Red Ice Radio:
Nicholas Kollerstrom —
Breaking the Spell,
The Holocaust: Myth and Reality
Audio released on Feb 25, 2015
Click here or copy link to view (in new window): >> http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/02/RIR-150225.php
Nicholas Kollerstrom — Breaking the Spell, The Holocaust Myth and Reality
Febuary 25, 2015
Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD, is an English author, historian of science, and political activist. He was an honorary member of staff at University College London (UCL) for 11 years. Dr. Kollerstrom has always had an interest in Hermetic-alchemical issues and is presently managing New Alchemy Press. He is the author of several articles and books, and joins us to speak about his latest publication, Breaking the Spell, The Holocaust Myth and Reality. We begin our discussion with an analysis of the real physical data that exists relating to the purported existence of huge cyanide gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps.
Nick gives details of the numbers and causes of deaths at Auschwitz that were recorded daily and then published, figures that are staggeringly less than the 6 million number that has been seared into the ‘official’ storyline. We talk about the outbreak of typhus in 1942, the delousing chambers that were created to deal with the disease infestation, and how this ordinary hygiene technology was used in an attempt to decrease mortality rates of valuable workers in the labor camps. Nick brings light to the real purpose of the camps and how the horrific stories developed during the nightmare and confusion of war.
Further, he’ll explain the lack of any documents or intercepted communications indicating orders to exterminate prisoners, and the reconstruction of history that has created an undebatable transcendental mythos of death by gas chambers. Then, we’ll consider the motivations for perpetuating the Holocaust myth and who has come to benefit from what was certainly the worst collective experience that European Jews have endured. Nick breaks down the holocaust narrative that is the direct result of the academic world dismissing evidence multiplied by Hollywood’s mythologizing of events.
Later Kollerstrom describes signs that people are beginning to wake up to the motives of the holocaust industry. We end with thoughts on sacred war ratifying myths, the persecution of truth seekers, and the need for open discussion and debate regarding one of the most important events of world history.
[Special thanks to commenter Monad]
HP (Henrik Palmgren):
Hi everyone, I’m Henrik and thank you for tuning in to Red Ice Radio. I hope you’ve been well today. Well today we’re almost at the end of February and I can’t wait until the earth to rotate a bit more, getting us closer to spring and some warmer weather I’m sure you feel the same. Well as you know as a regular listener we cover a wide range of topics on the show with a focus on finding the truth and exposing lies. Detailing the mythologization of our nations and history and how it’s been used against us in order to justify the political system, the media and the control apparatus is being run in order to better control us.
Well today we are going to enter into one of those sensitive areas where we must go, I believe if we are to understand the world and why things are the way they are. We’ve spoken about World War II in the recent year but not really addressed directly and in more detail the story of the extermination camps, concentration camps and gas chambers. What I find the most interesting and the most intriguing about the whole thing is the treatment of those people who have shown an interest in the European nations that just over a month ago banded together like nothing else in order to protect our precious freedom of speech after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and also more recently in Copenhagen. They have most embarrassedly dropped the ball on this issue and just yesterday in fact, the former German lawyer Sylvia Stolz was jailed again for 20 months just for talking about this issue. We’ve that article up on redicecreations.com if you want to see that video for yourself and make up your own mind about that. So what is it all worth free speech if this is treated somewhat in line with everyone else.
[Image] Sylvia Stolz giving a speech that has led to her being sentenced to imprisonment.
Click here for the full transcript of that speech:
These are the true thought criminals of our times. How many who have really believed in something have really looked deeper into the questions themselves. Unfortunately I don’t think too many have, they base their reality on popular belief, a fallacy appeal, “prouoco ad populum”, “appeal to the people”. Or appeal to the popularity, say fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or almost all people believe it. If many believe so it is so. Well unfortunately or perhaps thankfully reality does not care what the majority thinks is true. It is only concerned with what is true and I for one would like to know what is true. Because on this matter I don’t know. I have questions. We’re going to hear more from our guest here in a little bit but I just want to mention a few more things here before we continue and some of you might not need to hear it but others will I think.
I do think it was important that we put our emotions to the side when we do these kinds of inquiries. for most times we should put them to the side, but since there was so much free programmed charged emotion that lies behind it. The fundamental question that lies behind it: Are you interested in the truth? Or are you fine living a lie?
Ask yourself that and if your fine with the latter then I don’t have much more to say to you and you can turn off this program. And you are of course free to live as you please but don’t go after people for asking questions that you never bothered to ask or make accusations about these people but of you are in that first category however. If you care about the truth I think it is extremely important to honor that and decide to do something that you haven’t done in your life before which is to not only to listen to our guest here today in our program but look into the other side of the argument about this matter and do the research for yourself. Come to a conclusion on your own if this is a subject that interests you.
There is just so much material out there today that must people will never ever will see or look at or read. I think it’s worth to find out for oneself in order to navigate our way in this life since this issue is a big part of our modern culture and we are told all the time in Europe at least about how guilty we should feel about this.
That we didn’t do more to stop it. There has also been a banning of views and political parties as a consequence to this, so if these are the charges that I almost definitely would like to know more about them and if indeed they are true. Searching for the truth shouldn’t be a crime but unfortunately on this subject it is, for these that speak about it at least. Now I cant say either way. Personally I invite people to the program to speak and their words will have to remain theirs.
Now I’m not asking you to believe anything. That is not the point of this program. I hope you understand that and that we can appeal to your reason and logic instead as I don’t get much out of blind faith in any direction, be that for or against. The question is whether you want to know. That is the central point right here. All we can do is point in the direction of other people and hope of course to raise enough interest for you to look into things for yourself. I think something horrible is happening in our world when the purported victim has gained so much power. We live in the world of victim hierarchy where the most victimized one is always right and to question this would not only be a crime, it’s just incredibly offensive, insensitive and hateful. Right? But I think we need to think about this.
Just because you pose yourself as a victim, somehow everything you say is truthful, there is never any reason to doubt your word or testimony and it should never be challenged. Well what if someone takes advantage of this ? The accused is always at fault in our world today. No court of law, well that isn’t corrupt would just ask one side of the story. But in the court of public opinion this is precisely what has happened in our past in our history, and it continues to happen. Today we always have to feel guilt and sorrow for the victim of someone has gotten hurt or of someone has been violated. We aren’t allowed to ask in a time of grief or hurt what the proof of the allegations are we are just expected to blindly believe them.
[Distorted voice] “What are you saying? I’m lying?”
Well, yes, perhaps you are, perhaps you are taking advantage of this? I don’t know. If we are not able to inquire there is no way of us to know is there ? And the is simply what this is all about. We are never asked to prove a negative it’s always prove that I murdered him never prove that I didn’t murder him. If the accusation that has to be proven not the other way round but that is where we are today unfortunately. We are asked by people who offer no proof to prove something didn’t happen. You know their has been plenty of stories in the past of lies that have been exposed by inquiring and persistent minds that basically couldn’t see reality matching up with the story that we have been told. And of course with have com to realize that there are fabrications and lies in many different areas of life in order to justify subsequent activities. You know that there is still a majority of people out there who never inquired about 9/11. They just tell you:
“What are you looking into this for, just get over it already will you. We already know what happened.”
People said that about weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, or that Libya was invaded on good grounds. These are major, major lies from our dearest establishment. I think we should do good to question them and look into them further, don’t you think?
[Image] One of the World Trade Center towers being destroyed by some kind of controlled demolition.
So what I think is going on here in my view is that we have a lot of people in this field that feel that good hard evidence hasn’t been provided. We’ve got plenty of emotional stories and movies and documentaries with an agenda but once you begin to look at much of the evidence it seems that it doesn’t stand up the scrutiny of those people challenging it. And the people who are revising some of the available material make some interesting points that I think is worth listening to. I think that one of the reasons why it’s not dragged into the sunlight and this is why it is bad to question it because if they were to take these accusations seriously the arguments possibly wouldn’t stand. I don’t know. I can’t figure it out. I don’t know what other reason there would be. There is no other historical event that he those repercussions associated with it.
Truth fears no investigation and I hope you are fearless, a fearless truth seeker and indeed a person brave enough and sane enough to let the truth lead you where it may.
So I think it is good to drag this topic into the light and give [it] a chance and hear the other side that never gets heard in the mainstream. It just gets ridiculed and shunned. Just because you listen to something doesn’t mean you believe it, remember that to.
This is what they don’t want you to do of course for some reason. They want you to quickly know that this is off limits, unacceptable and only something that mass murdering psychopath would listen to or entertain. I think that this is done in order to deflect you away from you using your own brain on this matter so that there is no remote possibility that potentially the greatest lie of the 20th century. A false flag of our times is something that more and more people would begin to take an interest in.
So with that little thought thank you for entertaining my point. I hope you see what I’m trying to say. But with no further ado I would like to now introduce our guest. Nick Kollerstrom Ph.D has two history of science degrees, one from Cambridge 1968 plus a Ph.d from London 1995. He was an honorary member of the staff of UCL (University College London) for eleven years He has held an interest in hermetic alchemical issues and is presently managing New Alchemy Press. He co-edited the Case Against War at it’s proceeding in 1998.
In 2008 he received widespread publicity and ethical damnation owing to his interest in studies on the residual cyanide levels found in the walls of the World War Two labor camps and was thrown out of his College. He authored the book Terror on the Tube, a comprehensive account of the 2005 London bombing endorsing the hypothesis of Islamic innocence
More recently he has published “Breaking the Spell — the Holocaust Myth and Reality” which is the book we are going to talk about today. It could be the first British textbook on the subject. Let’s get to our guest.
[Image] The book “Breaking the Spell – The Holocaust: Myth & Reality” By Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom. For a previews see here: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/31-bts-intro.pdf
[Image] Map of the camps. (click to enlarge in new window)
[Image] Map of concentration camps in US/Brit/French post-war zones.
[Image] Map of concentration camps in Soviet post-war zone.
HP: Nick thank you so much for coming on the program. Its great to have you here, thank you so much for being here.
NK (Nick Kollerstrom): It’s a pleasure Henrik, a pleasure.
HP: Thank you so much Nick. Now this is very important topic we are going to talk about here today. A very interesting one. It’s one of those bizarre things that have historically turned out in the way that it has and we find ourself in the situation where with at least in Western Europe now are practicable unable to speak about it. But before we get into the meat of the conversation let’s just clear somethings off the table here first. Obviously you wrote about the London 7/7 bombing prior to the this; the false flag, the inside job.
HP: Tell us how you got on the track of writing about the Holocaust, Nick.
NK: The Holocaust. Well I was a science historian at my college UCL (University College London) and my mother was a chemist, and I suppose I’m a bit anti-establishment, and if I’m told something is really forbidden, then I want to have a look at it.
It came to my notice that people had mentioned and analyzed cyanide in the walls of the old Germany labour camps. And I thought, as a science historian, this is the kind of real physical data that I like and I know how to analyze. Several different people had sampled the cyanide from the walls, and it was like a memory of what happened 60 years ago, because the cyanide had bonded with the iron in the walls and it was still there. So fairly simple, fairly straightforward, it didn’t involve complicated political opinions, okay.
It was a kind of ground basis of talking about the subject. A lot of cyanide had been used in the German labour camps and this was sort of a nice clean straightforward lead in. I do like simple issues in organic chemistry and it told you basically where cyanide had been massively and routinely used in the German labour camps, and that was what pulled me in. When I got thrown out of my college I noticed the very intense ethical damnation I was receiving. No one wanted to talk about this. They all branded me as a Nazi, and branded me as far right, and branded me as an anti-semitic, and I was a bit puzzled by this label.
I didn’t really know what they meant. I thought Nazis hadn’t existed for 50 years. My mother used to worry that I was far Left in previous stuff. Earlier in my life I had only worked for anti-war movements, peace movements, and all awhile this was a bit Left-wing and might inhibit my employment prospects; and suddenly people were telling me I was far-Right! And again I was puzzled by this. So my hope that this was something we could talk about as simply rational was not fulfilled. It turned out to be something that we couldn’t actually talk about.
