How Can Such a Strong Consensus Be So Wrong for so Long?

[ConfusedJew]

Even if a tiny amount of them are lying, and I don't know why they would even lie [...]

Truly? You don't know why? You've come here and posted 136 times. Clearly you have some reason for being here. Could that reason also be a reason some witnesses would lie? Still don't know? Let me spell it out.

Germany persecuted Jews. Every Jew therefore was incentivized to incite against Germany. Since the Allied Powers fought against Germany and won, the Allies and the Jews mutually benefited from the creation of anti-German propaganda. This has continued into the present day because Jewish power depends in part on perceived victimhood.

At least you admit that Germany persecuted the Jews, I have honestly not seen that here yet.

Maybe out of spite or resentment people might feel justified in stretching the truth. It would be hard to have tens of thousands of people completely fabricate the same case though. I don't see how that would be possible but please educate me on how you see it.

[ConfusedJew]

I imagine that you most of you guys here hate the fact that you are censored and filtered out of the mainstream consensus. Do you think that nothing should ever be censored ever? Do you ever want to censor content that celebrates Jewish excellence and culture?

How do you think about free speech? Are you OK with people broadcasting a message to kill all anti-semites or Holocaust deniers? Where do you draw the line?

Do you think anybody should ever be jailed for speaking cruel, hateful, violent, dangerous things or do you think that free speech should be absolute?

[Stubble]

You presume here that freedom of speech, thought and expression can be legislated as if they come from a piece of paper or a pen. You fail to understand what the first amendment is or why it was put to paper.

It is a natural right, not one from government or from man.

[ConfusedJew]

You presume here that freedom of speech, thought and expression can be legislated as if they come from a piece of paper or a pen. You fail to understand what the first amendment is or why it was put to paper.

It is a natural right, not one from government or from man.

What does a natural right mean to you?

Any behavior can be criminalized or legislated in practice

The Nazis censored and punished free speech and dissent

[Archie]

I imagine that you most of you guys here hate the fact that you are censored and filtered out of the mainstream consensus. Do you think that nothing should ever be censored ever? Do you ever want to censor content that celebrates Jewish excellence and culture?

How do you think about free speech? Are you OK with people broadcasting a message to kill all anti-semites or Holocaust deniers? Where do you draw the line?

Do you think anybody should ever be jailed for speaking cruel, hateful, violent, dangerous things or do you think that free speech should be absolute?

I've merged this with this thread.

The Debate board is for discussing the evidence for and against the Holocaust. We can have some occasional meta discussions but we don't need a bunch of threads talking about ancillary topics.

[Callafangers]

What does a natural right mean to you?

Any behavior can be criminalized or legislated in practice

The Nazis censored and punished free speech and dissent

I think that every nation should defend the best interests of its people, however that may look. Notice I did not say "defend the will of its people", as a people deceived by Jewish propaganda can come to "will" things that work against their interests.

People who are not sincerely loyal to the nation are entitled to absolutely no "natural rights" therein, particularly for nations in which subversion has shown itself to be the prime enemy (which is most nations, today).

Which ethnic group has the strongest demonstrated pattern of subversive activity in the West and globally? Hint: it ain't Mormons.

Subversion = Treason

What should happen to individuals who commit treason?

[ConfusedJew]

I've merged this with this thread.

The Debate board is for discussing the evidence for and against the Holocaust. We can have some occasional meta discussions but we don't need a bunch of threads talking about ancillary topics.

Is there a better place on this forum to put the meta discussions?

I created a new thread so the discussion can specifically focus on that topic since this one started to get really messy.

I need to understand the Holocaust debate from a meta perspective first so that I can drill down on where the exact disagreements are and why they are happening.

The three big disagreements here seem to fall into three categories: physical evidence and analysis of such evidence, census data and demographics, and personal testimonials.

I will need a little bit of time, but I will have to research the strongest evidence in each of those three categories and then go from there.

Additional topics on the source of anti-semitism and the role of free speech versus censorship in society are also interesting to me and I think worth separate topics. What do you think?

[Stubble]

The 'other' sub forum is the catch all/lounge me thinks.

[Callafangers]

Is there a better place on this forum to put the meta discussions?

I created a new thread so the discussion can specifically focus on that topic since this one started to get really messy.

I need to understand the Holocaust debate from a meta perspective first so that I can drill down on where the exact disagreements are and why they are happening.

The three big disagreements here seem to fall into three categories: physical evidence and analysis of such evidence, census data and demographics, and personal testimonials.

I will need a little bit of time, but I will have to research the strongest evidence in each of those three categories and then go from there.

Additional topics on the source of anti-semitism and the role of free speech versus censorship in society are also interesting to me and I think worth separate topics. What do you think?

All of that sounds very much like you'd portray yourself as a 'curious simpleton', just trying to understand. But yea, I don't buy it.

You're being what I might consider 'softly disruptive'. "I'll 'just ask questions' but I'll do it by creating a new thread every 2-3 hours which will clog the board with my own, unproductive topics. Oh, and I refuse to read any revisionist literature. Just hand-deliver answers to my unproductive questions, please, goy."

We've seen this with 'bombsaway' at the old CODOH forum. I fell for it back then. Fool me once.

[ConfusedJew]

I think that every nation should defend the best interests of its people, however that may look. Notice I did not say "defend the will of its people", as a people deceived by Jewish propaganda can come to "will" things that work against their interests.

How do you define the best interests of its people? No two people will say that they share the same "best interests" and often times what people say isn't what they actually need or want.

