Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    First of all you said about someone something like "holocaust denying scum" and I think now you have come to a more rational position that people are free to think what they want.

    There are not just 2 but scores of books, websites and historians who dispute the official view of the holocaust. There is a massive academia and movie industry that promotes it. Look what happens what someone challenges the official version. David Irving was sent to jail in Germany and he never even wrote a book on the "Holocaust". People hate him because his book Hitler's War, massive book with everything anchored to hard evidence doesn't refer to any Jewish holocaust except the allies holocausting the German civilians.

    You say that someone would have blew the whistle by now of the story was false. Why do you think many people don't want to blow the whistle?


    The truth is obvious for anyone who cares for it:

    http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php...olor_setting=C

    This is a politics forum but how many of you have read Machiavelli - The Prince? Who on here had any real knowledge. Does anyone understand Neitszche and Hegel?

    If you had, you would know how politics works in a country like ours. Manipulations rather than honesty, ways to make the herd of sheep move.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How many times have we been over this? Holocaust denial is not a rational academic position.

    And don't pretend you've read Machiavelli, Nietzsche or Hegel; or anything other than wikipedia and David Icke.

    Pigeon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magda1502)
    How many times have we been over this? Holocaust denial is not a rational academic position.

    And don't pretend you've read Machiavelli, Nietzsche or Hegel; or anything other than wikipedia and David Icke.

    Pigeon.
    "Holocaust" "Denial" is not a rational academic position because [insert political reason here].

    Please find attached my copy of MACHIAVELLI - The Prince photographed right in front of your post. Yours is not a rational academic position.

    And lets get right to the point from the book. Quote "What happens is that when the nobles see that they cannot withstand the people, they start to increase the standing of one of their own numbers, and they make him prince in order to achieve their own ends under his cloak. The people in the same way, when they are they cannot withstand the nobles, increase the standing of one of themselves and make him prince in order to be protected by his authority."

    I take it from the way you responded you are used to people who read this stuff because they think it makes them sound grandiose while having no ability to actually apply it to reality today (perhaps they apply it to the 15th century) because those same people think we are at the end of history and the BBC is truth always.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    1. First of all you said about someone something like "holocaust denying scum" and I think now you have come to a more rational position that people are free to think what they want.

    2. There are not just 2 but scores of books, websites and historians who dispute the official view of the holocaust. There is a massive academia and movie industry that promotes it. Look what happens what someone challenges the official version. David Irving was sent to jail in Germany and he never even wrote a book on the "Holocaust". People hate him because his book Hitler's War, massive book with everything anchored to hard evidence doesn't refer to any Jewish holocaust except the allies holocausting the German civilians.

    3. You say that someone would have blew the whistle by now of the story was false. Why do you think many people don't want to blow the whistle?

    4. They have even showed Soviet gulag prisoners and a 1918 Boston train wreck as "holocaust" pictures for Pete's sake. For how many decades are you guys going to keep fooling yourselves?

    The truth is obvious for anyone who cares for it:

    http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php...olor_setting=C

    5. This is a politics forum but how many of you have read Machiavelli - The Prince? Who on here had any real knowledge. Does anyone understand Neitszche and Hegel?

    If you had, you would know how politics works in a country like ours. Manipulations rather than honesty, ways to make the herd of sheep move.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    N.B. I'm trying to not sound condescending here.

    1. Fair enough, but it's an easy point to make, as it's not exactly unusual for a far-right nationalist to have that view.

    2. David Irving isn't exactly a respected historian, is he? I watched some video about him, and he contradicted himself about five times. And killing enemy civilians isn't exactly unusual in war.

    3. Well I don't know, unless if you're making some weird Illuminati neo-nazi conspiracy thing about it.

    4. Do you have a source? The gulag thing may make sense, but why would there be a train wreck at a concentration camp (unless it was some sort of onboard revolution)

    5. I do GCSE History lol, I don't think I'm going to have read books like that yet.

    Nice Dell, by the way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    "Holocaust" "Denial" is not a rational academic position because [insert political reason here].

    Please find attached my copy of MACHIAVELLI - The Prince photographed right in front of your post. Yours is not a rational academic position.

    And lets get right to the point from the book. Quote "What happens is that when the nobles see that they cannot withstand the people, they start to increase the standing of one of their own numbers, and they make him prince in order to achieve their own ends under his cloak. The people in the same way, when they are they cannot withstand the nobles, increase the standing of one of themselves and make him prince in order to be protected by his authority."

    I take it from the way you responded you are used to people who read this stuff because they think it makes them sound grandiose while having no ability to actually apply it to reality today (perhaps they apply it to the 15th century) because those same people think we are at the end of history and the BBC is truth always.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That shows you have the book, not that you've read it, much less understood it.

