CODOH – katana17 https://katana17.com Replaces katana17.wordpress.com blog Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:33:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.2 Jim Rizoli – Germar Rudolf – The Holocaust Handbooks and More – Jul 28, 2021 — Transcript https://katana17.com/2021/08/02/jim-rizoli-germar-rudolf-the-holocaust-handbooks-and-more-jul-28-2021-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2021/08/02/jim-rizoli-germar-rudolf-the-holocaust-handbooks-and-more-jul-28-2021-transcript/#comments Mon, 02 Aug 2021 08:40:32 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=29941 Continue reading →]]>

 

[Jim Rizoli talks with Germar Rudolf on the status of the Holocaust Handbook series, an “… encyclopedic style series of research on the ‘Holocaust’ that is unparalleled in the entire world“.

The Holocaust Handbook series provides conclusive evidence that there were no homicidal gas chambers, or any genocidal plans against jews, and that the claim that millions of jews were murdered by the Third Reich are simply diabolical lies perpetrated by Organized jewry, the very, behind the scenes, instigators of WWII.

 

— KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

_______________________

 

 

Jim Rizoli with

 

Germar Rudolf

 

The Holocaust Handbooks and More

 

Jul 28, 2021

 

Click Link Below to go to video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/apFm2CZAi98A/

BitChute Description

 

Published on Jul 28, 2021

 

Jim Rizoli

 3971 subscribers

   Subscribe

Latest update with Holocaust Handbooks publisher Germar Rudolf

Holocaust Handbooks, hardcover:

https://shop.codoh.com/bundle/holocaust-handbooks/988/

Holocaust Handbooks, paperback:

https://shop.codoh.com/bundle/holocaust-handbooks/971/

Holocaust Handb…

 MORE

Category News & Politics

Sensitivity Normal – Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over

 

__________________________

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

Comments

See Also

PDF

Version History

 

 

__________________________

 

top

TRANSCRIPT

(78:55 mins)

 

[00:00]

 

[Intro music]

 

[00:15]

 

Jim Rizoli: Hi everyone. I’m Jim Rizoli here with Germar Rudolf. We are going to be talking about the new books that have come out with the “Holocaust Handbook” series. And Germar is the one behind that is. And I think this is very important, because these books are very critical to the revisionist movement out there.

 

So, Germar welcome to the show. And I hope you have some good news for us in regards to what you’ve been doing with the new books.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. Thank you for having me on.

 

Jim Rizoli: So what’s been going on? Tell us. I know you’ve been busy. I haven’t talked to you in a couple of, I don’t know, maybe what two years? Probably a couple years? It’s been a while.

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes. Well the “Holocaust Handbook” series, which I started officially, now 21 years ago. So it was in 2000 – when we issued the first edition “Dissecting the Holocaust” – and has grown over the years. And I was initially aiming at getting to 20 volumes, which was an ambitious project back then. And I reached that just about the time when I was arrested in 2005, and got deported from this country.

 

 

[Image] Dissecting the Holocaust – 2nd and 3rd Editions.

 

So this series got suspended, then I picked up, at a slow pace, initially. But then accelerating, particularly in 2015, 2016, when I resumed editorial responsibility for the series.

 

After I’d been arrested, and for the first years after my release from the German gulag, the responsibility for publication had been with the Barnes Review. They picked up that project when I was unable to.

 

But in 15, 16, I resumed the responsibility again.

 

And we have been adding volumes steadily to the series. Right now it stands at 44 volumes, that have appeared. And five more in the pipeline. Two, I already have on my hard drive here to be translated when I start. And two more I am in constant exchange with the author, which is Carlo Mattogno in Italy, while the projects are evolving. So four of them are already in some stage of preparation.

 

[Image] Holocaust Handbook series (click image to enlarge)

 

So it looks like we’re reaching 50. And at some point we have to make a stop to it! [chuckling] Because it’s getting too much like an encyclopedia, with 50 volumes is huge! And that’s probably the limit of what people would ever consider owning, or buying. Because beyond that the costs get just exorbitant.

 

And also at some point, to what detail do you want to delve into a topic that anyone would still be interested in? And there’s always danger of repeating yourself. So we need to cut. We need to trim down. We need to focus more on what’s important. We need to take repetitions out.

 

And all of these things we have been doing over the past two years; a) adding new volumes; b) replacing old ones that have had become inappropriate, I would say unsatisfactory, because they were outdated. One of the volumes, Volume 1 and 3 was a review of Raul Hilberg’s magnum opus, “The Destruction of the European Jews”. And he [the reviewer] had written that in 1999. So that’s 22 years ago. And back then his knowledge was limited in his ability to do a deep critique of Hilberg’s work was limited.

 

And Carlo Mattogno has written one that is based on his 20, 30 years of experiences in the field, which is much more thorough and superior in quality. So we have replaced the old Volume 3 with this new one.

 

Also Volume 28 used to be a two-set volume of more than 700 pages each. And it was a step-by-step, point-by-point, refutation and critique of the mainstream work that was trying to refute books we had published about the actual Reinhardt camps – Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor.

 

And that’s my son in the background, cleaning the table. So he’s going to be on camera and will be published too [chuckling]!

 

Jim Rizoli: Well, that’s okay.

 

Germar Rudolf: Anyway, that bulky two volume work was unattractive for the reader. Let’s say it, that way. There’s a book of thousand five hundred pages being a point-by-point refutation of something that somebody else has written, that doesn’t even exist as a book but only as a PDF file online. It’s a little bit difficult to read and understand and wrap your head around it.

 

I mean, I edited it. I’m very familiar with the details of all the things involved, but still I found it challenging to read it, and to really understand at each point of the discussion what’s going on.

 

So we thought this needs replacement with something that is readable, that’s enjoyable, that is more concise.

 

Also, because on these three camps, two of them particularly – Treblinka and Sobibor – more research had been done over the past years ever since that massive two volume book had appeared. That was 2013. There had been archaeological research going on in Treblinka and Sobibor and these results needed to be incorporated into something new.

 

So we took all the new research. Also the Poles started publishing from their archives, eyewitness testimony that were recorded during, or in the immediate post-war time, during the war, or shortly thereafter. They published them in books.

 

So they have not been accessible, so far. Hidden in some archive unknown, or unaccessible, to revisionists at least. They are now accessible. So they need to be included.

 

This has been published. That was just the recent release that we issued last week. And it’s called “The ‘Operation Reinhardt’ Camps Treblinka, Sobibór, Bełżec”. And so that is a replacement one.

 

Volume 40 had been a gap in the series. That was on the delivery of coke, wood, and Zyklon B, to Auschwitz. There are documents in the archives that prove how much coke, and how much wood, and how much Zyklon B, has been delivered to that camp. And the mainstream, let’s say some scholars from the Auschwitz museum, tried to use that documentation to prove that mass murder has been going on. But the methods they used to prove it were untenable, if not to say, outright ridiculous!

 

By saying, for instance, that:

 

“The cremation of a corpse just requires three kilograms of coke.”

 

Which is ridiculous!

 

And that was a book length review based on that documentation of this Polish – it’s actually only an article – a journal article, some 20, 30 pages, or so, that addresses these issues. And that booklet in front of you, had been written a long while ago. I can’t even remember. It’s four, five, six, years ago that Carlo Mattogno wrote that. And when I translated it several years ago we had some major issues with the math in it. So it basically didn’t pass peer review. Because one chapter in there, his math was just wrong.

 

And his extrapolations from the documentary material was “daring” to say the least! Speculating.

 

“We don’t have documents. But let’s assume that’s what it would have continued if the documentation would have been preserved.”

 

This is a limb out of which the mainstream can go on, but speculations shouldn’t be part of history. That’s just part of fiction, and it shouldn’t be in there.

 

So we had a standoff between peer reviews and Carlo Mattogno saying, … Carlo Mattogno wanted to have it as it is. Peer review would say there’s no way, this is just fraud.

 

Jim Rizoli: Who does that? Who does the peer review?

 

Germar Rudolf: It depends at any time who is an expert. We have a few people who look it over who know about stuff. In that case it was actually me, because when it comes to math and physical stuff I have a necessary background to do these things. And I was doing the checking there. [chuckling] So, I was checking all his math and putting it in proper form and ran into a lot of problems and wouldn’t let it pass.

 

We have some anonymous experts. We assume by the access they have to archive material, and judging by their knowledge of the topic, that they are probably mainstream professors, experts in the field. But they will not reveal who they are. They communicate anonymously with us. And that’s fine. We don’t want them get exposed as helping us.

 

But they do, and we get feedback from them when it comes to archival material, to source verification. And also to finding new sources, because we can’t get access to archives, to most archives, directly.

 

If you show up at an archive with a revisionist name you may get arrested in most European countries. Germany and Poland particularly! So we need helpers whose reputation is not on a black list. So let’s say, his name is not on the black list.

 

[10:38]

 

Jim Rizoli: Who’s written most of your books? Carlo?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, Carlo Mattogno is the main author. Now I was joking lately, because most of the projects we’re putting up right now are all written by Carlo Mattogno And, of course, the publishing outlet I have is Castle Hill Publishers, CHP. And I joked in one of these emails I was sending out to customers, saying:

 

“Well maybe we should rename it to ‘Carlo Mattogno Publishers’, CMP!”

 

Just joking!

 

But yeah, he’s the most prolific writer. He has gathered documents, tens of thousands of documents, while he was still able to access the archives in the 1990s. And, because of his reputation among historians, he has gained support from some of them, anonymously, and are helping him, getting him archive of material that he otherwise would not have access to.

 

So we have people actually going for us to archives getting stuff and sending it to us. And also pointing out when we make mistakes, or when we have missed something that’s crucial.

 

So in that case the math peer review I did, and I didn’t let it pass.

 

So eventually this year he agreed to take out his entire speculative, flawed math calculations, and publish the book without it. And that cleared the way for it. And so this way we could actually publish it. And that closed this one gap we still had in Volume 40.

 

Volume 41 to 44 have appeared in succession since December last year. And 42 has been out for a while. It was a project that I entered. That’s written by myself.

 

But 41, 43, and 44 came out in December, January, and February, if I’m not mistaken. So in quick succession.

 

Jim Rizoli: Do you ever have anybody buy the whole series?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes, yes. We offer the whole series as a set, at a discount. And I would say we, … If I look at the turnover, I would say that a good 15 to 20 percent of our turnover is from selling the whole series.

 

Jim Rizoli: Wow!

 

Germar Rudolf: Because it’s such a big chunk. If somebody buys buys 44 books all in one go, that’s like 44 sales of individual books, with normal sales are just one book. We even offer all of our books. So the 44 volumes of the Holocaust Handbooks, plus all the other books that we have in our program, which is some 30 more books, or so. And some people even go for that. I would say on every four sets of “Holocaust” handbooks we get one set of all the books that we have in our program!

 

Jim Rizoli: Well, that would be quite a bit of bundles of books coming to the home, wouldn’t it?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yes. It’s not quite 80 books. And it comes in several boxes, indeed.

 

Jim Rizoli: I mean, it’s amazing, because most people don’t know anything. I mean, we do, but most other people don’t know anything about these books, because you can’t get them on Amazon, right?

 

Germar Rudolf: Each time we publish them they go through international distribution, and as such, Amazon offers them for a week, or two, until they become aware, …

 

Because every bookshop nowadays has an automatic online hookup to the distributors. And the distributors here in the United States, they are not allowed to turn down books. Because the main distributor in the United States has a monopoly, legally recognized monopoly. And therefore, they have to stock books, take them in their program, because they have a monopoly. They’re not allowed to turn anyone down as long as the book is legal.

 

And this way our books are in international distribution. So every bookseller online, or offline, having a hookup to that distributor, which everyone has – because that’s where everyone gets the books from – knows about the book and has it automatically in their system.

 

And so Amazon, and all the other online retailers that do that hookup, as soon as we publish the book the next hour, or two, boom! There it is! It’s an automatic process. And then for them to take it out of what they offer, requires the manual step of ticking some box:

 

“Hide this book.”

 

Or something, or whatever it is they’re ticking.

 

And usually it takes about two two weeks on average for them to get taken down.

 

So we assume there is the usual suspects of “thought police” monitoring books of a certain topic. And once they run into it, they have their hot wire to Jeff Bezos to have him push the censorship button, or whoever in his company does that kind of dirty job.

 

[15:51]

 

Jim Rizoli: Have any libraries ordered the series?

 

Germar Rudolf: No.

 

Jim Rizoli: Well, you know what happens in libraries? Let’s say they even did order the series. They’d put it in. And then what happens is they’d take the books out and never bring them back. And nothing you could do about it!

 

Because I’ve had this happen with books I wanted to get in the library. And that’s what happens. People will take the book out. And they’ll never bring it back. And then you say:

 

“Well who took the book out? I want to get the book back!”

 

And they don’t do anything about it. That’s what the libraries do! Just to let you know. They would never last in the library.

 

But anyway, that’s how they operate. Sad.

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, this series actually comes in three formats right now. And that’s one of the reason why we worked so hard.

 

We have a PDF format. So you can get them as ebooks, PDF, which we offer as a bundle for download. The list price is $70 for that, for all 44 books.

 

But in theory you wouldn’t have to pay for it. Every single book can be downloaded as a free PDF. If you want to go through the process of downloading 44 books, one after the other, you can do that on our website that’s dedicated to the series; holocausthandbooks.com.

 

And if you want to get them in a bundle in our shop at shop.cohdo.com you can do that. The list price is $70.

 

Now, we have a feature in our shop where you can actually change the price. You don’t see it in any shop, online shop, anywhere else. You have a product, a price is attached to it. And then you can put it in the shopping cart and buy it that way.

 

In our case, every single product we have has a price to it. But you can push the up, or down, button and reduce the price, or increase the price.

 

Now with many of our books there is a minimum price for the printed books, beyond which you cannot go. That’s the list price in this case. Because we can’t give them away for cheaper, because somehow we have to cover our costs and make a living.

 

But when it comes to ebooks, particularly the Holocaust Handbooks, we offer those as free ebooks on the Holocaust Handbooks website. And, because they are in theory free, how do we justify taking money for the same thing, bundled up, when we sell it in our shop? Now it’s kind of a feature. Yeah, there’s so much effort in it and we expect people, this is worth some money and they should be paying that.

 

But in that case we have actually switched it freely, so that people can lower the price.

 

“I don’t want to pay $70 for the series, I want to download it in one swoop and not pay anything!”

 

Then you go on the down button and click it all the way down to zero! And get it for free! That works. Only for the ebook versions of the Holocaust Handbooks.

 

On the other hand, if you buy just one, it costs just five dollars. And you think:

 

“This book should be worth much more. It’s such intense research, it’s so valuable! I think it’s worth twenty dollars!”

 

What you can do is press on the up button and increase the price! Which nobody has ever done [chuckling]! Ever since we introduced that feature [chuckling]!

 

Anyway, most people also don’t understand that they can lower the price. Because that’s just an unexpected features that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. But legally speaking, since we give them already away for free on our Holocaust Handbooks website, we thought charging money for them on our shop is not quite “kosher”. At least we should have the option there for people to reduce it down to zero. So that’s why we introduced a custom shopping cart, you can do these gimmicks.

 

So that’s the ebook version. Just seventy dollars list price.

 

Then we have the paperback version, which you see in your background. They are all lined up there with their cover art, or a spine art in that case.

 

And now, released a week ago, we have also a hardcover version. All of these books in hardcover. And the reason for that is twofold. One of them is this is an encyclopedic style series of research on the “Holocaust” that is unparalleled in the entire world!

 

 

The mainstream doesn’t have anything coming close to it! They have an encyclopedia that has three volumes, but each entry about the topics are very superficial. And there’s not much information in it. There’s no critical information! No information that really does some independent research. It’s mainstream stuff. And it just regurgitates the war propaganda, uncritically.

 

So there is nothing similar anywhere else in the world, mainstream, or not, like this one.

 

And a lot of people are willing to buy it. But then normally if you have an encyclopedic massive series like that, people would like to put it in some central shelf of their living room and say:

 

“I have all these books. And I’m a really well-read, knowledgeable person who has all this stuff, read.”

 

But then again, who seriously wants to “out themselves” by putting books like that centrally in their living room with any visitor, or even family member coming in and seeing that you have 44 “Holocaust denial” books sitting in your living room! Gets you in a lot of trouble!

 

[21:47]

 

Jim Rizoli: I don’t know I’m happy to have them on my shelf. I got them down in my basement, and I got them all, I love them!

 

Germar Rudolf: In your basement! You were hiding them in your basement [chuckling]!

 

Jim Rizoli: I know, because you haven’t seen my house, okay. My brother, Joe, has all his books upstairs. I get no place to put them! I can do my videos upstairs, and downstairs. And downstairs is another place where I can do videos with all the books behind me, you know, without the green kind of screen behind me. I don’t have a green screen but my brother Joe has a lot of books! Okay. He’s got hundreds and hundreds of books! And I mean, my whole living room is all books! It looks like a library.

 

But my basement, like I said, if you saw how I do my videos downstairs, all the books are on the shelves behind me. It looks really nice and your books are all there.

 

Now you said they’re on hard cover. What do they cost in hardcover?

 

Germar Rudolf: The production cost for the hardcover is not quite ten dollars more than for the paperback. It’s five dollars more for the hardcover, and we use a little bit higher quality paper for it. So we increased the price for each paperback edition by just ten dollars to cover the additional production cost, because we didn’t want to make more profit on it, just because it’s hardcover. Plus a little bit of a margin setting up those books cost us thousands, [words unclear], or so, not counting the time I’ve put in to produce the new imprint.

 

Jim Rizoli: You don’t have a hardcover one with you, do you?

 

Germar Rudolf: I just sent you an email, an image showing how they look like, how they line up in the similar fashion as you have the paperback in the background. If you look it up you could perhaps replace it while I’m talking. And then people can look at it.

 

Jim Rizoli: Okay.

 

Germar Rudolf: So what we have done is not do any fancy cover art with those, for the simple reason covers for hardbacks have to be completely differently layouted then paperbacks. Because the hardcover exceeds the trim size by an eighth, or a quarter of an inch. And then you have to wrap the artwork around it. So the artwork has to be completely redone. Also the spine is completely different. And having to completely redo all the artworks for the cover would have consumed a lot of time! And that would have been untenable, because we don’t expect to sell those like hot cakes.And therefore we need to keep the costs down.

 

So what we did our printer offered an option that is called a “digital print blue cloth”. So it looks like a patterned blue cloth hardcover, even though it’s actually printed.

 

Jim Rizoli: Did you say you just sent it?

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah I sent you an email with it. Let me see if it’s, …

 

Jim Rizoli: Oh yeah, all right, cool! Let me see if I can grab that. All right, cool.

 

Germar Rudolf: Now when it comes to the cost of the series, as I mentioned, the e-books right now are $70. Paperback sits at $875. And that includes actually already upcoming volumes that will appear later this year. We have two more in the pipeline that I’m working on.

 

Jim Rizoli: Wow!

 

Germar Rudolf: And they will be included in that price. That’s for the paperback.

 

And the hardcover is a whopping $1,170, right now. This is a 35% discount over what you would pay if you bought every single book individually. And actually includes free shipping anywhere in the world!

 

So if you’re on Micronesia, or you’re in Japan, or in Russia, or in Timbuktu, or wherever you are, it doesn’t matter! We can get it there and your shipping is included. Because, as UPS brags, they go anywhere! I don’t know whether they go to Antarctica. Maybe they do [chuckling]! Some researcher there wants the series.

 

[26:14]

 

Jim Rizoli: I’m looking at the set. I mean, it’s really nice. I mean, that’s great!

 

Germar Rudolf: Right. This now really looks like a series of one big set of books. They all belong together. We have this one sticking out on the paperback that’s large size. That’s the Air Photo book, because there’s so many big photos in here that we wanted to have in big size. We couldn’t do that with a hard cover, because that kind of hardcover, our printer doesn’t do in letter size format. So we had to reduce the size. But it’s also neat to have them all have the same size, so they really fit together.

 

Then you have the volume numbers, they’re going from 1 to 44, at the top. So it really looks like an encyclopedia, which kind of it is. And we’re working on it to trim it, adjust it in a way that repetitions are taken out.

 

We have one book, Volume 22, was published in two, the Italian original edition in 2008, or 2009. And at that point the later Volume 24 hadn’t appeared, which is about the cremation furnaces at Auschwitz. That was a book that Carlo Mattogno has been working on since the early 1990s. It finally appeared in the Italian edition in 2012. The English edition, the first edition, in 2015. The second edition I’m just wrapping up. So we have a new edition coming up that will replace the old one.

 

But when he issued the Volume 22 on the gas chambers of Auschwitz, he wanted to address the issue of cremation furnaces. He normally would have referred to his [word unclear] but it wasn’t out yet. So he included a long chapter on summarizing what was to be published in Volume 24. This is now redundant, because 24 is out, has been for a while.

 

And also he has large chapters on critiquing Rudolf Höss as a witness. We have a separate monograph, that’s Volume 35, on critiquing Henryk Tauber, one of the Sonderkommando witnesses.

 

We will have a separate book, Volume 54, which I have already on my hard drive, that is Henryk Tauber and another witness. A critique of their testament. So these chapters will be a little bit redundant. So we’re working on trimming down Volume 22, making summaries on these topics only, otherwise referring to these monographs.

 

And by so doing we can actually reduce some of the massive volume of some of these volumes. The reader doesn’t have all these repetitions.

 

Jim Rizoli: If you had to pick one book that, let’s say someone couldn’t afford all the books, they wanted one book out of your series that would really kind of like give you the whole nine yards in one book, which one would you say?

 

Germar Rudolf: My preferred one are the “Lectures on the Holocaust” [Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15: Lectures on the Holocaust—Controversial Issues Cross-Examined 3rd, revised and expanded edition]. Not because I wrote it, …

 

 

Jim Rizoli: I believe the same thing. I think that out of all of them, I think that one there, it covers almost everything. I mean, in a good way, you know?

 

Germar Rudolf: Right. I mean, it’s not a short book. It depends on how much you want to read. We have, I would say, four books in the series that tries to give you an overview.

 

The volume first [Vol 1] actually, I started that, because at that point, when I had the original German edition, working on that in the early 90s, I was a complete newcomer to the field. And I started that project, because I myself wanted to have an overview of what’s going on. What’s the state of art in that field? And I get all those revisionist scholars from all over the world together, bring their knowledge to the project, and make it an anthology on this. And that’s how Volume 1 came to be in the early 90s.

 

Now the last edition is from 2019. We keep updating it. But it’s chopped up in topics, and dealt with by separate authors. So it’s not a story that you can read in one go. You have different chapters on different topics, which some may like.

 

The “Lectures on the Holocaust” are based on actual lectures I have done in the early 90s. While I was doing this research I was giving lectures to some academic audiences in two cases, in the second half of 1992. Presenting in multimedia form the research that revisionists were doing. And that book is along the same line. It starts with what the mainstream is claiming, what the issue, is there controversy? It goes to through a history of scandals of people doubting, refuting, running afoul of the thought police. And showing how many people there are, academics, reputable persons in the academic and technical world who also voiced doubts and got in trouble. And all the censorship and the pressure that’s going on to keep a lid on this topic.

 

And then it goes into covering the topic from various aspects. And it’s an exchange, it’s in a dialogue style.

 

So it engages the reader by feeling that this is actually a lecture, where the lecturer engages the audience, and the audience engages the lecturer back with critical questions, hostile questions, and [word unclear] questions, whatever the case may be. And this exchange goes on through the whole book, and it covers a large swath.

 

And I keep that updated, too. I mean, it’s now four years that I had the last edition. It’s slated for a new one next year at some point. And this book has 500 pages of text. So, it’s not quite as big as “Dissecting”, which is 600. But you kind of have to read it in one go, because it all belongs together, and it comes all together.

 

But then again the reading style is so entertaining, I heard, that people keep going. It’s flows, and flows, and you don’t even notice how you’re getting fast through it.

 

Jim Rizoli: Excellent book! I love it! I actually read it over, and over, again.

 

[32:41]

 

Germar Rudolf: And then, if you want less, we have by two different authors.

 

We have by the former professor of the history of science, Nick Kollerstrom, from London College. He used to teach, then got thrown out when he outed himself as a revisionist. He was a lecturer there. And he wrote that book “Breaking the Spell”, which is Volume 31 of the series. And this is probably the shortest book giving an overview of the topic. And it’s a completely different style and is shorter. So if you just want to have it in a nutshell, or 240 pages, or so, that’s probably the one you would want to go to. It has a different angle of approaching things.

 

And then you have “Debating the Holocaust”, which is the next volume, Volume 32, by a professor of philosophy. I won’t reveal his name here. But his pen name is Thomas Dalton. So he comes from the philosophical angle. And he’s actually a major critic of modern technology. That’s what his approach is to philosophy. Thinking that modern technology is ruining mankind. Not so much talking about the environment, that’s a different issue. But if you look at all the, …

 

Jim Rizoli: I got a question for you Germar. In all the books, like I know you revise them, what things have you revised in the books that have been very critical to revise? Because again, remember, that this goes over a long period of time. So from the beginning when you started getting these books going to now, what have you had to go back on to say:

 

“Wait a second here! We have to change something here that we said that we have to revise.”

 

Can you can pick anything out?

 

[34:56]

 

Germar Rudolf: Over the decades much more material has become accessible. So you broaden your bases, your source bases basically. You don’t want to be accused of when you’re in that business saying that you’re overlooking major sources. And so we have to broaden that. And that doesn’t really change anything when it comes to the result of the research as a matter of fact the more sources we get there are two kinds of sources:

 

Original wartime documents that show what happened on the official level – documents produced by the Germans, but also documents produced by the Allied powers. And by the underground movements that were fighting against the Germans.

 

And then you have as a second group; eyewitness accounts.

 

And as I mentioned just before, a lot of those hidden in archives have been recently made accessible on various camps; Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor. And Belzec, there’s nothing really new. So it’s limited to these three camps that major new material became accessible.

 

And then we analyzed that too. Broaden the basis and see it fully supports our conclusions and our the results we get from this support. So it’s not changing anything when it comes to our conclusions. But it under undergirds it much more firmly and makes it less accessible to attack from the other side, because we show we really master the source material. We know it all. And we include it and discuss it all.

 

Jim Rizoli: Well I know the books get attacked all the time. I mean, I are you familiar with the Quora site? Have you ever heard of that, Quora? It’s like a blog site. It’s called q-u-o-r-a. And people like yourself you could go on there. And you could actually put your books up for comment on that site. Yourself, I suppose.

 

But people criticize the “Holocaust” books, you know. I mean, revisionist books. And they say that they’re not written by scholars. The people that write them don’t know what they’re talking about, and blah, blah, blah. I mean, …

 

Germar Rudolf: That is not criticizing the books, it’s ad hominem attacks which, …

 

Jim Rizoli: I know, I know!

 

Germar Rudolf: , … Is not scientific behaviour because so many scholars on the mainstream, they are not formally educated in history, either. So this is not what counts.

 

You have to go to the actual source material and claim we quoted it wrongly, we missed sources, we misinterpreted them, or whatever it is.

 

There are a number of websites by mainstream people – not all of them scholars – picking up on whatever we have published, and then trying to refute it. And these websites are more, or less, active and stuff getting posted there all the time and revised.

 

The problem with that approach is that if you want to do serious scientific research, you need to back up what you’re saying. And what you’re quoting with sources that are reliably discoverable by whoever is going to want to check what you’re saying!

 

One main feature of today’s scientific and academic world is that you cannot quote stuff that’s on the internet, on some blog, because tomorrow it may be changed. Tomorrow it may be gone.

 

There are two kinds of sources; quotable sources and non-quotable sources! Non-quotable sources, anything of the day day-to-day media. You can’t quote them. Because journalists make stuff up! They have no idea what they’re talking about. You cannot ever quote media!

 

Jim Rizoli: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: You can quote them as proof as that they’re talking nonsense. That’s all you can use them [chuckling] for! You cannot use them to prove anything being correct, because journalists are hardly ever correct. And tomorrow a paper that may be posted online may be gone tomorrow.

 

And the same is with those blogs where people just throw in their mental diarrhea! Tomorrow it may be rewritten, tomorrow may be gone! There is no peer review process, there is no academic control.

 

Like a lot of academic publications nowadays are already published online before they ever get printed. Some of them are only online. But they have peer review processes. They have proper archiving procedures, referencing procedures. So if somebody posts something it’s there. It will be there. It will stay there. And you can’t make revisions. You can submit errata sheets or so they get added to it. But you can’t actually change stuff around. Publish is published! And it stays there.

 

That’s not true for all these blogs. So if you want to pay attention and take seriously every single one of these mental diarrhea sites, you have nothing else to do in the world anymore.

 

I realized that in the 1960s [?90s] when I was getting engaged in these bulletin boards and these discussion groups on the internet that were just popping up as the internet was evolving. And people were engaging each other in revisionist discussions, or “Holocaust” denial, or revisionism, whatever site you’re on.

 

And I realized that if you refute one person in any discussion it may, or may not, get deleted. But then as somebody else starts a new thread and the same false claims are being published again by someone else. So you can’t win in any of these. It’s a wack-a-mole game! You can never win that!

 

And if you get start getting engaged in it you have no time and no energy left to do actually what needs to be done! To go to the archives, to do the footwork, to actually get this stuff together and publish it in a serious form, in printed books, as it needs to be.

 

[41:20]

 

Now if these people start actually putting their critique together, peer review it, get it published as a book so that we know it’s there! It stays! It’s in archives! It’s in libraries! People can access it and it won’t run away, then we can talk about discussing these things.

 

But as long as it is in the format as it is, it’s impossible to handle. I mean, potentially there could be millions of people who hate revisionism, want to refute it, they all get into these bulletin boards, and discussion groups, and blogs, and whatever you call them, the name for these things have changed over time, you know what used to be just a bulletin board is now a blog.

 

How many people are we on the revisionist side that do serious research? We are so resource constrained by time, by money, by anything, that we really have to focus on what we can do. We cannot engage all these people! We cannot even read all this stuff!

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah, I know.

 

Germar Rudolf: Put it in a proper form? Yes. But unless that happens and I can’t see that happening, because no publisher takes books that takes revisionist content series and tries to refute it, because by so doing you first acknowledge revisionist stuff exists!

 

Second, you acknowledge that it is so serious that it needs addressing and refutation. And so the reader gets pointed to the revisionist content. Ninety nine point nine per cent of people out there believe the mainstream story, anyhow. Once they get a book in their hand that says:

 

“Oh there are revisionists. And they have arguments and we need to refute them.”

 

Ten percent of them bail out and are suddenly with us! So bad news about revisionism by these blogs and books turns out to be advertising for us. No matter what news it is, it’s going to be advertising! Therefore these things will not be published as books, because publishers will not touch it!

 

Jim Rizoli: Do you get a chance to go out and speak anywhere? Like to people, or, …

 

Germar Rudolf: No. The current social atmosphere makes it an activity that I would consider too dangerous.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: The things I’m doing are already dangerous. I still have three school-aged kids, and we try to live a normal family life. If I stick my head too far out the window that may change.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: Right now, you go to the website of the town I live in, it’s not a secret, it’s Red lion. You go on Wikipedia look up Red Lion [York, Pennsylvania] and you look up which prominent persons live in Red Lion. There are three people on there. Two of which don’t even live here. And there’s one person who actually does live there, and that’s me. And this is as much as a high profile as I want. [chuckling] I’m the only prominent person living in this town, and the media, of course, see that as a negative, just as does Wikipedia has a negative prominence as an infamous person. And getting in much higher profile than that, … Already having the interview as I have it now with you.

 

Jim Rizoli: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: It’s probably engaging in public speech in some regard. And this is already a risk I’m taking here on a personal level, because my wife doesn’t like it.

 

Now that is the other part of the family. And not, because of the contents we’re discussing. There’s nothing that they have to quibble about that. But it’s because of the exposure I get and the possible negative repercussions it could have for the family. And I’m not going to make it worse by going out and speak to actual audiences where on top of it you have the risk of some people attacking you physically.

 

[45:13]

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah. I know, because that’s another thing they use against a revisionist. They say:

 

“Well revisionists, they don’t go out and debate people, or this, or that.”

 

And then, like you just say. Well, if we go out there doing this, we run into problems, because people want to kill us! Or burn our, … You know, do something bad to us. And I understand that. I can see that happening.

 

It’s like Ball, John Ball, I know you have one of the books of him the photo evidence of the camps and this. And he kind of like disappeared in life, right?

 

Germar Rudolf: Well, I’m in touch with him. We’re still friends. So yeah, he changed his name and moved away, and changed his career completely. So unless, you know, where to look for him and under what name you wouldn’t know where he is. But for a good reason, because he completely ruined his career!

 

He was a mineral exploration geologist. And after that book had come out he had become unemployable! He lost his job and he couldn’t find a job anywhere, anymore. And so he’s now independent, he’s his own boss, he does his own thing. So that was the only way out.

 

Like for me. I mean, I’m independent. I’m unemployable in the normal market. I wouldn’t have to apply for anything, anyway! [chuckling] Any googling of my name and people just won’t touch me. And he had the same problem. So for me it’s not a problem anymore of employability, of material safety, which a proper job gives you, because I have made revisionism my job. And my career. And my life, and earn the living I need to earn to live.

 

I mean, I’m not, you’re not, getting rich with a revisionism, ever! And 20, 30, 40 years ago when there were still wartime generation people who would bestow big inheritances on some individuals. But that doesn’t happen anymore. Ernst Zundel managed to get several millions that way. But then again he had expenses of several millions with all the stuff he was doing, too! [chuckling]

 

So, at the end of the day, no matter how you look at it, revision is not going to be materially profitable to anyone. It’s dangerous, …

 

Jim Rizoli: All right, finish what you’re going to say, because I have another question I want to ask you. Kind of unrelated, but go ahead.

 

The question I want to ask you has to do with Eric Hunt, if you don’t mind me asking, okay? Because what the hell happened with him? I mean, I look at the stuff on the internet, I read, and here’s a guy that was doing tremendous work in the revisionist movement. And then he just completely went off, out of sight here! I don’t know what, I mean, … Can you talk about it, or if you don’t want to, you don’t have to.

 

Germar Rudolf: I would exaggerate if I say that I know him well enough to make make 100% accurate assessment of what happened there. There are several aspects to the issue. And two of them are what I would like to discuss here.

 

The first one is his mental and emotional stability. He was on some medication to keep his emotions in check. Which shows already that he sometimes emotionally overreacted to things that required that medication.

 

So, when you get into, … Let’s call it a fight like that, it’s not like that you want to fight for something, but the social environment will fight you! So you inevitably get into nasty social situations that isolate you. And, of course, he had a bad experience when he had this little encounter, a nasty encounter with Ellie Wiesel which got him sentenced for assault and spent jail time, actually.

 

That was before he got deeper involved in revisionism. But that kind of ruined his social situation for good in this country. After that he was living in a car out on the road, because he was unemployable. The situation was really bad. And it got better only when he left the country and moved over to Europe, to Eastern Europe.

 

Jim Rizoli: So that’s where he is now? He’s in Europe?

 

Germar Rudolf: Most of the good work that you’ve seen him doing, some of them he did still while living in a car here in the US, after he was released from prison. And some of that he did then when he was in Eastern Europe. And that’s where he is right now. And he has a girlfriend there.

 

And I actually talked to him, and it’s the second aspect. He was in it not for the revisionist part, you know. I came in primarily, because a feeling of injustice, suppressing something like that evidently has a lot of impact, a lot of importance. Suppressing it by the government is just unjust! And anything that’s profoundly unjust, there’s something that drives me up, and I get pick up the fight for justice.

 

However, his approach was White Nationalism. And to, to a large degree, an anti-jewish stance. And he saw revisionism as a tool to further these causes. And this is a tricky, slippery road to go on. Because, if you look into revisionism, it is nothing isolated for White nationalists. You find black people interested in it. You find Latinos interested in it. You find Arab Muslim communities interested in it particularly. So there is no racial purity in the revisionist movement. The whole concept is just alien to revisionism.

 

And the other thing is the anti-jewish angle, revisionism by itself is not against any group of people, or any creed, or whatever you want to say. Of course, it is critical about eyewitnesses, a large portion of which happen to have some kind of jewish background. But that’s where it stops. We’re not getting into the discussion of jews as a social group, or as a religious group, even though some revisionists do that in other parts of the world.

 

Like, if you look at Thomas Dalton, he has these two books on “Holocaust” revisionism. And lately, over the past two, or three years, he’s published numerous books on the so-called jewish question. So there is a relationship between the two. But it’s not one-on-one.

 

And you can’t solve any jewish question, whatever you want to define it, by just going after revisionism, making it succeed. That is not a panacea for nationalist, White nationalist, supremacist, racialist – whatever you want to call it – issue that people may have, ….

 

[52:58]

 

Jim Rizoli: Even David Cole and even David Irving and Mark Webb, … I mean, a lot of them have kind of capitulated in some of their views now. But to now saying like, for instance, like:

 

“Oh, Treblinka was an execution camp! They murdered millions of people in these camps!”

 

And [words unclear] his great Treblinka video he did. And then go completely the opposite, to say:

 

“Oh now the big problem is, well, where did the jews go if they weren’t exterminated? Where did they go? And blah, blah, blah!”

 

Germar Rudolf: For me, it’s two issues. I advised him, you need to take your emotional investment in it hoping that it will resolve the White racist problems, and the jewish question, out of it, because it’s probably not gonna happen.

 

It’s a fight by itself. It’s for truth! It’s for justice more than anything else. And his heart was not in that kind of stuff. He realized this is not leading to success. Not short term, not midterm, if ever. And therefore he lost an interest in it.

 

And then I advised him, before he flipped, I advised him he needs to have the basics of his life sorted out. He was in the process of ruining his life with revisionism, by getting in this tussle with Ellie Wiesel, getting himself imprisoned, because of it. And I said:

 

“The most important issue of life, is procreation! That’s how life maintains itself! It’s also the solution to the White racial problem! You don’t have kids, it’s not going to be a White race. There’s not going to be anything to fight for! So love family, having children, raising new life in love. That is the essence of life! This is the essence of the human experience! And you need to focus on that. You have a girlfriend there, she’s a good girl. Get your life back together in Eastern Europe. Marry her, have children, have a family, have a reason for life that is very profound deep and makes sense in the bigger context, too. And once you have that, all the rest comes after that it’s secondary.”

 

And I think that fed then into it him realizing:

 

“If I want to have a normal family life, I need to stop ruffling feathers on a level where I’m getting constantly in trouble, and where I have problems maintaining a family, or even establishing one.”

 

And so he decided to bail out! To not have the struggle anymore, since it’s not leading to the immediate success he hoped for on the aspects on the topics he was most interested in. And to settle down have a family and bailout.

 

Anything else is post facto rationalization of his decision!

 

As you say, we can’t comprehend he makes this hard-heading videos on Majdanek and Treblinka showing how absurd the story is, how easily it can be refuted. And then he flips suddenly 180 degrees, coming up with these superficial, mainstream, propaganda slogans, that he just refuted a year ago! It makes no sense.

 

And the reason why it makes no sense is he rationalized his decision to bail out this way, to get out of the hard fight, because he realized it’s not really his fight. And he needs to justify it without feeling himself a coward, or whatever it is.

 

Jim Rizoli: It almost sounds like it was done in a spiteful way, you know what I mean? Like you’re not doing it, because you’re leaving it, you’re doing it, …

 

[56:52]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: Go back to the first part when I talked about his emotional problems.

 

Jim Rizoli: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: You see how he does it that’s in his, in the fabric of his behavioral patterns.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah. What do you think about David Irving, because he believes now that a couple million people were killed in Treblinka too! The Reinhardt camps. I mean even Mark Weber! Mark Weber even has a belief system that he believes that people were killed, either the Einsatzgruppen would kill them, or they were killed in gas chambers, or whatever, in these camps.

 

David Cole, he’s done the same thing. I mean, what do you think about that today?

 

Germar Rudolf: David Irving has never been a “Holocaust” revisionist, as such, as we would describe, in that he researched the matter, argued the matter, and came to conclusions based on the evidence he found, and the arguments he has assessed.

 

If you look at what he has published over the years, he has published stuff about the war, about war heroes, or central war figures. And he has never published anything serious about revisionism. And when I visited him back in London, back in the years, he said:

 

“He doesn’t read the revisionist books.”

 

You know, he always brags, he doesn’t read mainstream historians books! He goes to the archives. He goes to the source material itself and does the research. And he doesn’t care about what other people write, because it’s irrelevant. The only thing he’s interested in is:

 

“What sources do they quote? Have I covered that? Did I find them? And if not, where do I find them? Then I use them.”

 

I’m not saying that the approach is wrong, quite to the contrary. At the end of the day, the evidence matters, not somebody’s published opinion about it.

 

So it’s always good to go to the evidence and make up your own mind. But that’s exactly the issue! He has never done that in the issue of the extermination of the jews. He hasn’t done it about Auschwitz! About Treblinka! About Belzec! About Sobibor! Majdanek, or any other camp. He has done no footwork whatsoever! Archival, forensic, whatever you want to call it, to even assemble some amount of evidence to base his opinion upon! Therefore his opinion is as relevant as anyone’s!

 

Jim Rizoli: Right.

 

Germar Rudolf: Just because he’s David Irving and has published books on historical aspects of this and that, doesn’t mean he’s an expert, and needs to be taken seriously when it comes to these things. No, it’s not!

 

When we’re talking about David Cole, it’s similar in this regard. He has done some footwork when it comes to Auschwitz. And I have been over the years, until not too long ago, actually been in touch with him. And sometimes he’s preparing something. And then he asked me for an update of what the research situation about Auschwitz is. Asks me a few questions. What are the primary sources, that I pointed to him. Because he doesn’t want to do the footwork of even reading the revisionist books, or going to the archives! He then asks someone:

 

“Where’s that stuff?”

 

And I point him to it. And he always asks only about Auschwitz, none of the other stuff!

 

[60:02]

 

And he has maintained – to some degree Irving the same thing, because his trial was mainly about it, he was forced to go into the evidence a little bit there, but not too much.

 

He maintains his stance about Auschwitz, David Cole that is, saying:

 

“It didn’t happen! There were no gas chambers there.”

 

Because he has done a little bit of footwork there and he knows that the evidence clearly points to:

 

“No, it didn’t happen.”

 

He hasn’t done the same thing with the other camps. So then he falls back to:

 

“What makes life bearable and easy for me? Well, go with the mainstream. Because I have to make life bearable to some degree, and don’t want to get involved in a battle that just drags me deeper, and deeper, and deeper, into the rabbit hole!”

 

And when it comes to Mark Weber, … Mark Weber I’ve seen him interact with David Irving and he’s very basically parroting what David Irving has been saying.

 

[Image] Mark Weber.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah. It seems like they’re kind of together, David Cole, Weber, and Irving, are kind of like:

 

“Birds of a feather, flock together.”

 

And the limited gassings, people were killed in the camps. The Einsatzgruppen killed, you know, a million people, …

 

Germar Rudolf: David David Irving is an extremely dominant person, socially speaking.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: To the point where he can get really unpleasant.

 

Mark Weber is a shifty person, who tries to arrange his professional environment in a way where he stays on top, and everybody that maybe a threat, gets out of the way. And he keeps control over everything. So he’s a control freak when it comes to his IHR [Institute of Historical Review] thing, and with minimal efforts trying to make a living. Because basically when you look what he’s producing and the quality of work, there’s nothing left!

 

Jim Rizoli: Nothing! Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: He’s pushed everyone out. They wanted to do work and he has repelled everyone. And he is basically in this relationship, Irving-Weber. He’s the submissive party.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: I’ve seen them interact when they are one-on-one, or sitting in a restaurant with a few people, the way he panders to David Irving, sycophantic behavior that made me sick to watch! It was appalling! And I walked out of it. I said:

 

“Oh! This is just awful!”

 

Having seen this kind of dynamic between the two that’s all there is to it! He’s just creeping us up David Irving’s ass, because that’s a comfortable position to be in for him! Because this big David Irving then gives him a little bit of a share of the reputation, and recognition, and stabilizes his situation of having control over the IHR. And that’s all there is to it.

 

Jim Rizoli: ,You know what bothers me? I heard that he’s actually sitting on a bunch, a lot of books that should be republished, or could be republished. Really good revisionist books. He’s not doing it! He’s just holding them and not publishing them! And that really bothers me, you know?

 

Germar Rudolf: Arthur Butz told me, … You know, we are getting off on a tangent, which I shouldn’t get off on. But then I’m going there anyway [chuckling]! Arthur Butz tells me:

 

“Stop kicking a dead horse!”

 

And with that, he means Mark Weber and the IHR.

 

 

But since you brought it up, look, everyone look behind Jim Rizoli, you see those 44 books there. Hard hitting, top-notch research results published through my outlet over the past 20 some odd years!

 

If you try to find any of those books; hardcover, softcover, whatever it is, offered by the IHR, you will find out that they offer nothing! I have offered to Mark Weber repeatedly, special deals that he can even sell the books on his website. He offers them, he sells them, but he doesn’t have to keep any stock, he doesn’t have to buy any books from me. He just forwards the incoming orders to me. I fulfill them and he gets cut. A very generous cut! Twice the amount of industry standard! I do that with other publishers, with other outlets. It works just fine.

 

He refuses to do it! Initially when I said:

 

“Well I’ll give you a special discount, you buy the book.”

 

“No, I don’t have storage space to put them in.”

 

“Well, then I just send them to you as you need them.”

 

“Well no, we don’t have the money to put up front to buy these books.”

 

“Well, I mean, do it on commission.”

 

“Well no, this is inconvenient.”

 

“Well then I do order fulfillment for you. You will not have anything to do. You can automatize it. You see this book is published by Castle Hill Publishers. Somebody orders it, the system sends the email to me, I fulfill it. You get the money! You have no effort whatsoever! No expense whatsoever! You just rake in money! What’s the problem?”

 

Will not do it!

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: Why will he not do it? Answer that question to yourself. There are a number of answers to it, but none of them are positive.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah, well I mean, yeah. Germar, right now you’re probably the top man in regards to the revisionist movement, in regards to getting things done, published, and out there.

 

And, of course, I’m close with Fred Leuchter. And we have a good relationship with him. Because he obviously agrees with you and is on your side 100%. And I mean, it’s good to see people that are standing up and standing firm with this, because you have loose, back revisionist, like Mark Weber. I don’t even really consider him a revisionist. David Irving, I don’t consider a revisionist. And the other ones I talked about.

 

But you’ve been doing this for years and you’ve been hanging in there. And I mean, you’re not making a million dollars. But you’re hanging in there. I mean, I’m happy to see that you’re doing this.

 

And I wish more people would buy your books. I hope people watching this will hopefully, if they have some money to spend, if you have a $500,000, you want to buy the whole set, you know, invest your money in something that’s positive! That’s good! That’s gonna give you some information., you know what I’m saying?

 

People can waste their money on all this other garbage. And I look at books as very valuable, especially with the internet now banning everything. I mean, eventually these books won’t be available anywhere. I mean, if you have them, then you have them! That’s the way I look at it. I mean, if you’re interested in the topic, you know what I’m saying?

 

[67:26]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: Very soon, hopefully within the next week, or two, we will have a special deal on the Holocaust Handbooks. That is a library edition. And as I mentioned we’ll offer them for a cheaper price. So right now the hardcover edition is over a thousand dollars. And we will probably offer it roughly half the price, which will be just a little bit over production costs, plus shipping.

 

But, if anyone orders that library set of books it will go to a library. So they have to tell us which library is supposed to get it. So this is a way for people to donate the whole set, hardcover. Libraries don’t take paperbacks of that kind of books, because they don’t last. They use that as an excuse to reject them. Hard covers last, so that’s what they want to have.

 

And then people can actually make a donation to a public, or an academic library – include the information, which one they prefer. If they don’t enter any, we pick one, we communicate with the customer who makes a donation. And then we make sure that we have someone, somewhere, who tracks down whether the library accepts them, stores them, catalogs them, and makes them accessible.

 

And a story may develop out of that, that they actually reject them, or they hide them in the archive, or they don’t catalog them, or they put them in a poison cabinet, not giving anyone access!

 

Jim Rizoli: I think that’s a great idea! Because isn’t it true that books like that you can’t check out, right? You can’t take out a book like that, can you?

 

Germar Rudolf: There are unique, particular of historical value, if you have of anything that is considered an antique, or of any kind, that you can only take them into the reading room. Sometimes even under supervision.

 

Jim Rizoli: That’s why I said that in the beginning, because, well the books that I’ve gotten in the libraries in the past people have stolen them. I think that’s a great idea for people watching this video. If you want to see if you can do something positive to get this message out with these books. Like you say, say you’re going to donate, you’re going to buy the books, or how it works, you buy the books and donate them to the library. The library puts them in. And then they got the books. I mean, that’s really good. I think that’s a great idea!

 

[70:07]

 

 

Germar Rudolf: Yeah. Because any academic researcher that will then go to a library and look what’s there. You think nowadays a lot of research is through the internet. Through the internet we are already present. If somebody looks for them, they find them “Holocaust Handbooks”. All available for free.

 

But when it comes down to some serious researchers I earlier mentioned, at the end, it is still going to the archives, it’s still going to the libraries. And once the books are, they will stumble over them. And if you have this massive set you can’t just, … I mean, a lot of scholars will still turn a blind eye to it! But the younger ones, the less prejudiced ones, take note anyhow and that’s seeding doubts in young minds that actually do some serious research in libraries.

 

And also it’s about anyone else. I went to the library when I was young researching that topic and all I found was mainstream stuff, very little revisionist stuff. Had I ever stumbled over something like that treasure trove opening up your mind, wow! What is this! It would have been an explosion of knowledge!

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah.

 

Germar Rudolf: So we want to have people get that opportunity by chance stumbling over it. If you already know what you’re looking for you always find it, because we have it out there. But for the people who don’t look for it, they should still stumble over it.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah. I mean, that’s a great idea. I hope people watching this will think about that. Maybe, if you want to contribute to the cause, this would be a good cause to contribute to and helping other people in a library to see the information. I think that’s great.

 

And again, you mentioned too, all the PDFs. I got all the PDFs on my phone. I can read all the time. And I put them on my phone, and I read them on my tablets. And you can download those free if you want.

 

But I really would love to see more people, even if they don’t want your books, contribute to the cause! I mean, right Germar, people can at least contribute to the cause to help you keep the work going. I mean, this is what bothers me. The “Holocaust” lobby has millions and millions of dollars supporting them and all their efforts.

 

Germar Rudolf: That is an understatement! They have billions, that’s more like it.

 

Jim Rizoli: Billions, I mean. And here you are working hard to keep the most important information and the truth about this topic. And it’s like you have to go from week to week, month to month, just getting by. I mean, people put your money where your mouth is! Support the cause! I love to see people support the cause more. So even if you don’t read, support the cause! Do something! Get the information out! Get them into the libraries, if you have money to spend, then do that. I don’t know people always say.:

 

“Well, what can I do to help you?”

 

Well, look, I don’t want your money. Just get this information out there, that’s the most important thing.

 

Well anyway, how would you like to conclude? Anything you want to say Germar? I know going about an hour.

 

Germar Rudolf: I guess in the video description below when you post we can put some links on where to get the “Holocaust” handbook series, and whatever form you want them. And also a link to where you can actually donate.