[Image] Fred Leuchter
So the process of publishing my two articles about, one was called, “The Walls of Auschwitz” another called “Leuchter, Twenty Years Gone”. Fred Leuchter was a guy who initially went out there and sampled, chipped away at the old German walls of the old delousing chambers [and the] alleged human gas chambers. So 20 years ago, 20 years after that, I wondered what was going to happen. In April 1988, he did that. In 2008 it turned out what happened was me being thrown out of my college!
NK: It was the 20 year anniversary event.
HP: Right, right. Well, you know, later I wanted to ask you a little bit more about, why, how you were thrown out of the University. It’s an interesting story there just for the sake of having people understand how terribly suppressed this material is and some of the consequences there are when you talk about it. But before we get into the meat of the conversation and talk about some, … just tell us for a moment about your academic background, so that people know what you have in your backpack, so to speak.
NK: UCL was founded on the basis that it would not vet people for religious or ideological beliefs, that it was the first free thinking college. And I had a safe perch in a history of science department called Science and Technology Studies. I have been there for quite a long time. Took my Ph.D there, and I had a lot of history and astronomy, and I did nice obscure papers about how Newton formulated his theory about the moon, how Neptune was discovered. Especially, I was in the last five years or so, into the discovery of Neptune.
I published about two dozen academic papers on the history of astronomy. Which was quite an interesting topic for me. Obviously I much enjoyed it, but it’s not of very general interest. I have to admit that not many people wanted to talk about it.
HP: Right, now, how do you think one should approach the subject then? Because it’s very difficult, a lot of people are very emotionally upset, it’s very difficult to reason with people. I mean you approached this solely from a scientific point of view, which I think is a great way to do it. It’s kind of like you have to compartmentalize a bit before you can actually fully look at the bigger picture in order to understand the components. Because people are so bogged down with the, as you say, the political stuff, the ideological stuff, the emotional stuff.
So what would you say to people who, let’s say, who are unwilling to listen to some of the things you found at the outset here, as a way to appealing to them? To have them listen to what you have found and the research that is actually out there about the science, Nick?
HK: Yes, well, my colleague Jim Fetzer in the introduction to my book. He’s a professor of Logic and he’s got a nice way of putting things and … some of the colours involved, … people believed in these huge cyanide gas chambers. Where if they [the alleged “homocidal gas chambers”] had been used they would have to have blue colours in the walls, because when the cyanide sinks into the walls it distributes iron cyanide, which is cyanide blue, and it’s not there. Whereas it is in the delousing chambers, which have been written out of history.
Out in Birkenau[Auschwitz II — see map below at the 35:00 mark] they are some building where the cyanide was massively used for delousing clothing and mattresses, and so on. That’s one colour change that is important.
And the other colour change is of human beings. That if people are gassed with cyanide they go pink. There’s a death struggle where oxygen is denied to the body and you end up with a bright shocking pink corpse, and there is not a single report of a pink corpse in any Nuremberg testimony, okay. This is kind of bad science that they have tried to claim at Nuremberg, that people have been killed with cyanide. Some have said they [the corpses] had a blueish pallor, or a greenish pallor, or a bit blackish, but no, cyanide medically doesn’t give you a blue corpse.
The other gas that was supposed to have been massively used in the German labour camps was carbon monoxide [CO]. That was supposed to have been used in “one third” of the Holocaust [referring here to one third of the total deaths in the alleged “Holocaust”]. One third being with [CO] gas especially at places like Treblinka, or whatever, they alleged.
Would the Germans use diesel and gas people with carbon monoxide? Well it happens that, that also gives you a pink corpse. Slightly different biochemistry but you do end up with a pink corpse in both of those cases. There is no trace of huge piles of pink corpses in any German labour camp reports, no accounts in World War Two, whatsoever of that. So I think you can just think in terms of these quite simple colour effects whereby the cyanide human gassings actually did not happen. You actually cannot show any gassed corpse.
There’s not a single one. Never a single post-morten [autopsy] or recorded death in German labour camps of a cyanide death. And the records, whether or not they are trustworthy, big records kept in German labour camps giving causes of death, nothing on gassing.
HP: What do they have in terms of evidence? Tell us, who don’t know, how detailed are the reports, are there accompanying photographs? And I guess a certain portion of this would be from Germany itself and other reports would be from when the Allies came into the camps, right? So there are two different things.
NK: Absolutely! Too right Henrik! When the Soviets liberated Auschwitz [took over] they took all the death records. And these were kept secret for a long time, but they had the records for all the recorded deaths at Auschwitz and these were only published by Gorbachev, released by Gorbachev. And they were published in three large volumes in the mid 1990s. The Death Books of Auschwitz.
No one seems to know much about this. So I went to the British Library and there’s a nice chapter in English that gives all the statistics, which was wonderful, and we put them up on our website. Website called http: //www.whatreallyhappened.info/
[Image] Home page of http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/
And you can count them if you like and it gives causes of death. I would say that the causes of death in the camps were mainly famine and typhus and typhoid from the epidemics and just to give you some rough figures, the Death Books of Auschwitz have more Catholics than Jews dying. You’ve got 30,000 Catholics registered as dying and 29,000 Jews registered as having died. Something like, around, 70,000 total deaths reported, recorded.
*[Typhus: is a disease caused by Rickettsia bacteria spreading through the bites of lice and fleas. The infection causes headache, fever and a rash of red spots (and in many cases eventual death if not treated properly).
Typhoid (typhoid fever): is a disease caused by Salmonella Typhi bacteria spreading through contaminated water and poor hygiene.]
NK: Now people say:
“Oh well, of course there were unrecorded deaths”.
Well, there were some, yes, but based on some other data I’ll come to, I would say the unreported deaths were something like 10% extra. There were very thorough meticulous records, counting everyday the totals. Total people who came in, people who came out. And they broke down in the German labour camps and the totals of people there into four different categories. They had Poles, Russians, Jews and Germans, the last being German political prisoners. Those were their four categories that they tried to keep account of who was in the labour camps.
Now to answer your question about the death records. [They] were therefore in these Death Books of Auschwitz. Which are month by month, broken down month by month, so they are quite helpful, just the kind of way we would like to see statistics. And also you have got a huge database of what used be called the Arolsen Archives in north Germany. This is the International Red Cross. For 50 years the International Red Cross kept all data, all reports of alleged Holocaust victims and all kinds of Holocaust compensation victims went through this archive, and it gradually built up to a massive database.
There has been several occasions, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s in which they put out totals. Now, the total number of deaths they broke down into thirteen, then fifteen different labour camps. We would like to have them broken down month by month, year by year but they didn’t do that. But we have got total deaths and that corroborates the figures I just mentioned, in the Death Books of Auschwitz. With Auschwitz we have something between sixty and seventy thousand total deaths given by the Arolsen Archives. Now that is what have been made public by the Arolsen Archives. They haven’t made public any figures in the 21st century because there’s a much stronger taboo, as I’m sure you are aware.
NK: Anyone in Germany denying the Holocaust gets put in goal, so if the Arolsen Archives did come out with those figures again I think they would be, you know, there would be prosecutions and so on. But they have in three occasions come out with those figures and I think that is very credible. Partly because the way the data is broken down into the different German labour camps and also it’s compatible with the Death Books. The Arolsen Archive does give causes of death but that hasn’t been released. But we do have a letter from the manager, about 2006, the manager of the Archives saying there are no records of any deaths by gassing in the Arolsen Archives. That is a letter.
NK: I think that is quite significant. So those are two central primary and credible sources for that number of the people who died in the German labour camps.
HP: And those, just to clarify, those are German sources themselves? Right? We hear of course that they had meticulous documentation of everything. They were keeping up with the paper work and everything else, so what would you say to those people who say they didn’t write about those things. That this were things that were undocumented? How do we deal with that issue?
NK: The first one is German, Death Books of Auschwitz and the second one is not. The International Red Cross is not German and although it’s located in north Germany they are international and they have compiled this data.
I was able to write my book because of an astonishing discovery in England. Which is a different sort of data which is just as absolutely reliable and that is the British Intelligence Decrypts. For a whole twelve months British Intelligence was able to decrypt, crack German codes, at Bletchley Park, cracked the codes, decrypt the signals being sent out from the German labour camps.
[Image] Bletchley Park, where the Enigma codes were decrypted by British Intelligence.
So for a whole year you have all the accounts sent out, formally sent out from the camps to the National Socialist headquarters about how they were doing and about how things were going, from 1942 to 1943.
As well as the very fascinating accounts of what was going on in the camps. You have the total amount of people living in the camps. As I just alluded it’s broken down into four different groups. Now it’s different from the total number of people dying and it’s very interesting to compare the number of people alive in the camps with the number of people dying. You’ve got a daily record of how many people come into the camp and how many leave it in those British Intelligence Decrypts for each of the camps.
HP: And that is related to the famous Enigma Code, right?
HP: That one of the British, … Exactly, you got that data out of that particular, … when they broke that code they realised that something is going on, people are coming in and people are going out, there are deaths that are occurring, right?
NK: Right. The Enigma is famous for telling the British Intelligence about German submarines and so on. But no one talks about this data which was only released in the mid 90s, famously in the Death Books of Auschwitz. And no historians want to know about it, Henrik, because it fails to show any signs of the Holocaust, okay. There’s no trace of any Holocaust going on.
In what you overhear in these camp reports, there’s the great struggle to get useful work out of the different ethnic groups they had, moving around the camps. There are all sorts of accounts of people being sent to and from the different camps. I may add that there is no trace of any disrespect towards Jews. They are alluded to having various sets of skills in which their labour can be used. They are moved from one camp to another.
And then the shattering event in the middle of 42 was the arrival of typhus. And that primarily hit Auschwitz, I think other camps as well, and that was at least thought to be extinct and suddenly you get 30% of all the males in the Auschwitz camp dying in one month. And in the ensuing months in absolute horror as the German authorities try to suddenly get in the new protocol for dealing with it, which they called “Special Treatment“. And obviously Holocaust historians try to make out that, that is some process for exterminating people. The “Special Treatment” they implemented very swiftly involved building the delousing chambers, …
NK: … building the cremation ovens. Because you had huge number of people dying and the catch was that you could not bury people at Auschwitz as the ground was too damp as there were all sorts of rivers around. It would just pollute the entire water supply if you just bury people. So every body had to be burnt, it was rather macabre. So that was installed and all new arrivals had to get their clothes off, get shaved, get showered and all their clothing had to be deloused.
HP: Just to be clear there Nick, that is something that started then after, you say, after 1942, correct?
NK: It was mid 42, they started getting those protocols into place.
HP: Right, OK.
NK: I’ve been able to show, because I’ve been a school maths teacher, I do like a bit of number crunching actually, I was able to show whereas in August 42, 30% of the males died in one month. That went down by a factor of ten to about 3% a year later. So the cyanide gas chambers were very effective for the hygienic purposes for which they were designed.
People forget now that for about 40 years Zyklon was the standard hygiene technology for killing bugs. You had these granules that you had to warm slightly and cyanide came off, cyanide killed all the bugs and that took an hour or two in your gas chambers. Then you just put the clothes out to air, let the wind blow through them to get any cyanide out and that was it. It was a perfectly, pretty safe procedure. The operator didn’t even have to wear a gas mask. It was quite good German technology whereby the cyanide was used. Many times the cyanide was used in this way and I would say that this was relatively successful in coping with the big outbreak of typhus.
Now that is shown and described in the British Intelligence Decrypts. You get accounts for example in September 1942, the whole of Auschwitz is quarantined. No one can come or go because of this terrific disease raging and they were struggling to get it under control.
[Image] A can of Zyklon B and its contents.
NK: So, I would say you have a very dramatic close up view of the German labour camps through the British Intelligence Decrypts and virtually no historians want to know about them, for this reason.
NK: It fails to show the Holocaust going on.
