25 ANTIFA JUST INVADED NAZI DAVID IRVING’S NYC EVENT!!!

sp001588

SMASHING FASCISM ROUND 2

25 NYC Antifascist activist just entered the Double Tree hotel in Times Square and broke up Nazi David Irving’s attempt to have a Nazi gathering in NYC.

NeoNazi attorney Alex Carmichael maced in face!

More coming ….

51 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

51 responses to “25 ANTIFA JUST INVADED NAZI DAVID IRVING’S NYC EVENT!!!

  1. Yea..

    Only, you were kept out and failed miserably to do much of anything other than be loud and obnoxious.

    Fail.

    Oh and you wore masks like cowards.

    Oh youre hardcore.

    • ladylibertyslamp

      You got shut down, Sparky….spin it like swastika..bt fax is fax …

      Antifa migh wear masks… but jackasses like you wear this….
      Nazi ain't got no humanity

  2. hitler

    You bunch of nigger loving jewish commie scum didn’t do a fucking thing. You shrank in battle, you ran the fuck away like the cowards you are at heart. Always remember that, you are cowards-you are inferior, we will always win, never ever forget this fundamental law of the universe- you are cowards on a biological level and we will defeat you. National Socialism is alive and well and growing every day, even in the sleaze pit that is New York City, and very soon it will consume you. So from the heart of new york city, I shout the words that represent eternal opposition to all things non-white- Heil Hitler! Sieg heil! Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil! Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil! Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil! Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil! Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil!

    • ladylibertyslamp

      ok… this is just… LULZ!!!!!!!…

    • The Ghost

      You “shout” (can’t shout when you type, idiot) the words, but can’t back them up. Remember that…

    • Hava fucking Nagila

      That is nigger loving jewish commie scum American too you buddy.

      BTW congrats on getting shut down on the Internets and LIVE FROM NEW YORK IT’S (not David Irving)

  3. Slit the Throats of the White Nationalists Kill Don Black and David Duke

    It should be legal to kill the Nazi scum, that would be funny if someone opened fired and murdered all the Nazis

    they are all cowards and pussies anyway

    • Veritatis

      A country based on loyalty to one’s own kind can accept any truth. But a society which is only based on some Principles, on some words, cannot allow too much contradiction of those words.

      • ladylibertyslamp

        V- as you can see there are crazies on both sides of the fence here.

        You got those on your side screaming to microwave Jews and ours who want to kill Nazi webmasters.

        I approve these comments because I actually do believe in free speech and because these comments (from both sides) are sort of funny in a twisted kind of way.

        Laugh them off, it’s probably the best course to take.

  4. Slit the Throats of the White Nationalists Kill Don Black and David Duke

    But Seriously there should be some type of law that says you are allowed to murder the Nazi scum, people like Don Black and David Duke are allowed to be killed

    • FreeThought

      Why is that? Why should it be legal to kill them? Please explain.

      Why do you promote hate and murder? Please explain.

      Why should anyone who believes differently than you, be treated violently or murdered? Does your brand of fascism only allow “approved” thoughts? Please explain.

      Bottom line: Irving, a fantastic historian, and some interested parties, simply gathered peaceably amongst themselves to discuss the glaringly obvious falsehoods in many of the holocaust details. Meanwhile, you people come in like raving lunatics, screaming, threatening violence, and even assaulting innocent people and damaging hotel property. Such mental instability defies all rationality and common sense. If you disagree with Irving’s views, why not simply debate him in organized debate format, like civilized human beings? Why do you need to resort to hysterical violence and maniacal screaming and threats? Unless of course, your true motive is unbridled hate for anyone who doesn’t think and express your “approved” thoughts and ideas. Your tyrannical views and bitter hatred of freedom and free expression, are pathetic. So I ask, why? Answer my questions. Use reason, logic and rational thought to defend your actions if you can. The good in all this? People are seeing you for who you are, and are coming in droves to find out what we calm, civilized, intellectual folks are saying. Thanks.