 

Jim Rizoli: Okay. You send me whatever you have. And I’ll put it in the description of the video. You know, I have probably, Diane, we have about maybe 350 people on our email list. Which is a pretty good email list. And then I have my BitChute site. And I have my other video sites. And this is going to go on all the sites.

 

And we have a movement here that’s very important I think. People have to see it. And you have the fake revisionist movement, okay! We already talked about [chuckling]! And then you got the movement that you’re taking care of, and you’re spearheading. And I think that’s the moment we got to support and get behind, however we can do it, okay. Leave Germar money in your will! Anything! Give him something so he can continue on with the cause. Very important information I think people have to see.

 

Well Germar look, you did a great job with all this information. And again, like I said, you’re probably the top man doing it today. And we look to you in the future to get more information out there to even Whittle it down to get it even more concise, so that people can actually see more information.

 

Germar Rudolf: Video production. You know, images tell more than a thousand words and getting it presented in good documentaries is a challenge now. Because I had to switch on getting the book series, all our ducks in a row for releasing the hard covers. I had to put video production on halt.

 

And finding people who actually can chip in there is very difficult. Volunteering is a challenge on several levels. Because, if we want to have anyone help us, we need to be able to trust people on several levels. Because helping us with anything requires us giving them access to something. And there’s so much hostility and false friends out there, who just want to get the foot in the door in order to do damage! We need to be very careful with who we actually accept.

 

And then there’s the problem of reliability. Anyone volunteering, but then bailing out of project halfway down. This is happening, I would say, 80% of the time. Somebody volunteers and it ends up falling flat.

 

So this is a real problem. Right now it’s not so much that we have lack of manpower than we have a lack of financial resources to actually finance the people we already have that help us.

 

Because the end of the day, you get what you pay for. And a million volunteers that are unpaid sometimes do more damage than they do good [chuckling]! So at the end you need to pay people.

 

And that’s the switch that we had in CODOH also, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. When Bradley Smith did it, almost everything was done on a volunteer basis. And we switched that model over. We’re trying to run it as a company. And so keep strict quality control, and security, and profitability, up there, because otherwise the money just goes away without doing much. And that works much better.

 

But we have to, at the end of the day, we need to pay bills. And that’s where the biggest constraint is.

 

Jim Rizoli: Yeah, well you’re doing a great job Germar! I always enjoy talking with you. And again hopefully people will react and get more involved in some way here. And that’s my hope that this will happen.

 

Okay Germar. Thank you for being on my show today, and update us if you have something that we should know about, let me know. Because then I can send it out, or we could do another interview, or talk to you some more about it, or whatever.

 

But, whatever information you have that you think is important for us to know, … Because we get this out every week. Diane and I, she puts the newsletter together and gets our videos out, and gets the information out. So people see it every week. So it’s important for people to see that.

 

Okay everyone. I want to thank you for watching our video. I’m Jim Rizoli with Germar Rudolf, and we appreciate you watching. And again we’ll talk to you another time. Bye now.

 

[78:31]

 

[Outro information, music and links]

 

[78:55]

 

 

END

 

 

If you would like to help with this, and other transcripts, please leave a note in the Comment section. If you spot any errors, typos, etc., also let me know.

 

___________________________

 

 

BitChute Comments

top

  • rambetter

    Jim you have all the best guests on your show.  Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf.  Major credit to you.  <3

    ··

  • Uptake

    Thank you very much for this upload. The Holocaust Handbook series are gold. I hope he would carry on publishing more and more until he leaves no stone unturned in this topic, even if that takes a thousand volumes!  In some cultures, very niche topics are covered in hundreds of volumes, each volume composed of over a thousand pages. It is only in Western culture that people are disinclined to write too much, sadly because we live in a part of the world where reading for the purpose of education is not ingrained in culture. People simply cannot read except in pursuit of entertainment and so publishers and authors often keep their educational books and their volumes short.  This man clearly does what he does not in pursuit of money but the truth, people such as this deserve investment. They deserve platforming. They deserve empowerment, but you often find them ostracised and marginalised, exploited and abused. This part of the world that we live in is undeserving of people such as this. This is why it is in the continuous decline that it is in.  I have not been researching the holocaust for a long time. In fact, I am new to this journey in history and in politics. I am so happy to have come across these handbooks today. I will be investing in them and I encourage others to do the same, if they haven’t already of course, because I know many in this field know this man and unlike me are already acquainted with his series of books.  [show less]

    ··

  • Fakenukes

    ABX is conspicuously missing from this discussion….she’s scrolling through Wikipedia to find a way to discredit Germar, LOL

    ··

    • View all 7 replies

    • Marcus CeltOrwell’s Daughter

      LOL Im gonna have nightmares tonight

      ··

    • Orwell’s DaughterMarcus Celt

      You’ve been Stockholm Syndromed by Babs

      ··

  • Fakenukes

    Leave the ones where she makes death threats….keep em up for everyone to see

    ··

  • @abx0018b50b

    Jim, please stop telling the truth and giving a platform to knowledgeable guests. You are making our job of deceiving the masses very difficult. You types should just stop.

    ··

    • Hide replies

    • drumbum

      LOL

      ··

    • Marcus Celt

      https://i.imgur.com/pV1MQvy.gif

      ··

    • SafariSam USA

      I like your 1st Statement, at least your being Honest now.  I respect that.  But Jim Should NOT “stop”.

      ··

    • SafariSam USAMarcus Celt

      Did they Not have Bagels back then?

      ··

    • @abx0018b50cSafariSam USA

      Mr not so bright that isn’t my username

      ··

    • papasha408@abx0018b50c

      You are an incorrigible liar and a jerk with no sense of proportion.  Do everyone a favor and ef off!

      ··

  • Orwell’s Daughter

    Germar’s material has helped me open the eyes of several people. As a doctor, I have a few colleagues who aren’t total lemmings. I sent them to Germar’s website & they were amazed. Thanks Germar. You are one of the only White men left.

    ··

    • Jim Rizoli

      Germar is a brilliant person anybody that does not see that I don’t know what to tell you he knows his stuff.

      ··

  • SafariSam USA

    I talked to a guy the other day who had a German last name, and he said he didnt understand how “Everyone wants to be like Hitler”.  So I told him some of the Holocaust Revisionists story.  He didnt seem mad, and actually I think I gave him something to think about and Research.  Amazing, the More I follow this subject,  the more Ridiculous the “Official Jooz’s” Story becomes.  And I’m a Recovering “Holocaust Believer”, Rehabilitated.  Well I Never verbally assaulted a Holocaust Denier because I’m a Very Open Minded Person.  Actually I thought it was a Joke at first, but the more i listened and Read the Books the More it made sense. [show less]

    ··

    • Hide replies

    • @abx0018b50c

      Did you spew a series of lies like you usually do??

      ··

    • Jochen88@abx0018b50c

      Here comes the flood of filth…..

      ··

    • papasha408@abx0018b50c

      Why don’t you bugger off and bother some other site?  This guy is a Hasbara Troll!!!

      ··

  • SafariSam USA

    You know what, the Bible does say the Antichrist will turn on the Jews during the Tribulation period.  So its possible.  And the Antichrist will be a Jew.  1 John 2:22“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”

    ··

  • Fredziffle108

    do they take credit card?

    ··

    • papasha408

      Yes, they do!!

      ··

  • Regensordo

    The handbooks are a massive achievement.

    ··

  • Fredziffle108

    Hunt’s work on Majdanek was sooo good

    ··

  • RebellischerCherub

    fred Leuchter is art professor?

    ··

  • TrueHistory

    Excellent interview with Germar, these books are great I have them all, look forward to the hard cover Hand books, keep up the good work. The truth will always come through.

    ··

  • Revision

    THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. NOT SOME CONSPIRACY BS.

    ··

  • 4thAmendment

    inclusive 🐜👁Arabs/Palestinians Semite GOYim🐄 exclusion😷 A Discussion on the Evil Liability 🆓 Talmud💉 barf sQuad of faKe Enron’s/vanGUARD/blac🇰 rocK on & on a disEASE Religion of god of FORCEs⚕ – Charles Guliani target=”_blank”>https://www.goyimtv.tv/v/3770109016/A-Discussion-on-the-Evil-Talmud—Charles-Guliani [show less]

    ··

  • niemsong

    Two heroes of mine JIM and GERMAR! Everyone needs to hear this!

    ··

  • SafariSam USA

    Galileo likewise defied the Pope by Stating the Earth Revolved/orbited around the Sun by using Science and Mathematics.  Here’s an article from the Hitler Channel, I mean History Channel.  https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy ;; If we dont learn from True History, we are doomed to repeat it.  And today we know the Pope was a Bigoted, Close Minded Fool.[show less]

    ··

    • BolshevikSlayer

      the heliocentric model is a complete farce. Sir George Biddell Airy demonstrated this fact with an experiment that has been called Aire’s failure. It was a failure because he set out to show that the earth revolved around the sun. His experiment proved the opposite. Michaelson and [show more]

      ··

  • papasha408

    Hello Germar.  I’m a big fan.  You are so needed in this ridiculous world we live in today!

    ··

===============================================

 

 

See Also

top

 

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

============================================

 

 

PDF

top

 

PDF Notes

 

* Total words = 13,466
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages = xx

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

 

 

Version History

top

 

Version 6: Aug 7, 2021 — Added 8 more minutes of transcript. Transcript now completed = 78 mins.

 

Version 5: Aug 6, 2021 — Added 3 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript completed so far = 70/78 mins.

 

Version 4: Aug 5, 2021 — Added 10 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript completed so far = 67/78 mins.

 

Version 3: Aug 4, 2021 — Added 15 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript completed so far = 57/78 mins.

 

Version 2: Aug 3, 2021 — Added 9 more minutes of transcript. Total transcript completed so far = 42/78 mins.

 

Version 1: Aug 2, 2021 — Published post. Total transcript completed so far = 33/78 mins.

]]> https://katana17.com/2021/08/02/jim-rizoli-germar-rudolf-the-holocaust-handbooks-and-more-jul-28-2021-transcript/feed/ 4 Jan 27 – Anniversary of Auschwitz “Liberation” and Our Enslavement https://katana17.com/2020/01/28/jan-27-anniversary-of-auschwitz-liberation-and-our-enslavement/ https://katana17.com/2020/01/28/jan-27-anniversary-of-auschwitz-liberation-and-our-enslavement/#comments Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:55:13 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=24041 Continue reading →]]>

 

Jan 27

 

Anniversary of Auschwitz “Liberation” and

 

Our Enslavement

 

January 27, 2020, is the 75th anniversary of the arrival of Soviet troops at Auschwitz, after the Germans had long fled, having given the inmates of that complex of labor camps the choice of either remaining or fleeing the Soviet terror machine. Most chose to flee west with their “Nazi” captors, including Eli Wiesel and his father, if his tall story-telling is to be believed.

Jan 27, 1945 could also be seen as a date that began our enslavement to “Holocaustianity”, the every increasing worship of the “Holocaust” as the non-historic event, the myth, the “Hoax of the Century”, that is being used as a shield by Organized jewry (orgjew) against any criticism whatsoever of jews and Israel, and as a sword used to cut down any form of rights for White countries to remain White, to resist the invasion of non-Whites into their countries throughout the West, engineered by orgjew.

For the vast overwhelming majority of people the “Holocaust” is essentially real, in that they believe that the Germans had a plan to exterminate jews, and among their methods used gas chambers, to kill about six million of them.

This is what I believed for most of my life. Yet after daring to take the emotionally painful steps to look into the subject, in depth, I now know that it is a diabolical lie.

That emotional process is wonderfully and humorously described by Bradley Smith, the founder of CODOH (Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust) in his “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist” booklet. (see below)

Please also take a look at the many articles, linked below, from a revisionist perspective. You will be challenged, and if you are the type of person who is interested in knowing what really happened you will be compelled to dig deeper. Otherwise remain a “Holohoax denier”.

 

— KATANA

 

“Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist”

 

This episode is wonderfully, beautifully and even amusingly retold in Bradley Smith’s  “Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist“, Chapter 1.

 

I PAUSED TO ACCEPT a photocopy of a newspaper article he was handing out when he quickly started telling me that the stories that six million Jews had been exterminated during World War II are not true.

I felt stunned, as if Buck Rogers had somehow come down from the 21st century and zapped me with a beam from his ray gun. I had heard about people like the little man who was confronting me, who deny that the Holocaust happened, but I had never actually seen one.

He was a small, thin, middle-aged man with a white pointy beard, clear blue eyes and a ruddy complexion.

The picture of health. He talked fast (though in a well-mannered, articulate way) as if he were afraid he would lose me.

In the first instant I didn’t truly grasp what he was saying; then I understood that he was telling me that there had been no Nazi gas chambers — none – that the stories I had heard all my life about the gas chambers were meant to gain sympathy for Jews at the expense of Germans. I felt my heart change its beat and pick up speed.

I felt sweat appear on the palms of my hands.

The first thing I wanted to do was to get away. We were on the mezzanine of the Bonaventure Hotel in downtown Los Angeles; there were a lot of people standing around and I supposed that he had proselytized the others before I had arrived. The others then had already heard what I was hearing now, and in my imagination each of them had one eye on me, waiting to see what my first move would be, waiting to judge me.

I felt ashamed listening to the man talk about Jews. I felt ashamed holding the photocopied articles in my hand. I could not have repeated anything he had said after his first few words; my brain had closed itself down in self-defense and yet: I was aware that he sounded knowledgeable and sincere.

I felt trapped between his sincerity and my shame. I wanted to get away from him, to hand back his flyers and turn away so that those who were watching would see that I rejected out of hand everything he was saying. At the same time, because of his honest and open manner, I didn’t want to cause him embarrassment by publicly rejecting him. I had never looked into the history of the Holocaust, had never examined any of the primary documents used to support the literature, so in my ignorance I felt I had no right, really, to believe or disbelieve any statement about it whatever. I didn’t feel I had the right to embarrass another man simply because he doubted what I believed. If sincerity isn’t to be taken seriously in human relationship, what is?

In the end the little man with the white devil’s beard and the very blue eyes made my decision for me when he turned to a new arrival and began his spiel all over again from the beginning.

Feeling defiled somehow by the flyers in my hand, I walked toward a large trash can. Even at that moment I knew that the problem wasn’t so much that I was holding the flyers as that I was being observed by others to be holding them. I had accepted the flyers innocently in deference to another’s sincerity. The shame I felt, the defilement, did not come from inside me but from the others, from what I understood to be the standards of my peers.

As I approached the trash can I glanced down at the lead article in one flyer. It was titled, “The Problem of the Gas Chambers, or The Rumor of Auschwitz.”

What Rumor?, I thought. What problem? There wasn’t anything that rang a bell for me. The author of the article was a certain Professor Robert Faurisson. I’d never heard of him. Then I noticed that the article had originally been published in Le Monde, the Paris daily. It was confusing. I had no idea at all what the problem of the gas chambers might be, or what the rumor of Auschwitz referred to. It sounded crazy. And I’d never heard of Faurisson. But I did know about Le Monde. My understanding was that Le Monde was one of a handful of world-class newspapers.

What, then, was Le Monde doing publishing an article critical of the Holocaust, or the gas chambers, or whatever? A moment before I had intended to drop the flyers into the trash on principle. In my circle you did not read material that might make Jews feel uncomfortable. It was a principle. It was necessary in my circle to maintain principles about some few things. Not many, but some. At the last moment I folded the flyers and put them in my back pocket. All that day I went about my business, the flyers folded up secretly in my pocket.

That night, alone in my room, like a thief, I took them out and read them, all the while conscious of the fearfulness in my behavior, the lack of self-respect. I was aware that I was reading something that everyone I knew, and all the people I liked best, would think bigoted and dirty, and that I was doing it at a time and in a place where they could not find me out. I had spent years learning to accept the weaknesses in my character, and to stand aside from them, yet there I was, 49 years old, hiding in my room with a newspaper article, fearful and ashamed.

 

In Chapter 3, Bradley continues, …

 

HOW CAN I EXPLAIN what happened to me in my apartment that night? I read a newspaper article written by a professor I had never heard of which had been translated from French by who knows who, given to me on a hotel mezzanine by a stranger who was probably a crank, maintaining a thesis that was outrageous and dangerous because – of what? I didn’t know, but a sense of tension and danger enveloped the thing. I sensed immediately into the reading that if I didn’t reject everything Faurisson was saying that I would be in danger of suffering great losses, though that night I would not have been able to identify what they would be.

Why was I willing to read the Faurisson piece with an open mind? I’ll never know, but the source of its original publication was given, along with the date, so the accuracy of the translation could be checked.

Key statements in the text were referenced; anyone willing to spend an hour or so in a good library could discover for himself if Faurisson was being honest in those instances. I was impressed by the simplicity of his claims and the objectivity of his tone, treating as he did a matter of tremendous significance from such a radical perspective.

Another probably reason was ignorance. Until that time I had not read a history of the Holocaust and hadn’t paid much attention to the stories of Holocaust “survivors.” I don’t know why. There were no heroes in the Holocaust stories I had heard – maybe that was it. Masses of sheep-like people being herded to the slaughter. Helplessness, passivity, pathos, no heroes to create tragedy from catastrophe. Maybe that was it. Ignorance then, a disinterest in suffering unredeemed by heroic action and finally, I suppose, a kind of primary boredom with a wretched story told and retold far too often.

That being so, how is it that I was so stunned at reading Faurisson’s thesis about the poison gas chamber stories? If the stories had not interested me in the first place, why should I have been affected by the discovery that they might not be true? Wouldn’t my fundamental lack of interest in the Holocaust forfeit my right—to a certain extent—to be shocked by the possibility that Faurisson had his finger on something?

But the real surprise might have been my discovery that despite my ignorance and the boredom I professed about the Holocaust, I had believed everything I had ever heard about it. Not the shadow of a doubt had ever crossed my mind. I had believed all the eyewitness testimony related by Holocaust survivors. I had believed what I understood to be the thesis in all the books written by Holocaust historians. Maybe that is why something broke in me that night. Maybe I had believed too rigidly for too long. There was nothing in me that could give a little. No room to bend. Intellectually, psychologically, something had to break. I think it was belief itself that finally cracked that night. My mind welcomed it— but in my heart I felt the awful anxiety that only great insecurity can create.

 

===============================================

 

See Also:

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

============================================

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Sep 13, 2023 – Updated image links.

 

Version 1: Jan 28, 2020 – Published post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2020/01/28/jan-27-anniversary-of-auschwitz-liberation-and-our-enslavement/feed/ 2 The Revisionist CODOH Forum now has: The 9/11 Forum https://katana17.com/2019/01/04/the-revisionist-codoh-forum-now-has-the-9-11-forum/ https://katana17.com/2019/01/04/the-revisionist-codoh-forum-now-has-the-9-11-forum/#comments Fri, 04 Jan 2019 02:03:30 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=19901 Continue reading →]]>

 

 

The Revisionist CODOH Forum

 

 

Now Has:

 

 

The 9/11 Forum

 

 

 

Please click the link above to go to the 9/11 Forum.

It’s available from today, Jan 4, 2019.

 

 

 

 

The 9/11 Forum Guidelines

 

Fri Jan 04, 2019

Note:
By default, this software collects IP numbers. However, that portion of the software has been disabled, visitors to the site now have an IP number of 0.0.0.0. This was done as a precaution against the police states that are prevalent throughout Europe (Austria, Germany, France, Russia, etc.).By default, we do not make ‘Private Messages’ (PM) available to new registrants.Rules/Guidelines

  • The Moderator retains the right to reject a username if he considers it offensive, obscene, or deliberately distracting.
  • Do not register under more than one username, aka: a ‘sockpuppet’. If for some reason you wish to change your username please contact the Moderator and / or Webmaster about doing so.
  • No name calling, period.
  • The 9/11 Forum forbids any threats or personal attacks against others, we will not tolerate links to sites which do engage in such behavior. We’re about debate and only debate.
  • On topic posts only. The topic of this forum is the subject generally referred to as ‘the attacks of 9/11’. Debating the origins, physical possibilities, and those responsible is the reason that The 9/11 Forum exists. Associated subjects are bound to come up, be sure there is a tie-in, show the tie-in. Each topic represents a separate point, a post to a topic must be pertinent to that point.
  • Posts by new or infrequent participants will be spam / troll checked by the Moderator before they appear on the Forum. They will not be censored for on topic opinions they present.
  • Keep your threads / posts limited to one point.
  • Voluminous, lengthy, and redundant posts are not welcomed.
  • Do not edit after posts after someone has responded in the same thread.
  • If you post a quote or link from or to a book, a news article, magazine story, another website, etc., you must also comment on the quote or the link content. Tell the forum what you find wrong, compelling, unique, or important about the quote or link content. Flippant, overly brief comments are not acceptable. We want commentary and discussion.
  • Posts which lack focus or specifics are not welcomed.
  • No ‘dodging’. When questioned or challenged on claims, or assertions you make in a thread you must respond directly / specifically by providing the information requested in the challenge or you must leave the topic.
  • You will address registrants only by the one name that he/she uses at the Forum.
  • Offenders will have their posts deleted, repeat offenders will be removed.
  • Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case; especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted.
  • Registrants who do not post within 30 days from date of registration are subject to deletion, they may re-register should they decide to post.

These rules are subject to revision as warranted.

Thank you, The 9/11 Forum Moderator

 

======================================

 

 

CODOH Discussion that Led to the

 

Creation of The 9/11 Forum

 

 

User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:13 pm)

There has a been numerous requests, most recently & rather strongly by participant Callahan, for a separate forum to discuss the activities of ‘9/11’.

I have generally been opposed to it, it’s not part of CODOH’s job description, so to speak, and I thought it may be a distraction from our prime directive.

However, in lieu of Callahan’s recent impassioned plea and weighing past suggestions of others, I think it’s time to re-evaluate and consider creating such a forum. I’m not 100% sold on it, but am leaning that way.

Rather than make a simple yes/no poll, I would like to solicit opinions & suggestions to see if this is something we should do.

I will set up such a 9/11 Forum if there is a reasoned consensus in favor.

Let me hear from you. Thanks.

M1

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top

User avatar

JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am
Contact:

Contact JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:49 pm)

I support it. Here’s why.

1. The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are too big to overlook. These parallels include using both events to justify war crimes in the Middle East, there being an ‘official’ version for both events, and ignored, but very thought out arguments against each ‘official’ version.

2. Although 9/11 is not the Holocaust, the parallels deserve their own sub-forum, and what better website than https://forum.codoh.com?

3. This forum is very structured, and a great place to debate. Adding 9/11 in with the mix would be spice in this wonderful bowl of soup.

4. It would by default bring 9/11 truthers who believe in the Holocaust, and would further demolish ‘the Industry’ by showing him facts. And people who are looking for the truth, such as a 9/11 truther, would be much easier to convince than an antifa terrorist or a warmongering, Israel loving Republican. It would be a win-win.

5. People such as Callahan and myself both favor this proposed sub-forum. If people don’t like it, or aren’t interested, they simply can avoid it. It really is that simple.

6. This isn’t flat earth or reptilian, or fringe beliefs. This is a position which very intelligent people disagree, and by no means would it make us look bad. The ADL and SPLC already defame us.

For these reasons, I support a separate sub-forum for 9/11 on this website.

If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.
Top
User avatar

Dresden

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:38 am
Contact:

Contact Dresden

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Dresden » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:54 pm)

I agree with JLAD on all points.

The ‘Holocaust’ and 9-11 are really joined at the hip.

It might be/probably will be, more difficult to Moderate a 9-11 Forum than a ‘Holocaust’ Forum because it is so much more important to the perpetrators to keep the lid on 9-11.

No doubt, there will be infiltrators and agent saboteurs who will join the 9-11 Forum with the intent to start fights and heated arguments in order to get the Moderator to close the Forum own, but hopefully whoever the Moderator will be, will be able to spot them.

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the ‘holocaust’, but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. — Bradley Smith
Top
avatar

Werd

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 5:23 pm
Contact:

Contact Werd

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Werd » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 2:23 pm)

If someone wanted to talk about 9-11 and the Israeli connections to it, does that mean we will then have to open up the forum to Israeli connections to

1. JFK
2. USS Liberty
3. Lavon Affair
4. Jewish AIPAC lobby/spy rings
5. Jews and immigration

and any other number of false flag or conspiracies? When will it stop? I have things to say about 9-11 and that list of 5 things. But I don’t see the need to drag them in. I can do without it. I don’t mind a strictly holocaust forum staying that way.

Top
User avatar

JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am
Contact:

Contact JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:24 pm)

Werd wrote:If someone wanted to talk about 9-11 and the Israeli connections to it, does that mean we will then have to open up the forum to Israeli connections to

1. JFK
2. USS Liberty
3. Lavon Affair
4. Jewish AIPAC lobby/spy rings
5. Jews and immigration

No, and those examples lack the parallel that the Holocaust has with 9/11. See my post above.

Werd wrote:and any other number of false flag or conspiracies? When will it stop? I have things to say about 9-11 and that list of 5 things. But I don’t see the need to drag them in. I can do without it. I don’t mind a strictly holocaust forum staying that way.

False, this is not a ‘strictly holocaust forum’; there already is a WWII sub forum. Should that be removed because it talks about things not necessarily Holocaust related?

If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.
Top
avatar

Werd

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 5:23 pm
Contact:

Contact Werd

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Werd » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:43 pm)

The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are too big to overlook. These parallels include using both events to justify war crimes in the Middle East, there being an ‘official’ version for both events, and ignored, but very thought out arguments against each ‘official’ version.

Upon reflection, this makes a lot of sense.

The reason we have an additional section on codoh for other aspects of world war II, is because the gas chamber/gas van holocaust of the Jews is claimed to have happened at this certain time. Exposing other lies and deceptions about world war II, such as
1.how many really died at Dresden
2. Stalin’s aggressive plans that were thwarted by Barbarossa
merely justify the right and duty to investigate wild holocaust claims.

The holocaust is connected to world war II like these other things because that is precisely when they occurred.

You say 9-11 and the holocaust are connected to perpetual war and slaughter of innocent in the middle east? There is a parallel with JFK. One of the reasons he was taken out is because he was opposed to Israeli dominance in the middle east and them having nuclear weaponry. JFK also wanted to stop the Vietnam war, a war in which Jewish technocrat Henry Kissinger was involved in prolonging.
https://truthout.org/articles/millions-died-because-kissinger-prolonged-the-vietnam-war-for-years-after-betraying-peace-treaty/

Other false flags like the Lavon Affair were to be used to demonize Arabs and justify further repression of them, ala, 9-11. So again I ask, why do we get selective with some false flags that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter overseas, but not others? This is just me being devil’s advocate. I don’t care either way if we add a 9-11 forum. But if we are going to do it under the guise of destroying fables that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter, then why not other false flags that have also been used for that? Where is the cut off?

Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:57 pm)

Moderator, first of all, thank you for your openness to this. I think JLAD and Dresden sum up a very large portion of why I find a bridge between Revisionism and 9/11 studies to be so important, and why I think this forum would benefit from incorporating such an element. However, truly, my own greatest intention is to share something a bit more specific with you all, here. There is a relatively unheard-of, evidence-based approach to 9/11 that I am extremely confident members here will find value in. I do think this will inevitably become the foundation for all 9/11 research going forward (once it becomes known), and it very much pertains to the distinction between Revisionist research (which is strictly evidence-based, critical, and open) and establishment Holocaust research (emotionally-driven, fallacious, etc.). It won’t be possible to explain here without a more proper introduction to it (which I offered in the thread I attempted to post here previously; fortunately, I saved the text for future use, just in case). If an entirely new forum for 9/11 isn’t something most members here would appreciate, I would very much value the opportunity to at least post the thread I had initially intended to share. As hard-to-believe as it may be considering the ridiculous spectrum of 9/11 theories and many hostile, fruitless debates since 2001, I can very near guarantee that–regardless of what you have heard about either “side” or fringe in the debate on 9/11 previously–this will be new to you, and will provide a refreshing style of technical analyses that will open your mind to this subject in new and productive ways.

As far as having a separate 9/11 forum, I think this could be a great idea as well however I do recognize the challenges that might come with moderating such a forum. The problem is, people are very passionate about whatever theory they end up aligning with, one way or another. Each theory relies on a vast amount of information from within its own paradigm and the heated debates between people of competing paradigms are often so ill-informed and grounded in so little actual, immediately verifiable evidence that the whole debate becomes a petty argument rather than an analysis of grounded, indisputable facts. The “evidence-based approach” I refer to is a solution to this problem, and I have seen it work. But beside this approach being introduced I have several ideas that might help alleviate certain problems. Since there are, at this time, at most five or six major technical theories about 9/11 (some of which are patently ridiculous, in my opinion, such as DEW energy beams, mini-nukes); it may be advisable to have a separate pinned thread for each of the competing technical theories. This will enable those who align with (or are passionate about) a particular theory to share what they regard as plausible evidence within their assigned thread. Those who are interested can add-onto what they find credible, or challenge it there. Viewers of the forum can tour each proposal for technical theories and appraise credibility. Then the unpinned, general posts can be any discussion of compatibility or consensus between these technical theories as well as any discussion of the means/motive of 9/11 (which I think most of us here already possess enough knowledge to make a clear case for).

While I would understand the basis for Werd’s concern about the Revisionists’ forum if 9/11 topics were casually permitted throughout, I do not see the harm if a 9/11 forum is kept strictly separated as its own (perhaps even on a “trial basis”?). As JLAD mentioned, if people don’t like it, they can simply scroll past. The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are undeniable. 9/11 is far more relevant to the Holocaust than any other Zionist-Jewish crimes of the last century (Lavon affair, USS Liberty, etc.). It is the “Big Lie” of the 21st century, demonstrably so, and for nearly the same purposes.

Top
User avatar

borjastick

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Contact borjastick

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby borjastick » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:27 pm)

No.

‘Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.’

‘We don’t need evidence, we have survivors’ – israeli politician

Top
avatar

Pia Kahn

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Contact Pia Kahn

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Pia Kahn » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:21 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:I support it. Here’s why.

1. The parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust are too big to overlook. These parallels include using both events to justify war crimes in the Middle East, there being an ‘official’ version for both events, and ignored, but very thought out arguments against each ‘official’ version.

2. Although 9/11 is not the Holocaust, the parallels deserve their own sub-forum, and what better website than https://forum.codoh.com?

3. This forum is very structured, and a great place to debate. Adding 9/11 in with the mix would be spice in this wonderful bowl of soup.

4. It would by default bring 9/11 truthers who believe in the Holocaust, and would further demolish ‘the Industry’ by showing him facts. And people who are looking for the truth, such as a 9/11 truther, would be much easier to convince than an antifa terrorist or a warmongering, Israel loving Republican. It would be a win-win.

5. People such as Callahan and myself both favor this proposed sub-forum. If people don’t like it, or aren’t interested, they simply can avoid it. It really is that simple.

6. This isn’t flat earth or reptilian, or fringe beliefs. This is a position which very intelligent people disagree, and by no means would it make us look bad. The ADL and SPLC already defame us.

For these reasons, I support a separate sub-forum for 9/11 on this website.

Great post.

I am for such a separate forum for the reasons posted above. I have talked about the parallels between both events on a few occasions and they were eventually deleted because they are supposedly off topic. 9/11 is a huge crack in the matrix and many people who eventually start doubting the holocaust are 9/11 “truthers”. The 9/11 movement is humungous compared to holocaust revisionism. Generally, people who have that guts to think for themselves and rely on solid forensic evidence instead of hearsay. Those are the people we should attract and you will find lot’s of 9/11 truthers among them.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:29 am)

Werd wrote:The reason we have an additional section on codoh for other aspects of world war II, is because the gas chamber/gas van holocaust of the Jews is claimed to have happened at this certain time. Exposing other lies and deceptions about world war II, such as
1.how many really died at Dresden
2. Stalin’s aggressive plans that were thwarted by Barbarossa
merely justify the right and duty to investigate wild holocaust claims.The holocaust is connected to world war II like these other things because that is precisely when they occurred.You say 9-11 and the holocaust are connected to perpetual war and slaughter of innocent in the middle east? There is a parallel with JFK. One of the reasons he was taken out is because he was opposed to Israeli dominance in the middle east and them having nuclear weaponry. JFK also wanted to stop the Vietnam war, a war in which Jewish technocrat Henry Kissinger was involved in prolonging.
https://truthout.org/articles/millions-died-because-kissinger-prolonged-the-vietnam-war-for-years-after-betraying-peace-treaty/Other false flags like the Lavon Affair were to be used to demonize Arabs and justify further repression of them, ala, 9-11. So again I ask, why do we get selective with some false flags that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter overseas, but not others? This is just me being devil’s advocate. I don’t care either way if we add a 9-11 forum. But if we are going to do it under the guise of destroying fables that are used to justify war and perpetual slaughter, then why not other false flags that have also been used for that? Where is the cut off?

I think the degree of 9/11 in it’s ability to change the entire social paradigm of the West is obvious, as with the Holocaust. The scale of this lie and the extent that Zionist-Jewish and corrupt Western elements were so directly involved, for the purpose of proliferating Israel and justifying wars to that end, makes this event a clear distinction from the others and far more in parallel to the Holocaust. This also entails that the social activism and research in this regard is of a similar degree of importance as the Holocaust. Understanding the evidence surrounding these lies will invariably lead to openness to consideration of the others, but that doesn’t mean other forums should be created for each of these topics. Creating a “bridge” between 9/11 and the Holocaust is good for Revisionism because it reaches out to another movement with similar goals and values and offers resources for those who are already at least open to being critical of Jewish power networks, and may be ready to ask even bigger questions about the historical record as it has been presented to them.

Top
User avatar

borjastick

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Contact borjastick

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby borjastick » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:40 am)

So here we are already turning this simple question into a 911 thread.

My answer is NO. I should explain that but won’t because whatever I say will invite the usuals from responding in detailed opinion again…

There are many good reasons for not hosting a 911 section here. Surely to God there must be hundreds of sites where the topic of 911 is tediously dissected by those who start from the wrong place in order to end up when they want to be.

‘Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.’

‘We don’t need evidence, we have survivors’ – israeli politician

Top
User avatar

Kingfisher

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:55 am
Contact:

Contact Kingfisher

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Kingfisher » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:02 am)

borjastick wrote:No.

Agreed. It is completely off topic for this forum and would create the impression that to if you question the Holocaust you must automatically be a 911 “troofer”. Some posters may think there is a link but to make accepting a Revisionist approach to the Holocaust appear conditional on that link is a sure way to alienate most of our potential audience.

It’s hard enough already to get people to open their minds to asking questions about the Holocaust. This would be yet another reason for them not to take Revisionism seriously. “They’re just a bunch of conspiracy theorists.”

You persuade people one step at a time. Even limiting ourselves to the Holocaust we have to have to work step by step. First show the bodies at Belsen have nothing to do with it. Then maybe some doubts about Treblinka or Auschwitz or Babi Yar.

It’s also a slippery slope. Once we have a forum on 911, why not one on the Kennedy assassination, or the moon landings, or flying saucers, or evolution or the Abominable Snowman? Each one will muddy the waters further. We have widened the remit of the forum to cover other aspects of the two World Wars. This is good. They are closely and obviously related, and do not create the impression that to question the Holocaust you have to buy into some wider view of the world.

Please, don’t do it!

Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:19 am)

Kingfisher:

Some posters may think there is a link but to make accepting a Revisionist approach to the Holocaust appear conditional on that link is a sure way to alienate most of our potential audience.

That has always been my concern, alienating potential supporters of “holocaust” Revisionism is not acceptable for a CODOH site.
But then, as stated by Callahan and JLAD, there is the potential of gaining new “holocaust” Revisionism supporters by attracting to CODOH those who debate 9/11.

I could simply add a notice at the the top of a 9/11 Forum making it clear that “holocaust” Revisionists are not all in agreement about the various arguments concerning 9/11. The mere fact that we will get & allow competing views would hopefully make that obvious.

M1.

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:23 am)

borjastick wrote:So here we are already turning this simple question into a 911 thread.

My answer is NO. I should explain that but won’t because whatever I say will invite the usuals from responding in detailed opinion again…

There are many good reasons for not hosting a 911 section here. Surely to God there must be hundreds of sites where the topic of 911 is tediously dissected by those who start from the wrong place in order to end up when they want to be.

Offering a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of a 9/11 forum accessible through a Revisionist forum (the purpose of this thread) does not mean we are now debating 9/11 here.

I wanted to provide as much insight as possible on the matter as I think this is very important and it’s obvious others here feel the same. Your own incredulity and ignorance toward important elements of this topic, Borja, don’t refute its benefits for the cause we are all fighting for here; that is, exposing the greatest lies of the liars that manipulate the historical record to serve their warmongering political agenda.

Currently, the 9/11 forums that are out there do not typically permit or consider Revisionism, despite the fact that the recent growth of Revisionism can be directly attributed to growing awareness of certain details surrounding 9/11. By treating 9/11 as an entirely foreign topic relative to Revisionism, you’re preventing pathways that could very well lead here. As much as 9/11 bickering annoys you (and believe me, I understand why), I think there are ways we can limit that here in a properly-structured forum.

It is obvious that some of the “old school” folks here want to keep things the same but we should really consider the obvious benefits of reaching out to the 9/11 research community and showing the ways we can align.

Kingfisher says we can’t take on a separate forum for 9/11 because we might not be taken seriously–CODOH has been around for 20 years! At what point has the establishment and/or the mainstream ever “taken it seriously”?! The 9/11 truth movement has been taken at least as seriously as Revisionism, and it’s popularity among professionals in the establishment reflects that. Can you really not see the difference and applicable relevance between ‘moon landing fakery’, ‘flat earth’, etc., and 9/11?

The notion of a “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. We aren’t going to degrade into oblivion if we have a discussion forum that allows 9/11 research to occur here. There will be no “official theory” of this 9/11 forum. We will acknowledge evidence, discuss parallels to Revisionism wherever applicable, and encourage visitors to also check out the Revisionist forum. We give it six months, and if all your worst fears come true, we cancel the project. What have you got to lose?

Top
User avatar

borjastick

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Contact borjastick

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby borjastick » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:56 am)

What have you got to lose?

– Callahan

Kingfisher has explained very clearly above.

This is my last post here on the subject. Me and my ‘old school’ mate Kingfisher have made our case.

‘Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.’

‘We don’t need evidence, we have survivors’ – israeli politician

Top
avatar

Carto’s Cutlass Supreme

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2347
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:42 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Contact Carto’s Cutlass Supreme

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Carto’s Cutlass Supreme » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:52 am)

I’m not a 9-11 Truther, but I know 1 or 2 prominent revisionists who are. I think we should have it because I think it’s always good if someone out there wants to say something about a taboo subject then they should be allowed to. I myself probably wouldn’t be participating on it.

But keep in mind how we should be grateful to those who run this forum. Because it must take significant time every day to moderate. You have to follow every thread, read maybe every post! Because of that, I’d like to see someone who is currently not a moderator, become a moderator so that the current people who volunteer without pay, to run this forum are not given extra work.

Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 2 weeks 2 days ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:58 am)

borjastick wrote:Kingfisher has explained very clearly above.

This is my last post here on the subject. Me and my ‘old school’ mate Kingfisher have made our case.

Nothing wrong with being old school and for the record I respect you guys for being in the game so long, I just think it might cloud your judgment on this.

Kingfisher explained that he is concerned consideration of Revisionism will appear conditional upon the acceptance of “9/11 truth” arguments. This need not be the case. It does not threaten the image of revisionists to acknowledge the following:

– There is intense controversy surrounding 9/11
– There is some evidence of possibly-significant parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust
– There is a demand among many of those who embrace Revisionism to also discuss 9/11 (e.g. Rudolf, who addresses it briefly in his 2017 edition of Lectures…).

And as far as outreach goes, the pool of candidates potentially-interested in Revisionism is much larger among “conspiracy theorists” than it is among those who resent them. As much as we will have to try a bit harder to set some critical thinking “ground rules” for some of these ‘eccentric thinkers’, I think the benefits of reaching a much broader audience far outweighs any potential costs. And again, nothing is irreversible. If we try it out and it goes nowhere, backtracking is always a possibility. But considering that what lies beyond this door/bridge could be revolutionary, I think it’s worth a shot.

Top
avatar

Pia Kahn

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Contact Pia Kahn

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Pia Kahn » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:45 pm)

Callahan wrote:

borjastick wrote:Kingfisher has explained very clearly above.

This is my last post here on the subject. Me and my ‘old school’ mate Kingfisher have made our case.

Nothing wrong with being old school and for the record I respect you guys for being in the game so long, I just think it might cloud your judgment on this.

Kingfisher explained that he is concerned consideration of Revisionism will appear conditional upon the acceptance of “9/11 truth” arguments. This need not be the case. It does not threaten the image of revisionists to acknowledge the following:

– There is intense controversy surrounding 9/11
– There is some evidence of possibly-significant parallels between 9/11 and the Holocaust
– There is a demand among many of those who embrace Revisionism to also discuss 9/11 (e.g. Rudolf, who addresses it briefly in his 2017 edition of Lectures…).

And as far as outreach goes, the pool of candidates potentially-interested in Revisionism is much larger among “conspiracy theorists” than it is among those who resent them. As much as we will have to try a bit harder to set some critical thinking “ground rules” for some of these ‘eccentric thinkers’, I think the benefits of reaching a much broader audience far outweighs any potential costs. And again, nothing is irreversible. If we try it out and it goes nowhere, backtracking is always a possibility. But considering that what lies beyond this door/bridge could be revolutionary, I think it’s worth a shot.

Someone, who is willing to seriously look at the arguments of holocaust revisionists, won’t be put off or back off because of a 9/11 subforum. 9/11 is kindergarden comparted to the holocaust and 9/11 truth is on the verge of becoming mainstream. This is my take.

Sure, the focus of this forum must remain on the open debate of the holocaust.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Top
avatar

Depth Charge

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Contact Depth Charge

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Depth Charge » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:16 pm)

I would say yes. 9/11 revisionism is trendy and more acceptable, yet has similar glaring plot holes. 9/11 is a shooting gallery, fish in a barrel, chutzpah writ large that aimed too high and paid the price. Why shouldn’t we use their other mistakes against them and bolster the destruction of holocaustianity? These people are criminals, murderers. Why separate their crimes?

Does a serial rapist get to avoid evidence presented to the jury for priors, simply because it would ‘dilute the discussion’ of the current charge?

It’s high time 9/11 activists stepped up to the plate and out of their comfort zone. And with the quality of posters here we can damn well help them on their way.

Top
avatar

katana

Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:04 pm
Contact:

Contact katana

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby katana » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:26 pm)

First off, a thank you to the Moderator for putting a 911 forum up for consideration.

Next off, I’m in the YES camp. “911 Discussion Makes You Free!”

As others here have indicated, 911 can be a great stepping stone towards moving more people into questioning the “Holocaust”. I quite agree with that, and I believe it will help CODOH in its core mission, and not detract from it, as some have expressed concern about.

The “Holocaust” is the giant, rogue African bull elephant in the room, while 911 is like a baby rogue elephant in the room. The fact that there’s any kind of elephant in the room in the first place makes it invisible to most people, and the larger it is, the more invisible it becomes, because it just shouldn’t, couldn’t be there! Yet there they are, waiting to be seen by those with curiosity, desire for truth, and a nagging feeling that things are terribly wrong.

I came to know about the “Holocaust” and the fraudulent nature of it because of the great work of the revisionists. Around the same time and in parallel to that I became aware of the fraudulent nature of 911. Yet I think most people find 911 truth far more approachable, after all, its just a rogue “baby elephant”. After that though, only a brave minority go on to open their eyes wider and see the bull elephant in the room.

A good example of that are the Schaefer siblings, that I have been following from the beginning. Alfred and Monika Schaefer came to “Holocaust” revisionism through 911. As Callahan, JLAD, and Dresden argue, there are strong similarities operating here. The culprits are the same, and both these major events fit in with an organized jewish agenda. 911 has launched the jewish War OF Terror on the world, while using the “Holocaust” as a shield and sword to repel criticism.

So, I support CODOH giving a 911 forum a go.

https://katana17.com/wp/2018/09/11/know-more-news-christopher-bollyn-the-man-who-solved-9-11-transcript/

“Some stories are true that never happened.” — Elie the “Weasel”
Top
avatar

EtienneSC

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:27 am
Contact:

Contact EtienneSC

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby EtienneSC » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:56 am)

I am strongly opposed for the following reasons: Firstly, 9/11 is outside CODOH’s stated purpose. It is largely an American interest and CODOH is an international forum. It would expose participants to “guilt by association” without their permission.

Secondly, there are enough jihad attacks in Europe and around the world – hundreds, if not thousands every year – to make it plausible that a few Saudi Muslims would wish to damage the USA given the opportunity.

Thirdly, it would make CODOH look like a conspiracy site and thus compromise its hard-won and constantly challenged credibility on the holocaust. It would undo decades of work by serious people for the sake of appealing to a fringe element in the USA.

Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:42 am)

EtienneSC wrote:it would make CODOH look like a conspiracy site and thus compromise its hard-won and constantly challenged credibility on the holocaust. It would undo decades of work by serious people for the sake of appealing to a fringe element in the USA.

The recent poll results I saw stated that 50% of Americans did not believe the ‘official’ 9/11 conspiracy theory.
“Fringe’ is clearly the wrong word here.
That number would suggest that CODOH could potentially attract a wider audience.

As far as CODOH itself is concerned, I suggest:

9/11: Terror Attack or Government Fraud?, by Germar Rudolf:
https://codoh.com/library/series/1477/?lang=en
and a CODOH main site search for 9/11 yielded 96 results:
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=9%2F11

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 2 weeks 1 day ago (Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:17 am)

EtienneSC wrote:I am strongly opposed for the following reasons: Firstly, 9/11 is outside CODOH’s stated purpose. It is largely an American interest and CODOH is an international forum. It would expose participants to “guilt by association” without their permission.

I think such a forum would only acknowledge that many of those who embrace Revisionism also find this topic to be a major and relevant concern. It would be the error of the accusers to claim that all those who visit the CODOH forum are also necessarily supportive of alternative 9/11 theories for several reasons:

– As this thread clearly shows, we already do not agree what happened; hence, discussion and defense of the established narrative will be encouraged as well as any others
– Discussions of 9/11 will all take place outside of the Revisionist forum (which will be left as-is)
– The intentions of having this forum will be stated clearly, which may include: to circumvent censorship attempts and welcome historically-enlightened minds into open debate for the second-most controversial historical event of the last century, which is said by many to have considerable parallels to the Holocaust

Also, while 9/11 is an event which took place in the US, it affects communities all around the world (e.g. War on Terror, which also brought European nations in to participate in the Al Qaeda witch hunt and militant occupations); much as the Holocaust, while set in Europe, affects policies which shape the US and much of the globe today.

Secondly, there are enough jihad attacks in Europe and around the world – hundreds, if not thousands every year – to make it plausible that a few Saudi Muslims would wish to damage the USA given the opportunity.

It is definitely possible. But keep in mind, these attacks mostly happened after 9/11. Iraq had never had a suicide bombing pre-9/11. In any case, this might be something worth discussing in the proper forum.

Thirdly, it would make CODOH look like a conspiracy site and thus compromise its hard-won and constantly challenged credibility on the holocaust. It would undo decades of work by serious people for the sake of appealing to a fringe element in the USA.

Holocaust Denial is considered much more of a fringe element than is having doubts about 9/11. Surveys have already shown that the majority of the population, both in the US and internationally, have doubts about the official version of events. If nothing more, it is worth discussing. And I can think of no better place than in close proximity to a forum of critical minds who have a proper understanding of historical events and context of the last century.

I do not see how this would/could plausibly “undo” Revisionist work. The books and articles are written, published, and relevant ideas are discussed and shared in this forum. This will remain to be the case, whether or not 9/11 is also discussed here. It should not “poison the well” for many who don’t already regard “Holocaust Denial” as extremely poisonous. But it will open the door for many critical minds who are missing an even larger piece of the historical puzzle.

Top
User avatar

HeiligeSturm

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:57 am
Location: Euro-Zion
Contact:

Contact HeiligeSturm

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby HeiligeSturm » 1 week 5 days ago (Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:37 am)

If 9/11 debate is considered, there should be a whole After the “Holocaust” sub forum.
Carol Stulberg: Were you ever in the gas chamber? Did you see the gas chamber?
Morris Venezia: Of course I was every day over there.
Carol Stulberg: Can you describe to us what it looked like?
Morris Venezia: It’s nothing to describe
Top
User avatar

Dresden

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:38 am
Contact:

Contact Dresden

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Dresden » 1 week 5 days ago (Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:26 am)

HeiligeSturm wrote:If 9/11 debate is considered, there should be a whole After the “Holocaust” sub forum.

Would that include the Korean War, the McCarthey era, the Beatnik g-g-g-generation, the Hippie movement and a thousand other things?

What purpose would that serve, besides trivial pursuit?

9-11 and the Holohoax are closely related, or, as I said earlier ….. “they are joined at the hip”.

‘Gas chambers’ and ‘box cutters’ are what “justifies” the War of Terror. or, as they are alternatively known, “The 9-11 Wars”.

In such a Forum, there would be a lot of overlap and people from both sides would become convinced of the truth of the other subject.

Also, the people that are against having a 9-11 Forum could simply ignore it, like I ignore the

“French Revisionist Forum” viewforum.php?f=21

“German Revisionist Forum” viewforum.php?f=8

“Spanish” viewforum.php?f=11

“Scandiavian” viewforum.php?f=10

“WWII Asia/Pacific Theater” viewforum.php?f=26

and the

“WWI” Forum” viewforum.php?f=27

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the ‘holocaust’, but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. — Bradley Smith
Top
avatar

Hoff Meister

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:05 pm

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Hoff Meister » 1 week 4 days ago (Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:23 pm)

The moment CODOH allows or enables such discussion, it is done. This applies whether one believes in the alternative 9/11 theory (which I currently do not) or whether they do.

That’s essentially the case.

It will, as it is in every other forum, be used against revisionism in order to make it seem absurd and dismissed without looking at it.

An opinion.

Top
avatar

Werd

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 5:23 pm
Contact:

Contact Werd

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Werd » 1 week 4 days ago (Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:09 am)

While it is easy to pinpoint what revisionists believe because we are pretty much united in denying the same things…

1. All Auschwitz gas chambers.
2. Overall German/Berlin/Hitler plan to physically exterminate Jews.
3. Gas vans.
4. All AR gas chambers
5. Many so called Mengele survivors

In other words, each revisionist owns this aspect of revisionism and does so easily. If there are any revisionists that we castigate, it’s not because they make us look bad with their revisionism. It is because they are traitors to the cause. Mark Weber and David Irving are two examples of gas chamber turncoats. They don’t make us look bad or hurt us necessarily, they are just dead weight. I also think that most revisionists recognize that whatever Richard Krege allegedly did at Treblinka doesn’t help anyone so by and large we all reject his work in favour of better, more high quality revisionism.

That being said, in 9-11, you have a WIDE VARIETY of skeptics who are at war with each other and accuse other sides of being agents or stupid by planting certain false theories into the 9-11 field. Many say that those buildings were wired to be blown up instead of planes coming down. Others go WAAAYYYY far out and claim that the reason much of the concrete was pulverized, was because of something like a high powered laser beam. I’m thinking Judy Wood. The majority of 9-11 people don’t like her or her work and have suspected her of being an agent. Not to mention Alex Jones in the last few years has gotten more bizarre and animated and people use his strange behaviours to “discredit” 9-11 truth. Mind you he is not the only one to look into 9-11 since it happened, but others use that as a smear on 9-11 people.

