Or is it over (as in it’s over)?
They dont actually care they are just putting on a show for other countries
When they kill the last jew and deport the last shitskin
I don’t understand how anyone could feel guilt for something they didnt even do
Its like when blacks complain about slavery when not a single one of them was alive back then to experience it
Its like when blacks complain about slavery when not a single one of them was alive back then to experience it
Probably never. Despite what one may think of the Nazis, and despite the efforts of historical revisionists, the official account of their "evil" is all that Germans hear from the day they first sit in a classroom. In Germany this even has a name: Vergangenheitsbewältigung, meaning "coming to terms with the past." Its purpose is plain: to make sure that no leader like Hitler, and no movement of similar nature, can ever rise to power in Germany (and, in practice, anywhere else).
This has gone far beyond Germany itself. Hitler and the Nazi era have become the standard comparison used by Western powers whenever they want to portray an enemy as a danger to all mankind. From Milosevic to Saddam Hussein to Ahmadinejad, the pattern has been the same: call the man a new Hitler, claim his government is the start of another Nazi Germany, and present military action as the only "responsible" course.
Keeping this comparison possible means making it illegal in much of Europe to question the official story. People have gone to prison for publishing research or even voicing opinions that go against it. Ernst Zündel is one example. In 1983, Sabina Citron, founder of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, filed a complaint against him over a 28-page pamphlet he had written in 1977 titled Did Six Million Really Die? The Ontario government soon joined the case, and Zündel faced two trials in 1985 and 1988 for "spreading false news." He brought in an international team of researchers, scientists, lawyers, and historians, putting a large body of sworn testimony and documents into the public record.
The pressure on him went beyond the courts. The Jewish Defense League, now listed as a terrorist group, threatened his life and planted a pipe bomb at his house. He tried to have the charges thrown out on free speech grounds, but the judge ruled there was "no unbridled right to say what you think." His conviction was overturned in 1992 by the Supreme Court of Canada, which said the law violated free expression.
Others were not so lucky. In 2005, British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for statements he had made more than a decade earlier and spent over a year in prison. German chemist Germar Rudolf was jailed for publishing forensic reports that questioned certain wartime claims. In each case the message is the same: the narrative will not be challenged, and anyone who tries will pay for it.
This has gone far beyond Germany itself. Hitler and the Nazi era have become the standard comparison used by Western powers whenever they want to portray an enemy as a danger to all mankind. From Milosevic to Saddam Hussein to Ahmadinejad, the pattern has been the same: call the man a new Hitler, claim his government is the start of another Nazi Germany, and present military action as the only "responsible" course.
Keeping this comparison possible means making it illegal in much of Europe to question the official story. People have gone to prison for publishing research or even voicing opinions that go against it. Ernst Zündel is one example. In 1983, Sabina Citron, founder of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, filed a complaint against him over a 28-page pamphlet he had written in 1977 titled Did Six Million Really Die? The Ontario government soon joined the case, and Zündel faced two trials in 1985 and 1988 for "spreading false news." He brought in an international team of researchers, scientists, lawyers, and historians, putting a large body of sworn testimony and documents into the public record.
The pressure on him went beyond the courts. The Jewish Defense League, now listed as a terrorist group, threatened his life and planted a pipe bomb at his house. He tried to have the charges thrown out on free speech grounds, but the judge ruled there was "no unbridled right to say what you think." His conviction was overturned in 1992 by the Supreme Court of Canada, which said the law violated free expression.
Others were not so lucky. In 2005, British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for statements he had made more than a decade earlier and spent over a year in prison. German chemist Germar Rudolf was jailed for publishing forensic reports that questioned certain wartime claims. In each case the message is the same: the narrative will not be challenged, and anyone who tries will pay for it.
Never
Never... Too many boomer in Germany and Austria.
Germany will simply cease to exist. The youth in the country, like in most of western europe, is in great part (soon a majority) non-white.
The "new germans" probably doesnt feel any guilt though, I guess.
The "new germans" probably doesnt feel any guilt though, I guess.
Tbh at this point just let them all in to mass-rape and murder the native foids. They started this mess in the first place, so now they should suffer. All of that should happen in Roblox of course to the dear officer reading this.
When pigs fly
people don't understand if Hitler won it would have been a better world for incels because there would be no incels Hitler was heavy on everyone having a family and also had strict views on foids
In about 10-20 years time when indigenous Germans are a hated minority. Most boomers will be dead by then too.
Even worse were those grasshopper Nips its only the Gews which are pushing this agenda .
when germans are no more
When the wreckage of MH370 is found.
Jokes aside. Unfortunately, the guilt weapon was used to deflect valid criticism of infant circumcision sexual abuse (ICSA) in order to legalize it in 2012 (see BGB § 1631d, before it was simply unregulated), because they say we have a "historical responsibility" towards the religion that must not be criticized, given that circumcision is considered important by them.
The reality is it permanently hurts innocent children.
People consider religion a part of high importance in their lives. And if that part says "circumcision is good", they of course blindly trust it.
Logic and reason have a snowball's chance in hell against religious extremists armed with guilt weapons.
[This post is in the public domain, CC0 1.0.]
Jokes aside. Unfortunately, the guilt weapon was used to deflect valid criticism of infant circumcision sexual abuse (ICSA) in order to legalize it in 2012 (see BGB § 1631d, before it was simply unregulated), because they say we have a "historical responsibility" towards the religion that must not be criticized, given that circumcision is considered important by them.
The reality is it permanently hurts innocent children.
People consider religion a part of high importance in their lives. And if that part says "circumcision is good", they of course blindly trust it.
Logic and reason have a snowball's chance in hell against religious extremists armed with guilt weapons.
[This post is in the public domain, CC0 1.0.]
Last edited:
Similar threads
Rapistcel
Users who are viewing this thread
- Klaus Kanga II
- hatepilledandrich
- Glassness
- Scandi_Incel