      • Warburg

        David Irving is not an historian. He has absolutely no credentials, not even a college degree. Irving also has not displayed great interest in freedom of speech. In 1998 he filed a libel suit against American historian Deborah Lipstadt, who had chronicled Irving’s racism and anti-Semitism in her book Denying the Holocaust, and Penguin books. During the trial, an English court under Lord Gray ruled that Irving was an “active Holocaust denier” as well as an “anti-Semite and racist.” The judge also ruled that Irving had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.” Lord Gray cited dozens of examples of Irving’s fabrications and distortions. One of the most important witnesses at this trial was Sir Richard Evans, Professor of Modern European History at Oxford, who testified that Irving lacked either the credentials or knowledge of historiography to be considered a historian, and who cited hundreds of errors and deliberate falsifications in Irving’s books. Professor Evans summarized these in his book Lying about Hitler. Irving’s books are not published by legitimate publishing firms and reputable bookstores such as Barnes & Noble in the United States and WH Smith in the UK do not carry them. What would be the purpose in “debating” such an obvious fraud as David Irving?

        I am a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany. It is sheer nonsense to maintain that there is any attempt to suppress controversy over the essential facts of the Holocaust in Germany or elsewhere in the European Union. In fact, no historical event has ever been more fully documented. There are many thousands of books, articles, films, and other media studies of the Holocaust readily available to German students and serious inquiry is encouraged. However, Germany does not have a First Amendment, and it is recognized by the Bundestag that the underlying purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to promote anti-Semitism, not historical investigation. It is against the law in Germany and most other countries of the European Union to propigate lies for the purpose of promoting racism. The American Historical Association also has declared unequivocally that Holocaust denial or Revisionism is “not a legitimate subject for academic inquiry” and that “No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place.” Enough substance?

      • chalice

        Warburg? not related to the Warburgs associated with Bechtel and the small group of british and nazi german banks that “own” the U.S. economy? of course you are.

        anyone wishing to truly understand wwII needs to investigate the movements of these banks and try to get past the human atrocity of nazi germany.They did, it made them uber rich.

    • The Ghost

      Let’s not get into talk like that. Right or wrong, you put yourself in some serious crosshairs if rhetoric goes there. Ask Hal Turner and Bill White. If you can’t back things like that up, then don’t make calls like that.

      If anything it needs to stay off this blog.

  5. Veritatis

    The real question is what makes you think that you have the right to deny another human being his right to free speech?

    As I understand it, David Irving was have a small private talk, to a group of people who were interested in what he had to say. The “Antifascist activist” used intimidation and thug like tactics to silence someone they disagreed with. Isn’t that what we have been taught that the fascist and Nazis did? What would you have to say about it, if a group of skinheads did the same thing to a small group who wanted to hear a lecture on Stalin or Marx?

    • ladylibertyslamp

      “What would you have to say about it, if a group of skinheads did the same thing to a small group who wanted to hear a lecture on Stalin or Marx?”

      V- they have, it’s the “skinheads” who work for police dept.

      And for he record, very few leftists admire Stalin.

      Trotsky, Lenin, Marx … sure … but Stalin..?… he is not much to admire.

    • The Ghost

      I would be surprised if a group of skinheads would pull that, but a group of neo-Nazi boneheads did. Someone associated with Confederate Hammer”Skins” shot up a club that was going to have a benefit show in Jacksonville, FL for One People’s Project a few years back. So we can go tit for tat on this

  6. FTEE

    You filthy kikes better remember one thing. History always repeats itself! But now we have microwave ovens, so it won’t take all that long this time.
    And to the faggots who think it should be legal to kill Nazi’s, that will work both ways and you bitches have never killed anything but another man’s passion, so I look forward to the day when the law will no longer keep us from killing you.

    • ladylibertyslamp

      again…this one is just….LULZ!!! ….

      • H. Goring

        Yes, those old zyklon gas chambers were to dangerous for the SS, the new microwave ones should do the trick just fine.

    • The Ghost

      WaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitWAIT!

      We have microwave ovens this time? As opposed to when, the last time, the time that David Irving has been going around the globe saying didn’t happen?

