Facebook bans Holocaust denial amid rapid rise in “deceptive” content

[Champ]

Facebook n company better get used to it. I guess they will be stepping their censorship efforts up as every part of what the history books taught and the mainstream narrative are currently being challenged, including this topic. It's only going to intensify and their reaction to it will therefore intensify as well.

RP challenged the notion that the Fed is there to protect Americans with their fiscal policy. He also challenged the usefulness of most of the departments, including the CIA/FBI. Our foreign policy, wars, foreign aid, sanctions, interventionism, etc. were all challenged as well and we were mocked for supporting a guy that was doing so. Now the people are continuing to challenge on more issues, and this is a bad thing how? Do we stop where RP stopped during his final 2012 campaign or do we keep pushing beyond where he left off in the same spirit? If we stop pushing ahead, what was the point of RP and the lessons he taught us. What was the point of any of this? Many of us got woken from our slumber for a reason.

Even if you disagree, seeking truth and shining light on the darkness is a good thing and should be commended, even with highly controversial issues like this. The more controversial, the more important it is to ask questions and challenge the narrative.

[Anti Federalist]

The milenial generation is defined as 1981 - 1996. The last really well done holocaust movie was Schindler's List which came out in 1993. So....most millennials never saw it. I will admit I knew nothing of the Holocaust until the mini series titled, you guessed it, "The Holocaust" came out in 1978. Those who run Hollywood will most certainly do a reboot movie / miniseries if they feel it has faded to far from public consciousness.

I thought that was still Gen-Xers

[TheCount]

I thought that was still Gen-Xers

Technically millenial is anyone graduating from high school 2000+

[Anti Federalist]

Technically millenial is anyone graduating from high school 2000+

I'll be dipped...

OK then, who are these flabby white Marxists in the streets that all appear to be 15-25 years old?

[devil21]

...in before someone posts a link to a site "proving" that the holocaust didn't happen.

No need. Anyone reading this thread has already dove down that rabbit hole lol


It's all good. Just softening everyone up for the hardcore censorship coming soon. Start with the simple stuff like Holocaust and QAnon then branch out...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...xecutive-Order

[devil21]

Add anti-vax to the list of FB bans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/face...i-vax-ads.html

Raise your hand if you knew that FB's health director is a Chinese Harvard grad with no medical experience or resume'.


https://www.protocol.com/coronavirus...head-of-health

Indeed, Kang-Xing Jin has no medical background or expertise, a fact he readily admitted on stage. Like Zuckerberg, Jin studied computer science at Harvard and met the soon-to-be Facebook founder on their first day of class.

"The purpose of the role isn't intended to be a health expert," the spokesperson said. "It's intended to be managerial, to pull people in and have a vision of how to work within the company."
........................
In a Facebook post this week, Zuckerberg expanded on the company's strategy for dealing with the coronavirus, saying that Facebook is working closely with the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, UNICEF, and various health ministries. That includes giving the WHO unlimited, free access to advertisements on Facebook.

But anti-vax advocates get banned. Nice.

[jmdrake]

I don't find the censoring of national socialist thought by a private outfit which I'm free to not use concerning at all.

Likewise if they want to ban communist posting, etc.

But but but, what if they ban libertarian posting?!

Then I'd oppose that.

But but but, isn't that hypocritical?!

It would only be hypocritical if I were in favor of free speech in principle on private platforms, which I'm not.

Facebook already does censor libertarian speech so you're a little late for that. And that's why censorship, yes even censorship on a private platform, is concerning. It never stops. Yes they have a right to do that and I support that right.

So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I guess so...though it's not actually clear what you are really disagreeing about. The reason FB starting censoring is because people demanded they start censoring. It was obvious where that would ultimately lead. The "I'll wait until they censor what I like" position is fundamentally weak. And that explains why libertarians are losing the culture war. While everyone else is demanding censorship and pressuring companies to do the "right thing" (wrong thing) and censor, libertarians (some) just sit back and say "meh...private property." In a free market economy businesses react to the market. So raising concern about censorship is really about self preservation.

P.S. And before someone suggests that holocaust denial isn't a matter of promoting national socialism, I recognize that there may be a few people interested in the topic from a purely historical point of view, as there might be people, not keen on communism, who find that common historical estimates of Stalin's death toll are exaggerated, but the reality, in my experience, is that people who argue that the holocaust, or holodomor, etc, weren't so bad are trying to resuscitate the image of those regimes because they share their ideology. In other words, this censorship has very little if anything to do with suppressing truth-seeking; it's more about suppressing propaganda campaigns by groups, which, presumably, we don't like here on RPF.

