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

[ConfusedJew]

How's this, jews are not now, have never been and will never be White.

Your ethnic kin do like to mimic when it suits you, but, will proudly denounce any 'Whiteness' when it suits them.

Case in point, the 'fellow White people' trope trotted out by so many jews on twitter/x only later to be retracted with the statement 'I'm not White, I'm jewish'.

This is illogical. How do you define whiteness? Many Jews are resentful of "white people" or more specifically "white supremacists" because they literally tried to genocide European Jews throughout history. You might disagree that it actually happened, but if they believed that it did, I think you can understand why they don't like it.

I just see whiteness as somebody's skin tone. My skin is very light so I consider myself white as do most people other than white nationalists.

What if a Jew married and had a child with a pureblood WASP? Would that kid at least be half white even if their skin was super pale?

The white nationalist definition of whiteness is not logically coherent to me.

Is an albino African "white"? These people do exist out there and they have very white skin. Whiter than most people traditionally considered white. If whiteness is not based on skin color, which is how many people define it, what is it based on?

[ConfusedJew]

Extend to us the same courtesy.

That's fine. A lot of things I say are very common as I mostly believe that the mainstream version of the Holocaust is true. But if there's anything that you don't believe or don't see evidence for I am happy to find that for you. I may make mistakes from time to time. It is better if you just say you disagree and say why you disagree because then I can either admit that I was wrong, partially wrong, or explain why I was right. The accusations of dishonesty aren't constructive. I am here to refine my understanding of these historical events and I'm basing that entirely on logic and evidence.

[HansHill]

This is illogical. How do you define whiteness? Many Jews are resentful of "white people" or more specifically "white supremacists" because they literally tried to genocide European Jews throughout history. You might disagree that it actually happened, but if they believed that it did, I think you can understand why they don't like it.

I just see whiteness as somebody's skin tone. My skin is very light so I consider myself white as do most people other than white nationalists.

What if a Jew married and had a child with a pureblood WASP? Would that kid at least be half white even if their skin was super pale?

The white nationalist definition of whiteness is not logically coherent to me.

Is an albino African "white"? These people do exist out there and they have very white skin. Whiter than most people traditionally considered white. If whiteness is not based on skin color, which is how many people define it, what is it based on?

"White people don't exist because I decided that you don't".

Nice try

[Stubble]

How's this, jews are not now, have never been and will never be White.

Your ethnic kin do like to mimic when it suits you, but, will proudly denounce any 'Whiteness' when it suits them.

Case in point, the 'fellow White people' trope trotted out by so many jews on twitter/x only later to be retracted with the statement 'I'm not White, I'm jewish'.

This is illogical. How do you define whiteness? Many Jews are resentful of "white people" or more specifically "white supremacists" because they literally tried to genocide European Jews throughout history. You might disagree that it actually happened, but if they believed that it did, I think you can understand why they don't like it.

I just see whiteness as somebody's skin tone. My skin is very light so I consider myself white as do most people other than white nationalists.

What if a Jew married and had a child with a pureblood WASP? Would that kid at least be half white even if their skin was super pale?

The white nationalist definition of whiteness is not logically coherent to me.

Is an albino African "white"? These people do exist out there and they have very white skin. Whiter than most people traditionally considered white. If whiteness is not based on skin color, which is how many people define it, what is it based on?

You are a sub race, jews are levantine negroids. I covered this before.

Furthermore, jews separate themselves for being White when it suits them. They are mimics.

Don't think for a minute I don't notice your adherence to the 'ap style guide' concerning capitalization of the word White either. Because I definitely notice.

To the mods, I apologize for the derailment, I should have DM'D that. Feel free to delete.

[TlsMS93]

The burden of proof is somewhat arbitrary. As I said before, there is nothing that you can definitively "prove" except for something that is based on logical axioms like math or symbolic logic. We can never be 100% sure about anything that happened in history or the external world.

Therefore, it would be dishonest for me to say there is absolute proof that the Holocaust happened. Even if I were there and saw it with my own two eyes, I couldn't say that with complete certainty as I may have been hallucinating or it might have been staged.

That said, I think the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it did happen. I also believe that you can't be 100% certain about your position either.

Even if I were in a concentration camp and saw people being shot or gassed, I could only be a witness to that specific event and not to something generalized. Just as if God appeared to me, I could not go around saying that he exists because he only appeared to me. If I maintain that, I will be classified as schizophrenic.

