"Incitement of racial hatred" ??? I'm delighted you said that. So how about all those "holocaust" movies and TV documentaries produced by Hollywood jews?? Do you think they incited love and tolerance for the German people ??

Aha !! You think it's perfectly OK to incite hatred for White/Aryan peoples, don't you ??

And what about all those jew Hollywood movies, such as "Roots", "Ghosts of Mississippi", "Mississippi Burning" and "A Time to Hate", which showed scenes of white men torturing, abusing, or murdering black people ?? Do you think those movies incited love and tolerance for white people ??

You insult whole populations and millions of victims of one of the most horrendous crimes in human history, their progeny -if any-, their relatives and the survivors.

Ok. Then his Flying Saucer Conspiracy and his Hollow Earth Conspiracy are "fiction" but his Hollywood-Hoax-Jewish-Cabal-Illuminati-Rule-The-World-Conspiracy is genuine. Right.

Your 'expose' ?
There's a perfectly rational explanation for it. Since you're a member of the Master Race with Elevated IQ, I'll challenge you to find it for yourself. Come on, proof that you can think instead of just copying from revisionist websites.

This description does not fit any German that I have ever met, and I have met quite a few, in Germany and elsewhere.

Has it ever occured to you that modern day Germany and Israel may be friends? The truth is, they are.

No, not in any country I have visited. What countries are you talking about?

Certainly not!

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Here's a hint : don't watch Hollywood movies if they bother you. Maybe try some quality information sources.

On the other hand, what's wrong with showing facts anyway? You, as a former KKK leader, were probably present at some of these instances of torture, abuse and murder of black people.

Only a fool would generalize the abuse by KKK members or Nazis to all so-called 'white' people or all 'Germans'. Know anyone that would make such stupid generalizations ?

Can you point out where in this thread he endorsed that?What about it? Do you feel people should be banned from using inherent free speech rights just because of some "memory of the victims?"I'm not the one investigating it.They provide much more precise numbers (meaning without the rounding). If it were a matter of estimating "yeah, around 3k died," I would have no problem with getting a more exact number to replace the estimation. And you would?Perhaps we have been given a naturally overinflated estimate, in which case the actual numbers would indeed be smaller.And no, I don't see anything obviously incitant here. To incite means to prompt action, and it's a hell of an absurd stretch to call revising Holocaust numbers an attempt to incite hatred against Jews. And last I checked, weren't most of the "actual executants" dead anyway

Your reasoning for this is a total and embarrassingly absurd stretch.Speak for yourself. I see nothing incitant about it. I guess you'll just have to control your urges until news of the discoveries dies down.

Hint : there's more than one thread in USPOL. Should I presume a different personality for each of them for every poster ?

Who said anything about banning ? I love having him around. For years to come, I'll point to his threads and posts to illustrate where nazism, fascism and nationalism lead to.

Maybe you should. If all you're interested in is whether BG is anti-semitic, just read all his posts.

Strawman. What revisionists actually do is reducing the numbers massively or, even completely. Thus the analogy stands.

And the missing people are kept in hiding where ? Perhaps they were carried away by Zundel's Flying Saucers towards the Hollow Earth ? It's simply a matter of looking at the demographics before and after the war.

That's because you're missing the actual goal of revisionism, which is re-establishing credibility for Nazism. And the latter is -obviously, given the events during WWII- 'encouraging violent behaviour' as the OED puts it.
The Nazis as an organization were the executants. BG is a self-described Nazi. QED.

Maybe, when you're missing most of it.

What urges ? What discoveries ?

__________________
"Putain putain, c'est vachement bien, nous sommes quand même tous des Européens"

I wonder how many Jews decided that it was better to no longer be Jewish?


Painting with the same broad strokes you do, one could say that the holocaust is a hoax because certain groups exploit it for political/monetary advantage.

__________________
...If you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.

Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1927

Then can you point out where he called for it in those threads?I didn't say banning HIM, I'm talking about anti-free speech laws in general (such as those in Germany).I'm talking about the Holocaust.A revisionist is someone who revises. I don't see any necessity to "reduce massively" or "reduce completely." Furthermore, if many people have reduced massively, that doesn't mean it is not due to actual findings.Emigration, disinterest in letting others know, etc...So you admit you aren't interested in actually counting or doing further research, instead agreeing to only base it on flimsy evidence.The goal of revisionism is to revise. It can be anything, but to limit it strictly to "credibility for Nazism" requires a hell of a lot more proof than what you are giving me.I don't see anything obvious there. Give me one rational reason why "there were fewer Jews killed" would prompt me to kill Jews. That is what is required for your point to hold water.So it's guilt by association now? Seriously, are you saying the majority of "Nazis" execute people? Is it in their mission statement?I simply see no rational connection between revising historical numbers and murdering people.Discoveries about the numbers. Your urges to carry out violence against Jews, since you are apparently the only one here who believes that revising numbers is going to incite hatred/violence.