HP: So these were kind of really hermetically sealed chambers, right, they were smaller, almost, some of them were housed to just fit the clothing in itself, right? So we have had this disconnect, from what I’ve been able to tell, between what was presented as a proof of gas chambers versus the chambers that they used to delouse the clothes. Is that correct?
NK: Absolutely correct. As you say they were hermetically sealed, ten cubic meters in volume, and they had a routine normal process. The whole world forgot about this at Nuremberg. The most extraordinary thing happened at Nuremberg in 46. This was a process of collective amnesia. By that time DDT was taking over as the new chemical for delousing clothes. And at Nuremberg just presenting a can of Zyklon was taken as evidence of some kind of homicidal intent. The narrative of the normal routine, ordinary hygiene technology was just blotted out. In fact I can give a simple definition of Holocaust denial in one sentence, Henrik. If you believe that normal hygiene technology worked in ordinary normal manner in the German labour camps and Zyklon did exactly what it was supposed to do, what it said on the can, then you are a Holocaust denial.
HP: Really! [laughting] Oh boy!
NK: This what I would say what it comes to. A normal good citizen has to believe in this terrific phantom hallucination of huge human gas chambers which, as a science historian, I just have to say they have never existed on planet earth, anywhere. They would be physical impossible if you tried to build them, make them work with the Zyklon. I don’t think you could use them. And the reason they never existed is that they wouldn’t work. That’s my conclusion as a science historian.
HP: And why is that? Why wouldn’t they work?
NK: Glad you asked Henrik! They had to be hermetically sealed, you have to get a 1,000 people, or how many you think you want into a huge chamber. Well, how do you do that? You get them all to crush in. Now if you can get it hermetically sealed then they’ll die far more quickly from asphyxiation than they would from putting these very slow release Zyklon tablets. So for a start if you could cram them all in to a hermetically sealed chamber you would never have any need to use Zyklon, OK. Then the chambers we have seen would be, what we are shown as the buildings, would easily be smashed. They had doors and windows that can be easily broken. And the famous one, that 30 million have trooped through at Auschwitz, has got a drain in the middle of the floor, so it was some kind of washroom.
[Image] Floor drains at the Auschwitz I’s alleged “gas chamber“.
NK: And if you had had cyanide draining through that would have poisoned the entire water supply and the whole camp would have got gassed [poisoned].
HP: And this would spread to the personnel themselves and this of course would mean that they would suffer from it to. I’ve seen some other footage of this and they are showing how the doors for example in some of these facilities didn’t go all the way down to the floor. It was not hermetically sealed. There was very rickety doors and there were windows in them, right?
NK: I recommend one to watch the David Cole video which he made in 1991, an absolute classic. A very shrewd young Jew who visited Auschwitz and gets the story out. And he manages to get the story out that the tourist’s gas chamber, that 30 million have gone through now, was built after the war by Stalin. A post War construction. It’s a kind of theater.
[Image]YouTube: DAVID COLE IN AUSCHWITZ | full documentary 1992
HP: Tell us about David Cole’s expose. What he brings to the table is excellent. We’ve tried to get him on the show by the way. We will see if we can do that in the future.
NK: All right.
HP: Tell us what people see today, the tourist attraction as it has become now. I guess we can talk about Auschwitz, first. There are many different camps of course as things went on there.
NK: OK. This is compulsory. School kids around Britain are sent to Auschwitz. Also, the kids are not taken to see the gas chambers, which I think is a great shame. Should go all the way. The little delousing chambers with the blue walls, they don’t see at all. They are not taken to see the swimming pool which again is a great shame. There’s quite an elegant swimming pool that has been done up now around the back of the base camp. So they don’t see that.
[Image] Auschwitz’s (Main Camp) swimming pool, located within the inmate area.
HP: For the inmates, that is what you are talking about?
NK: Yes, I think it was for the inmates, yes. Inmates and maybe for the SS too. I don’t know if they are shown the football pitch as David Cole pointed out. There’s a large football pitch in which SS officers and inmates played together. And that is just in the front of where the alleged human gas chambers was.
Now they are taken through this long, long room, which didn’t exist as such during the War. It has had a wall broken down in the middle I think. And during the War it had different purposes, maybe an air raid shelter and part of it was a washroom as we can see, and it has quite a flimsy door. What they have done is knocked huge, they have reconstructed the room with huge holes in the ceiling giving the message that Zyklon was put through these holes in the ceiling. There is no authentic building anywhere in any German labour camps with holes in the ceiling. Absolutely does not exist.
That is a post war construction, based on the imagination of what Hoess was forced to confess to after he had been tortured. You’ve got this phantom story of holes in the roof appearing.
HP: Right. And you show maps to of the facilities and the different components that people are not shown. We had of course even testimony about movies, theaters, they had orchestras and things like this. What is the disconnect here? Where are we getting the image of the construction if can call it that versus what you think really happened there. How can we separate those two and look at them? What is the truth? One version here…
[Image] Map of the three main camps that make up the Auschwitz complex (click to enlarge in new window).
HK: I think the best thing Henrik is to focus on what did happen and try to inform people what it was really for. What was it for? That is easy to answer. It was a hard working labour camp that had huge industrial processes going on. Monowitz was the huge chemical plant which had the tremendously advanced German technology of getting oil for the German war machine out of coal and coke. This was catalytic cracking which was quite advance at the time. There were various blast furnaces working at Auschwitz for manufacturing.
There was a synthetic rubber plant called buna which again was quite new advanced German chemistry. The rest of the world was getting its rubber from the jungles of Malaysia. This was synthetic rubber being made at Auschwitz. You can see the remains of various arms industry plants that inmates would trek out to every morning.
So the first simple answer as to what Auschwitz was for is that it was a hard working labour camp. This the first answer. And then in order to get efficient work out of the inmates and various reasons there we’re these amenities that you have mentioned. There was a theater, there were various different orchestras, there were films shown on weekends. There was a hospital. Anne Frank described her father being treated there, recovering. They had some quite advanced stuff there. There were a bakery, a brothel as something as a kind of reward. The inmates at Auschwitz had money.
[Image] Auschwitz I (main camp) layout with main facilities identified. Click to enlarge. (Note: A higher resolution PDF is available for download, at the end of this transcript.)
HP: They had their own currency.
NK: They could buy stuff like cigarettes if they were lucky and it was available. There wasn’t a lot they could buy. As far as I can make out, visits we’re allowed from certain periods, the wives could come and visit. There were postcards sent out from Auschwitz.
HP: Just to clarify one thing for people. I guess as well on top it you are saying that they were not there of their own free will, etc. This is not what we are talking about here. This is to show that the conditions at the work camps are not in accordance with descriptions that we get of them. It doesn’t mean that they weren’t there, … they we’re forcibly put there of course, they were prisoners.
NK: People trying to escape will be shot. And that is in the British decrypts of records of when people do get shot. For example when the big typhus epidemic broke out there is a record of a whole busload of Poles being taken out into the woods and shot. As I read it the Poles tried to introduce typhus into the staff, to give the staff that illness.
HP: Oh, really!
NK:They were suspected of having introduced it into the camp, so that was pay back for them. So there was discipline.
NK: Rudolf Hoess had strict disciplinary requirements whereby SS officers were not allowed to mistreat or beat or strike prisoners. There are accounts of SS officers being dismissed who did so. But this is very much ignored nowadays, with the issue. They got the nightmare image of Rudolf Hoess after they captured him, a British army hit squad captured him and tortured him for three days and three nights. Then he broke down with no sleep, and alcohol, and he just signed what they wrote out for him.
[Image] A handcuffed Rudolf Hoess, captured and tortured by the British. Note the soldier on the left, melodramatically holding a large black knife.
“Yes sure, I murdered two million people!“
And that is what he is famous for.
HP: Just to clarify again here. Obviously you wouldn’t want to kill your workers if they are part of an intricate industrial process of developing something, being armaments, rubber or what have you. Right. But at the same time you want to treat them in such a way that they continue to work. In other words when the typhus epidemic breaks out they are in effect trying to save the workers, the inmates. Is that correct?
NK: Absolutely. Let’s be clear about this. My book describes orders going out from the highest level, the National Socialist authorities;
“… the mortality in the camps must be reduced at all costs“.
This is done by hygiene and by improved food and nutrition. This had absolute priority. Those who advocate the Holocaust extermination thesis have been driven to the position now, there are so many indications now, where they have to admit now that there are no documents whatsoever that indicate any order to exterminate Jews or anybody else. And they are almost cornered into admitting that it was all done by ESP! That the drive to exterminate people was a shared mutual understanding without anything in writing, which is absolute nonsense!
[Image] The 1985 Zundel Trial in Canada in which the leading “holocaust expert”, Raul Hilberg admitted he knew of no scientific report that showed the existence of gas chambers in NS occupied territory.
Hilberg also has said:
“But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.“
Source: Quoted in George De Wan, “The Holocaust in Perspective”, Newsday (Long Island, New York), February 23, 1983, p. II/3.
And the documents that do exist give this mandate to reduce mortality. I think the concept of the death camp, … The death camps developed at the end of the war in 44 and 45, the grim horror as British carpet bombing, two and a half million tons on Europe. Bergen-Belsen had no food or water towards the end of the war. So everything they tried to set up in those camps went wrong and you did get this massive mortality, which obviously could be used in atrocity propaganda by the victors, and was.
HP: Now I want to ask you a little bit more later about what the Allies actually encountered when they come to some of these camps and what have you. Let’s just for a moment talk about the gas chambers and what do you think might have happened here because if the tourists that go there today are presented with a reconstruction, …
What do you think happened there? One we have the Soviets then, possibly building some of these things, a reconstruction as you said. How do you think this coincides with, let say, what the, quote, survivors, unquote, say in their testimony and agreeing to the story. I’ve always been curious to know, the agreement here, if there was ever, … And this is speculation I understand that, but do you think there was an agreement at some point of, let’s present this story or was there something kind of evolved over time and what we get today is a kind of a reconstruction of different parts.
NK: If you look, before Hoess’s testimony, you look at stories of gas chambers as it converts into the nightmare of confusion of war, there were rumours, Auschwitz has got gas chambers. Certainly there were these rumours, and of you look at them these don’t bear any relation to what Hoess confessed to. It’s not similar. Once the whole thing had been stamped at Nuremberg and made official that then became the consensus, the entire postwar consensus of what you had to believe.
Hoess originally confessed to a shower unit and out of that would com gas instead of water and everyone would drop down dead. People said that this might not work really well because hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air, so it would stay at the top. Also the Zyklon granules give off gas slowly so it wouldn’t be easy to get it piped along and coming out of shower units.
So it was then modified. The second version of Hoess’s thing had holes knocked in the roof and the SS people shoved it [Zyklon B] down through the roof. That still wasn’t good enough, so people imagined a third version that there were some sort of tubes from the roof down to the ground, and you get complicated drawings of it. Which are quite imaginary whereby Zyklon was inserted. And that became a post war consensus then and the victorious nations did want to “do in” the ethos of the German people. I think they all shared that wish for various reasons and they agreed on this narrative.
HP: So let’s talk a bit later here about the survivors and what they say and what have you. But before we go there let’s talk about the Allies. What they encountered when they got to the camps. And of course we do have footage of massive amounts of bodies. As you said, there’s carnage, … We have a typhus epidemic, that you have described, on the one hand, but there are other thing that are happening at the same time, because we’ve had German supply lines, of course, cut off. We had the tremendous chaos of war itself which creates maybe not a priority to take care of the inmates at these kind of camps, but it goes to the war effort itself. So what happened here at the end of the war? Did this spiral out of control and did you get more and more deaths as a consequence?