So the problem with the Holocaust is that we do not have anyone at the top of the hierarchy of the regime determining a policy of extermination of a people. What we have are inflammatory words that anyone has said in moments of pressure, and isolated witnesses, and confessions under torture or after the sentence was applied. All the defendants in Nuremberg declared themselves innocent, including Speer. None of them were convicted because they determined the policy of extermination. Hitler and Himmler were not tried. So the Holocaust is basically a Frankenstein monster of isolated and lower-level parts of certain atrocities that, within a negative vision that they constructed of Nazi Germany, this event emerged that was structured over time and still continues.

[ConfusedJew]

"White people don't exist because I decided that you don't".

Nice try

I didn't say that white people don't exist. It is a social construct, like any racial category even if there is some superficial basis in scientific reality. I asked what it meant to you.

The Aryan race was made up and didn't include all people with white skin like Slavs and Jews.

[Callafangers]

"White people don't exist because I decided that you don't".

Nice try

I didn't say that white people don't exist. It is a social construct, like any racial category even if there is some superficial basis in scientific reality. I asked what it meant to you.

The Aryan race was made up and didn't include all people with white skin like Slavs and Jews.

You're saying race is a "social construct" and you're technically not wrong but you're leaving out that there is also a biological component (just ask the average forensic anthropologist how they do their job).

I think we need to avoid going to far into this topic, here, however.

Let's try to stay focused on the problems with the 'Holocaust' consensus, folks.

[ConfusedJew]

So the problem with the Holocaust is that we do not have anyone at the top of the hierarchy of the regime determining a policy of extermination of a people. What we have are inflammatory words that anyone has said in moments of pressure, and isolated witnesses, and confessions under torture or after the sentence was applied. All the defendants in Nuremberg declared themselves innocent, including Speer. None of them were convicted because they determined the policy of extermination. Hitler and Himmler were not tried. So the Holocaust is basically a Frankenstein monster of isolated and lower-level parts of certain atrocities that, within a negative vision that they constructed of Nazi Germany, this event emerged that was structured over time and still continues.

I'm not sure how you can say that when there's so much concrete evidence suggesting that is incorrect. Maybe you can explain to me the following excerpts which are very clear to me.

From the Wannsee Protocol (January 20, 1942), which was a secret document recording the meeting of senior Nazi officials where they coordinated the implementation of the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction. The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part, it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival.

Even though the Wannsee Protocol doesn't use the word 'gas chamber,' it was not a kill order. It was a coordination meeting among bureaucrats already carrying out a genocidal operation. Based on hundreds of internal documents, orders, and testimonies, it's clear that the Nazis used euphemisms to disguise mass murder in bureaucratic language. This has been cross-referenced across thousands of documents and testimonies. Rudolf Höss, Adolf Eichmann, and others explained what the terms meant in practice.

For example, the Einsatzgruppen were required to send official reportsto Berlin about their updates. Some reports said 2,300 Jews subjected to "special treatment" while others, submitted shortly after, explicitly said 2,300 Jews shot. This shows they were reported on the same incident and special treatment was used interchangeably with being shot.

Heinrich Himmler's Posen Speech (October 4, 1943)
In a speech to SS officers, Himmler explicitly refers to the extermination of the Jewish people.

I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily said: "The Jewish people are going to be exterminated," that's what every Party member says, "sure, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination - it'll be done." And then they all come along, the 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his one decent Jew. Of course, the others are swine, but this one, he is a first- rate Jew. Of all those who talk like that, not one has seen it happen, not one has had to go through with it. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stood fast through this - and except for cases of human weakness - to have stayed decent, that has made us hard.

Many Holocaust deniers, claim that his speech is vague and doesn't actually mean extermination, but Himmler clearly distinguishes between talking about extermination and actually carrying it out. This is not vague bureaucratic language—it’s a boast to senior SS officers.

Some argue that it's a fabrication, but it would be impossible to it would be virtually impossible to forge Himmler's voice, SS distribution formats, and detailed historical references. Multiple independent historians and institutions have all authenticated the speech.

Goebbels' Diary (March 27, 1942)

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60% of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40% can be used for forced labor.

Many Holocaust deniers also say that the diaries were forged or inauthentic but they were handwritten and professionals have authenticated the entries through handwriting analysis, paper type, ink aging etc.

Others say he was just speculating about what was going to happen but at this time, Jews were already being sent to extermination camps by early 1942.

