Christian National Socialist
Witnessing to truth

Blog #5 by A1488Xian

One way which we can witness to the truth and make our presence known is by trolling the comment sections of shows which may contain people who are liable to come to our side. It takes skill to know how hard or soft to come at an individual but one thing to keep in mind is that typically the person you are going after cannot be persuaded. HE IS NOT THE TARGET! Your target are those who might be reading the chat section, keep those people in mind. Sometimes we need not even argue. There are some absurd things people say which should be mocked and disputed solely so someone who doesn’t know any better will not be deceived or duped.

One thing to keep in mind is what farmers have learned. When a farmer plants a seed, he cannot make it grow. That seed will grow in its own time. If it is a person in our lives then we can tend the field and help create favourable conditions for that seed to grow, but when doing stick and move missions we won’t have an opportunity. In these cases we must not kill the seed after it is planted through our behaviour. If we don’t see immediate results don’t call the person horrible names or poison the well, just shake the dust off and move on. With God’s grace that person may hit rock bottom and those words will come to mind.

While the guy was a piece of garbage Jew, Saul Alinsky formulated a series of rules for activism which work. They don’t work because the filth he advocated for was worthy of acceptance but because the rules are aimed at human nature. One of his rules is "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." Part of that is that mankind is a social creature, people yearn for acceptance. Not only does it jar the person, if done correctly, the people on the side will instinctually move away from your opponent, they won’t want to be associated with a loser. Don't ridicule to the point of victimising your prey, if it seems like you’re just being cruel then those on the side might feel sorry for him and be turned off by the truth you’re delivering.

Because people are social creatures, trolling comment sections and doing things like banner drops are important. If people feel as if there are more people out there who think like they do they will be more apt to start being open about what they believe and try to persuade others. Peer pressure works because it is in our nature to conform. We were created with a desire to conform because in order to survive for most of human history, a tight knit community was necessary. Conformity creates unity. Unity creates power. Power creates survival and success.

Below you will find a series of posts I had on Rumble. I was on a channel of a confused kid who is a Communist who loves Stalin, yet he thinks he’s conservative. A probable Jew named Kevin Schmidt who spelled his name with the number 1 in place of the letter i took the bait. I feel that most people who read the exchange saw that he was clearly over his head, which allowed me to present evidence without any challenge. Without any challenge which sounds credible the facts seem even more insurmountable and ridiculous to deny. It makes for effective propaganda (propaganda is not a bad thing, it simply means a one sided argument).

Me: Yeah, the Germans are bad over a fake Holocaust but Stalin is great despite a real Holodomor

Kevin Schmidt: Betcha can't prove the Holocaust is fake!

Me: Can do so easily. None of the so called gas chambers which exist could function as a gas chamber, the doors had no locks on them and opened inward. One even had windows. Zyklon B required a heating of the pellets to release the gas, like they had in the delousing chambers to kill lice on clothing, yet the supposed gas chambers just had slots or openings to put the pellets in. They would not release gas that way. The alleged murders by the einsatzgruppen are absurd, as even the full believer in the Holocaust who wrote the book After the Reich admitted. The only proof they murdered thousands of Jews comes from documents found by the Soviets, the same Soviets who notoriously lied about the Katyn forest massacre and countless other things. Commando groups don't have a ton of men or ammo or equipment to carry out mass executions. Then there are the many admitted lies like human soap and human lampshades or 4 million Jews dying at Auschwitz which was greatly reduced to 1 million. You can also add in the autopsies performed by the allies which show that every person they examined died of sickness and disease, not homicide or the fact that the very first holocaust denier was a French communist who was at Auschwitz who was like, "Um, no I was there, it wasn't like that" or that the Red Cross operated there and said they didn't see any of that
https://rumble.com/v19p60j-the-truth-about-the-holocaust-germar-rudolf-tfn-network.html

K: LOL! Fail! Go visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC and get a clue, Nazi boy.

[Notice here the name calling. He could not challenge a single claim but it could not be left there. People who don’t know better might wonder, “Yeah, isn’t there a bunch of proof there?”]