If revisionists pick up 9-11, do they want to adopt this other burden of being someone who could be in the “crazy” or “bullshit” realm of 9-11 truth? They already have to deal with being a gas chamber denier. I think in these times, it is PARAMOUNT that avoiding 9-11 be considered just to avoid further smears. Such as “oh you gas chamber skeptics are also 9-11 skeptics? Is there anything you DO believe in?” Because what if non 9-11 skeptics wanted to consider holocaust revisionism? Is the point not to grow revisionism? Or does linking up to 9-11 really look like more of an advantage because allegedly more people are 9-11 skeptics nowadays than are not and they can be persuaded by revisionism?

Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 1 week 4 days ago (Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:14 am)

Hoff Meister wrote:The moment CODOH allows or enables such discussion, it is done. This applies whether one believes in the alternative 9/11 theory (which I currently do not) or whether they do.

How would CODOH be “done” just by acknowledging a controversy having some possible relevance to the Holocaust?

It will, as it is in every other forum, be used against revisionism in order to make it seem absurd and dismissed without looking at it.

How many people who don’t already dismiss Revisionism (or aren’t likely to) would do so on account of a forum about 9/11 existing here as an auxiliary? On the other hand, how many establishment-critical minds might consider Revisionism if they found some quality discussion on 9/11, locally?

I would estimate the numbers for the latter are at least an order of magnitude higher than the former.

No specific theory need be endorsed here. This is merely an opportunity to iron out the questions of relevance between these events which many have claimed there are striking parallels. Since it isn’t possible to contain such a broad topic within a single thread on the Revisionists’ forum, a separate one is being created to isolate, identify, and hopefully/eventually work toward some degree of consensus in what Revisionists have to say on the matter.

I think it makes beautiful sense and I have confidence in the quality of discussions that might come out of this.

Top
User avatar

spaceboy

Member
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:04 am
Contact:

Contact spaceboy

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby spaceboy » 1 week 4 days ago (Tue Dec 25, 2018 8:16 am)

I say no. This is a Holocaust revisionist forum, so I think it should be limited to only the Holocaust and to a lesser extent, World War II revisionism. There is a plethora of forums on the internet for debating 9/11 – why not just simply go to one if you want to debate 9/11? I see more harm than benefits by having 9/11 discussed here. It will create the appearance that Holocaust revisionists are susceptible to conspiracy theories, thereby undermining credibility. I’ve always had more confidence in revisionists who are not 9/11 truthers than ones who are.
Top
User avatar

Dresden

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:38 am
Contact:

Contact Dresden

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Dresden » 1 week 4 days ago (Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:36 am)

spaceboy said:

“I say no. This is a Holocaust revisionist forum, so I think it should be limited to only the Holocaust and to a lesser extent, World War II revisionism”

But, there are the WWI Forum and the WWII Asia/Pacific Forums that are unaffected by “Holocaust Denial” — nor do they affect the Holocaust Revisionist Forum.

“There is a plethora of forums on the internet for debating 9/11”

There are no intelligent, moderated forums on which to debate 9-11.

“I see more harm than benefits by having 9/11 discussed here. It will create the appearance that Holocaust revisionists are susceptible to conspiracy theories”

“Holocaust Denial” is universally seen, throughout the whole world, on every TV station, in countless “documentaries”, in school text books ….. EVERYWHERE ….. as the Great granddaddy of all “conspiracy theories”.

We are seen as neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, anti — “semites” and dangerous people.

“…thereby undermining credibility”

The 9-11 Truthers outnumber Holocaust Revisionists by at least 10 or 20 to 1.
If anyone was to lose credibility, it would be the 9-11 Truthers for embracing Holocaust Denial.

Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth( https://www.ae911truth.org/ ) has the signatures of over 3,000 Architects and Engineers(many of whom own their own companies) who have given their names, addresses, phone numbers and places of business, calling for a “new” investigation of 9-11.

Nothing remotely comparable can be said for Holocaust Revisionism.

The Physics department of the University of Fairbanks, Alaska recently finished an evaluation of the collapse of Building 7 and decided that it could not have come down due to fire or damage: http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

To think that the physics, or chemistry department of any American University would even contemplate doing an unbiased, tranparent evaluation of Treblinka, or Auschwitz is simply out of the question, to put it as mildly as possible ….. it would actually border on “nutty”.

“I’ve always had more confidence in revisionists who are not 9/11 truthers than ones who are”

I am of the exact opposite opinion.

9-11 Truthers are already Politically Incorrect truth seekers ….. many of them would see the truth of Holocaust Revisionism.

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the ‘holocaust’, but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. — Bradley Smith
Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 1 week 4 days ago (Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:41 am)

Dresden wrote:Richard Gage’s Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth( https://www.ae911truth.org/ ) has the signatures of over 3,000 Architects and Engineers(many of whom own their own companies) who have given their names, addresses, phone numbers and places of business, calling for a “new” investigation of 9-11.

I have my own quibbles with AE911T but that discussion is best saved for the proper forum, once it becomes available. I think they are correct that fire should not have caused the collapse but I disagree with the notion of “controlled demolition” at the WTC.

I don’t want to discuss/debate it here, just pointing out that there is a spectrum of ideas on what happened and having the ability to showcase our ideas and have them challenged and refined by other informed, critical minds who may already be on the same page about Revisionism seems like a great opportunity.

9-11 Truthers are already Politically Incorrect truth seekers ….. many of them would see the truth of Holocaust Revisionism.

Exactly. There is less fear to walk into the “realm of Revisionism” when society already sees you as being halfway there. For those recognizing Zionist influences regarding 9/11, even moreso.

Top
User avatar

JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am
Contact:

Contact JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 1 week 4 days ago (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:05 pm)

Callahan wrote:I have my own quibbles with AE911T but that discussion is best saved for the proper forum, once it becomes available. I think they are correct that fire should not have caused the collapse but I disagree with the notion of “controlled demolition” at the WTC.

Exactly, we need a separate sub-forum to hash out our differences, and this is the perfect place to do it.

Moderator, it is Christmas Eve. Can you please give us this sub-forum as a gift to us on this website?

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a goodnight, JLAD.

If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.
Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 1 week 3 days ago (Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:18 am)

All of the comments are certainly appreciated, there are many thoughtful points to both sides of the argument.

After considering them all, and after feedback from the CODOH Board, I have decided to go ahead with the ‘9/11 Forum’.

The fact that so many people worldwide now disagree with the ‘official’ conspiracy theory was key in that decision. It is no longer a ‘fringe’ opinion to question the promoted narrative, in spite of ‘the media’s’ attempt to claim it is.

To those that disagree with my decision, I will not indicate in the ‘9/11 Forum’ description and guidelines that CODOH as a whole endorses or opposes the alternative views to the government’s narrative.

The intention is to provide a higher end debate choice where reasonable guidelines are in place to prevent the usual childishness that is the norm when discussing a controversial subject.

Thanks, M1

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

Dresden

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:38 am
Contact:

Contact Dresden

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Dresden » 1 week 3 days ago (Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:51 am)

Thank you for the decision, Moderator!

Moderator said:

“The intention is to provide a higher end debate choice where reasonable guidelines are in place to prevent the usual childishness that is the norm when discussing a controversial subject”

That’s the idea.

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the ‘holocaust’, but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. — Bradley Smith
Top
avatar

Pia Kahn

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Contact Pia Kahn

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 week 2 days ago (Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:18 pm)

Moderator wrote:All of the comments are certainly appreciated, there are many thoughtful points to both sides of the argument.

After considering them all, and after feedback from the CODOH Board, I have decided to go ahead with the ‘9/11 Forum’. …

Thanks, M1

Great news and smart decision. If this forum provides an orderly and rational discussion of 9/11 then it may attract many 9/11 truthers who wish to discuss controversial topics in a polite, respectful and rational manner without flame wars, ad hominem attacks, and all that.

Currently, this forum has three main headings: “Holocaust revisionism (English)”, “Holocaust revisionism (International)” and Finally, “Revisionism”. I suggest adding the subforum “9/11-revisionism” under the “Revisionism” header and side by side with WWI and WWII revisionism. This would fit nicely into this forum.

Happy Christmas everybody. :cheers:

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Top
avatar

katana

Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:04 pm
Contact:

Contact katana

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby katana » 1 week 16 hours ago (Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:31 pm)

Thank you Moderator for deciding to go ahead with a 9/11 Forum. A decision that reflects your wisdom, and no doubt your good looks, charming nature, and wonderful singing ability!

And thanks to Callahan for kicking the whole thing off, and also others here who also supported the idea. The others who were not keen on the idea also played a useful role in giving their feedback.

And a happy New Year to all, while I’m here.

PS: Here’s a graphic for the forum;

Image

“Some stories are true that never happened.” — Elie the “Weasel”
Top
User avatar

JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am
Contact:

Contact JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 6 days 9 hours ago (Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:55 am)

Moderator, I am very happy you chose to go along with this this addition.

If I may ask, when should we expect to see it in it’s completed status?

If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.
Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 6 days 6 hours ago (Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:57 am)

Soon, JLAD,

How about some suggestions about guidelines for the new forum from everyone.
Thanks, M1

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

Callahan

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40 am
Contact:

Contact Callahan

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Callahan » 6 days 5 hours ago (Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:29 am)

As mentioned briefly before, I suggest pinned posts for presentation and criticism of evidence of the following theories on WTC collapse mechanisms:

– NIST Fire-Driven Collapse Theory
– AE911Truth Controlled Demolition Theory
– Mini-Nuke Theory
– Direct Energy Weapon (DEW) Theory
– ROOSD Theory

I think a separate area for each of the major competing theories will help prevent the hodgepodge of heated, disorganized debate that discussions on 9/11 are most famous for.

If you’re not yet familiar with ROOSD theory, not to worry, I will help get us started there. Others who recognize another theory as most sound should perhaps introduce the topic by explaining which evidence they find most convincing.

Other pinned posts may include:

– Motive: Pretext for Zionist Imperialist Wars
– Motive: Jihadi Terror Assault on Western Values
– Means: Positions of Authority Surrounding 9/11 Events
– Means: Terrorist Cell with Hijacked Planes

Last edited by Callahan on Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar

JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am
Contact:

Contact JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 6 days 5 hours ago (Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:31 am)

Moderator wrote:How about some suggestions about guidelines for the new forum from everyone.

The guidelines would be as follows; changes were made when necessary. Are these good, or would you change anything?

The Moderator retains the right to reject a username if he considers it offensive, obscene, or deliberately distracting.

Do not register under more than one username, aka: a ‘sockpuppet’. If for some reason you wish to change your username please contact the Moderator and / or Webmaster about doing so.

No name calling, period.

The CODOH 9/11 Forum forbids any threats or personal attacks against others, we will not tolerate links to sites which do engage in such behavior. We’re about debate and only debate.

On topic posts only. The topic of the Forum is 9/11. Debating whether or not the United States government or others had preknowledge of the event, if there was or was not controlled demolition, and if 9/11 is or is not used to justify the TSA, NSA, surveillance cameras, internet surveilance, military occupation in Middle Eastern nations, is the reason that The CODOH 9/11 Forum exists. Associated subjects are bound to come up, be sure there is a tie-in, show the tie-in. Each topic represents a separate point, a post to a topic must be pertinent to that point.

Posts by new or infrequent participants will be spam / troll checked by the Moderator before they appear on the Forum. They will not be censored for on topic opinions they present.

Keep your threads / posts limited to one point.

Voluminous, lengthy, and redundant posts are not welcomed.

Do not edit after posts after someone has responded in the same thread.

If you post a quote or link from or to a book, a news article, magazine story, another website, etc., you must also comment on the quote or the link content. Tell the forum what you find wrong, compelling, unique, or important about the quote or link content. Flippant, overly brief comments are not acceptable. We want commentary and discussion.

Posts which lack focus or specifics are not welcomed.

No ‘dodging’. When questioned or challenged on claims, or assertions you make in a thread you must respond directly / specifically by providing the information requested in the challenge or you must leave the topic.

You will address registrants only by the one name that he/she uses at the Forum.

Offenders will have their posts deleted, repeat offenders will be removed.

Reasons for deletions may or may not be stated. The Moderator will endeavor to notify the offender and the Forum in general, but not in every case; especially when it is obvious why the post was deleted.

Registrants who do not post within 30 days from date of registration are subject to deletion, they may re-register should they decide to post.

If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.
Top
User avatar

borjastick

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Contact borjastick

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby borjastick » 5 days 12 hours ago (Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:17 pm)

OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

‘Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.’

‘We don’t need evidence, we have survivors’ – israeli politician

Top
avatar

Depth Charge

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Contact Depth Charge

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Depth Charge » 5 days 12 hours ago (Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:21 pm)

borjastick wrote:OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

On the contrary, I think disinformation will be easily dismantled by the regulars on this site, and establish us as discerning and sane.

Top
User avatar

borjastick

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:52 pm
Location: Europe
Contact:

Contact borjastick

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby borjastick » 5 days 12 hours ago (Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:14 am)

Depth Charge wrote:

borjastick wrote:OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

On the contrary, I think disinformation will be easily dismantled by the regulars on this site, and establish us as discerning and sane.

Good luck with that one…

‘Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.’

‘We don’t need evidence, we have survivors’ – israeli politician

Top
avatar

Depth Charge

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:32 am
Contact:

Contact Depth Charge

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Depth Charge » 5 days 8 hours ago (Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:19 am)

borjastick wrote:

Depth Charge wrote:

borjastick wrote:OK then the decision has been made so can we block this thread now please as it’s lowering the tone of holocaust debate.

When the new thread starts I’ll be waiting for the loons to come out to play, posting all manner of nonsense to claim this and that and completely ignoring the rational and scientific answers to what really happened on that day.

On the contrary, I think disinformation will be easily dismantled by the regulars on this site, and establish us as discerning and sane.

Good luck with that one…

Why do we need luck? There is only one truth. It’s like hacking ice off a windscreen. Easy.

Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 5 days 5 hours ago (Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:57 am)

All:

The new ‘9/11 Forum’ will be built within a few days after 1/1/19.
When it’s launched I will lock this thread and immediately ask for feedback in a thread at that forum.

And remember, if it becomes unmanageable, I can always “pull it”. :roll:

Thanks, M1

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

Dresden

Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:38 am
Contact:

Contact Dresden

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Dresden » 5 days 4 hours ago (Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:28 am)

Moderator wrote:
And remember, if it becomes unmanageable, I can always “pull it”. :roll:

That’s right, Lucky Larry! :D

Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the ‘holocaust’, but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. — Bradley Smith
Top
User avatar

Lamprecht

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:32 am
Contact:

Contact Lamprecht

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 days 2 hours ago (Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:03 am)

When is this forum going to be created? New developments are happening as we speak…

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti … k-overlord

“On Monday, New Year’s Eve, a hacker group announced it had breached a law firm handling cases related to the September 11 attacks, and threatened to publicly release a large cache of related internal files unless their ransom demands were met.”

“There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principal is contempt prior to investigation.”
— Herbert Spencer
Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 2 days 23 hours ago (Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:15 pm)

Lamprecht asked:

When is this forum going to be created?

On the previous page I stated:

All:

The new ‘9/11 Forum’ will be built within a few days after 1/1/19.
When it’s launched I will lock this thread and immediately ask for feedback in a thread at that forum.

And remember, if it becomes unmanageable, I can always “pull it”. :roll:

Thanks, M1

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

Moderator

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:23 am
Contact:

Contact Moderator

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby Moderator » 1 day 2 hours ago (Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:02 am)

I now have The 9/11 Forum up.
The guidelines are basically the same as the ‘Holocaust Forum’.
There are numerous configuration options. Hopefully I have selected the right ones. :D
Please let me know what you’re thoughts are about it.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.
Top
User avatar

JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:35 am
Contact:

Contact JLAD Prove Me Wrong

Re: Should The CODOH Revisionist Forum have a separate 9/11 discussion – debate forum?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 1 day 2 hours ago (Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:12 am)

Moderator wrote:I now have The 9/11 Forum up.
The guidelines are basically the same as the ‘Holocaust Forum’.
There are numerous configuration options. Hopefully I have selected the right ones. :D
Please let me know what you’re thoughts are about it.
M1

Awesome, thank you.

This is the link.

viewforum.php?f=29

If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

 

 

=============================================

 

 

See Also:

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

 

======================================

 

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Jan 5, 2019 — Added the discussion from the CODOH forum on whether or not to have a 9/11 Forum.

 

Version 1: Posted, Jan 4, 2019

]]> https://katana17.com/2019/01/04/the-revisionist-codoh-forum-now-has-the-9-11-forum/feed/ 7 Brian Ruhe Show — Monika Schaefer – One Month in the “Free World”, Nov 26, 2018 — TRANSCRIPT https://katana17.com/2018/12/01/brian-ruhe-show-monika-schaefer-one-month-in-the-free-world-nov-26-2018-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2018/12/01/brian-ruhe-show-monika-schaefer-one-month-in-the-free-world-nov-26-2018-transcript/#comments Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:32:33 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=19713 Continue reading →]]>

 

 

[Brian Ruhe from “The Brian Ruhe Show” interviews (Nov 26, 2018) Monika Schaefer in her second appearance, exactly one month since being released from a German prison. She served 10 months for a six-minute YouTube video, in which she gave a belated apology to her German mother for berating her for not doing something about the “Holocaust“, that Monika has since realized, factually never happened.

 

They discuss the trial in more detail, for example, how they had to fight to get the microphones turned on so that everyone could hear what was going on. How Alfred fought and succeeded in having his videos shown in full.

 

More importantly, Monika discusses the absurdity and injustice of the trial system, in that by attempting to defend and explain why she made her video, she runs the very real risk of being charged again for the same thought crime that she is already on trial for! That is the reason why she was advised to flee Germany, using trains, etc., as soon as she was released.

 

She ends, saying that she’s looking forward to doing some kind of speaking tour after the New Year.

 

— KATANA]

 

 

_______________________

 

 

The Brian Ruhe Show

 

Monika Schaefer

 

One Month in the

 

“Free World”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click the link below to view the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsR0tPNb2n0&t=2s

 

Also at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbLoIegHCY&t=54s

YouTube Description

 

Published on Nov 26, 2018

 

In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

 

Streamed live on Nov 26, 2018

This is Monika Schaefer’s second visit on The Brian Ruhe Show since being freed from imprisonment in Germany for 10 months for the “hate crime” of Holocaust denial. To support her brother, who has been sentenced to 3 years, 2 months in prison in Germany for Holocaust denial, please write to him at:

Alfred Schaefer

JVA Stadelheim

Stadelheimer Strasse 12 81549

München Germany

http://www.brianruhe.ca https://www.bitchute.com/channel/bria…
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/brian.ruhe.92/
http://www.thulesociety.com

My BLOG: http://www.brianruhe.ca/category/blog/

You have my permission to please copy any of my videos to spread the word.

http://www.brianruhe.ca/please-donate/ or cryptocurrencies below.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/bria…
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/brian.ruhe.92/
http://www.thulesociety.com

My BLOG: http://www.brianruhe.ca/category/blog/

You have my permission to please copy any of my videos to spread the word.

Bitcoin: 15Ls63J21zzhAPE7ke4P2JhaHyAEhUrJVe

Bitcoin Cash: qq3xdk6lfacxz0gqgxl6fk42y9ldmr0l45yhega2vs

Exodus Ripple: rpNtf3KwSAnrCBeeq4gcvMwFZCi6onm1XM

Brian Ruhe’s books are available at Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no…

Category
Education
License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

__________________________

 

TRANSCRIPT

(50:53)

 

 

[00:00]

 

Brian: Welcome to the Brian Ruhe Show. It’s November 26, 2018. It’s now one month since Monika Schaefer’s been in the free world! Since she left prison in Germany for the hate crime of “Holocaust” denial. So she’s back on the show for a second time. It’s a real honor to have you back Monika. How are you doing today?

 

Monika: Hello Brian! Nice to be back with you. Thank you so much. Yes, today is exactly one month since the last day of the trial and the verdict, which did set me “free”. And I’m glad you put that in quotation marks. Time served, so it was ten months. It was just under ten months, but they said ten months and now you go free.

 

 

And, of course, Alfred, unfortunately, is still in jail and will be for quite some time. They gave him thirty eight months, so just over three years. And yeah, we can talk about that some more in the show, too. About how people can support him, and write letters, and that kind of thing.

 

But anyway, yeah, so it’s been one month! It seems like a lot longer ago. I have to say. “time” has a way of shrinking and expanding on us depending on what we’re doing! And interestingly the way I feel now about this past month, one month going by, is kind of like my first month in jail! How I felt in terms of the time, just crawling by, like it was just this interminably long amount of time, that first month. And then time would speed up, like at the end it was shocking how fast time went by in prison! And now, here I am! You know, I was set free and so much has happened over this past month, and so many impressions, and so many emotional highs and lows, and just going through a lot.

 

I talked last time with you about escaping out of Germany and out of Europe, needing to do that, because, …

 

Brian: Eight trains you said to get out of the country!

Monika: Well, eight trains and then an airplane obviously, to get over the ocean. And I needed to do that, because I did new crimes just in trying to defend myself! That’s the crazy thing about if you’re a “thought criminal” in Germany, and you go through the court system, you cannot actually defend yourself, or explain how you reached your conclusions without doing new crime! And I think I talked about that at length last time, so I won’t go into that.

 

Today I thought I would talk more about the details of what did happen in the trial, not just the fact that it was a dark ages almost pseudo secret trial. We talked about that last time, quite a bit. Just all those aspects about problems with the microphones and people not being able to take notes for a while. And not being recorded. No transcript of the trial, that kind of thing.

 

And, by the way, there was one aspect of that I did want to update, or make a correction on., because we didn’t quite complete the narrative. And that was about the mics.

 

Brian: Yeah.

 

Monika: They did get turned on, but it took a while, right? But that first day we were struggling with that, and I think it was maybe half a day in, and finally did get the mics turned on., because I saw that in the feedback, or the comments, that people who were left with the impression that they never did get turned on. That’s not quite true. We did get them to turn them on. But it was only after, you know, I had talked about how I stood up and just said:

 

“Hey! This is either a public trial, or it’s not a public trial, and they’re just there for show! If you don’t care that the public can hear.”

 

All those things did not faze the judge. He was not fazed by any of that until, in my exasperation, I just kind of muttered, almost as an afterthought, I muttered under my breath:

 

“Well, I can’t hear that well, anymore.”

 

And that did the trick! At that point he suddenly realized:

 

“Oh okay, we might be a Inquisition here, or it might be a kangaroo court, but we still have to have some semblance, …”

 

[her telephone starts ringing] Oh dear, my telephones going! I’m gonna just bury that back here and put a pillow on it! Just a sec. Yeah. Sorry about that. I didn’t think of that before. I should have done that before and buried that. But anyway. [loud laughing]

 

And then the judge decided:

 

“Okay the defendant at least has to hear what’s going on, right?” [loud laughing]

 

[5:00]

 

So that’s when they decided, yeah, they’ll turn on the mics. It was only when I said I couldn’t hear that well, anymore.

 

Brian: Yeah, so you needed to hear, of course.

 

Monika: They had to afford us that much, that the defendant herself has to be able to hear what’s going on! [loud laughing] And that took quite a while to get that. But yeah, so just what happened during the trial? People are probably curious, and I know there were some reports, and the Barnes Review put out reports, and from Lady Michele Renouf who wrote about it, that kind of thing.

 

Monika: Yeah, but a lot of people felt like there was just this darkness about what actually went on in the trials. So I’ll just give a little bit of a summation of what did go on, why it took so long, 20 days in total.

 

It was basically a giant education for anybody who was there. [Brian holds up the latest Barnes Review with an article on the trial] Oh my goodness! Wow!

 

Brian: This is a current issue of the Barnes Review and you’re in it. This is the current issue. Yeah Lady Michele Renouf’s write up is in here. Yeah I could just show the audience. Here it is “History and Free Speech Holocausted in Germany”. This is a current issue. This is the write up about you.

 

 

Monika: Oh fantastic!

 

Brian: Yeah.

 

Monika: I must get that!

 

Brian: Yeah,

 

Monika: Okay, well I’ll deal with that later. So thanks Brian for showing that.

 

It was basically a giant education, so that nobody who was in that courtroom could say afterwards:

 

“We just didn’t know! We just didn’t understand!”

 

So, at first they were just going to show little snippets, little tiny portions, of the offending parts of the videos. There were multiple charges against Alfred, there were multiple charges against me, more against Alfred. He’s created more videos. And so they would outline, you know, minute three, or minute ten, out of this video, this kind of thing. And they’d only scheduled four days at first for the trial, and they just thought they’d show these little offending bits, and:

 

“They broke the law! And this is what the law says and these are ‘inciting hatred’ and riling people up.”

 

And whatnot. And not show them in their entirety. And then they would be done with it, and bingo, lock them away!

 

But Alfred was very strategic, and it was brilliant how he forced them to show the videos in their entirety, so that they would be in context. Sort of like reading a book from front to back, instead of just reading a little paragraph here, and a little paragraph there. So you take everything out of context.

 

Brian: He did he manage to convince the judge to do that? Because I know he did long videos, he’s playing.

 

Monika: Yeah. He just simply did not answer questions that the judge was asking him, which pertain to the technicality of when, and where, did you produce these, or push the button to send it out into the internet? That kind of thing. And those were the questions that they were very, very interested in. They, of course, are not interested in the contents pertaining to reality, or history. They don’t want to know those things, in fact, they would deny us the opportunity to bring this kind of evidence into the court, over, and over, again. No, they’re more interested in:

 

“When did you push that button, and push that send? And where were you exactly? And what was the date? And what was the minute and second of when it was released to the world?”

 

And this kind of thing, because that then can be used to show:

 

“Oh! We broke their law!”

 

Right? So Alfred just simply refused to answer those questions. He just said:

 

“Well, I’m not gonna answer that. We have to see the whole video. I’m not gonna answer that, we have to see the whole video!”

 

Eventually we won that, or he won that. And the judge just decided:

 

“Yep! We’ll see the videos.”

 

So we saw a lot of videos. And then, of course, most of these are in English and they needed to be translated. So they were translated into German and those translations were read out. So those were prepared, they weren’t just simultaneous translations. No, they were prepared. We would see the video in its entirety, and then hear the translation. And those, of course, since they are on paper, they are on the record. Those are now, …

 

Brian: Oh, so it is part of the record. That’s good.

 

Monika: Yeah. That is good. So that was a good chunk of time taken up by the watching of those videos. But after each video there would be questions and answers. An opportunity for all of us who wanted could speak. Like whether it was Alfred, or his lawyer, or me, or my lawyer, or the prosecutor. Everybody had a chance to speak. So most of, …

 

Brian: I remember in your letters, you said there’s a bit more mutual respect between Alfred and the judge, you know, when they’re going through all these videos. Sort of like teaching them, explaining. I mean, he said those were a real education for the court.

 

[10:15]

 

Monika: Well, that’s how we perceived it. They evidently, … I mean, we knew this wasn’t going to go, … They were quite likely not going to do us a personal favor. Alfred knows that. We all knew that. However, I mean, we’re doing this for all of us, our enlightenment, for truth. This is just really important historically to, hear it is!

 

So then a lot of the time, also, was taken up by these motions for evidence, or I don’t know what you would call it in English. It was “xxx”. So these documents, some of them were quite thick, to be read in court. Now the judge didn’t always allow these to be read, because he said:

 

“Oh, that’s too long, we don’t have time. It’s the end of the day.”

 

But this was ridiculous! There were more days scheduled! It has to take as long as it has to take. But so, when they were not read out loud, the judges were supposed to read these on their own, and the prosecutors too. And that was the sort of their promise, or their covenant, or whatever, that they would say. Yes, that we will take these for our own reading. But then it doesn’t go to the public, nobody hears it. And then there’s the opportunity for the press that’s there, you know, the mainstream press. I mean, they could just interpret these things however they want, because it’s not actually out there for the public to hear, what, is in it.

 

Then you only hear the interpretation of the prosecutor afterwards, and in the final judgement, of course, the judge, … But, some of these things did get read out loud. And to give you an example what those would be, one of the accusations against Alfred was this term that he used, “parasite”, okay. And they accused him “that’s hatred”. Well no! He wanted to get a biologist, an expert in to describe exactly what that means.

 

Brian: [laughing] What a parasite is! If it’s realistic, if it’s straightforward and honest, how could you call it hate?

 

Monika: In a very biological sense, what is a parasitic relationship with a host? Okay. So that kind of request for expertise. Or a request for an historian to verify that the things that Alfred is saying, either in the videos, or in these long documents, these motions for evidence.

 

The quotes that are being given by, you know, people who want to do away with us, the White race, for example. So quotes by Noel Ignatieff, or these books, you know, the Hooton Plan, or the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, or Kaufman, you know, Theodore Kaufman, or countless books, or papers. Or, you know, positions that have been taken and are widely documented and they’re known of but Alfred was requesting that there be an expert historian to verify that these are actually out there in the public record.

 

See:

[In this 28 minute video, recorded in September 2015, Ursula Haverbeck, a German woman who lived through WWII discusses how the “migrant” invasion is part of larger plan to destroy Germany and is a continuation of the WW II era Hooton Plan  (and similar schemes) created by organized jewry as part of their larger goal of world domination, aka, the Jew World Order  —  KATANA.]

 

 

That these things have been said by these people. So that it’s not us making it up. It’s not us just making up things. That, you know, whether the jewish people are saying this about us, or we’re saying this about them, or whatever. No! If we’re quoting somebody else, we want to know that was actually what they said! So these kind of requests. But, of course, those were all dismissed, put aside.

 

Also at towards the end of the trial my lawyer did make a request for Fred Leuchter to appear in court. Now not in person, because that would be very dangerous for him to come to Germany. He’d end up in the gulag, too! But — via videoconferencing — to bring him back on, because his evidence had been used in the videos, and in the written submissions. And that was also dismissed, pushed aside.

 

“No! We don’t need him to come!”

 

So anything that we requested to verify our positions, the things that they are using against us, to incarcerate us, to call us the “haters”, but we’re just presenting it to the world. But any of these things that we wanted to prove and show, they just dismissed it!

 

“Nope! No! No! You guys are bad! You’re the haters! We don’t like what you’re saying and full of your hatred! And your undermining confidence in the justice system!”

 

[15:06]

 

That is in each charge. Then they say you are basically “inciting hatred” and:

 

“Undermining confidence in the justice system!”

 

Brian: What’s wrong with undermining confidence in the justice system, or a political system? If you don’t have confidence in it, that’s freedom of speech! Right? Like criticizing the government, anyone can do that, right?

 

Monika: Well, not only that, isn’t in an irony that these things they’re doing to us, like raiding Alfred’s home three times, over the past three years, and taking all his equipment, and whatnot. And then if you point that out:

 

“Oh! You’re undermining confidence!”

 

Well aren’t they just undermining confidence in the justice system by locking people away for freedom of expression, and stealing their equipment from their homes? And, you know, appearing any time of night, or day. I mean, they can come in the middle of night. In those cases they came early morning. But they’re the ones doing all these things to undermine our confidence!

 

Brian: That’s a double standard!

 

Monika: And then they tell us we’re undermining the confidence in the system! Right. So yeah.

 

I wanted to also talk about some of the specific points that I was charged on, and they’re just crazy! And I talked about these during the “last word”, you know, the final, what do you call it? When I gave the last word, four hour speech that I gave. [final words from the defendant at the end of the trial]

 

So one of the charges against me originally, and actually this one, I think, it was dropped in the end, but I don’t have my legal, all the legal documents with me here. Hopefully they will be sent to me. I wasn’t able to take everything along with me when I fled quickly. I couldn’t fit it all on my suitcase! But the CODOH video that was produced, in which we answer the question:

 

“Why do you support open debate on the “Holocaust”?”

 

Brian: Oh! I remember that when you made it. Yeah.

 

 

Monika: Yeah, it’s a less than four minute video, which we just sent sound clips, we didn’t actually produce that one. It was produced in the States, and I don’t have to go further with that. But it’s CODOH, the Committee for Open Debate on the “Holocaust”. And this little video, it just turned out really great, I think. Because really, we’re just answering this question, that if you substituted that “H” word with any other word, anything else, everybody would say:

 

“Well, of course, you should be able to debate that! Of course, you should be able to talk about these things! Why wouldn’t you?”

 

I mean, this is really the only historical event that is legislated by law. That there’s one version of it, and you’re not allowed to talk about it. But so, this is just answering the question:

 

“Why do you support open debate on this taboo subject?”

 

And so I was delighted actually, that if they were going to charge us, and charge me at all, well good that they included that one in there. Because it just is one of these things that demonstrates incredibly well how they are defending and supporting lies! I mean, really! I don’t think you can watch that video without shaking your head and saying:

 

“Well that’s logical! Of course, you should be able to debate it!”

 

We don’t even talk about things happening, or not happening. We’re just saying:

 

“Yeah, we should be able to discuss it!”

 

Brian: Yeah just to discuss it. Ask questions about it.

 

Monika: That’s not allowed! That’s not allowed! And they just proved it by putting that in the charges.

 

Okay, another one that they charged me with, that which they definitely kept in, and I was awarded several months of incarceration, you know, verdict for. Was the video that was with Gerd Ittner, who just was released not that long ago from prison, another prison sentence.

 

See:

 

And Gerd Ittner and Alfred, they had this video called “Dissidents Speak Out” [“A Dissident Speaking Out — Gerhard Ittner”] and they had a version in German and a version in English. And I think the English version was entitled “Dissidents Speak Out”. In German it was “Dissidenten sprechen sich aus”. And the German version of my offending video the “Sorry Mom” video, the German version in Germany disappeared very quickly, because they censor things like crazy. And so they had wanted, like Gerd Ittner, wanted that video to show up more — and mine’s just short, right, that’s six minutes and theirs was already half an hour, so to add six minutes to their half hour video that was just a little addition — and so they put that one in there, mine, into their video, into the dissidents video. And I didn’t know about it, but I was charged with having collaborated to do this!

 

Brian: Oh! You weren’t aware of it?

 

Monika: No! I wasn’t aware of it until afterwards. Now it’s irrelevant what I think about the idea. I don’t even need to comment on that. Do I think that was good that they did that, or not, good? It’s irrelevant! But the relevant part is that they charged me! That I spent time in jail for having participated in doing that! You know, to — what’s the word — to “conspire” with them to do that. Conspire, that’s the word I was actually wanting to use. Because, they keep talking about “conspiracies”! And “conspiracy theories” and all this! Making it sound like that’s some kind of a, like crazy thing!

 

Brian: Well, like you’re a nut!

 

Monika: Yeah, yeah! Anyway, so I made it very, very clear, as did my lawyer. And we were able to show that I had no foreknowledge, I had no knowledge of them doing this, to put that video in there. But they kept it in there, and, you know, that was part of my verdict.

 

Brian: So were you out of prison at the time? When they put it in.

 

Monika: Of course! Of course. So this is all, …

 

Brian: So there was no way to discuss it, …

 

Monika: This is just the verdict on me, because I did get the verdict of guilty. Just, because I was released, doesn’t mean I got “not guilty”. I got “guilty”, but ten months prison sentence. And I had already served it, so then they released me. But that charge remained. So I got a guilty verdict on that charge, even though I was able to prove, really, … I mean, I guess I don’t know how does one prove something like that? :

 

“Did know about it in advance?”

 

So they are going to read your mind? But I was able to make a strong case for the fact that I had no knowledge about, …

 

Brian: What about, they know your letters in prison. It wasn’t in your letters, right, they we’re doing this? So isn’t that evidence of nothing, you didn’t know? You just you didn’t have much communication, right?

 

Monika: No. That video was produced like a couple of years ago! So it’s not produced while I was in prison, right?

 

Brian: Right okay.

 

Monika: But anyway, I made an analogy in the “last words”. I said:

 

“Okay, let’s say we go out into the woods and I’m gonna instruct people on how to build a fire out in the woods, you know, using the lichen off the tree. And just making a fire where you don’t have a blowtorch, you know. [loud laughing] You might just have a match, if that. And I teach people how to make a fire on a survival course. And so everybody’s happy. And then we come back. And then maybe a month later there’s a case of arson. Somebody burnt down a building. And then they find out, oh it was somebody that happened to go on that survival course and learned how to make a fire from Monika Schaefer! Oh we’re gonna charge Monika Schaefer with that arson!”

 

Brian: Yeah. Good analogy.

 

Monika: You know, it’s kind of crazy! Like they’re making some kind of a weird connection that makes no sense. And maybe that’s not even a good analogy, because that was a destructive act, and that I don’t want to make that a comparison with putting that video into the “Dissident” video, at all! But just the logic, the step of logic, just doesn’t exist, it’s crazy! But this is the kind of thing they were doing. And that’s why I was always saying with delight to my friends in prison:

 

“Gee, every day they’re proving to us how truth, and justice, and right, and righteousness, lies on our side, and they’re defending lies!”

 

So. Anyway. One of the things that they did also do, they did stop some letters going in and going out, and they stopped those letters, or sometimes they just photocopied them, and then still sent them onwards. But they read one of my letters in court. One letter that I had written to somebody, and it was in German this letter. And at first I was quite nervous. And my lawyer had wanted to stop them from doing that, because he hadn’t seen it. And his argument was:

 

“It’s always the right the right of the defense to see the evidence before it’s brought out into the court.”

 

But I said:

 

“No. No. Let them read it.”

 

Because I was quite confident, even though I didn’t remember specifically what I’d put into that letter, you know, because I wrote so many letters. But I was quite confident that it should be suitable for reading in court. But still, you get nervous, you know, here they are going to read this letter in court and it’s supposed to be very incriminating!

 

Anyway I was quite delighted after they read it. And I did translate it, and I want to read that now.

 

Brian: Very good. Yeah, let’s hear it! Thanks.

 

Monika: So this was read out in the court, in the Inquisition of the Schaefers. [loud laughing]

 

[25:00]

 

“Dear Doctor R.”

 

I’ll just call him that to protect his identity.

 

“Thank you for your letter dated July 15th, which I received July 27th. You are not alone in thinking about the witch persecutions. I have often thought of them. I am very grateful that there is no death penalty, at this point, in time, because we both know what would then be. One thing occurs to me, just like today there are many helpers, or quislings, or followers.”

 

I wasn’t sure of the English word to use here, “Shabbat goy”, maybe.

 

“Just like today, there are many “Shabbat goy” who firmly believe they are doing good when they betray people who are actually telling the truth. I would think it was that the same back then. It is likely that people sometimes betrayed as “witches”, their own relatives and believed they were doing good. I suspect there were a lot of lies, deceptions, indoctrination, and brainwashing at that time, as well. And that fear played a large role. Or, I probably know far too little about the history.

 

I don’t think that the letters written to me, as per your concern, harm me, more than help me. The authorities have to catch on eventually, that the more they just lock people up simply for saying inconvenient things, or asking questions, the more it rattles the people awake out there. At some point it just gets to be too much. The servants of the system just don’t know when to stop.

 

Sure, sometimes letters in both directions are confiscated, copied, either forwarded, or not, used as evidence against me, but I have to say it sometimes has very little to do with contents regarding history. They are not interested in history, and truth! Only whether we bumped up against some thought control law, or pushed a button in the Internet. That’s what I mean.

 

The law itself is so intangible and unclear. Well, it has to be, for their purpose of serving a regime built on lies. The whole thing makes me think of Kafka and the book, or the film, 1984 by George Orwell. When I read 1984, back in the 70s, I never could have imagined that I would one day find myself in the middle of that book, …”

 

Then I wrote a little bit about stamps, which is now irrelevant. And then I continued:

 

“In the meantime the trial continues. Maybe I’ll be out of here soon see, dot, dot, dot.”

 

And I signed off.

 

And so, that was a letter that they read out loud. And I’m telling you when they finished reading that I just about jumped up and down for joy, because I was proud of that letter! You know? I mean, I thought:

 

“Maybe they’re on my side?”

 

Brian: Yeah.

 

Monika: It made me think;

 

“Maybe?”

 

That like, there’s there are two main judges and two lay judges. And the one who was tasked with going through the mail, was the one of the main judges, but not the head judge. You know, it was the woman. And at first it was that prosecutor who was reading all the mail. And they got way behind, and they couldn’t handle it anymore! And they were just complaining, that’s all they were doing anymore, is reading this mail for Monika Schaefer! And they were frustrated.

 

Anyway, they finally passed it off to the judge, and she was reading all the mail. And she just looked so friendly, I have to say. I just thought:

 

“She’s on my side! That letter was in my favor, I thought.”

 

But evidently not! For their final result, the verdict — especially when the head judge was saying at the very end:

 

“Every day we proved what haters we were!”

 

My goodness!

 

Brian: Yeah, what really stuck with me, the judge was saying:

 

“It doesn’t matter whether the “Holocaust” happened, or not. What matters is that it’s illegal in Germany to deny it!”

 

Monika: That was the judge for the Ernst Zündel case — just to be clear. I was making comparison in our last show. About how our judge handled it and how that judge handled it quite differently. Right?

 

Like our judge never said anything of that sort, and did not let on at all that he might have realized that, very same thing.

 

 

Brian: Okay. Yeah I misunderstood that, yeah.

 

Monika: That was the Ernst Zündel [Trial], at the end of that. And I thought that was pretty interesting actually, because it makes it clear that judge understood.

 

Brian: Yeah. It would be huge admission for a judge to say that. It’s good that he said that at the Zundel trial.

 

Monika: Some people make the commentary that was actually quite risky for that judge to have said that. But then, of course, he slapped on the maximum sentence, five years, for Ernst Zündel. So he still, you know, did that. But just by making that admission, just to say that:

 

“It doesn’t matter if it happened, or not, and what matters is that it’s against the law to question it, and you broke the law.”

 

[30:15]

 

But no, our judge didn’t do that at all. No! No, our judge was actually, well the head judge, the one who then spoke, you know, sort of like a chairman. Oh my goodness! No you didn’t get that impression at all!

 

And I know partway through, after that first wild week when things were just a “gong show”, there. After that it settled down a bit and all the videos were being shown, and then the question/answer and all that. And that’s when Alfred made the comment that he thought there was this mutual respect developing between them. And Alfred is the eternal optimist! Who really does have this positive outlook, thinking, you know:

 

“These people, they will know, and they will all learn, and they will understand it. And at some point they’re going to turn. And turn around and to come over to our side. To do the right thing!”

 

And Alfred has that huge, you know, he just radiates that optimism too, which gives him the strength too, to carry on! And it’s wonderful! Like that is an infectious and wonderful energy that he has. To have that outlook!

 

Brian: Yeah, I can see that in his videos, as well. But I guess it didn’t pan out that way. You know, others were responding to that.

 

Monika: But at some point it will happen! And then it’s just going to be this domino and avalanche effect! That somebody, some judge is just going to be courageous enough to do that, even if it means that they themselves suffer some dire consequences.

 

See:

 

And I think that it has happened in some forms, or other, in Germany. Like I can’t remember the specifics, but there was some case that was going on and it wasn’t exactly like ours. But people in all these positions, they know what’s going on. At some point that dream, that prophetic dream, that Ursula Haverbeck had, while in prison already. I don’t know if you heard about that dream? But it was this wonderful prophetic dream in which they, all these military type people, and the jail type people, the inquisitors, the judges, they, … Somebody just at some point said:

 

“I’m not going to participate in this anymore!”

 

And in her dream there was torture going on, and all this thing. So it really was a dream that she wrote down. And this has gone out maybe, it’s more, you know, even more, … I don’t know if it’s been translated into English, but it was a wonderful dream. And they just stopped participating, in this dream. And to cut to the chase, you know, in the end she woke up great really relieved, that:

 

“Oh thank goodness! They have just stopped participating! And now it’s gonna turn.”

 

At some point, it’s going to turn!

 

Brian: Yeah it good! Yeah, I guess we don’t know when. I guess they’re firmly in the saddle at this time. But it’s good that you, you know, people are making the sacrifices to do this. But certainly I guess, within Germany there’s more truth amongst the people, about World War Two and the role of Adolf Hitler. There are these groups of Germans which are patriotic and know about that. And they get together and they meet, you know.

 

Monika: Yeah, it’s hard to know how many people know, they’re in Germany, what’s going on. But it’s more and more, all the time. It really is. Like people are waking up. I know that, for instance, the driver going back and forth between the courthouse and the prison, I know that some of them are very aware, just from some of the comments I was getting from them in my interactions. Because I went back and forth so often that then they started to get more comfortable.

 

And I just know that they can see what’s going on! They’re driving prisoners back and forth all day, so they see who’s doing all these things. Why are they in jail? And, who are they? [loud laughing]

 

Brian: Is there any idea of just how many people are in jail in Germany for “Holocaust” denial, for this “hate crime”? It’s hard to get any figures. Maybe they don’t want us to know? Do you have any idea?

 

Monika: I don’t think it’s that many that are actually, … But I shouldn’t even say that. I don’t know how many there are. But I do know that there’s a lot of charges on the same law, this 130, this paragraph one thirty. Two thousand a year is what I was told. Two thousand charges a year, which means that people are paying fines, people are forced to do this, or that, or the other thing. I don’t know what some of the other conditions are.

 

[35:00]

 

Brian: So that’s 2,000 people for “Holocaust” denial and Germany, you mean?

 

Monika: Well they don’t even have the words “Holocaust denial” in their law. The word “Holocaust” does not appear in that law. But it is always about that. That paragraph 130. That is what it’s about! And there are 2,000 cases a year being processed! And that law has existed since 1994. It did not exist before 1994. So, you know, my lawyer argued very well that they got along without a law for 40 years, after the war. And they were actually encouraged, when he was in his, you know, schooling.

 

“Yes debate these things! Talk about these things! We should be able to discuss these things.”

 

And they did without fear of persecution.

 

Brian: That’s surprising that in Germany they could talk openly about that until 1994. You think they would have prevented any doubts about the “Holocaust”?

 

Monika: Well, the reeducation program was in full swing.

 

Brian: Yeah.

 

Monika: And there too, you know, that really got into swing, I guess the whole “Holocaust” thing, in the 70s, right? It wasn’t right after the war. It was too close to events. But then those people who went through the school system, people of my age, our age, they really got hit with it. And subsequently to that they’re just getting really, you know, the triple, quadruple, dose of that, the poison of the mind! You know, the poison that gets put into the mind, of these lies.

 

Brian: Yeah. I met, with Germans I’ve met here, you can really see that strong reaction. They are convinced that way. So of these 2,000, you would say probably few would go to jail? They would get a fine, or something else like that?

 

Monika: Yeah, and I don’t know how many are in jail, specifically for this. I think there’s probably quite a few in jail for related, you know, “inconvenient truths”. I don’t know, though.

 

Brian: I think the person who has been in jail the longest for this is Wolfgang Fröhlich, about 14 years in jail!

 

Monika: In Austria.

 

Brian: Yeah it’s in Austria, yeah. Because he was like a pest-control expert, and he testified in Switzerland and he, while in jail, keeps writing letters to authorities saying:

 

“No it couldn’t have happened this way, you know, because like this Zyklon B needs about 25 degrees fahrenheit to evaporate to kill people. But they these chambers were only like 15 degrees. It was too cool, so wouldn’t have happened.”

 

So I think that’s so threatening, because he knows his chemistry! That’s why they keep putting it back in jail. It’s a tragedy, like 14 years in jail! He gets the record, Wolfgang Fröhlich!

(Click on image to enlarge)

 

Monika: Yes and I’m so glad you brought up his name, because it’s really important that we don’t forget any of these people. And that we support these people. They are, I mean, what a sacrifice he’s made! And he’s not bending, he’s not bowing down, just because they put him in jail. Right? He just keeps speaking the truth. And this, I mean, they just keep putting him in, back in. Or they keep him in there for the repeat offense. Well, that’s like us in our trial. We couldn’t go through that trial, without repeat offending! It’s rather, … That alone should wake people up, that there’s something deeply wrong with this!

 

Brian: Yeah.

 

Monika: Because you can’t defend yourself! Now shouldn’t there logically be the provision that at least during your trial you can speak about these things without “re-offending” making a new crime? No, you’re defending yourself for what they’ve already charged you with! And yet you’re incurring “new crimes” that they’re going to put you in longer for!

 

Alfred is facing a new court date, January 28th.

 

Brian: Oh, for what? What’s the charge for January 28th?

 

Monika: For the things he said and did during the trial!

 

Brian: Oh gosh!

 

Monika: This is what I’m saying! He got three years two months. And that doesn’t mean he’s going to, like, they just want to keep him there for a long time! It’s, it’s, … [shaking her head]

 

Brian: So they can add to it? He’s on trial, so they can add to it?

 

Monika: Yes. And I mean, it leaves me speechless, literally! So but what can people do? I mean, there’s a lot of things people to do, and we don’t want to prescribe. Everybody has their own imagination, and everybody has their own capacities, and these could be little things, big things. But one of the things you could do to help the political prisoners is write letters to them, or write letters to embassies, or consulates, or whatever. Because that puts the pressure on! And it shows the authorities that these people have support. You know, if the letters just dried up, then it’s:

 

“Ha! See we can get away with this!”

 

No! People should be writing lots and lots of letters and keep doing it!

 

[40:01]

 

Brian: Well I’ll put the address for Alfred below this video, like it did in the last video. Yeah. I guess maybe your demeanor in court was different than Alfred’s? Was he more challenging and you’re a bit calmer? I guess they treated you differently than they did Alfred, it seems, right?

 

Monika: Well the verdict was less, because there were less counts against me, as well. And yeah, we have our different styles and that’s perfectly natural too, we’re two different people. I say to people:

 

“Look we’re on exactly the same page, but we have our different styles of communication and all that.”

 

And plus it was important for me to get out. I was already there, and so there was a different strategy. I didn’t speak as much during the trial. But I did do quite a speech at the end, there! [loud laughing]

 

Brian: I think you had a good strategy. You did get out! I was impressed, you know, like, I thought they’d hold you for a year, or more. So I guess your strategy worked.

 

Monika: Well, the persecutor, sorry prosecutor, [loud laughing] I accidentally said “persecutor”. The prosecutor called for thirteen months for me, and for three years, seven months for Alfred, something like that. So that is one thing you could say. The judges did go lower in both cases, you know, that’s one thing you could say. [chuckling]

 

Brian: Okay, well, …

 

Monika: Yeah anyway, I don’t remember what else I was gonna talk about today, but I think that’s probably, … Is there anything else that you wanted, that comes to mind?

 

Brian: Well there’s a few comments and questions in the chat. One person asked:

 

“What was your first meal in prison.”

 

Do you remember that?

 

Monika: You know, the first food that I was offered was actually in the holding cell, right in the courtroom on January 3rd. When they just grabbed me, and handcuffed me, and took me against my will. And I protested that I was a free Canadian citizen. And they threw me in this hole, in the basement, like it’s just this little holding cell. And then a number of hours later they came by with a trolley, and in the trolley they, in the little cooler box. They had sandwiches and apples. So I had a sandwich and an apple. That would have been my first meal while incarcerated. [chuckling]

 

Brian: Another comment in the chat, or someone saying. This is from “purple carnation”. He said:

 

“Can you appeal Monika? How can you not be allowed to produce your own evidence to support your innocence? This is what happened in Nuremberg! You’re really a conquered people!”

 

Monika: Thank you! That is just, … Thanks so much for that question and comment. And I did want to say this, and I’ve forgotten, both times, both interviews with you Brian. It is being appealed! My lawyer is appealing my verdict! And Alfred’s lawyer is appealing Alfred’s verdict! And people might, at first glance, say:

 

“Well, why appeal? You’re out! You’re free! Right!”