And yet, here we are on RPF with a factual discussion taking place on what the holocaust numbers are. And while I agree with the official number, I'm not at all offended by the questioning of it and the research led me to know more about the Holocaust. And consider that a good outcome. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

[jmdrake]

That is impossible. You mean to tell me that you believe that Germany in the middle of an intensive war was busy killing Jewish victims at the rate of 14700 per day and they were able to sustain it for 100 days? no way you can dispose of that many bodies in 100 days. Even you cannot believe that horse$#@!, do understand that some of the people are liars that would make up anything to smear the Nazis.

Sorry but I do not believe those numbers.

Why, if you believe the concentration camps were real and that Jews really were being murdered simply for being Jews, do you think that something has to be made up to "smear Nazis?" Aren't they already smeared in your eyes? Anyway, you made a specific point about a chemical being used. But carbon monoxide is easy and inexpensive to produce and very deadly.

[r3volution 3.0]

Facebook already does censor libertarian speech so you're a little late for that. And that's why censorship, yes even censorship on a private platform, is concerning. It never stops. Yes they have a right to do that and I support that right.

I don't put much stock in the slippery slope argument, at least not in this context.

They can in fact come for group X without later coming for group Y, so if I'm in the latter, and the former are NAZIs, I'm not likely to object.

I guess so...though it's not actually clear what you are really disagreeing about. The reason FB starting censoring is because people demanded they start censoring. It was obvious where that would ultimately lead. The "I'll wait until they censor what I like" position is fundamentally weak. And that explains why libertarians are losing the culture war. While everyone else is demanding censorship and pressuring companies to do the "right thing" (wrong thing) and censor, libertarians (some) just sit back and say "meh...private property." In a free market economy businesses react to the market. So raising concern about censorship is really about self preservation.

If libertarians want to criticize FB, boycott them, etc, for censoring libertarian content, great.

But there's no need to take a general "free speech" position and defend our political opponents as well.

Note that the people who actually have influence with the likes of FB don't take that approach.

And yet, here we are on RPF with a factual discussion taking place on what the holocaust numbers are. And while I agree with the official number, I'm not at all offended by the questioning of it and the research led me to know more about the Holocaust. And consider that a good outcome. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Do you think that holocaust denial is mostly about historical truth-seeking or mostly about promoting national socialism?

If the latter, why do you consider that a good outcome?

Well, sure, national socialism is now more popular, but at least people got to engage in a largely disingenuous historical debate!

...?

[jmdrake]

I thought that was still Gen-Xers

Technically millenial is anyone graduating from high school 2000+

I'll be dipped...

OK then, who are these flabby white Marxists in the streets that all appear to be 15-25 years old?

Gen X is defined as born between 1961 and 1981 or 1965 and 1979 depending who who's counting.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g...ion-x-genx.asp

Anyway, regardless of the generational labeling (that's all artificial anyway) there hasn't been a critically acclaimed Holocaust in decades now so of course it's not in the public consciousness. The most recent Holocaust move I saw was Defiance. It's really pretty good. Its a true story of Jews hiding out in the forests, surviving and fighting back. Much better then the "Line up and get in a cattle car and ride to your death" fare we normally see in those films.

[jmdrake]

I don't put much stock in the slippery slope argument, at least not in this context.

They can in fact come for group X without later coming for group Y, so if I'm in the latter, and the former are NAZIs, I'm not likely to object.

Except FB has already come for group Y. And the way this works is people just claim group Y is secretly group X. Or its that "Group Y says objectionable things Group X says objectionable things. We ban everything that is objectionable."

If libertarians want to criticize FB, boycott them, etc, for censoring libertarian content, great.

But there's no need to take a general "free speech" position and defend our political opponents as well.

Libertarians don't agree on what is/isn't "libertarian" so how can one argue against libertarian content? And what principle are you making your argument on? FB says "We ban content that is objectionable." Someone says "See! What X says is objectionable." Stephen Molyneaux considers himself a libertarian. Many others do as well. There's no objective proof that he's a Nazi. Are you okay with him being banned? What line would you draw?