Me: Really?! 🤣🤣🤣 you actually used the joke of the US Holocaust museum! 🤣🤣🤣 Oh my God, you're hilarious! That's just too good. You mean the same museum which used a door from a fumigation chamber and called it from a homicide chamber?! The same one which claims the Germans were too stupid to use gasoline engines to poison people and instead drove around in diesel vans to do it? 🤣🤣🤣 oh my God, please stop, my sides are hurting.

[Here is where mocking came in handy. I didn’t get personal with the mocking yet, I focused on his appeal to authority. That allowed me to attack his authority, something which has more attraction these days, especially after the authorities lied so much about Covid]

K: I see you wrote a lot of childish nonsense again. So where is your evidence and proof the Holocaust did not happen? Oh, that's right, it is nowhere, which is where you are too, nowhere.

[So here Mr Schmidt tried to mock but he had to turn it personal because he could not mock anything specific. He deliberately ignored every claim I made, which was an opportunity to point out his foolishness]

Me: Kevin I already provided a bunch of proof the Holocaust is a bunch of bullshit propaganda. How is it not proof and evidence that the so called gas chambers could not function as gas chambers? Silly Germans not bothering to lock a gas chamber and putting windows in them! How is it not proof and evidence when not a single autopsy performed by the allies showed a death by poison? You got it backwards, Germany is innocent until you prove them guilty. It’s on you to prove it did happen. Your “evidence” is absurd and pathetic, therefore they are innocent of your lies.

[Sarcasm is a form of mockery. In real life people do do absurd things so maybe the Germans were foolish but most people won’t think of that. The natural tendency is to think, “Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense…” and then the mockery transfers to the other person. He didn’t say that the Germans were too stupid to put locks on the doors but the argument transferred to him and made him look foolish anyway]

K: No, all you did was make a bunch of idiotic claims and straw-man arguments that no normal person would believe for a second. Then you hysterically claimed the Holocaust Museum is not evidence for the Holocaust. I have to ask, what combination of drugs are you on? I want to avoid them at all costs.

[Sometimes it is not a loss to attack the messenger instead of the message but here it clearly is. One must always be careful in doing that, it can backfire. Mr Schmidt is clearly trying to deflect. This exchange was over the course of days so he did not even bother to Google answers and throw the absurd Holocaust defender claims at me. It just made him look even more feeble. He resorted to the common “you are crazy” argument. That can be a good tactic to use when people are pushing conspiracy theories which are way out there, but it does not work when logical facts are presented. Questioning if 1 1 = 2 is crazy, questioning why a gas chamber didn’t have a locking door is not]

Me: A museum is not proof of anything but that a building exists. I provided very specific facts, not straw men arguments. Specific fact- the so called gas chamber doors didn't have locks on them. Deny or admit. If they didn't have locks then the victims would open them and get out and poison anybody standing there. Specific fact, the supposed gas chamber doors opened inward, admit or deny. If you admit then you'd have to explain how they got the doors open with a couple hundred bodies piled up against it (or even why they didn't change the hinges after the first few tries at it). Specific fact three Zyklon B pellets don't just release gas and need to be heated up but two of the so called chambers just have openings to dump the pellets into the room. Admit or deny that Zyklon B pellets don't release gas without being heated up specially. If you admit then you admit that the so called gas chambers are not functional. Specific fact, the Red Cross operated at Auschwitz and after the war did not report seeing any homicidal actions. Admit or deny. Specific fact, the American doctor who performed autopsies on hundreds of dead inmates did not find a single instance of poisoning. Admit or deny. These are all verifiable facts and not straw man arguments. The list can go on and on. Is it a straw man argument to point out that the “official” story had been full of lies that they now admit were lies (soap made from humans, human lampshades, 4 million Jews dying at Auschwitz, etc)? Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is immaterial whether a “normal” person would believe the truth, normal people believed masks protected them from COVID, that Lincoln freed slaves, and that Columbus was the first European to discover America. Normal people are uneducated and have confidence in liars.