  7. concernedcitizen

    “you are cowards on a biological level”
    – what does that even mean? How can one be a biological coward?
    I have a better explanation – you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re a piss-stain on the crotch of humanity. You should do humanity a favor and follow your leader, Adolf, cuz he was so brave that he shot himself hiding like a bitch, cowering in fear.

    Attention to all nazis and other wastes of life: You do know enough people in the world absolutely detest you and most people would not have a problem with you dying. Everyone knows what you stand for and do and no one wants it and not many people have moral issues with hate-mongering thugs feeling the pain they inflict on everyone else. That’s why you have to meet in secret like little whiny bitches and have to jump people when you bother to fight. We’re everywhere and we don’t care about your feelings, just as you never cared for ours when you attacked us or our friends or anyone else. The thing is, if you kill antifa or someone you arbitrarily hate cuz they’re not white, people hate you for it. But if someone hurts or kills you, people cheer. Just remember that, boneheads.

  8. Veritatis

    ladylibertyslamp
    In a reply to another post of mine (quoted below) you very eloquently stated the need for tolerance of other points of view. Why doesn’t that extend to David Irving’s point of view?

    https://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/leonard-zeskind-speaks-in-dc/

    Veritatis
    November 15, 2009 at 8:26 am
    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    Reply

    ladylibertyslamp
    November 15, 2009 at 9:31 am
    V- Ya know, nobody cares if you are proud of who you are.
    Northern European and Western culture have a lot to be proud of in art, music and philosophy.

    Yet, one of the most intrinsic theories of western philosophy and thought is “equality for all”.

    Be proud, be proud of Celtic heritage, kilts, coat of arms and the great artists and musicians of your own culture as every culture should be proud.

    If you manipulate that pride into domination and oppression, you are going to find our resistance.

    We the people are not going to sit back any longer and allow the slide back of “whites only” on the top of the social order.

    There is nothing to be proud of in oppression, only shame.

    Wear you race with pride if that is your goal in life, but we will not allow race superiority at the expense of others.

    And, one last thing to add, there is more to life than obsessing over your own skin color and he skin colors of others.

    Get out of the house once in a while and meet some new friends.

    Talk to people and find out what they are like beyond their skin, you might start liking life and humanity more.

    • ladylibertyslamp

      V- Irving is a charlatan and a con, but you are correct, there is nothing illegal in what he is saying or doing and on the surface there is no physical harm being done to anyone.

      It’s not the crap Irving is spewing that causes the concern of those of us opposed to racism/fascism, it’s the flies whom he attracts.

      Yes, (most likely not yourself) there are some very dangerous racists who can and have cause damaged to our society in one way or another who, we believe, really do need to see our resistance.

      They need to see how much we will not allow that slide back of white oppression.

      Just as we take up against the oppression of Zionism and other Fascist governments, we in the resistance have just a strong passion to fight against racism as those for your side of the fence have to fight for it.

      If you want to discuss how much violence has been used against people of color and other victims of racial based oppression, we would be discussing this hours.

      Racism strikes up a gut reaction in most of humanity, especially by races who have been victim to it.

      Visions of lynchings, ovens, chains, mass genocide… burn deep within many of us.

      It’s a pain you might not be able to relate to or understand, but, if you try you might understand where this rage in opposition to your kind is coming from.

      • Veritatis

        David Irving has every right to say what ever he wants. Free speech is a basic human right. The people who what to hear him, also have that basic human right.

        What the hooded thugs did there was in no way different than hooded Klansman using intimidation to prevent blacks from voting. If you support them, then you are what you claim to hate.

        Saying that it ok because you don’t like his message, is no different from the Nazis who burned book because they did not like their message.

        • ladylibertyslamp

          Yes, Irving does have every right to say as he pleases, but the voices of resistance to racism has a right to speak out too.

          Is the proper reaction to mask up and cause intimidation? That is debatable.

          The debatable piece is it is based in a reaction of historical rooted pain, a pain I am not sure you can understand or relate to.

          I am not excusing it, just trying to explain it in hope there can be some sort of understanding where this kind of resistance to racism and Fascism is coming from.

          • FreeThought

            The violent intimidation is not “debatable.” It is pure fanatical oppression. It varies in severity from childish outlashing, to blatant domestic terrorism. It is intolerable in a civilized society.