Note that the people who actually have influence with the likes of FB don't take that approach.

They are winning because they follow their principles. Ban all objectionable speech. If you take the "Okay...but don't ban mine because mine is not objectionable" approach you have already lost.

Do you think that holocaust denial is mostly about historical truth-seeking or mostly about promoting national socialism?

I don't run around trying to decipher motive the way some people do. Some people here question your motives. I only care about the facts presented.

If the latter, why do you consider that a good outcome?

If, during the course of rebuttal, national socialism is discredited I consider that a good outcome. Most certainly. Just because someone attempts something doesn't mean it won't backfire.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except FB has already come for group Y. And the way this works is people just claim group Y is secretly group X. Or its that "Group Y says objectionable things Group X says objectionable things. We ban everything that is objectionable."

Yes, I know, but that isn't a result of libertarians failing to defend NAZIs.

It may be a result of libertarians failing to defend themselves, or it may be that there was nothing we could have done anyway.

Libertarians don't agree on what is/isn't "libertarian" so how can one argue against libertarian content? And what principle are you making your argument on? FB says "We ban content that is objectionable." Someone says "See! What X says is objectionable." Stephen Molyneaux considers himself a libertarian. Many others do as well. There's no objective proof that he's a Nazi. Are you okay with him being banned? What line would you draw?

Some people calling themselves libertarians are confused as to the meaning of the term, or there are genuine disagreements between people who define it clearly but differently. In any event, when I say 'libertarian,' I mean it in the way I define it, obviously. So, where do I draw the line? I'd oppose censorship of libertarians and fellow travelers out a certain distance: how far is hard to say in the abstract., but suffice it to say that this circle does not include national socialists or their fellow travelers, like Molyneux.

They are winning because they follow their principles. Ban all objectionable speech. If you take the "Okay...but don't ban mine because mine is not objectionable" approach you have already lost.

What are you saying? The left is winning because they stand on principle ('ban all objectionable speech') while libertarians are losing because they don't stand on principle? If so, that doesn't make sense, on several levels. First, the left's principle isn't "ban all objectionable speech," it's "ban all speech I disagree with." Second, that's exactly the principle that I'm suggesting should guide libertarians.

I don't run around trying to decipher motive the way some people do. Some people here question your motives. I only care about the facts presented.

If, during the course of rebuttal, national socialism is discredited I consider that a good outcome. Most certainly. Just because someone attempts something doesn't mean it won't backfire.

And if it's not discredited, but rather gains support, still a good outcome in your view?

[jmdrake]

Yes, I know, but that isn't a result of libertarians failing to defend NAZIs.

It's the result of people in general not defending principles. Principles apply universally.

It may be a result of libertarians failing to defend themselves, or it may be that there was nothing we could have done anyway.

The population of "libertarians" is too small for them to have an effect arguing just for the right of libertarians to speak. Defending principles is much more tenable.

Some people calling themselves libertarians are confused as to the meaning of the term, or there are genuine disagreements between people who define it clearly but differently. In any event, when I say 'libertarian,' I mean it in the way I define it, obviously. So, where do I draw the line? I'd oppose censorship of libertarians and fellow travelers out a certain distance: how far is hard to say in the abstract., but suffice it to say that this circle does not include national socialists or their fellow travelers, like Molyneux.

I haven't seen evidence that Molyneux is a socialist of any kind.

What are you saying? The left is winning because they stand on principle ('ban all objectionable speech') while libertarians are losing because they don't stand on principle? If so, that doesn't make sense, on several levels. First, the left's principle isn't "ban all objectionable speech," it's "ban all speech I disagree with." Second, that's exactly the principle that I'm suggesting should guide libertarians.

Everything they disagree with is deemed "objectionable."

And if it's not discredited, but rather gains support, still a good outcome in your view?

I have never seen the case of a flawed argument gaining support from vigorous debate in a fair forum. I've seen lots of propaganda in the media an other places pushing flawed ideas while actively suppressing others.

[devil21]

I guess so...though it's not actually clear what you are really disagreeing about. The reason FB starting censoring is because people demanded they start censoring. It was obvious where that would ultimately lead. The "I'll wait until they censor what I like" position is fundamentally weak. And that explains why libertarians are losing the culture war. While everyone else is demanding censorship and pressuring companies to do the "right thing" (wrong thing) and censor, libertarians (some) just sit back and say "meh...private property." In a free market economy businesses react to the market. So raising concern about censorship is really about self preservation.