[Image – click to enlarge] On two occasions a bulldozer, operated by 14322433 Sapper Frank Chapman, 619 Field Park Company, Royal Engineers, was used to push badly decomposed bodies into mass graves. This photo shows them being pushed into Mass Grave 1, with Block 16 II in the background. (Illustration from War Crimes Trials Vol II, The Belsen Trial) Dated: 17 April 1945
NK: Can I just say, what happened at Bergen-Belsen. There’s a famous picture of a bulldozer shoveling loads of corpses into a big ditch and that is somehow supposed to be linked up with the Holocaust. It’s actually an English soldier in that bulldozer after the war and the piles of the dead are absolutely famished and you can see their ribs sticking out. They’ve died of famine, basically. They are so thin and starving that this is evidence against the gassing hypothesis.
NK: In fact, the Americans sent their top pathologist, Charles Larson*, to investigate, to find out what had happened to all these dead bodies. He then went to Dachau and Auschwitz immediately after the war [NK misspoke here regarding Larsen going to Auschwitz, as it is in Poland and was under Soviet control]. And he refused to say that any of them [bodies] had been gassed. He said:
“No, this is typhus, … this is famine.”
He was quite eminent for post-mortem analysis in America. There’s a book about him, “Crime Doctor” and he would not say that they were gassed.
“It was the policy to burn the bodies in all the camps, but in the last months of the war, the bodies at Dachau had been buried on a hill called Leitenberg. One of the mass graves on Leitenberg was opened and Dr. Charles Larson, a leading forensic pathologist, who was with the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Department (JAGD), performed autopsies on hundreds of bodies without finding any that showed evidence of poison gas.“]
NK: If I can just come back to what we were saying immediately before Henrik, as to what the building were, that were imagined to be gas chambers. You’ve got the small little buildings outside in Birkenau [Auschwitz II camp] and so on which are written out of history as the delousing chambers and those were ignored at Nuremberg and after the war the walls slowly turned blue and that is mother nature, as it were, playing a trump card, showing you where the cyanide was actually used and that is what revisionists latched on to in the 80s when revisionism really got going with the Zundel trials in Canada. They went and measured where the blue colour was and that was the clue.
Now, in the central German labour camps you’ve got two types of building; one was the morgue – this was next to where all the furnaces [crematoria] were – and the morgue was where all the stiffs were stored up and this is quite a cold building with very slow ventilation, and the other was the wash rooms. So, those both really existed.
NK: Out of those writing the Holocaust textbooks imagine what those called “KREMA” – that’s what they called them, K-R-E-M-A, which they imagine as being huge human gas chambers and if you actually look at what they actually physically were, they were one of those two types of room; either a wash room or a place for storing stiffs – a morgue and those rooms were actually being used as such during the war – they were not vacant rooms available for some other use. So, when the retreating Nazis, as it were, left the camps, there was nothing resembling a human gas chamber anywhere. There were some blown up buildings or shattered buildings and people said:
“Oh well, of course, the evil Nazis destroyed all records.”
NK:They’ve been credited with these powers of getting rid of the evidence.
HP: That doesn’t help us, does it? The burden of proof is still on those who try to claim something has happened, right, and not the other way round, correct?
NK: It should, it should be, yes.
NK: The whole image of a human gas chamber is a phantom hallucination and it hovers around the actual gas chambers, which, at least in this country, nobody wants to know about, which is quite normal hygiene technology, and the image of these huge, terrifically efficient gas chambers that killed a thousand people in twenty minutes, this is a kind of transcendental mythos and it’s almost not available to factual debate and discussion, you know.
HP: No, it isn’t, that’s just it, it’s shut down immediately, right away, you know, just as you got suspicious about that, I agree with that, I get suspicious about that too; why can’t we talk about it, right?
NK: Is it a new religion, for example? Is this a transcendental world religion, a Holocaustian faith that is taking over? Is this a compulsory New World religion?
NK: In which this vision of ghastly horror is at the centre of it and which, for no reason, Nazis wanted to gas millions of Jews and had this technology that never existed before the war and never existed after the war, only existed in Poland and somehow they could use to kill millions of people without any physical trace of anything left. This is all non-physical, it’s metaphysical, it’s a kind of transcendent mythos, … most people have compared it to the witch trials.
NK: … where they used to burn witches. They said:
“Well, you’ve been to a Witches Sabbath, haven’t you?“
and they would then say:
And the judge would say:
“Well, look, I’m not sure we really need to burn this old woman. Couldn’t we just let her off?“
and they would then say:
“Oh no, lenient judge!“
And the lenient judge would also be convicted.
NK: That’s a bit like what’s happening in Germany now. Lawyers don’t dare defend so called Holocaust deniers because they themselves get tried then.
HP: Right, exactly.
NK: Like Sylvia Stolz got tried because she defended Ernst Zundel.
HP: Yes, yes, that’s correct. Let’s get to more later here of the propaganda aspect to the – both the Allied propaganda, of the re-constructions, the fabrications, the cover-up and the reasons for this later – we have so much more to cover here, but let’s go through it, as much as we can here, work our way forward. Let’s talk about the logistics a little bit and how many would have to pass through a lot of these facilities to reach the number we’re told.
I saw a very interesting film made called “One Third of the Holocaust”, which showed the impossibility of the vast graves, I guess you could call it, themselves of how much room you would have to make to be able to …
[Image] Screenshot of the video, One Third of the Holocaust.
Click here or copy link to view (in new window):
Published on Feb 12, 2013
Holocaust Revisionists and Historians claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II ~ usually referred to as the Holocaust did not occur at all (seldom) or in the manner or to the extent historically recognized.
Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following :: that the German Nazi Government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews for extermination as a people; that more than six million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at Concentration Camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers etc etc. An Extensive documentary showing the lengths Zionists went to in order to bring about their goal of achieving the illegal state of Israel.
NK: Was that about Treblinka?
HP: Yes, exactly.
NK: Yes, that is so good, that story, I just love it, you know!
HP: Because they show the math. They show what you would have to do, how much you would have to dig up to bury all the bodies and everything. And when you realise the numbers, that’s what I was shocked about, when you realise the numbers, you realise how much of an area you would have to cover. I know there are stories of this aspect that they later dug them up and burned them again and crushed their bones and things like that. It’s a tremendous work process nonetheless, but tell us about the logistics, and the numbers and all these issues.
NK: Again, it’s like a phantom hallucination. Treblinka, now, is a wide open green field, slight undulations on it, with trees around it, OK. Nobody has found any gassed bodies or any dead bodies apart from a Christian burial ground nearby. Nobody’s found any trace of gas chambers. We had the Birmingham science department send a survey over there and [they] had some ground penetrating radar and there was a big hoo-ha promoted by the BBC and there were these people saying:
“Oh, this refutes the views of revisionists.”, you know. “We’ve shown the dreadful things that went on at Treblinka.”
And it’s just an open field with maybe some stones underneath it – I mean Treblinka was what we call a transit camp – Operation Rheinhart and it’s on the Eastern border of Poland. We’ve talked about the labour camps. There were [also] a few transit camps, which did not have the character of trying to get labour out of people, but were camps where people passed through quite quickly.
Sobibor, Belzac, Treblinka, were the main ones, OK, and they were near the border of Poland/Russia. I think, … revisionists tend to surmise this was because of the change in railway gauge as trains went out from Poland and [into] Russia. You had to stop and get off and Treblinka was quite near this railway junction and I think they’d come there to be deloused [and] just to get fed a bit on their way out east.
Perhaps I can mention here, Hendrik, there were, as it were, two different purposes to the German labour camps: the initial purpose was to, as it were, to get Jews out of Germany,flush them out travelling [moving them] eastwards. So, the “Endlösung der Judenfrage”, what people call the “Final Solution”, which is meant the goal, the solution of the Jewish question. Germany finally wanted most of its Jews to leave and they were sent out eastwards, towards Poland. And that was the initial impulse, I think, of the German camps. Then it became difficult or impossible for many of those camps, for the Jews to be sent [to] where Germany hoped they could be sent.
The main plan actually, was Madagascar, which they got some sort of agreement with the French, who owned the island, to send Jews out to. Which was a paradise island, a rather lovely solution I think. Unspoilt paradise island and then that became unfeasible and then around about the beginning of 1942 you got what you might call a second phase where they were saying:
“Well, OK, you got these people here and we’re going to get useful work out of them.”
And that became, as it were, the second phase. So, these camps, like Treblinka, which were transit camps under Operation Rheinhard, just had people staying for a short time. There’s controversy about how many people were at Treblinka but it’s a fairly small little camp. Just let me stress, there’s no evidence of people being killed there. You’ve got stories, you’ve got terrific stories of course.
HP: How do you think those came about? That’s another thing here.
NK: I can give a fairly straightforward answer to that. Firstly, Jews got Israel out of these stories. It became evident after Nuremberg Jews were going to get Israel out of these stories. That’s one hell of a motivation.
NK: The second thing is Germany started paying any Holocaust survivor. So, anyone with a story would get paid by Germany.
HP: Right, exactly.
NK: Which is the worst possible motivation for people making up these stories. Germany has now spent well over 100 billion Deutsche Marks, OK. It’s had about six million claims by alleged Holocaust survivors.
It’s had about six million claims put in by alleged Holocaust survivors. That’s the real six million claims put in. It’s given to about four million of them. Since WW II it’s given money to about four million alleged Holocaust survivors and it’s still paying out. Something like two billion a year, which mainly goes into the coffers of Israel.
HP: Yes, tremendous amount of money. I just want to mention something, a quote I read a while back. I don’t know who it’s from unfortunately, but they said, and I thought the point was good because it stresses the issue that if you’re paying money for something you should be able to expect evidence for it. Anyway the quote is:
“Whenever you make a long term disability claim against an insurance company or the government they repeatedly expect you to prove the damages and reprove them. They do not just take your word that you have been injured”.
So when Israel sold the Holocaust for political and economic gain, Israel opened the Holocaust to repeated questioning when Israel took monetary damages and rewards from Germany and around the world. Israel gave them the right to question and demand proof of the Holocaust. And I thought that was quite good way of looking at this, right, that you would.
NK: Yes, I think that is a very fair way of looking at it Henrik. As we have seen there is no one allowed in Germany to do that. No one is allowed to doubt the story in Germany or you suffer the same fate as Silvia Stoltz in trying to defend someone legally. Germany puts in jail quite a lot of people, one or two thousand a year, mostly for thought crimes. There has been a lot of books burnt in Germany and a lot of people put in jail. I think the number is going up. So if people are aghast in countries where it’s not yet a crime to doubt the subject that can help. I’m very pro German myself. I love the culture of Germany. I have a reverence for the glorious country of Germany.
HP: Do you think this has helped to completely destroy their culture and impose such a guilt that the Germany as we knew it is no longer there. What has the damage been towards them?
NK: [laughing] I would think so. I mean they are a very successful post-war culture. But their pride in their culture and nation has been blotted out, I would think.
HP: This another thing that I want to mention here as well, because there’s a difference I would say personally, you might have your own view on this, but, what they claim to be denying the Holocaust as opposed to questioning, how people were, because of course there were people killed there, there were a lot of bodies that were found. It’s not about that, it’s about whether it was a strategic, intentional effort to kill as many as possible, etc. But, the very term Holocaust denier is one of those circular sentences, or whatever you call it, kind of like, “When did you stop beating your wife?” it doesn’t matter what you say. If you say “Yes” you’re a Holocaust denier. If you say, “Yes” then you agree it happened. If you say, “No” you also agree that it happened. So I guess what you are saying is that you take a different position, which is basically;
“I’m looking at the science of this, I’m trying to figure out what happened, why did it happen, are there political and monetary reasons for this, is this part of allied war propaganda and the Soviets intention to destroy Germany. Because what I find interesting too is that there is other circumstantial evidence that we can add to the pile of the, desire, for lack of a better term, to destroy Germany, even before the War.”
There is a lot of literature written about this, a lot of politicians in Britain to, like Churchill, who talked about this, that this is the destruction of Germany itself. He even said that it doesn’t matter if it’s Nazis, or what have you, the war is on Germany. When you piece a lot of these things together you realize,
“What if they jumped on this opportunity as a way to try to put a nail, as it were, in the coffin of Germany” right?