            Now as to the idea that it is “based in a reaction of historical rooted pain,” there may be some tiny bit of truth. It’s more likely that the “pain” is fostered, brewed and manipulated off of historical inaccuracies and exaggeration to rile up the fanaticism. If those historical pains, such as the “Visions of lynchings, ovens, chains, mass genocide…” were put into perspective, rather than used to exploit and manipulate people, they would not be catalysts for these violent antifa attacks.

            For instance, more non-blacks were lynched than blacks. There were no ovens capable of mass cremation in Nazi Germany or Nazi occupied territories. Mass genocide happened in much greater horror to other peoples, i.e., more than 60 million ethnic Russians murdered, the Holodomor, and Dresden. Why is it, that the white folks who are descendants of those sufferers, do not harbor their pain for the use and justification of violent attacks against free speech and innocent people? Why were they able to mourn, learn lessons, and move on? They do not commit terrorism against the deniers of Dresden and deniers of Holodomor. They allow them to speak freely and believe what they wish. So why must antifa folks use their “pain” and selfishly exploit the suffering of their forebears for the purpose of violent attacks against people who hold different beliefs?

            As I’ve said before, rational intelligent people fight with reason, logic, facts, common sense and intellect – not petty violence and terroristic threats, for that is weakness feigning strength. If Irving’s ideas are so ridiculous and absurd, then it should be easy to defeat and debunk them in civilized discourse and tempered debate. Using violence and threats only proves that what he has to say, is so powerful and irrefutable that it frustrates even the greatest minds of his opponents and as typical, frustration at the inability to refute the work and suppress the truth it presents, gives way to violence in the mind given over to irrational fanaticism.

            When average folks see such desperate and irrational attempts to silence someone, they become curious. When they become curious, they look into the work of the one persecuted. When they look into the work of the one persecuted, they find a revelation of truth … and another life is changed forever.

            • ladylibertyslamp

              Funny how someone who argues so hard to erase historic mass genocide can turn around and claim physical reaction is not debatable, when debating, excusing and maybe even justifying some of the most horrific mass violence against humanity.

              Let me ask you this, what was your reaction to Eric Hunt’s attack on Eli Wiesel? Or Von Brunn’s attack on the Holocaust museum? Or Timothy McVay’s terrorist attack? All were attacks based in White Nationalist anger and all dwarf in comparison the actions resistance of a few loud Antifa in black hoodie sweatshirts.

              Von Brunn was greatly admired on SF, and Eric Hunt got many praises from your side. As far as McVay goes your side either embraces his efforts or they have 1000000 tinfoil hat conspiracy theories based around his attack.

              I can see where you find hypocrisy in fighting Fascism by trying to silence free speech, but there is still more than enough hypocrisy coming from your side as well.

              • Anonymous

                Didn’t you get the memo? When a man walks into a public space and fires indiscriminately, or burns down an abortion clinic, or burns down a church,
                or remotely detonates a truck bomb near a building filled with toddlers, that’s True Aryan Warrior Honour(tm). When a room full of True Aryan Warriors ™ listening to some old coot has to barricade the doors to keep a bunch of 90 pound vegans out, that’s a craven, malicious act of domestic terrorism.

                Also, the sky is green, the ground is blue, up is down and unwavering belief in genocide as a positive aspect of society doesn’t turn you into a drooling, gibbering moron.

              • FreeThought

                Again, I must point out, no one is trying to erase anything, but rather, expose distortions and exaggerations, and revise the details based on the facts and evidence (a common practice of historians). This does not belittle the many who did die, but it places the events in proper perspective, without using fairy tales, old war propaganda and exaggerated death tolls. Some of the anti-Nazi propaganda is so silly, that one must put aside quite a few IQ points to believe them. I would hardly excuse or justify genocide. But before one can even excuse, justify, or condemn it, the genocide must be examined to see if indeed it took place as claimed. This is all Irving is really doing at the core. He is exercising his freedom to examine the claims of the holocaust, and to express and share his views based on the evidence. Is he an angel? No. But you folks would prefer to crush the freedom of speech, expression and even individual thought, and try to terrorize any who believe differently than you. This is tyranny.