It's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy though, since the media blasts certain topics with its giant megaphone (see: other thread about WaPo's QAnon op/ed), which then creates the outcry amongst the sheep, who then "demand" the censorship of the topic. Hmm, or are the sheep instead ok with censorship instead of actually demanding it because an "authority" said so? It's worth pondering if there would be any market for censorship if the media wasn't leading the way, with its giant megaphone, pointing out what should be censored, usually employing emotional trigger tactics. If one believes there is collusion between traditional media and social media on a single agenda (Agenda 2030), they are in fact creating their own outcome and the notion of it being market-based is illusory.

[John-G]

Why, if you believe the concentration camps were real and that Jews really were being murdered simply for being Jews, do you think that something has to be made up to "smear Nazis?" Aren't they already smeared in your eyes? Anyway, you made a specific point about a chemical being used. But carbon monoxide is easy and inexpensive to produce and very deadly.

I believe in the concentration camps, I believe that jews were targeted to be imprisoned inside these camps and also some jews were killed because they were seen as the enemies of Germany. If that was the story then the story is just bad but not evil. The evil part had to be made up so you the average indifferent American would hate Germany and all its people.

Also the carbon monoxide story is so not believable that I cannot even begin to tell u how insane it is. First of all, the biggest camp where this so called method was employed is the Trebinka camp. In that camp, they said the machine they used to create this deadly gas was a soviet tank engine captured on the front line. So we are to believe that the engine they decided to use for this important task was an inefficient tank engine they had no spare parts for?

Also according to these people, they said the gas chambers at Treblinka was so efficient that they could kill up to 25k people a day. But they did not run it at that rate, they instead ran it at a kill rate of 12 - 15k per day. That is 850 people per house on a 14 hr day cycle. I am sorry but this number is so incredibly high that no sane person can believe this can be pulled off inside a death camp.

Please watch this video


And "one third of a holocaust". This story is a lie and the only way anyone believes it is if they have not done the research on it

[jmdrake]

I believe in the concentration camps, I believe that jews were targeted to be imprisoned inside these camps and also some jews were killed because they were seen as the enemies of Germany. If that was the story then the story is just bad but not evil. The evil part had to be made up so you the average indifferent American would hate Germany and all its people.

A) How is that not evil? How is rounding up a group of people based on their ethnicity and/or religion and putting them in concentration camps not evil? How is murdering people based on them being so called "enemy of the state", as opposed to convicting them of an actual crime, not evil?

B) How would that lead America to had Germany and all of its people when not all Germans supported the Nazis? In fact the German Jew victims were German. (Duh)

Also the carbon monoxide story is so not believable that I cannot even begin to tell u how insane it is.

You don't think carbon monoxide can kill people?

First of all, the biggest camp where this so called method was employed is the Trebinka camp. In that camp, they said the machine they used to create this deadly gas was a soviet tank engine captured on the front line. So we are to believe that the engine they decided to use for this important task was an inefficient tank engine they had no spare parts for?

So....you don't think carbon monoxide from a tank engine can kill people because that engine is "inefficient?" The more "inefficient" an engine is, the more likely it is to emit deadly gas. As for spare parts....the Germans captured and destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks. Do you honestly think it would make more sense for the Germans to use an engine from one of their own tanks when then needed to use it for spare parts for their own tanks? Your logic is backwards.

Also according to these people, they said the gas chambers at Treblinka was so efficient that they could kill up to 25k people a day. But they did not run it at that rate, they instead ran it at a kill rate of 12 - 15k per day. That is 850 people per house on a 14 hr day cycle. I am sorry but this number is so incredibly high that no sane person can believe this can be pulled off inside a death camp.

That's just 60 people per hour. (850 / 14). That's not that much. I am having trouble finding how long it takes for someone to die from carbon monoxide. (Experts seem afraid to give a straight answer because of suicide concerns). And I don't have info on how big the kill houses are, but you are the one making the extraordinary claim. So, how long do you think it takes to die from carbon monoxide and do you have reference? How may people do you think could get into a kill house? Right now I do not at all believe your assertion that "no sane person can believe this can be pulled off inside a death camp."