[In this section I pushed him to commit to a specific. Anyone reading this would find the point’s interesting and worth exploring if they cared. Maybe they’ll watch a Holocaust propaganda movie and one of these points will come back to them. This hammered it in for them. A straw man argument is when somebody reframes an argument to say something other than what was being said and attack it instead of the actual argument. An example is when he called me a Nazi. My political beliefs have nothing to do with what the Germans did or didn’t do. The same would apply to if I am on medication. Making a straw man argument can work with some arguments. If you are dealing with someone who does not have a well thought out position you can make it have implications they don’t mean and attack those. That does not persuade people who know to look for it but few people do. We’re not here to win formal debates at the Oxford club, we’re here to win over the average person and save them from damnation. Lying to them is immoral but using debate techniques which aren’t fair is fair play. Notice here that he also tried to appeal to popularity, to claim the high ground because most people are on his side. That plays into the social habits of mankind again. Luckily for quite sometime we will be able to easily refute that by pointing to Covid. Covid allows us to mock “authority” and to mock the masses and conformity when used as “proof”]

K: No one believes that stupidity of yours. Obviously, you are gassed. Anyone can do a search to see actual pictures of dead people in gas chambers.

Me: Wow you’re stupid Kevin, there are NO actual pictures of dead people in gas chambers, try googling it! 🤣🤣🤣 There are pictures of real dead people who died of Typhus, pictures of real dead people who died in cattle cats which were strafed by allied fighter planes, and pictures of empty alleged gas chambers, but none of dead people in one. How about you post a link to one? Keep coping though buddy. How about you google and see if you can find any autopsies proving any of them died by gas? I believe the link I posted has the US soldier who performed the autopsies talking about how none died of gas. Ask yourself this Kev, if the case is so strong then why would I goto prison across Europe for this conversation? Does the truth need censorship to protect it or do lies?

[At this point I felt safe to mock him personally. The average observer by now thinks the guy is dumb. When he came out with a completely verifiable lie then it was time to hit him with a right cross. Since there are no pictures like he said it allows people to see easily that he was wrong. They will, however, see pictures of bodies so I had to preemptively explain how they don’t support the extermination narrative. I bolstered it with the reasonable, “If the evidence is so strong then why punish questioning it?” The pictures are gruesome for most so the person has to go into looking at them with doubt if we’re to have any hope. Maybe, just maybe they don’t show what is claimed they show]

K: Again, I don't have to prove objective reality. You made the delusional claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, which you have failed to do. Nor have you disproven the fact and evidence that proves the Holocaust happened. Do you know you could get arrested in Germany if you make that lie? That is how evil you are! You belong in prison! You would go to prison because your evil lies are extremely dangerous and support Nazism and fascism. Perhaps you should go to Europe and get arrested. Then you would have several years to learn that the Holocaust actually happened.

[Again, he appeals to the herd, “I must be right because EVERYONE says so.” He is not playing that card correctly so it lost all its effect. He really stepped in it when he admitted that people goto prison for thought crimes. That does not sit well with Americans and instantly creates the thought “What do they have to hide?”]

Me: Yes Kevin I know I’d goto prison in many European countries for speaking the truth about the fake extermination of Jews. It’s not evil, what’s evil is that debate is not allowed. What’s evil is that they would pass laws to protect their lies in such a dastardly way. Debate is good for anything else but not for that?! You must be a Jew, nobody else would be sick enough to claim that’s a good thing! There is no objective reality. I like how you have not addressed a single objective verifiable fact I have raised though! The whole world can read you cope here and look ignorant. Your adherence to the religion of holocaustianity must do your god proud- blind ignorant unquestioning faith. Maybe your Muslim… Muhammad also advised against asking too many questions about his religion lest it make one lose faith 🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, because it is the lie of the Holocaust which keeps Nazism and fascism at bay 🤣🤣🤣 The masses would think fascism is wonderful if it weren’t for the non existent voices of six million phantom victims screaming from the grave! 🤔🤔🤔 Then why do people think Judaism is cool despite the 20 million Christians Jews murdered in the Holodomor or think communism is cool despite the 100 million it murdered? You’re not much of a thinker are you?