                And what Hunt, Von Brunn, and McVeigh did are obviously criminal and senseless acts of violence that should be denounced. I think such acts are abhorrent. But no less abhorrent than antifa groups who would act in maniacal rage and assault innocent people over a difference of belief. And trying to downplay the actions by calling them “a few loud Antifa in black hoodie sweatshirts” doesn’t negate the fact that 25 antifa (hardly “a few”) acted out in violence with the intent to harm and terrorize innocent people who were having a peaceful, private gathering to talk about intellectual topics that are important to them. This is nothing less than tyranny of thought and expression using domestic terrorism.

                Like I said, it’s unacceptable in a civilized society. If you folks disagree with Irving so much, why not just refute his works? – debate him, take ads out in papers, write a blog, dedicate a website to debunking his claims, or write a book that critically examines his work. Using violence and terroristic intimidation is a position of weakness born from weak minds which have no intelligent rebuttal to their opposition. The thinking person will always favor the persecuted intellectual, not the violent simpletons. Ignorant pitchfork mobs are better suited for the 18th century, not in the progressive 21st.

                • ladylibertyslamp

                  FreeThought- the problem is you are a Nazi who doesn’t want to be called a Nazi and when called out on it you go running into victim mode.

                  Irving’s theories are so full of crap even he has had to change them around to try to be more “believable”.

                  The Holocaust Denial movement is nothing more than an excuse to gather Nazis in the name of racism.

                  Do they have right to their little pro-Hitler cakes and tea? Sure, but we have a right to resist it.

                  Again, you talk out of two sides of your mouth, as an Antifa small mob is doing nothing different from the Tea Bagger mobs, which you support, only the Tea Baggers have been much ruder and more violent.

                  But, as long as it’s your side, it’s ok, because freedom of speech is only for your white privilege and revisionist make believe history, but everyone else should just shut up or be put in camps?

                  You chose the route to be a white supremacist in this life, you then must except the responsibility that where ever your go you will be met with resistance by those you are trying to oppress.

                  You can stamp your feet like a spoiled three year old about how how life is not fair when after losing your “white privilege”, but, NEWS FLASH, you are not going to get any sympathy here.

                  You have chosen your life of hate, and what you spew out will come back at you in folds.

                  • FreeThought

                    Interesting turn of events. I’ve been respectable and polite, and now you resort to tacking labels onto me and professing to know my beliefs? Amusing.

                    I know you want me to be a Nazi, but I’m not. Sorry. I wish I could accommodate. I find very little redeeming qualities in the economic and political attributes of National Socialism. And if you were to read my published works on Hitler and Nazi Germany, you’d feel a fool calling me a Nazi. But that’s okay. You don’t have to believe me. You see, I’m okay with people believing differently than I.

                    I’m also not a white supremacist, though I know you wish it so. How can one look at the physicality of the African, with his great speed and reflexes, and be a white supremacist? How can one look at the masterful martial arts, and deep spirituality of the Orientals and be a white supremacist? Really? No, I’m not a white supremacist. I’m simply an average Joe, who happens to be a racialist who wants the best for my race, who wants a racially homogeneous place I can call home, and who believes that racial separation is better for all races (as historically proven).

                    It’s quite amusing that so many questions I posted have been ignored, or justified in an illogical manner, and now I’m receiving that typical (and predictable) intolerance from you. Humorous as it is, it’s also quite ironic that you antifa, who have demonstrated your bigoted hate through violence and terror (and proud of it), are now accusing me of having a “life of hate.” Care to back that up? (Of course, that’s impossible for you – I was merely making a sardonic comment.) It’s just a slur – an attempt to distract from the discussion. I don’t live a life of hate because it’s unhealthy. I focus on positive energy, spiritual/emotional balance, and meditating to the harmonies of nature. I don’t have time for hate.