NK: Yes, yes. A wonderful European culture has had this amazing lie put upon it. To come book to your question about are we denying the Holocaust and what is the Holocaust? I think we could probably agree that this is the worst collective experience that European Jews went through. They were uprooted, they were forced out of their homes and a lot of them did die in the war. I think the number that did die is not greater than in a war where 60 million died, you’ve got maybe two per cent of Jews in Europe or something like that and that gives you very roughly the number of Jews who died.
There is no evidence of selective dying of Jews. In many ways they were fortunate because they were moved out of German cities which were then incinerated. So they avoided that ghastly horror of being burnt alive in German cities and they were isn’t out to Poland which was relatively safer in many ways. In many ways being in a labour camp was safer than being in a Germany city. And that helped them survive.
HP: Let me just ask you, and I know you don’t necessarily take too much of a political view on this. I know that it’s more about the science here so I don’t want to get sidetracked, but none-the-less I know that there are things like trade wars and things like that that have occurred and before that. We have an interesting document called the Transfer Agreement, but not only that we have when Judea declared trade war on Germany. So there’s a lot of that, at the run up of this, that actually created the type of scenario of why you had the separation, … Or the way that Germany wanted to break free to that extent. I don’t know your view on that.
NK: My view is that I don’t see why Germany should feel guilty about it. I mean it started in 1293 when British people, sorry, the king of England kicked out the Jews, told them to go, and I think just about every country in Europe has done that at one time or another.
NK: Now in the 1930s Judea declared war against Germany. It was a massive economic boycott all over the world of German goods when Germany and to export to get the food that it needed and it finally decided that these are like, … They are behaving like an enemy of Germany. So they were put into labour camps for the exact same reason that Americans put Japanese in labour camps after Pearl Harbor. They decided that these were enemy aliens and I can’t see anything wrong about this.
If Jews are behaving in ways that is not friendly to their host country I would have thought that they would expect something to happen. I could add Henrik the there were many Jews that remained there. The Berlin synagogue remained open throughout the war as my book describes and there was also a Berlin hospital for Jews that remained open during the war. And the Jews of Berlin were a damn more frightened of Britain American bombing than they were of the Nazis.
So it wasn’t a total flushing out of Jews. It was basically Jews who had power. They [the Germans] wanted Germany for the Germans. They succeeded in getting a German National Bank, not controlled by the Rothschilds. I suspect they are the only country in Europe that ever managed to do that.
HP: Now there’s a tremendously important point that people miss as well and it’s the fact that we and a country which dared to defy the globalist bankers at the time as it were. That I feel is a huge reasoning for why what happened, happened. To specifically put to Germany, …
NK: You’re absolutely right.
HP: They descended on Germany during the war and bombed them to smithereens. Just to re-emphazise that point, they tried to break away from the banking system. They tried to run things on their own. And this is like something that was highly taboo at the time, as it is today as well, as we have seen. I’ve made the reference before that we’ve seen countries that haven’t been tied to the global banking system like Iraq or Libya, certain countries being invaded in much the same way and toppled. And the first thing that has happened is that a central bank has gotten in place there. And the country has gotten under the control of foreign interests. Germany is like one of the first countries, well not the first of course, since they had broken out of the system that was already in place in Europe they were to be punished for their deeds, for their attempt to try to do what they tried to do, right?
HP: …they were to be punished for their deeds..for their attempts to do what they tried to do, right?
NK: Yes, yes, and right through the thirties, Jews were saying:
“We will bring war on Germany.”
“Germany will have war whether they want it or not.”
“Germany is going to be destroyed by war.”
[Image] Judea Declares War on Germany, 1933 — Jews of All the World Unite In Action (click image to enlarge).
They were predicting that they had the power to do it, and once war broke out, Jewish sources were saying:
“This is our war, we’ve got it going, and we are with you.”
So, this is part of the mystery of our 20th century history, how a small group apparently has the power to do that and what’s going on, is, a rather hidden and obscure matter.
NK: But I think the fact that Germany decided to do what every country in Europe had decided to do at one time or another is not a cause of undying shame for Germany.
HP: Yes, definitely. Now there’s a lot of other things I’d want to ask you about here, more about the reasoning behind this, to get into the details. We want to talk more about the Nuremberg Trials, we want to talk about how Germany was destroyed by bombs after this and you’ve dug out some of the numbers for this as well. There’s also more science here, of course, and testimony and things like that we need to discuss. But, we’re going to take a short break here between the segments and before we do that, I want to ask you about your web sites. I want to ask you to give your details, of course, about the book we’re talking about, “Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality” and where do people go to pick up a copy of the book if they want to read more about this and see what you’ve found.
NK: Oh well, you just get it off Amazon, I suppose. But I feel very proud of this book. It’s very personal. Personally working through how I responded to this and also, may I add, that it’s published by Germar Rudolf, who’s a scientist, who was likewise put in jail in Germany, and he’s checked through it. And I feel a great confidence every fact in this book is correct. I think it’s a reliable source now and I’m claiming it’s the only British textbook on the subject.
There are hundreds, maybe tens of thousands of pro-Holocaust books published, but I think this is the one revisionist textbook published in Britain and so I feel quite proud of it. And it tries to take the kind of approach we’ve been discussing, Hendrik, which is based on scientific rational discussion and debate, and it’s opposing this new religion, this compulsory new religion with a priesthood that tells us what we have to believe.
HP: Very good. A lot more I want to ask you about in the next segment here as we continue. A lot more things to discuss here, but in the meantime as well, I just want to mention your web sites here. We have, of course, the web sites about the 7/7 London bombings, is “terroronthetube.co.uk”.
HP: That’s your other website and then, of course, you have also, “whatreallyhappened.info” and that’s more a website pertaining to the issue we’re talking about today.
NK: I could perhaps say there’s a group of us British revisionists that meet up, and it’s quite a courageous thing for us to do, it hasn’t happened before and we sort of rap about things and I think that, that very much gave me the courage to write a book, having a bunch of people, different points of view, that we could, you know, talk about the ultimately forbidden things.
HP: Yes, well, exactly, you’re right. This is the taboo, if ever there was one, and this is the one subject you’re not allowed to talk about and so I think it’s very important that you do just for the sake of historical accuracy, just for the sake of offering a different opinion. Just for the sake of offering something which is, you know, not in line with what everyone else is saying and then people who are into academic diversity and questioning things, I see no reason whatsoever, even with all their emotion in mind, why they should not encourage that something like this is talked about. And I think it’s even worse than that. That we do have governments and organisations actively going after people who are, … these are not crimes, but they try to pin it as that, of course.
NK: Yes, right.
HP: But they’re not, they are simply re-evaluations of history, questioning the material that is available and, yes, we’ll talk more about that in the second [part] here, but it’s almost like this disconnect that begins to happen, … it can be quite frightening that when you realise the rest of the world is in, … they’re in some kind of haze and complete mind control about the issue and things that you found Nick …
NK: Yes, right, right.
HP: … where you realise:
“My God! How can people not see some of this evidence that contradicts the story that we’ve been told,” you know, it’s the ultimate “false flag” really.
But we’ll talk more about in the second segment, so stay with us Nick, stay with us everybody, we’ll be right back with more.
[End of Part 1]
[Start of Part 2]
HP: And welcome back everybody! We are talking about the forbidden subject, the Holocaust, with Nick Kollerstrom. And of course it isn’t just THE Holocaust, because there’s been a lot of Holocausts of you want to call it that, around the world in different capacities. We’ve had Holocausts of Ukrainians, we’ve had Holocausts of Armenian people, we’ve had Holocaust of Swedish people when Christianity came into our northern lands.
There’s a lot of these destructive tendencies by a lot of different people around the world. But, this one for some reason Nick, has been really seared out as the one and the only. And this I believe is the only one as well that you are not allowed to, to question in a lot of countries around the world. There is no other treatment, this is really singled out as a unique event in human history.
NK: Yes, yes. And it gets very much taught in classes. It is massively taught and indoctrinated in schools. And I’m told in America that if people want to talk about the American native Holocaust they are not allowed to. They are told to just forget will you? Just get over it. Whereas this one the motto is, never forget [and never forgive]. In this country [UK] it is more heavily taught than anything else. You get it in religion, you get it in history, you get it in social awareness classes, in drama, and the poor kids get it thrust down their throats from the age of seven onwards.
They are taught how to hate, they are taught who to hate and how to hate by these classes. I think our culture is getting very much deformed by it. I could just mention, Henrik, we’ve just past Holocaust Memorial Day, which has to be honored by everyone. And we hear in London about plans for a massive new “Holo Temple” which is going to be built on the banks of the Thames, so that everyone will see it. And we already got a huge Holocaust museum [Holohoax nauseum — katana] in south London and we’ve got sculpture and stuff all over the place, so I would have thought with had enough to keep us remembering.
[Image – click to enlarge] Proposed site (Potters Field) for a new “Holohoax Nauseum“.
HP: Yes, it’s definitely a constant reminder in that regard. It’s always been fascinating to me, considering how many people died in the Soviet Union for example, and human history is full of atrocities.
NK: But they don’t count!
HP: Right, they don’t count. Exactly.
NK: Fact is sixty million died in World War II, and they hardly count.
HP: Exactly, exactly. It was a Holocaust of European people. Both world wars have been a tremendous shock to the European people, but they don’t have, yes, sure you have some cenotaphs in Britain commemorating the victory over Germany, I guess. It not about commemorating the victims, right?
NK: Certainly not, no.
HP: So, before we go further into this and talk more Nick, about how you were treated at the University, how you were thrown out and some of the other issues behind that, let’s talk a bit more about the science behind this. Because the is really the key, of course, of getting people to understand that there is something important here. You mentioned Fred Leuchter, you mentioned Germar Rudolf and some of the other people who have done some work on this. What are some of the other aspects of…
NK: Let me say as a science historian, my training is that go to primary source data. That is you don’t get secondary or tertiary sources, or what other people say, or Hollywood movies. You discover the primary sources and that is what I like doing, OK. And that is why it was such a delight for me to find the British Intelligence Decrypts and we put them up on our website. And we’ve put various graphs showing the figures they use, comparing with the graphs from the Death Books [of Auschwitz].
Sometimes you get really good sound data, for example, the camp Dachau was liberated by the Americans at the end of the war and they gave total mortality for Nuremberg. It was written down month by month and you can see about five or ten people a day dying, month by month, and then it peaks. A terrible peak at the end of the war. You get one or to hundred people dying a day, as we’ve discussed. Now that is real data, that is real information and it’s raw data and it’s not mythologized.
The mythologizing increases things by two orders of magnitude. I indicated you got something like 40,000 Jews die at Auschwitz. You got about, roughly about 40% of the population of the German labour camps were Jews, and that 40,000 goes up to four million, which the Soviets report after they liberated Auschwitz. They report four million dead.
HP: What’s at the base of that? Because of 40,000 to for million, I mean that is two more zeros, right.
NK: Well the base of it is that everyone believed the Soviets because they liberated Auschwitz and everyone knew that the Soviets had the data. It’s quite a difficult question to answer. Let me answer it this way, Henrik.
The figure of six million has been passing through the 20th century as a kind of satanic mantra that kept going the whole bloody time. It started in the 1890s and right at the beginning it was an American Jewish fund raising ploy. Six million Jews in Europe are in trouble. And the initial six million figures were from Russia. Russian Jews are in trouble, Russian Jews are about to do this, this might happen to them. Either they are dying, or they are in danger, or they are being famished.
I have a whole chapter listing, nearly 200 of these useful headlines about six million Jews.
Then in the 1930s it shifts further to Germany with Hitler. You have got six million Jews in danger because of Hitler.
And finally at Nuremberg it become in the past tense, six million Jews have died.
