it's the context that presents a threat that does

WHAT?

I guess Hitler isn't responsible for the jew exterminations then

He only asked for it after all

i never said anything of the sort

the direct opposite in fact

well, that seems to be the subtext

if one commits and ACTION, that can be a crime

>implying the holohoax happened

punching is an ACTION

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

So is Hitler 100% innocent MA

but words aren't an action

but muh incitement

After all Hitler just spoke a bunch

<:thunk:462282216467333140>

Hitler didn't kill the jews but he should have

^

fine, destroy the freedoms you fought to protect

Tfw MA has successfully argued Hitler's innocence

The holodomor was an astral projection, the eskimos did 9/11

Those that don't understand history are doomed to repeat it

You're the repeater

and those who can't define their terms are doomed to be laughed at

Even the British understood incitement was bad at the time of the witch trials lol.

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/witchcraft_in_colonial_virginia

First, stigmitaize 'terror' so that even parents disciplining their kids of fathers fighting to protect their families are considered 'dangerous'

Of course

MA acts like he's 500iq when he's really 50iq

then, empower the crybullies, convincing the state to displace fathers in the family and community

Manmanmanman

once the community and church are gone, then the State has no one to keep it in check

divide the people based on arbitrary and trivial differences

>church keeping state in check

Wot

Communities he said

Not the state

cause only people united in common cause can stand against the State

Wut

Saudi Arabia is okay then.

Or I misread it in the way he meant