 

Well, it’s the wrong verdict, right? They pronounce me guilty, I served months and they pronounced me guilty, plus costs. Can you imagine court costs? Oh my goodness! That’s gonna be a bundle of money! But it’s being appealed! So I haven’t been sent a bill yet, or anything like that. It’s being appealed, because it’s the wrong verdict.

 

So that’s going to go up to the Supreme Court in Germany. And we talked at the very beginning about the title, you know, being set out into the “free” world. It’s kind of going, you know, one prison cell to another. None of us are free! If there are political prisoners. If there’s one person in jail, we’re all in jail really. Because we’re in this mind prison, we’re in the prison of the mind. Like we are in a virtual prison. So I kind of wanted to throw that comment in there.

 

And what was the other part of that person’s comment? So it was about this appeal, and, … I don’t hear you.

 

Brian: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, are you going to appeal? And he said this is like the Nuremberg Trials.

 

Monika: Oh yeah, that was the other part I wanted to comment on.

 

Brian: Yeah.

 

Monika: The Nuremberg trials! At that trial how many people are aware that there they just proclaimed that you do not need evidence to prove something that is “common knowledge”?

 

Brian: Oh yeah! So they put out the propaganda, people believe it, therefore it’s “common knowledge”. [shaking his head]

Dachau display table. Human skin lampshades, shrunken heads, bone ashtrays — all “common knowledge” with enough propaganda!

 

Monika: It’s “common knowledge” that this thing happened! We’re just gonna proclaim that it’s “common knowledge” and that set the bar for evermore! I mean, this is just something that drives me crazy! That kind of thing, we need to tell people over, and over again! And we need to spread that. But if you just declare at that first very infamous trial, post World War Two, and it really was a terrible thing that happened there!

 

[45:03]

 

They just said:

 

“This is ‘common knowledge’. We don’t need evidence.”

 

And then, in fact, they just had all this “counter evidence” which was a bunch of lies, and distortions. And then they hanged these people!

 

Brian: Yeah. It’s like they create their own realities, kind of jewish thinking, you know, this subjectivism. They create their own reality, and then they impose that upon us.

 

Monika: Yes! And then forever more, … Like I get this so much in town here people saying, or on social media, people are always saying:

 

“Oh! This is the most well-documented event in history! This is just so well documented! It’s just got to be the most studied event in history!”

 

But then they never say:

 

“No. Where’s where’s the evidence? Where is it?”

 

No! They just keep repeating that statement. It’s just an empty shell of a statement! Which is a complete and utter lie!

 

Brian: Yeah. They’ve thoroughly studied the lies and repeated the lies. That’s why they call it one the most documenting crimes in history! [chuckling] Because they document a bunch of lies!

 

 

See:  

 

Monika: You could exactly just invert that, because they invert everything, and they say it’s the most repeated lie in history! And it really is. Or it’s the most repeated documentation of non evidence, or false evidence, or whatever! It, that drives me crazy! And they started with out at the Nuremberg Trials. Just look up articles 19 and 21 of the Nuremberg trials and you will find it in more legalese language, but that is basically is where they say:

 

“We’re not going to have evidence for this. We don’t need evidence, because it’s common knowledge.”

 

Brian: I want to ask, how are you doing back home, in Jasper, Alberta? How is the town treating you? How does it feel?

 

Monika: Yeah, it definitely has gotten better since I last talked to you, on November 15. Like at that point, I had some encounters that just made me feel:

 

“Whoa! What am I coming back into?”

 

And there still is that fear in people’s eyes. And I just try to be friendly to them and ask them how are the kids doing, or whatever! [chuckling] It sort of disarms that fear, a little bit. But I’ve also had some really nice “welcome home” hugs, you know. And people really meaning it when they say “welcome home Monika”. And that’s good! I mean, life is not like it was before. It never will be, but I’m not looking for that. We’re in a different kind of a world than what I was perceiving before I started waking up to this, to all these deceptions.

 

Brian: Because I remember you were barred from the Legion, but you’re not barred from anyone else, right? You are free, right?

 

Monika: Well, no. I haven’t really tested that out, and actually I haven’t tested that out. And I was barred, I was banned from a couple of other places too, actually. There was a breakfast kind of a place where she was extremely hostile to me and then threw me out, and barred me from ever coming in there.

 

Brian: Gosh! Gosh.

 

Monika: But the Legion was the big one, because it’s a sort of a central, it’s a focal point in this town for all kinds of events. Lots of stuff goes on there.

 

Brian: You’re not barred from the Legion now, right? You used to perform music there, right? [Brian was breaking up here and was hard to hear.]

 

 

Monika: Oh yeah. In fact, our band helped bring that up from, you know, at the time that was a pretty dead place and then the guy that — well, Ken Kuzminski, the President there — he wanted to bring live music in. And he approached me with my band to come in. And we came in on a regular basis for about a year. We came in about once a month and performed, and then other groups did. And then he started going with bands that were traveling from elsewhere, not just local bands. But yeah we kind of kick-started that. Helped to kickstart, getting that place a “happening” place. [chuckling]

 

And now I’m forbidden! But I don’t know if I am, like I say, … Anyway I don’t want to talk too much more about that in case I want to go down there and try it out.

 

 

Brian: Yeah. What about going on tour, [words unclear] go across Canada and talk about your experience?

 

Monika: Oh yes, I’m looking forward to that! I think in the new year there will be a little bit of a speaking tour happening in Canada! So don’t know the details yet. But definitely want to do a little bit of speaking. I would love to do that. And I will.

 

Brian: Very good! Yeah, anything else? It’s been a good interview, a good follow up on our first talk, when it’s so fresh on your mind. So do you feel you’re adjusting, you’re getting on with your life? Maybe things will never be the same, of course, after this.

 

Monika: Yeah, like I say, it’s been exactly a month today. And like I said at the beginning, that time, it seems like a long time ago, because so much has happened, and I’m just finding my feet. But I expect that things will go a little smoother going forward from here and maybe normalize a little bit in terms of just day-to-day life. And I’m feeling pretty good!

 

And yeah, again remember about Alfred, writing letters to him. And yeah, I’m okay! I’m doing well, thank you! And thanks for doing this Brian. I really appreciate you doing these kinds of interviews and doing all the work you do. Thank you so much!

 

Brian: Well I appreciate having you on my show. It was an honor to be the first to interview last time. I like to do more of these as things change, and talk on other subjects as well. Thanks for being on the show!

 

Monika: Thank you.

 

Brian: Okay. Until next time.

 

Monika: Bye!

 

[50:53]

 

 

 

END

 

 

============================================

 

 

See Also:

 

 

Brian Ruhe — Monika Schaefer’s First Public Appearance Since Imprisonment in Germany! Nov 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Brian Ruhe Show — Monika Schaefer – One Month in the “Free World”, Nov 26, 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

The Graham Hart Show — Brizer with Monika Schaefer, Dec 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

============================================

 

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = 9,020
* Total images = 16
* Total A4 pages = xx

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

 

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 6: Nov 4, 2019 — Completed re-uploading images.

 

Version 5: July 20, 2019 — Updating image links for this new site: katana17.com/wp/

 

Version 4: Dec 30, 2018 — Added See Also links.

 

Version 3: Dec 3, 2018  — Added 3 images.

 

Version 2: Dec 2, 2018  — Added 9 images.

 

Version 1: Dec 1, 2018  — Published post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2018/12/01/brian-ruhe-show-monika-schaefer-one-month-in-the-free-world-nov-26-2018-transcript/feed/ 2 Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT https://katana17.com/2017/12/28/probing-the-holocaust-the-horror-explained-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2017/12/28/probing-the-holocaust-the-horror-explained-transcript/#comments Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:34:58 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=16756 Continue reading →]]>

 

[In this video, “Probing the Holocaust — The Horror Explained Part 1” some of the most iconic propagandistic film footage used to convince the post-war public that the Germans had carried out an extermination policy against the jews (and others), is analysed in the context of those camps and their conditions that prevailed as the war came to an end. The truthful explanation reveals that the public has been deeply manipulated and deceived by the explanations given in that footage.

This video, although dealing with only one part of the “Holocaust” narrative, forms part of a larger analysis by Revisionists that proves beyond doubt that the “Holocaust” is in fact an ongoing hoax of world historic proportions.

 

For people new to this view, one question that usually comes forward is; how? How could something so massively accepted by the media, governments, churches, academia, and so on, be false, a hoax? The answer is that the alleged victims of the “Holocaust“, the jews, are in fact the very people, as in “organised jewry“, that run our governments behind the facade known as “democracy“. In other words the alleged victims are the very perpetrators of this ongoing hoax of world historic proportions. These people were the “behind the scenes” instigators of both World Wars, and many other wars and false flags, right up to now.

Another question is; why? Why would organised jewry need to create such a hoax, known as the “Holocaust“? The answer is that it:

1) Fulfils jewish religious prophecy of a “Holocaust” or “burnt offering” of six million jews. This will then apparently lead to the return of a jewish Messiah and the establishment of jewish rule over the world.

2) Provided a sympathy pretext for the establishment of the jewish State of  Israel despite it resulting in the Palestinians being dispossessed of their lands through terror.

3)  Demonizes any form of  White nationalism. At first only the “Nazis” were blamed for the “Holocaust“, but then all Germans were, and now the blame for the “Holocaust” is placed on all Whites. Any White group, political party, organisation, etc., that attempts to look after White racial interests by, for example, rejecting mass non-White immigration, is implicitly, or on a sliding scale, explicitly accused of being “Nazi“.

Organized jewry uses their hoax “Holocaust” as a shield against any criticism of their world-wide aggression, and also as a sword to attack and guilt-trip Whites into not defending their right to exist and reject the takeover of their countries by the Third World.

The “Holocaust” needs to be exposed for what it is, a diabolical lie of historic proportions. It also needs to be exposed because that lie is being used by organised jewry as a major part of their arsenal of psychological weapons to genocide Whites out of their homelands and out of existence in the long term — KATANA.]

 

_______________________

 

 

Probing the Holocaust

 

The Horror Explained

 

Part 1

 

By

 

Germar Rudolf, Eric Hunt

 

Dec, 2017

 

 

Contents

 

 

__________________________

 

 

The Horror Explained

 

Abstract

 

 

 

“The Holocaust” is widely known as the murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany, many if not most of them in gas chambers deceptively disguised as shower rooms.

 

We have all seen the terrible imagery of dead prisoners taken after concentration camps were liberated. This documentary reviews some of the most memorable of these images, which were taken in camps such as Dachau, Nordhausen and Bergen-Belsen. A closer examination of this imagery we’ve all been exposed to reveals a very different story than what we were made to believe. Surprisingly, a large number of the bodies we were shown were the direct result of Allied bombing and strafing attacks, rather than victims of a systematically planned Nazi exterimnation policy.

 

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained (Part 1) presents surprising information which shed a new light on the horrific imagery and enables many viewers for the first time to truly understand what transpired in Germany during and at the end of the war. Watching this presentation with an open mind will surprise you and leave you asking questions of your own.

 

Download this video documentary:

 

 

Download subtitle files:

 

 

__________________________

 

 

Copyright Notice: This movie has been released to the public domain for educational purposes only. It may be copied and distributed free of charge only. No commercial use is permitted. If copied and distributed, no changes to the movie are permitted without the prior written consent of the author/director of the movie.

 

Note: This video replaces Eric Hunt’s Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed, Part 1, which had a number of quality issues.

 

 

To watch the video over at Inconvenient History please click here:

 

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained 

 

 

Transcript

(96:40 mins)

 

 

It’s something we were told throughout our entire lives: Six million Jews, and large numbers of non-Jews, were murdered by the Nazis:

 

[Clips from various film footages:]

 

“Eleven million people died in Nazi Germany’s death camps. Six million were Jews.”

 

 

“An estimated six million Jews were killed during World War II.”

 

 

“Hitler murdered six million Jewish people”

 

 

“six million Jews”

 

 

“six million died”

 

 

“six million people crying from the grave…”

 

 

The term Holocaust commonly refers to the systematically planned and executed extermination of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War Two. Mainstream historians agree that, of these six million Jews, approximately three million were killed in gas chambers.

 

 

The vast majority of them, they say, were killed or died in six extermination centers in Polish territory. Here is a break-down of these three million alleged gas chamber victims by each of the six camps.

 

Camp Jewish Gas Chamber Victims
Auschwitz/Oświęcim 900,000*
Treblinka 900,000
Bełzec 500,000
Sobibór 210,000
Kulmhof/Chelmno 240,000
Lublin-Majdanek unknown (thousands)*
Total: 2,750,000 + thousands
* The total Jewish death toll of these camps is higher than the number given due to deaths resulting from other causes (diseases, exhaustion, executions etc.)

 

 

These numbers are an average of figures found on the websites of two of the most reputable Holocaust research institutions, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem.[1]

 

 

The Holocaust is so important that the United Nations even decided to create a dedicated memorial day for it. Every January 27th, the day when the infamous Auschwitz Camp was occupied by the Soviet Red Army in 1945, the whole world is reminded to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust.[2]

 

 

 

In 2017, on the occasion of this International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the White House under U.S. President Donald Trump released this statement:[3]

 

 

[“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”]

 

Stop the video to read it, if you like. There is nothing unusual about the statement, except maybe the fact that Jews aren’t mentioned in it. That triggered quite some vitriolic reactions, for instance from Jonathan Greenblatt, the current head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. He tweeted on that same day that Trump did not even mention Jews,[4] which triggered a deluge of similar attacks on the U.S. President for not having expressly mentioned the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust.[5]

 

 

The White House countered a day later that it wasn’t just Jews who died in the Holocaust, but that five million gentiles were killed, too,[6] who also deserve equal remembrance, referring to an article which had appeared two years earlier in the Huffington Post.[7]

 

 

That in turn unleashed a series of attacks on the president and that 2015 article, claiming that this “five-million-gentiles” victim figure is bogus and vastly over-inflated. Among those, I may quote here The Times of Israel’s take on this death toll:[8]

 

 

“It’s a statement that shows up regularly in declarations about the Nazi era. […] It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis. […] The ‘5 million’ [non-Jewish Holocaust victims] has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. […]

Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar […], said he warned his friend Wiesenthal […] about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.

‘I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’’ Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. ‘He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’’

[…] Wiesenthal […] told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.

It caught on: […]

Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote in 2011 […] ‘this number is simply inaccurate, in fact made up […].’”

 

 

Deborah Lipstadt went over the top, however, by accusing Trump of flirting with Holocaust denial.[9]

 

So, here we seem to have a case where a prominent Jew, the late Simon Wiesenthal, inflated the number of Holocaust victims for political purposes.

 

But did Wiesenthal really invent that number? And was he the only one exaggerating numbers?

 

During and right after the end of the Second World War, a number of war propaganda movies were filmed with the support or even under the control of the U.S. government. Throughout these propaganda movies, there are many references to the thousands and even millions of victims of National Socialist barbarism – yet none of these films ever single out Jews as the primary victims of a “Holocaust.”

 

 

[05:11]

 

The most infamous among those propaganda movies was titled Die Todesmühlen,[10] which was designed for, and eventually shown to, German audiences as a tool for shock-and-awe re-education. It was later also released in an English edition: Death Mills.[11] Both movies mention as the death toll of National Socialist persecution 20 million without making any specific reference to Jews:[12]

 

“But these eleven hundred were a small fraction of the twenty million men, women and children murdered by the Nazis. 20 million human beings, equal to the population of 22 American states. 20 million corpses.”

 

In fact, the narrator insists that the victims were:

 

“of all the nations of Europe, of all religious faiths, of all political beliefs, condemned by Hitler because they were anti-Nazi.”[13]

 

This is only the most prominent example. There are more which highlight that death toll claims of National Socialist persecution have a history of exceeding the six million, and that Jews have been mentioned with regularity as only one among many victim groups.

 

This issue is also not just a matter of journalists and propagandists making up wild figures. In 2015, in a book about the forensic examination of mass-murder locations of the Holocaust, a British archaeologist who has been working with the leading scientists in the field for several years wrote, quote:[14]

 

“The exact number of people killed during the Holocaust remains unknown. Some scholars have suggested a figure of around 11 million. Of these, it is estimated that approximately six million Jews were killed but the number of Roma, Sinti, disabled people, political prisoners and others killed cannot be estimated with complete certain[t]y.”

 

She provides no source for that claim, though. So maybe she merely repeated what she had heard through Wiesenthal’s grapevine? But is it really Wiesenthal’s? Interestingly, the very same Washington Holocaust Museum that, according to just-quoted article in The Times of Israel, issued a statement on Trump’s text emphasizing the centrality of the annihilation of the Jews to the understanding of the Holocaust, had announced in 2013 in a press release that their research has revealed that:

 

“The Nazi Holocaust may have claimed up to 20 million lives,”

 

while leaving the 6-million Jewish death toll basically unchanged.[15] This would mean that as many as 14 million non-Jews died in the Holocaust, not just five.

 

I may also point out that 20 million is not the ceiling of death-toll estimates. For instance, an article of Sept. 21, 1992, from Germany’s most prestigious daily newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (p. 13), illustrates in a very useful manner the kind of topic we are dealing with and the problems that are related to it. The title of the article translates to “Traces of the Crime; Shoes, Shoes, even Children’s Shoes.” It is a report written by a student about his visit to the Stutthof concentration camp not far from Danzig, in postwar Poland, that has been turned into a museum. The author, in his fourth sentence, states that he cannot imagine what an extermination camp might look like and talks of, quote, “installations in which ‘6 million Jews and a total of 26 million detainees […] were killed,’” unquote. So here we have a combination of the general 20 million victims plus six million Jews.

 

At the end of his account the author writes that he found himself facing, quote;

 

“the remains of the most brutal genocide, the highly modern killing machines of the time, the cruelest crime of humanity,” unquote

 

By putting things that way, one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the world has given its definition of the Holocaust. The annihilation of a total of 26 million people by the National Socialists in ultra-modern killing machines is the cruelest crime in the history of humanity.

 

So, how many victims were there now? Six million Jews plus a few others, or eleven in total, or twenty, or even twenty-six million?

 

At most one of these figures can be correct, but with all this speculation going on, it may turn out that they are all wrong. But if that is so, what is the truth? Can you tell?

 

One thing is for sure: we obviously cannot believe everything we hear about the Holocaust, because the things we hear often contradict one another.

 

[09:56]

 

Let’s start at the beginning, with the documentary “Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps” that the Americans introduced during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 as proof of Nazi atrocities. Psychologically speaking, it was one of the most powerful pieces of evidence submitted, because a picture tells more than a thousand words. Here are some scenes about the Dachau Camp. Dachau was one of the first major camps the Americans captured toward the end of the war:[16]

 

“Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided. This is the Brausebad, the shower bath. Inside the shower bath, the gas vents.”

 

Actually, what you are seeing here are not gas vents but recessed light fixtures.

 

“On the ceiling, the dummy showerheads. In the engineer’s room, the intake and outlet pipes. Push buttons to control inflow and outtake of gas. A hand valve to regulate pressure. Cyanide powder was used to generate the lethal smoke.”

 

Interestingly, on August 19, 1961, a letter to the editors by German mainstream historian Martin Broszat was published in Germany’s biggest weekly newspaper Die Zeit stating, among other things:

 

“Jews or other inmates were gassed neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald. The gas chamber at Dachau was never fully completed and taken into ‘operation.’”

 

On January 24, 1993, the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote in a letter to the editors of the U.S. military magazine Stars and Stripes in the same vein:

 

“A gas chamber was in the process of being built at Dachau, but it was never completed.”

 

Thus, between the 1960s and late 1990s, the Dachau Museum had a sign displayed inside the Dachau gas chamber stating:

 

“Gas Chamber, disguised as a shower room never used as a gas chamber.”

 

Today, however, this sign is no longer there. Instead, a less-visible text on a sign outside that room states:

 

“Gas chamber

This was the center of potential mass murder. The room was disguised as ‘showers’ and equipped with fake shower spouts to mislead the victims and prevent them from refusing to enter the room.”

 

Currently, the US Holocaust Museum itself admits, quote:[17]

 

“There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings.”

 

Barrack X was the official name for the crematorium building where that sinister room was located.

 

One of the leading books by mainstream historians on the gas chamber question, the 1993 collective tome Nazi Mass Murder, states on page 202:[18]

 

“It has not yet been conclusively proved that killings by poison gas took place at the Dachau concentration camp.”

 

And on page 203, we read:

 

“But during the trial there was only one witness, a Czech physician assigned to care for the prisoners, Dr. Frantisek Blaha, who declared that experimental gassings had taken place in the Dachau gas chamber.”

 

Blaha signed an affidavit on January 9, 1946, in which he described his experience with the Dachau gas chamber. It is in German, but an English translation was read into the record during the Nuremberg Tribunal as follows:[19]

 

“Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way.”

 

And that’s it. If Blaha was the only witness on trial testifying about the gas chamber, and if he had no experience whatsoever about the gassing procedure, then how did the American documentary makers know that the victims;

 

“had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided” ?

 

Only a few days after the liberation of the Dachau Camp, a number of U.S. Congressmen visited the camp. Here they are shown inside the gas chamber. And this is footage taken in 2016. As you can see, the ceiling of that room is rather low. In fact, the room is roughly 2.15 meters or seven feet high. Why do I mention this? Because an official U.S. commission investigated what had transpired at Dachau, and in a report to the U.S. Congress dated May 15, 1945, compiled by David Chavez, we read, among other things, that in this room “the ceiling was some 10 feet in height”[20]

 

[15:32]

 

How can anyone confuse seven feet with ten feet? But that’s not all, because that report continues as follows:

 

“The supply of gas into the chamber was controlled by means of two valves on one of the outer walls, and beneath the valves was a small glass-covered peephole through which the operator could watch the victims die. The gas was let into the chamber through pipes terminating in perforated brass fixtures set into the ceiling.”

 

However, the ceiling did NOT have brass fixtures, but merely zinc-plated iron showerheads. Furthermore, as can be seen in this photo of a spot where a showerhead had been removed by the Americans as a piece of evidence, these were merely fake showerheads – or rather watering can rosettes such as this – that were not connected to anything. Already the documentary we watched earlier said that there was:

 

“A hand valve to regulate pressure.”

 

But there’s a problem. Zyklon B, which was allegedly used for the murder, was not a gas under pressure that could be fed into pipes. It consisted of gypsum pellets soaked with liquid hydrogen cyanide, the active ingredient in Zyklon B. When such a can was opened, its poison evaporated slowly.

 

In addition, from many cases of accidental poisoning with hydrogen cyanide, and from executions with that poison as they were carried out in several U.S. states during the 20th century, we know that the victims Blaha claimed to have examined cannot have succumbed to Zyklon B. Such victims do not have red eyes. They do not have swollen faces. Actually, if they show any symptoms, it is a pinkish-reddish discoloration of their skin as shown here.

 

It is clear that the Americans, when making their documentaries and congressional reports, were jumping to a lot of conclusions, contradicting each other and the material facts in the process. But what’s the truth here?

 

The tubing shown in the American documentary is really impressive. Such heavy tubing with cast-iron hand valves are commonly used for piping large amounts of chemical liquids or pressurized gas. The design of this tubing was investigated by the French officer Capitaine Fribourg a week after the camp’s liberation. Here is a sketch drawn by him showing how the piping worked. According to this, fresh air was sucked in through this intake vent, which protrudes through the roof. This intake pipe is subsequently led through a heat exchanger located over the gas chamber in the building’s attic. Here, the air is heated by the building’s hot-water heating system. After that, the now-insulated pipe is split into two and led out of the attic area into the room behind the gas chamber, where both pipes are led in a semi-circle, each of which equipped with the hand valves shown. Leading back into the attic area over the gas chamber, Fribourg shows the pipes being merged back into the outgoing pipe, but that would make no sense at all, because then the air would go nowhere. Therefore, that’s a mistake. In fact, a report compiled by German architect Axel Will in the early 2000s, a copy of which we received from the Dachau Museum, described in detail that the layout actually looks like this. Will wrote:

 

“Air is drawn in via a pipeline of 400 mm diameter extending over the roof, and is then led through a steam-operated heat exchanger. The pipeline is insulated behind the heat exchanger. It is split into two lines by means of a y-branch pipe, and leads with two pipes of 200 mm diameter into the room adjoining the gas chamber. There the airflow can be adjusted with a valve each. Both these and the other two valves of the ventilation system are made of massive cast iron and carry a $ sign in a circle. Such valves are common in gas pipelines but not in ventilation systems.

Behind the valves both pipelines are again led back into the attic area above the gas chamber and merged back together into one pipe. This pipe enters a sheet-metal shaft, which again goes through the adjoining room and leads the heated air to the air intake at the floor of the gas chamber.

This sheet-metal shaft is not insulated. This raises questions. Design logic suggests that this shaft would be the suitable location to add substances [such as Zyklon B] to the heated air prior to entering the gas chamber. The examination of the sheet-metal shaft has so far not revealed any opening for such a manipulation. Yet the missing insulation points to such a possibility.”

 

 

[20:13]

 

So much from architect Will.

 

The air exhaust system starts with two openings in the ceiling. From there, the two non-insulated exhaust pipes merge into one, and are led toward the wall to the room behind the gas chamber, where the pipe splits up into two again. Then it is led outside in a semi-circle equipped with two hand valves, and led back into the attic area, where it is merged again into one pipe, as can be seen in this photo taken in the attic of that building. Then that merged pipe is fed into the electric blower that drives the whole operation, here visible in another attic photo, and from there out the exhaust chimney, which exits the roof here.

 

Now, if that gas chamber was meant to be operated with Zyklon B, it would have been smart, as architect Will correctly suggested, to equip the sheet-metal shaft running down the wall of the adjacent room with some trap door – hinted at here with blue lines – allowing for Zyklon B to be inserted into some kind of basket inside the shaft, hinted at here with the red meshwork. That way, the constant stream of warm air would have evaporated the poison gas quickly and would have spread it out inside the room rapidly. But, as architect Will correctly observed in his report, there is no trace of any provision to that effect.

 

So, the poison was neither administered using the false showerheads, as the congressional report claimed, nor using the ventilation system, as the U.S. documentary that was shown during the Nuremberg Tribunal suggested. But how else could it have been done? Here is the story as we are told today:

 

“they would pour Zyklon B down these slots right here, and onto the floor.”[21]

 

“Rocks with Zyklon B could be inserted from the outside”[22]

 

Here are some photos of these slots from the inside and from the outside. So, the entire sophisticated ventilation system did not serve any other purpose than moving air around. Why then was it so complicated? It makes no sense at all! It would have been much easier to simply feed the heated air directly into the shaft going into the chamber, as shown here, and to feed the exhaust pipes directly into the blower, using the blower’s speed to adjust for any needed change in air volume. For now, this entire ventilation system seems to be a nonsensical mystery.

 

But that’s not the only one. Fact is, that neither the congressional report nor the postwar documentary mentions these Zyklon B slots. In fact, David Chavez, the main author of the congressional report, had compiled an earlier version of this report that did not get submitted. It stated:[23]

 

 

“Gas Chamber. Gas tight doors. Wooden shed believed to contain pump or compressor.”

 

 

This wooden shed located just outside the alleged gas chamber can be seen in many photos and film footages shot right after the liberation. It was located where today the two Zyklon B slots are located. But according to Chavez, it did not contain any slots, but rather some not clearly identified equipment.

 

The French officer Capitaine Fribourg describing the facility on May 25, 1945 as he claims to have seen it on May 5, 1945, hence, a week after the camp’s capture by the Americans, also mentioned the wooden shed as follows:

 

“Right next to the shower room, adjacent to the building, is a palisade some 2 meters high fencing off a space of 2 m wide. It was not possible to get inside due to the presence of a pile of decomposing corpses stacked up against the palisade.”

 

and

 

“behind the palisade is said to have existed or exists a compressor group (?)”

 

He also described two slots in the wall obscured by this shed from the outside as follows:

 

“At about 75 cm from the ground, 2 hoppers connect the shower room with the outside (palisade side). Each hopper ends on the inside with a grate, and on the outside with a movable shutter system.”

 

That’s also what we see there today. Fribourg even included those hoppers in one of his sketches.

 

If we look at the outside of this wall in that location today, we can see these strange features. It may have been the electrical outlet for the device operated in that shed.

 

Looking closer at the Zyklon-B slots, we notice that the mortar around them is not original. The original mortar used to build Barrack X contains coarse gravel rather than sand, while any mortar used around the Zyklon-B slots, and on later repairs and patch-ups, as we can see them here, are made of mortar containing fine sand. Here we can even see how some of the new mortar flowed over the old mortar.

 

[25:01]

 

On the inside, it is apparent that the tiles around those slots have been damaged. In fact, a simple test with the finger nail shows that these rough surfaces aren’t even tiles. They are plaster made to look similar to the tiles around them.

 

In other words, those slots are not part of the original building. They were added later on by hacking holes through the existing wall.

 

Who did that change, and when was it done? Chavez didn’t mention them, and neither did the U.S. documentary on Dachau of May 3rd. Fribourg saw them two days later, but he did not claim that they were used to throw in Zyklon B. That wouldn’t have been a good idea anyway, because a large amount of the gypsum pellets would have gotten stuck on the grill on the inside. But what were those slots used for? Or is it a post-war forgery?

 

And if that is so, what else is?

 

Here is one hint. This footage was recorded on October 25, 2017 from the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. When searching their video archive for the term “gas chamber” the first result is this video. It’s titled “Exhumation; inspection of gas chambers; Lt. Hodges.”

 

This is footage taken after the liberation of Paris of an alleged “Gestapo Torture Chamber” near the Eiffel Tower. In the description, we read:

 

“World War II interiors of gas chamber used by the Germans in the execution of prisoners. Demonstrating method of securing prisoners in gas chambers. Various Close-ups, pipes leading into room.”

 

And;

 

“hand prints and scratches dug into cement wall of gas chamber by the victims.”

 

Here are those ominous pipes. They are rather fancy, but not very functional. Most of all, they would have been within reach of the victims, and wouldn’t have survived very long, because they would have been demolished very quickly. Also notice all those windows illuminating this room. How long would those window panes have lasted if the victims inside trashed the place and tried to break out?

 

For that footage, they even pumped some innocuous, but dramatic-looking smoke through the pipes.

 

Here are the handprints in the cement, allegedly created by gassing victims during their death throes. Needless to say, handprints can only be made in fresh mortar, and only insane people would use a room as an execution chamber whose walls had just been plastered.

 

These gas pipes and handprints are not evidence of Nazi atrocities, they are evidence of a deliberate Allied psychological warfare campaign to demonize the defeated Germans. Because this hoax is so obvious, no mainstream historian has ever taken that claim seriously. That does not prevent the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum from presenting it to an unsuspecting audience, though. Unfortunately, most people just accept whatever the government, media, or religion tell them to believe.

 

So, what was necessary for the Americans, who had liberated Paris several months earlier, to create that footage? First of all, they must have had a plan. Then, they must have had at their disposal the necessary hardware to create the film set: pipes, smoke-generating devices, and some workers able to install that hardware and to create a cement wall with handprints.

 

In contrast to that utterly unknown Gestapo torture chamber in Paris, Dachau was one of the best-known German concentration camps. It was the first one to be opened right after the Nazis came to power. When the Americans finally moved in in April 1945, this camp had dominated the fantasy of Nazi opponents for more than a decade. So, did the American psychological warfare executives have a plan? You bet they did! And did they come with hardware and workers to put that plan into action? If they did it in Paris in January 1945, they surely were even more likely to pull it off at Dachau, which was a much more promising propaganda stage.

 

So, let me ask again: why are these fanciful pipes in Dachau so impressive and even intimidating, but at the same time so completely useless and pointless?

 

Before we jump to conclusions, let’s look at some wartime documents. First, there are the two photos shown earlier taken some time in 1944. On both, we can see the ventilation chimney that’s part of the gas chamber’s aeration system. So at least that exhaust chimney was built by the Germans prior to the end of the war. Next, among the few original documents available on that building, there are two blueprints of special interest. This one shows a cross section through the gas chamber. It shows that the ceiling is indeed only some 7 ft high, not 10 ft, as the rest of the building.[24] Next, a section enlargement of this document shows the floor plan of the gas chamber.[25]

 

[29:51]

 

As we can see, both doors are 90 cm wide and consist either of two doors each, one opening inward, the other outward, or of a swinging door. Either way, such an arrangement would not have been suitable for a gas chamber, as swinging doors could neither be made gas tight nor panic-proof, and in case this layout consisted of two doors, the inner one opening inward could not have been opened if dead bodies were piled up against it inside the chamber. Such an arrangement is actually common for morgues. For instance, the blueprints of the morgue in the old crematorium at Auschwitz show the same type of door design.

 

Today, this room is equipped with two heavy steel doors of the type that were quite common for air-raid shelters. The doors are one meter wide and set in steel frames. The same doors are shown in the U.S. footage recorded on May 3, 1945, hence just five days after the camp was captured by the Americans. They were therefore most likely built in there long before the Americans arrived. Also, one of the walls actually consists of two layers with a hollow space in between, which is typically used as insulation, something also seen at the above-mentioned Auschwitz morgue.

 

Hence, it looks like this room was initially meant to serve as a morgue. In fact, the striking feature of this building is that, if we discard the idea that this alleged gas chamber served as a morgue, this building has no other room of a suitable size equipped with a ventilation system.

 

But if that is so, what about the weird, oversized piping? And what about those heavy doors? And what about the shafts on the outside, evidently added after the building was completed?

 

And what about the peephole in the rear wall which Capitaine Fribourg described in his report? He even drew a sketch of it. It slanted rather steeply downward, hence it wouldn’t have allowed anyone to see anything except for maybe the feet of a few people standing or lying close to that hole.

 

The hole inside that gas chamber that is said to have been the other end of that peephole can be seen to this day, although it is way higher than what Fribourg reported, who in his sketch placed the peephole below the second little port visible on that wall, close to the floor. Today, neither the peephole’s exit nor the switches are visible in the adjoining room. The switch panel and switch box are shown in the footage recorded on May 3, 1945 for the U.S. documentary. But that documentary neither shows nor mentions that peephole. There is, however, a photograph of that area from May 1945 showing not only the switch panel and switch box plus some of the insulated pipes and hand valves, but also a crude opening in the wall just beneath the switch panel. If we compare that image with a still of the footage just shown, we see:

 

a) that the lid of the switch box to the left has disappeared;

b) and more importantly, the upper, rugged edge of the hole in the photo should also be visible in the still, but it isn’t. Therefore, somebody must have hacked that hole in there after the documentary was shot.

 

Here is how that hole looks on the inside, seen from the gas chamber. It does indeed angle upward. In the background you see bricks and mortar used by the museum to close up that gaping hole in the adjoining room. Inside this tube runs an electric cable put in there when the room was prepared as a museum exhibit.

 

What we see here is the fact that, since the camp’s liberation on April 29, 1945, quite a few people seem to have tampered with the evidence of this suspected crime scene. It’s difficult to assess what this hole was really used for. A peephole, however, would have been installed in the doors, as was and is common for air-raid shelter doors, rather than hacked through a thick brick wall, and it most certainly would not have slanted downward.

 

So, is the Dachau gas chamber a post-war fraud? Considering that the camp was liberated on April 29 and that the gas chamber was inspected by four members of the U.S. Congress only 3 days later, on May 2nd, this seems to be not enough time for a major fraud.

 

In fact, there is evidence pointing in a different direction. Most importantly, there is a letter in the German Federal Archives by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Heinrich Himmler dated August 9, 1942, which reads:[26]

 

“As you know, the same facility as at Linz is being built at the Dachau concentration camp. Since the ‘transports of invalids’ end up in certain chambers anyway, I ask whether the effect of our various combat gases can be tested on people who are destined for that anyway? So far, all we have are experiments with animals, or reports on accidents during the production of these gases. Because of this paragraph, I am sending my letter marked ‘Secret.’”

 

Dr. Rascher was the infamous doctor who conducted medical experiments on inmates at Dachau, which were among the crimes prosecuted by the American occupational powers after the war in the famous “Medical Case” of the Nuremberg Trials of War Criminals. While there was plenty of evidence for a variety of experiments on human guinea pigs such as exposure to low air pressure and extended submersion in cold water, tests of combat gases at Dachau were not among the charges. There was simply too little evidence to make that case.

 

[35:16]

 

We may speculate that Dr. Rascher had indeed tried to re-rig the morgue of Barrack X for the potential testing of combat gases, with those shafts perhaps simply serving as air-intake shafts for a better ventilation, since the room had no windows. But since Dr. Rascher was arrested by the German police in April 1944 and eventually executed for a number of crimes, child abduction and murder among them, that project, if it ever existed, ended up being abandoned at that point at the latest. When the Americans arrived a year later, the room was nothing more than a morgue, filled with the victims of diseases and malnutrition, which could not be cremated due to the lack of fuel.

 

For the time being, any answer to the question what these strange objects were meant for remains speculation to a large degree, because almost the entire original paperwork regarding the planning and construction of that building – cost estimates, progress reports, blueprints, invoices etc. – have disappeared from the Dachau camp archives. Only a few, not very informative documents are left, such as the ones we just saw plus a few others. So, either the Nazis destroyed them because they had something to hide, or the Americans confiscated and/or destroyed them, because they wanted to prevent anyone from figuring out what that room really looked like and was used for.

 

At Dachau, imagery of a gas chamber disguised as a shower room was driven into our minds.

 

Dachau is where the world came to believe the rumors and saw what we believed to be evidence of well-engineered German machinery, capable of gassing with precision and efficiency.

 

So, if that gas chamber wasn’t what we are told, or at least wasn’t used at all for mass executions, why were there massive amounts of clothes hanging in its vicinity when the Americans arrived?

 

“Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners, who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They have been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided.”

 

Actually, these are clothes airing outside the Dachau disinfestation chambers. The narrator merely claims that this is the clothing of homicidal gas chamber victims. Then they deceptively cut to the shower room door, making the viewer believe they are the same door; the one with the obvious written gas warnings on it and the supposed gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, designed to trick those entering.

 

The hoaxers showed film of these disinfestation gas chambers for fumigating clothing, located at the end of the building. They claimed these doors, clearly marked with warning signs and skull and crossbones, were used to gas prisoners.

 

This is where the disinfestation chambers are and the doors clearly marked with warnings. But the “shower room,” the alleged gas chamber, is located a few rooms away. The deception was to trick the average viewer into thinking, the clearly marked delousing chamber door with skull and crossbones located at the end of the building was the same as the shower room door. This dirty deception continues to this day.

 

For example, take this 2012 documentary on Dachau by filmmaker Levi Mierau. After showing the gas chamber and describing how it allegedly worked, he, too, deceptively cuts to the disinfestation chamber while continuing his narration about homicidal gassing. Watch it:[27]

 

“A door labeled shower bath went into a large room, which is meant to deceive, since the room was not actually a shower room but a gas chamber. The room consisted of outlets in the walls, floor and roof.”

 

Stoooop! Outlets in the floor and roof? These showerheads weren’t an outlet for anything, and those six drains in the floor are actually real drains, which indicates that the room was originally designed to handle a lot of water, not gas.

 

Fast forward a few seconds, we have this footage:[28]

 

“Rocks with poison gas pellets named Zyklon B could be inserted from the outside. Since the gas chambers were only built during the camp’s last months, only seven were killed in the gas chambers used as test subjects.”

 

So, while showing the disinfestation chambers, Levi deceptively talks about gas chambers, in the plural, used to kill seven people.

 

[39:50]

 

The same kind of deception is committed by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on its website (capitalization added):

 

“View of THE door of THE gas chamber in Dachau.”[29]

“An American soldier stands outside of THE gas chamber in Dachau” [30]

“View of THE door to THE gas chamber at Dachau next to a large pile of uniforms.”[31]

“THE door to THE gas chamber in Dachau. It is marked ‘showerbath.’”[32]

“View of THE door to THE gas chamber in the Dachau concentrations camp. A sign above it identifies it as a shower.”[33]

 

The US Holocaust Museum uses the singular “the” to imply, both of these doors were the same door of the same homicidal gas chamber, disguised as a shower room.

 

They show the outside of the clothing fumigation chamber doors, located at the end of the building, then show the inside of the shower room door, located all the way over here. There are four disinfestation chambers, not one.

 

But they chose photographs which show one door and used the singular “the” and mix it with images of the shower room. You can see the disinfestation chambers had warnings not to enter and marks designating when clothing fumigations started and when it was safe to open the doors again.

 

Here they refer to this as “a” gas chamber,[34] of course ignoring that it was one of the four used to delouse clothing.

 

The photograph’s caption reveals the early propaganda lies, still perpetrated today.

 

“Gas Room – People were hung up in here.”

 

These hooks were not used to hang people in gas chambers. They were just hooks for clothing, of course.

 

“View of the hooks outside the door to the gas chambers in Buchenwald.”[35]

 

First, this isn’t even Buchenwald. This is a photo of a Dachau delousing chamber.

 

The original caption reads:

 

“Buchenwald was the home of Ilse Koch, wife of the commandant. She was known as the ‘bitch of Buchenwald,’ an insult to every dog who ever lived. She had her inmates tattooed in various designs, then had them killed, then skinned and their hides tanned to make book bindings, lamp shades, and other articles. I saw these things! One story has it that she enjoyed sexual intercourse with her victims – this may be apocryphal. These ‘meat hooks’ were used on the bodies of humans!”

 

Just about every claim in this miscaptioned photo is false. This example illuminates the typical hysterical propaganda common at the time and still repeated today by a government-funded institution. In reality, these alleged “meat hooks” are just hangers for clothes to air out after passing through the fumigation chambers.

 

This complex machinery sure looked like it would be something we’d expect in German-designed death chambers. But because this equipment could NOT be used to introduce Zyklon-B fumes into the chamber, today we are told the Germans instead just dumped the pesticide pellets onto the room’s floor through these vents in the outside wall. This is quite odd, because the disinfestation chambers right down the hall actually did have advanced specially designed mechanisms to properly heat and circulate cyanide gas from the Zyklon B pesticide pellets.

 

This was called the DEGESCH circulatory device made by the manufacturer of Zyklon B.[36] A member of a clothing fumigation crew would put a can of Zyklon B into the holder. A built-in can opener operated from the outside with a crank would open the can. The pellets would drop down a chute into a basket where hot air would be blown through to speed the release of cyanide gas from the pellets. The pesticide would be spread throughout the clothing fumigation chamber, and when finished, the gas would be removed from the chamber and fresh air blown in.

 

One should be very skeptical upon learning that today the official story is that the Germans, rather than using something like this specially designed device used in the clothing delousing chambers right down the hall, simply poured Zyklon B pellets through holes in the wall. Such a procedure would have been very detrimental, because once those pellets were inside the room, they could not have been removed, unless the room had been cleared of all the corpses. Since Zyklon B releases its poison for an hour or more, depending on temperature and humidity,[37] this means that any effort to swiftly ventilate the room after an execution would have been in vain.

 

Hence, these shafts, if they were added during the war within the framework of Dr. Rascher’s testing frenzy, may simply have been designed to assist the ventilation of that room.

 

Anyway, this is not exactly the advanced German engineering we are constantly propagandized with, is it?

 

In the face of overwhelming evidence that this room was never used to gas anyone, mainstream historians now claim that the inmates employed to build this gas chamber managed to sabotage its completion by dawdling on the job for some three years, or so we read in the original French edition of Paul Berben’s “official history” of the camp, quote:[38]

 

“The Dachau gas chamber, however, never functioned because to a certain extent, it seems, of sabotage carried out by the team of prisoners given the job to build it.”

 

[45:13]

 

So, the narration of the Nuremburg trial evidence film “Nazi Concentration Camps” was completely wrong. This clothing did not belong to inmates suffocated in the gas chamber. This was just clothing which passed through the real gas chambers for delousing clothes and was airing out.

 

This deceptive narration of the Dachau segment is an important part of the falsehoods in the Nuremberg trials film evidence center piece.

 

This bizarre practice of calling shower rooms gas chambers continues to this day. We can see on the website of Israel’s Holocaust Museum “Yad Vashem” a photograph of the actual inmate shower room at the Dachau Camp captioned:

 

“A gas chamber after the liberation.”[39]

 

This is just another real shower.

 

“Flossenbürg, Germany, Gas chambers, which were called showers.”[40]

 

This claim is repeated on the “HistoryWiz” web site “The Final Solution”. The photograph is captioned:[41]

 

“The final destination for those who could not work, the gas chamber – here, the gas chamber at Flossenburg.”

 

The hoaxers pulled the same old trick angle in the camera to block out the many windows of this real working shower room. The top official authorities today concede this room was a real shower, never used to gas anyone. Moreover, no mainstream historian has ever claimed that there was a homicidal gas chamber at the Flossenbürg Camp.

 

This doesn’t stop Israel’s Holocaust Museum and others from spreading gas shower nonsense. The “HistoryWiz” website presents an important quote:

 

“To be ignorant of history is to remain always a child. – Cicero”

 

That certainly holds true for those who childishly and ignorantly believe showers were gas chambers.

 

A major reason we believed in the stories of the showers of death is the terrible images of corpses taken at the end of the war. But those horrific images of emaciated and dead prisoners are not proof of an extermination program.

 

“This special presentation of the Oprah Winfrey Show is brought to you with limited commercial interruption. It is supported in part by the new AT&T, committed to education.

I am here in Poland at the Auschwitz death camp, where it is estimated that 1.1 to 1.5 million people perished here in the Holocaust.”

 

At an early age, you were probably already exposed to a program like this.[42] Documentaries such as this one are specifically aimed at young people. You can even see this copy was taken from a website called “School Tube”. Videos like this shock their audience by showing atrocious imagery which, if it were fiction, would be rated unsuitable for children.

 

“That evil has a name: The Holocaust. A systematic mass murder meticulously planned and executed by Nazi Germany that brutally wiped millions of people off the face of the earth. More than six million of those human beings were Jewish.”

 

But since this imagery is real, it is not rated unsuitable for children, although it is even more traumatizing exactly because it is real. However, hardly anyone, let alone a child, has the ability or experience to analyze the context of this imagery. This horrific film footage of emaciated corpses is presented with no context other than the claim that they are proof of a systematic extermination policy.

 

“The Holocaust. A systematic mass murder meticulously planned and executed…”

 

These images, however, were taken at the very end of the war. Mainstream historians claim, however, that any extermination activity had ceased in those camps in October of 1944 at the latest, based on an affidavit by German SS officer Kurt Becher, in which he quoted an order allegedly issued by Himmler in September of 1944 as follows:[43]

 

“I prohibit any annihilation of Jews with immediate effect, and on the contrary order the nursing of weak and sick persons. I hold you (with this, Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were meant) personally responsible for this, even if this order is not strictly followed by subordinate departments.”

 

Both Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were top officials of the concentration camp system. No trace of that Himmler order has ever been found, but that’s beside the point I want to make here. When we look at what was really going on in those camps, we are in for a surprise. Here is a chart showing the number of inmate deaths at Dachau as recorded first by the German authorities and then by the Americans. It clearly shows that mortality exploded at a time when Hitler’s extermination policy is said to have been abandoned. The same happened at the Bergen-Belsen Camp, where mortality exploded only in early 1945, as can be seen from this chart exhibited today at the Bergen-Belsen museum.

 

[50:12]

 

The reason for that was severe overcrowding combined with the disastrous collapse of food and water supplies as well as medical care and hygienic measures, which taken together caused malnutrition, starvation, and fatal diseases such as typhus and dysentery to spread out of control.

 

In those months, the Allies bombed Germany’s entire infrastructure to smithereens, including the supply lines into the camps. Shipments of medicine, sanitation supplies and food into the camps, power plants and water treatment plants were systematically bombed, and in some cases, they even bombed the actual camps. Not only Jewish concentration camp prisoners struggled and perished during the final months of World War II. For months upon months, the German civilian population was the target of an unprecedented fire-bombing campaign by the western Allies. From Hamburg to Dresden, tens of thousands of innocent German civilians were deliberately targeted and murdered. Women and children were burned alive, and terrified families suffocated from poison gas in bomb shelters. They don’t ever show you these pictures, do they? You should ask why, though.

 

Anyway, many Germans who survived became refugees running for their lives, and also struggled to feed themselves.

 

In the east, German civilian populations were also fleeing the invading Soviet army which was torturing and murdering civilians en masse. The Red Army raped untold numbers of German women from young children to the elderly.

 

Using these horrific images, the catastrophic last days of a collapsing Germany surrounded on all sides and bombed to smithereens, as proof of deliberate extermination camps is the dirty trick that is the main reason people believe in the Holocaust.

 

It’s why many react strongly against those critically investigating mainstream Holocaust claims. After all, we all saw the bodies, right? These images were taken in camps liberated by the western Allies, primarily Dachau, liberated by the Americans, and Bergen-Belsen, liberated by the British – camps which are today admitted, even by mainstream historians, not to have served as extermination or death camps.

 

Today, all of the so-called death camps or extermination camps are claimed to have been in Polish territories conquered by the Soviet Union.

 

Early witnesses originally claimed these western-liberated camps also had homicidal gas chambers, disguised as shower rooms. However, British and American doctors performed thousands of autopsies on some of the corpses the Allies discovered in those camps.

 

Russell Barton, an English medical student who had spent a month in Belsen after the camp’s liberation and had investigated the reasons for the camp’s disastrous conditions toward the end of the war, stated, quote:[44]

 

“German medical officers told me that it had been increasingly difficult to transport food to the camp for some months. Anything that moved on the autobahns was likely to be bombed. […]

I was surprised to find records, going back for two or three years, of large quantities of food cooked daily for distribution. I became convinced, contrary to popular opinion, that there had never been a policy of deliberate starvation. This was confirmed by the large numbers of well-fed inmates. […] The major reasons for the state of Belsen were disease, gross overcrowding by central authority, lack of law and order within the huts, and inadequate supplies of food, water and drugs.”

 

 

[53:46]

 

Here is an interview Dr. Barton gave to the late Ernst Zündel some ten years after this article had been published:[45]

 

“You were on the scene in Belsen as a young man.”

“Yes. I went with a group of medical students. We arrived in Belsen on May the second 1945, and I first went to the camp on May the third. Himmler ordered the camp to be ceded on April 11th in order to stop typhus, which was an epidemic spreading throughout Europe. The British came in; a tank division came in on April the fifteenth at three o’clock, and they did their best to segregate the typhus[-infected] and the dying from the other.”

“How many people were in the camp at the time when the British took over the camp?”

“I think there were about fifty-seven or sixty thousand. The British bombed everything, and the Americans, that moved on the roads. So getting food there was extremely difficult. The water supplies became contaminated with sewage, and the administration in the camp more or less broke down. The distribution of food in the individual huts was left to the inmates, and the inmates, we found out – we were fooled at first, but this was after May, after I got there. The inmates… one particular group was in control; they would take what they wanted and then leave whatever food there was left to the rest of the hut. So that meant, perhaps ten powerful people would gobble everything, and three hundred and fifty would have whatever was left. There were, I’d say, all nationalities, mainly Polish and Russian. Most of them were Jewish.”

“Were there men and women?”

“Yes, there were men and women, and children.”

“And were they segregated?”

“Segregated.”

“Segregated camps. And that was still segregated when you got there?”

“Yes.”

“Even, let’s say, if the German camp administration had made maximum effort, and had been given everything at hand, could they have prevented this?”

“There was no cure for typhus at that time. The British put DDT, which is an insecticide, over everything and everybody, and in that way, I think, the typhus was contained. But it was a great danger. People don’t realize it was typhus. It was… I supposed 50, 60 percent of the people died of typhus.”