My apologies.
I presumed that people who got involved in a discussion about the Holocaust and Nazis were at least familiar with the basic tenets and characteristics of Nazi ideology.
Its very essence is based upon a racial interpretation of history in which the phantasmagorical Aryans are the Good people and the Jews are the Bad people. The Jews are described as non-human, in fact as something akin to satyrs or demons which destroy all that is good in human civilization much in the same way as Luciferian devils are supposed to do in Christianity.
Therefore, in the context of Nazism, the eradication or extermination of Jews, is a necessary condition for establishing the Reich for the Aryans. Thus, every single person who subscribes to Nazism, and in every time frame, has as a basic goal the extermination of the Jewish people de facto. Thus, it is perfectly logical to apply responsability for then Holocaust to Nazis of all ages and origins because it is an essential tenet of their ideology and is and will always be a fundamental goal of them.

Yes, this is insane. But don't blame me. It's what they believe. Read 18 if you do doubt it.

Cf. supra.

Yes, I can. No, I won't bother. Read the freaking board.

Any country has laws that limit absolute free speech. And any country has a different interpretation of what constitutes free speech and what not. Some of these laws are extrapolations of laws on libel, some of them are aspects of laws against rebellion, some of them laws against incitement of hatred. What is always wrong is holding any such law against the definition of free speech from another country. Or should all countries accept the US definition of free speech ? And if so, why ?

Care to make up your mind ?


Again, the manifest motivation is just a smokescreen. The latent motivation is to make Nazism acceptable again for the masses. To most people I would suggest attending a Nazi rally undercover, but you might actually fall for the propaganda given your superficiality and immaturity.

If you ever see an 'actual finding' don't hesitate to show it. And, I reluctantly add because I hate to spell out the obvious, one that stands up to scholarly criteria.

<sigh>
That would be global demographics selbstverständlich.

You're counted in the population of the USA (according to your flag). It doesn't really matter whether you are 'disinterested' in being so.

It's utterly mindboggling, completely baffling, that there are people in 2007 who are unaware of the extent of the information that is available on the Holocaust. That is an ignorance which is unexplainable if it were not for the malicious intent. Amazon gives 8,327, that is eigth thousand three hundred and twenty seven results if you search for 'Holocaust'. You call that flimsy evidence ? Or do you want me to link them all ?
Your ignorance of the subject is not an argument you know.

I got bored of your pedantic approach.

__________________
"Putain putain, c'est vachement bien, nous sommes quand même tous des Européens"

And of course you have no sources to back any of that up.So you admit you will not back up your accusations.quote]

Any country has laws that limit absolute free speech. And any country has a different interpretation of what constitutes free speech and what not. Some of these laws are extrapolations of laws on libel, some of them are aspects of laws against rebellion, some of them laws against incitement of hatred.
[/quote]And some of them outright ban unpopular opinions or even unpopular research to push forward an agenda. That's the type I am concerned about.I already explained to you the type of speech bans I have the most problems with. The ones that ban unpopular research/opinions. Surely you agree that is a problem, do you not?Nothing to make up. Investigating the Holocaust is not the same as talking about it.A totally unsubstantiated and unreasonable conclusion.Doesn't change what I said.No, but I can easily have put down "Atheist" or something else on documents.Right, because the sturdiness of that evidence is clearly based on the number of books published on it. Never mind the content. Still no rational explanation on how revising the numbers is going to incite hatred against Jews, then?

When you're ready to put content, substance and ideas over empty formalism, let me know. Meanwhile I'm not going to debate on the premiss that there exists no knowledge outside of this thread nor on the premiss that every participant in the thread is a blank slate that needs to be spoonfed information at a puerile level.

Scholasticism has been abandoned since the 16th century.

__________________
"Putain putain, c'est vachement bien, nous sommes quand même tous des Européens"

My post is filled with arguments against the points you made. I'm not sure what you mean by "content" if what I posted is insufficient.Apparently, you're also going to debate on the premise that the burden of proof does not exist.

Probably for the same reason that I don't waste my time trying to debabte evolution with creationist nutjobs. It's a waste of my time, and only gives them attention they don't deserve. In this particular case, it's also emotionally charged, and insulting.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

Revision is not necessarily the same as denial, so that is really not that great of an analogy. Wouldn't a creationist completely deny evolution in all cases by virtue of his belief in creationism? On the other hand, someone wishing to revise the Holocaust probably won't deny it, given that if he denies it, there is nothing to revise.

In this case, it amounts to denial. Denial of things they'd like to pretend didn't happen. But my point is that there is little percentage in arguing with somone who won't even meet the terms of debate.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin