Feminazis and their Final Solution

What is the purpose of social cohesion? To get beta males who are most men to risk and sacrifice life and limb to defend their society. The feminazification of society destroys this motivation altogether.

What are feminazis trying to achieve? Are they evil or just stupid? Why do men keep letting them get away with it? Are they hooked on some drug or hypnotised by the seductive gyrations of the slut dancing some macabre dance of death that renders them quite unable to notice or care?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siren_(mythology)

The agenda of feminazis appear to be to destroy the masculinity of their own race, invite men of other races and nations to replace them, and then in turn destroy the masculinity of these newcomers.

Perhaps they will not rest until all the women of the world are sluts, all the mothers of the world are Slut Single Mothers, all of the next generation bastards and all the men of the world are Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of supporting marriage and patriarchy.

Surely women cannot really be so evil, you ask yourself.

There is evil everywhere under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 6:1

There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, and it lies heavy upon humankind.

Ecclesiastes 6:2

those to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that they lack nothing of all that they desire, yet God does not enable them to enjoy these things, but a stranger enjoys them. This is vanity; it is a grievous ill.

Do not ask why parasites are parasitical, for that is what they were created to be.

Perhaps these things are sent to try us.

We are being tested for our fitness to survive, and this we may now be lacking.

Feminism is dementia, then death.

Having been castrated and had his spine surgically removed by feminazis, Western Man only now wishes to be allowed to die, it seems. This is because he knows himself to be mortally sick in mind and spirit.  He is certainly too fearful and enfeebled to upset his nurses who are also the feminazis ...

Is coming to a reasonable interpretation of the Wannsee Protocol "Holocaust Denial"?

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/wansee-transcript.html

"Race and Settlement Main Office"
"Persons of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted from evacuation will be sterilized in order to prevent any offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed bloodonce and for all.  Such sterilization will be voluntary.  But it is required to remain in the Reich.  The sterilized "person of mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected."

The words in italics and bold suggest that the plan is not extermination but EXPULSION.Those not expelled would be allowed to remain in the Reich and would be thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected provided they submitted themselves to sterilisation.

The "Final Solution" referred to that was being contemplated in same document can only refer to EXPULSION by any reasonable interpretation of the document in its context.

Concentration camp inmates when liberated looked no better and no worse than Japanese PoWs ie emaciated and half-starved because everyone was short of food.

http://www.lchs.museum/ww2/pow.htm

http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/09/091001.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Holocaust denial includes any of the following claims:

• that the German Nazi government's Final Solution policy aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, and included no policy to exterminate Jews; 
• that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; 
• and that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.

How is one to know anyway? I only "know" Henry VIII had six wives and beheaded two because no one disagrees with this. But what if the law suddenly required me to say that I believed he only had one wife who bore him twin sons on pain of imprisonment? Shouldn't I be a little suspicious of such a law and wonder what the purpose behind all this was?

@3rdReichStudies In what way is David Irving a charlatan? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014

@timothy_stanley @Politizen1 @keirshiels What actually happened though? How would we know if historians are imprisoned? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014

@jessicasmith_14 What is the Holocaust? How does one support it? In what way do you claim David Irving supports the Holocaust? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014

@Kezdale Why should a historian not be allowed to say what he thinks happened, even if you disagree with him? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014

@Glinner Would you like to define "the Holocaust" as you understand it? Why is it wrong for a historian to "doubt" it?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014

@minamania84 What is "the Holocaust"? Does David Irving say no Jews were killed by the Nazis? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014

Below are a number of theories on the Holocaust.

Before anyone asks me, I do not affirm or deny the Holocaust, whatever that means, and am only expressing bemusement that historians in the 21st century West - which prides itself on its free speech, tolerance and associated liberties - can be imprisoned, as David Irving was, for saying the wrong number or propounding the wrong view of the Holocaust, even if he is logically and factually wrong.

Imagine a history teacher telling pupils this: "Better get your view on the Holocaust exactly right, or you may end up in prison one of these days, if you do not correct your views as required."

"But, sir, don't we have free speech? Do we have free speech or don't we? And what about academic freedom?"

The teacher smiles enigmatically ....

I wonder if China and Russia have similar laws about their own history.

The Nazis' Real Plans for the Re-creation of Israel

Holocaust facts: Where does the figure of 6 million victims come from?

6,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_Holocaust_denial_is_legal

It seems Michael Voris thinks Liberal Catholic clergy are even more evil than the Nazis!

Replacing Holocaust Denial as a Concept

The elements of Holocaust Denial are (the questioning and ultimately) rejection of any of the following:

a) that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people;

b) that between five and seven million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies;

c) and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers.

Note that is quite easy to be accused of Holocaust Denial should you point out that:

1) The Madagascar Plan (formulated in 1940) is evidence of an intention by the Nazis to expel rather than exterminate. The 'Wannsee Protocol', to a few, contains little that links the conference directly to the Holocaust. The statements in it are open to interpretation, especially the phrase 'final solution'. But very many believe that it was a very clear statement of intent and that the Holocaust followed on from this meeting and document. Hitler himself did not attend the Wannsee Conference of 1942.

2) The figures are in dispute and may be lower.

3) Bishop Richard Williamson and David Irving are convinced that, although there were gas chambers for de-lousing concentration camp inmates, to systematically exterminate Jews using cyanide gas would have required air-tight doors and be very dangerous for those who came to empty the chamber of corpses later. They have repeatedly stated that no such air-tight gas chambers have been found and doubt their existence.

4) No one is denying that many Jews died at the hands of Nazis. What is in dispute is whether they died of exhaustion, disease and the conditions of the camps, or whether they were systematically exterminated. If they were being systematically worked to death, then there is surely at least a slave-master's interest in keeping one's slaves alive so that they may continue working?

You may be very wrong if you think you can discuss these matters in mixed company and escape accusations of Holocaust Denial. Those who question or deny all or any of the above elements would be Holocaust Deniers according to the following circular logic:

If you are a Revisionist (one of those who question the Intentionalist Official Version) you are by definition a Reductionist (ie one of those who would wish to reduce the culpability of Hitler and the Nazis).

If you are Reductionist, you are by definition a Holocaust Denier and therefore an Evil, Racist, Fascist Nazi Sympathiser and Unfit for Decent Society.

You may be accused, convicted and jailed, as David Irving was, if you live in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. So beware when you discuss, if you dare, any of the points outlined in (a), (b) and (c) above.

(The BNP will not be touching that issue with a barge-pole because they do not wish their leader, if he were to become MEP, to be jailed. Why they would wish to spend time, energy and the hard-earned money of their hard-working donors in order to participate in an institution they have already declared a hostility to and a wish to withdraw from is of course one of The Great Mysteries of British Politics.)

http://www.holocaust.nu/printnow.aspx?aid=310

NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY

THE INTENTIONALIST SCHOOL adheres to the "purist teaching" that was produced at the Nuremberg trials, which - to summarize briefly - asserts that the extermination of the Jews originated exclusively from Hitler's initiative.

THE FUNCTIONALISTS, however, hold the position that the alleged exterminations had occurred and progressively increased, as it were by force of circumstance.

"HOLOCAUST" originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. Its Latin form (holocaustum) was first used with specific reference to a massacre of Jews by the chroniclers Roger of Howden and Richard of Devizes in the 1190s. Since the late 19th century, it has been used primarily to refer to disasters or catastrophes.

The biblical word SHOAH (also spelled Sho'ah and Shoa), meaning "calamity," became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s. Shoah is preferred by many Jews for a number of reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the word holocaust, as a Greek pagan custom.

60 years on, isn't it about time we rationalised the terms of debate so that recent history may be discussed honestly and openly, without the cloud of Holocaust Denial hanging over anyone brave or naïve enough to attempt to do this?

Vote: Should we replace the concept of "Holocaust Denial" with "the Functionalist v Intentionalist debate"?

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=127