Other's say that the diary is taken out of context, but if anything, he shows no confusion or moral uncertainty—only cold approval. His language is consistent with Nazi euphemism, but even he breaks through it at times like when he used verbiage like “liquidated” or “not much remains”.

Some say it was propaganda or an exaggeration but it was written for himself, not for propagandistic purposes, and much of what he is saying lines up with deportation schedules, death camp operations, and other Nazi documents.

Himmler and Goebbels were both top Nazi insiders who couldn't have carried out such an operation without Hitler's knowledge and approval.

[ConfusedJew]

You're saying race is a "social construct" and you're technically not wrong but you're leaving out that there is also a biological component (just ask the average forensic anthropologist how they do their job).

I think we need to avoid going to far into this topic, here, however.

Let's try to stay focused on the problems with the 'Holocaust' consensus, folks.

This is relevant to the Holocaust as the Nazis adopted a specific race ideology. I acknowledged there was some scientific basis in reality and obviously biology, by definition, but people can't tell me how Jews are not biologically white while other people with white skin are.

[Callafangers]

You're saying race is a "social construct" and you're technically not wrong but you're leaving out that there is also a biological component (just ask the average forensic anthropologist how they do their job).

I think we need to avoid going to far into this topic, here, however.

Let's try to stay focused on the problems with the 'Holocaust' consensus, folks.

This is relevant to the Holocaust as the Nazis adopted a specific race ideology. I acknowledged there was some scientific basis in reality and obviously biology, by definition, but people can't tell me how Jews are not biologically white while other people with white skin are.

Fair, here's the reason:

• Jewish ideology is such that Jews are, by blood, distinct from other peoples (Jewishness via maternal bloodline, 'chosen-ness')
• Jews typically behave as a subversive tribe, not as a member within a shared collective
• Jews are genetically distinct from other peoples, with Ashkenazi Jews all originating from the same 350 people
• Jews explicitly identify as non-white, far more than any other White people do (only identifying as White when convenient for Jewish initiatives)

On the third point:

A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today’s Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.

The math also indicates that today’s sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews — there are more than 10 million around the world — derived from just 350 people or so. That previously postulated population bottleneck — a drastic reduction in population size — occurred between 25 to 32 generations ago, the scientists say.

The study was published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications by a team headed by Columbia University’s Shai Carmi.

A number of genetic characteristics are associated with Ashkenazi groups, as opposed to other Jewish populations and other contemporary Middle-Eastern and European peoples. Certainly they are genetically distinguishable. “Compared with European samples, our Ashkenazi Jewish panel has 47 percent more novel variants per genome,” write the scientists.

Unfortunately, Ashkenazim are also associated with no less than 19 genetic disorders, according to the Center for Jewish Genetics. Many are fatal and arise from single-gene mutations. The list includes forms of breast and ovarian cancer, Tay-Sachs disease and so-called maple syrup urine disease, in which the pee of affected children smells sweet.

Compared with Europeans in general, Ashkenazi Jews have a slightly greater deleterious mutation load, as it were. (Sephardi Jews have illnesses of their own, including the genetic disorder Wolman’s disease and an allergy to fava beans – the ful so loved by non-allergic Israelis.)

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-hea ... fd58830000

[AreYouSirius]

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

Uh, wait… I thought you were here “100%” because of your “puzzlement” as to why revisionists believe what they believe. Now you’re bloating threads that descend into philosophical arguments and are expending energy assigning burden-of-proof?

I thought you were here in an attempt to sate your curiosity. You know, the objective you insisted that you embodied mere hours ago?

Golly, color me confused.

[TlsMS93]

I'm not sure how you can say that when there's so much concrete evidence suggesting that is incorrect. Maybe you can explain to me the following excerpts which are very clear to me.

From the Wannsee Protocol (January 20, 1942), which was a secret document recording the meeting of senior Nazi officials where they coordinated the implementation of the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question.

Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction. The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part, it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival.

Even though the Wannsee Protocol doesn't use the word 'gas chamber,' it was not a kill order. It was a coordination meeting among bureaucrats already carrying out a genocidal operation. Based on hundreds of internal documents, orders, and testimonies, it's clear that the Nazis used euphemisms to disguise mass murder in bureaucratic language. This has been cross-referenced across thousands of documents and testimonies. Rudolf Höss, Adolf Eichmann, and others explained what the terms meant in practice.

For example, the Einsatzgruppen were required to send official reportsto Berlin about their updates. Some reports said 2,300 Jews subjected to "special treatment" while others, submitted shortly after, explicitly said 2,300 Jews shot. This shows they were reported on the same incident and special treatment was used interchangeably with being shot.