                    The problem is that you call truth, hate. You call freedom, hate. Truth and freedom are to you, a threat, and therefore transmogrified into hate. You take simple, evidence-based historical perspectives that dissent from the mainstream, and foment a misanthropic view of those who don’t believe as you do, rationalized by your characterization of truth and freedom, as hate. If it doesn’t fit in your box of your closed mind, you hate it. This is a depravity which I cannot help you to overcome with mere words in the comment section of a blog. And so, I sense my time here is done. I’ve enjoyed the discussion – a very revealing exposition indeed. But I’ll not take up any more space on your blog. Besides, I still have quite a few Tabinids to go through tonight, and I’m getting sidetracked. Here’s to hoping that you will discard the archaic and simpleton methods of mob violence, and opt for a more intellectual, civilized, progressive approach in the future.

                    • ladylibertyslamp

                      Jason, running into the victim square because you are above your head is way too typical.
                      You are not messing with your local GA Ron Paul meet-up klatch here, we know every trick in the book.

                      Jason, you are a Nazi sympathizer, you came on here with pseudo intellectual babble while trying to manipulate a fight.

                      If Nazi is such a bad label then why do you defend them, want to hang out with them and agree with their fairytale rhetoric?

                      Why? Because you are one of them. Most likely you’re a Stormfront poster, hate Jews and Blacks and are freaked out there is a black man in the White House.

                      Your kind is a dime a dozen, nothing profound or ground breaking about your rationalizing babble to legitimize racism and hate.

                      You have been called out on it, so the best move is to cry that you have been called names, pick up your marbles and run home.

                      I agree, there isn’t much left for you to say here.

                      You can try to convince yourself and your like mind that your “great white way” is nothing more than intellectual old men speakers and nice white people gathering for tea.
                      We know better, the rest of the world knows better, and even to some degree you know better or else you wouldn’t have spent a whole day posting on here to try to convince your own self that your ill ideas have value.

                      Fact is you can post all the verbose and lengthy comments you like, but it doesn’t change what you are and who you are defending.

                    • FreeThought

                      (Oops, I accidentally posted this under the wrong reply somehow. You can delete the former, as I’ll place it correctly here.)

                      Well, I guess I’m just naive then, because I didn’t think wanting the right to read dissenting literature and question historical events about the holocaust automatically made me a Nazi sympathizer.

                      It seems like you folks view me as some beast who laughs about jewish persecution. As if I found pleasure in families that were torn apart. That’s a heck of a jump. Just because I find the evidence interesting which claims that possibly only half the number died, doesn’t in the least equate to me denying the atrocities which occurred. That’s quite the unfair twist, but one I suppose I should’ve expected.

                      I’m not going to defend against you calling me a nazi, nazi-sympathizer or racist. It’s impossible to defend against such accusations, and we both know it. I can tell you I’m not those things, and leave it at that. Then I’ll be disbelieved for not “proving it.” Or I can go to great lengths to prove I’m not those things, and I’ll be disbelieved because I protest too much. So it’s pointless. But answer me this: If my views are in error, and perhaps the outgrowth of misinformation, then where do you suggest I find the correct information? What do you suggest I read to counter views from revisionists like Irving, and various white advocacy groups? Wouldn’t it be better, to direct me (and others) in those directions, rather than to commit, condone, and brag about violence and intimidation?

                      Does that not make sense? If not, just say the word and I’ll leave.

                    • ladylibertyslamp

                      Okay, I can fix the comment situation.

                      Now, let me enlighten you to what you have stepped into.

                      The Holocaust Denial movement has nothing to do with facts or “correcting” facts, it’s an anti-Jewish movement, period.

                      The Holocaust is one of the most unfortunate historic mass genocides based in racial cleansing, among many other cases.

                      It is unfortunate that it is being used by all kinds of people and groups for the wrong reasons instead of being an example for humanity to try to learn from to prevent it from happening ever again to all races and human beings.

                      And I would also like to add that the collective who works on this blog are all anti-Zionist and anti-occupation and against the present Holocaust of the Palestinian people.

                      We would be going after you just as hard if you came on here and claimed what the Palestinians are claiming the IDF is doing is a lie.

                      You have tied yourself into a pro-Fascist pro-Nazi pro-genocide movement.
                      This is not about arguing over historic facts, this is about a movement who is trying to legitimize Fascism, cancel out their causalities with the hopes to revive what Hitler intended into society.

