Why do gentile normies hate holocaust deniers?

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

New Holohoax flyer -- print and disseminate

PDF: drive.google.com/open?id=1ipWainshExGJPUfTmBwjLy9WVCWyZfAq

PDF (Grayscale): drive.google.com/open?id=1DyijBzaw9Tf9QXbyDFFvQX5c7HmUhXi_

Large, text-heavy front-back flyer: holocausthandbooks.com/dl/FlyerLetterSize.pdf

IMPORTANT LINKS

>Documentaries
codoh.com/library/categories/1167/
(note: also search for Eric Hunt's documentaries on the Holocaust)

>Intro to Holocaust revisionism:
vho.org/Intro/GB/index.html

>Dissecting the Holocaust
vho.org/GB/Books/dth/

>Holocaust Handbook series
holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?st=40&sort=voa&main_page=1#entries

>Holocaust debate forum
forum.codoh.com/

>"Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about the Holocaust in Auschwitz-Birkenau] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove... it has become part of our inherited knowledge." (A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz, The Toronto Star, December 27, 2009)

>"The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence." (Judge Gray, Irving-Lipstadt trial, 2000)

Attached: flyer-updated-map-questioning-2 (1).png (1626x2129, 452K)

>in america it's 100% legal to not believe that jews were gassed to death by nazis. we have freedom of speech, can't be arrested for telling the truth!
that may not be the case much longer, check out the bill that was smuggled in over the gov shutdown sold as an anti boycott bill

That's nice honey but maybe send that canned reply to the researchers who specialize in WW2 history. Okay? Okay. Cya.

>This is what data provided by the historians say.
wrong, it's what the historians say, because it's often criminal to "deny"

- Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946: "1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing" (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368)

- On July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe."

- According to archives director/Auschwitz survivor Shmuel Krakowski: "Over half of the 20,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors on record at Yad Vashem are "unreliable" and have never been used as evidence in Nazi war crimes trials" (B. Amouyal, "Doubts over evidence of camp survivors," Jerusalem Post, August 17, 1986)

- "Survivor accounts of critical events are typical of all testimony, that is, they are full of discrepancies. About all matters both trivial and significant, the evidence is nearly always in dispute. In part the unreliability of these accounts derives from imperfect observation and flawed memory, but in larger part from the circumstance that they are not constructed exclusively on the basis of firsthand experience. In order to present a coherent narrative, the author has likely included a large measure of hearsay, gossip, rumor, assumption, speculation, and hypothesis." (Jew holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, 1976)

- "The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence." (Judge Gray, Irving-Lipstadt trial, 2000)

Attached: Holocaust_The_Greenville_News_April_1945_T.jpg (846x406, 138K)

It while way over exaggerated did happen, but there is a over lap between holo-denies and neo-nazis

>to the researchers who specialize in WW2 history
did you check the holocaust handbook series?
there's like 50 books for you to read lol

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
--Herbert Spencer

The "Holocaust" is a racist, anti-White conspiracy theory

Indeed, it's interesting to see that those who accuse Revisionists of promoting a 'conspiracy theory' often promote truly bizarre conspiracy theories themselves, such as:

>"The Germans executed a secret plan to exterminate every Jew they could get their hands on, the results were such that 6M Jews and huge numbers of gypsies and homosexuals were murdered by gassing and by being shot into enormous pits."

Yet in short, there are no orders from Hitler, no authentic German documents, no records of funding, no massive graves of human remains as alleged which would necessarily be available, and a gassing method which defies science.

At the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT) it was alleged that the Holocaust had been perpetrated with the greatest level of secrecy, and very few know it was even happening. According to US Judge Leon Powers "not over 100 people in all were informed" about the attempted extermination. As with many other conspiracy theories, the lack of physical evidence and the scarcity of alleged eyewitness testimonies were seen as convincing proof that the Nazis had something to hide and that they had successfully managed to do it.

Pennsylvania judge Edward L. Van Roden:
>"This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants. Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators."

Attached: Holocaust-Nuremberg-trials-April-1949-Judge-Leon-W-Powers.jpg (1374x1110, 762K)

read the pic. The 'exaggerated' parts are the ones that didn't happen.
While researching history, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan & the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and Nazis. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating Nazis and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate Nazis historically, and by so doing, always also morally.

But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating Nazis historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives--though quite a few of them certainly are--but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

Attached: what-holocaust-deniers-believe.png (565x616, 67K)

Like I said the burden of proof is on you.

If you want your retarded baits verified by actual historians then go ahead and contact them. I literally don't care.

The typical canard used by Jews is to claim that Revisionists "deny" the existence of everything about the Jews' experience in WWII, the camps etc. But no one says what the Jews claim, it's a classic false, strawman argument.