Heinrich Himmler's Posen Speech (October 4, 1943)
In a speech to SS officers, Himmler explicitly refers to the extermination of the Jewish people.

I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of the things that is easily said: "The Jewish people are going to be exterminated," that's what every Party member says, "sure, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination - it'll be done." And then they all come along, the 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his one decent Jew. Of course, the others are swine, but this one, he is a first- rate Jew. Of all those who talk like that, not one has seen it happen, not one has had to go through with it. Most of you men know what it is like to see 100 corpses side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stood fast through this - and except for cases of human weakness - to have stayed decent, that has made us hard.

Many Holocaust deniers, claim that his speech is vague and doesn't actually mean extermination, but Himmler clearly distinguishes between talking about extermination and actually carrying it out. This is not vague bureaucratic language—it’s a boast to senior SS officers.

Some argue that it's a fabrication, but it would be impossible to it would be virtually impossible to forge Himmler's voice, SS distribution formats, and detailed historical references. Multiple independent historians and institutions have all authenticated the speech.

Goebbels' Diary (March 27, 1942)

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60% of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40% can be used for forced labor.

Many Holocaust deniers also say that the diaries were forged or inauthentic but they were handwritten and professionals have authenticated the entries through handwriting analysis, paper type, ink aging etc.

Others say he was just speculating about what was going to happen but at this time, Jews were already being sent to extermination camps by early 1942.

Other's say that the diary is taken out of context, but if anything, he shows no confusion or moral uncertainty—only cold approval. His language is consistent with Nazi euphemism, but even he breaks through it at times like when he used verbiage like “liquidated” or “not much remains”.

Some say it was propaganda or an exaggeration but it was written for himself, not for propagandistic purposes, and much of what he is saying lines up with deportation schedules, death camp operations, and other Nazi documents.

Himmler and Goebbels were both top Nazi insiders who couldn't have carried out such an operation without Hitler's knowledge and approval.

I want to see you prove that before 1942 a genocidal directive was in force. In fact, Hitler left a trail of several criminal orders such as the Order of the Commissars, the Order of the Commandos, the Euthanasia decree, the order to execute all the men in Stalingrad when they occupied it. What was his scruple about not having anything related to the Jews? He boasts that he punished the Jews for bringing about a world war against Germany but he left nothing in writing ordering the same?

Do you know that the Germans are bureaucratic and will not do anything without a superior order that exempts them from responsibility?

These reports of the Einsatzgruppen 's actions are quite dubious and unreliable in their entirety, since they were found in the Soviet sphere of influence in Berlin, it is plausible that falsifications occurred and in certain reports regions said to be free of Jews were in fact not. By the way, I stated here that I do not think of a single country or region that was free of Jews during the war, not even in Berlin did they manage to get rid of them if you look closely.

In Himmler's speech, aren't we told that the Nazis did not leave incriminating records? Why would Himmler leave something incriminating recorded on phonographs for posterity? Unless the content of the recording was not intended to clarify anything incriminating to SS officers. Himmler considers evacuation to be extermination, and in the German language of the time it carries that meaning, ethnic cleansing, just as they did with the Poles from the annexed Polish regions. And the NSDAP program never envisaged the extermination of Jews, but rather their deportation because they were no longer considered German citizens.

As for Goebbels' diary entry, the 60% would be deported, which he considers to be in quite degrading circumstances, and the rest would be left to do forced labor in the Reich. In fact, Goebbels only turns his language to genocidal language towards the end of the war, because he held back beforehand, and why use it at the end of the war? Maybe because it was already too late to start the genocide?

[ConfusedJew]

Fair, here's the reason:

• Jewish ideology is such that Jews are, by blood, distinct from other peoples (Jewishness via maternal bloodline, 'chosen-ness')
• Jews typically behave as a subversive tribe, not as a member within a shared collective
• Jews are genetically distinct from other peoples, with Ashkenazi Jews all originating from the same 350 people
• Jews explicitly identify as non-white, far more than any other White people do (only identifying as White when convenient for Jewish initiatives)

Even if you assume all of things are true, that doesn't make them non-white. They could still be partially white or a sub-group within the "white" category.