                      Why the mob action? Why do the K st policy groups encourage their public to do it with the Tea Bagger movement?

                      Because it makes a statement of resistance and a good news story which will bring awareness that Nazis are gathering, connecting and organizing to the public.

                      No matter how badly Antifa might behave, the fact that they were there fighting Nazis the public will always take the anti-Nazi side.

                      The more the public knows what Nazis are up to, and exposing the where and who it keeps their movement from any chance of creeping up into our society like it did in Germany back in the 1930’s.

                      This is an ugly fight, and a nasty ring you have jumped yourself into.

                      Before you start accusing those of us who have been doing this a long time of not knowing anything, try to get your facts in order yourself.

                    • FreeThought

                      Well we definitely agree on zionism. I was appalled at what happened in Gaza. Some of the photos were horrific. (I have a feeling we agree on capitalism too)

                      Here’s some background on me: I’ve been looking into revisionism for about 2 years now. The books and pdf’s that I’ve read, were astonishingly well presented, and contained startling evidence that while the holocaust did happen, that many details simply didn’t. Perhaps I’ve been duped. Perhaps I’ve just stumbled onto info that is true, but misused by those with evil motives.

                      But I also have always been curious why the holocaust – even if 6 million – always overshadowed events like the genocide of more than 60 million in communist Russia. Why were other atrocities like Holodomor overlooked? Why is the atrocity of the holocaust put so far above the others? Questions like that led to an exploration of revisionism. And then when I see violence from antifa groups over revisionist meetings, my first thought is … someone doesn’t want this info made public. That increases curiosity. I ask why would someone want to suppress that info. Then guess who has the answers? You know. This is why I have been so adamant that petty violence and terrorizing people is illogical. The logical process would be, when one presents false info, let it fail on its own merits. If it doesn’t, and it gains followers, then refute it with books, critical examinations, etc, thoroughly debunking it. But violence just never enters the equation with me unless there’s a direct threat of which defense is necessary.

                      I don’t see how anything like nazi germany could ever creep up again. The world seems far too aware.

                      But, as you say, perhaps I have jumped into a ring to which I should not have. In that case, I tip my hat and say, G’day and carefully step out of the ring. And I’ll be on my way to further educate myself about your cause and the other side of the coin. I still think I had some valid points worth thinking on. But I suppose with that, I’ll end my posting here (for real this time).

                • The Ghost

                  Of course, the folks at Stormfront think only started talking about how bad von Brunn was AFTER he killed someone. We won’t wait for that to happen.

                  • ladylibertyslamp

                    Oh, even AFTER they spoke of him as a hero.

                    We should start a list of the domestic terrorism/criminal activity that has come directly out of “Stromfront”.

                    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Feds are using it as a honeypot at this point.

  9. Luke

    There should be zero tolerance for Nazi murderers. We now have Allan Rouse making legally-actionable death threats, doing shit those of us who fight for the poor and our Earth would never be able to get away with.

    If I were to stand up in public and call for, say, the execution of a condo-building developer or an HLS customer executive, and do so in such a way that I could be identified as the source of the threat, I would probably get a bunch of US Marshalls kicking down my door with guns blazing. Let’s see if there is a legal double
    standard being applied to death threats that originate with identifiable Nazis or other right-wing extremists.

    We know who they are, and prosecutors know who they are-so if Allan Rouse doesn’t get his house raided and/or arrested we will know for certain that there is one legal standard for progressives, and another, more lenient one for Nazis.

  10. Anonymous

    Revisionism is erasure. The very essence of the word “revise” implies that old information is going to be removed and replaced with new information. Furthermore, an “intellectual” discussion implies a discussion conducted with respect to documented facts. Hence, a discussion where the participants honestly believe that the holocaust never happened has no capacity for any level of intellectualism. A holocaust denier speaking to other holocaust deniers is like $cientologists trying to have an “intellectual discussion” about the merits of clinical psychology.