“Why are these bodies naked? I mean, some of them are so emaciated. Why don’t they have their clothing on?”

“Well, they did. When they were pushed outside the huts, they had clothing on. But clothing was so scarce – everything was scarce – that the inmates would immediately rush out and take all the clothing off, because it was a pity to waste it. That’s why they were naked.”

“Did you see, when you got there two weeks after the British army took over, any evidence of gas chambers, the way propaganda has said that the Germans had in these camps? Or was there any claim made to that effect?”

“No. I don’t think it was ever thought there was a gas chamber in Belsen-Bergen. People were dying at 500 a day, by the way, a rate of 500 a day.”

“Even under British administration…”

“Under British administration, yes. And what was happening mostly, the English soldiers were giving people their food, people half starved, had very thin stomachs. The stomachs would burst, and they’d die. The inmates said that the conditions there, this is what inmates said, that conditions weren’t too bad until the end of ’44. And then this mass immigration… But by the time they put in another 50,000, fully 50,000, of course…”

“Were you there during the time when the bulldozers were actually putting these bodies in the graves, in these long trenches that we’ve seen?”

“The bulldozers… the bodies were being thrown in. They would put… a truck went around every day and picked up the bodies outside the hut, and then they would take them to where the bulldozer had dug the grave, and they would throw them into the grave.”

“You are a man born in England. You published this article, I believe, for an English publication. And the London Times picked up on what you have published here?”

“That’s right. This was published in November 1968. I was asked to write it. I was solicited. I had no intention of so doing.”

“Nobody ever interviewed you from any German magazines or papers?”

“Oh no. No, no.”

“To this day?”

“Not to this day.”

“Did anybody ever, officially from Germany, come and contact you for a kind of historical documentation, of the [???German Federal] archives in Koblenz and places like that?”

“No.”

“No. Never?”

“Never.”

 

Similar to this is the account given by Dr. Charles Larson, a U.S. forensic pathologist working for the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General. Right after the war, Dr. Larson performed autopsies on hundreds of victims in some twenty former concentration camps. In 1980, a newspaper article appeared reporting about his wartime experience. We read there:[46]

 

“Larson has talked little publicly about the war experience. One reason for his silence has been that his autopsy findings conflicted with the widely held belief that most Jews in Nazi camps were exterminated by gassing, shooting or poisoning.

‘What we’ve heard is that 6 million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax,’ Larson said. […]

Never was a case of poisoning uncovered, he said.”

 

 

[59:27]

 

Larson’s biographer wrote the following about this episode, quote:[47]

 

“In one grave the bulldozers uncovered an estimated 2,000 bodies, many of which were subjected to autopsy examination by Major Larson. All of those autopsied had died of various conditions such as emaciation with starvation, tuberculosis, typhus or other infectious diseases.

For the next ten days, many nights with only an hour or two of restless sleep, Larson worked among the dead. He performed about 25 autopsies a day and superficially examined another 300 to 1,000 bodies. He autopsied only those bodies that appeared to have died questionably. ‘Many of them died of typhus,’ Dr. Larson told me recently.

At Dachau Larson’s work – the profile of the prisoner population that his autopsies projected – indicated that only a small percentage of the deaths were due to medical experimentation on humans. It indicated that most of the victims died from so-called ‘natural causes’ at the time; that is, of disease brought on by malnutrition and filth which are the handmaidens of war.”

 

Today, these particular camps are admitted not to have had homicidal gas chambers at all. So, none of the corpses seen in these images were gassed. What you see in these images are prisoners who died from disease, as well as a lack of appropiate food, water and medical supplies. A large part of their condition was due to the Allies bombing supply lines to the camps.

 

Allied fighter planes even bombed and strafed trainloads full of prisoners as they were being evacuated to different camps. Those prisoners who weren’t hit by bullets or bombs were without appropiate supplies for days until arriving at their destinantion.

 

The liberation of Dachau concentration camp is dramatized in the film Shutter Island. The Americans liberating Dachau came across what became known as “The Dachau Death Trains”. They saw bullet holes in the sides of the trains and dead prisoners inside in terrible condition, believing the Germans locked starved prisoners inside the trains, then machine gunned them, the Americans turned their fury to the capture of German guards.

 

“The guards surrendered, we took their guns, and we lined them up. It wasn’t warfare, it was, it was murder!”

 

Many of the German guards who surrendered the camp had only recently been transferred to the camp in the final days of the war. Some were just teenagers from surrounding towns. Ironically, this young German guard even looks like the young DiCaprio. This young German was not a deliberate holocauster of Jews or anyone else but a young man tragically swept into the final days of the most brutal war in the history of mankind. The German soldiers surrendered, and with their hands up, the Americans shot dozens of captured unarmed German guards. And it didn’t happen in the heat of the moment either, as this movie suggests. In fact, the Americans actually brought the guards to the camp’s coal yard, got a heavy machine gun from their vehicle and brought it into position, and they had their army photographers take pictures of the event, as this photo and others prove. It was a war crime. The Americans played judge, jury and executioner. They even dragged German soldiers from a nearby hospital and shot them, even though they had nothing to do with the camp at all, let alone the death trains. Here is the testimony of one of the Americans involved in this murder:[48]

 

“I was not prepared for what I saw in Dachau. Nothing could prepare you for that. Nothing could prepare you for that type of slaughter that was carried on in that camp. […]

I never liked to see people killed unnecessarily, no matter what their stripe is or what they have done. We did kill some people there that I consider unnecessarily. However, given the circumstances, while I am sorry about it, it was just one of those things that no one could control. Actually, the people that we killed died a much easier death than the people that they tortured and killed as we subsequently found out. Torture and hangings and executions in various manners was a daily occurrence. So, in a way, we were kinder to them than they were to the people that they murdered.”

 

 

[65:05]

 

The only problem is that the people he helped to kill were not those who had run the camp for many years.

 

But evidence has come to light that the Germans did not lock prisoners inside the trains and machine gun them.

 

The bullets which tore through the trains full of prisoners were not German bullets but in fact the result of Allied war planes strafing the trains.

 

Here is a Jewish former prisoner talking about the Allies bombing and shooting his train, killing prisoners on the way to Dachau, explaining their condition:

 

“I was ordered to go march out to the railroad station back into the cattle cars, but this time they had open wagons and regular cattle cars. But the only difference it was that the railroad tracks, on one track, the Nazis were retreating with the heavy artillery, ammunition and all their hardware. In another track the concentration camp inmates in the train load. The Nazis were hoping maybe because we are there they will not be bombed.

It would have been a short trip, but it took us almost three days to get to Dachau. What had happened, we got hit by air raid. They bombed the both of the tracks, they machine gunned our train. And in the train were I was sitting – this time it wasn’t so loaded – we were all squatting down. Both of the fellows beside me got hit by machine gun fire. And I just, days… by then the guards were gone. We opened the railroad car and stumbled out of the car and walked into the woods in nearby, and hid there. Remember going out on the fields and dug off some potatoes for food. But they came back next morning or a day later with dogs, gathered us together and ordered us back to the railroad cars. They never removed the bodies. This is how we arrived to Dachau.”

 

This Jew’s train was bombed and shot by Allied planes. The prisoners the Allies killed were left inside the train. Prisoners who weren’t blown up or shot by the Allies suffered further malnutrition, in part due to the bombing of train tracks, delaying their journey.

 

The Allies were directly responsible for killing many on these death trains. Bullets from Allied air planes tore through the bodies of those prisoners shortly before the American infantry arrived at Dachau. American infantry, ignorant of the role of Allied bombing and strafing runs contributing to the deaths of the prisoners inside the death trains, put the blame on the Germans.

 

They lined the unarmed, surrendered German guards against a wall and executed them, committing a war crime, which has gone unpunished to this day. Misunderstandings, propaganda, falsehoods, blind patriotism, mistakes, rushing to judgement. How else could millions be driven to killing their own people, themselves essentially?

 

“It wasn’t warfare, it was murder.”

 

The Allies also directly bombed concentration camp prisoners, and today we are told this is proof of a German planned Holocaust.

 

This is another segment from the American propaganda film “Nazi Concentration Camps” which was shown at the Nuremberg Trials.

 

“The slave-labor camp at Nordhausen liberated by the Third Armored Division, First Army. At least three thousand political prisoners died here at the brutal hands of SS troops and hardened German criminals who were the camp guards. Nordhausen had been a depository for slaves found unfit for work in the underground V-bomb plants and in other German camps and factories.”

 

A deceptively captioned image of Nordhausen appears in Steven Spielberg’s The Last Days companion book. We see American solders walking past corpses strewn on the ground. The caption reads:

 

“The horrific scene of mass annihilation within the Nordhausen concentration camp.”

 

Let’s look closer at the photograph. We can see the buildings have been bombed. Testimony of former prisoners shows they were lucky to survive Allied bombing attacks.

 

This Jewish former prisoner and doctor describes prisoners laying in the camp hospital, sick of tuberculosis in the final days of the war.

 

“And there I had over 4 thousand prisoners laying on tuberculosis. Sick. What are you doing? It’s tuberculosis. No medications, nothing, hardly food, it was very meager already. The Germans didn’t have to eat.”

 

 

[70:18]

 

This former prisoner and doctor described conditions in the camp in the final days of the war. Sick prisoners didn’t have enough supplies. However, he points out the Germans themselves also didn’t have enough even to eat. Clearly, the Germans could have killed the sick prisoners at any time, yet instead treated them in hospitals.

 

“And all of the sudden, it was April 3rd at 3 o’clock, alarm, and American air force over us, and dropped the bombs just on our camp. And the whole camp was entirely destroyed. And out of this four thousand people, we were 200 survived. Because they died there. They were in the camps, you know. Hanging in the ceiling, their bodies and… It was awful. It was burning days and days. We were still…, the nurses, the doctors, the administration people, the working administration… we ran away.

 

And the Americans made a mistake because they didn’t know this is a concentration camp. They knew it is a military camp. They emptied the military the month before and in January they put us in, you see. So, they didn’t know. So, they came back at 9 o’clock in the morning and hit the whole city. The whole city they flattened. We ran away in the wood, in the fields, and when they emptied the planes, they came and strafed us with machine guns. They didn’t know who it is. They are Germans, you know. And we went into the woods, and we remained about a week in the woods. And we ate only the raw potatoes.”

 

British Royal Air Force bombed the camp, full of sick prisoners. They turned around and shot survivors running for their lives. They flattened the nearby town, full of innocent German civilians.

 

The British are primarily responsible for the scene of, quote, “mass annihilation.” But images of Nordhausen recently bombed and strafed by British planes are still used today as proof of a deliberate German-planned Holocaust.

 

And it’s important to note that most of those seen in this photograph aren’t even Jews but primarily non-Jewish political prisoners, including Poles, Russians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. These majority non-Jewish victims of Allied bombing at a former labor camp are used to sell a supposed Jewish Holocaust.

 

The Oprah program deceptively used two shots of the aftermath of the British air raid at Nordhausen.

 

“More than six millions of those human beings were Jewish.”

 

This victim of the Allies blowing up and strafing sick prisoners at Nordhausen being carried over rubble was in fact likely not Jewish. So, we’re looking at someone who is both not killed by the Germans but by the British and who is likely not a Jew.

 

Here is another clip of Nordhausen. The prisoners of the camp for seriously ill prisoners were blown up and shot by the British, and were buried in this mass grave. The soldiers standing at the edge are Americans. But we are led to assume they are Germans, standing at attention after a job well done.

 

“[…] that brutally wiped millions of people off the face of the earth.”

 

Actually, the British brutally wiped these prisoners off the face of the earth. The Germans put them in a camp with doctors and nurses.

 

What’s incredible is that you were shown these images as proof of an organized, planned, systematic extermination program going according to plan.

 

“A systematic mass murder meticulously planned and executed …”

 

…when in reality, this was the result of the total disorganization and utter chaos of a collapsing Germany which was still being bombed relentlessly into submission.

 

Rather than do the right thing and accept blame for what could be said is accidental collateral damage based on faulty intelligence, the Allies instead just blamed the Germans. Images of a camp full of sick prisoners bombed and strafed by British planes at Nordhausen are used as proof of a systematic, planned German extermination program. However, every single mostly non-Jewish prisoner in this imagery was killed due to a British bomb or bullet.

 

The editing of the film “Nazi Concentration Camps” was supervised by Budd Schulberg, born Seymour Schulberg, son of the head of Paramount Studios. Schulberg was Jewish and a member of the communist party USA until 1939.

 

[75:03]

 

All of these dead were murdered with British bombs or bullets. Yet no mention is made of that. Schulberg claims they died at the brutal hands of Germans.

 

“At least 3 thousand political prisoners died here at the brutal hands of SS troops and hardened German criminals who were the camp guards.”

 

This is a total lie and inversion of history. The final shot of the “Nazi Concentration Camps” film shows footage of a prisoner at Nordhausen who had his head blown off.

 

A prisoner account describes exactly how this happened and who is responsible:[49]

 

“THE APRIL 3 BOMBING. The accounts refer first of all to the Tuesday, April 3 bombing: ‘Right from the first blast, I took shelter under the concrete staircase of the Revier. A bomb hit the Block and the staircase was demolished. I ran to the middle of the camp, to a shelter dug right into the ground, where there were already a dozen civilians, women, children, and also an SS man – as green from fear as his uniform – who could only stammer: ‘Schrecklich! Schrecklich!’ (Horrible! Horrible!) And indeed, it was not a pretty sight; corpses every five or six yards, headless or their innards ripped open.”

 

Today, images of Nordhausen are widely used as proof of a Jewish Holocaust. Why is this particular image so popular? The bodies of those blown up or shot by the British, then pulled out of craters or the rubble of buildings and lined up in ordered rows by the Americans are meant to imply an orderly German method of mass murder. Apparently, they want us to believe the Germans lined all these prisoners up here in neat rows and shot them where they stood. If these dead people were German soldiers, the Brits would pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Instead, the Allies just blamed their bombing and shooting screw up on the Germans. What a horrific scam, pulled right in front of our very eyes. Imagery of tragic deaths which were the direct result of the Allies’ actions are cynically exploited to sell a lie.

 

[Footage showing historian Stephen Ambrose:]

 

“Adolf Hitler was pure evil. And he was in command of the most advanced technology and the best-disciplined people and the best-educated people in the world.”

“In the wrong hands, technology helped turn Europe into a slaughter house. This was a war that was also a crime.”

“Eisenhower, when he first encountered concentration camps, was shocked and surprised. He hadn’t been told about it. His immediate reaction was, ‘This is so horrible that there will inevitably become a revisionist movement some day to say ‘this never happened; this is propaganda; this is a figment of wartime imagination,’ so he insisted that every GI who could be marched through those camps and he said ‘bring your cameras with you.’”

 

This is a classic quote used to attempt to refute revisionists. Eisenhower said, there would be deniers in the future, so he ordered witnesses march through camps and film them. No one denies these are real bodies. But the false analysis of their cause of death deflecting all blame onto Germans is the propaganda. Every single shot in this news segment was taken at Nordhausen. All of the footage of murdered prisoners in the sick camp at Nordhausen shows prisoners blown up or shot by the British.

 

This is another example of the propaganda formula: supposed expert, deceptive imagery, plus calling those who question it evil haters. It turns out this master historian was later accused of plagiarism throughout his entire career.[50] He even lied about spending hundreds of hours with Eisenhower and meeting with him daily. Official records show he spent five hours on the record with Eisenhower. This is the mentality of these master historians, promoted to the forefront of the monopoly media. There was no plan to turn these prisoners into this condition. This was the result of the catastrophic end to the war. Not everything going perfectly according to an evil plan.

 

Up until this time these images of a bulldozer dumping naked emaciated corpses into a mass grave at Bergen-Belsen were the most horrifying imagery in the history of film. This film footage was shown to our grandparents’ generation on a big screen. It has been shown to you at a young age. What are you to believe? Some programs such as the Oprah presentation lead one to assume this is a German driving this bulldozer, making his quota of gassed Jews for the day, rather than a British solder pushing epidemic typhus victims into a mass grave.

 

[80:05]

 

Until the end of the war, Bergen-Belsen was not a death camp were Germans deliberately starved to death and murdered prisoners. In fact, it was originally designated as a recuperation camp, or Krankenlager, where sick prisoners were sent to improve their health. It wasn’t such a terrible place until the final days of the war, and there is evidence to prove it. Rose Kahn, a Hungarian Jew, was transported from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen in the summer of 1944. Before Auschwitz was abandoned, and Bergen-Belsen was severely overcrowded, she describes Bergen-Belsen as not such a terrible place.

 

“So, when we arrived to Bergen-Belsen, and they told us to get out, and the Nazis came with those big, big dogs, with their wolves, and they asked us who cannot walk, is sick, should tell ‘em, so they gonna put us on a bus. I was afraid to say it. I couldn’t walk, but I didn’t say it. And if I would say, would been good, because this was not a bad place. This was not at that time, at that time.”

“So in other words it wasn’t a trick?”

“No, no.”

“They really would have taken you by bus.”

“Yes, yes, yes.”

“I think you were right, though.”

“Yes, but I was so afraid, so my mother and my friends were holding me. We had to walk a few miles, quite a few miles to it. And we arrived there, and we lived in tents and straw, we slept on straw. And we weren’t treated badly. No, it wasn’t too bad over there. We were given nice meals. What happened? They wanted us strong to send out to work, so they didn’t want weak and sick people.”

 

Witnesses such as this help prove that Bergen-Belsen was not a specially designed death camp whatsoever. Before the catastrophic end of the war, prisoners were routinely fed and decently cared for.

 

The major trick of the Holocaust promotion industry is to show these horrible images of emaciated bodies and make you believe that prisoners were always like this. That the Germans immediately starved them to death, and this deliberate starvation had been going on for years as part of their plan of extermination. However, witnesses such as this and others prove that at times the concentration camps were not so terrible.

 

“This was not a bad place. This was not at that time.”

 

It was only as Germany was losing the war, surrounded on all sides by a terror bombing campaign from the west and marauding Soviets in the east, that conditions in camps such as Bergen-Belsen deteriorated disastrously.

 

“And then we stayed there until they started to build barracks for all the other Auschwitz people when Bergen-Belsen became hell.”

 

Bergen-Belsen became hellish at the very end of the war. The major cause of this was the Allied bombing campaign. As the Allies fire-bombed German civilian population centers, burning innocent men, women and children alive and shot at or bombed just about anything that moved on roads or train tracks, even the Germans themselves had trouble finding enough to eat at the time.

 

[Camp survivors interviewed:]

 

“…hardly food, it was very meager already. The Germans didn’t have to eat.”

“Food didn’t improve very much because, simple reason, they didn’t have very much themselves, so…”

“Did the civilians try to help you at all? Did they trade goods for things?”

“It’s as I say, we had almost everything what we wanted, from the soccer teams, from the civilians, from outside civilians.”

 

The spread of deadly diseases and severe overcrowding exacerbated the entire situation. Prisoners from areas in the east which were now being overrun by the Soviets were hastily evacuated west. After days or weeks journey, often on foot, they wound up in these overcrowded camps full of deadly diseases. And because the German infrastructure was being destroyed, this was catastrophic.

 

In early February 1945, a large transport of Hungarians were admitted to Bergen-Belsen while the disinfestation facility was out of order. As a result, typhus broke out and quickly spread beyond control. The hot-air delousing machine sometimes failed to work for several days. The worst killer was typhus. But typhoid fever and dysentery also claimed their lives.

 

There was a breakdown in order and communication throughout the German system as the Germans were losing the war and fighting for their survival. Trainloads of food were destroyed by Allied planes. At Bergen-Belsen, the final factor which guaranteed mass casualties was in the final weeks of the war: The Allies bombed the power plant which supplied electricity to the facilities that pumped water to the camp.

 

[85:12]

 

 

“Water too had been cut off. And so, the water cart was the most important thing to arrive. There had be no water supply for six days. The Germans pleaded it had been cut.”[51]

 

The electric plant which powered pumps supplying water to Bergen-Belsen was not cut by some unnamed force. It was blown up by the British. A destroyed system for providing clean water to the camp compounded already disastrous hygiene and medical conditions. Clean water, necessary to shower prisoners, wash clothing and treat dehydrated typhoid fever, dysentery and typhus patients was indeed cut off by British bombs.

 

“One might ask why all the inmates surviving were not removed out of the camp altogether to a large town, for example, where there would be feeding and housing facilities. The answer is simply the dread word – typhus.

A mobile bacteriological unit and all medical aid possible together with 90 medical students from London hospitals were rushed to the spot to deal with it.

Lack of soap and water brought lice to the inmates, and lice carry typhus. To get rid of typhus, one must first get rid of lice, so contaminated patients were removed from their huts and put through a laundry process.”

 

The British struggled to remedy disastrous conditions in Bergen-Belsen after liberation. Many thousands died after liberation. In the end, the British burned the wooden barracks, as they became infested with deadly epidemic-typhus-carrying body lice. Images of the disastrous situation at Bergen-Belsen are fraudulently used to portray a deliberate German extermination policy.

 

These post-liberation images of Bergen-Belsen as well as Dachau and Nordhausen have become symbols of German barbarism. But these people were victims of the larger war, not a deliberate German extermination plan. The Germans did what they could to keep people alive, and in some cases contacted the Red Cross for assistance and even turned over some camps to them. The shameful truth hidden amongst this Holocaust propaganda is that not only were none of these people gassed, but the Allies played a major role in their deaths.

 

As terrible as these images of emaciated prisoners are, images of union prisoners of the American confederate civil war camp Andersonville show liberated prisoners also appeared in a similar condition. What happened at Andersonville was a complete breakdown in hygiene measures due to inadequate sanitation facilities. Toilets in the overcrowded camp didn’t drain properly, exposing prisoners to filth and disease, in particular dysentery. Symptoms of dysentery include diarrhea and rapid weight loss. In extreme cases, patients may pass over a liter of fluid per hour. It’s easy to see how someone who is repeatedly defecating, vomiting and urinating would quickly lose body weight, especially if food supplies, medicine and water became scarce.

 

At Andersonville, as overcrowding increased, so did the death toll. The confederates also lost the war in a catastrophic way much like the Germans. So, there is a direct correlation between the images of Andersonville prisoners and the so-called Holocaust images.

 

Now, these people at Andersonville aren’t Jews, and never has anyone alleged the South aimed for a total genocide of Northerners. The photographs of Andersonville and for instance Bergen-Belsen are quite similar and correlate with the breakdown in hygiene, overcrowding, the spread of disease and one side of the war losing catastrophically. What you see in these images at Bergen-Belsen is primarily the result of typhus.

 

Typhus is a disease carried by the body louse which is similar to head lice. But body lice prefer to attach themselves not to the scalp but to the inner seams of clothing. Typhus was responsible for the deaths of millions throughout history. Typhus epidemics routinely occurred throughout Europe during war time. During World War I, more than three million people died from typhus.

 

What you see in these images are primarily typhus epidemic victims. The Germans did not intentionally starve them to death. We can see several people liberated from the camps. Although not in pristine condition, some appear well fed, some even fat. They simply didn’t have disease. The Germans in fact tried to stop the spread of disease. The insecticide Zyklon B was a pesticide used to kill these deadly typhus-carrying body lice.

 

[90:02]

 

There is nothing inherently murderous about Zyklon B. In fact, Zyklon B was used on the Mexican border to gas the clothing of Mexicans crossing the border. The delousing process went like this:

 

Prisoners entering a camp would strip their clothing and get a haircut to prevent any areas where deadly typhus-carrying body lice could thrive. Then they would take a hot shower. At the same time, their clothing would be put into specially designed fumigation chambers where fumigation crews would use the insecticide Zyklon B to kill deadly typhus-carrying body lice.

The prisoners would then be given clean, lice-free clothing, and enter the camp. It is easy to see how this life saving delousing process involving real fumigation chambers for clothing and real showers was misconstrued into wartime propaganda about showers of gas by prisoners spreading rumors as well as Soviet propaganda artists deliberately framing their enemies.

 

One of the final exhibits at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. sums up the importance of the information presented in this video.

 

Museum visitors are bombarded with film clips taken after the Allies captured concentration and labor camps. These films are meant to represent proof of a deliberate German extermination policy. But you have now seen many of these clips, explained and debunked.

 

Near the end of the museum’s main exhibit two banks of three video monitors flanking a fallen Nazi flag play film footage taken after camps were captured by the Allies.

 

Each of the three monitors is dedicated to one of the three major Allied powers: the Soviet Union, United States and Great Britain.

 

On this screen is US Army footage taken at Nordhausen, Dachau and Buchenwald. The caption reads:

 

“Local German civilians are ordered to tour Buchenwald Concentration Camp.”

 

This is an American army official gathering Germans around the supposed human-skin lamp shade and the table filled with propaganda props. Visitors are shown the Dachau death trains full of victims of Allied bombing and strafing attacks. Majdanek, the outside of a real shower facility, “Bath and Disinfection II,” and the inside of “Bath and Disinfection I” showing the real, working shower room. Again, the camera is angled away from the many windows. The caption reads:

 

“Soviet Army officers inspect chambers where prisoners were killed by poison gas.”

 

Today, every serious mainstream historian acknowledges this wasn’t a gas chamber with fake shower heads, it was a real working shower room designed to keep prisoners alive and free of disease.

 

Again, the bulldozer pushing epidemic typhus victims into a mass grave at Bergen-Belsen. A disaster, but not deliberate or planned.

 

On the last television screen, we’re shown footage of Nordhausen bombed to smithereens by 500 British warplanes over two days. Much like at the Nuremberg trials, the final shot we are shown before moving on to the exhibit on post-war trials is the victim of British war planes at Nordhausen with his exposed brains.

 

How sick to show gory imagery of Allied air attack victims as proof of the evilness of Germans.

 

Mothers rushing their children past this section never question the context of this imagery. This is powerful, trauma-based mind control used to brainwash, not by using logic and facts, but by searing these horror images into a captive audience’s mind, and manipulating emotions with mendacious narrations.

 

Real shower rooms, phony planted evidence like this lamp shade, and victims of Allied bombing are not proof of a genocide using gas chambers, disguised as shower rooms. We were manipulated, misled and lied to.

 

We were shown images taken during the final days of a destroyed and collapsed Germany as proof of a systematic, planned extermination program. Upon further investigation by the western Allies, these claims of extermination camps equipped with homicidal gas chambers in western-liberated camps have fallen by the wayside.

 

However, the powerful imagery of these western-liberated, overcrowded, disease-infested camps, devastated due to the Allied bombing campaign in the final months of the worst war in the history of mankind is still used to brainwash the public as proof of an extermination program of gas chambers disguised as shower rooms in camps captured by the Soviet Union.

 

In Part 2 of this documentary, we will explore some aspects of the most infamous of these camps: Auschwitz.

 

 

[94:55]

 

 

Disclaimer

 

This documentary is not meant to whitewash the National Socialist regime of Germany from any of its undisputed wrongdoings. Imprisoning people without proper due process is a crime. Any authority committing such a crime ultimately bears responsibility for those in its custody.

 

However, this crime was not only committed by the German authorities prior to and during World War II, but during the war also by the U.S. authorities who imprisoned many Japanese Americans as well as Italian and German immigrants. The biggest criminal in this regard, however, was the US’s most important ally of the Second World War, the Soviet Union, where millions were imprisoned and ultimately murdered prior to, during and after the war.

 

Unfortunately, this crime of unlawful incarceration is today again committed by U.S. authorities in Guantanamo Bay and other similar facilities.

 

[95:52]

 

__________________

 

Holocaust Handbooks, the world’s leading book series critically exploring what the powers that be don’t want examined. Mermerizing, comprehensive presentations, such as Lectures on the Holocaust, as well as cutting edge research results, such as The Real Case for Auschwitz. Read most of our books free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com, where you can also watch our riveting documentaries. All this high quality content was made possible by viewers like you. Please consider making a donation to help us create more of this content. We can’t do it without you! Thank you.

 

 

[96:28]

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

[1]

As of Oct. 2017, the following were found online (U = USHMM, Y = Yad Vashem): Auschwitz (U = “over 960,000” total, Y = “more than 1,100,000” total); Belzec (U = approximately 434,500, Y = 600,000); Sobibor (U = “at least 170,000”, Y = 250,000); Treblinka (U = “between 870,000 and 925,000”, Y = 870,000); Majdanek (U = “unknown”, “Between 89,000 and 110,000” “Most succumbed to starvation, disease, exposure, and the effects of physical torture or back-breaking labor performed under threat of violence”, Y = no number, total Jewish death toll “60,000” (Kranz), “200,000” (Łukaszkiewicz)); Chelmno (U = “at least 152,000”, Y = 320,000).

[2]

www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/docs/res607.shtml

[3]

Donald Trump, “Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day,” Jan. 27, 2017; www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/statement-president-international-holocaust-remembrance-day (accessed on Oct. 4, 2017)

[4]

https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/825029350126936064 (accessed on Oct. 4, 2017).

[5]

The Guardian, Jan 27, 2017; www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/white-house-holocaust-remembrance-day-no-jews; Commentary, Jan 28, 2017; www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-white-house-holocaust-horror/;

[6]

Jake, “WH: No mention of Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day because others were killed too,” CNN, Jan. 28, 2017; http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/white-house-holocaust-memorial-day

[7]

Louise Ridley, “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis,” The Huffington Post, Jan 27, 2015; www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/holocaust-non-jewish-victims_n_6555604.html; for more see Hadding Scott, “Anti-Gentiles Deny the 5 Million!,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 9, No. 2, spring 2017; www.codoh.comhttps://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/2/4239/

[8]

Ron Kampeas, “‘Remember the 11 million’? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians,” Jewish Telegraph Agency, Jan. 31, 2017; www.jta.org/2017/01/31/news-opinion/united-states/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/; The Times of Israel, Feb. 1, 2017; www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

[9]

Deborah Lipstadt, “The Trump Administration’s Flirtation With Holocaust Denial,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan 30, 2017; www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-trump-administrations-softcore-holocaust-denial/514974/

[10]

https://youtu.be/OxJZBrtFD6Y

[11]

Best resolution in two parts: https://youtu.be/6wJDlh5ozEY & … https://youtu.be/BQ0m-0AZ-m0

[12]

Ibid. starting at 1 min 23 sec.

[13]

Ibid. starting at 1 min 59 sec.

[14]

Caroline Sturdy Colls, Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions, Springer, Cham, 2015, p. 3, footnote.

[15]

Matthew Day, “Nazis may have killed up to 20m, claims ‘shocking’ new Holocaust study,” Daily Telegraph, March 4, 2013; www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html

[16]

https://youtu.be/_pQJ42ONPDo; starting at 45:18; see the authentications and explanation: IMT Document PS-2430: Nazi Concentration and Prisoner-of-War Camps: A Documentary Motion Picture, film shown at the Nuremberg Trial, 29 November 1945, IMT, XXX, p. 470;

[17]

www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005214

[18]

E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl (eds.), Nazi Mass Murder, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven/London 1993.

[19]

Document PS-3249, IMT, Vol. 32, pp. 57-64, here p. 62, quoted in IMT, Vol. 5, pp. 172f.

[20]

Document 159-L, IMT, Vol 37, pp. 605-627, here p. 621.

[21]

“Dachau Concentration Camp”; https://youtu.be/pIxOQdeCWX0; 18:00-18:05

[22]

Levi Mierau, “Dachau Concentration Camp,” Documentary, Part 2; https://youtu.be/MQvB3sLER34; 6:55-7:01

[23]

U.S. National Archives, Dachau Trial (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss), M1174, Reel 1, microfilm page 000135.

[24]

Nuremberg Document NO-3886.

[25]

Nuremberg Document NO-3887.

[26]

NS 21/319.

[27]

Levi Mierau, “Dachau Concentration Camp,” Documentary, Part 2; https://youtu.be/MQvB3sLER34; 6:00-6:13.

[28]

Ibid., 6:54-7:23.

[29]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1154600

[30]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa23334

[31]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1166433

[32]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1058759

[33]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1158576

[34]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1174716

[35]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1168298

[36]

Ludwig Gassner, “Verkehrshygiene und Schädlingsbekämpfung,” Gesundheits-Ingenieur, 66(15) (1943) pp. 174-176.

[37]

See Richard Irmscher, “Nochmals: ‘Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen,’” Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung, 34 (1942), pp. 35f.

[38]

Paul Berben, Histoire du camp de concentration de Dachau, 1933-1945, Comité international de Dachau, Brussels 1968, p. 12.

[39]

Yad Vashem Archives, 1211/28, item ID 38051.

[40]

Yad Vashem Archives, 4029, item ID 57452.

[41]

http://www.historywiz.org/finalsolution.htm

[42]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJ4mpCDVpE

[43]

3762-PS; IMT, Vol. 33, p. 68.

[44]

Russell Barton, “Belsen,” in: History of the Second World War, 109 (1975), pp. 3025-3029; cf. Barbara Kulaszka (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die?, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1992, pp. 175-180; www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/KULA.pdf (different pagination).

[45]

https://youtu.be/v8vGpqQBpNU

[46]

Jane Floerchinger, “Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says,” The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.

[47]

John D. McCallum, Crime Doctor, The Writing Works, Mercer Island, Wash., 1978, pp. 57-60, 69.

[48]

Levi Mierau, “Dachau Concentration Camp,” Documentary, Part 1, 5:32-5 :49 (https://youtu.be/cCi_PLl-rJs); Part 3, 0-1:03 (https://youtu.be/Xpnl-YyafI).

[49]

André Sellier, A History of the Dora Camp: The Story of the Nazi Slave Labor Camp that Secretly Manufactured V-2 Rockets, Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 2003, p. 291.

[50]

David Plotz, “The Plagiarist: Why Stephen Ambrose is a vampire,” Jan. 11, 2002; www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2002/01/the_plagiarist.html.

[51]

“Memory of the Camps”, Alfred Hitchcock “documentary”; https://youtu.be/DY9y7cmmmFQ.

 

 

 

============================================

 

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages = xx

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

============================================

See Also:

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

============================================

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 3: Jan 27, 2020 — Added See Also links.

 

Version 2: Jan 17, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 1: Dec 28, 2017  — Published post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/12/28/probing-the-holocaust-the-horror-explained-transcript/feed/ 7 The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT https://katana17.com/2017/09/09/the-realist-report-with-carolyn-yeager-on-johnson-vs-anglin-debate-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2017/09/09/the-realist-report-with-carolyn-yeager-on-johnson-vs-anglin-debate-transcript/#comments Sat, 09 Sep 2017 03:18:28 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=15657 Continue reading →]]>

 

[John Friend and Carolyn Yeager discuss the recent Greg Johnson vs Andrew Anglin “debate” where the “Holocaust” and Revisionism were some of the topics discussed.

John and Carolyn then take Kevin MacDonald and Greggy to the woodshed for their failure to man-up and confront the fraudulent nature of the “holocaust industry” that the jews have placed, like a millstone, around the necks of Whites.

The Revisionists have systematically and conclusively proven that the “Holocaust” is the “hoax of the 20th century“. What stands in the way of this becoming general public knowledge is organized jewry’s stranglehold over our governments and media, etc.

Between this proven hoax and the public’s  lack of awareness stand two prominent members of the White movement, who for reasons explored by Carolyn and John, make excuses for evading this fact, or worst, pretend with word play that it still “happened“.

As Carolyn and John discuss, the fraudulent “Holocaust” is central to organized jewry’s strategy of guilt tripping Whites to prevent them into moving towards White nationalism by linking it negatively to racial awareness, that then leads to “Nazism” and the inevitable “gassing of six million innocent jews“.

As such, it is essential that the White movement comes to grips with exposing the Holohoax for what it is, so that this massive psychological weapon, roadblock, can be neutralized.

Meanwhile the jews continue on with their genocidal plans to destroy the White race — KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

_______________________

 

 

The Realist Report

 

Carolyn Yeager

 

On the Johnson vs Anglin Debate

 

 

 

 

Click the link below to John’s blog post:

 

The Realist Report – Carolyn Yeager

Click the link below to listen the audio:

 

http://therealistreport.com/?powerpress_pinw=4424-podcast

 

Or for a tidied up version of the audio, from Carolyn:

 

https://carolynyeager.net/system/files/Friend-Yeager_greggy_9-6-17.mp3

 

 

The realist Report Description

 

Published on Sep 6, 2017

 

 

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined once again by Carolyn Yeager. Carolyn and I focus on the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson which focused on the importance and relevance of historical revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. Carolyn and I both agree that revisionism is an essential aspect of the struggle for the White race, as our historical narrative – especially as it pertains to WWII, Adolf Hitler, and the so-called “Holocaust” of “6 million Jews” – has been entirely weaponized against our people. We also address a number of other related issues in this very important podcast.

Below are relevant links for this program:

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Did you enjoy this program? Consider donating to The Realist Report to help us continue producing podcasts. Enter your email below and donate $10 now!

 

 

__________________________

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(80:11 mins)

 

 

[00:38]

 

Voice over: You are listening to The Realist Report. And now your host, John Friend!

 

John: All right folks, welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. The website is The Realist Report dot com, where you can find an extensive archive of these pod casts as well as other radio broadcasts I have participated in, in the past. You can also find all of my blog posts and articles, a contact page, my Twitter feed, which is embedded on the right hand side of the website, and many other useful and important links. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real newspaper, and I also contribute to The Barnes Review, the bi-monthly history magazine affiliated with American Free Press. I encourage everyone listening to subscribe to both publications. Check out American Free Press dot net and The Barnes Review dot org for more details.

 

OK, with that said, let me introduce my special guest this evening. Carolyn Yeager is back once again to discuss a recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Greg Johnson. Which focuses on the importance and relevance of historical Revisionism in the overall pro-White struggle. A topic Carolyn and I have addressed in the past.

 

Carolyn, welcome back to the program! How are you this evening?

 

Carolyn: I’m just fine, John. Glad to be here.

 

John: Yes, good! I’m glad that you could join me. You wrote an article about this debate between Greg Johnson and Andrew Anglin which is over on Carolyn Yeager dot net. And I will link to it. I hope people go there and check it out. I think you have a lot of very important and good things to say about the debate. And really that’s going to be the main topic for this conversation. I will be honest, I did not listen to the entire debate. I think if you can find it on YouTube and you can also find it on, … There’s like a new alternative to YouTube from what I understand. I think it’s Bitchute, is that correct?

 

Carolyn: Yes.

 

John: Yes. You can find it [the debate] in multiple places. You have it linked on a couple of different, …

 

Carolyn: Yes. I have both of them linked.

 

John: Yes, over on your site. If you just Google it, you can find it. It’s been all over the place. It is a pretty interesting debate. Certainly worth checking out. Again I didn’t listen to the entire thing. I listened to most of it, and I mean, frankly I’ve basically heard what both Anglin and Johnson have to say about the subject, so it really wasn’t anything, …

 

[Image] The many faces of Andrew Anglin.

 

Carolyn: And then Anglin said, afterwards, that it wasn’t supposed to be a debate, but then afterwards they started calling it a debate. But I guess that was important to him, that he didn’t feel like he was in debate. You know, he wasn’t prepared, maybe, to debate anything. You know, but they did have interestingly pretty much opposing views when it came to “Holocaust” and revisionism, which is the part that I found interesting.

John: Right. Now there was a another debate that preceded the Anglin and Johnson debate, and that was between Greg Johnson and Vox Day. And they did a debate, and it was hosted by Terry McCarthy, who also hosted the debate between Anglin and Johnson.

 

[Image] Vox Day vs Greg Johnson debate.

 

In the Johnson and Vox Day debate, was a few weeks ago, I want to say, shortly after Charlottesville. And they were kind of addressing similar topics. They were talking about National Socialists and Nazis. How important, or relevant they are, like in the pro-White, Alt-Right movement, or whatever. And I’d listened to that too, again I didn’t listen to the entire thing, but I thought that was kind of interesting. Again, I’ve heard the arguments made by Johnson and Fox Day. So again, it wasn’t really anything, …

 

Carolyn: I had not before. It was sort of focused on Socialism in that debate, National Socialism and what Socialism meant, how to interpret it and so on.

 

And I listened to it, because you mentioned it to me. But I didn’t think much of it.

 

[05:14]

 

John: Yeah, you know, I really didn’t either. And even the Anglin and Johnson debate, I really wasn’t that impressed with either of them. So I mean, I agreed more with Anglin, but I think I would basically just present the information and present my perspective much differently than even Anglin would. I would explain it much differently and make different points than he would, than he did in this debate. Although I think he did OK. But I think I would have just handled it much differently.

 

So, I think overall, I would agree with Anglin.

 

Carolyn: The reason they had that, … According to Anglin, and it is true, was that Anglin complained that Greg Johnson had misrepresented him in the Johnson Vox Day debate. And so he said: “Well, you come on and we’ll talk about that.” And so in a couple places that’s when Johnson asked Andrew:

 

“Well, how did I misrepresent you, Andrew?”

 

And Andrew told him. He was prepared to say that. He had a couple different things that he thought were important. But then I don’t think Anglin had thought he was prepared to debate the “Holocaust” and, or Adolf Hitler, or anything like that. So, that’s why he said what he did, because maybe he would have done a different job, if he had gone there intending to debate that.

 

John: Okay, I get you.

 

Carolyn: He said what he thought, you know, I thought he did okay. But you’re right, he didn’t have some things right.

 

John: Yeah, I think overall he did pretty good.

 

Carolyn: Yeah.

 

John: And again I would certainly agree with Anglin over Greg Johnson, for sure, when it comes to this issue. So with that being said, I just want to say really quickly about Greg Johnson, because I think you’re going to be much more critical of him, than I will be.

 

I’ve been listening to and reading Greg Johnson for a number of years. I have one of his books, and I’m forgetting the title, off the top of my head. “New Right versus Old Right” I think that’s the name of it.

[Image] New Right vs Old Right by Greg Johnson. Click image to enlarge.

 

Carolyn: Yeah.

 

John: And I think Greg Johnson is a very, very smart man. He’s very articulate. I think he makes a lot of good arguments. His book I thought was really good, although there are certain sections, that I totally disagreed with. Including the article where he talks about the “Holocaust”. And it was actually the article that was published originally on The Occidental Observer dot net. It was basically the same article he wrote for the website, that was also published in the book.

 

And that’s an article that I’m sure we’ll bring up and talk about here as we proceed. But the book overall, was very good. I learned a lot from it. I think he makes a very good case for, you know, pro-White interests over all.

 

Again, I think he’s very articulate, very intelligent. I mean, the man’s a Ph D. He’s obviously, very smart. I just totally disagree with him when it comes to Revisionism and the “Holocaust”.

 

So, I just want to say that. I think he’s very smart, I think he is an asset to the movement overall. I just disagree with him. Then, of course, there’s also this debate, whether, or not he’s gay. And I don’t know if he is, or not.

 

Carolyn: John! John! That’s a definite fact! I mean, he didn’t want to talk about it for a long time, tried to avoid it and not talk about it. But he never denied it!

 

John: Right.

 

Carolyn: And it was Alex Linder who was trying to get him to deny it. And he didn’t do it. He was always walking around it. So, he’s even prides himself in being able to, you know, swerve around and make his arguments and come out with what he thinks is a winning argument. No matter what. It’s not based really on that he’s got all the facts right, or the facts on his side, but he just thinks he knows how to argue. And he said that. So, I think that there’s no doubt about that. He doesn’t want to say so, but he doesn’t fight it.

 

John: Right. And, you know, honestly I think you’re probably right, but again it’s not something that I frankly care too much about. It is what it is.

 

Carolyn: Let me say that I don’t care too much about him. I could leave him alone, but I do care about, as you know, about Revisionism. And I care about World War Two history, and I care about National Socialism. And when I hear him saying the things he does, I can’t, and I don’t think we should, just say, well that’s his opinion, he can have his opinion.

 

Naturally, he can have his opinion. But, I wouldn’t just let it pass it by and say it doesn’t matter. He’s good on other things. I think it does matter, because, as I’m going to try to point out here, the things that he says about it are totally ridiculous! And wrong! And uneducated!

 

John: Sure. I agree.

 

Carolyn: He makes this “great” argument. He makes this argument that just flips around. But, it’s not based on facts, and therefore it shouldn’t be respected, I don’t think.

 

[10:50]

 

 

John: OK. Yeah I sort of agree with you, I mean, pretty much. Before we get into the main topic, let’s actually just address this right off the bat. This issue of Johnson being gay. Because I’ve heard you argue in the article you wrote that his homosexuality seems to influence his thinking in his pro-White stance, and everything. So, how influential is his homosexual sexual identity in all of this? Do you think it has a huge role in his overall perspective?

 

Carolyn: Yeah, well I’ve said so and, you know, I realized when I was writing this, that I was just being way out there with talking about him actually giving the reasons for his thinking as his homosexuality, over and over, again. I knew I was doing that, and I didn’t actually get criticized for it. You know, to my face. But I thought I would. But then I thought, this just hits me so hard in everything that he says, while I kept to the “Holocaust” Revisionism, for the most part, and somewhat with the Hitler stuff.

 

It just strikes me so strongly that, that is the reasoning behind it. And this is not brand new, because I’ve said these things before, but I haven’t talked about Greg Johnson for a long time. And I don’t think, in a sense it’s none of my business what Greg Johnson is doing. But when he comes out publicly with this stuff on this topic, I just feel like I got to answer this, and I’ve got to say something.

 

John: Yes.

 

Carolyn: And there are some people who appreciate it.

 

John: No, definitely! I mean, every time I hear him, or Dr Kevin MacDonald, again two individuals I’ve learned a lot from, I respect. I think they’re certainly on our side, overall, but I just totally disagree with this. And I think it is a very important point. In fact, as you know, I often argue when I’m doing pod-casts when I’m writing, that the fake “Holocaust” story is the entire bedrock of this New World Order! This anti-White, White genocide agenda, jewish agenda. This is the heart of it. This is what drives all. It’s the paradigm that really shapes this and advances it. And I mean, I just don’t see how we can avoid it, if we are to confront these problems, and deal with them seriously. I don’t think that we can. And we will get into that as we, …

 

Carolyn: Yeah, I know you believe that John. But you’re also a very nice person, but also you are committed to the movement. You don’t want to criticize people. And I’m criticized for going out and criticizing people who some people think shouldn’t be criticized, especially Kevin MacDonald. And, you know, a couple weeks before this Johnson Anglin discussion, I wrote something* about Kevin MacDonald, which was longer than this.

 

[* See Carolyn’s Aug 8, 2017 blog post: “Kevin MacDonald on record saying whether the Holocaust actually happened is ‘not important’“]

[Image] Kevin MacDonald (pic taken at the 2016 NPI conference) and his landmark book on jews, “The Culture of Critique“.

 

He did a radio program with that, “non jewish” jew, and a girl there asked him about the “Holocaust” and Hitler and stuff. So he answered. And I was so shocked! Just thought his answers are pretty terrible. And I wrote about him about two years ago on the same topic, because a radio program* he did.

 

[* See Carolyn’s Nov 16, 2015 blog post: “The Heretics’ Hour: Kevin MacDonald’s problem with Holocaust revisionism“]

 

So these two men, … Now, MacDonald I always respected so much and I would never have, … Well he never talked about it, that I knew of in the past. But he did on these two occasions, because he was asked! And these were both, maybe since he was retired, I don’t know if he was retired the first one, but probably. And I thought, well that’s pretty ignorant! That’s not right. And so I made a noise about it, and I’m good at doing that. [John laughs]

 

John: Yes, you are.

 

Carolyn: That’s my role, I guess. So I have those two, that kind of go together in my mind. So when this came up with Greg Johnson, I thought, well I’m going to write something about this, too. Just to be fair! [chuckling]

 

 

[15:28]

 

 

John: Yeah, and I think it’s totally legitimate to have these discussions and to publicly disagree with other thought leaders, in the Alt-Right, or whatever. I think that’s totally fine. I think that’s healthy, really, what we should be doing, rather than engaging in drama, or gossip, and all this other crap. If we’re going to criticize somebody, …

 

Carolyn: We’re just ignoring it. Mostly, people don’t want to criticize someone like Kevin MacDonald, even over his views on “Holocaust” revisionism. But, it was a big hit, a lot of conversation about it. A lot of comments, a good thread about it and so on.

 

John: Right.

 

Carolyn: Anyway, like you, that is my big thing. And I’ve decided even more, and more, that when it comes down to it, that’s my big thing! And so, I’m going to push it as much as I can. And I don’t have the reach those guys do, but I can certainly say what I think about the misleading things they’re saying about it.

 

John: Yes, exactly. So, let’s get right into it. What were your overall thoughts on the debate? What points would you make?

 

Carolyn: Johnson said:

 

“No honest revisionist claims that the “Holocaust” never happened.”

 

And then he says:

 

“Robert Faurisson claims that the “Holocaust” never happened. But only by insisting on a particular definition.”

 

Those are his words. He says:

 

“His argument is too clever by half and cannot be taken seriously.”

 

He kept repeating:

 

“We don’t have to rehabilitate the Third Reich.”

 

And he said:

 

“You can say that we are Nazis, or you can say, ‘No, we’re not Nazis’, or you can say, ‘Nazis are not evil’, but you can’t say, …”

 

I don’t know, whatever.

 

John: Well, his main argument seemed to be that the pro-White struggle and having a pro-White identity, and just the overall pro-White message is in no way related to what happened during World War Two.

 

Carolyn: Right. Right.

 

John: that was his main thing. And theoretically what he’s saying is true! I mean, the fact that White people deserve their own countries, that there’s this very blatant anti-White, agenda that’s being advanced on every single White country. We’re being forced with all this mass immigration, forced multiculturalism, forced integration, all this anti-White propaganda, etc.

 

This is wrong, and our cause is totally legitimate. And is in no way related to, or tied to World War Two. That’s correct in theory, but that’s not the way it works in the real world, right?

 

 

[19:47]

 

 

Carolyn: Yeah, and everybody is familiar with that. You know, that is just a bunch of baloney, saying that. That’s fine for us to say, but nobody pays attention to it, as you just said, in the real world. So he kept saying:

 

“Well we can made this wonderful argument, that this is absurd what people are saying.”

 

To say what they call White supremacists, or just White identists, or White activists, are Nazis. That’s just so absurd on it’s face. That’s silly. And that’s not a good argument. First of all we can just ignore that, and just go on and do our thing whatever.

 

He doesn’t really have an answer to it. His whole answer to all of it, is to ignore it, in what he called in his article he wrote quite a number of years ago, that caused such a stir. He was using that phrase, “To step over it”. So we just “step over” the “Holocaust” and go on our way. And say it doesn’t have anything to do with us.

 

 

John: Right. But there’s no way to. I mean, theoretically you could, if you’re talking about it again from a theoretical perspective, …

 

Carolyn: Andrew Anglin countered that on that show, by saying that if we say we agree with everything Hitler said and did, which he does, you know, basically expects that people are going to do. If we agree with what Hitler did, we can’t then say that we have nothing to do with him. And he says that nobody’s going to fall for that. Nobody’s going to go along with that.

 

And Greg is saying, well he wouldn’t say that. He didn’t say those words, but that then leads him to trying to dismiss, get us away from Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism, too. Which he disagrees with. And that’s part of what the “New Right” is about, right?

 

John: Yeah. And from what I remember about the book, his main critique of the “Old Right” is that it was kind of brutal, and violent, and tyrannical. And I think that’s a totally distorted view of National Socialism.

