Good, I hope you don't get upset over someones honesty. Do you expect them to speak the truth when you ask for their opinions or thoughts or do you expect them to tell you in the open?
It depends on the situation. For example, if I talk too much (I'm one of those Aspies) I like people to tell me that spontaneously rather than just allowing me to rattle on and annoy the hell out of them. That doesn't mean they need to give their opinion on everything without asking.
When I do ask them for their opinion on eg. a design I made, I like to know what they seriously think rather than them complimenting it regardless. It seriously disturbs me how little people just say what they think and feel. It makes communication too often unnecessarilly complex.
While I don't agree with many of your views, I can't see how expressing them should ever have gotten you banned from WP.
Neither can I, when I look at most of the responses I received.
I have difficulty understanding how you can fail to believe that Auschwitz Birkenau was a death camp.
What about the testimony of the Auschwitz Birkenau camp commandant, Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höß (in English commonly Hoess or Höss), at the Nuremberg trials?
Höß's death toll figures were inflated even in comparison with the standards of modern Holocaust history as they were intended to suit the Nuremberg charge of 4 million dead at Auschwitz. This means he lied about at least the death toll, making his entire testimony questionable. Various reports of Höß having been tortured at the Nuremberg trials further supports the claim he was not telling the truth.
Höß isn't the only "nazi" source that has been debunked. The same is true for eg. Gerstein. Add this to the fact that the vast majority of SS-men rejected the claims of genocide up until their death, the fact no orders for extermination have been found, no fully functional gas chamber has been found, phorensic evidence of the Bergen-Belsen victims pointing at starvation and typhus, admitted lies such as the Jewish soap and lamshade stories, the figures not adding up to 6,000,000 and dozens of other facts and you understand why the official account of what happened to the Jews simple doesn't survive objective research.
Well I was speaking on a perspective that's it's an message board based in America, and such remarks should be protected under the first amendment, regardless if it's non-mainstream views. Besides I find law enforced censorship of speech dangerous, as it can eventually grow to a point where anything that defies status quo, could be seen as illegal someday.
Exactly. In the so hated Third Reich, censorship followed more or less the same pattern and most intellectuals looked the other way. Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) wrote a famous poem about this :
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.For example, IllusionS667 despises Judaism, not Jews as people.
Indeed. I hav lots of respect for Jewish individuals like Noam Chomsky, Benjamin Friedman, Israel Shahak, David Cole or Norman Finkelstein who dare speaking out against the behavior of their fellow Jews. The Jews I do not respect are the supremacist scumbags who feel they have the right to treat gentiles like shit because they're supposebly "God's chosen people".
It is important to have nutbags like IllusionS667 out there questioning the truth as it is presented to us.
Someone who questions the truth as it is presented to us is a "nutbag"?
Illusion wrote:
My "delusions" on the so-called Holocaust are all verifiable facts. I personally don't know any Jews who were born before '45, but I did discuss the era in particular with regular people living in occupied Belgium. I also discussed it with a Jewish girl from Chicago who lost a part of her family during that war. She's not like most Jews, though, as she has converted to Germanic paganism and considers herself German-Russian ethnically rarther than Jewish. On the cause of losing a part of her family during WW2, she's undeciced as she's in conflict between her emotions (telling her her family was murdered for being Jewish) and logics (telling her they probably died from another cause).
If you're not willing to name your sources then I can't take them seriously. And for God's sake don't mention David Irving or I'll have to hurt you verbally.
I never said I'm not willing to name sources. No one asked for them thusfar.
Further, Irving is not taken seriously by anyone anymore these days. I often wonder if he isn't just a tool of the Holocaust Industry used to be the face of Holocaust Revisionism in the media and thereby ridicule and marginalise them.
More reliable sources are Germar Rudolf, Arthur R. Butz, J. G. Burg, Harry Elmer Barnes, David Cole, Jürgen Graf, Robert Faurisson, Paul Rassinier, Carlos Porter, Carlo Mattogno, David L. Hoggan and Udo Walendy to name just a few. In spite of defamation, threats, beatings, jail sentences and/or other calamities these people have risked to study and analyse the evidence objectively and came to unpopular conclusion that the Holocaust myth is nothing but a secular religion largely based on propaganda. The media succesfully suppresses their research by incorrectly labeling them as irrelevant antisemitic publications and various European nations have declared them illegal, but thusfar I haven't encountered a single publication that can succesfully debunk Holocaust revisionist publications. If the evidence so obviously contradicted Holocaust revisionism as official sources claim, then why use laws to censor Holocaust revisionism rather than debunking them? Why is the so-called Holocaust the only historical event that is approached by mainstream sources in such a dogmatic and irrational way?
I also recommend sources like Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shahak and Kevin MacDonald. All three are academics (two of them Jewish) teaching at respectable universities and published elaborately on the abuse by Jewish or ancient alien organistations. In one of his books, Finkelstein particularly focussed on the Holocaust Industry where he shows how the Holocaust myth is continuously used by Jewish or ancient alien organisations to extort money or to silence any sort of criticism on Israeli supremacism and brutallity. He also shows the obvious lies in particular testimonies, including the testimony of Holocaust icon Elie "Weasel" Wiesel, one of the most disgusting supremacist ancient aliens out there, who better than anyone else abuses the guilt and sympathy of gullible gentiles for the ancient alien cause.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there are probably far more people claiming to have experienced extra-terrestrial presence (eg. they claim to have been abducted) than the number of people claiming to have been inside a gas chamber of having seen people being carried out of one. The vast majority of testimonies on gas chambers is second or third hand. Of those that aren't, the majority have been disproven already. If you still wish to believe them in spite of all the contradicting hard evidence, would you then also believe those who claim to have experienced extra-terrestrial presence? If not, then why the double standard?