Please watch this video


And "one third of a holocaust". This story is a lie and the only way anyone believes it is if they have not done the research on it

I don't have that kind of time to waste. I'd rather hear your specific points (and so far they are extremely unconvincing) than spend an hour listening to whoever convinced you. If he made a specific point you agree with then by all means simply state that specific claim.

[enhanced_deficit]

There was apparently a secret meeting but details were not leaked to media or public.



Trump guts the First Amendment: signs Executive Order suppressing criticism of Israel

Mark Zuckerberg Says There Was Nothing Shady About Secret Trump meeting
vanityfair
Dec 2, 2019 — Mark Zuckerberg Says There Was Nothing Shady About Secret Trump Meeting.







Related

Trump administration launches global effort to fight anti-semitism

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...26495913586688

[John-G]

A) How is that not evil? How is rounding up a group of people based on their ethnicity and/or religion and putting them in concentration camps not evil? How is murdering people based on them being so called "enemy of the state", as opposed to convicting them of an actual crime, not evil?

This is why I wanted you to listen to the Benjamin Freedman speech. Had you listened to it, you would have understood why the Germans hated the jews. But since you are not going to listen to it, I will post of of the reasons that was mentioned in the speech from the link you posted in page one

Just weeks after Hitler assumed power on January 30, 1933, a patchwork of competing Jewish forces, led by American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise, civil rights crusader Louis Untermeyer, and the combative Jewish War Veterans, initiated a highly effective boycott of German goods and services. Each advanced the boycott in its own way, but sought to build a united anti-Nazi coalition that could deliver an economic deathblow to the Nazi party, which had based its political ascent almost entirely on promises to rebuild the strapped German economy.

snip

Relentless in exploiting the Nazis' vulnerability, Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner "Starve Germany into submission this winter." But Hitler succeeded in averting this scenario by exploiting divisions within world Jewry.

They were seen as enemies inside the gate and the German govt felt after their role in the humiliating defeat of ww1, they did not want them in Germany. I will say it again and I will continue to say it, but if a group of International Nigerians started a campaign which led to the defeat of the US in a war which then led to mass poverty, mass death due to the suffering that came from it, no person of Nigerian decent would dare show their face in the US without profusely denouncing the Nigerian internationalists. So after what they did to Germany, it is actually very understandably that they wanted to expel the German jews.

The US did far worse with the Japanese citizens and nobody thought they were evil. Wrong but not evil.

You don't think carbon monoxide can kill people?

They kill, I called it a deadly gas


[QUOTE=jmdrake;6986091]So....you don't think carbon monoxide from a tank engine can kill people because that engine is "inefficient?" The more "inefficient" an engine is, the more likely it is to emit deadly gas. As for spare parts....the Germans captured and destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks. Do you honestly think it would make more sense for the Germans to use an engine from one of their own tanks when then needed to use it for spare parts for their own tanks? Your logic is backwards.

By inefficient, I mean that it uses too much fuel that was in short supply during the war and it produces too little carbon monoxide. Think of it this way, if you wanted to produce water to sustain your whole concentration camp, would you

a) Buy multiple air conditions, collect the condensation water and then pass it on to your inmates
b) Dig a well, find water, get a rope and pulley system to collect said water.

If you think a is the right answer then the use of a soviet tank engine story makes sense. You see, the Germans being the smart, ingenious mother f*ckers that they are would have instead opted for a wood gas generator. This is a machine that produces about a 100x more CO and was used to power thousands of machines in Hilter's Germany. Woodgas can be operated with coal which Germans had plenty of instead of diesel and they had all the spare parts for it because they manufactures said engines.

That's just 60 people per hour. (850 / 14). That's not that much. I am having trouble finding how long it takes for someone to die from carbon monoxide. (Experts seem afraid to give a straight answer because of suicide concerns). And I don't have info on how big the kill houses are, but you are the one making the extraordinary claim. So, how long do you think it takes to die from carbon monoxide and do you have reference? How may people do you think could get into a kill house? Right now I do not at all believe your assertion that "no sane person can believe this can be pulled off inside a death camp."

Wrong, 12 to 15 k per day would make 857 per hour. 12000 victims /14 hrs. 857 and that is a ton of bodies. But don't just think about the killing, think of the disposal of all those bodies and you will start to begin to understand the herculean task it is to work all that inside a day and then repeating it every day until you get to 800k that was killed in Treblinka.