 

Carolyn: Well it is. See now, that’s where the homosexuality comes in. That absolutely comes in there. He doesn’t like, … He was much more friendly toward Hitler and National Socialism, but he’s moved away from that, because he sees, or decided, or whatever, that this is over quite a number of years, that this is a government that could treat his group badly. And so therefore he rejects anything to do with fascism, you know, what we call fascism, or the Third Reich. He rejects it.

 

[Image] Heinrich Himmler talks of the problem with homosexuals in society. See: Heinrich Himmler on Homosexuality.

 

And to me, it’s because he’s afraid of the brutality, he’s afraid of the harshness. He doesn’t think that he could convince them that he’s a good guy and that they should leave him and his friends alone.

 

John: It’s almost as if he knows that he would be sort of excluded in a National Socialist type state, because he is a homosexual. And that’s kind of what motivates him. And that seems to be kind of the argument you’re making in your article. And I mean, it’s entirely valid. It certainly does seem to be sort of the case.

 

Carolyn: Well, I think that Greg has been so successful, financially, he takes in a lot of money. From the way I think, and the way you think, I’m pretty sure, as compared to how much money you have ever gotten, he gets a lot of money. I think he gets a lot from the homosexual community. Because, even though he was criticized for being homosexual, he wouldn’t admit to any of it. He published books by blatant homosexuals, like James O’Meara, who has been exposed on the Internet, cross-dressing, and doing a lot of weird things. Pictures and everything. And Jack Donovan, and he’s been very friendly, he was very friendly with him.

 

 

And I think he has a lot of writers. Although, I was looking at his site more recently, which I haven’t for a long time, and he’s got a lot of different people writing articles, there. I don’t know who they all are. But he had a lot of writers that I think, just from the sound of them, the way they wrote, what they wrote about, that I suspect they were homosexuals.

 

Now, your commenter, Tucker, thinks that I see homosexuals everywhere. I do, I guess, I may have a sensitively to them, because when I think that they are, I notice it. So, I just have my opinion, he depends a lot on the homosexual community, at least for money. And they send him a lot of money because he stands up and publishes their work, and so on.

 

 

[25:30]

 

[Image] Some of the homo imagery featured in Counter-Currents in the last 12 months. Click image to enlarge.

 

And he also, I don’t know so much now, but back when I was making a study of it, I noticed and pointed out that he had constantly photographs, you know, he has a picture with every little post announcement on his site. Way outnumbered photographs of men with a lot of muscles showing, and not wearing very much. Old classic pictures, [chuckling] classic paintings, and sculptures, and so on. He supposedly deals in the classics, but there’s all these men, the kind of pictures that homosexuals would like looking at. Would really love looking at. So the whole thing just all fits together. And when he would say something like, you know, let me find something that he actually said:

 

“It’s foolish for us to attack the enemy at their best defended points, …”

 

We’re now into revisionism.

 

“… Because we can make a case for White identity and White interests that doesn’t depend on whether or not the Nazis got it right, or wrong.”

 

Things like I, …

 

John: But I think he’s so wrong about that! Because any time you make a pro-White case, it’s inevitably going to be tied into Hitler, the Nazis and the “Holocaust”. I mean, the jews have been so successful with this fake story, it’s totally discredited any form of White identity, and they pathologize it. And it’s instantly tied in with this!

 

Carolyn: Yeah. And that’s why he wants to distance himself from National Socialism, and Hitler, as much as possible. And he thinks, says, that will work. But then he also said in this podcast:

 

“There are many things I think the National Socialists did wrong. And I do think that their plans for the Slavic east were really genocidal.”

 

Then he said that Plan Ost, which is on the famous Wikipedia page, was a fabrication, as far as he can tell. But he still considers the “Holocaust” a genocide against jews! Now what really gets me, and because we don’t have forever I’m going to jump to it.

 

In his article on his website that he wrote about the debate, he said some interesting things, and then this Ermin, … What’s his first name? Vince Irmin*, or something, who he published his book. Who wrote a book about Hitler, a kind of a friendly book about Hitler, and Greg’s company published it. He wrote a comment and said he thought Anglin was right.

* Vinson Irmin, “Some Thoughts on Hitler and Other Essays”. Foreword by Kevin MacDonald, edited by Greg Johnson (2012). Click image to enlarge.

 

He said, Anglin was doing the right thing by, making fun of the “Holocaust” and so on. And Greg wrote a reply to him and he said:

 

“The ‘Holocaust’ is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim* that jewish suffering is more important than non-jewish suffering.”

 

[* “Normative” statements/claims present an account of how the world should be. The word contains the stem ‘norm’: something that should be lived up to; or that should be pursued.]

 

Sorry, I left out that this Irmin said that:

 

“The whole meaning of the ‘Holocaust’ is not genocide, but that it’s a claim of jews that their suffering, during World War Two was vastly more significant than any other suffering in history.”

 

Comment exchange between Johnson and Irmin. Click images to enlarge.

 

A very good point, which you would agree with, I’m sure. That’s really what it’s all about. They are so jealous of anybody else having any claims to having, … Then that will come up when we talk about the Poles, and the Pole’s demands now for reparations, if we get a chance to do that.

 

 

[30:00]

 

 

So, anyway, Greg answered that:

 

“The “Holocaust” is a great big pile of dead jews, not a normative claim that jewish suffering is more important than non-jews suffering. You can drop that moral absurdity, …”

 

Everything, he wants to call that way.

 

“But there’s still a great big pile of dead jews!”

 

John: But is there really Carolyn?

 

Carolyn: No!

 

John: No, there’s not. Exactly!

 

Carolyn: I mean what is a pile of, … The “Holocaust” has to be more than a pile of dead Jews! There’s piles of dead people of all kinds!

 

John: Exactly! There’s photos of piles of bodies that are presented to a very gullible traumatized public and were told:

 

“Oh! Hey look how evil the Nazis are! Look at all these dead people that died in these concentration camps!”

 

It’s never explained how these people died, what happened, what was going on at the time, there’s no context. It’s all very emotional and psychological exploitative propaganda, that is designed to instill and reinforce this fake narrative!

 

Carolyn: Right! And here is where I want to make the point that I made in the wrong place before, that he said that Andrew’s position — in this article he said this — Andrew’s position on the “Holocaust” boils down to:

 

“It never happened. But it should have.”

 

And he says this is completely indefensible. And I ask, what is “it”? Because I’m saying, my point I’m going to make here, is that you need to define what the “Holocaust” is. That’s why saying it’s a big pile of dead jews, doesn’t cut it!

 

And then Greg writes:

 

“First, to say it never happened is factually indefensible. No honest revisionist claims that the ‘Holocaust’ never happened.”

 

And then he says:

 

“Robert Faurisson, does claim this, but only by insisting on a particular definition. His argument is too clever by half, …”

 

[laughs] The pot calling the kettle black!

 

“… And cannot be taken seriously.”

 

Oh come on!

 

“Even if one grants every serious revisionist argument, what remains is ‘Holocaust’ enough for most people.”

 

Now this is just coming from that 2012, I think it was, long article titled, “Dealing with the “Holocaust” that he published at Occidental Observer. And MacDonald, turns out was totally in agreement with him and ends up coming out later with the very same arguments.

 

The Occidental Observer article (Jul 20, 2012) by Johnson titled “Dealing with the Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge. Note: the comments are not available to be viewed.

 

You know, the thing is Faurisson* is right. You have to have a definition for what you’re talking about! What is the “Holocaust”? You can’t talk about the “Holocaust” and then everybody talking about has a different idea what it is. And it’s just a big pile of dead jews, according to this very smart Ph. D., John! Who you say is such a smart man.

 

[* Robert Faurisson is one of Europe’s foremost Holocaust revisionist scholars]

Article (Aug 30, 2017) by Johnson on the “debate” with Andrew Anglin. Click image to enlarge.

 

John: No. I hear you. [Carolyn laughs] By the way, you’re referring to an article, and I’ve not read this article, I just found it on Counter hyphen Currents dot com. “My Conversation with Andrew Anglin”.

 

Carolyn: Right, right. I’ve got a link to it here.

 

John: I’ll link to that in this blog post, so people can go read what he has to say. It looks like it’s kind of his summary or concluding thoughts on his debate with Anglin.

 

Carolyn: Right.

 

John: One thing I wanted to ask you is, and Greg Johnson brought this up in the debate, he’s obviously not like an outright National Socialist, you know, he loves Hitler, etc. But, you know, he’s tries to be objective and fair and say:

 

“Oh well, the Nazis weren’t that bad, but they did do some things wrong.”

 

Carolyn, what exactly did Hitler and the Nazis do wrong? I’m trying to figure that out.

 

Carolyn: See, I don’t agree with that. He mentions that Operation Ost, or whatever it was called, they found some notes about it. There was kind of a plan, but they made all kinds of plans! That different people wrote out plans for the East when they took more control of it, and so on. That doesn’t mean they were ever carried [out], or they were going to be, quite in that way. And so there’s a whole lot made out of that. But then he admits that it’s a fabrication. But he thinks that still, he always says that the Nazis did things wrong. He said it in both the debate and in his article. But he can never really point out to what it is, but he thinks that they did exterminate jews! Now for him, that’s immoral.

 

 

[35:18]

 

 

He doesn’t say, you know, he’s supposed to be anti-jew, but that’s immoral. Well others, revisionists, say they didn’t exterminate jews and there was never a plan. Now this brings us to the definition of the “Holocaust”, which you’re very aware of, and a lot of people are, but let’s just go over real quick.

 

As Michael Shermer wrote in 2000, and he’s a jewish “Holocaust” apologist. He says:

 

“When historians talk about the “Holocaust” what they mean, is that about six million jews were killed in an intentional and systematic fashion by the Nazis using a number of different means, including gas chambers.”

 

[Image] Michael Shermer’s book “Denying History” in which he gives a standard definition of what is the “Holocaust“. Click image to enlarge.

 

And then Michael Berenbaum and Deborah Lipstadt, said the same thing. So have many, many others. And that’s known to be what they insist on! The jews themselves insist on that, for the “Holocaust”. They don’t let’s you change that, take away from the six million, or say that there was no plan, or intention to kill the jews. And Deborah Lipstadt says; “they were intended to kill every jew in Europe“, and things like that, you know. They have no evidence for that.

 

And that’s why someone like Greg Johnson doesn’t want to bring that up. Because he knows it can be debunked. But, at the same time he wants to say that there was a “Holocaust” and the Nazis are responsible for it, and that’s why we don’t want to be associated with them, or call ourselves Nazis. That is not the reason. That is all.
nbsp;

 

[Image] Carlo Mattogno’s book “Fail: Denying History” in which he gives Shermer’s book “Denying History” a good thrashing. Click image to enlarge.

 

John: And that’s what’s so bizarre to me with, how a guy like Greg Johnson, this very smart man, an academic, a Ph. D. Kevin MacDonald the same thing. Richard Spencer as well. He’s kind of always pooh-poohed revisionism. He doesn’t think it’s important and relevant, at least from what I’ve heard from him in the past, in conversations I’ve had with him.

 

Carolyn: They all do the same thing!

 

John: Yeah, they all think we can “step over it”. We don’t have to address it. We can ignore it. It’s not relevant, or related to our current, …

 

Carolyn: And you know, I also think, I don’t want to make a fuss here, but I also think that Richard Spencer is basically homosexual. And I think there’s a problem with, now of course, Kevin isn’t, but I think there’s a problem with having so many homosexuals in the White movement, as leaders. I think there’s a problem with that personally. So, I just thought I’d bring it up, because it comes up.

 

John: It always does. And to my knowledge Richard Spencer is not a homosexual. That’s all I’ll say about it. I don’t think that he is. From what I understand he is married and he has a child and everything.

 

Carolyn: You can do that.

 

John: My point is, … Right, yeah. Anyways, my point is that these guys, these very smart guys, always dismiss Revisionism. They don’t think it’s important. But what’s bizarre to me is that Revisionism itself is very, very well founded, from a scholarly perspective, from an academic perspective. I mean, all of the books that have been written debunking, scientifically debunking, the “Holocaust” in virtually every single regard, every single aspect of the official “Holocaust” narrative is not true. I can confidently say that at this point. None of it is true! It’s all propaganda! It’s all, just this fake narrative!

 

 

Carolyn: And these guys avoid that! They don’t talk about it!

 

John: Exactly!

 

Carolyn: They don’t talk about it at all, and then they just say:

 

“Well I’m not convinced it didn’t happen.”

 

What kind of thing? They don’t let themselves be convinced. They won’t read anything!

 

John: And Johnson even argued in the debate that it’s like, “over the heads of most people” and it’s “too difficult to go through all this information”. And it’s like, no! It’s not! I mean, if you just stop and think about it and break it down.

 

 

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 1 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

 

As you were kind of explaining, the basic tenets of the official “Holocaust” narrative, are; six million jews, it was done in gas chambers, largely, and it was a systematic, coordinated plan, carried out by the Nazis. All three of those assertions are easily proven to be false!

 

I don’t understand, … It’s clear to me that they are just afraid of this topic! They’re avoiding it, because they think it’s bad PR. I think that’s really what it boils down to.

 

 

[40:01]

 

 

Carolyn: I used to say that, but now I go further, and I’m pretty convinced that they don’t like Nazism. They don’t like Hitler. And I’ve given my reasons for why Greg doesn’t. But Kevin doesn’t, because he just never has. He likes Americanism. He thinks we need to be American. He doesn’t want to go there.

 

John: It’s too taboo I think, for MacDonald especially.

 

Carolyn: Yeah, yeah. I think with Kevin, he personally doesn’t like anything to do with Nazis. It personally turns him off. He doesn’t like uniforms, he doesn’t like the swastika, he doesn’t like any of that. The way they behave. I mean, he really sincerely doesn’t like it, but that means he’s not looking at it, as he supposedly looks at history, in an honest objective manner. He doesn’t want us to get involved with that. And so, that’s why they don’t want to reconstruct, or revisit the “Holocaust”, because if the “Holocaust” didn’t happen then Hitler might be rehabilitated! And that’s the one thing they don’t want. They want Hitler to be the bad guy.

 

John: Yeah.

 

Carolyn: You see, some of us don’t want that. So we’re really at odds here!

 

John: I totally, …

 

Carolyn: I can’t just ignore that and say:

 

“Oh well, that is okay, I still support you.”

 

Because, to me, what they’re doing is keeping us in this bondage to the jews. And they’re helping the jews! They don’t want to help the jews, but they think they can ignore the “Holocaust” and National Socialism, the Third Reich, and move ahead with White identity. And talking about where the jews are wrong and this won’t hurt anything. But all of them, are much more tolerant of jews as friends and in the movement then what I would be.

 

Richard Spencer was talking in that video I linked you in that comment I wrote, that he thinks that mixed race people can be in the White movement and if they’re mostly White they can certainly, you know, adjust if they really are for us. That we can just accept all these people.

 

That’s too lax for me.

 

John: Yep, I hear you. And by the way, the comments that you’re referring, and you mentioned Tucker who is a commenter on my website, this is from our last pod cast. So if you go back in the archives you find the most recent conversation I had with you, you can find all the comments there and kind of see what we’re talking about.

 

Carolyn: Yeah.

 

John: Yeah. I mean, to me it just doesn’t make any sense how these are obviously very smart, educated men, can just dismiss all of this scholarly research done into the “Holocaust”, by guys like Germar Rudolf, for example, who is himself a scientist and a Ph. D. Robert Faurisson and many others, countless others! Check out The Barnes Review dot org for all the most classic “Holocaust” revisionists books. They’re all for sale. They’re all worth purchasing and reading in my view.

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 2 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

 

We’ve proven that this story is not true! We’ve proven it scientifically, we proven it from a very scholarly perspective. It’s really, in my view, not up for debate anymore. So it’s just a matter of these guys not taking the time to do the research, or just choosing to ignore this and downplay it! And you can’t! I mean, it’s very clear that you can’t! Try going, …

 

Carolyn: They don’t want that to be a part of their movement!

 

John: Right.

 

Carolyn: So to me, they’re dishonest about it. They won’t argue it. You know, they won’t talk, … They won’t say:

 

“Okay, I think this is wrong and this is why.”

 

They won’t argue those points. They don’t want to get into it. Because they don’t think they have a very good argument, so they just avoid it. And that I think is dishonest, and it’s not fair.

 

 

[44:57]

 

 

Now I came across something else at Counter-Currents, just yesterday, written by Kevin MacDonald in 2016, September. One year ago posted there, titled “The Alt-Right and the jews”. And most of it was just the usual thing that Kevin talks about with the jewish influence and how it ruling in our societies, and so on. But then he got into a little more specific things, and he said, which others have said:

 

“I think it’s fine that some organizations and some Alt-Right figures do not discuss jewish issues.”

 

Well that’s OK, but then, a few sentences later he said:

 

“I would love it if there could be an Alt-Right mass movement with significant jewish support.”

 

And then he gives some reasons why that’s probably not going to happen and why it might not work out so well. But it shows that’s just a different attitude, that he would like to see Jewish support.

 

[Image] Kmac’s article, “The Alt-Right and the jews” with a couple of critical comments. Click image to enlarge.

 

John: It’s incredible! I mean, it’s a naive attitude to think:

 

“Oh, maybe jews will finally be objective, like us, and realize that our message is legitimate, and righteous, and honest!”

 

No! The jews are never going to admit this! At least not in large numbers. There might be a couple individual jews who would maybe support the idea of a White ethnostate or, sort of go along with our perspective. But overall, the jews have made very clear as a collective racial entity, that they are very, very, and blatantly hostile to our interests, and hostile to the future prospects of our race! And, in fact, are doing everything in their power to bring about our destruction! They make this very clear. So to me it’s very naive. I don’t understand it.

 

Like, just one day, we are going to finally convince the jews that we have a righteous cause?

 

Carolyn: If they want to have some jews who they think would see it, … And here’s what he said:

 

“That jews would see it in their interest that White societies continue to be healthy, because that’s in the jews interests as they live there.”

 

You know, they don’t want them to deteriorate into all these minorities, factions, and so on then. He’s still talking about jewish interests. So jews are doing it, because it’s best for them, not because it’s in the interest of White people! Not because they identify as White, but only that they want to live in White countries and get along all right for themselves.

 

So that’s a totally different thing! Yes, it is very naive and it’s very much academic, I guess. You praise these guys, because their Ph D.’s, and then this is an attitude that more academics tend to have. You know, I still respect Kevin MacDonald a great deal. I mean, I’ve always liked him, but I just think that this needs to be said. And I actually hope that more people would look at all this and make comments about it and think about it.

 

John: Sure.

 

Carolyn: I think it’s very harmful to what we’re trying to do.

 

John: I’ll just say publicly, I don’t know if Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Richard Spencer would even listen to this, but if they do and they’re interested in discussing this with me, I’d be more than happy to have them on. I’m sure most people listening [know that] I’m not like this very hostile interviewer. I want to hear them out. I would probably challenge them, obviously.

 

Carolyn: Well I don’t think they would.

 

John: I don’t think so.

 

Carolyn: I sincerely doubt very much, because they don’t want to have to explain themselves. That’s why they do it, the way they do.

 

John: Well, all I would say is, to a guy like him, Kevin MacDonald, or Greg Johnson, or Spencer, anybody else who kind of goes along with their line of thinking, that we can avoid this issue, “step over it” as Johnson argues, … If you really do think that, that’s fine I guess. I would just say don’t, to use an Alt-Right expression, don’t counter signal revisionists, people that are critically investigating the fake “Holocaust” narrative.

 

[50:10]

 

There’s no need to! If you’re not interested in this topic, if you don’t think it’s important, then simply avoid it! But! Don’t accept the mainstream jewish narrative in any way! Just say:

 

“Hey look! It’s got nothing to do with what I’m saying. White people have rights. My pro-White ideas and views have nothing to do with Hitler, or Nazis, or the “Holocaust”. I don’t care about it! That happened seventy, eighty years ago. What I’m talking about is now!”

 

That’s all they have to do!

 

Carolyn: Right.

 

John: They don’t have to go along with the fake story, they don’t have to say:

 

“Oh well, Hitler did do some things wrong and jews were persecuted, and murdered.”

 

No! Just avoid it altogether! That to me is the best approach to take, if you are going to go along with Johnson, and MacDonald, and Spencer, and these other guys.

 

Carolyn: Well right. I said that in that article about MacDonald and his pod-casts, and it would be okay with me, if you just said:

 

“I don’t know anything about it. I haven’t studied it. I don’t like to talk about it, because I, have not studied the issue.”

 

And then that would be it. But instead, he did give some opinions. And then he made a silly comment:

 

“That I’ve never seen anything that convinced me.”

 

Well that’s just a dumb comment!

 

John: He’s not looking very hard then!

 

Carolyn: No! [laughing] No!

 

[Image] Revisionist “Holocaust” books. Click image to enlarge.

 

John: Because, I mean, Dr MacDonald, I’ll send you multiple books, … I mean, you can find this all out on the Internet! And see, that was another thing I wanted to bring up. Johnson kept arguing that to get our message across to people in a modern context, we don’t need to rehabilitate Hitler, or the Third Reich, or National Socialism, or anything like that.

 

I would disagree with that! I think that from an objective, truth-seeking perspective, it’s very clear that Hitler was a very righteous and honorable man! He was the greatest political statesman in modern Western history! I think you could say that, argue that very, very convincingly from a very objective, scholarly, perspective.

 

Carolyn: Yes. But you would have to have all your facts and figures at hand. That is not easy, but, yeah! Sure you could! Of course you could.

 

John: That’s true. And also I think that he still, …

 

Carolyn: Johnson says that, not because he knows that, or anything, but he says that, because he doesn’t want it! He doesn’t want it to be rehabilitated! Because he doesn’t want it to return.

 

John: Yeah.

 

Carolyn: In that way, that’s exactly what the jews don’t want. The jews don’t want Hitler to be rehabilitated more than they care about the “Holocaust”. The “Holocaust” is very important to them. But they don’t want Hitler to return or anything like that! So they’re in accord with that. And that’s why they want to keep the “Holocaust” in place, so they can say:

 

“Look! He’s responsible for this and we can’t have him. He was a bad guy!”

 

John: Right, exactly, yeah.

 

Carolyn: I’m sorry to say, they’re not coming from an honest place. They’re not coming from an honest, scholarly place. And in truth, the whole thing is that everybody comes from what they want to happen. It’s all about power! When you come down to it, history is all, who’s in power, and it’s not what’s true. You can find a lot about truth and what’s true and have different opinions. But in the overall, it’s who’s in power and that’s what it’s going to be.

 

So you have to change the power. And so someone like Andrew Anglin and his way dealing with that, I’m not saying he does it the best, but that way of dealing with it is in the end, it’s necessary. Because we agree, but we could talk with other people until we were blue in the face. And if they don’t want to change the way, their views of modern life are, they’re not going to go with it.

 

 

[54:57]

 

 

John: Right. Well really, it’s all about who controls the narrative, and the jews have control of the narrative when it comes to pretty much every major issue of importance. All of the issues that really form our paradigms for how we understand the world, how we understand our history. It’s all a jewish narrative. It’s a jewish approved narrative that advances jewish interests and delegitimizes White interests. I mean, that’s what it’s all about. It’s about controlling the narrative. And what is sad to me is that we’ve made so much progress in countering that jewish narrative, that weaponized, jewish narrative. Certainly within the past, since I’ve been involved in this movement, anyways. I mean, think about “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”.

 

Carolyn: Right.

 

John: What a brilliant film! Very professionally done! Very, very powerful! Very, very moving! A great film, and it’s huge on YouTube. I mean, it’s been censored countless times. But I would venture to say that literally millions of people have seen that, and it has profoundly impacted them. It certainly did for me. And there’s many other documentaries, many other books that have been written, many other pod-casts. I mean, you’ve done a lot of work on this. I think you’ve played a huge role in rehabilitating the image of Hitler, and Nazis, and the WWII narrative, in general. And other people have as well.

 

Carolyn: Thank you.

 

John: And this work is so important! And we’ve made a lot of progress, we really have!

 

Carolyn: You’re right! I mean, that’s why we got to keep pushing! We’ve got to keep pushing it! I’m convinced of that now. That if I do anything, I’m going to just keep working on “Holocaust” revisionism, and also what I can do with Hitler. But mostly with this revisionism, because there is so much. I mean, it’s all been figured out, it’s all been debunked. It’s just a matter of getting people to pay attention.

 

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 3 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

 

You know, I was talking to you about my nephew and what I noticed with him, he’s very open-minded, very nonjudgmental, willing to look at things. But he doesn’t care all that much. I can tell. I sent him some things to read and look at, and he did. And then he said:

 

“Well, what about this and that, …”

 

And he wasn’t completely convinced by it. Well, when I came to it I was, like, ready to be convinced. I mean, I wanted to be convinced, I admit that. I wanted it to not be true. Other people wanted it to be, so it was different. But he’s kind of like just, he’s more interested in the Constitution and things like that. So I’m not going to press it, but I did sent him the book, “Debating the Holocaust”, and he said he would read it.

 

But, you know, you can’t force this down people. It’s not really what they think is most important, so even if he was convinced to some degree, which would at least be nice, it doesn’t mean he would become like me. [laughs]

 

John: Right. That’s how the vast majority of people are. And that’s why controlling the narrative, controlling how information is presented, whether it’s through the media, whether it’s through our educational establishment, it’s so important. And the jew again, the jews have a total stranglehold over this! At least in the official channels. I think we’re chipping away at that and sort of eroding that. Certainly within the past ten years, or so.

 

But that’s really what it’s all about. Most people don’t care about World War Two! They don’t care about the “Holocaust”. They don’t care about Hitler.

 

Carolyn: No.

 

John: They’re just been taught all these truly false and highly weaponized narratives about this period of our history, and they just accept it. It doesn’t mean much to them, but that’s just what they know, what they’ve been taught. And they don’t really think about it.

 

 

So could you imagine, rather than watching Schindler’s List, in seventh grade, when we were in our English class, we’re watching, you know, “Adolf Hitler, The Greatest Story Never Told”. Which is clearly much more objective and scholarly than any of these ridiculous “Holocaust” films.

 

 

Carolyn: Right.

 

John: And people would have a much different perspective, a much different outlook on everything! On life in general.

 

Carolyn: They would! Absolutely! That’s just absolutely true! So, this is where it’s at. It’s a tough battle, that’s what it is. But I just think, that when it comes to revisionism, if everybody in the White activist movement would get on board with it. And would talk in favor of it, it would make a big difference. I think it would, because lots of people just never mention it, that are influential. I just think it would be good, but obviously it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

 

 

[60:19]

 

 

John: I completely agree with you. and I think that, again, more advice to people that kind of go along with Johnson, and MacDonald , and others. Look at this from strictly a free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of intellectual inquiry, think about it just from that perspective. I mean, we should be able to question the “Holocaust”! We should be able to critically examine it and to entertain other ideas, other perspectives about what really happened. Just that alone, I mean, just from a free speech perspective, …

 

Carolyn: Well, my nephew, …

 

John: You don’t have to agree with it, but you should be able to say:

 

“Hey look, I think the “Holocaust” really did happen! but if somebody wants to question it and do research into it, I fully support them in doing that.”

 

You know what I mean?

 

Carolyn: Yeah. my nephew did say, … He looked at all these great arguments and he was like, “Yeah, yeah, yeah.”

 

But then when I happened to bring up in passing, the laws against it in Europe, and how you couldn’t talk about it, you go to jail, he said:

 

“That’s one of the more convincing part of it, to me.”

 

Yeah!

 

John: Well, it is! It totally flies in the face of American traditions, you know, free speech, the First Amendment! It’s totally contrary to all that!

 

Carolyn: Yeah! Am I breaking up to you?

 

John: No.

 

Carolyn: Yours is breaking up to me, but maybe that doesn’t matter.

 

John: Okay. No. You’ve been crystal clear this entire time.

 

Carolyn: Okay.

 

John: Carolyn, I know we’re pretty much at the hour mark and we’re going to wrap up here in just a second. I just wanted to really emphasize the fact that this fake narrative, this fake “Holocaust” narrative, this hysterical, irrational, entirely unfounded, you know, demonization of Hitler and the Nazis. This narrative really is the bedrock of the entire New World Order agenda, the White genocide agenda, which are basically one and the same thing, right? This is so clear, so easy to demonstrate, that this is the case!

 

There’s a couple articles I just want to highlight and bring up here real quick. One of which was just published over at The Renegade Tribune, and it’s written by a man named, John Wear, who has actually contributed to The Barnes Review in the past, and I think The Barnes Review sells some of his books, if I’m not mistaken.

 

 

He wrote an article called “Why the Holocaust Story was Invented” and he lists a number of reasons that kind of explain the purpose of the fake “Holocaust” narrative. What agenda it’s advancing and, of course, the establishment of Israel, and the demonization of Germany, etc., There’s a number of arguments he makes. It’s very, very much worth reading. I don’t know if you caught that. I tweeted it out today.

 

I will also link it when I post, …

 

Carolyn: I read something by him, that maybe you sent to me?

 

John: It’s good, yeah.

 

Carolyn: I’m trying to remember it.

 

John: And this article this may be an older article, I’m not sure. I just saw it posted by Kyle Hunt at The Renegade Tribune. so it may be an article that John Wear wrote in the past, and he’s just reposting it. I know he does that often.

 

But it’s worth reading. it’s very good. I mean, …

 

Carolyn: Does he kind of hold off in certain areas, he’s not one hundred percent, or is this just in this thing I read? It seems like he was doing that. Maybe to be more acceptable, more convincing, or something? I don’t know. I can’t remember. I actually can’t remember exactly what it was. But would you say he kind of holds back a little bit, or not?

 

John: From what I can tell it doesn’t seem like that to me.

 

Carolyn: Okay.

 

John: I mean, maybe you wouldn’t be as forceful as we are when we talk about these subjects, but no, he seems pretty solid to me.

 

And this article is very good, it’s worth reading.

 

And then also, I wrote an article and, you know, I’ve been harping on this issue for a number of years. And this article goes back to April 26th of 2015. And it’s actually on my old blog, my old blogspot website, which amazingly is still up right now. If you go to it, it’s John Friends blog dot blogspot dot com. [johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com]

 

 

[65:00]

 

 

If you go to it, Google has that warning, you know, this is restricted content, or controversial content, or whatever. You have to click, “I understand and I Will Continue”. So they’re basically kind of censoring it. But anyways, you can still find it. And again I’ll link to this article as well.

 

And this article is titled, “Top jewish Leader Claims Entire Western World Culpable for the Holocau$t”*. And I just highlighted an article I found in the “Algemeine”, which is a jewish newspaper. Again, people who have followed my site know I highlight jewish newspapers and just what the jews actually say, just to expose their agenda and everything that they’re about. Because again, they openly admit these things and say exactly what they’re up to.

 

And this article in particular, I was highlighting, some comments that were made by Ron Lauder, who I believe still is the President of the World jewish Congress.

 

[* http:// johnfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/top-jewish-leader-claims-entire-western.html]

 

And this was right around the time of the, …

 

Carolyn: Whose name did you say?

 

John: Ron Lauder. Ronald Lauder.

 

Carolyn: Yeah.

 

John: Yeah, he’s a big time jew that is been involved in all this stuff for a long time. Anyways, he made a speech, this was at the seventieth anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. And he’s basically arguing that literally the entire Western world is essentially responsible for the “Holocaust” happening. Because they didn’t do enough to help the jews!

 

 

And it’s just so incredible some of the statements that these jews make! You know, he’s demonizing the United States for, quote, unquote:

 

“Shutting it’s doors to jews that were trying to flee Europe. And no one was doing enough to help the poor jews in Europe, ” etc.,

 

It’s just, it’s so infuriating seeing what these jews say, and just how brazen they are!

 

Carolyn: They’ve got such balls, they are almost like, insane! It’s almost like they’re stupid! Because they come out with stuff like. It’s not going to be accepted. And it just reinforces the idea that Jewish deaths are more important than anybody else’s! If the whole world has to stop and be responsible for what happened here, for this huge number they came up with, this six million baloney! But I mean, sometimes they are talking to jews and they don’t think the rest of us are going to be paying any attention.

 

John: Yeah. That is true, and most people, …

 

Carolyn: But I can’t see how xxx jews would like that either?

 

John: And that’s the thing, most people don’t ever sit down and read jewish newspapers and jewish news outlets. Which is why I try to highlight them and say:

 

“Hey! Look these jews are saying this, not me! You can call me an anti-Semite, and a neo-Nazi and everything else, but all I’m doing is quoting jews themselves, OK? ”

 

Carolyn: Yeah.

It’s amazing the Jews are so important, that to say that the whole world, even to say all Europe and all Europeans are responsible for what happened to them! And then what? What does he say? What’s supposed to be done about it?

 

John: Well, unlimited money, unlimited sympathy, unlimited, just acquiescence to this jewish agenda to genocide our race.

 

Carolyn: Well, I think they want to pass laws against anti-semitism. I think that is what they’re after.

 

John: Yeah. Exactly.

 

Carolyn: And there’s nothing worse than that! To say:

 

“Oh yeah, it’s illegal! You’re going to go to jail if you express anything that we consider anti-semitic.”

 

And they’ve got a whole, … They’re working out what anti-semitism is. There’s a whole list of stuff. I mean, it’s all kinds of stuff! It includes criticizing Israel in various ways and so, you know, it just puts them totally, outside of anybody’s control in any way, shape, or form. And they can’t be harmed, nothing can happen to them in any way. So they’re not even responsible for obeying laws, or whatever.

 

So, they are just showing that they really do want extraordinary privileges.

 

John: Privilege! They talk about White privilege all the time! It’s really jewish privilege and [for] other minorities that they’ve elevated, and used as weapons against our race!

 

Yes no doubt! I mean, again it’s very clear if you just read what Jews have to say and listen to what they have to say.

 

 

[Image] Holocaust Handbook Series — 4 of 4.  Click image to enlarge.

 

 

[70:00]

 

 

Carolyn: I think sometimes we’re at war! That’s one thing that Hitler recognized. And people blame him for it, saying he shouldn’t have. This was a war and he couldn’t evade it. You have to go ahead and do it.

 

And we’re at war with these jews, and we can’t say:

 

“Oh well, let’s hope we can all get along! Let’s hope that some of them will be on our side.”

 

What? Five or six of them? [bursts out laughing]

 

John: Exactly! Exactly!

 

Carolyn: It’s just aversion for having to confront things. And of course for war, getting serious, … It’s no fun! It’s terrible! Of course we’d like to evade it! But sometimes you can’t, because you’re just going to be done in by it.

 

That’s probably one argument for what Hitler finally did about the jews in Germany. He went about it in such a mild way in the beginning! Just helping them out, you know, working with the Zionists that wanted to go somewhere else anyway. I don’t know, you know, … It built up, because of jews from around the world who didn’t want that to happen.

 

John: Yeah. Yeah again, and that’s what’s so incredible when you really have a good understanding of revisionism and all the research that’s been done to actually demonstrate that the Germans were not interested in killing jews, at all! They were interested in preserving their lives, because they wanted to use their labor in some of these labor camps.

 

Again, it’s like the total opposite of what we’ve been told. But again, the whole World War narrative is essentially the exact opposite of what we’ve been told!

 

But I wanted to also highlight one other article that I actually cite in this article that I mentioned. That’s on my blog. You can find you can find what I’m about to read there, and again I’ll link this when I post this program.

 

[Image] Ian Kagedan. Click image to enlarge.

 

There was an article written by a man named Ian Kagedan, I think is how you pronounce it. He was the former national director of the B’nai B’rth in Canada, and you wrote a very, very revealing op-ed in The Toronto Star, back in 1991. And the title of it is, get this Carolyn, I’m sure you’ve heard of this, “Memory of the Holocaust Central to New World Order”. That’s literally the title of the article, or of the op-ed.

 

“Central to New World Order“, right? I mean, this is the title of the article. It’s incredible! And he argues here, quote:

 

“The Holocau$t stands as Western civilizations greatest failure! It was a natural outcome of centuries of racism and of anti-Semitism. To deny the Holocau$t is to deny racism’s capacity to undercut our civilization’s basic values and to destroy democracy. Achieving our quest of a New [Jew] World Order depends on our learning the Holocau$t lessons.”

 

And what are the lessons of the “Holocaust”? I mean, again, this proves my point. The fake “Holocaust” narrative is literally the linchpin of the entire New World Order agenda! Which is simply a jewish plot to enslave the world, politically, economically and culturally, destroying all genuine national and racial distinctions in the process.

 

And the lessons of the “Holocaust”, which, of course, include “tolerance, diversity, anti-racism, multiculturalism”. The lessons of the “Holocaust” are specifically designed to erode, de-legitimizes and ultimately destroy any form of White racial identity, and to justify multiculturalism, and massive non-White immigration into the West. And to end all criticism of jews and the jewish state of Israel, and to equate it with anti-Semitism and hate speech. That’s what this is all about!

 

Carolyn: Yeah.

 

John: I mean, how could we avoid this Carolyn?

 

Carolyn: He makes it very clearly, doesn’t he? That’s a horrible picture! Total enslavement! You’re going to be programmed with this stuff and you’re going to believe it, or you’re on the outs. You’re somebody who’s bad, can’t exist in our societies. So you’d have to go into some bad place, or whatever.

 

And this is the kind of thing you have to fight! But these people will say:

 

“Oh! That is just that one guy. Nobody will ever fall for all that stuff!”

 

Well look at how much the world has fallen for it, now.

 

[75:13]

 

And I guess they can fall for the rest of it, if the media continues to be so controlled. I don’t want to bring this up, as I don’t want to take up any more time, but just to say real quickly, … Then there’s Trump, who is like somebody who’s, you know, standing against that, but he doesn’t have the power to overcome it. We all have to overcome it! We all have to do it. We have to say:

 

“God! We have to stop this!”

 

And that’s why people like, this is what I was going to say, but I couldn’t remember. Just this, that’s what people like MacDonald and Johnson are getting in the way of! They’re actually helping the jews in what they’re doing!

 

They need to be told this! They need to, … This needs to be pushed in their face, actually! I mean, rather than say:

 

“Oh well, we don’t want to say anything bad about them. We have to support them.”

 

John: Yeah, I completely with you. I would be willing to discuss this with any of them and make my opinions very clear. Not just opinions. Again, how could you, …

 

Carolyn: You know, I wish we could! John, here’s an idea. Somebody was talking about they’d like to have a debate with, … Mark. Mark Weber! You know Mark Weber, … Johnson got his ideas from Mark Weber, or Mark Weber helped him. Or maybe he didn’t mean to send him in that direction, altogether, but they got it from there. And they think that Mark Weber and David Irving gives them some support.

 

And MacDonald, I believe too, knows Mark Weber quite well. And they get those ideas from Mark Weber. And yet I just don’t think Mark Weber is so afraid of this, as they are.

 

Maybe we could get a conversation with Mark Weber? At one time Mark Weber wanted to talk on the phone with me, and discuss all these things. And I wouldn’t do it, because I was so in disagreement with him, and I though he was trying to make me see it his way. But I would talk to him now, but I would rather talk to him in public, on a public debate, a public forum, not necessarily a debate. And ask him some questions. I don’t know he’d be willing to do that, or not. But it just occurs to me that he might be more willing than MacDonald or Johnson would be.

 

John: Carolyn, I’m going to see if I can make that happen, because I actually know Mark Weber.

 

Carolyn: Good.

 

John: I’ll see what I can do on that front. Boy! that would be very, very interesting! [laughing]

 

Carolyn: Yeah!

 

John: Well. I’ll see what I can do. And I’ll certainly be in touch. We’re well past the hour now, but that’s okay, let’s go ahead and wrap up.

 

I just want to conclude by saying, I think from my perspective, which I think I could defend very well, … Objectively speaking, Hitler was in fact the greatest White leader in modern history! That’s very clear to me. I think we do need to rehabilitate his image, and I think we’ve done a good job at doing that, over the course of the past, say ten years, or whatever. Pro-White ideas and perspectives will always! Always! Always be tied to Hitler, to the Nazis, to the “Holocaust”! There’s no reason to avoid it, or to cower in fear about it! We are right! And we have the evidence and the proof to demonstrate that we’re right!

 

And, this is something we need to tackle head on! And if you don’t want to, if you disagree with me, don’t counter signal it! Just, avoid it! Step over it. Whatever you’ve got to do. But don’t accept this jewish nonsense about gas chambers, and jews were murdered in this and that.

 

[Image] Holocaust Myth Cartoon. Click image to enlarge.

 

It’s all bullshit! Everything the jews have to say about the “Holocaust” is utter bullshit! Designed specifically to advance jewish interests, and to delegitimize White racial interests! That is so clear, it’s so obvious, we should not even be debating this at this point.

 

That’s all I got to say Carolyn. Go ahead.

 

Carolyn: Well. I agree with you John! Good for you!

 

John: Thank you. [both laugh]

 

Well this has been fun, Carolyn. I’ll go ahead and post this up tonight, and I’ll see if I get Mark Weber to talk about this. That would be very interesting.

 

Carolyn: Good! Okay! Well, it’s been fun for me too! And so, I hope the listeners enjoy it. Thanks John.

 

John: Okay. Thank you very much! I will talk to you real soon.

 

Carolyn: Good.

 

John: All right. Good night.

 

 

[80:28]

 

 

END

 

 

 

===============================================

 

See Also:

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

============================================

PDF Notes

 

PDF: Version 1 — Sep 21, 2017

* Total words = 12,525
* Total images = 35
* Total A4 pages = 94

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (6.0 MB):

 

The Realist Report – Carolyn Yeager – Sep 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

Version History

 

 

Version 12: Jun 2, 2022 — Improved formatting.

 

Version 11: Jan 30, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.

 

Version 10: Sep 21, 2017 — Added PDF Version 1 for download.

 

Version 9: Sep 18, 2017 — Added some more links, and corrected some typos. Removed Transcript Status items. Added 1 image.

 

Version 8: Sep 17, 2017  — Added 15 images. Updated cover image. Expanded my intro.

 

Version 7: Sep 16, 2017  — Added 4 images. Proofed 15 more minutes. Total proofed = 80 mins. TRANSCRIPT NOW COMPLETE!

 

Version 6: Sep 14, 2017  — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 65 mins.

 

Version 5: Sep 13, 2017  — Added 3 images. Proofed 5 more minutes. Total proofed = 60 mins.

 

Version 4: Sep 12, 2017  — Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 55 mins.

 

Version 3: Sep 11, 2017  — Added 1 image. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 45 mins.

 

Version 2: Sep 10, 2017  — Added 5 images. Proofed 10 more minutes. Total proofed = 35 mins.

 

Version 1: Sep 9, 2017  — Published post. Total proofed = 25 mins.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/09/09/the-realist-report-with-carolyn-yeager-on-johnson-vs-anglin-debate-transcript/feed/ 16 Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 2— TRANSCRIPT https://katana17.com/2017/05/06/red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-persecution-of-revisionists-demographic-disaster-part-2-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2017/05/06/red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-persecution-of-revisionists-demographic-disaster-part-2-transcript/#comments Sat, 06 May 2017 02:57:46 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=11373 Continue reading →]]>

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-part-2-cover

 

 

[In this very informative two part audio interview (126 mins — Parts I & II) Henrik Palmgren talks with the well known revisionist Germar Rudolf. We learn of Germar’s reluctant inquiry into the issue of the Third Reich and the taboo subject of the so-called “Holocaust”. As a student of chemistry he ends up examining the chemical evidence, or lack of, for the alleged homicidal gas chambers. This leads him to conclude that it doesn’t exist and that the gas chambers are a product of Allied [jewish] black propaganda. Ultimately, he spent several years in German jails  for daring to deny the existence of the “Holocaust” and where, against all normal legal practice: “The truth is no defense.“

 

He and Henrik go on to discuss the perilous demographic decline in birth rates among White countries, that will, if nothing is done, lead to disaster. Both the fraudulent “Holocaust” claims and the denial of White nationalism are interlinked in jewish propaganda, in that any claims for White self-determination are cast as something that leads directly back to the dreaded, “evil Nazis” and the “gas chambers“! — KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

Red Ice Radio

 

 

Germar Rudolf

 

Persecution of Revisionists

 

&

 

Demographic Disaster

 

 

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to listen to the audio.

NOTE: You need to be a member of Red Ice to listen to Part II.

 

Published on Jul 29, 2016

 

 

Red Ice Radio Description

 

 

Germar Rudolf was born in Limburg, Germany. He studied chemistry at Bonn University, where he graduated in 1989 as a Diplom-Chemist, which is comparable to a U.S. PhD degree. From 1990-1993 he prepared a German PhD thesis at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in conjunction with the University of Stuttgart, Germany. Parallel to this and in his spare time, Rudolf prepared an expert report on chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, The Rudolf Report. He is the founder of the small revisionist outlet, Castle Hill Publishers.

 

Mr. Rudolf joins us to share the story of his life’s work as a revisionist researcher and writer and the ostracizing and persecution he has endured for daring to tread into the controversial topic of the German holocaust. Germar talks about the process of awakening that led him to question the “official” version of holocaust history in his mid-20s, when he stumbled upon the notorious Leuchter Report while preparing an expert report on the chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau for the trial of a “Holocaust denier.” We discuss the longstanding and brutal suppression of evidences that refute the cherished narrative of gas chambers used to systematically exterminate 6 million jews, and we look at the undeniable proof that the powers that be have been using this “miracle weapon” to psychologically trounce German and Western European identity. Then, Germar gives a straightforward definition of a “revisionist,” underscoring that in the case of the “Holocaust“, the general issues of persecution and unjust treatment of Jews is not denied. He highlights some of the chemical, structural and biological evidence that points to a starkly contrasting story than what has been painted throughout 70+ years of political propagandizing. Germar also touches on the thought crimes that sent him to prison for 44 months and the blatant lawlessness of court proceedings he’s witnessed, and he gives a rundown of his latest book, Resistance is Obligatory.

 

In the members’ segment, Germar goes deeper into exposing free speech hijacking and human dignity suppression that is at the core of revisionist work. We consider the massive power structure upheaval that would need to occur in order for Western civilization at large to achieve a complete paradigm shift and accept the fact that we have been lied to and manipulated on so many levels concerning WWI/II. Then, we talk about the establishment’s grave fear of the rise of nationalism despite the recent terrorist attacks by hostile foreign invaders in Germany and France, and Germar gives a grim picture of the migration statistics for Europe, which is seeing many of its best and brightest indigenous populations fleeing the monster and taking up residence elsewhere. We discuss the most critical extinction level crisis that is plaguing Europe – the demographic decline of natives resulting from the shrinking birth rate. Germar emphasizes the financial implications of Europeans allowing themselves to be bred out, and we debate whether or not the government’s (dis)incentivizing having larger families is really the issue. We give some thought to the role of the 1960s sexual revolution, the advent of birth control, and the lost sense awareness that we live in a chain of generations that keeps the social order on course. At the end, we weigh up how the crisis the West is spawning many religious zealots and a rising core of radical traditionalist who may or may not be able to rescue the vanishing European civilization.

 

 

 

Transcript — Part 2/2

 

 [56:00 min]

 

NOTE: PART I is here:

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

 

[00:00]

 

Henrik: Welcome back ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us here in the second hour. Always a pleasure to have you with us. We are speaking with Germar Rudolf, the, well, “thought criminal!” The enemy of the state, if you will. We’re talking about his work, his struggles as a revisionist, his persecution by government and the authorities for daring to do research and have an interest and a passion in history that very few others have.

 

Now, I’ve always been very interested in these kinds of areas, in these kinds of cases where there is intense pressure from authorities, from the judicial, or justice system, and to go after people that hold dissenting views. I think we should all, as you said, in the first segment, Germar, interest ourselves for those cases, to try to see what it is that they are really are actually covering up, if you will. But I think we’ll probably never get people in office, in, you know, official positions to recognize much of this work. They might just have to be, I don’t know, replaced by a younger crowd that are willing to listen. But it’s very difficult, because the pressure and the programming and the propaganda is so strong.

 

In fact, if we look at so-called, you know, “Holocaust education“, that has gotten more intense over the decades, I would say. But before we talk more about what happened at some of the camps, what the data say, what your findings point to, let me just ask you:

What do you think it would take for the scales to tip and for people to actually open their eyes and have a more curious approach to history and the kind of things that you’re focusing on?

And what would the consequences of something like this, be, if people started looking at this?

 

 

Germar: Well, we are in the area of speculation, now. And I’ve been wrong with what I thought it takes before, so I’m very careful with predictions in this regard. Historically speaking, Arthur Butz once said, if all the political circumstances are right, things will start falling into place. He has the comparison with the Donation of Constantine, where a forgery, a medieval forgery by the Church claimed that in the year 300 AD something, when the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. He handed over the Roman Empire to the Christian church and therefore everything is owned by the Christian Church. There was forgery and has been known for a long time, well documented, but it came to the fore and started a snowball effect only when there were a lot of political, influential parties, disgruntled with the power abuse by the Christian church towards the end of the fifteenth, early sixteenth century.

 

Together with the Reformation that was one of the reasons for Luther to finally be convinced that the Catholic Church, that the papacy is evil and something has to be done about it. It was also the forgery of the Donation of Constantine. So he says:

 

“Well, as long as the power structure is firm in place and political motivations, political agendas of those in power and influence are aligned with the myth, it’s not going to change.”

 

They have the mass media, the educational system, the judicial system, everything pretty much in every single country on the planet with very few exceptions, under tight control. And there is just nothing you can do much about it. To believe that there is a popular movement possible that can overthrow the control by mass media and political systems, in my eyes, is a delusion that assumes that people are, by and large willing to educate themselves to judge critically, to pay attention to what’s going on, what’s important. And that’s just not the case!

 

Let’s be honest and let’s be realistic about what’s going on in this world. The fact is that ninety-five percent of the people staring for hours on end at the TV, believe the virtual reality that they watch on the screen. That’s just the way it is! And unless something genetically, dramatically, evolutionary changes in humanity that we actually become the homosexual sapiens that we claim to be, which we are obviously not, I can’t see that change.

So, we have to deal with the human material that we have, which for the most part just runs with the crowd, and whatever, they have been told to do. Then it depends on some political powerful groups and maybe even countries, finally have had it and won’t take it anymore and they wise up to the thing and get themselves informed and then they get a critical mass and things can change.

 

[05:10]

 

I’m rather pessimistic when it comes to popular grassroots movements, I must say.

 

Nowadays, of course, an example that I know from own country, the Green Movement was kind of a grassroots movement and it did prevail and against a lot of mainstream resistance. But, on the other hand, it was aligned with internationalism, with globalism. It was aligned with a lot of their left-wing media, that were very favourable. So, you have at least some support in these areas, ideological sympathies with some of the mass media and some powerful groups, non-governmental organizations, to get a foothold and to make progress. If don’t have that, it’s not going to happen. Nothing of that is the case here! We’re complete pariahs! Except for Ahmadinejad [the sixth President of Iran from 2005 to 2013] — and that’s a kind of a friend you can do without. [laughing]

 

Henrik: Right, right!

 

Germar: So, truth be told, all we can do for now is hang in there and hope for the extremely unlikely that people have had enough and don’t run with the crowds anymore and don’t listen to Big Brother on the TV screen. Or, something phenomenal, something apocalyptic has to change on the global political scene.

 

Like for instance, what could happen if we have a major financial collapse? Because the whole financial system, being built on debt is bound to collapse at some point and then comes major political upheaval. People looking into the whole financial thing. It’s a big elephant in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring and trying to ignore. And come to terms with the lies that we have been fed with decades and centuries even, about what money is and what it isn’t and how we’re being manipulated and ripped off by the system, by the banking system, the monetary system, whatever you want to call it.