[Callafangers]

Fair, here's the reason:

• Jewish ideology is such that Jews are, by blood, distinct from other peoples (Jewishness via maternal bloodline, 'chosen-ness')
• Jews typically behave as a subversive tribe, not as a member within a shared collective
• Jews are genetically distinct from other peoples, with Ashkenazi Jews all originating from the same 350 people
• Jews explicitly identify as non-white, far more than any other White people do (only identifying as White when convenient for Jewish initiatives)

Even if you assume all of things are true, that doesn't make them non-white. They could still be partially white or a sub-group within the "white" category.

The second point alone rules them out. It's treason, or betrayal. That's a disqualifier in any group dynamic.

[ConfusedJew]

I want to see you prove that before 1942 a genocidal directive was in force. In fact, Hitler left a trail of several criminal orders such as the Order of the Commissars, the Order of the Commandos, the Euthanasia decree, the order to execute all the men in Stalingrad when they occupied it. What was his scruple about not having anything related to the Jews? He boasts that he punished the Jews for bringing about a world war against Germany but he left nothing in writing ordering the same?

No signed directive has been found from Hitler but that was not unusual for how he operated, especially on criminal matters. The euthanasia program (Aktion T4), which resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of disabled Germans, also lacked formal law or public directive—it was initiated with a private authorization typed on Hitler’s letterhead and even that was backdated. Hitler preferred to issue broad instructions verbally, especially when the actions were illegal, morally harmful, or internationally damaging. The Nazis knew exactly how incriminating their actions were. In Himmler's Posen speech he said, "this is a glorious page in our history, and one that has never been written and shall never be written."

Even though we haven't found a signed order from Hitler, his ideology, speeches, actions of his subordinates all demonstrate genocidal intent and coordination at the highest levels.

Do you know that the Germans are bureaucratic and will not do anything without a superior order that exempts them from responsibility?

Nazi Germany was bureaucratic — but it was a dictatorial, ideological bureaucracy, not a rule-bound one. The Nazi bureaucracy operated based on ideology, decentralized initiative, euphemistic orders, and a shared understanding of Hitler’s goals. Lack of a formal, written, top-down extermination order does not mean that no such policy existed — it means the policy was implemented in a way that matched the Nazi leadership style and aimed to shield the top from direct accountability. Many individuals in the bureaucracy took initiative, often eagerly, without waiting for direct orders. In many cases, soldiers and police could opt out of killing operations without facing serious consequences which shows that participation was often motivated by ideology, peer pressure, or careerism, not strict obedience to orders.

These reports of the Eisatzgruppen's actions are quite dubious and unreliable in their entirety, since they were found in the Soviet sphere of influence in Berlin, it is plausible that falsifications occurred and in certain reports regions said to be free of Jews were in fact not. By the way, I stated here that I do not think of a single country or region that was free of Jews during the war, not even in Berlin did they manage to get rid of them if you look closely.

The claim that Einsatzgruppen reports are unreliable because they were found in the Soviet zone is not supported by the evidence. It ignored the fact that there is extensive, corroborating evidence from non-Soviet sources, including intercepted communications, perpetrator testimonies, and documents captured by the Western Allies.

In Himmler's speech, aren't we told that the Nazis did not leave incriminating records? Why would Himmler leave something incriminating recorded on phonographs for posterity? Unless the content of the recording was not intended to clarify anything incriminating to SS officers. Himmler considers evacuation to be extermination, and in the German language of the time it carries that meaning, ethnic cleansing, just as they did with the Poles from the annexed Polish regions. And the NSDAP program never envisaged the extermination of Jews, but rather their deportation because they were no longer considered German citizens.

Himmler tried to avoid leaving a formal paper trail but the Posen speech wasn't meant for public or posterity. It was to justify genocide internally. "Evacuation" was often used as a euphemism, but in his speech, Himmler openly says extermination is what he means. It's true that the early Nazi program didn't call for murder, but by 1941–42, extermination was the goal, not just deportation.

As for Goebbels' diary entry, the 60% would be deported, which he considers to be in quite degrading circumstances, and the rest would be left to do forced labor in the Reich. In fact, Goebbels only turns his language to genocidal language towards the end of the war, because he held back beforehand, and why use it at the end of the war? Maybe because it was already too late to start the genocide?

Goebbels used genocidal language long before the end of the war, especially from early 1942 onward. His diary clearly reflects knowledge of and participation in the systematic extermination of Jews. Deportation, in the context of Nazi policy, was a euphemism for sending Jews to their deaths, not resettlement or containment. Forced labor was not a reprieve, but part of the exploitation-to-death model of Nazi policy.