>>/81526/
I'm going to be polite, because you've obviously had lots of trouble with shills and idiots.

Now you, yourself said
 >>/79557/
> I don’t know if there will be online congregations like there used to be, either it won’t be allowed or anons are realising it’s time to take a different approach. Everyone who is seeking the truth has found/will find their way eventually.
Anyways, expect shills, as it shows there is something of value here.
and literally all I am after is the truth.

> It's not just "considered" fantasy. The jewish holocaust is a fantasy. I've seen much of the "paper evidence" and it's usually hand drawn depictions plus lying jews about surviving nails driven into their heads or masturbation to death machines.
Keep in mind, I say this in the utmost politeness: I don't care what you think, because I don't know you well at all. If I just listened to whoever ran whatever platform I was on, and said, "Oh, ok. I believe you," I would have never gotten to the (literal!) ass-end of the internet in search of sources. I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but I need to do the research myself. And to do research, I need sources.

> https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/
Is interesting, but not as focused as I would like. I am a professional researcher. Professional researchers do things professionally. This requires deep dives into sources as neutral as possible, which is why I asked for internal memos from WWII-era Germany ostensibly relating to the extermination of the Jews. I haven't seen it, I don't know if it exists, I've heard it hasn't, I figured this place, with its iron-clad moderation and dedication to, in your own words, "truth," that I could get something as simple as primary sources. 

> There are plenty of lying kike "sources", especially on Hasbarat Wikipedia.
Well you know what's better than a  trinary source of suspicious nature? A secondary source that can be destroyed by primary sources. Or faked primary sources that can be shown to be fraudulent.

 >>/81531/
> And look at this bullshit:  >>/81523/ Actually requesting pro-holocaust nonsense and saying "those you consider your enemy" instead of flat out identifying jews as the enemy they are.
If you're going to treat fence-sitters as enemies, you're going to knock a lot of people to the other side of the fence. 

As it stands, I am neutral and deeply skeptical of the official stories.
I did not ask for "pro-holocaust bullshit, I asked for suspiciously non-specific primary sources. 
And I asked for something so small.
Is this not the place for me?

I can tell you right now, when it comes to persuading others, I am exactly who you want on your side.

File related: a secondary source of pristine quality due to its dogged approach to citation of primary sources.