Now there is nothing remotely resembling an account that gives you that figure. There’s nothing like an accounting or adding up to give you that figure at Nuremberg. The figure, four million, that the Soviets came out with obviously fits in with the six million figure. Four million died the Soviets announced, a preposterous figure that was written on stone at Birkenau [Auschwitz II], written on stone and this feeds into the six million figure that becomes a weird mantra that goes through the 20th century.
[Image – click to enlarge]
In fact it’s one of the three components of what you have to believe.
To be a Holocaust believer you have to believe three things. One that Germany intended to exterminate a particular ethnic, the Jews. Two they did it by huge cyanide gas chambers. And three that six million were killed. There is no trace of truth in any of those three statements, but the six million figure is compulsory.
HP: Right, someone did a You-tube video, the we can link to, they showed the various times throughout history, all the way back to, was it the 1800s, sometimes when it picked up in some of the newspapers, started being circulated, the six million.
NK: Really, I’ve never heard that. That is amazing. Now I only heard it beginning at the the end of the 19th century.
HP: Right OK. Maybe that is what it was exactly. But my point being it was over a long period of time before the Second World War that this number was repeated in a lot of different papers, correct?
HP: So that is showing something else behind it. I think it was actually Jim Fetzer, your colleague or friend if I may call him that. That actually brought out another interesting point that I heard, which was, allegedly in Levicticus [that] there was an ideological background, possibly a religious aspect to this. Where the righteous, the chosen could only return to Israel once this sacrifice had been made, of some kind. Do you know if that is true? I haven’t read that particular passage.
NK: Well Hebrew math didn’t have a zero to it, so I’m not sure whether they could count up to six million, but there is 600,000 as the total number of Jews that come out of Egypt at one point. They do a formidable feat of arithmetic and get 600,000. So at some point in the Old Testament that arithmetic is done. But I can’t comment any further.
HP: That’s OK. I was just alluding to this idea, that the idea of a Holocaust, a burnt sacrificial victim, right, which it actually means.
NK: Yes, let’s focus on that. That is a fiery term, and old timers will remember that is the nuclear holocaust. Now the correct use, meaning of the term is something fiery and total. This the literal meaning of the word holocaust. Total, “holocaust”, “caust”, fiery. Now how did they get that tremendously heavy word holocaust? They got it by original stories, which may strain listeners credulity of huge burning pyres of bodies. You get stories coming out, oh, yeah, huge piles of bodies and somehow the fat in the bodies burns. So the stories you get at Nuremberg are really, really bad science. That the bodies are inflammable, that you can have a pile of bodies and light them and they will burn.
HP: There’s a lot of water in bodies. It takes a lot of fuel to burn a human body.
NK: Absolutely, yes. In fact Eli Wiesel in his book Night, he’s like the messiah of the Holocaust, recently reclassified as the world’s greatest liar. He stole someone’s identity and wasn’t there and hasn’t got a tattoo on his arm. His book sold twelve million. It’s called Night. It’s used in all sorts of American Holocaust studies all over the place. And that has no gas chambers, no gas chamber, but it has huge pyres of burning bodies. It has lorry loads of little kids being thrown onto these burning pyres, this sort of thing. So the original hellish images conjured up enabled them to use the original Holocaust term. And for scoffing unbelievers, if you don’t believe that, if it’s difficult to believe it, just watch the Shindler film, Shindler’s List, that describes this and shows these burning pyres.
HP: And that’s of course, unfortunately where a lot of people get their information from. There is of course a huge academic background to this, as you have said, which have largely dismissed a lot of this. So it seems then to be more of deception by omission, I suppose, instead of deception by fabrication, at least from the academic world.
Then you have the entertainment sector, Hollywood has kind of latched on to this and continues to ring impose the vision into peoples heads. I’ve noticed in many cases it’s not as much about as looking at a movie about the Holocaust, as it is about constantly being subjected to the repetition. It’s like a meme, you can watch a nature show, a documentary, a docu-soap, a mockumentary, you can watch an unrelated show on, you know, whatever, a history channel that is not about World War II. Here I notice it is brought up to surface all the time, it’s repeated and I think that it’s this mantra, repetition that makes it, …
NK: It is strange.
NK: A friend of mine tells me that in British newspapers, about once a week there’s a Holocaust story.
HP: Exactly, keep it alive, keep it going all the time.
NK: About once a week it comes up. Why do people want this? Do they need the guilt? It gives them an ever flowing river of guilt, which translates into payments towards Israel and the support of Israel. I think we need to tell people that we are not guilty, it didn’t happen. Just get out of this guilt.
HP: Today it’s used as guilt towards the West, not only Germany, it has kind of transformed now where all of Europe in some way is supposed to feel guilt in that they didn’t do more to stop the Holocaust. Am I correct?
NK: Yes, right. And guilt about the Christian religion, as if that somehow if God permits six million Jewish to be killed for no reason, that is a basis for modern despair and nihilism, I think. The modern religion of the Holocaust is based on that kind of bleak despair that causes people to give up their belief they had in a good world or a good God or whatever.
HP: Well, exactly. It really anchors almost, a deity like Darth Vader, Satan out of the bible, as something that was real and existed on the earth and he was called Hitler, right?
NK: Yes. So you get images of ultimate evil, Hitler and Auschwitz.
As you may know I don’t favour discussions about Hitler because it is so emotional and so heavily demonized, but I do favour discussion about Auschwitz. Concrete physical discussions about what actually happened there and the arithmetic of who lived there and who died there and who passed through. That seems to me to be real world, physical, real world discussions. Trying to wake up and smell the coffee and accept it’s not the business of historians to find ultimate evil in one particular place or time. That kind of judgment isn’t our business.
Because, as you said, so many things consequently have happened after the Second World War, where we not only, of course, have planned extermination of Germans in the prison camps, like Eisenhower’s prison camps.
NK: Eisenhower, yes, right.
[Images: Eisenhower’s Rhine River Camps.]
HP: You have bombings, you know, of Dresden and Hamburg and I think you mentioned, how many tons of bombs were dropped on Germany by Americans [and the British], I think you had a number on that, didn’t you?
NK: Central Europe, 2.5 million. That isn’t just Germany. But, mainly Germany.
HP: OK, 2.5 million tons of bombs.
NK: Yes, yes.
HP: Unbelievable, yes. So, there’s been certain, I guess, exaggerations. We can return to the numbers question here a little bit as well, but certain exaggerations that have, as far as I understand the situation, have been retracted or simply dropped, not focused on in recent years, for example….
NK: I think it’s partly people wondering, “Why did we fight the war?”, you know, at Nuremberg, why did nobody mention that 2.5 million tons of bombs have been dropped? All this self righteous moral posturing. How come the “victors” could avoid mentioning that they’d incinerated all these cities? “Oh no, no, we don’t want to talk about that.”
So, I think the holocaust is a mythos; part of it’s function is stop British people having to consider why that war was. Why is Britain a country that always starts wars and normally wins them? And, in this case, I don’t think with either world war against Germany, it’s really faced up to why it did that or what the war was for, and the holocaust, as it were, prevents you from having to do that.
Now, let me ask you something, Hendrik.
NK: Can you imagine debate being allowed in Europe? Because that’s what puzzles me most of all. I mean, I belong to a “Truth Movement” group, right. I love all this, you know, to chat about conspiracy and who’s done what and, you know, a 9/11 Truth group and so on.
NK: And they all say:
“Oh, no, we can’t talk about that, oh God no, oh no. We’ll have to chuck you out if you want to talk about that.”
NK: And it’s partly because there are such deep emotions that are involved.
HP: Sure, of course.
NK: The web-sites say:
“No, we’re not discussing any holocaust issues, because it’s as if people, as it were, go over the top.”
Now, I personally feel that is catharsis and is exactly what we most need. We do need emotional discussion in which abuse and insult is not permitted.
HP: Right, yes.
NK: OK, we can be passionate and talk about what really happened. Let’s have Germans, Jews, and different European nations talking about what the hell we think happened.
NK: Who suffered most, and maybe whose fault is for what, and can we please allow a discussion. And I just don’t’ get the way, we’re not allowed to talk about it. It’s really strange for me.
HP: It is really amazing, because by covering it up in the way that they have, it’s really just, kind of, exacerbating the problem. And it’s almost also creating this intense division. And I’ve seen this, I want to make an analogy here to other events in history, where I’ve seen that they create such rifts in the population, and bear with me here for a moment, but it’s like if you take 9/11, for example.
HP: Those people who begin to investigate it, they realise what a tremendous lie it is. They might not have all the intricacies of exactly how, or exactly, you know, why or exactly who, but they’ve researched enough to discover that there’s something amiss with the official story. It means it’s either a misrepresentation, either they’re not telling us all the facts and figures or, what have you. The clear evidence indicates something is wrong and we can discover discrepancies in, right. But when you do that, you create immediately, like, two different camps and one camp that has started looking at the evidence, they almost get…. They feel so alienated over this very aspect that the other crowd refuses to look at the reality of the situation because….
HP: They’ve been, they haven’t looked into it, usually, for themselves, they have only heard the mainstream media version of it, they’ve heard the theatrical movie version of it and they’re absolutely convinced that it happened and they are equally upset with you. Over the aspect that you are even talking about this and that you are not believing it. And the other camp is equally upset about them for refusing to look at the evidence.
Voila [wah-lah], we’ve created this kind of wedge issue really, which is the truth in this case where you get polarization where these different side refuse to talk with each other, refuse to look at it. And I feel that this is the same issue that has occurred here, that it is so charged, it is so emotionally loaded that to get these camps talking with each other seems like an impossibility at this stage. Right?
NK: Yes, it’s very strange isn’t it?
HP: Very strange.
NK: Germany was the Christian heart of Europe and deeply mythical, and metaphysical, and a mystical culture, poets, musicians, artists, mystics, and it gets ferociously attacked, twice.
HP: That’s right.
NK: And now we’ve got a very empty commercial, consumerist orientated Anglo-American culture dominating Europe, instead.
HP: With cultural erosion you have multiculturalism. You have all these things that are completely destroying the people of Europe isn’t it.
NK: Yes. That’s another thing. There’s one place that I can go to discuss these matters. And that is what is called a right wing or a new right wing, new right meetings which have to be held in a sort of semi secret manner. But a large number of people want to come to them and they are people liking at cultural identities. Who are we? Can we keep our heritage? What it means to be British and so on. Is that all going to disappear? Can we keep it? This is ethically damned, as far right. I don’t know what far right means.
HP: I don’t know either.
NK: If you are in favour of your traditional national culture, you are called far right. And there [at these meetings] people who do like talking about it.
HP: That’s right.
NK: I can have chats about it, and it’s a great relief to me to be able to do that. It’s something I like taking about.
HP: Without being persecuted for your “thought crime” opinions, right?
NK: Yes. I would like to see a truth movement that does open up and can handle this business.
HP: I know. I agree.
NK: It seems to me that after 70 years after World War II we ought to be capable of evaluating what happened then.
NK: It’s only Iran. Iran is the one country that makes the most statements about not believing in the Holocaust story.
HP: And look at how they are treated on the international scene, right?
NK: Exactly. They are threatened with being nuked, possibly because of that. Faurisson [Robert] thinks that the threats against Iran are primarily because of it’s skepticism of this sacred Jewish story.
HP: That’s right, that’s right.
NK: So there’s some strange metaphysical angle whereby, a sort of dualism, that Germany, as it were, is harbouring our image of evil. Taking care of our image of who the bad guys are. So we can feel that we are the good guys.
HP: Yes, exactly. And this is extending itself, as I said, to other European cultures. Sweden has been flogging itself for years, that they didn’t do more to help, to attack Germany. And I know this has extended itself to other countries as well. So it’s about a collective guilt that now extends to anybody of European heritage, basically. And it’s used as a method to also justify the cultural erosion that we see in the West at the moment.
NK: Yes. It’s a very strange way [how it all] comes altogether.
HP: It is. I just want to return to one thing before we continue on this path, because it’s very interesting, I want to get now to more of what happened to you at the University and what happened to you when you began questioning these things. The issue of exaggerations that we didn’t really close off here. I wanted to mention this because it’s interesting.