 

And then people start to rethink other things and interconnect concepts and ideas and then the cards can be mixed anew, you know, and who knows what comes out of it.

 

Henrik: You’re saying there needs to be, for someone to have an incentive, a reason to go into this area? There needs to be some kind of catalyst, a catastrophe almost that pushes them in a direction. Is that what you’re saying?

 

Germar: Right. Something has to shift some paradigm on a societal, global level, has to shift for people to see a need to be, … You know, basically, the system is so much married to the concept of the “Holocaust” and all the moral lessons that it tells and all the political agendas that use it to push for certain policies.

Henrik: Yep.

 

Germar: To have that change for them, to no longer to depend on this, to welcome it, but actually to see it as a major obstacle, [there] needs to have [be] a paradigm shift in what leaders want. It’s not enough on a national level., you know, Germany says, well the Germans are the first, because they have a, should have an interest in getting rid of that “Mark of Cain“. Yes, in theory it would be a relief for them, but then again, if they ever dared, they are surrounded by their enemies still, all over the world. They are a tiny country, and they are going to be just throttled so quickly, suffocated by boycotts and whatever. It’s not going anywhere. You have to have these things happen on the continental, if not global level, so that counter measures of all kinds of monetary system, the business system, boycotts. You know, you’re on your head one nation, a big nation, Iran standing up and saying:

 

“Well we want that investigated. It looks like it’s not true. It’s been overblown and inflated!”

 

And where did that go?

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: It’s just painted as an “Axis of Evil”. And any nation that is doing that ends up in the same corner. So, it’s not enough for one to do it. Iran may have hoped that other Muslim nations will follow, but most of them are bought out of the US, or are in complete turmoil, because they couldn’t be bought, like Gaddafi [assassinated on 20 October 2011, by proxy forces of NATO and the US] .

 

[09:57]

 

So, how do you get, how do you align, let’s say twenty-three, kind of important countries, not any banana republics loved ones with a lot worse on them to want to use to be and apparently doesn’t go anywhere, either!

 

Henrik: Right, right.

 

Germar: So, what does it take? It really takes a dramatic paradigm shift in the world and any cataclysm can cause that. Of course, cataclysms are predictable. They can go extreme either way, doing even more harm to the farmer who for one Right now, that’s the only way I think things could change.

 

Henrik: And, I mean, I’ve noticed somewhat of an interest in this topic from, you know, truth seekers, the alternative movement that has arisen, that seeks to counter some of the mainstream media on these kinds of things. Not on a huge scale, of course, mass scale, but at least there has been a willingness for some of those people to look in this direction. Which I think has been good.

 

I would say that there’s more people interested in these questions today than they were ten years ago. And for the fact as well, of course, that we’re back to our original point, that as Europe is pretty much being invaded and flooded and we are basically in a position where we morally can’t, you know, make any claim. We can’t resist on any level at all. It usually ends back in this position, in that place, you know, because despite the fact that Europeans are now dying on, you know, European soil, but just, in fact, had at the time we are recording this, just had a shooting in Munich. We, of course, had the terrorist action in Nice and all these kinds of things.

 

Despite the fact that we are, Europeans are dying, we are still in a position where the establishment is afraid of, for example, nationalism to rise in Europe. They’re afraid of it. They call anybody a fascist. To immediately say, wait a minute this is no good, our culture is being eroded, our identity is completely out of the picture, you know, why use this? What is the root of this? Why can’t we have any of this? And it usually goes back to this very question, that you’ve been fighting for so many years.

 

Germar: Yeah. A professor in Germany who is completely beyond suspicion of having anything to do with a right-wing, said, the future for Germany, for instance, lies in becoming like Brazil. And that in part of all kinds of races, declining to a second, or third-rate country where the economy goes down the drain, because educational standards just vanished and there is no creative culture and identity anymore. This is going to be the future of Brazil, the future of Germany and whoever doesn’t like it, in Germany, the indigenous population, they have an option to leave and they will! They are highly educated, they’re highly welcome in many other countries.

 

And if you look at migration statistics, Germany has one and a half million people migrating INTO the country, but they have also five hundred thousand people migrating OUT of the country and they are mainly ethnic Germans of the younger age, highly educated. In other words, if you want to exist in Germany as a German in any way, you are being called a Nazi, you know.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Germar: Nobody wants that. So this is just the worst thing that can happen to you, being called a Nazi, a Right Wing extremist, or whatever. So you can’t put up a defense. You can’t get involved in any movement, or you are getting ostracized to the point where your life is miserable, your career is ended and what have you. So, if you don’t like what’s going on in the country, with the country going down the drain, what do you do? You leave! You go to New Zealand, to Australia, to the United States. There are red carpets rolled out for highly educated Germans and they are leaving in masses!

 

Henrik: Wow! Well that’s just so sad. That is the same in Sweden I believe. There’s money for entrepreneurs and inventors and things like this and, … I mean, that’s going to devastating! I mean, even think of Germany as the, as a powerhouse economically and the fact, even if you recognize the official picture of what’s happening here, the fact that Germany has, … We don’t we don’t have to talk about the “Holocaust Industry” as Norman Finkelstein called it in terms of how much money that this is generated. Germany pays out massive amounts, of course, every year., but even just the fact that Germany is able to help other countries in aid and bring in people, this economic engine is going to be disrupted and destroyed to the point where they won’t be able to help anyone else, maybe not even themselves, eventually.

 

 

[15:00]

 

Germar: That’s right. All the help that’s being done is generated with tax revenue produced by the productive German population and that’s the one that’s draining away. So it’s not only that more people with needs come, but there will be less and less, people that will actually produce any revenue that can be, … So, you know, it’ll just take, you know, another ten, or twenty years and the whole thing comes collapsing down like a house of cards. But then the German is of the younger generation will be in a minority. And democratically speaking if all the migrants get voter status, sooner of later, which they will, eventually. You wouldn’t even be able with the elections to turn that thing around. The tipping point comes very soon. And it’s a similar, it’s just Germany is just the biggest case and the most dramatic, because it’s the biggest country and this most affected by this propaganda, completely, morally and intellectually defenseless because they don’t attack that core issue. But it’s the same with any European country.

 

The most ironic, ironic is even the wrong word, … The dramatic situation is actually Poland. Poland is ethically speaking very close to Germany and have an intermingled history, not just historically, but ethnically too. And if you look at the Polish population, a lot of Germanic blood flowing through there, and Slav. Their population is collapsing just as much. They don’t have that much, as many immigrants, because they are pretty poor and immigrants don’t want to go there, but the fact still is that their population collapse is just as much, because the birth rate is down the drain!

 

And they are, of course, the ones who right after the Second World War were apart from the jews the main beneficiary of the Holocaust. They occupied some twenty percent of German territory and threw out all the German is and justified that with German crimes. So, that’s basically their way of justifying the post-war Polish territorial gains. And all this stuff done with German ethnic cleansing by Poles and Russians. But now they have supported for seventy years this propaganda and they are still doing it.

 

But it turns out to be self-destructive, because they have work by nurturing and feeding this monster, created a creature that will destroy their own identity and makes them helpless and defenseless to do something about their own identity. They are not quite as defenseless as the German is, but at the end of the day, it’s a similar situation.

 

You can look wherever you want, even Russia. The Russian European population is collapsing just as much. You look left and right, there are very few countries that can still hold their head above water. Ireland is kind of, but that is pretty much it. Italy’s collapsing. Spain is. Everywhere, the whole of Europe’s going down the drain and demographically speaking it’s a natural phenomenon. If you look at the surface and if you don’t have babies and other population groups on the planet have babies, that’s just a natural law you’re going to be replaced.

 

There is not the policy of the leaders in Europe that causes the migration. They could do this against it, but if you have a vacuum, a population vacuum in one part of the world and overpopulation in the other part of the world, that leads to the population moving, sooner, or later. We had that in the seventy’s, eighty’s, ninety’s.

 

Up to the early twentieth century, when Europe was producing millions of people they couldn’t feed and housing Europe anymore. Where did they go? They populated Australia, New Zealand, America. Everywhere Europeans were breeding like rabbits and were populating the whole planet!

 

Now the First World War came and the whole thing collapsed and Europe has never recovered from that and with all the ideology, and the wealth, afterwards, later on, and chemistry, to say contraception methods, we’ve come to the point where Europeans don’t have babies!

 

Even if you add politicians that would prevent it, with weapons, migrants for certain period of time to come to Europe. If you don’t change the fact that Europeans have no babies, at the end of the day, who is going to guard the borders?

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: There are no young men anymore who can defend them, because the women don’t have babies! It’s by natural law, the Europeans replace themselves, by deciding, “I don’t want to have babies!”

 

[20:01]

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: And many people come up with pseudo-logical reasons why they don’t want to have babies. At the end it’s hedonism. It’s just the delusion that I can live a nice wealthy life without bothering with all the stuff that comes my way if have to take care of children. Which is such a burden financially and then whatever reasons you can come up with.

 

But, this life-style that Europeans have led over the past two generations, and mine primarily, my generation was the strongest generation, of course, with Germany 1964. Most babies in the post-war history ever born in Germany by ethnic German mothers. It’s my year, my generation! My generation has completely failed! Because they have not reproduced in every generation afterwards, either.

 

Henrik: So, what’s at the root of that? Is it the same kind of ethnic masochism, there is a hatred, self-hatred?

 

Germar: No! You have the same thing in South Korea, the same thing in Japan. Every highly developed society that produces wealth and a lot of education, that allows women to be highly educated and to go into the workforce as highly educated women, they have the alternative between “kitchen and career”.

[It should be noted that these countries have NOT resorted to importing anyone from the Third World despite outside pressure to do so — KATANA]

You give them that alternative and give them all the education incentives and they go to the career and that’s when they stop having babies. And with all the wealth if you make them xxx, and you’re educated enough they don’t have babies. I get two people who have big careers and make a lot of money. I marry, okay, I don’t have babies, but my husband and I, or the other way round, the husband and my wife, we both have careers and we both make money, we don’t have to raise children.

 

If you compare that with a husband that goes to work, but only halfheartedly, because he wants to spend time with his family and the mother stays at home has two, or three, four kids and doesn’t have a career. Then the couple who has no children has three, four times the income! All for themselves, than the family has for themselves, plus the kids.

 

So per capita, they end up four, five, six times the amount of money you can consume in your lifetime and you don’t have children. So what are you going to do? First, if you’re smart enough to figure that out. Second you have the means to prevent pregnancy and third the society doesn’t do anything against you for making that choice. And that’s everywhere the same!

 

All highly industrialized, highly educated population on this planet go that route! Humanity, as it gets highly educated and wealthy, extinguishes itself. Unless something dramatically is done. This has nothing to do with the “Holocaust”, because there is no such propaganda going on in South Korea or in Japan.

 

Henrik: Right. Okay, yeah that’s a fair point. I definitely get that.

 

There are some that would argue, obviously though, that Europe as it exists now, is already very, very overpopulated, that the density is very high. It’s just farmland and then it’s cities. And this aspect that there is a rise and fall of populations.

 

I always return to that point when this argument comes up that, you know, we can’t just have endless growth, either. I think that there is a natural cycle to it now, of course, it’s artificial through modernity, if you will, to a certain extent. But nonetheless, these are still, I guess, forces of nature, to a certain extent, since we are part of nature. Right?

 

Germar: Yeah, sure. That’s one thing that a lot of people forget. At the end of it we are not humans here and nature there. A lot of people come to think, you know, I sit in the car, I sit in my house, that’s not part of nature. Nature is out there. And I can live my life this way and that way and everything is going to be fine. No!

Sure! Oh Europe has been overpopulated, but at the rate the population is collapsing — and we have to look at it accurately. Germans have statistics out there that distinguish the birth rates between ethnic German mothers and mothers with migration background. Now they show that, I’ve seen the figures from the last couple years ago when the German Federal Office of Statistics, saying that German ethnic women between the age of sixteen and thirty-six have an average of 0.33 babies.

 

Henrik: Ufffph! [shocked]

 

Germar: Now, we need 2.1 something to reproduce and they have 0.33 on average between sixteen and thirty-six. Now you have to double that, because the sixteen year olds, of course don’t have babies. But by the time they reach thirty-six, they will have, so if you kind of double it, 0.33 you come up to what they all will have had by the time they are thirty-six. So, you come up with some 0.66 and then you have some years left until they can’t have babies anymore.

 

[25:05]

 

So, just basically speaking there is 0.7 to 0.8 babies when they need 2.1. In other words, every generation the population goes down by 60%. The following generation has only 40% of the previous one. And if you go down that fast, in three to four generation your population pretty much is gone! And we are already in the second generation, doing that now!

 

Now I’m not opposed to reducing population where there’s over population, but you have to do that at a small pace, so that society can deal with it.

 

And I would tell you what that means concretely. I’ve been discussing that migrant situation with my mother, who is in her middle-seventies and my father has turned eighty. My father had a stroke and he is now in a nursing home. Now, who do you think takes care of my parents? Migrants! The doctors, the nurses, wherever my parents go in the nursing home, or a hospice right now, for the majority of people that have these jobs are migrant, because in that generations there are so few Germans.

 

My parents, the older generation have an open attitude toward the migration, because they see, nobody’s going to take care of us. We had hardly any children. Our children have no children of our own. Actually, it’s the grandchildren’s generation that should take care of my parents, because they are at the age, in the twenty’s, when they are nurses and so forth. Right? Twenty’s and thirty’s. I’m already in my fifty’s. But there are hardly any Germans left of that age and for the most part they are migrants now. Particular for those kind of jobs that are not very easy to do when it comes to nurses.

 

You can’t run a society when 60% of the population you need to sustain what you have built, the society, just suddenly disappears! There’s only 40% of the people you need to keep running the engine, the economic engine you have built. And with the next generation you have 40% of 40%, so you’re down to, what is that 18%, and you need one hundred [percent] ! How do you run a society with 18% of the labor force? COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: That’s not a reduction that is welcome, because we have too many people in Europe. That is the collapse of a society! And you can prevent that from completely collapsing ONLY by having massive influx of migrants! That’s the only way Germany and any other European politician can prevent their societies from COLLAPSING!

 

I’m justifying it here! And I’m saying something more! Every person out there who is listening and thinks the migrant situation is bad and the migrants should go back and we want to be left alone, should ask themselves this question, depending on age:

 

“Do you plan on having children, or did I have children or do I have children?”

 

Anyone out there who doesn’t plan on having children or who have no children, is a parasite on society and does not deserve any better than what’s happening now! And that applies to 80% of the population. They have only one child, or no child at all.

 

They think they can have it all! Rake in all the money for themselves, have a nice life. Don’t get any children into the society. This society can run only, and any society can run and function only if there is a generation coming afterwards that keeps it up! If we don’t see to it that there is a generation, it will collapse! And we go down, our society goes down with us!

 

And whose fault is that? It’s the fault of the egotists, of the hedonists who wanted it all for themselves. Who don’t want the burden of raising children. These are PARASITES, clearly speaking!

 

Henrik: Does Germany keep statistics on demographics, race basically?

 

Germar: Well, they distinguish, maybe they will stop doing in the future, but, up to now they have done it between ethnic Germans and German is with migrant background and actual foreigners. So migration background, but who are German citizens, their birth rate is going down too. It’s below reproduction too. It’s only the migrants that have come here to the country more recently that have a viable reproduction rate.

 

Any population that you expose to this kind of egotistic, hedonistic, materialistic society takes a generation or two, children who are growing up in this kind of society, they think about gadgets and they think about a nice car, a nice home. And you can have all the stuff only and enjoy it, if you don’t have children. You can keep the money for yourself and have a career without bothering.

 

Any society that raises people like that, has their migration population stop having children a couple of generation later.

 

[30:09]

 

Henrik: One point here to add into it as well, is how potentially simple it could be to actually fix the situation. There are two different examples in Europe alone. One, the positive one is Denmark that has to a certain extent reduced some level of the migration. Actually to save money, obviously, …

 

Germar: Right.

 

Henrik: Because it’s also a drain on the system to have a lot of people coming into the country that can’t join the workforce, etc. But then they have done campaigns such as, “Do it for Denmark” and “Do it for Mom” in these funny commercials together with, actually travel agencies and things like this. But it’s sponsored by the government and this is actually resulted in a boom of babies! Which is interesting. And it shows how simple it would be, if the governments were sincere about truly wanting to have more of the native population having birth. I’m not saying that this would work in every single country, but what I’m saying is, that we’re not even seeing it remotely, ambitions of trying to economically make it easier for people to have children.

 

For example in Belgium, that’s another case where one of the Flemish politicians that’s working there, details how very difficult it was for the Flemish people to have to have children, because of the economic situation with the government and how it’s dis-incentivized, right? So there’s measures that could be adopted to change this fairly easy.

 

Germar: I wouldn’t, … You know, if I look at the world as a whole picture, I see that the impoverished populations have a lot babies and the rich countries with the rich people have few babies. To say that it is economically challenging nowadays to have babies is bullshit! Excuse my English.

 

But in our countries, most people, they have to prioritize. What is important? Do I want to have a gadget, do I want to have a TV in every room, do I want to have two cars? We have completely different priorities here then people have, let’s say in central Uganda, where they have six babies per woman. Not that they have much of a chance, because the way they live their life, they just happen to get pregnant and they don’t think about what are the alternatives. No, I’m not saying we should get back to that. That’s not what I’m saying.

 

But economics is not the issue. If I look at the amount of money that the German government throws at people, so that they have babies, so that they, you know, you have children money. You get two hundred fifty, three hundred euros a month per child. And you get three years of off work after having a baby, either mother, or father for education purposes. And your position will be kept and you can go back into the labor force after those three years. And all these incentives that are already being given and they have made no dent, whatsoever, in the indigenous population. Which is much more wealthy than the migrant population on average. And the migrant population is the population that has the babies and take advantage of those incentives!

 

So, in terms of the more incentives, the more incentives you throw in the population, equally the indigenous as well as migrant population, will lead to the migrant population out-breeding the indigenous even faster, because they have taken advantage of it and they are breeding.

 

The indigenous population, no matter, if you throw a million at them, maybe then they will consider it, but then they have the wrong incentive to have children, to be honest.

 

But, no, money isn’t the reason. It’s the general attitude of the population and there is in my eyes, you know, if you want to implement real radical solutions, say OK, you have to make people aware and you have to have the right kind of message going through all channels of your society, in media, politics, schools, education, whatever.

 

Say:

 

“He who is not having any children is a parasite! For that and that reason, you are just taking all the money for yourself. You’re not investing in society, in the next generation! Therefore, you are breaking the basic generational contract that this country needs to have with everyone for it to operate!”

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: If you are such a kind of parasite, there comes consequences. For instance, you can make voting rights — every parent gets as many voting rights as they have children. They create the next generation! They should have more voting power than those that are completely egotistical and don’t do anything that this society needs to continues.

 

Or say: “why should you have pensions?” You know, I retire at old age and I expect the next generation to finance my pension, but I haven’t done anything for next generation to come into being!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: So the rule should be, if you did not get kids into this world, for other reason than you are incapable and couldn’t even adopt any. If you didn’t get any children, then I’m sorry, you’re not getting any pension!

 

Because you have violated, broken the generational contract. There’s no generation coming after you that you have produced, therefore you’re not entitled to get anything! End of story! You have to work until you drop dead. That would be fair and that would be so radical that people get the message!

 

Henrik: Right.

[35:17]

 

Germar: And you need a kind of radical xxx right now. All the incentives they’ve thrown at people already, monetary with educational holidays and whatever, has shown no dent, no change in attitude. There needs to be a completely different way of doing it to get the message across. You can’t just violate a generational contract and live like a parasite in a society and expect to be rewarded by it by living the life of a millionaire!

 

I have two children I have to pay alimony for, and I have three more children with my second wife. And I keep track of what I pay for my children and I can tell you, at the end of my life I would probably have paid something between seven and eight hundred thousand dollars for my kids to raise.

 

Henrik: Yup.

 

Germar: Something about a hundred and two hundred thousand dollars that a kid costs you. Had I not had any children, with all the money that I made on top of it, I would be a millionaire. So everyone who decides not to have children, can have instead the life of a millionaire! That’s the option we have. Live the life of a millionaire with no kids, or have kids!

 

Henrik: Only that one, or two generations that can economically keep up with it on that level, because, …

 

Germar: Yes! It’s collapsing! But that people don’t think that way.

 

Henrik: No.

 

Germar: That’s what I see, it’s just the mindset. It’s very narrow-minded, they’re just thinking about themselves, their own generation until they reach old age and they figure there is nobody there to take care of them, which is situation my parents are in. Even though you can’t blame them, they had three children.

 

Henrik: Let me ask you, … How did they raise you Germar? Did they, … I’m just trying to get a sense of how things operate within the different generations. Because I know a lot of people in my generation, if you will, that didn’t have parents that really underlined, or stressed the importance of children. They didn’t really instill that in their children! It’s that somewhere along the line, this was almost like, dropped! I’m not saying that you shouldn’t need to, it’s kind of weird, educate people to have children, but to a certain extent it’s a cultural value that needs to be part of our discourse, right? And I feel it’s not there.

 

Germar: There would have been a need to introduce it at the latest in, what was that 1968, when the anti-baby pill was introduced and everybody ever since has had fornication with impunity.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: To say it bluntly. Up to that point, the normal situation was, you can have sex only if you are married, because if you have sex, the probability is, you know, you’re going to get that girl pregnant and then you have a problem at hand. So you get married first, have sex next and children will be the inevitable outcome of it. That has been this way ever since the inception of genders, a billion years ago!

 

We have changed that in 1968 when we introduced the anti-baby pill and said, “Now everybody can have sex as they like!” and they don’t have to think about babies anymore. And nobody thought about what’s going to happen next.

 

World population is still rising, but our long-term goal is that every person on the planet will be able to have their smart phone and their car and we’re all going to be wealthy and live in suburban dreamland and stop having babies and that’s the end of human civilization!

 

We need a new paradigm that gives people the understanding that we have, that we live in a chain of generations that keeps society up and civilization up! And our commitment is:

 

To all parents — be grateful to them and who gave us, equipped us with the tools we need to do our part.

 

And our second obligation is to see to it that there is going to be an upcoming generation that can take over the “staff”, from us.

 

Henrik: And then you have a layer on top of this, which makes it even worse, this nightmare, already nightmarish situation. Which is, we live a lifestyle health wise that is so poor that many people are actually getting infertile. We bathe in a chemical soup. The food and the nutrition is just nonexistent in some cases. People are getting sick and one of the first things that go from this is fertility itself. That’s why you see a whole industry popping up around, you know, fertility centers and these kinds of things. But this scenario is that catastrophe to an extent that you spoke about earlier. The question is, as you say, if there’s going to be manpower enough to do something about the catastrophe when it really hits, or sets in.

 

[40:10]

 

Germar: Right. It doesn’t have to. You get Germany and all the rest of Europe down to the level of Brazil. Brazil isn’t, you know, isn’t teetering at the brink of extermination, or a complete collapse. It’s just a different lifestyle. You have to accept that things are a little chaotic and not as good in general, but life keeps going on. There’s no need for a revolution. The question is, …

 

Henrik: It’s very violent in Brazil. Very violent, high racial tensions.

 

Germar: Yeah. Life adjusts. The people who have problems with a new lifestyle that may be chaotic, violent and not as nice are the ones that come from a generation having the experience in a different world. Ourselves, who have grown up in still ethnically dominated by European people, the indigenous people and with the culture, more or less intact. And now we all run head on into an age when things are radically different and plus this dissonance, this extreme contrast, hurts! For the new generation that goes into it, it’s not going to be a problem, because they don’t know any other, they don’t know any other way.

 

Henrik: I wonder if, at least the European stock will settle for lower standards, if you will? What I’m saying is, what happened is that we’ve created a society, we did something which was radically different. Western civilization is different. There’s a uniqueness to it. It doesn’t mean that there had been other civilizations, or whatever, but in the way that it’s been developed, it’s different. I’m thinking if it’s partially also the success of Western civilization that has led us to this point, ironically. That it’s the modernity, the comfort that we’ve managed to create, as you say, the materialism is what has led to this level of decadence. So it’s a circle, it’s going to come around on itself eventually, right?

 

Germar: Sure. There are two ways around a society collapses to the point where this materialism is simply not there anymore. We drop back to a lower standard where people just have babies by accident. It seems [?] to be that already today. The less educated populations in the highly developed society, they have more babies, because they are less organized, let’s say it that way.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: And that’s one way. The other way is there are always subgroups within a population that don’t follow the general trend.

 

And I look here in the US, right here where I live in Pennsylvania. And there’s the Amish who refused the modern trend, not just on the technological level, but also on that level they keep their women in the kitchen and in the churches and in the bedroom, so to say, to a high degree. But also the men, they follow a very traditional [role]. So it’s for the whole family, very traditional role, family role as it was common in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. And their birth rate doesn’t come down! They, in the long run, will be one of the dominant groups of Europeans if they also don’t mix with others outside of their own community. They stay very loyal to their own community.

 

So you have those religious people who refuse to go down materialistic and technological ways. So you have them among Christians, you have them among jews, among Muslims. Of course, the majority of Muslims who refuse to go that way, and that’s why we have them dominate Europe very soon.

 

So, you have a real radicalization on a religious level, because they are just taken over folks by pure statistics, by having the babies. Not just Islam, judaism is being radicalized in Israel over the decades. It has become more and more radical, because the Orthodox and the fundamentalist jews reproduce, whereas the secularized jews, they have the same tendency as all the other Europeans, because with they are Europeans. They make themselves go extinct, because they don’t have babies. So, what you end up with is just religious fanatics that dominate the world.

 

Henrik: Yeah! Exactly! That’s true. The conservative mindset, I think there’s a small window of opportunity where people who are both realizing this and also want to do something about this. I think out of the crisis that Western Europe in particular is going through now, we’re going to have a much more hardened core of very traditional minded people, whether they are religious, or not. But they are going to have both an ethnic awareness, which is largely lacking today in the majority, and also an interest in maintaining life as it exists in many of these European countries.

 

I think it’s a very dark picture, obviously, but I still think out of that, there’s going to be a core group of people which are going to be much more radical traditionalists to a certain extent. Right?

 

Germar: Right.

 

Henrik: Coming out of it.

 

Germar: Yeah.

[45:28]

 

 

Germar: So we see that right now with religious people. And you can have other motivations to be fundamentalists other than religious. Could be political, could be any kind. And that’s Darwinism on a societal level. Those who reproduce will succeed, for whatever reason.

 

Henrik: Yeah. So what else do you have in terms of solutions for that situation? What do you think would need to happen for this to change? Is it simply that the collapse is just inevitable? People are not going to choose away their modern comfortable lifestyle, I guess. What do you think?

 

Germar: Well, I don’t think so. Right now, you know, what can I do? If I think too much about it, I get sleepless nights, because I’m invested in my own ethnic group, my culture, my civilization, if you want. And it hurts to see it go down the drain, as it does. So I can’t spend too much too thought on it. Or getting obsessed over it. It’s just dragging me down.

 

I just take a seat in the back-seat and observe, because life is interesting. It’s completely in vain to stand changes on that global level that come with such natural force. One population who grows by the millions, out-breeding the other! What can I do? Just sit back and enjoy the ride! [Henrik laughs] xxx give my few cents of advice, whatever it’s worth. But I have no conclusion [?] that I’m basically an observer rather than anyone who could take any active part in changing things.

 

Henrik: Right. OK. Granted that, that’s true, and also, of course, on the opposite side of that you do have individuals that do change history, in the course of world history. And in many cases it doesn’t take a majority to shift something in a new direction as we’ve seen. So this can be very interesting to see what is going to happen in the future of Europe. And we obviously we have to fight for it. We have to do what we can! We have to try to awaken people, we have to make them realize and understand this is our responsibility, I would say, as awakened individuals.

 

Most people they never think of the stuff! It never dawned on them! No one has ever brought it to their attention. I’m not clearing them of any responsibility, despite that, but it makes it, … It makes the burden is obviously on us, on those who know about these things, right?

 

Germar: Right. At the end of the day, those who don’t give up the fight, and give it a good fight are the only ones worthy of victory. And if you give up, well, don’t complain if you get trampled under.

 

Henrik: Yeah. That’s true. That is true!

 

Germar: I was interviewed at some point by some White supremacist group who wanted to find out whether I was “one of them”, quote, unquote. And I said, “Do I think that the White race is superior?” And I said:

 

“Well, superiority, it’s difficult to define. But there’s a universal way of doing it when it comes to biological subgroups like, whether you call a subgroup a race or not. Whatever you want to call it. Superiority, at the end of the day is defined by, whether you prevail in competition with other groups, …”

 

Henrik: Sure. Yeah.

 

Germar: …

“and that is mainly spelled out by the ability to raise and successfully raise the next generation. And to keep your ground, Keep your territory defended and defend your culture. And then that is what superiority is about. If you are superior in doing that, then others are in the long run, whatever means you apply for it, than you are superior.”

 

But if I look at what’s going on right now, it is very clear that the White race as it has been developing over the past, say, whatever. Well, ever since the First World War or after the Second World War at the latest, has been inferior in the end result of things! I’m not talking about intellectual abilities, their culture achievements and what have you. All these things are nice, but at the end of the day, what counts is birth rates.

 

I’m sorry, that’s the brutal truth of planet earth as a biological biome.

 

Henrik: This is a big question, and we’re coming up at the end of our time together, so I don’t want to be too long winded. But, in consideration to what we’ve been speaking about here, primarily in the second hour.

 

[50:01]

 

The big question is, okay these things are happening and to a certain extent we have ourselves to blame for this, because of the fact that we haven’t taken responsibility and for whatever reason. Modernity has produced a very different mentality, ecetera. But I also see that there’s also an active elite, an establishment, a group, globalists, bankers, whatever. Call them what you will. That also is, seems to me, actively engaging in making sure that this continues. That the path that we are on now is underlined. That this proceeds forward as planned. That we are, to a certain extent, they see us as a kind of enemy in all of this!

 

Nationalists, or people who want to preserve their own culture and their heritage, that somehow they see this globalist elite, they see that they want to have a “blended world” in the future. They want to have a homongenized human being and a mono-culture of sorts. And therefore, educationally they have prevented us, if you will, from getting in touch with our true culture and heritage. Would you agree with that?

 

Germar: Yeah, sure.

 

If you have just one kind of man on the whole planet, seven billion people with the same needs, the same wants, the same products you can sell to, then you have the absolute maximization of profits. So, that’s what’s driving it. It’s all about the money for them. And if you can just sell one brand to all people on the planet, because they are all the same, then that’s perfect for them. And that’s the driving engine behind that.

 

If you have a word to divided into four thousand different entities, who all have somehow different needs, you have to custom tailor to four thousand different cultures, that makes it pretty much impossible to even trade on an international level for most products. So that destroys your attempts of monopolizing and maximizing profits.

 

That’s what’s behind it! And, of course, everybody should oppose that, because having a uniform human being all over the planet, … Everybody being the same, would be terribly boring and it would be, … Any mono-culture. Mono-cultures are bad news for any system. They tend to collapse, they’re not sustainable.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Germar: And therefore it’s bad news. We need to have multi-culture in terms of different cultures. Not one everything mixed together, because it’s not multi. It tends to be homogenized after a while.

 

Henrik: Mono. It’s true. It’s definitely true. Well this has been a very interesting conversation. A dark conversation, a gloomy report on the future that we are faced with here. And I think you’re right too, in many ways. We might argue a bit about some of the mechanics behind the scenes, or whatever, but still, I think that the main prognosis that you have given is unfortunately, more or less, correct.

 

Germar: One final word.

 

Henrik: Yeah! Go ahead.

 

Germar: “Holocaust” for me is the cork in the bottle!

 

If you want to have any solution for this, if you want to radically discuss all kinds of things on an ethnic level, on birth rates, then as long as you have the “Holocaust” in the way as a super weapon for all our enemies or adversaries, that they can use against us, we will not make any progress in any of these discussions, if you want to implement any radical changes.

 

And therefore, I think that’s a very important topic, because it clogs any discussion and any attempt to have a real proper solution!

 

Henrik: Very good! Well, I’d love to have you back in the future and continue our discussion. I think there’s much more we could talk about. We can discuss some of the mechanics, of course, of some of the science that you found. We really didn’t get time for that today. But there’s definitely an opportunity to do that again in future.

 

But, why don’t you give us your websites again here, so people know where to go if they want to find your books and your material and everything that you available.

 

And yeah, it’s been it’s been great having you here!

 

Germar: Well, when it comes to the “Holocaust” and everything around it, again it’s “Holocaust Handbooks dot com”. The two words together, nothing in between Holocaust Handbooks dot com [holocausthandbooks.com]. My personal website is just my name together, Germar Rudolf. Germar Rudolf, like the red-nosed reindeer, only with an “f”, not a “ph”. Germar Rudolf dot com [germarrudolf.com]. And that’s a personal website. It also has stuff about my work, my scientific research, my publications, about my persecution, my personal background and things like that.

 

 

Henrik: Well, very good. Well thank you so much Germar and again I just want to say thank you for your work and for your continued heroism, if you will, that’s what this is. Of daring to speak out about this important historical event and taking the hits that you have, it’s just incredible, the perseverance and the fact that you still to this day continue to do it.

 

So, I just want to say:

 

“Thank you for being brave and thank you for doing it for all the people who actually really care about history.”

 

Germar: Well, I don’t know how to respond to that.

 

Henrik: [laughing] Right!

 

Well, that’s the last show for this July, 2016!

 

Thank you so much for being here and thank you for your membership and your continued support of the work that we do!

 

More coming with Richard Spencer next week.

 

For now, we say thank you for listening, ladies and gentlemen, wherever you are.

 

We will be back again before, you know, it. Until then, take good care and we’ll talk to you soon.

 

 

 

 

[55:57]

 

END

 

 

======================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (1.1 MB):

 

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster — Part II – TRANSCRIPT

 

__________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 9,995

* Total pages = 41

* Total images = 1

__________________

Version History

 

Version 4: May 9, 2017 — Proofed the last 11 minutes. Transcript now finished. Added PDF of post for download.  Total complete = 56 minutes.

 

Version 3: May 7, 2017 — Proofed 10 minutes. Total complete = 45 minutes.

 

Version 2: May 6, 2017 — Proofed 10 minutes. Total complete = 35 minutes.

 

Version 1: May 6, 2017 — created post. Proofed 25 minutes.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/05/06/red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-persecution-of-revisionists-demographic-disaster-part-2-transcript/feed/ 5 Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books! https://katana17.com/2017/03/09/amazion-bans-100s-of-holocaust-revisionist-books/ https://katana17.com/2017/03/09/amazion-bans-100s-of-holocaust-revisionist-books/#comments Thu, 09 Mar 2017 12:31:49 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=13740 Continue reading →]]>

 

Amazon has now banned hundreds of books written by revisionists on the so-called “Holocaust” after being pressured by organized jewry. Despite the books remaining available at much smaller outlets this will have a large negative impact on the public being able to access the revisionist side of the argument that exposes the “Holocaust” Industry’s lies. This move is further evidence of organized jewry’s desire to impose a tyrannical muzzle on our ability to not only speak truth to jewish power, but also what we can even read and consequently think.

The jewish “Holocaust” lies that have been imposed upon Whites represents the keystone that supports a whole system of other jewish idealogical lies that attack and seeks to destroy White societies through guilt tripping us into racial self destruction.

Amazon, by bowing down to organized jewish demands to remove revisionist books, is showing that it now supports jewish surpremacism and is against historical truth, and therefore also anti-White.

Something that needs to be emphasized is the silver lining to this banning of Revisionist books.

That the claimed three pillars of the “Holocaust“, namely that National Socialist Germany had a plan to exterminate all the jews that it could, that it used “industrial” methods, i.e., gas chambers to do so, and that it succeeded in murdering six million jews, can not stand scrutiny is demonstated, once again.

It is effectively a “Declaration of Defeat” on the part of the Holocaust Industry.

It sees it cannot win the argument, so it resorts to banning the Revisionist’s argument from public circulation, using a mega-company that should more appropriately be now called, “Amazion”.

 

Below are the reactions from various websites — KATANA

 

 

 

_______________________

 

 

AMAZiON

 

Bans 100s of

 

Holocaust Revisionist

 

Books!

 

 

 

March 2017

 

CONTENTS

 

CODOH — Amazon Mass-Bans Dissident Materials

American Free Press — WAR  DECLARED

Daily Stormer — The Shuttening: Amazon Caves to Holocaust Lobby, Bans Skeptical Literature

Carolyn Yeager — Shock: Amazon Deep-Sixes all Holocaust Revisionist Books; Begs for a Boycott

National Vanguard — Amazon Decides That the Jewish “Holocaust” Cannot Stand Up to Critical Scrutiny

Renegade Tribune — Go Ahead, Amazon, Make My Day

Darkmoon — Amazon Bans “Holocaust Denial”, Shreds and Incinerates Thousands of Books

Michael Hoffman — Amazon Bans World War II Revisionist Books

Version History & Notes

 

 

 

Amazon Mass-Bans Dissident Materials

 

Hundreds of Titles Erased within a Day

 

By Germar Rudolf

 

Published: 2017-03-08

 

 

On February 23rd, 2017, the world’s media started spreading the news that Israel’s government-sponsored Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Center started putting Amazon under pressure to remove any and all material that questions the orthodox Holocaust narrative. Here is a list of items for your perusal:

 

 

Interesting in this context is the reference by Yad Vashem and the world’s media that one reason to ask for this act of censorship was the recent “unfortunate change in climate with more-visible antisemitism” (Jerusalem Post, Feb. 23, 2017).

 

We at Castle Hill Publishers were holding our breaths. Amazon had been criticized by the media many times before for allowing the sale of controversial material on their website, but they never censored anything that was legal. So at first, nothing happened. But then, as if ordered to emphasize the urgency of Yad Vashem’s request, two Jewish cemeteries were vandalized, first one in Philadelphia (Feb. 27), then allegedly another one in New York (Mar. 3). The New York case, however, was later retracted: the tombstones there had fallen over decades due to age. Be that as it may, the cemetery stories added fuel to the fire in which Amazon’s feet had been put.

 

Then, on the first workday of the week following the second (false) cemetery story, on March 6, 2017 at 6:39 pm, we received the following email from Amazon’s EBook Subsidiary Amazon KDP, that is to say, Kindle:

Hello,

We’re contacting you regarding the following book:

Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory’ (Holocaust Handbooks Book 1) (ID 5513183)

 

The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz (Holocaust Handbooks Book 2) (ID 5513316)

 

Der Jahrhundertbetrug: Argumente gegen die angenommene Vernichtung des europäischen Judentums (Holocaust Handbooks 7) (German Edition) (ID 5516699)

 

Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich (Holocaust Handbooks Book 12) (ID 5583159)

 

Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Holocaust Handbooks Book 5) (ID 5646916)

 

The Giant with Feet of Clay: Raul Hilberg and his Standard Work on the ‘Holocaust’ (Holocaust Handbooks Book 3) (ID 5644182)

 

Debunking the Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History (Holocaust Handbooks Book 11) (ID 5653917)

 

Concentration Camp Stutthof: Its History and Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy. (Holocaust Handbooks Book 4) (ID 5646680)

 

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Holocaust Handbooks Book 7) (ID 5650743)

 

Belzec: Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Holocaust Handbooks Book 9) (ID 5653626)

 

Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Holocaust Handbooks Book 8) (ID 5653335)

 

The Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz: Organization, Responsibilities, Activities (Holocaust Handbooks Book 13) (ID 5656753)

 

Auschwitz: Plain Facts: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac (Holocaust Handbooks Book 14) (ID 5656817)

 

Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross Examined (Holocaust Handbooks Book 15) (ID 5656850)

 

Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations (Holocaust Handbooks Book 17) (ID 5661735)

 

Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust (Holocaust Handbooks Book 18) (ID 5661787)

 

Sobibor: Holocaust Propaganda and Reality (Holocaust Handbooks Book 19) (ID 5663589)

 

Chelmno: A German Camp in History and Propaganda (Holocaust Handbooks Book 23) (ID 5666222)

 

The Gas Vans: A Critical Study (Holocaust Handbooks Book 26) (ID 5666316)

 

Inside the Gas Chambers: The Extermination of Mainstream Holocaust Historiography (Holocaust Handbooks Book 25) (ID 5666251)

 

Auschwitz: The First Gassing: Rumor and Reality (Holocaust Handbooks Book 20) (ID 5663739)

 

The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust … Bloggers (Holocaust Handbooks Book 28) (ID 5666327)

 

The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed (Holocaust Handbooks Book 22) (ID 5664509)

 

Auschwitz: Crematorium I: and the Alleged Homicidal Gassings (Holocaust Handbooks Book 21) (ID 5664451)

 

Der Holocaust: Die Argumente (German Edition) (ID 5732388)

 

Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (ID 5730537)

 

The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (Holocaust Handbooks Book 29) (ID 5799550)

 

Auswanderung der Juden aus dem Dritten Reich (Holocaust Handbücher 12) (German Edition) (ID 5882846)

 

Auschwitz-Lügen: Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile von Medien, Politikern und Wissenschaftlern über den Holocaust (Holocaust Handbücher 18) (German Edition) (ID 5895297)

 

Chelmno: Ein deutsches Lager in Geschichte und Propaganda (Holocaust Handbücher Book 23) (ID 5895338)

 

Freiluftverbrennungen in Auschwitz (Holocaust Handbücher 17) (German Edition) (ID 5895359)

 

Auschwitz: Krematorium I: und die angeblichen Menschenvergasungen (Holocaust Handbücher 21) (German Edition) (ID 5896239)

 

Der Holocaust vor Gericht: Der Prozeß gegen Ernst Zündel 1988 (German Edition) (ID 5896290)

 

Belzec: Propaganda, Zeugenaussagen, archäologischer Forschung und Geschichte (Holocaust Handbücher 9) (German Edition) (ID 5896743)

 

Die Leuchter-Gutachten: Kritische Ausgabe (Holocaust Handbücher 16) (German Edition) (ID 5896317)

 

Der Erste Holocaust: Jüdische Spendenkampagnen mit Holocaust-Behauptungen im Ersten Weltkrieg und danach (Holocaust Handbücher 6) (German Edition) (ID 5896844)

 

Vorlesungen über den Holocaust: Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör (Holocaust Handbücher 15) (German Edition) (ID 5897402)

 

Das Rudolf Gutachten: Gutachten über die ‘Gaskammern’ von Auschwitz (Holocaust Handbücher 2) (German Edition) (ID 5895434)

 

Schiffbruch: Vom Untergang der Holocaust-Orthodoxie (Holocaust Handbücher 25) (German Edition) (ID 5899236)

 

Treblinka: Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager? (Holocaust Handbücher 8) (German Edition) (ID 5899290)

 

Konzentrationslager Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie (Holocaust Handbücher 5) (German Edition) (ID 5899308)

 

Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker: Autobiographische Skizzen und Gedankensplitter zu Wissenschaft, Politik und Menschenrechten (German Edition) (ID 5909218)

 

Riese auf tönernen Füssen: Raul Hilberg und sein Standardwerk über den ‘Holocaust’ (Holocaust Handbücher 3) (German Edition) (ID 5909313)

 

Sobibor: Holocaust Propaganda und Wirklichkeit (Holocaust Handbücher 19) (German Edition) (ID 5909930)

 

Die Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz: Organisation, Verantwortlichkeiten, Tätigkeiten (Holocaust Handbücher 13) (German Edition) (ID 5911841)

 

Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten: Eine Erwiderung an Jean-Claude Pressac (Holocaust Handbücher 14) (German Edition) (ID 5912128)

 

Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof: Seine Geschichte und Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen Juden-politik (Holocaust Handbücher 4) (German Edition) (ID 5910180)

 

Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz: Entstehung und Bedeutung eines Begriffs (Holocaust Handbücher 10) (German Edition) (ID 5915776)

 

Holocaust High Priest: Elie Wiesel, “Night,” the Memory Cult, and the Rise of Revisionism (Holocaust Handbooks Book 30) (ID 5968760)

 

Vorlesungen über den Holocaust: Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör (Holocaust Handbücher 15) (German Edition) (ID 6078966)

 

Die Bunker von Auschwitz: Schwarze Propaganda kontra Wirklichkeit (Holocaust Handbücher 11) (German Edition) (ID 6079821)

 

Der Auschwitz-Mythos: Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme (German Edition) (ID 6212283)

 

“Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden”: Hilbergs Riese auf tönernen Füßen (Holocaust Handbücher 3) (German Edition) (ID 6401246)

 

Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality (Holocaust Handbooks Book 31) (ID 6415492)

 

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides (Holocaust Handbooks Book 32) (ID 6445119)

 

The Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz: Organization, Responsibilities, Activities (Holocaust Handbooks Book 13) (ID 6503905)

 

The First Holocaust: The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure (Holocaust Handbooks Book 6) (ID 6624763)

 

The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition (Holocaust Handbooks Book 16) (ID 6652708)

 

Gesundheitsfürsorge in Auschwitz: Die medizinische Versorgung und Sonderbehandlung registrierter Häftlinge (Holocaust Handbücher 33) (German Edition) (ID 6893072)

 

Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten: Eine Erwiderung an Jean-Claude Pressac (Holocaust Handbücher 14) (German Edition) (ID 7388229)

 

Auschwitz: Die erste Vergasung: Gerücht und Wirklichkeit (Holocaust Handbücher 20) (German Edition) (ID 7396915)

 

Feuerzeichen: Die ‘Reichskristallnacht’: Anstifter und Brandstifter – Opfer und Nutznießer (German Edition) (ID 7413507)

 

Curated Lies: The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions (Holocaust Handbooks Book 38) (ID 7547229)

 

Special Treatment in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term (Holocaust Handbooks Book 10) (ID 7760164)

 

Fail: “Debunking Holocaust Denial Theories”: How James and Lance Morcan Botched Their Attempt to Affirm the Historicity of the Nazi Genocide (ID 7848728)

 

The Holocaust: An Introduction: Exploring the Evidence (ID 7977642)

 

Fail: “Denying the Holocaust”: How Deborah Lipstadt Botched Her Attempt to Demonstrate the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (ID 8080904)

 

Till Bastian, Auschwitz und die “Auschwitz-Lüge”: Über das Versagen der Kritiker des Holocaust-Revisionismus (German Edition) (ID 8185504)

 

Fail: “Denying History”: How Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman Botched Their Attempt to Refute Those Who Say the Holocaust Never Happened (ID 8280843)

 

Healthcare in Auschwitz: Medical Care and Special Treatment of Registered Inmates (Holocaust Handbooks Book 33) (ID 8289137)
 

 

During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale. If we identify additional submissions with similar content that violates our guidelines you may lose access to optional KDP services and/or face account level actions up to and including termination.

To learn more about our content guidelines, please visit our Kindle Direct Publishing Help page at:

https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A2TOZW0SV7IR1U

Best Regards,

Amazon.com

 

 

Cont’d here:  

http://codoh.com/library/document/4266/?lang=en

 

 

___________________________

 

 

[Image — click to enlarge]

 

American Free Press

 

March 10, 2016

 

WAR  DECLARED

 

Amazon.com bans thousands of book titles in blitzkrieg on free speech

 

By Paul Angel

 

“Who controls the past, controls the future,” or so said George Orwell in his prescient book 1984. He also claimed that “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” So it seems the global thought censors are taking Mr. Orwell literally. As we went to press, we received word that possibly thousands of history books and e-publications have been removed in one fell swoop from the largest and most lucrative vending website in the world — Amazon.com, owned and run by Jeff Bezos (currently worth at least $250 billion, according to online sources). Note that Amazon by itself accounted for 60% of all sales on Black Friday 2016 for all venues — online and bricks and mortar stores combined.

 

Most of the books removed from Amazon deal with alternative views of World War II history, including hundreds of scholarly tomes by chemists, scientists researchers and philosophers dealing with the details of the WWII “holocaust of the Jews.”

 

One publisher, Lance Frickensmith, proprietor of World War Two Books & Videos, says he had some 770 titles wiped out with the push of a button. Revisionist historian Germar Rudolf, one of the world’s most reputable revisionist scholars, informed us that Castle HillPublishers had 100 titles — both in e-version and print — removed for [from] sale from Amazon.

 

Anti-Zionist Jewish philosopher Gerard Menuhin saw his book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil — a book about Zionist power — removed from Amazon in the blink of an eye. The Bad War: The Truth Never Told About World War II by Michael King, a book touching on the role of the Rothschilds in fomenting unrest in Europe before WWII was also banned. We expect more book burnings to come.

 

So how does one so efficiently carry out the biggest book banning since 60,000 titles were removed from the shelves of German libraries after World War II by the victorious powers? Who holds such power over companies like Amazon and Google and YouTube who represent, together, net worths of somewhere approaching a trillion dollars?

 

According to The Jewish News (TJN), Britain’s biggest Jewish newspaper, a group called The Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDW) is taking partial credit. According to TJN, BDBJ Vice President Marie van der Zyl said:

“It is very welcome that Amazon has listened and removed the offending titles from their website. These are not works of historical integrity. They are an anti-Semitic attempt to exonerate the Nazis of their crimes and to stoke the fires of hatred.”

 

Ms. Van der Zyl further warned:

“Should any member of the public find further offending works, please get in contact with us and we will report them using the appropriate channels.”

 

So, one might say, at the very least, after carefully interpreting the words of Ms. Van der Zyl, that:

“Judea has declared war on free speech.”

 

Germar Rudolf had this to say:

“The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled, because their content was checked and found impermissible, but, because someone (probably Yad Yashem Holocaust Memorial Museum) had sent [Bezos] a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.”

 

Dr. Kevin Barrett, who writes for this newspaper, had this to say in an online column on the subject:

“In what amounts to a ringing endorsement of the claims of Holocaust revisionists, Amazon has apparently concluded that their books cannot be effectively refuted – and therefore must be banned.”

 

Still, hundreds of employees and many man hours must have been involved. Is it possible this was in the works for some time and, in anticipation of this move, a propaganda effort to convince the public that “anti-Semitism is on the rise” is being conducted, as shown by the hyping of hundreds of bogus threats against Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, most of, …

 

Cont’d here:

 

 

___________________________

 

 

 

Daily Stormer

 

The Shuttering: Amazon Caves to

 

Holocaust Lobby,

 

Bans Skeptical Literature

 

By Eric Striker

 

March 9, 2017

 

When it comes to free flow of ideas and books, Amazon has always been extremely fair. The only outright censorship I can think of on this platform was when they pulled an e-book on how to groom and lure prepubescent children for sex (which they only banned after having defended it first).

 

I think it’s pretty universal consensus to say that how-to books on raping children are obscene speech, not free speech. Nevertheless, Amazon still hosts a number of novels and books dealing with incest, pedophilia, bestiality and other disgusting crap.

 

Yet, when one book, “The Pedophile’s Guide To Love and Pleasure” was yanked, some tech journalists were fuming at this puncture wound against “free speech,” and a debate on what should and shouldn’t be allowed raged.

 

Enter the Holocaust lobby.

 

 

After having been pressured by Jews, Amazon is beginning to purge books written byengineers, academics and historians on the laughable inconsistencies of the urban legend known as the Holocaust. Many of the more memorable claims associated with the Holocaust that were questioned by revisionists, such as human lampshades and soap, have in recent years been acknowledged as lies by Israel’s Yad Vashem itself.