    With all this in mind, intellectual debate about a subject can only occur if both parties respect established facts about the subject. David Irving does not possess facts, logic or an ability to read the copious records kept by the nazis on the death camps they ran. It’s impossible for anyone to have an “intellectual discussion” with someone who is not an intellectual. Moreover, it’s ludicrous to expect any respect for intellectualism from people who specifically targeted intellectuals for extermination.

    Irving has every right to say whatever he wants to say; we have every right to protest him. Why don’t you love America?

    tl;dr: There’s nothing to debate. Irving is a fetid smear of nazi diarrhea, and so is anyone who tries to defend him on an intellectual level.

    • Veritatis

      Suppose new information comes to light that does in fact contradict what is currently printed in the history books, should those history books be revised? One solid example is the Katyn Forrest Massacre where thousands of Polish army officers and intellectuals were murdered. The blame for Katyn was laid on the Nazis during the Nuremburg trials.. A number of German army officers were hanged for that crime. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the truth came to light, that the Soviet Union was responsible.

      According to you, nothing in the history books should be changed and the Germans should still be held responsible for a crime that they did not commit.

      • The Ghost

        Oh, please that’s not the same damn thing. The Soviets kept things from the public, not just with Katyn, but with other situations, like what happened to Czar Nicolas II. No such thing happened with the Holocaust, and it would have been revealed after the 60+ years of people looking into it. There are still 11 million people dead because of your boy Adolph, and that’s neither here nor there. The issue is the fact that Those that went to the Irving meetings are neo-Nazis who have adopted the beliefs of Hitler. And you can’t say you are about free speech when Hitler wasn’t. That’s a cop out, bottom line. And you don’t like people using their free speech to call you on it.

        Oh, and the Nazis didn’t get completely absolved of Katyn. We just now know how much more of a role the Soviets played.

  11. FreeThought

    Well, I guess I’m just naive then, because I didn’t think wanting the right to read dissenting literature and question historical events about the holocaust automatically made me a Nazi sympathizer.

    It seems like you folks view me as some beast who laughs about jewish persecution. As if I found pleasure in families that were torn apart. That’s a heck of a jump. Just because I find the evidence interesting which claims that possibly only half the number died, doesn’t in the least equate to me denying the atrocities which occurred. That’s quite the unfair twist, but one I suppose I should’ve expected.

    I’m not going to defend against you calling me a nazi, nazi-sympathizer or racist. It’s impossible to defend against such accusations, and we both know it. I can tell you I’m not those things, and leave it at that. Then I’ll be disbelieved for not “proving it.” Or I can go to great lengths to prove I’m not those things, and I’ll be disbelieved because I protest too much. So it’s pointless. But answer me this: If my views are in error, and perhaps the outgrowth of misinformation, then where do you suggest I find the correct information? What do you suggest I read to counter views from revisionists like Irving, and various white advocacy groups? Wouldn’t it be better, to direct me (and others) in those directions, rather than to commit, condone, and brag about violence and intimidation?

    Does that not make sense? If not, just say the word and I’ll leave.

  12. hitler

    Hahaha-you fuckers didn’t do anything-david irving spoke, you didn’t break anything up-you ran away scared. You would have been beaten into comas had you clashed with those in attendance. Less and less people care about the kikes and their little hollowco$t, hollowhoax, whatever they call it, and more and more people are coming to the realization that it was a falsehood. People are rebelling against the jewish imposed communist brainwashing they are subjected to in school, in the media, and elsewhere. Anti-fa is absolutely ineffective in every way. The only thing they can do, is whine about hatred and racism and claim victories they never accomplished on the internet. They are malnourished, unwashed miscreants who don’t possess the fighting spirit inherent in proud white men and women, necessary to claim victories. Their little pipe dream of a society is coming to an end, with the help of their magic nigger in washington and when it finally collapses, we will be right there to return society to its proper order. The jewish, communist, anarchist, etc. Elements in society will be done away with and the swastika will once more fly strong and proud over the white western world. Welcome to the future, for it is now. Sieg heil! Heil hitler!

  13. satan

    ooooohhh,wow, you mighty white guilt warriors are so tough! i’m so scared.

  14. Arslan Amirkhan

    There is no such thing as the Holodomor.