Given how certain they are the holocaust happened. That they cannot be wrong, that the facts speak so eloquently and are so irresistible, why are they so afraid of us Revisionists and what we say?
What is it they think will happen if they don't come here every moment of every day and argue about every single point we make?
Why are they so insecure in their position? Why are they so threatened? What are they hiding from, why are they so scared?
I get a huge amount of pleasure and satisfaction knowing that we live rent free in the heads of Mrs Nessie and her fishwife friends making their lives full of pain and anguish day in day out.
I think I know the answers to the above but would appreciate your thoughts. Revisionists only please, Mrs Nessie and her mates should be barred from this page and ignored if not barred. I have only so much band width for the dumb and the stupid.
Of the four million jews under German control, six million died and five million survived!
Is Nessie a woman? I think I have called her "him" a couple of times, I will address that next time I'm debating her.
To answer your question, i think the ultimate realistic end-point of Holocaust Revisionism is political anti-semitism. That is, an organised and systematised response by non-jews to address jewish power structures in Western countries. jews will tell you this will be gas chambers, but of course it won't. It will be alot more like for example, sanctioning Israel, disbanding certain elements of the NGO-Political complex and media, Hollywood and high finance and reversing of historical narratives - and all to be made alongside massive social upheavals, which will look and feel like Tik-Tok normies openly mocking how stupid the Holocaust was, and yes probably alot of resentment from all tiers of non-jewish society as to why they strung it along for nearly a century.
With the Holocaust out of the picture, Nationalist politics are back on the table. With Nationalism as a viable option again, White countries can begin to address things like societal degeneration, pro-natalist policies to tackle plummeting birthrates, a refocus of resources away from frivolous vanity projects like DEI and Homosexuality back into pro-family, pro-community projects, and ethnocentric immigration & economic policies.
HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 8:37 pm
Is Nessie a woman? I think I have called her "him" a couple of times, I will address that next time I'm debating her.
Nessie is definitely a bloke.
I don’t have precise stats, but from what I can tell the revisionist scene is like 95% male. And the anti-revisionist scene is similar.
Not so hasty Archie, it is the current year, we need to ask xim xer don't we?
I seem to recall Jordan Peterson getting into a spot of trouble over such an issue and having to undergo psychological reprogramming before he would be allowed to return to teaching.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 10:30 pm
Not so hasty Archie, it is the current year, we need to ask xim xer don't we?
I seem to recall Jordan Peterson getting into a spot of trouble over such an issue and having to undergo psychological reprogramming before he would be allowed to return to teaching.
Oh, don't worry, Stubble. This is a very progressive and inclusive Nazi forum.
Re: Nessie's pronouns, this has come up before. Someone at RODOH used to call him she and troll him about Nessie being a girl's name. It was a whole thing. Nessie has clarified that he is male and uses he/him pronouns. I will take his word for it and am not interested in seeing more conclusive documentation on this point.
HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 8:37 pm
Is Nessie a woman? I think I have called her "him" a couple of times, I will address that next time I'm debating her.
Nessie is definitely a bloke.
I don’t have precise stats, but from what I can tell the revisionist scene is like 95% male. And the anti-revisionist scene is similar.
To get back to the original question, the most plausible explanation is that they are lying (or are self-deceiving) about the supposedly low quality of the revisionist case and they are deeply insecure about the possibility of us being correct. Deep down, whether they admit it to themselves or not, they fear that our material is convincing and they need to stop us. Thus a crusader is born.
The online anti-revisionist scene is pretty small. I initially assumed most of the anti-revisionists were Jewish (since that would explain the motivation) but it seems that far fewer of them are than I had assumed. Most of the HC guys aren't Jewish. Jeff and Statistical Mechanic from Skeptics. Nessie. To try to explain the motivations here would require psychoanalytic speculations. You see a few German guys defending the Holocaust. There's probably all sorts of trauma due to years of guilt and propaganda at play there. Some boomers seem to be heavily invested in the Anglo-American mythology of WWII. Many seem to be ideological quite liberal. That seems to be a another predictor. I won't name names but in some cases I think there might be personality disorders at play. I think we tend to be to quick to assume that people are working for Mossad and this sort of thing, but my view based on my interactions with them is that most of them believe what they say. (Note that this does not contradict what I said before about them being insecure; in fact, it fits perfectly). I do think some of them may at times use dishonest tactics to promote those views, but that doesn't mean they aren't true believers.
Anyway, whatever their motivations, they are useful to us because they provide us with free fact-checking and allow us to test out all of our material. We should not abuse them gratuitously since this will just drive them away, although I get why people get frustrated with them.
It's not necessarily the case that anti-revisionists actually think their arguments are bad. They could think they have a very solid case but at the same time are convinced that the masses of people are irrational and will fall for bad arguments. And to be honest, this isn't unfounded. Humans are not perfect rationality and logic machines. From this perspective, if you think you have the truth on your side, then it would make sense to use censorship to stop the masses from believing false things. This doesn't just apply to revisionists but all different kinds of people.
In essence the answer is simple and straight forward but perhaps a longer more detailed explanation would help.
We are right and they know it. Thus as hysterical jews and or jew/israel supporters they know that as we gain traction and the truth gets out, which is is and has done for twenty years or more, their position becomes more critical.
They know that the very existence of israel is in doubt and the dislike of jews around the world would be escalated should the truth become widely spread and understood.
Unlike Archie I don't think there are many non jews in the holocaust promotion business, I also think those who are not Yids are at the very least lefty academic types of a socialist/commie persuasion. Jews and their acolytes are breathtakingly arrogant.
The fact is their pro holocaust claims skate on thin ice and bear little scrutiny. Here and other Revisionist output shows the ice is cracking beneath their feet. They have singularly failed to show the holocaust happened.
Thus the only option these people have is to pick, obfuscate and lie about every little thing hoping that those of a low threshold for inquisitive pursuit will simply give up and go back to their knitting or pro Democrat hobbies.
Of the four million jews under German control, six million died and five million survived!