I don't have that kind of time to waste. I'd rather hear your specific points (and so far they are extremely unconvincing) than spend an hour listening to whoever convinced you. If he made a specific point you agree with then by all means simply state that specific claim.

It made so many good point, all I am doing right now is looking up the arguments made in it and regurgitating back to you. You need to watch before the censors take it off the web

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ptive-content/

And at the other end of the spectrum. You're not only here, but making money to boot.

[jmdrake]

This is why I wanted you to listen to the Benjamin Freedman speech. Had you listened to it, you would have understood why the Germans hated the jews. But since you are not going to listen to it, I will post of of the reasons that was mentioned in the speech from the link you posted in page one

Because Jews had control of a large part of the economy and Germany was flat broke after having to pay reparations (unjustly IMO) post World War I and the role the Rothchilds played in the allied victory in World War I? Yeah. I get it. People have reasons for hate. That doesn't make what they do in response to their own hate reasonable. If there are more reasons I missed that wouldn't change anything. The discussion is, could 6 million have been killed. Anything not part of that discussion in irrelevant. Thank you for confirming that watching that video would have been a waste of my time because it wouldn't have told me anything I didn't know or needed to know for the sake of this discussion.

They were seen as enemies inside the gate and the German govt felt after their role in the humiliating defeat of ww1, they did not want them in Germany. I will say it again and I will continue to say it, but if a group of International Nigerians started a campaign which led to the defeat of the US in a war which then led to mass poverty, mass death due to the suffering that came from it, no person of Nigerian decent would dare show their face in the US without profusely denouncing the Nigerian internationalists. So after what they did to Germany, it is actually very understandably that they wanted to expel the German jews.

You mean like how the KKK started terrorizing freed slaves in the U.S. after their humiliating defeat at the hand of the Union which employed large numbers of colored troops? Okay. I see the analogy. And I think the KKK is evil.

The US did far worse with the Japanese citizens and nobody thought they were evil. Wrong but not evil.

There is no record of the U.S. killing Japanese citizens in the internment camps. By your own admission the Nazis killed the Jews that they felt were "enemies of the people." So you are contradicting your own argument.

They kill, I called it a deadly gas

By inefficient, I mean that it uses too much fuel that was in short supply during the war and it produces too little carbon monoxide. Think of it this way, if you wanted to produce water to sustain your whole concentration camp, would you

a) Buy multiple air conditions, collect the condensation water and then pass it on to your inmates
b) Dig a well, find water, get a rope and pulley system to collect said water.

If you think a is the right answer then the use of a soviet tank engine story makes sense. You see, the Germans being the smart, ingenious mother f*ckers that they are would have instead opted for a wood gas generator. This is a machine that produces about a 100x more CO and was used to power thousands of machines in Hilter's Germany. Woodgas can be operated with coal which Germans had plenty of instead of diesel and they had all the spare parts for it because they manufactures said engines.

Wood gas generators are indeed awesome. I have plans that the U.S. passed out for free in World War II. (Germans weren't the only ingenious ones). That said, have you not heard of biodiesal? It's diesel made from fat. And guess what a good source of fat is? Mass graves. Check out the first 3 minutes of this video about the history of the Paris catacombs.

Wrong, 12 to 15 k per day would make 857 per hour. 12000 victims /14 hrs. 857 and that is a ton of bodies. But don't just think about the killing, think of the disposal of all those bodies and you will start to begin to understand the herculean task it is to work all that inside a day and then repeating it every day until you get to 800k that was killed in Treblinka.

You said "That is 850 people per house on a 14 hr day cycle." You didn't say 850 per hour. And you didn't say how many houses there were. But lets go with 850 people per house. How big were the houses? How long does it take for someone to die of carbon monoxide? And you do have a large supply of slave labor to help with the Herculean task. But let's say really the number was 6 thousand Jews murdered in interment camps rather than 6 million. That's still 6 thousand more Jews murdered than the number of Japanese murdered in U.S. interment camps during World War II. So it's still evil.

[John-G]

Because Jews had control of a large part of the economy and Germany was flat broke after having to pay reparations (unjustly IMO) post World War I and the role the Rothchilds played in the allied victory in World War I? Yeah. I get it. People have reasons for hate. That doesn't make what they do in response to their own hate reasonable. If there are more reasons I missed that wouldn't change anything. The discussion is, could 6 million have been killed. Anything not part of that discussion in irrelevant. Thank you for confirming that watching that video would have been a waste of my time because it wouldn't have told me anything I didn't know or needed to know for the sake of this discussion.