People who are not sincerely loyal to the nation are entitled to absolutely no "natural rights" therein, particularly for nations in which subversion has shown itself to be the prime enemy (which is most nations, today).

What does that mean to be disloyal to your nation. What loyalty is owed to the country in which you hold citizenship? Members of Trump's campaign met with a mysterious guy who was fed intelligence from the Russian intelligence community about the existence of Hillary Clinton's emails? Was that treasonous?

Which ethnic group has the strongest demonstrated pattern of subversive activity in the West and globally? Hint: it ain't Mormons.

How do you define "subversion" and how do you measure who is the most subversive? This is a sincere question. If 20% of one group is contributing 90% of the subversion from the whole group, is it fair to take it out on the remaining 80% who are doing little if anything that you don't like?

Subversion = Treason

I'm not familiar with these terms in great detail. I would appreciate if you could provide clarity on them and maybe give specific examples.

What should happen to individuals who commit treason?

Very good question, I am not sure, I will think about this and get back to you. It should apply to all citizens or non citizens.

[ConfusedJew]

All of that sounds very much like you'd portray yourself as a 'curious simpleton', just trying to understand. But yea, I don't buy it.

You're being what I might consider 'softly disruptive'. "I'll 'just ask questions' but I'll do it by creating a new thread every 2-3 hours which will clog the board with my own, unproductive topics. Oh, and I refuse to read any revisionist literature. Just hand-deliver answers to my unproductive questions, please, goy."

We've seen this with 'bombsaway' at the old CODOH forum. I fell for it back then. Fool me once.

I'm absolutely not a simpleton but I am very curious. If you think my behavior is disruptive, please provide feedback on how to improve. I'm getting a lot of mixed messages so I don't know what you want me to do or not do. I was told that I kept jumping from topic to topic without having a focus so I decided to create a new thread to focus in on specific topics. I never called anybody here a goy or gentile. It's hardly part of my vocabulary but I do like to swear hehe.

I'm quickly categorizing the different types of arguments that you guys make here at a high level and then I will drill down into details. I had to speak with you guys first to see where that was. If you want, I am already ready to go deep into specifics now.

[Stubble]

There is a GLR clip floating around dealing with treason, I'll see if I can find it.

[Callafangers]

How do you define the best interests of its people? No two people will say that they share the same "best interests" and often times what people say isn't what they actually need or want.

People of NS Germany overwhelmingly agreed on what their "best interests" were. People today do so less often because social dissonance (culturally, ethnically, politically, etc.) is precisely what Jews have brought about, intentionally. Nations which are at war with themselves are less likely to collectively recognize Jewish subversive tactics and, thus, pose problems for Jews.

What does that mean to be disloyal to your nation. What loyalty is owed to the country in which you hold citizenship? Members of Trump's campaign met with a mysterious guy who was fed intelligence from the Russian intelligence community about the existence of Hillary Clinton's emails? Was that treasonous?

Questions about a "nation" are complicated in the world of today as, once again, Jews have created 'nations' which are so chaotic to be almost completely incoherent as a 'nation'.

Your narratives about Trump (one of many Jewish plants in politics; this also includes Biden, Bush, Obama, etc.) are nothing I would ever take seriously. The bottom-line is that all of these clowns (and almost everyone in Congress) accept AIPAC money and ultimately serve Jewish interests over American interests.

Similar patterns exist across Europe and elsewhere.

How do you define "subversion" and how do you measure who is the most subversive? This is a sincere question. If 20% of one group is contributing 90% of the subversion from the whole group, is it fair to take it out on the remaining 80% who are doing little if anything that you don't like?

This 'not all Jews' question is addressed directly, here:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=144

I'm not familiar with these terms in great detail. I would appreciate if you could provide clarity on them and maybe give specific examples.

No thanks, you can 'Google' it.

It would be a great kiddush Hashem if you would stop being such a dishonest, slippery little guy and maybe at least try to debate honestly.

But I suppose that's asking a tiger to change its stripes.

Very good question, I am not sure, I will think about this and get back to you. It should apply to all citizens or non citizens.

Oh, it seems you're pretending to miss the point. Nice.

[Callafangers]

I'm absolutely not a simpleton but I am very curious. If you think my behavior is disruptive, please provide feedback on how to improve.

I have said it before but, just to pretend to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll repeat it:

Since you are clearly brand-new to this topic, then rather than posting here and expecting revisionist members to be your 'choreboy', you should stop posting temporarily and instead do some reading of revisionist works and literature, and only once you can present significant challenges (or challenging questions) to revisionists based on your research (or have something else valuable to share here) should you consider returning.

The fact that you are instead producing one unproductive topic or post after another here suggests your motive is something other than 'curiosity' about this topic.

One might interpret your actions as an effort to mitigate the productivity (or lower the status/quality) of the forum.

[ConfusedJew]

I have said it before but, just to pretend to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll repeat it:

Since you are clearly brand-new to this topic, then rather than posting here and expecting revisionist members to be your 'choreboy', you should stop posting temporarily and instead do some reading of revisionist works and literature, and only once you can present significant challenges (or challenging questions) to revisionists based on your research (or have something else valuable to share here) should you consider returning.

The fact that you are instead producing one unproductive topic or post after another here suggests your motive is something other than 'curiosity' about this topic.

One might interpret your actions as an effort to mitigate the productivity (or lower the status/quality) of the forum.

I don't expect any of you to be my "choreboy" but I hear what you are saying. That is a fair ask I guess.

There are a million different "revisionist" arguments and perspectives. Should I assume that everybody here agrees with all of them or is there disagreement here within certain topics?