We have a couple of things that have been retracted or simply not talked about at all. We do have the numbers question and all, of course. But beyond that there is the story going round that they used to make soap out of the prisoners.
NK: Yes and lampshades, yes.
HP: Lampshades, exactly, of the prisoners.
NK: It all faded away. I thought it faded away in the early 90s. Because they did chemical analysis of these that showed that they were pig skin [actually, the lampshades were made from goat skin — katana] , from pigs’ fat. I thought that killed it. But someone told me on the BBC Holocaust program that a few days ago, that they have brought it back again.
HP: Oh, really.
NK: I couldn’t believe it. The lampshades, for god’s sake!
HP: Yes it was a big fraud. Testing was done it. It was a done deal that these had been exaggerations. So people have to question at that point. If, “Wait a minute“, if this is not detailed and [is] laid out and presented as exaggerations, you have to logically follow through and say, what else have they done that’s not true.
NK: What else is untrue, yes, yes. If we’ve been lied to about that … Yes.
HP: What about the hair? I heard in other stories that the hair, for example, of the Jewish women was used to fill the pillow cases of German women who liked to sleep on that hair, right?
NK: They did have recycling industries in the camps. They had a lot of hair, which was shaved off for the delousing, everyone’s hair was shaved off and I believe that ended up in pillow cases. I mean there was a war going on, you know, and they may not have had a lot of choice in this matter. And shoes, likewise. If you read Primo Levi’s account, this man, he had to take his shoes off and be given some nasty clogs that he didn’t like. It may be, … Anyway, they ended up with a lot of shoes.
[Note: “One of the documented uses was to make yarn used to knit socks, primarily for U-boat crews. This may seem gruesome because of the way the Nazis obtained the raw material, but most of the allied countries were undergoing severe raw material shortages themselves and used human hair for similar purposes, although it was donated freely.” This is what came up in a search and sounds credible — KATANA]
HP: So the shoes is not evidence that people were murdered? They were just issued different clothing and shoes, correct?
NK: As a friend of mine said, we need to think about how logic works in this case: a pile of shoes IS a pile of shoes. A pile of shoes does not imply any mass murder program is going on.
NK: If you go into a modern Holocaust temple and you see this big pile of shoes. Well they had recycling industries in the camps, and that included shoes, and you did have mortality.You had a lot of people dying in the camps and the shoes were maybe reused or whatever. It doesn’t show anything fiendish that you’ve got a big pile of shoes in your local Holocaust memorial museum. I don’t know where they get them from, actually. They’ve got these temples all around the world. Where do the shoes come from, …?
NK: But that is a vital part of any Holocaust memorial museum, I believe.
HP: Sure, definitely, re-emphasise the points there. Let’s talk a little bit more now about the money here and how many people have applied, because obviously, …
HP: …. because obviously we do have, interestingly enough for being, you know Germans were known for their efficiency, for their industriousness and everything else, but for some reason we have a tremendous amount of survivors from these so called death camps.
NK: I think Faurisson’s argument here is very relevant. He’s the great, sort of, dean of modern revisionism, Robert Faurisson. And he says all these Holocaust survivor testimonies are actually a refutation of the theme because there are so many of them. You’ve got, round the turn of this century , there are about a million designated holocaust survivors, right?
NK: That’s sixty years on. Now, do the maths, that’s going to give you a good 5 million, at least 5 million, survivors at the end of the war. If you’ve got a million designated, I mean receiving money from Germany as a Holocaust survivor. So, of the 4 million Jews in all the lands occupied by the Nazis, 6 million died and tragically only 5 million survived after the war. I mean, …
HP: So the numbers doesn’t add up?
NK: The numbers of the alleged Holocaust survivors absolutely refutes the idea of an extermination program. It’s a self-refuting process that they’ve now got up to, something in the order of 6 million people who have claimed from Germany as we’ve discussed earlier.
NK: That absolutely nullifies their own claim.
HP: Yes, you’re right. Is there any number to how much Germany have paid. I guess there’s two different fields here: one is, of course, …
NK: Well, yes, I mentioned. Sorry, I mentioned earlier it’s a good 100 billion Deutschmarks that they have paid out, yes.
HP: That’s a lot of money. Let me ask you, Nick, has that gone to Israel or personally into the pockets of Holocaust survivors?
NK: Well, that’s a good question. What I hear is it goes straight to Israel. That’s basically what I hear, yes.
HP: Alright, yes.
NK: And I could mention what Germar Rudolf said to me; he said from Germany’s point of view it’s a good deal. He said it’s such a mighty industrial nation that it pays 2 billion a year and that gives it political peace and stability, it doesn’t have to worry. If it didn’t pay that, it might be nervous of being picked on and exploited, or god knows what.
HP: Oh, absolutely, yes. So, at the root of this, there is a monetary interest to preserve a huge industry that is not interested, rather, in getting the potentiality of any discrepancies in this story to come out. That’s important for people to understand that there’s a monetary gain. Much in the same way that you can watch, you know, transnational corporations cover things up because it would be bad for the brand name. You have a similar issue occurring here with the holocaust industry, correct?
NK: Yes, yes. We’ve got one one historian with, I think, integrity, David Irving. And he became very heavily vilified and damned, and his whole life has suffered by being so much damned. I suspect his books on the history of WW II will be respected as the best ones around for their integrity. But, he stepped out of line and he would go all over Europe to get primary sources and check things out very, very carefully, you know. Initially, he was highly esteemed. His book on the bombing of Dresden is very highly regarded.
NK: But then he published his book called “Hitler’s War” and it made no mention of Hitler knowing anything about any holocaust or extermination of Jews because he hadn’t found any evidence for it and that was, as it were, the end of his career.
HP: That’s right.
NK: After, they pulped all his books and he can only give talks at secret locations, even now, many years later. He can’t announce in advance. That’s just the way it is.
HP: Tell us what happened to you then at the university, how people began treating you and the way you were ousted just for asking the type of questions that we’ve been talking about today.
NK: Mm, well, I didn’t mention it to my college. People said I was asking for trouble because I put up stuff on a website under my own name, right. And I put analyses of these two main chemical investigations, [by] Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter, and I integrated and compared the two, and I concluded that the gas chambers were hygienic and not homicidal. You know, they killed bugs, not Jews. And that was reported to my college and I was immediately thrown out. I was denounced on the website of the college and I didn’t have any opportunity to discuss anything. Nobody wanted to talk about anything with me. I was simply thrown out and then immediately the newspapers all picked on me, and blogs started picking on me and it was like I had the mark of Cain branded on my forehead, you know. I went into my local pub or whatever and, even my partner, she had to take our little daughter out for a week.
NK: Out of my home.
NK: Because the stress was too much from what was happening.
NK: Nobody actually threatened me, you know. I didn’t get beat up or anything, as happened to David Cole. But I was ethically damned and I think, at least half of my friends couldn’t bring themselves to speak to me anymore, and this was the worst thing for me, that people were so shocked by what they read that they weren’t sure that they were allowed to speak to me anymore. And it took quite a few, actually a few years to come round and I just had to not talk about the subject, you know.
NK: And then I met a few people, say, in America, like Jim Fetzer, who actually were prepared to talk about it, who said:
“Look, this is an interesting subject, which is important.”
But it’s still something that you can’t generally talk about. So, it was severe trauma for me. The worst thing that ever happened to me, really.
HP: Is the truth worth it, as you see it right now, as a battle that we need to, you know, take on for those who are interested in exposing falsehood and who believe in truth and science and all these kinds of issues? Is it worth [it] to take that battle on?
NK: [Laughting] Well I didn’t have any choice.
NK: I did what I had to do and it’s exactly why I majored in the history of the philosophy of science, because, … to look at controversial things like that. That’s what I think science historians should be doing. I got ethically damned. Various Jews in newspapers were ethically damning me. I was ethically damned by a Jew in a prestigious American history of science journal called ISIS. I had a biography published of Isaac Newton in an American published astronomy biographical encyclopedia and he was reviewing this book and he just went off denouncing me and saying this kind of book should be pulped because it had my article in it and it was so terrible.
And Jim Fetzer was quite impressed by this. So we wrote to all the members of the American History of Sciences Committee. History of Science Society saying this was not really proper behaviour. Not a single one of them replied.
HP: Yes, yes.
NK: It’s something I think people have got over now. People are able to relate to me without thinking the dreadful, terrible thing I did. But somehow, and some people say, that I made it respectable and possible to talk about the subject. That’s what some people tell me.
HP: Right, of course.
NK: That they can see the arguments. What I’ve put forward and they’re now more able to talk about it.
HP: Well, because I mean. Sorry, well because I mean, … just to emphasise that point. It’s not something you go into just for the sake of it. Of creating havoc, or that you’re interested in having your life destroyed because you very well know how other people have been treated that looked at the subject, right? So it’s not something that you do because it’s fun, right?
NK: Yes. I mean there was a bishop. Bishop Williamson, who was thrown out of his …
HP: Yes, SSPX.
NK: Yes, SSPX.
HP: The order, exactly.
NK: So, me and a friend, we’d go round and see him now and then, and we’d talk about what it was he’d done. He made a comment about Fred Leuchter. Quite a precisely accurate comment. And that terminated his career and he eventually got thrown out. So that was one person I could talk to. And then around about 2010, I thought there was what I would call a turning point. This is a turning of the tide, OK, and I was searching as to why this was. Oh, let me say, Hendrik, I feel that if you look at any media reports on the holocaust now, don’t bother to read what they say, just go to the comments, OK.
HP: Yes, yes!
NK: And the comments are, nowadays, I think they are mainly angry and sceptical.
HP: Right, yes.
NK: OK, whereas a few years ago, when I was chucked out, 2008, they were nearly all believing it and they were horrified at anyone for doubting it. Now, I ask people:
“What happened around about 2010? Was this due to me being thrown out or anything?”, and they said, “No, no, it wasn’t that at all, it’s what Israel has done in Gaza.”
People are so sick and tired of Israel’s way of behaving that therefore they’re not in a mood to believe this sacred myth in the way there used to be.
HP: Right. Yes.
NK: That’s what people tell me.
NK: And I feel that since around about 2010, there has been an irreversible turning of the tide that, … and nobody can stop that tide or turn it round again. I think this sacred belief, the Holocaust, they’re trying to shore it up. All the media are trying to shore it up. I think public belief is draining away and that they can’t stop it.
HP: Do you equate the questioning of the victim status of, you know, that the Jews have concerning the Holocaust as anti-semitic or that it equates to hatred of Jews?
NK: Well, I can’t see any connection at all actually. I mean what happens to them in the war, that’s got nothing to do with why you should like or dislike somebody because they’re Jewish. I mean what I find frightening is the extent to which Jews have internalised this story as if it’s part of their sacred identity. And I would advise them not to do so because I think the dam is about to break and that this belief will fall apart and people will be angry at having had the wool pulled over their eyes all these years. So, I would advise Jews to follow people like my friend Paul Eisen in this country, a Jewish fellow and Gilad Atzmon, a Jewish fellow …
NK: … who are looking at the world without believing in this story. That we’re all better off without it. It’s a psychotic belief and it damages our world picture and also our ability to be friendly with each other.
HP: Well, did you ever see the documentary Defamation from 2009? Do you know the film?
NK: I don’t think so, no.
HP: OK, because it showed as well that it’s not only, of course, the general population that gets told just one version of the story that we’re told, it was actually very indicative of showing how, you know, young Jewish teenagers and kids, in some cases, were actually drawn into believing this as well. That they were very much programmed into thinking that, you know, around every corner, in Europe, there’s basically a Nazi that’s waiting there, standing to kill you. It developed a tremendous polarisation between, kind of, them and us and them. They’re mind controlling their own, that’s my point here.