Revisionists do not "deny" that Jews were deported to labor camps and encouraged to leave Europe. There is no question that the National Socialists wanted the Jews out of Europe. The Zionists also wanted the Jews out of Europe.

What Revisionists do deny is:

- the unfounded and frankly, laughable '6,000,000'
- the ridiculous & irrational allegations of homicidal 'gas chambers'
- the unsubstantiated claim of a state planned genocide of Jews

The response to anyone who asks if you "deny" the so-called holocaust is to ask them to define what they mean by the 'holocaust'. If any of those 3 items are part of that definition, then say: 'yes, then I am a denier and you can't prove that any of those points are fact...next'.

>Like I said the burden of proof is on you.
on me? but i posted so many sources.

>verified by actual historians
some historians deny the holocaust. most know it will cause them to be arrested, or at least socially ostracized.

this argument is fallacious anyway, it's an appeal to authority.

there are a small number of historians who publicly deny the holocaust hoax. they are viciously attacked, some were imprisoned. a lot of people will just avoid that altogether

>historians say
that is very different from publishing a replicable experiment to substantiate a claim. i dont relegate this to only the holocaust. given commoners do not have sufficient resources, and funding is controlled by the wealthy, truth will be controlled by them. simply look at the knowledge of oil based fuels damaging the atmosphere from the sixties which was only revealed after fortunes had been made, or the effects of HFCS, or fraxking. truth may come out eventually, like foia proving the CIA regularly engages in proxy wars, toppled governments, and funded terrorists, but it will not be for the benefit of us commoners and it will certainly be revealed once there is no chance of recourse

I really don't care man. You are wasting time here.

that's sort of how these things are perpetuated. but its understandable given how atomized we are

I'm not the one you need to convince. Good luck with your baits mang.

They are programmed to hate anyone that thinks differently from them

bait implies things i dont pursue. genuine interest in others perceptions precludes it i think

>accuse someone of a crime
>put on show trial, torture accussed into "admitting" to things they didn't even do
>cherry-pick "eyewitness testimony" that fits your racist narrative
>make it a criminal act to even question this storyline in the countries most affected
>prevent all analysis of physical evidence, imprison scientists who dare to take samples and have them analyzed

LOL BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON U

>actual historians
first of all, the conclusion "thus, your opinion must be wrong" does not follow from the premise: no respectable and qualified scientist doesn't believe in the holocaust. the appeal to authority is a non sequitur.

secondly, the premise is wrong. it is defended using the no true scotsman fallacy.

>I really don't care
that is why you are agnostic.

you would never say "i know the holocaust happened" because you don't. you say "i don't know if it did, and don't care lol"

otherwise, you're a hypocritical brainlet

>there is a over lap between holo-denies and neo-nazis
and there is an overlap between jews and holo-believers

if a "neo nazi" is not a reliable source on the holocaust, neither is a jew

You realize that poster count isn't going up right.

i havent been watching it, was interested in your position if you happened to bring up a different topic

Lurk more newfag. Originalle. *dab*

A lot of schools have holocaust classes. I didn't, but almost all literature we read related in some way. Even as a child, you're told about the holocaust. My mom explained it to my by telling me everyone not blonde and blue-eyed was killed. It's a fact forced into everything as you're growing up. Denying the holocaust is the same to normies as denying gravity or flat earth. It's basically programmed into your brain from a young age and people who aren't inclined to question everything just accept it.

iirc they did go to court and deniers/ revisionists whatever you call them got btfo.

Who gives a shit what 'the historians' say, look at Philippe Rushton, academia is full of ponces wanking each other off.

never watch it
even in childhood i remeber instructors making a bigger deal about the old, sick, disabled and gypsies, while now it is largely shorthanded as jewish.
have you read at all about the roots of public education? wv humboldts commission by the prussian empire, carnegie's involvement in look say literacy teaching and early american framework, and pearse commentary on english education in the murder machine are pretty interesting

>everyone not blonde and blue-eyed was killed

lol i don't even understand why they use this lie? it's just so wrong, some nigger even admitted that it made no sense to him, because hitler had brown hair (true) and brown eyes (wrong, blue)

youtube.com/watch?v=ZJg26ISzmz8

I remember when this was just a meme that nobody took seriously. Interesting to see what lack of proper education does to a country

we were also btfo in the telecommunications act of 1996, buckley v valeo, and citizens united. it isnt a mystery us courts didnt uphold most of the native treaties

1 - David Irving was hardly a holocaust revisionist, he never wrote any books on it