    I have no political interest in the Holocaust. In fact, it was such an horrific thing and shows humanity in such a vile light, I would love to be able to believe that it didn't happen, and that no humans could be that evil to other humans. I'm not Jewish; I'm not Israeli; I have nothing whatever to gain and quite a lot to lose from the Holocaust having taken place.

    I am, however, an academic. And I have reviewed all of the source material, including your websites that you say are incontrovertible, and applying the same rigorous academic principles that I apply to all historical theories can come to no other conclusion than it took place.

    You, on the other hand, believe in a worldwide Zionist conspiracy to destroy the white race. You are a member of a sinister and closed discussion group that is openly racist. You are quite obviously racist and anti-semitic. You are a staunch nationalist.

    It's pretty rich, therefore, for you to accuse anyone of having political reasons for refuting Holocaust denial, when you have an overwhelming political bias for denying the Holocaust. You have to - it engenders sympathy for the Jews, it makes the very party that your political theory wants to emulate look evil. It prevents people from taking your ideas seriously because they've heard them all before and they know where they can lead.

    You say you have "empirical facts"; you don't. You're a cherry picker, and an ignorant one at that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonoahx)
    N.B. I'm trying to not sound condescending here.

    1. Fair enough, but it's an easy point to make, as it's not exactly unusual for a far-right nationalist to have that view.

    2. David Irving isn't exactly a respected historian, is he? I watched some video about him, and he contradicted himself about five times. And killing enemy civilians isn't exactly unusual in war.

    3. Well I don't know, unless if you're making some weird Illuminati neo-nazi conspiracy thing about it.

    4. Do you have a source? The gulag thing may make sense, but why would there be a train wreck at a concentration camp (unless it was some sort of onboard revolution)

    5. I do GCSE History lol, I don't think I'm going to have read books like that yet.

    Nice Dell, by the way.
    Sure here is the evidence and photos attached:

    An academically accepted photo of "SS burning bodies at Auschwitz-Birkenau" is actually a U.S. train wreck from 1912. Photos attached.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ssed-prisoners


    Train wreck at Dresden Ohio, 1912:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGN0rLTMxRk (Watch from around 30 seconds, see the photo at 41 seconds)



    Don't put it in your history essay or they will fail you.

    I wonder why almost every political discussion I have ends up with the German WW2 PoW camps. Ironically I don't set out to go there. My theory is that the war propaganda about these camps has become a kind of religion that underpins almost all modern political thought, which is why any objective analysis with someone who is not aware of this if followed to its natural conclusion will lead to these PoW camps.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Sure here is the evidence and photos attached:

    An academically accepted photo of "SS burning bodies at Auschwitz-Birkenau" is actually a U.S. train wreck from 1912. Photos attached.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ssed-prisoners


    Train wreck at Dresden Ohio, 1912:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGN0rLTMxRk (Watch from around 30 seconds, see the photo at 41 seconds)



    Don't put it in your history essay or they will fail you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What evidence do you have that the photo in the You Tube vid is not from Auschwitz?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Sure here is the evidence and photos attached:

    An academically accepted photo of "SS burning bodies at Auschwitz-Birkenau" is actually a U.S. train wreck from 1912. Photos attached.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ssed-prisoners


    Train wreck at Dresden Ohio, 1912:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGN0rLTMxRk (Watch from around 30 seconds, see the photo at 41 seconds)


    Don't put it in your history essay or they will fail you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What you don't seem to understand is that even if these photos are not evidence of the Holocaust, that doesn't make them evidence that the Holocaust didn't happen. If I produced a photo that I said was of 9/11, but wasn't, would that make 9/11 any less true?

    No. It would simply prove that I'd faked a photo of it. There are others, plenty of others. And there is plenty of other evidence of the Holocaust that your photographs go no way towards refuting. So yes, they would fail you if you put that in an essay - for poor history skills.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Sure here is the evidence and photos attached:

    An academically accepted photo of "SS burning bodies at Auschwitz-Birkenau" is actually a U.S. train wreck from 1912. Photos attached.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ssed-prisoners


    Train wreck at Dresden Ohio, 1912:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGN0rLTMxRk (Watch from around 30 seconds, see the photo at 41 seconds)



    Don't put it in your history essay or they will fail you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As the previous poster said, there may be one or two faked photos, but not all the photos were.

    Good thing the Germany part of my History course was exam-only, I guess.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonoahx)
    As the previous poster said, there may be one or two faked photos, but not all the photos were.

    Good thing the Germany part of my History course was exam-only, I guess.
    Some more "psych ops" propaganda hoaxed photos for you:

    The world most famous "holocaust" photo. Now you see him. Now you don't.