[It was important I phrased the argument correctly here, that it is the extermination of Jews that we deny, not their mistreatment. Our weakest claim comes in the treatment of Jews. In our day it is hard to justify putting women and children in prison even if the prison was “nice.” We live in a day where individual rights trump collective rights. No matter how evil the actions of the Jews as a whole were most people today are not about to sanction rounding up those who technically were not a part of it. The only defence we have to that is “whataboutism,” which falls under another one of Alinsky’s rules: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.America interned the Japanese and some Italians and Germans. The British created the first concentration camps in South Africa and interned Boer women and children. We have to agree that it’s not right to do that but then point out that the allies did it too so if that made National Socialism bad then it makes representative democracy bad as well. It’s best to avoid that line if you can. Nobody wins by judging the past by today’s standards. Also deflect by pointing out that the camps were supposed to be temporary just until the Jews could be resettled in Palestine and Madagascar and if the allies had allowed it they would have moved on quickly. I also breached the Jewish question here. That might have been a mistake since more people are ready to question the holohoax than the Jewish question and the holohoax can be a stepping stone later to the Jewish question. I knew better than to endorse National Socialism in this though. It was better to point out that people reject fascism because they ignorantly think it’s about oppression and evil rather than because they think it killed millions of Jews. I got carried away in mocking the guy]

K: The Holocaust wasn't about just the slaughter of Jews, and has nothing to do with communism or Holodomor. Focus! Your fascist, nazi behaviour is criminal. You have the blood of dead Russian speaking Ukrainians on your hands.

Me: You have no idea whose blood I have on my hands. I’ve never killed any Ukrainians nor Russians. Believe it or not there are national socialists fighting on both sides of the war in Ukraine right now. But that’s neither here nor there. You obviously cannot follow your own logic. You said that since I question disproven and hilariously absurd historical narratives concerning a mythical extermination of Jews in WW2 that it is dangerous and that denying those absurdities leads to fascism and Nazism. So I pointed out that that was a nonsensical claim since people still follow Judaism and Communism despite the far greater horrors those ideologies are responsible for. If those very real crimes don’t keep people away from Communism and Judaism what makes you think people reject fascism because of the “Holocaust” and not for any other reason? Are those Jews so special that their deaths matter more? “Murder 100 million people and I’ll still consider your philosophy but if you kill these special Jews then all bets are off I don’t care what merits you may have!” Like I said, you’re not a deep thinker are you? Why would I care if my behaviour is criminal? If the truth is outlawed why would I deny the truth just because scum bags want me to? Are you that much of a sheep? “These people tell me this is a historical fact so I am going to believe it as absolute reality without question and it is illegal to question it so I won’t question it.” It’s funny you accused me of straw man arguments yet you use them against me. It is “fascist” and “Nazi” to question as if that makes the questions illegitimate. It’s also factually wrong since the first person to speak out against the myth was a French Communist who was at Auschwitz. Is the Jewish David Cole a “Nazi” and “fascist?” He got on video an admission from the head of the Auschwitz museum that they “reconstructed” the gas chambers they show people and showed the things like chamber doors not locking and opening inward

K: There is no debate over objective reality. There is only debate about your dangerous, delusional, hate filled behaviour.

[This is where I made a mistake. I should not have alluded to having any blood on my hands. Again it also might have been a mistake to touch on the Jewish question. But what I did here was use mocking to make the observer think, “I’m not a sheep, I’m not stupid like this guy.” In a debate like this the reader is going to be drawn into taking a side. It’s human nature. The reader won’t want to be on the ridiculous side and the guy set himself up to look ridiculous. I also had the opportunity to deflect some who will choke on the Jewish question by pointing them to the Jew Cole. It is absolutely illogical and ridiculous to attribute greater weight to his arguments just because he’s a Jew but it’s human nature. If you really think about it it is as ridiculous as an American arguing with a Brit “Of course the Civil War was about slavery, I’m an American I should know!” Facts are facts no matter who you are but flimsy arguments like that can intimidate some so don’t be afraid to use it. If someone is afraid of being called anti semitic then bring out Jews who agree, we have our own useful idiots.]

That is where the discussion ended. I think Mr Schmidt realised how stupid he looked because he deleted his messages and with them my replies. But hopefully they live on as a teaching example for people to learn how to witness to our truths and hopefully surpass my ability. Above all else, try to stick to what you know best (to cite Alinsky again: Never go outside the expertise of your people. Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.) and remember that the true audience are the readers.