Wrong, it's not just because the jews were rich, as your link suggested, they tried to starve and destroy Germany with a worldwide boycott. If you cannot understand why a nation would turn against a group who after betraying her in the last war was now planning on a new way to betray and destroy her, then you are the problem.

You mean like how the KKK started terrorizing freed slaves in the U.S. after their humiliating defeat at the hand of the Union which employed large numbers of colored troops? Okay. I see the analogy. And I think the KKK is evil.

Again you are missing the point. No, think of it this way. Imagine a world where the American blacks were welcomed in by the KKK after being kick out of Northern states. The American blacks thrived in the south, with members owning big banks, industries, being popular entertainers and highly esteemed professors. And with all that happening, groups of international American blacks made moves to defeat and humiliate the KKK society that previously welcomed them. That is what happened not the scenario you are trying to create.

In that scenario, I can understand the KKK wanting to expel every American black who doesn't actively speak out against their international counterparts. It's common sense not evil.

There is no record of the U.S. killing Japanese citizens in the internment camps. By your own admission the Nazis killed the Jews that they felt were "enemies of the people." So you are contradicting your own argument.

True, but that is because the Japanese weren't actually a threat to the US. They weren't trying to starve the US and did not have resistance groups like the Jews had with Germany. But the idea that the Japanese were interned for their race and some probably died in the process is what some people might consider evil.

Wood gas generators are indeed awesome. I have plans that the U.S. passed out for free in World War II. (Germans weren't the only ingenious ones). That said, have you not heard of biodiesal? It's diesel made from fat. And guess what a good source of fat is? Mass graves. Check out the first 3 minutes of this video about the history of the Paris catacombs.

You continue to miss the point, woodgas generators is what they would have used if they wanted to produce carbon monoxode. This is what they are know for i.e. production of CO its not a byproduct like is with diesel engines. It is also a much simpler machine. So biodiesel idea still wouldn't work especially when you are trying to kill 100s of thousands of people. So, I refuse to believe the very diabolical idea of using a scary tank engine instead of the more functional and more effective woodgas

You said "That is 850 people per house on a 14 hr day cycle." You didn't say 850 per hour. And you didn't say how many houses there were. But lets go with 850 people per house. How big were the houses? How long does it take for someone to die of carbon monoxide? And you do have a large supply of slave labor to help with the Herculean task. But let's say really the number was 6 thousand Jews murdered in interment camps rather than 6 million. That's still 6 thousand more Jews murdered than the number of Japanese murdered in U.S. interment camps during World War II. So it's still evil.

Yes, I made a typo. According to the website, the Treblinka camp had an actual kill rate of 12 to 15 k people per day and they had 14 hr work days. So at that kill rate, that would mean they had to kill and dispose a minimum of 857 people per hour for 100 days straight for the final tally to even make sense. What I am saying is that it did NOT happen.

If it was 6k killed then its would be a tragedy and not genocide. Like I said, 6k is bad(many govts not considered evil kill more than 6k of their citizens) but 6 million is very beyond evil. Also, the Germans were literally fighting for their lives with the threat they were being faced with. Remember, the defeat of WWI led to the direct and indirect deaths of millions of Germans which was followed by the years of suffering and misery because of the reparations they were made to pay.

[Firestarter]

How long will it be before information on the supposedly not-executed Morgenthau plan will be banned (already blocked by Google, Yahoo and their ilk)?!?
In which the Allied “heroes” starved an estimated 9 million Germans to death from 1945 to 1950!

See some severely malnourished German children, starved by the Allied “heroes”.


The bodies were buried, and there was really no need to cover this up, as people are cowards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan
http://archive.is/uaKe0
http://archive.is/lam95


Or maybe Yemen? Where thousands of children die every week from starvation!
Let’s warn about the horrors COVID-19 could do in Yemen! Let’s give them vaccines to solve their hunger!
https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...php?f=7&t=1146

[jmdrake]

Wrong, it's not just because the jews were rich, as your link suggested, they tried to starve and destroy Germany with a worldwide boycott. If you cannot understand why a nation would turn against a group who after betraying her in the last war was now planning on a new way to betray and destroy her, then you are the problem.