2 - He did get BTFO, because he's an idiot

3 - He refused to use Germar Rudolf as an expert witness

Actually the "deniers" btfo some jew hoaxter in court. see: codoh.com/library/document/2402/?lang=en

read more about Irving trial:
codoh.com/library/document/387/?lang=en
codoh.com/library/document/393/?lang=en

also see:
>
David Irving is not the Embodiment of Holocaust Revisionism - A crucial misrepresentation in the trailer for the upcoming film "Denial"
codoh.com/library/document/4105/?lang=en

irving was just some WWII historian who wrote a bunch about hitler, and then realized one day after all his research he never saw any document suggesting the "holocaust" as alleged happened

hyde park is like r9k irl

i personally hate holocaust deniers and think that they are invented by jews

for one they are easy to be disproved so they make a nice strawman for jews

they distract attention from the actually important issues like why six millions of dead jews need more attention than say six millions of dead poles who also were mostly brutalised civilians? what about russian, ukrainian, belorusdian, chinese civilians? why should we care for the dead jews more?

then, how are those dead jews related to the modern policy of israel, that waged several wars and has a de-facto apartheid holding multiple people as nin citizens segregating them by their race?

so holocaust deniers can fuck themselves, they only play to the jews hands helping them to paint everybody who dislikes israel as a stupid racist

Attached: 1549370186428.jpg (850x1220, 163K)

auschwitz was a complex of multiple camps, one of them being a labor camp.

6 millions is 1,500 every day from the first day of the war till the very end
The fuel to burn, the manpower and infrastructure to move them
Things that Germany was rapidly running out of

>they are invented by jews
well, to be fair, the first "Holocaust denier" was in fact a jew who was in the camps, lol

>they are easy to be disproved
then why do they simply throw people in jail over it? they can't be disproved at all!

remember: holocaust "deniers" claim 100s of thousands died in the camps. the excavations support this number, not the >10 million number!

>auschwitz was a complex of multiple camps
indeed, there were 3 sub-camps

>one of them being a labor camp.
the truth is, none of them were 'death/extermination camps' and nobody was ever gassed at [any] auschwitz [camp]

>then why do they simply throw people in jail over it?
because they use it as a bait and a strawman

you probably don't realize how many people died a day during that war

not to mention enormous mass graves

1 cubic meter can only contain about 400-500 people's burnt remains, assuming they are completely cremated

how do you just generate multiple cubic meters of burnt remains [which is totally insoluble in water] every day, for months at a time, and then allow it to magically disappear?

holocaust "deniers" claim 300-500,000 died in the camps. the excavations of a few camps actually support this number

Attached: cubic-metre-diagram.png (464x398, 48K)

how is questioning accuracy the same as racism? israeli human rights violations and accuracy of mainstream holocaust accounts are two seperate issues. what metric are you using to measure that less attention is paid specifically because of 'revisionism'?

>because they use it as a bait and a strawman
not really. people in these countries know it's illegal to say "hitler didn't gas any jews"
they can't prove he did
so they just arrest them

if they could easily refute the "deniers" they would -- by excavating the camps and showing the millions of pounds of remains as alleged

imagine a crime scene but nobody shows you the bodies you killed. or, they show you a mere fingernail and say "you obliterated all traces of the rest!"

literally what
i didn't say anything like that, i only said that revisionists paint us all who dislike jews in shitty colors

also yes revisionism somewhat invalidates any anti-jew opinion in the eyes of the general population because revisionism is simply a childish crap. people are arrested for it because it's thoughtcrime to be a nazi and revisionism is tied to being a nazi

>revisionism is tied to being a nazi
not inherently though. they make that connection only as a justification to silence all dissenting opinions and research. the first 'holocaust deniers' were a jew and french communist in the camps, persecuted by nazis

many actual "nazis" believe the holocaust occurred. some people who are not nazis don't believe it

please read: >revisionism is simply a childish crap
what is "childish" is to believe, despite all evidence on the contrary, that hitler gassed hundreds of thousands of jews with zyclon-b at auschwitz

>anti-jew
but it's not "anti-jew" to not believe that hitler gassed jews

there's literally nothing inherently "anti-jew" about it

that's why some "holocaust deniers" were in fact jews

you said
>they only play to the jews hands helping them to paint everybody who dislikes israel as a stupid racist
which implies to me a connection between questioning and racism. please elaborate if i am misunderstanding

i have already explained

yeah it's weird, because there's nothing at all inherently "racist" or "anti-semitic" about claiming "hitler did not gas jews"

he's just a goofball that makes no sense desu

he is saying that hating jews is OK and logical, but not believeing hitler gassed jews is irrational

most "holocaust deniers" would say the opposite: hating people for being jewish is wrong, but not believing in homicidal nazi gas chambers is OK

Yes, about 35,000 people died every day during world war 2
So 5% of which is 1,500

That's about what I would say too, 6 million is just too high, if it was 1 million or lower I dont think there would be any deniers

>if it was 1 million
that's basically the number "deniers" seem to cite. "up to 1 million jews"

also, it is claimed 1.7 million jews were murdered in just 100 days... in diesel exhaust gas chambers! (which are absurd for murder)

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12193