NK: Yes, they are. The word Nazi is almost the same as Zion, Zion-Nazi, just re-arrange the letters. You see, the ideology of National Socialism in the 1930s was basically, almost identical with that of Zionism, of a special chosen race, you know, and some kind of supremacy and of military adventure. It’s a very similar or maybe identical ideology and so I think Jews, talking about Zionism in Israel, need to realise this. That it is very much the shadow side of their own belief and it’s a projection that they use to defend themselves.
HP: So let me ask you: so what do you think is going to happen here if it becomes more widely known that this is built on a lie? If people discover in some capacity or it becomes more widely known that, “Wait a minute, something is wrong here!” You know, is this going to make the, … because you refer to this as a, kind of, a new religion almost, you know, …
NK: Yes, yes.
HP: … temples to it all around the world. Is this something that’s going to crumble? Is there going to be a lot of anger expressed here? I mean …
NK: Yes, you’re dead right.
HP: … does Germany have a claim back?
NK: Well, just think of the unreality and untruth that our civilisation is built with 9/11.
NK: Politicians want to manipulate you and to manipulate they want to induce fear. They can’t give you hope any more, they just give you fear,. And this holocaust mythos is used by politicians for frightening and intimidating people and coercing them into agreeing to the next war. Without it, we could maybe start to think about how to be happy. And actually, we’re here to enjoy life and can we please banish this nightmare hallucination, decide to forgive ourselves, mutual forgiveness. Forgive ourselves for creating this nightmare and decide to get on with a happy future without it.
HP: Right, yes.
NK: That’s why we need a European Forum of reconciliation and forgiveness in which people do not have false motives ascribed to them, as we said earlier. That is what I, sort of, supremely believe is necessary, and the powers that be always want to shut it down. They always give you these false epithets:
“Oh, that means you’re an admirer of Hitler. Oh, you’re a White supremacist.”
All this crap …
NK: … they always project on to you, if you try and talk about it.
HP: Yes, because it seems, you’ve alluded to this before. But it’s like, it’s almost, no serious debate is ever allowed to occur on the subject because I think that the counter arguments here would be so powerful that it would get people thinking. So, instead of actually trying to appeal and debunk those from, you know, the official point of view, they simply just, as you said, they kind of just sling labels on people and then they move on without touching any of the actual arguments at hand, correct?
NK: Correct! Yea, yes. Let me say I’m quite happy to debate the subject anywhere if anyone wants to invite me to talk about it. And I think we need a mentality of, as it were, being harmless. We do not have the will to cause harm to others. Because a lot of the European legislation prohibiting this stuff involves the concept of:
“You might disturb the public peace.”
There’s no reason to believe this disturbs the public peace, it just means you have a good discussion and you’re not inciting hatred, you’re resolving enigmas of the past. Because a lot of the European legislation banning holocaust denial is of that form, that it would induce public disturbance, or it would project hate on a particular group. There’s no need for that to happen.
HP: I don’t understand that because wouldn’t it be a positive aspect if it turns out that fewer people actually died than, you know?
NK: Totally, yes, totally, absolutely. And the claim that you are projecting hate, again. Well you look at French law, Gayssot law, it’s always, it’s only used by Jews prosecuting white male Frenchmen.
NK: It’s always used in that context and the allegation; “hate being induced” is made by the person prosecuting.
It’s always used in that context and the allegation; “hate being induced” is made by the person prosecuting. I think they should have to give evidence. They should have to summon a psychologist. Any crime that’s based on an emotion, should have a psychologist summoned and testify that that emotion is generated. No legislation should exist based on emotion, okay.
NK: They should be based on crimes that have been done. If you have got your Holocaust laws based on alleged hate that is being generated. Just like we’ve got anti-terror laws, and if people do want laws to exist then a psychologist needs to be summoned to give evidence as to whether that emotion has been activated.
HP: Yes, exactly. Well it’s a victimless, … Then again I wouldn’t classify it as a crime because it isn’t. It’s just questioning history. But it’s victimless none the less. It doesn’t imply anything, it doesn’t direct hatred towards anybody. It’s just questioning history.
NK: Let me ask you Henrik. I’m wondering whether you have come across any debate anywhere Europe where people can actually meet and debate this subject. Because in England the last public debate attempted was when David Irving, about fifteen years ago invited Fred Leuchter over. And he was at Chelsea Town Hall and he was about to talk and the police arrested him and hustled him book to America, on the request of the Board of British Jews.
NK: That was the nearest we had to a public debate. At least David Irving tried. I don’t think there has been any since, unless it’s me getting a little huddle of a group with me talking about it.
HP: No, I’ve not seen it. It’s very unfortunate. I mean it’s amazing when you think about it. I mean, as it currently stands it’s one of the most important historical events of modern history. Right? That’s the weight of it the importance of it. The aspect, “never again” and all these kinds of issues, that they claim or say. Then you would think that especially that this would be the thing that was debated and debated. But it’s not, it’s quite the opposite.
NK: Quite the opposite, yes.
HP: Now let me ask you about the media here because we have a constant repetition of the same story we have an entertainment industry where I’d say the majority of people get their world opinions from unfortunately. They don’t get it from large academic tomes of world history.
HP: They don’t read a lot of books anymore or anything like that. They go watch movies and TV shows and stuff like that and here’s where it’s repeated.
NK: As John Lash said in a recent interview with you;
“Films could be a very valuable mode of conveying historical truth.”
NK: If use properly. There’s no reason why there should give this consistently misleading view of history, or one could imagine it being otherwise, you know.
HP: Yes, definitely. So the question is, how do you think the media should be counteracted here? Because we have people like yourself and others who are writing books they are talking about this, they are interested in history and are trying to get the message out. Is it enough to reach through and appeal to people to begin to investigate it for themselves? How do we do that, how do we reach out and get people interested in this portion of history?
NK: That is the big question. In this country the media in anything you call conspiracy theory, away from what is allowed, they will be allowed to report something if a conspiracy theorist somewhere becomes publicly visible. If you are out causing a bit of a disturbance, or of you are a bit charismatic, or you are seen to be influencing people, then one or to newspapers will report, they will describe your view as that of a conspiracy theorist. They might describe it with some sympathy, but in the end they have to give some dismissive comment. So I only think we only have truth on the web these days, which is a very strange situation where we are uncensored.
HP: For now!
NK: For now. Yes, yes. So there’s no printed media that, … The only printed media I can imagine, might possibly review my book is one in Australia, called Nexus.
HP: But that’s not mainstream is it? That’s more of an alternative paper.
HP: Okay I get the point that there are obviously attacking the people who talk about these things. They try to prove that you are a nut case or whatever. If you gain some sort of, … If you come with some sort of credibility, but you know, they oust you pretty quick. My point here is that if these issues are based on lies, if it is true that the media are not looking at the real stories, if they are just mouth pieces for intelligence services and governments, it is not something that is going to last in the long run. And I think we are seeing the initial steps of this now when there is a lot of Main Stream Media outlets are starting to lose credibility. People are turning away from them, they are going to the web to get the real stories. It’s kind of like, whatever they do in this case the lie is not going to stand for ever, it’s just not going to work.
NK: Well, I would have thought not. No. There’s a spiritual issue here. Do you want to live your life in the light of truth? Do you want your words to have integrity to them? Or do you just want to repeat what journalist and films give you?
NK: I think that bishops and priests should be concerned about this. Like you I cant quite see what will happen. I feel that something is about to happen, just because I find people are much more amenable and sympathetic to this theme and it can be talked about, whereas it couldn’t some years ago.
NK: I feel there’s some change coming.
HP: Yes. I agree with you. I think, again, I think the cost for those who have been trying to lie about these things is going to be quite big. That would be the media in the way this story has been fabricated. And I think the anger, when and if it is discovered, … I kind of see this as the fall of the Soviet Union almost with the Samizdat, the press, the small outlets that was basically leading to the ideological downfall from within of the Soviet Union. It’s kind of much the same way here that the whole big media empire will crumble as more and more people, as they completely lose credibility in there eyes. I’m hoping for that.
NK: Yes, that sound good. In Sweden, where my grandfather came from, is there any kind of discussion, or do people want to look at this side of things at all? Is there anything revisionist at all?
HP: Under the radar there is probably quite a bit. I’m not to well versed and savvy if there are a lot of people, a lot of groups looking into it or in what capacity there are doing that. No, I think it’s even worst in Sweden actually. It’s on such a level that you get violence exhibited to those people who question these kinds of things. We’ve had several people stabbed by violent left wing groups in Sweden and things like that. It’s a very taboo subject I would say, and there’s an anger that more people are not interested in the official version and believe the official version or are dedicating their entire lives to continue to spread the lies about the official version. But, no there’s not much activity at all as far as I’m concerned. Never in the media, never in the press. Most of the media is State subsidized anyway. It is very controlled and it’s all left wing people all over the place. Journalists and reporters are very, not diverse in their political leaning I should say. So, actually not.
NK: Well, shucks.
HP: Now let’s see if there’s anything else here we want to get out before we start wrapping up for this time, Nick. Again this is a huge subject with so many components to it. There are so many different things to the subject and it’s not something we are going to solve in a two here interview. There are going to be countless things that we could discuss and should be discussed surrounding this area. But is there anything that you feel that is important that we should mention before we wrap things up? Perhaps you want to say something to, … Let say to those that continue to listen and haven’t got to angry and just turned off. That are still in denial or still don’t believe what you are bringing to the table. What would you say to those people to encourage them to look at this for themselves?
NK: Well, what are we living for, what are we here on earth for? Britain and America have a dominate British American culture that always goes to war! And this is a war ratifying illusion, the Holocaust. The most sacred myths of our culture are war ratifying illusions. The 9/11 event and the Holocaust mythos. We need to find some way of living that’s more gentle and balanced. We do have a psychological need for this horror image. Their own lives have a bleak despair in them and therefore they tune into the Holocaust thing.
“Oh yes, very clever Germans, brilliant German science, no wonder they could gas six million Jewish by technology that no one has ever seen.”
That kind of despair image I think it is sinful to allow yourself to have that kind of despair image and not challenge yourself to look for the evidence. You just switch on the media and it gives you this, reinforces this thing about, “Oh, how terrible what we did to God’s chosen people!” that is not going to give you a future that is worth living in. It will give you a future that will keep getting worst. That is the effect that this Holocaust mythos is working very strongly in our culture and always justifies changes that makes things worst. It is not something that is bringing health to our culture.
HP: Yes, yes, I agree. Very well said. Very good. So, the book here that we have been talking about ladies and gentlemen is called “Breaking the Spell — The Holocaust Myth and the Reality.” and of course you can get it off Amazon.com, or Amazon.co.uk, the British version of Amazon. We will have links up on our site if you want to read more. Also check out some of the work that Nick has done on the London 7/7 bombings by the way as well. You can find more on the website that he has for that, called “terroronthetube.co.uk”. Of course you also have “whatreallyhappened.info”. Is there anything else that you would like to tell us about that web site that people can find there. It’s not only yours but a group of people, right?
NK: Yes, it’s a group of us. We are trying to, it’s centered on the British Intelligence Decrypts but there are other essays as well.
HP: Very good. Keep up the good work Nick and we would love to have you book in the future as there are more components to this that we could and should about this as well. But in the meantime we say thank you so much for coming on. We really appreciate your time today.
NK: It’s been a great honour to be a part of your Red Ice Creations, Henrik.
————— END ————
PDF of Auschwitz main camp (1.0 MB) >>> Auschwitz I Camp Layout
PDF of the book “Breaking the Spell – The Holocaust: Myth & Reality”
This can be found at>> http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1&page_id=31
along with many other HOLOCAUST Handbooks & Movies.
Click here to view or download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB) :
Version 27: Jan 28, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDFs for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links..
Version 26: Jan 9, 2019 — Improved formatting. Added 8 images, several links.
Version 25: Dec 5, 2016 and Feb 2, 2017 — Improved formatting.
Version 24: Jul 29, 2015 — Added PDF of post, added Cover image.
Version 23: Jun 18, 2015 — improved formatting.