    Smiling Nazi commander standing over dead bodies. The photo is clearly stolen from a German magazine cover.

    A photo marked "Les Crimes des Hordes Allemandes en Pologne" published in 1905 marked "Mother and child cruelly murdered in Odessa".

    Man with a megaphone talking to a pile of corpses? I think not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Attached Images
         
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Some more "psych ops" propaganda hoaxed photos for you:

    The world most famous "holocaust" photo. Now you see him. Now you don't.

    Smiling Nazi commander standing over dead bodies. The photo is clearly stolen from a German magazine cover.

    A photo marked "Les Crimes des Hordes Allemandes en Pologne" published in 1905 marked "Mother and child cruelly murdered in Odessa".

    Man with a megaphone talking to a pile of corpses? I think not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    you make me want to vomit
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    you make me want to vomit
    Highlighting war propaganda saves lives.

    It prevents future wars because people will not fall so easily for the propaganda. The true conversations about war among the men of power bear almost no relation to the line that is fed to the public.

    It creates a better and more honest world.

    Most wars are pointless for the people fighting them. They are just emotionally manipulated into fighting often by powers that are not even their own and do not represent them.

    We have had no business in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have no business going into Iran.

    There is hardly ever such a thing as a war for peace or a war for tolerance. Most leaders that have have had war declared on them were rational but have been portrayed as madmen e.g. Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    In 18 months or so the Unite States will no longer have the funding to contour military campaigns.

    Are you going to let yourself be talked into fighting?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magda1502)
    So you admit that your post was a load of tripe? Good, because it was.

    There's the answer to your question then - the BNP aren't a party dedicated to the interests and concerns of indigenous people. They're white separatists who lie.
    I thought you said there was no white race ??
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Some more "psych ops" propaganda hoaxed photos for you:

    The world most famous "holocaust" photo. Now you see him. Now you don't.

    Smiling Nazi commander standing over dead bodies. The photo is clearly stolen from a German magazine cover.

    A photo marked "Les Crimes des Hordes Allemandes en Pologne" published in 1905 marked "Mother and child cruelly murdered in Odessa".

    Man with a megaphone talking to a pile of corpses? I think not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Who has anything to gain from making the Holocaust up? Neither the US nor Israel justifies its aggressive foreign policy stance on the basis of the Holocaust.

    Moreover, this post can basically be summed up as:

    'Here are five photos, two of which are quite obviously shopped and which no-one ever quotes. Now, I'll ridicule the two shopped ones, and claim that discredits not only the other three, but the entirety of Holocaust historiography.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    I thought you said there was no white race ??
    Don't get excited. I did say there was no biological concept of race, hence no "white race". There are still white people that the BNP and their ilk are separatists (or supremacists, depending on your view of the BNP) in favour of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Who has anything to gain from making the Holocaust up? Neither the US nor Israel justifies its aggressive foreign policy stance on the basis of the Holocaust.

    Moreover, this post can basically be summed up as:

    'Here are five photos, two of which are quite obviously shopped and which no-one ever quotes. Now, I'll ridicule the two shopped ones, and claim that discredits not only the other three, but the entirety of Holocaust historiography.'
    But its not just 5 shopped photos, I could find probably hundreds of shipped photos and all the piles of other evidence.

    1. U.S. used Zykon B to spray Mexican immigrant coming in, the same way if you fly to Africa or the Far East they spray the airplane, or they spray people today in the U.S. who go into jails:

    http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/...ed-third-reich


    2. Nazi Palestina coin

    3. Widerstand in Auschwitz 1949 book read It is no exaggeration when I say that the majority of all Auschwitz propaganda, which was spread at that time all over the world, was written by ourselves in the camp...We carried out this propaganda for the world public until our very last day of presence in Auschwitz."

    And then they doctored the 1961 edition to completely rewrote sections like this.

    4. Malmedy trial shows that Nuremberg prisoners were tortured

    5. Claims that Saddam Hussein had gas chambers for all Jews (absurd of course)




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Attached Images
         
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Highlighting war propaganda saves lives.

    It prevents future wars because people will not fall so easily for the propaganda. The true conversations about war among the men of power bear almost no relation to the line that is fed to the public.

    It creates a better and more honest world.

    Most wars are pointless for the people fighting them. They are just emotionally manipulated into fighting often by powers that are not even their own and do not represent them.

    We have had no business in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have no business going into Iran.

    There is hardly ever such a thing as a war for peace or a war for tolerance. Most leaders that have have had war declared on them were rational but have been portrayed as madmen e.g. Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    In 18 months or so the Unite States will no longer have the funding to contour military campaigns.

    Are you going to let yourself be talked into fighting?