Did you miss where I said "Rothchilds played in the allied victory in World War I?" Yes. Apparently you did. The Rothchild's helping Britain and France defeat Germany in WW I is far more problematic than the Jewish boycott prior to World War II. When Hitler rose to power he was a clear and present danger to Jews. I can't blame them for wanting to stop him even with a boycott. By contrast Germany had done nothing to the Jews when the Rothchilds through their international banking might behind France and Britain for Zionist reasons. (The Rothchild's wanted Britain to promise to give the Jews Palestine once they took it from the Ottoman Empire.

As for the "Could we have stopped Hitler" link that worldwide boycott was the result of the rise of Hitler and anti Jewish sentiment in Germany rather than the cause of it. And as my link suggested, Zionist Jews broke the back of the boycott. The "you are the problem" is odd. What "problem" are you talking about?

Again you are missing the point. No, think of it this way. Imagine a world where the American blacks were welcomed in by the KKK after being kick out of Northern states. The American blacks thrived in the south, with members owning big banks, industries, being popular entertainers and highly esteemed professors. And with all that happening, groups of international American blacks made moves to defeat and humiliate the KKK society that previously welcomed them. That is what happened not the scenario you are trying to create.

In that scenario, I can understand the KKK wanting to expel every American black who doesn't actively speak out against their international counterparts. It's common sense not evil.

So....Zionist Jews are the good Jews? After all, they were the ones who broke the back of the pre WW II boycott. But they were also the ones that helped Britain and France defeat Germany in WW I. I think you don't know your own propaganda very well.

True, but that is because the Japanese weren't actually a threat to the US. They weren't trying to starve the US and did not have resistance groups like the Jews had with Germany. But the idea that the Japanese were interned for their race and some probably died in the process is what some people might consider evil.

They were interned for their nationality, not their race. It wasn't a "intern all Asians" proposition. Chinese Americans, for example, weren't put in internment camps. And the Japanese were seen as a threat to the U.S. Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. Japanese Americans were seen as potential spies.

You continue to miss the point, woodgas generators is what they would have used if they wanted to produce carbon monoxode. This is what they are know for i.e. production of CO its not a byproduct like is with diesel engines. It is also a much simpler machine. So biodiesel idea still wouldn't work especially when you are trying to kill 100s of thousands of people. So, I refuse to believe the very diabolical idea of using a scary tank engine instead of the more functional and more effective woodgas

Can you burn corpse wax in a wood gas generator? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I'm pretty sure you can make biodiesal from it. So you have a ready source of corpse wax. Yeah you can make soap from it...but who would really want to use it? Or you can use it in your diesel engine that is making electricity for your concentration camp, disposing of some of the waste from all the human bodies, and generating carbon monoxide at the same time as waste. A woodgas generator makes carbon monoxide but that's the fuel that's used to run machinery. So....that's really not as efficient as you think. You have the choice of producing electricity and killing people with the waste (biodiesel plus tank engine) or using up otherwise useful fuel to kill people (woodgas generator).

Yes, I made a typo. According to the website, the Treblinka camp had an actual kill rate of 12 to 15 k people per day and they had 14 hr work days. So at that kill rate, that would mean they had to kill and dispose a minimum of 857 people per hour for 100 days straight for the final tally to even make sense. What I am saying is that it did NOT happen.

I still don't know how large the kill houses were and how fast CO kills people.

If it was 6k killed then its would be a tragedy and not genocide. Like I said, 6k is bad(many govts not considered evil kill more than 6k of their citizens) but 6 million is very beyond evil. Also, the Germans were literally fighting for their lives with the threat they were being faced with. Remember, the defeat of WWI led to the direct and indirect deaths of millions of Germans which was followed by the years of suffering and misery because of the reparations they were made to pay.

Yes. And the defeat of Germany was paid for by the Rothchilds. I said that, and in response you said I was somehow the "problem." Again, Germany was understandably angry about what the Rothchilds did. That led to a rise in anti Jewish sentiment. Some Jews saw the threat and tried to break Hitler. The same Zionists that helped fund the defeat of Hitler turned around and broke the back of the boycott meant to stop him.

As for 6,000 vs 6 million, the murder of 6,000 might not be genocide, but it's more than a tragedy. It's evil. 9/11 killed half that amount and it was still evil.