother in a huge circle of mainstream conformity, even from documents that are not reliable, they never go from the direct evidence. David Irving is one of those non conformist historians.
1 week ago
In the renowned Paris newspaper, Le Monde, P. Vidal- Naquet, Léon Poliakov, and 32 academics proclaimed on February 21, 1979:
"One may not ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible because it happened. Such is the obligatory starting point required for any historical enquiry into this subject. This truth we simply want to bring back into memory: there is not, and there may not be, any debate on the existence of the gas chambers"
Why is this intellectually bankrupt argument, which turns science on its head, considered by the promoters of the Holocaust a sufficient response to the mounting Revisionist evidence to the contrary?
1 week ago
It's not a sufficient response, it's simply saying it happened without giving reasons why. "It happened because it happened", is pretty much a circular argument. There are still huge problems with how the nazi's could do such a thing, such as how they could get rid of the gas, and how a small room could hold thousands of desperate jews from busting out, and the horrid designs of the building. The mainsteam historical account seems like something from a fairy tale rather than reality.
1 week ago
Is asking questions a crime? If you develop doubts about the Holocaust, isn’t the only way to get rid of these doubts by asking questions? A lot of individuals and groups are enraged by those who ask critical questions about the Holocaust. These doubters, who call themselves Revisionists, are often defamed as "Holocaust deniers."
Every other historical issue is debated as a matter of course, but influential pressure groups have made the Holocaust story an exception. Anyone should be encouraged to investigate critically the Holocaust story in the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical event. This is not a radical point of view. The culture of critique was developed millennia ago by Greek philosophers like Socrates, and was renewed centuries ago during the Enlightenment
1 week ago (edited)
There is in reality no independent authentic documentary corroboration and no physical evidence commensurate with the official version of the so called "Holocaust"- which boils down to 6 million Jews killed by "Nazi" Germany on an industrial scale- the primary means being poisoning with Zyklon-B in so called "gas chambers". That is the core of the Holocaust dogma.
This legend depends upon popular credulity and pseudo-religious faith, not on an indisputable body of physical or documentary evidence.
What it is, in essence, is a myth within a myth- the Manichean legend of the Second World War as the forces of justice, freedom and "democracy" against the most evil regime in history. Both these legends constitute the ideological underpinnings of the current political, financial and military status quo in the Occident, as well as the the existence of the settler colony in Palestine.
When seen from afar as a vague, nebulous and supernal- or perhaps, infernal, body of dogmatic statements and uncritically accepted so called "eyewitness accounts" and and not as a series of documented and readily accessible historical events, it is sustained.
On the other hand, the more it is reduced to the level of an historical event, and the more it is subject to empirical scrutiny, the less evident it becomes.
The strength of the Shoa Business is not physical or forensic, it is held together by the glue of somnolent popular acceptance and by the fact that its proponents have an ironclad control of the media and academia in the US and Europe.
2 weeks ago
What trouble me about this subject is all the laws who have been passed to make illegal to revisit (what historian do usually) world war II, specially the part about the death camp (gas chamber etc) and the genocide of Jews (nobody else). Example the Gayssot Law in France. Note also fact like the article 19 of the Nuremberg. The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules on the taking of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value. Or article 21. The Tribunal shall not require or reported evidence of facts of common knowledge but shall take for granted. It will also take judicial official documents and reports of the Governments of the United Nations, including those prepared by the Commissions established in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, as well as the minutes of hearings and decisions military or other tribunals of any UN courts.