    Posted from TSR Mobile


    Name:  Vomit.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  99.6 KB

    I warned you.

    Fascist scum
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Name:  Vomit.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  99.6 KB

    I warned you.

    Fascist scum
    Tell me what is fascist. To identify that a preventable war was engineered using propaganda. Germany had a part of its country taken away in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles and given to Poland. in 1939 German people in that region were being attacked and Germany started negotiations with Poland to get access to that region to protect their people. At first Poland was happy to negotiate but then Britain and the U.S. told Poland to remain silent. Germany sent in the troops because they had no choice. Their people were being slaughtered. Britain & France, and later the U.S. attacked Germany and Russia started rolling the tanks, without officially declaring war.

    We had no business attacking Germany and it was a disgrace, the amount of civilians slaughtered in Germany. Like Dresden we had defined plans which were executed to obliterate entire German cities and all the civilians.

    Then when we broke down their entire nation we blame them for the deaths. Its a total disgrace and what is worse we have not learned a single lesson and continue to be fed war propaganda.

    You are calling me a fascist? Who supports regimes that are constantly declaring war and are constantly at war.

    When you tell people that one interpretation of history is fixed an that "revisionists" are traitors, knowing full well that history is full of propaganda and written by the victors, you are essentially using the line used by Big Brother in Orwell's 1984: He who controls the present controls the past.

    No one should let this Big Brother system tell them that they cannot review history or the current reality and think for themselves.

    This is called Genocide and was called for in the book "Germany must Perish" written before the war in the United States calling for the destruction of the German people.

    Instead of putting up monuments in celebration of murdering millions of civilians we should put the organisations and key people responsible on a symbolic criminal trial, and have an enquiry into where exactly the orders came from.

    Tony Blair should be put on trial for war crimes, overseeing fabricating evidence to justify war.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On the face of things, if one were to view a nationalist party based on some of the BNP's policies, it would sound fairly noble.

    Protecting British culture is something most would support - although extremist left wing types want no identifiable culture (certainly not white British) as this gets in the way of their multicultural project.

    Most would support tight immigration control and not allowing the EU to dictate etc.

    The problem is that the BNP are knuckle-dragging racists. The leader and his minions may try to polish the turd that is the BNP and its members - but we all know that skin colour and ethnicity drives their agenda and not a genuine & noble nationalist cause.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chindits)
    On the face of things, if one were to view a nationalist party based on some of the BNP's policies, it would sound fairly noble.

    Protecting British culture is something most would support - although extremist left wing types want no identifiable culture (certainly not white British) as this gets in the way of their multicultural project.

    Most would support tight immigration control and not allowing the EU to dictate etc.

    The problem is that the BNP are knuckle-dragging racists. The leader and his minions may try to polish the turd that is the BNP and its members - but we all know that skin colour and ethnicity drives their agenda and not a genuine & noble nationalist cause.
    There shouldn't be dislike or blame towards people of different races but the ethnic composition of a country should be a political corners as the ethic makeup is part of its core.

    I think people who comment on the downsides of multiculturalism are justified. I think people who want to comment on the spread of Islam are justified. That's not to say that other ethnicities or Islam are bad or evil, its to say that we don't want to change the nature and centre of our own country.

    Perhaps the answer is some party between the BNP and UKIP, but there is no such party, and from what I have seen, UKIPers just toe the popular and mass media line and don't really question much. I agree with you that there may be some hellbent racists in the BNP but I get the impression that the majority and especially the leadership are mainly wanting to speak against the successive governments and highlight the issues with multiculturalism. The BNP also say they would reject being a part of the global war regime. Obviously we don't know if they would stick to their promises if they are in government, they might be no different at all, but certainly today they they seem to have this opinion.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curva)
    Tell me what is fascist. To identify that a preventable war was engineered using propaganda. Germany had a part of its country taken away in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles and given to Poland.
    WW1 was an imperial war, that's how they work. Germany did the same thing to Russia (to a much greater degree) in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    in 1939 German people in that region were being attacked and Germany started negotiations with Poland to get access to that region to protect their people. At first Poland was happy to negotiate but then Britain and the U.S. told Poland to remain silent. Germany sent in the troops because they had no choice. Their people were being slaughtered.
    That is pure fiction.

    Britain & France, and later the U.S. attacked Germany and Russia started rolling the tanks, without officially declaring war.
    Britain and France did declare war. Germany declared war on the US.

    We had no business attacking Germany
    See above about imperial wars.

    and it was a disgrace, the amount of civilians slaughtered in Germany. Like Dresden we had defined plans which were executed to obliterate entire German cities and all the civilians.
    I'm very much aware of the hyprocrisy of the Allies, but that isn't a defence of Germany, it's just a tu quoque.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.