 

Recently, in an eye-brow raising admission, Jews confessed that the 5 million Poles, Gypsies and homosexuals they claimed for decades were gassed at Auschwitz and other camps was fiction made up by Simon Wiesenthal!

 

They were able to literally invent 5 million World War II casualties and get away with it for decades. That is because there is an unspoken rule that you can’t contradict a Jew talking about the Holocaust, no matter how big and transparently fraudulent the claim is.

 

The only reason the 6 million figure continues to stick is that you’re not allowed to question it.

 

Cont’d here:

The Shuttening: Amazon Caves to Holocaust Lobby, Bans Skeptical Literature

 

 

___________________________

 

 

 

Carolyn Yeager

 

Shock: Amazon Deep-Sixes all

 

Holocaust Revisionist Books;

 

Begs for a Boycott

 

By Carolyn Yeager

 

March 8, 2017

 

IN A MIDDLE FINGER TO AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL FREE-SPEECH TRADITIONS AND LAWS, Amazon.com has wiped all Holocaust Revisionist books from its website. Seemingly overnight, this assault on Truth has taken place, obviously in conformity with the international Jewish lobby against truth in historical research and publishing.

 

Jeff Bezos (pictured above) is worth around 80 BILLION dollars from the growth of the publicly-traded company he founded and owns. Amazon succeeded because of its liberal policies, but now that has changed. You’ll look in vain for any of the Holocaust Handbook series edited by Germar Rudolf that had been available on the site, while you’ll have no trouble finding all the books arguing for the ‘Holocaust’, including the emotional, anti-historical diatribes of Deborah Lipstadt.

 

Cont’d here:

Shock: Amazon deep-sixes all Holocaust Revisionist books; begs for a boycott

 

 

___________________________

 

 

National Vanguard

 

Amazon Decides That the

 

Jewish “Holocaust”

 

Cannot Stand Up

 


to Critical Scrutiny

 

By Kevin Strom

 

March 8, 2017

 

Editorial Note by Kevin Alfred Strom: Giant, oligopolic sites such as Amazon are de facto public utilities and should be treated as such: They should not be permitted to censor public debate on ideas of significance. We should immediately put public pressure on Amazon to reverse this decision.

 

A FEW DAYS AGO, a lunatic Israel-first group calling itself “United With Israel” urged its mostly Christian dupes to participate in the Jewish pressure campaign to intimidate Amazon to stop sales of books that “deny the Holocaust” — that is, books which historically examine Jewish WW2 atrocity claims and find them wanting. Their boilerplate is copied almost word-for-word from that issued by many Jewish organizations in the past week or two in a tightly-orchestrated campaign.

 

The online retailer Amazon caved in to the pressure and has stopped selling three “Holocaust denial” books after Jewish groups insisted that they stop selling any books of which Jews disapproved on the topic.

 

Jews have demanded such censorship for years, but the recent Jewish campaign to convince the world that “anti-Semitism” is an exploding, out-of-control “crisis” prompted Robert Rozett, a senior official at Jewish “Holocaust remembrance” group Yad Vashem, to orchestrate the latest pressure campaign on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos — in which hundreds of Jewish and Christian groups called for “immediate action” to censor historical works that dispute Jewish claims.

 

On Wednesday morning, the three titles that Mr Rozett had mentioned in his campaign were suddenly unavailable for purchase. Two were not showing up in searches, and one was listed but with a note saying that it was “under review” and could not be bought. This was the case for both US and UK stores.

 

Mr Rozett said the company had taken a “positive first step” which showed that they were listening to him and other Jewish groups that echoed his demand, such as the World Jewish Congress.

 

The titles in question were:

 

Holocaust: The Greatest Lie Ever Told, by Eleanor Wittakers;

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, by American professor Arthur R. Butz and;

Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood.

 

Cont’d here:

Amazon Decides That the Jewish “Holocaust” Cannot Stand Up to Critical Scrutiny

 

 

___________________________

 

 

 

 

Renegade Tribune

 

Go Ahead, Amazon, Make My Day

 

By Mike Walsh

 

March 8, 2017

 

After years of pressure, Israel has finally succeeded in coercing the world’s largest booksellers into submission. The flickering candles of honest history are now being snuffed out.

 

Amazon-published books that dispute what George Orwell described as ‘the prevailing orthodoxy’, are today being thrown on to bonfires lit by the holohoax hucksters.

 

Harold Covington put it in a paragraph:

“Take away the holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious holocaust what are the Jews? They are just a little grubby bunch of international bandits, assassins and squatters, who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history.”

 

Unable to deny evidence of massive holocaust-related fraud Yad Vashem has finally resorted to outright censorship. In a futile attempt to buy time the Israeli funded body is now desperately trying to hide proof of their guilt.

 

In May, 1945, Doctor Joseph Goebbels penned the words:

“Do not let yourself be confused by the uproar that will now reign throughout the world. The lies will one day break down under their own weight and the truth will again triumph. The hour will come when we shall stand pure and undefiled as our aims and beliefs have always been.”

 

American journalist Mark Twain agreed:

“A lie will travel the world while the truth is still pulling its boots on.”

 

Truth has now pulled its boots on and having cornered the holohoax hucksters Truth is set on doing some shit-kicking.

 

Cont’d here:

Go Ahead, Amazon, Make My Day

 

 

___________________________

 

 

Darkmoon

 

Amazon Bans “Holocaust Denial”,

 

Shreds and Incinerates

 

Thousands of Books  

 

By Lasha Darkmoon

 

March 11, 2017

 

 

Hundreds of important books on the Holocaust by revisionist scholars have suddenly been been banned by Amazon on instructions from angry rabbis in Israel (see video at the end of this article) and from Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Jerusalem. 

 

Even books not directly relating to the Holocaust, but pertaining to Jewish affairs during WWII, have been included in the mass ban. Revisionist scholar Germar Rudolf has given a complete list of these books (see below) and it’s highly likely more volumes will be added to this growing list of “forbidden books” in the days ahead.

 

Meanwhile, in an apparent attempt to muddy the waters, The Times of Israel published an article a few days ago in which it stated that only three books have been banned by Amazon in the UK — without referring to Amazon in the US or the long list of banned books mentioned by Germar Rudolf on CODOH. (See Amazon Mass-bans Dissident Materials, Hundreds of Titles Erased within a Day)

 

A reliable source informs me that several thousand volumes have been shredded or put through incinerators at Amazon, but this is hard to verify. This has to be one of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism perpetrated within recent times. In characteristic Orwellian fashion, many historical facts are being “flushed down the memory hole” and false factoids put in their place — like the fairy tales spun by Elie Wiesel, e.g., Jewish blood gushing from the ground in geysers(picture).

 

The Cultural Vandals dare not debate these matters in public, preferring the Stalinesque weapons of censorship and intimidation, followed in many cases by fines and imprisonment.

 

 

Cont’d here:

Amazon Bans ‘Holocaust Denial’, shreds and incinerates thousands of books

 

 

___________________________

 

 

Michael Hoffman

 

Amazon Bans World War II

 

Revisionist Books

 

By Michael Hoffman

 

March 8, 2017

 

Today Amazon, the huge, Seattle-based online book distributor, has removed from sale “dangerous” books authored by Dr. Arthur R. Butz of Northwestern University, Carlo Mattogno of Italy, and other eminent dissident scholars who dare to ask scientific and technical questions about the operation of alleged homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. These heretics have trespassed on the sacred liturgy of Holocaustianity and their troubling treatises must be forbidden so as to preserve the holiness of World War II dogma.

 

Amazon has been selling these and similar books for years, but in the past 20 months rabbis and the Yad Vashem “Holocaust” museum have pressured Amazon to remove these and cognate titles. Moreover, Amazon’s owner, Jeff Bezos, purchased the Washington Post and fashioned it into a beachhead of Left wing orthodoxy. The process may have politicized and neutralized his formerly Libertarian instincts.

 

Books advocating Satanism and sodomy, and denying the Allied holocaust against German civilians, and the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians, continue to be sold by Amazon.

 

The censorship is conducted under the rubric of “fighting hatred” and “combatting anti-Semitism.” But this is just special pleading. Books evincing hatred for Germans, Arabs, Iranians and white southern “deplorables” are all on offer at Amazon, as are books denying that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. So it all depends on whose ox is being gored. As many of you know, there’s one sacred cow that is more equal than others. Its name is the Golden Calf.

 

Cont’d here:

Amazon bans World War II revisionist books

 

============================================

 

PDF Notes

 

* Total words = 4,534

* Total Images = 15

* Total pages = 37

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.0 MB):

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books – Ver 2

 

 

===============================================

 

See Also:

 

 

The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

An Open Letter to New Jersey’s Governor

Historians or Hoaxers?

House of Orwell

Misha: Surviving with Wolves or …

Bradley Smith’s Smith Report # 1

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

The Plum Cake

 

 

 

Auschwitz: Myths and Facts

Powers and Principalities XI – Ewen Cameron, MK-Ultra, Holocaust Revisionism — TRANSCRIPT

Tales of the Holohoax – A Historian’s Assessment – Part 1

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Is the Testimony Reliable?

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Inside Auschwitz – You’ve never seen THIS before! — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Amazion Bans 100s of Holocaust Revisionist Books!

AUSCHWITZ – A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

Jim Rizoli Interviews Bradley Smith — TRANSCRIPT

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report Interviews Eric Hunt — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 1— TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice Radio: Nicholas Kollerstrom — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Ingrid Carlqvist – Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Carolyn Yeager on Johnson vs Anglin debate — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

============================================

 

 

Version History

 

Version 6: Jan 28, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.

 

Version 5: Mar 12, 2017  — Added Darkmoon and Hoffman articles. Updated my introduction. Added Contents. Updated PDF for download (Ver 2). Added the Three Pillars image.

 

Version 4: Mar 11, 2017  — Updated my introduction. Added PDF of post for download. Improved formatting.

 

Version 3: Mar 10, 2017  — Added AFP text, Carolyn Yeager,  National Vanguard and Renegade Tribune articles. Improved formatting.

 

Version 2: Mar 10, 2017  — Added AFP and Daily Stormer articles.

 

Version 1: Mar 9, 2017  — Published post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/03/09/amazion-bans-100s-of-holocaust-revisionist-books/feed/ 24 ANC Report Holocaust Debate: Eric Hunt vs Fritz Berg 2017 — TRANSCRIPT https://katana17.com/2017/02/26/anc-report-holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg-2017-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2017/02/26/anc-report-holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg-2017-transcript/#comments Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:46:47 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=13591 Continue reading →]]>

 

[Ryan Dawson of the Anti-NeoCon Report hosts a long (nearly 4 hours) and often heated debate between Eric Hunt and Fritz Berg on what happened to all the “missing” jews during the alleged “Holocaust” of WWII.

Eric Hunt, a producer of revisionist videos, in an unexpected change of conviction has recently revised his own revisionist views and now believes that in fact, jews and others were mass murdered in gas chambers and also shot in large numbers in the East.

Fritz Berg strongly supports the revisionist position that no homicidal gassings occurred what-so-ever and that any shootings of jews in the East were legitimate actions taken against partisans and their supporters — KATANA.]

 

_______________________

 

 

 

[90/231 mins, now complete!]

 

 

 

_________________________

 

____________________

 

 

Here is the full Hunt/ Fritz debate on the Holocaust. This is for ANC members This debate is specifically on the question of transit camps and gas chambers. If there were transit camps, then where are the records of where all these prisoners said to have shipped east ended up? If there were gas chambers…

This content is for VIP Subscriber and VIP Subscriber (yearly) members only.

 

http://www.ancreport.com/podcast/holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg/

 

 

Free download of the mp3 audio file  –

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7NKRD5j08vYWU5vbnVvUlBEODA

 

Questioning “The Holocaust” (Eric Hunt’s website):

Debate with Friedrich Paul Berg (Updated with download link)

 

 

Audio files (split into 4 parts) also available here at archive.org:

 Holocaust Debate – Eric Hunt vs Friedrich Berg – Parts 4 of 4

 

 

ANC Report

 

Holocaust Debate

 

Eric Hunt vs Fredrick Berg

 

 

Published on Feb 26, 2017

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

 

[00:00]

 

 

Ryan: What I thought was going to be a one hour debate, or planned, ended up being about three and a half hours.

OK, this is Ryan Dawson of ANC Report, the Anti Neo-con Report. We’re usually covering the antiwar thing, the anti neo-con material. We often get into “hidden history” and sometimes conspiracy, … Not that wacky Jonestown kind. But today’s topic is one of the more taboo, if not the most taboo topic on the Interwebs, and that’s the “Holocaust“. There’s a lot of exaggerations in both directions about the “Holocaust“. Over exaggerating it, maybe under exaggerating it.

And we have two revisionists on today, one revisionist is Eric Hunt who’s been on the program before. He has recanted some of his views and he will be explaining that. And here to debate him is Fritz Berg, or Friedrich Paul Berg of the website, Nazi Gassings dot com. Also Eric Hunt’s web site, Questioning the Holocaust dot com. And you can see his long, well recanting on that, as well as other information.

So gentleman, I’m going to give you guys the floor. Hopefully I won’t have to jump in too much. I do want to make it clear to everyone that the point of this is to get at the truth where this is never supposed to be something dogmatic and I hope people will refrain from accusations, saying somebody is anti German, or anti-jewish. The idea here is just to get at the truth of the matter, based on the best evidence available.

So Eric, I will start with you, because you were a revisionists who is now revised your revisions and you’re catching some flak for that. So I’ll let you explain your position and then I’ll let Fritz respond.

 

Eric: All right, thanks. First up I’d like to thank Fritz Berg for agreeing to debate. Fritz has never been afraid to defend his views and has debated Roberto Muehlenkamp, who accepts the garssing claims and has repeatedly asked to debate revisionist Fred Leuchter. Surprisingly it’s the revisionists like Leuchter, dodging the debate, not those defending the claims of mass gassing and shooting such as Muehlenkamp. I recommend for listeners to listen to the Berg-Muehlenkamp debates. It is my opinion Mr Muehlenkamp presents entirely logical arguments and overwhelming evidence in favor of mass gassings having occurred. We will likely not be repeating many of the same arguments from those debates here today.

 

Fritz has and is operating in the supposed spirit of the revisionists who claim to desire open debate on the Holocaust and Fritz should be commended. It’s very telling that no other top revisionist scholars, as they claim, has so far agreed to debate me upon publishing my controversial findings in an article titled “The End Of The Line” available to read at: Questioning the holocaust dot com. This exposes the hypocrisy of those claiming they simply desire open debate on the subject. I put forward that this clique of SS mass murder deniers instead want to spread their extreme, indefensible, illogical denialist falsehoods in their safe little echo chambers. I’ve determined the behavior of this community is more consistent with a religious cult like the Jonestown cult you mentioned in your opening, than something claiming to be related to science. And I’m hoping to tell people listening not to drink the Kool-Aid.

 

For those who claim to oppose censorship, both Fritz and I have been banned from the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust forums. I have determined even before coming to this conclusion that [that forum] is paradoxically the most closed forum which claims to debate the “Holocaust“. And I have heard Fritz say the same throughout the years. I want to make it clear I’m not here to totally put down, or insult revisionists. One reason revisionists haven’t been debated more often is, because the “Holocaust Industry”, as Norman Finkelstein calls them, really does engage in many hoaxes. “Mini”, I meant to say, mini hoaxes, small hoaxes, propaganda, exaggeration and willingly spreading falsehoods. The blind believers repeatedly defend indefensible and scientifically impossible eyewitness accounts. Often these accounts are forced upon the American public, especially on naive schoolchildren.

 

 

[Image] An illustration of one of Elie Weisel’s sadistic tall tales as described in his mostly fictional book, “Night“.

 

 

I’d like to talk briefly about some of the things I’ve done and what I stand behind. Elie Weisel’s fictional tale of walking to the edge of a flaming pit of fire at the entrance of Auschwitz Birkenau, where dump trucks full of babies were dumped alive for no reason other than dramatic effect, during that titular night, is forced upon naive school children.

 

[05:04]

 

These children don’t know the flaming pit never existed, as all eyewitnesses confirm, including Weisel’s own sister. The fire and atrocity invention is just a lame literary device by a Jewish poet to represent entering into the hell of Auschwitz.

 

 

My exposé on Steven Spielberg’s 1999 Academy Award winning “Holocaust” documentary, “The Last Days” is one for the ages, which I’m very proud of. To investigate in particular that film star survivor, Irene Zisblatt’s false testimony, I did what any skeptical researcher should do. I investigated her claims, bought her book and read it. I found the book to be almost total fiction and saw ways to prove it. I followed the evidence trail to Stanford University to watch her video testimony, recorded for Steven Spielberg’s Survivors of the Showa a Visual History Foundation. In this video testimony Zisblatt seems to invent in real time new fake atrocity stories, one after the other. Zisblatt claims she was selected to become a lampshade, because of her smooth skin! She claims the Nazis tried to change the color of her eyes. Zisblatt claims that Dr Mengele removed her Auschwitz tattoo in excruciating experiments. Despite being on a list of Jews quickly transited through Auschwitz to other labor camps, never given a tattoo. Zisblatt claims to have escaped from inside Auschwitz Birkenau Crematoria III gas chamber. She claims a boy then threw her over an electrified barbed wire fence, naked, onto a train where she escaped. That train would have been at least one hundred feet away from the fence.

 

 

Zisblatt’s calling card claim of repeatedly defecating and swallowing diamonds for a year and a half pales in comparison to her other outrageous lies! Steven Spielberg produced other falsehoods in that Oscar winning documentary, including featuring a discredited African American soldier who already falsely claimed to have liberated Dachau in a previous propaganda film, “Liberators”, which was withdrawn from public airing, as a hoax. As a result of sharing Zisblatt’s testimony to the world, rather than have the evidence looked at in a major examination of this outrageous false testimony, shown to children and even the US Congress, I was instead banned from Stanford University libraries!

The “Last Days” and the refusal of any mainstream journalist, or film reviewer to expose the documentary as a fraud is an example of why I there are so many skeptical of the Holocaust, of the larger holocaust claims. The “Last Days” stands as a testament to human gullibility. The film is a high watermark to represent the incredible falsehoods some of the most powerful people on earth have disseminated. Taking advantage of the general public’s ignorance and good nature, the silence from those in academia and media is deafening. And demonstrates their role in helping to sweep inconvenient, embarrassing Holocaust related truth under the rug.

 

 

I started out investigating and exposing things I stand by today. However, I never really doubted that all the lying about aspects of their experiences in outrageous fashions, Wiesel and Zisblatt were, in fact, separated forever from their mothers and younger siblings at Auschwitz. Seeing the many absurd falsehoods of the Holocaust industry on the world stage, disseminated and covered up by those at the highest levels of media and academia, I was willing to see where the revisionist trail of evidence went. After all, the revisionist weren’t covering up the absurdities of these lying, or exaggerating eyewitnesses, or repeating wildly inflated Soviet propaganda death tolls.

 

Just recently the number of five million non jewish victims claimed by Simon Wiesenthal as a means to increase Gentile sympathy for Jewish Holocaust victims, has been jettisoned by the Holocaust industry in a spectacular way. This was, because in a statement issued on Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Trump declared sympathy for all victims of the Nazi concentration forced labor and extermination camps, not Jews alone. Those Holocaust scholars who have known of Wiesenthal’s falsehoods did not speak up very loudly about it, until the President dared to declare nearly equal the suffering of all nationalities during World War Two.

 

[09:56] 

 

As we know, Simon Wiesenthal lied about which camps he was in and has been known to spread falsehoods and [was] willing to disseminate big lies such as his claim of five million non-jewish Holocaust victims. As long as there is a Simon Wiesenthal Center, I can’t really accept much shame or embarrassment over what I’ve done. As I know, one day even the mainstream will look upon the lies of Wiesel and Spielberg and Zisblatt and realize that a great injustice was done to me as a young investigative journalist unafraid to expose politically incorrect truth.

 

In many ways I’m still, quote, a “revisionist.” There are many changes required to bring the accepted history closer to the gray-zone reality resides in. Now I’ve played a small part in this. But after extensively studying the evidence, looking at both sides, visiting the locations of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Majdanek, Trawniki and Babi Yar, I am not a denier of SS mass-murder via poison gas and bullets at these sites.

 

 

 

In the past, the more extreme mask I wore as a Holocaust denier, was partially in order to move what is called the “Overton Window”, to gain concessions from the Holocaust promotion industry still telling lies big and small. I always had doubts about those denying SS mass murder, as anyone claiming to use scientific method should. I want to make clear, I never acted in bad faith. I genuinely believed the extreme falsehoods in the testimonies, such as Wiesel and Zisblatt, and the promotion of these lies could possibly reveal the hoax on a larger scale. There’s an entire journalist and academic class either in fear of, or willingly covering up these miniature hoaxes.

 

As I continued to investigate, push into areas of research I avoided for a long time, I realized those who deny mass gassings and mass murder by bullets were entirely wrong, based on the evidence and their own illogical alternate explanations, all the evidence, documents, photographs, eyewitness testimony, archaeological investigations, physical evidence and more, demonstrates, the mass gassing and shooting of Jews at the sites we will focus on today. There are zero eyewitnesses who worked at the extermination camps in question who deny mass gassings. There are zero witnesses who claim thousands of Jews were not mass murdered by bullets at Babi Yar. There are zero eyewitness claiming Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor were transit camps to the Russian East in accordance with the revisionist, or denier transit camp theory. There are only those who weren’t there.

 

Calling, as Fritz has said, bullshit on one aspect, or the other, or participating in what amounts to a thought-experiment how it should have been done, or how to have built a more efficient gas chamber. When confronted with the evidence, Revisionists often instead do not answer the claims, or the evidence presented. They divert attention to an area they are more familiar with, or feel is a better point they can argue. Possibly a long debunked witness, or a propaganda falsehood. If and when we see this today, I hope we can keep on the subject which Fritz has agreed to, which is my essay, “The End of the Line” and the central question Revisionists have no answer for, no good answer.

 

All known evidence proves the SS murdered Jews via mass gassings and mass shootings. Fritz Berg has called the SS “heroes“. I highly doubt those who had their family members ripped from them at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Babi Yar would agree.

 

To be clear, the narrative of what’s known as the Holocaust has been drastically revised throughout the years. Inflated Soviet death tolls at several camps and massacre sites, rooms falsely claimed to have been used as homicidal gas chambers are no longer claimed as such, including five rooms at Majdanek. However, all claims of no gas chambers and no mass murder via bullets at sites such as Babi Yar come from external sources of those skeptical of the official story. In particular, those biased towards defending these mass murder accusations, including Germans, who to this day pay a heavy price due to the guilt complex inflicted upon them after their defeat in World War Two. I’ll demonstrate on this show how the denial of mass gassings and shooting is fundamentally false, via evidence and logic.

 

It’s fitting that Fritz appears to debate me today. Fritz got me out of a bit of revisionist retirement a few years ago in order to make videos again. After making the Last Days of the Big Lie video, I was trying to live a normal life in exile.

 

[15:11]

 

I feel this period separates a demarcation time, where before this time I can defend my research almost entirely, and afterwards I believe it’s fundamentally flawed. Although I conclude I’ve been mislead at times myself by Fritz and his arguments, I also hope to demonstrate to Mr. Berg how I myself may have mislead him, as he does not have access to the entire video testimony I have selectively edited before, and often Fritz misquotes and misattributes their larger meaning.

 

In this debate, which Fritz agreed to, we are debating the points brought forward in my essay at questioningtheholocaust.com titled The End of the Line. Specifically the central question of Holocaust denial, those such as Fritz have avoided, often instead changing the subject.

 

We’re not discussing those subtopics today. We’re discussing the essential issue Revisionist such as Fritz have long ignored. The central issue of the Holocaust denial debate in 2017 is: Where did the jews sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau, selected and declared unable to work, small children their mothers and the elderly, etc., go, if not gassed and cremated at the site, as all evidence points to, and all witnesses, Jews, Russians, Poles, Germans and others alike, agree they were gassed?

 

There are no reports of mass transports of those unable to work out of Auschwitz during the time mass gassings are alleged to have occurred, there are no camps, massive camps, for these, quote, “useless eaters” supposedly transited through Auschwitz, which would have drained the German war machine of precious food, clothing, and other supplies. The revisionists, or deniers, propose that Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor were transit camps, not extermination camps. Transit camps to the Russian East of almost 1.5 million alleged sent to these small camps, all the evidence points were used for extermination. Where did this massive amounts of jews go to in the Russian East, if they were not gassed at these sites? Why is there not any proof of even one jew transited east through these camps? A small amount of those selected for forced labor, picked out in early 1943 and sent West, are not an explanation.

 

This is the subject of today’s discussion and debate and I hope the moderator, Ryan, keeps the debate on topic, my essay and a central question as Fritz said he has agreed to.

 

Where did they go? – One second, I’m almost done – Where did they go? Germar Rudolf told me, quote, “I don’t know.” But there are people who do know. All the eyewitnesses, as a matter of fact. And those survivors who never reunited with their family members taken away from them. These people are not participating in some grand hoax. Now I asked Fritz this very question in an email: Where did these jews go? Fritz answered that these over two million jews claimed gassed were, in fact, put to work, sweeping floors or put to other labor in other German camps. Fritz, can you prove this?

 

Fritz: Well you have enough testimony from survivors, and there are plenty of them out there, who said they were transferred to camps to the West and put the work. You do can’t seriously pretend that those testimonies are not there. There are many, many Jews who have testified about being in Auschwitz for several weeks, or even months, before they were assigned to work in factories in the West, in Germany. OK? Making weapons for the war! I mean, I have trouble believing that you’re as ignorant as you show that you are.

 

Now let me try to respond, if I may, to your lengthy, lengthy, boring talk in a general sort of way: Nobody was killed in gas chambers! Nobody! That did not happen. People were shot. The SS and the Nazis did shoot people who they thought were either partisans, or involved in supporting partisans in Russia, or anywhere else: Greece, Italy, whatever. So that no one is claiming that the Nazis, or the Germans, or the SS did not shoot people. OK? That was the standard form of execution when the Germans felt they had a damn good reason to execute people. Sometimes there had simply been hostages picked up, because they might be connected in some way, even a vague way, to real partisans who have murdered German soldiers far behind the lines, or whatever. That happened, and it’s actually legal to do that in wartime.

 

[20:10]

 

The Nazis were not punished for that. But the gassing story is this goofy little story that you’ve obviously embraced for no good reason at all, which is the subject of the debate today. You’re wrong! You’re very naive! You’re grossly misinformed! You don’t know what you’re talking about! Now, one of the things I’ve focused on over the years is the claim that people were killed with diesel exhaust.

 

Let me ask you this right away. I’ll wait for your answer. Do you actually think people were killed with diesel exhaust in Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, or anywhere?

 

Eric: Well, first of all Fritz, I think you’re going back to your stock phrases and comfort zone where you often go to. No, you often do this when you can’t answer the actual question. Now, first of all I have to respond to the first, …

 

Fritz: You talked about the diesel gas chamber claims in your lengthy essay. OK?

 

Ryan: Let me jump in, actually, well let Eric answer about diesel gas, but also he was acknowledging that. He said, before you answer that, jews did go west, but the problem is two million, the number. Is there enough testimony to support that? And, Eric you also said people were shot and gassed, so it doesn’t seem to be any dispute about people being shot. So you can offer your evidence for gas chambers and you can address the diesel question as well.

 

Eric: Well, first of all, I want to stick to the topic which, and go in order of what Fritz has said. He called me ignorant, grossly misinformed, let’s see, no good reason. A lot of ad hominem attacks. Now, I talk about those selected as unable to work and you say, “Oh people were put to work.” However, we’re talking about those unable to work. Those too young, those selected as unable to work at the ramp. Photographed and selected and segregated, as unable to work, unable to be useful for the German war effort. We’re not talking about those people of working age that we know were sent to forced labor camps. You call me ignorant, grossly misinformed and have decided this for no good reason, but are you aware the documents show the ages of those people you talk about? And they do not fit with the ones we’re talking about that were selected to be gassed. Elie? ? Sent out of Auschwitz.

 

Fritz: Can I answer or do you want to keep our rabbling on for the whole period. You asked me a question. I want to answer your question. Why don’t you try to answer my question, first?

 

Ryan: Well let’s go in order and, … Any able to work first. So, do you think, what do you think happened to those unfit to work?

 

Fritz: Those unable to work were kept in the camps! They weren’t stuffed into gas chambers at all! And there’s no good evidence that anything like that happened! If there had been gassing of these people there would have been some sort of record of these people disappearing in the German records, in the German files. You would have to know that, so that you didn’t send out search parties into the neighboring forest, looking for people who had already been gassed! You would naturally expect any number of records to show something like that in order to keep your own extermination operation going, if there was such a thing, which it wasn’t!

 

Eric: So, Fritz, you said they were kept in the camps. We’re talking about almost, well definitely over 750,000, alleged gassed at Auschwitz. Auschwitz, …. 750,000 people.

 

Fritz: Yeah, yeah, yeah!

 

Eric: The other camps were Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor, …

 

Fritz: I answered your question on the RODOH discussion where I show pictures of children, old women.

 

Eric: Yes, I’d like to talk about that.

 

Fritz: I’ve talked about it. That’s my answer to your stupid claims!

 

Ryan: Hey, we don’t have to call things stupid or use perjoratives. But, basically Eric, he’s saying that they stayed in the camps and that there are photographs of some of these women and children in the camps. So that they weren’t gassed, they just weren’t working, but they were in the camps. And you can respond to that.

 

Fritz: There were pictures taken by the Russians after the Russians liberated Auschwitz!

 

Eric: OK, so. After November 1944 Heinrich Himmler ordered gassing ceased at Auschwitz Birkenau. Now, all that, …

 

Fritz: Let’s, let’s hold it right there! You said Himmler ordered to stop the gassings at Auschwitz. You have such an order somewhere?

 

[25:00]

 

Eric: All witnesses describe this order. Germans have testified to this order. There’s only you who’s denying the order.

 

Fritz: There was no such order! You have no such order. You are making it up, shame on you!

 

Eric: So, we’re talking about the picture you say demonstrates that no children were gassed at Auschwitz. All of those, …

 

Fritz: I didn’t say that! Don’t put, … Be a little bit careful, …

 

Eric: When you talk about what the children picture shows.

 

Fritz: The children were there at the time of liberation by the Soviets. And you can see pictures of them with their arms raised, showing the tattoos on their arms with their numbers.

 

Eric: Let’s talk about these children. So we’re talking about six children. They were all from Slovakia.

 

Fritz: There were much more than six children. If that’s what you said.

 

[Image] Aerial view of Yad Vashem.

 

Eric: There’s an image at Yad Vashem dot org. You can look, it called “Through the Lens of Auschwitz Child Survivors”. The stories indicate nearly all were from Slovakia and had arrived after the, everyone agrees, the cessation of selections. After the cessation of selections in late October.

 

Fritz: And the fact is these were children, useless little children, just like Anne Frank herself. Before Anne Frank was transported to the west, OK? To Bergen Belsen. She wasn’t gassed at Auschwitz, or are you now claiming that she was? She was a rather useless young girl and she was not exterminated at Auschwitz.

 

Eric: I’ll get to Anne Frank next. I’m talking about these pictures, these children in specific pictures, …

 

Fritz: You jump around an awful lot.

 

Eric: You just jumped to Anne Frank. So let me talk about these children in the pictures you mentioned.

 

Fritz: Let me make a little bit of an introductory statement if I may. OK?

 

Ryan: You haven’t answered those two questions.

 

Fritz: I haven’t had anything compared to what Eric has said. Eric gave a lengthy, very boring speech and it really is very boring. I don’t think you are going to win many converts with that kind of a talk. You should try to learn how to be much more concise. Get to your point very quickly, as you will definitely lose an audience. My position is very simple. Nazi gassings never happened! Nobody was killed in gas chambers. The gas chambers were in places like Auschwitz and were used only to keep people alive, including lots and lots and lots of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, what have you. That’s what the gas chambers, real gas chambers were used to for, and that’s all they were used for.

 

Let me say something else here. If there is a God up there, let him strike me dead right here and now on this show, if even one person was ever deliberately killed in a gas chamber by the Nazis! Let God strike me dead right here and now! I’ve made this challenge to God for well over ten years and I’m still around! Eventually I’ll be dead, I’m sure of that! No doubt about it. It may be very soon even. But, but nobody up there in the sky is going to punish me for saying the truth, which is that nobody was killed in gas chambers! And the people like Eric Hunt who say otherwise have no idea what they are talking about!

 

Eric: OK he said I have no idea what I’m talking about. I’d like to talk about this photograph of the children. I’ve got some evidence I’d like to talk about and lay out for you. So. You go to Yad Vashem dot organization. You go to “Through the Lens of Auschwitz Child Survivors”. Fritz Berg says, that because of 180 children liberated on 27th January, 1945 are proof that no gassings happened at Auschwitz. Like I said, …

 

Fritz: I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that at all! I didn’t say that at all! Shame on you!

 

Ryan: You were saying that children, …

 

Fritz: The children were there! They were not simply disposed of because they were children!

 

[Image] “This photograph was taken at Auschwitz-Birkenau by Alexander Vorontsov, a Soviet photographer who accompanied the soldiers of the Red Army when they liberated the camp on 27 January 1945.  The photograph depicts thirteen children, one of whom (fifth from the right) is hidden from view, and only his cap is visible.” Source: yadvashem.org

 

[Image] “On 27 January 2005, 60 years after they were photographed by their liberators, the six survivors living in Israel took part in a ceremony in Poland marking 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. (photograph by Dalit Shacham)
From right to left – Bracha Katz (formerly Berta Weinhaber), Gabriel Neumann,Shmuel Schelach (formerly Robert Schlesinger), Eva Slonim (née Weiss),Marta Wise (née Weiss), Erika Dohan (née Winter), Tomy Shacham (formerly Schwarz). Gabriel Neumann researched this photo and was then able to recreate the story behind it. He organized the journey of the six survivors back to Auschwitz to mark the 60th anniversary of their liberation.”  Source: yadvashem.org

 

Eric: Let me talk about these children. These children were sent from Slovakia after the, … All the sources claim the gassing ceased at the end of October. Shmuel Schelach, Erika Dohan, Tomy Shacham, Gabriel Neumann, Marta Wise, Eva Slonim. They all came from Slovakia and had been deported from the Terezín [German: Theresienstadt] camp around the 3rd of November 1944. They were sent after gassings ceased, after Heinrich Himmler ordered the gassing ceased and, …

 

Fritz: Well that is what they say! It doesn’t mean it’s true!

 

Eric: You saying they’re lying about what, …

 

Fritz: It says that in Israel, … it doesn’t mean it’s true!

 

Eric: Saying about their lying about which countries they came from and which dates they arrived at Auschwitz? Is the what you’re saying?

 

[29:53]

 

Fritz: These people were clearly alive. The old women that are also in those pictures, … On the RODOH discussion they are clearly alive. They were not liquidated for mysterious reason. The vast majority of the people in Auschwitz in late January of 1945 chose, voluntarily, freely to go West with the retreating Nazis! With retreating SS! With the retreating Germans! Why would they have done that if the Germans had been murdering thousands of jews every day for years and years? They would have, in reality, run the other way! They would have run to the Russians!

 

And one of the most prominent eye witnesses survivors, what have you, was Elie Wiesel! He and his father in January of 1945, just days before the Russians were about to take over the camp, because the Germans were retreating, he chose freely, according to his own words, to go West with the Germans! With the Nazis! With the mass murderers! Does that make any sense at all? Would any right, sane, reasonably sane person, jewish or otherwise, go along with the mass murderers of his own people? His own family, his own flesh and blood? Instead of running away to the other guys! Of course not! Elie Wiesel spells this out very clearly in “Night”, which everybody is supposed to read! It’s one of those great books that is highly recommended. I’ll read you the moment he’s talking about.

 

“What shall we do?”

My father did not answer.

“What shall we do, father?”

He, was lost in thought. The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him entered as a patient or a nurse. Or else we could follow the others.

“Well, what shall we do, father?”

He was silent.

“Let’s be evacuated with the others,” I said to him. He did not answer. He looked at my foot.

“Do you think you can walk?”

“Yes, I think so.”

“Let’s hope that we shan’t regret it, Eliezer.”

 

And what is this all about? That was late January, 1945, just days before the Russians came to take over the camp. And both Elie Wiesel and his father, according to this great book he wrote, went west freely with the mass murderers! That doesn’t make much sense!

 

[Image] Elie Wiesel, center, with his wife, Marion; their son, Shlomo Elisha; and Egil Aarvik, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Credit Bjoern Sigurdsoen/NTB, via Associated Press.

 

That’s the story that Elie Wiesel himself, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a great holocaust survivor, gives in his own book! Now, I don’t know whether the story is exactly true, but this is a story that has been widely accepted and believed by people, Jews, whatever, all around the world. It is a crazy stupid story! Nobody, I would dare say would xxxx travel away with their potential mass murderers. Couldn’t the Germans have had gas chambers in Germany, or at Gleiwitz? Why not? If they had them at Auschwitz, why not at Gleiwitz? Why not get rid of all those nasty jews before the war actually comes to an end?

 

Well, it doesn’t make sense, just as your entire position doesn’t make sense. You want to be ashamed of yourself!

 

Ryan: You basically answered a question with two different questions. The question at hand was about the children and Eric are saying they were transferred there after the gassing ceased. You’re saying, well, just because it says that doesn’t mean it’s true. And then you pose a couple different questions, like, why would prisoners run west with the Germans who have been killing them? That doesn’t makes sense. And that includes Eli Wiesel.

 

Eric: Well, what he did was just, … You know, I listened to previous debates with Roberto Muehlenkamp. He essentially, from the time he talked about people being sent west, to quoting from “Night” with Elie and his father, you can hear the exact stock phrase repeated almost word for word in that past debate. This is often a tactic of these, you could call, “deniers” to go back into these stock phrases, in their comfort zone.

 

Now, last thing that Fritz said was about the elderly shown in these photographs at Auschwitz liberation. The elderly shown in these photographs are from non-selected Slovak transports. Like I said, transports arrived at the camp in November after gassing ceased. Also the elderly in those photographs are Polish and Belorussian prisoners, who never underwent selection.

 

[Image — click to enlarge] Liberation by Soviet soldiers of some of the prisoners of Auschwitz on January 27, 1945 by part of the 100th Infantry Division of General Fyodor Krasavina. 1st Ukrainian Front.

 

Fritz: They had tattoos on their arms! The children had tattoos on their arms. That’s what they are showing rather proudly. Did you see that?

 

Eric: Yes, some pictured in that photograph were used for medical experiments. Not the exaggerated horror stories, …

 

[35:01]

 

Fritz: You and your deranged little mind believe nonsense like that, because you haven’t looked critically at any of the evidence. Medical experiments were done to help keep the people alive! That’s all!

 

Eric: I don’t appreciate your ad hominem attacks.

 

Fritz: Yeah, yeah, yeah! I don’t appreciate your ad hominem attacks at people who are real heroes of the twentieth century.

 

Eric: Who?

 

Fritz: The Nazis! The SS! Otherwise we would all be living under communism today. That was what the world faced! That’s what the Nazis were fighting and that’s why, … They are the reason we still have some freedom left in this world with idiots like you we would have opened the door for the communists for the Soviets. And yet, Elie Wiesel himself, when he had a chance to be liberated by the Soviets, he chose not to be liberated by the Soviets. He, as well as hundreds of thousands of other people Auschwitz and certainly tens of thousands of jews went west, with the supposed mass murderers!

 

Eric: I’ve heard this before, in your little, …

 

Ryan: It’s not like it’s, … I think it’s a false dichotomy to say, that unless you support the Nazis then you’re a communist. It would be just silly to say, you know, the opposite too. Like if you’re really anti-communist you have to support the Nazis. You can not support the Nazis, or the communists.

 

Fritz: But that’s what the Americans did by and large. The United States of America likes to describe themselves as the “Bastion for, …”, or “The Arsenal for Democracy”.

 

Eric: This is getting off the topic.

 

Fritz: Let me finish my point. You started out with, like, a twenty minute, blah, blah. That was terrible.

 

Eric: It’s called an opening statement of a debate. It’s called debate preparation. You just repeat the same lines from your past debate. We’re talking about the central issue, what happened at Treblinka, Fritz? How many were sent there?

 

Fritz: I don’t know, I don’t care!

 

Eric: No, you don’t care.

 

Fritz: But, well, let’s get back to the diesel claim.

 

Eric: No, you know, …

 

Fritz: Let me finish. Don’t interrupt me all the time like that. Once in a while is OK. At Treblinka 800,000 people, or thereabouts, were supposedly murdered. And until 2008 it was claimed it was done with diesel exhaust! Explain that to me if you can?

 

Eric: No, I don’t have to go into your comfort zone, your stock phrases, …

 

Fritz: Because I know about that subject. You totally ignore that, …

 

Eric: What you are talking about, …

 

Fritz: You have totally ignored, you continue to totally ignore the specifics of how these mass gas chambers supposedly worked!

 

Eric: You want to avoid, but you don’t, …

 

Ryan: Because, you know, Fritz, Eric is asking you what happened to the people who couldn’t work? And you’re saying, and you basically said, well they were at the camps and they didn’t work, but they weren’t gassed either. And then you use some photographs evidence of that, little girls and children with tattoos. Eric saying, well that’s because, you know, he said exactly where they’re from, they’re from Slovakia and this and that. And this was after the gassing stopped. And you disagreed. And Eric he asked you a question about Treblinka and how they were used to be a claim about diesel and, but you don’t want to answer that yet, because you’re not satisfied with Fritz’s answer about where all these two million, you know, …

 

Eric: Well I, you know, I have no problem answering that later on. But I mean, when I, … You said, “I don’t care what happened at Treblinka, how many were sent there”. Do you agree, or do you disagree that at least 750,000 Jews were sent to your Treblinka, never to be seen again?

 

Fritz: No, I don’t agree with that at all! Let me finish! You’ve rambled on quite a long time already. There were two demographic studies that I talk about on my website, that came out in the year 2000. And one was by a Jewish demographer from New York City named Jacob Ukeles. And he claims that there were 688,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors in the year 2000. That’s a huge number! A huge number!

 

Eric: I heard this on your previous debate Fritz. These are stock phrases you’ve, …

 

Fritz: Am I not allowed to talk about things that I talk about in a previous debate?

 

Eric: Not on this issue. We’re talking about the central issue raised in my argument, as you agreed.

 

Fritz: I’m trying to answer where these people went. You wanted me to answer all the, …

 

Eric: [garbled]

 

Fritz: Look we are not going to have a serious debate if you keep talking over me, like this.

 

Ryan: We’re head butting again. We are going to let Fritz answer. Eric, it doesn’t matter if he said it in an earlier debate, because if that’s what it comes through there then he can say the same thing as that’s what he thinks.

 

[40:12]

 

Eric: It comes to the topic areas in my introduction, which is that you talk about specifics. How many sent to your Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor? And he wants to talk about general demography that these large numbers that, … We’re not talking about anything in specific, we’re talking about these general masses of people. We’re talking about specific people allegedly sent to these sites, Treblinka, Belzec Sobibor. Also, …

 

Fritz: Can I answer now? Or do you just want to ramble on and, …?

 

Ryan: Let him answer.

 

Fritz: The simple answer is they went all over the place! Some of them may have died at Treblinka. But none of them died in gas chambers. They were transferred to any number of other places to do work, to do something useful for the war effort for Germany. That’s totally reasonable and that’s what the evidence shows and you have no evidence of any value of anything else!

 

Eric: You talk of no evidence, however, can you name one jew transited to the east through Treblinka, Belzec or Sobibor?

 

Fritz: I don’t even care! Because, I’m sure they went to all kinds of places. Surely, because I can’t give an accounting doesn’t mean they were murdered!

 

Eric: One point four million people sent through those specific camps and you can’t even name one, but your totally sure they didn’t die!

 

Fritz: In your interviews that you broadcast on your first video, you have people talking about, “Oh yeah, I was here at Treblinka, and I was at Auschwitz and I sent maybe to Majdanek, …” they mention all kinds of other camps that they were relocated too, for one reason, or another.

 

[Image] Gisella Perl author of the book, “I was a Doctor in Auschwitz“.

 

Gisella Perl, I think that’s her name, she actually claimed her entire class of schoolchildren, I think they were all Jewish, … It sounded like they were about two hundred as I recall, they went to Treblinka and then they want somewhere else. They all got back on the train and went to another place. Was she lying? I don’t think so, I think she’s probably telling the truth. Maybe she got a few mistakes in her story, but she wasn’t gassed to death at Treblinka, either. She was alive and well long after the war! Just like Helen Schwartz was alive and well long after the war. I mean, do you deny that? That these two people were not gassed at Auschwitz or Treblinka, or anywhere else?

 

[Image] Helen Schwartz being interviewed — “By Some Miracle, Water Came Down, Instead of the Gas!“

 

Eric: Well, I have to actually remind you. You probably should have listened more to my long boring introduction, …

 

Fritz: It was was boring all right. That’s for sure.

 

Eric: I actually covered exactly what you’re talking about. So, I said a small amount of those selected for forced labor, picked out in 1943 and sent west and south are not an explanation. So the Richard Korherr demographer, a German demographer, submitted a report to Heinrich Himmler.

 

[Image] Richard Korherr in 1978, at the age of 75

 

Also the Hoefle Telegram describes 1.27 million transited through these camps in 1942. The official revisionist transit camp theory is that all these Jews were sent to the Russian east, because the Russian east was supposedly, the exterminationists say, they were sent to the Russian east, deported to the Russian east is a code word for “extermination”. How do we know this is true? I mean, you know, this is true, because, well, we can’t find any of these Jews sent to the Russian east. What we can find are, as the Polish investigative committee, as all the witnesses describe, as photographs show, … There is cremated remains at these sites. There’s bones all over the place.

 

You talk about Helen Schwartz. So, a small amount of these people were sent in early 1943 from the east to the west through Treblinka. We’re talking about people from Grodno and Bialystok to the east of Treblinka. A small amount of them were selected for forced labor and deported further south, …

 

Fritz: How do, you know? Just a quick question. How do, you know, it’s only a small amount?

 

Eric: Well, there is one surviving document that shows about 500 transited to Majdanek, that’s one of the only small transports we know of. And this is all 1943.

 

Fritz: That is not so small, …

 

Eric: OK out of 1942 we can’t find any. Out of nearly, I believe 713,000 transited through Treblinka in 1942. You can’t find any transited to the Russian east. And overall you can’t find anything, not even with one transited to the Russian east through these camps.

 

[45:09]

 

Fritz: Well, it would be nice to have those records, you know, there was a war going on during World War Two, and after the war, for like fifty years, the Soviet Union ruled and was not terribly co-operative either. So, some records may have gotten lost! I know that’s hard for you to imagine that some records might have been destroyed or lost, but that does happen in war time. Surprise, surprise!

 

Eric: I want to go real quick to Helen Schwartz. One second, I saw an email someone quoted from you. And in my long boring introduction I want to explain to you how you may have possibly been mislead by selective editing and misinterpretations of what I’ve shown in my past videos. I included this woman, Helen Schwartz in previous videos. I need to find an e-mail real quick. Give me one second.

 

Ryan: Okay, I propose a question. I’m just curious since I have two revisionists that know a lot about this subject on. In Majdanek there was an entire room full of cribs. What is the purpose of this if they’re not trying to keep children alive, or do you think they did that so that those working would continue to work, or what’s the explanation for that?

 

Fritz: They were trying to keep them alive. Very simple!

 

Eric: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question?

 

Ryan: Majdanek had rooms full of cribs, for instance. What’s the purpose or did the purpose change as they started losing that war? What’s the explanation?

 

Eric: Well if you notice I haven’t mentioned the Majdanek camp in my article, or this particular instance. The Majdanek camp is a bit in question of what exactly the extermination, if it happened in the big two gas chambers which remain today, or not. The mass amount of evidence, which is all eye-witnesses, Fritz. Every single one of them say mass gassings happened at these sites. All the evidence points to this, including the remains of people.

 

Fritz: No, no, no, not true! That’s not true. That’s not true. There was a wonderful lady living in New York City who was put on trial after the war. I can’t quite remember her name, but she denied anything of the sort. And yet she was still deported back to Germany. Her husband was forced to, you know, to have a messed up relationship with her. Brownstein O’Ryan I think was her name was. She married him. A nice man like O’Ryan and then her name, I think was Brownstein. She denied all of that stuff. Plenty of people have denied that stuff.

 

[Image] Rudolf Hoess captured and tortured by the British. Note the soldier on the left holding a large black knife.

 

Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz also denied any kind of gassings. But, he was tortured. That’s how they got him eventual to make a statement in support of the holocaust hoax. OK! Rudolf Hoess was tortured terribly for three days by a bunch of jews in the British Army. One of them named, I think, Bernhard Clarke and there was plenty of information about this. Because the guy actually admitted, he was bragging about it! There’s an excellent book that was written by Rupert Butler and it was published in 1983 called “Legions of Death”. And the murderer, the torturer was Bernhard Clarke. And he boasted about how he tortured Rudolf Hoess, until finally, Rudolph Hoess gave in and made some statements, with his signature supporting the gassing nonsense for Auschwitz, OK? But I was only through torture! That’s what people of your ilk did to get the kind of evidence we’re talking about it!

 

Ryan: I haven’t tortured anybody.

 

Fritz: Why not? Why not? That’s how they got the confessions! That is what those confessions were all about! Torture!

 

Eric: I don’t appreciate being called a torturer, Fritz.

 

Ryan: But, they did torture.

 

Fritz: Do you deny that Rudolf Hoess was tortured?

 

Eric: No, not at all!

 

Fritz: Do you actually deny that Rudolf Hoess was tortured? Let me tell you with a few words before you jump in with your nonsense. Rudolf Hoess was tortured horribly for three days. He still wouldn’t give in, but, when his wife and family were threatened with shipment, deportation to the Soviet Union, then he gave in. OK?

 

[50:09]

 

Eric: Did he ever deny the gassings and point out where these Jews unable to work, …

 

Fritz: He spelled out, … It’s all spelled out in the book.

 

Eric: I understand that he was tortured, but, …

 

Fritz: Let me finish will you? Let me answer your question. It’s all spelled out in the number of good essays. The torture and false confession of Rudolf Hoess and Joseph Mengele also denied all of these claims. His son spent a lot of time interviewing him and the son was appalled that the father would deny these things. OK?

 

[Image — click to enlarge] Richard Baer (left) Dr. Joseph Mengele (middle) and Rudolf Hoess (right) in happier times on the grounds of the Solahütte retreat, 1944.

 

My uncle, by marriage and named Boyen, Franz Boyen [sp?] was a German military intelligence officer. He was in Auschwitz twice, interrogating Russian prisoners. He told me very clearly aft the war in my presence and [with] great confidence, that he was in Auschwitz and there was nothing wrong with the place! Nothing was wrong with that camp! And the two Russian prisoners, they both were very open with him about their situation. One of them in a second interview said, “The way this war is going, we’re going to outlive you!” To my uncle, a German military officer! And my uncle, unfortunately, had to agree with him at that time in 1944. So, there are plenty of Germans if you go around and do some serious interviewing, who will tell you there was nothing there to support the claim that anyone was gassed.

 

Judge Wilhelm Stäglich was a German judge after the war. He wrote about his experiences at Auschwitz, and he said the prisoners there were very cocky. They kind of looked at him as a German officer with disdain, because he was only a German officer. They weren’t afraid of him at all. OK?

 

Ryan: You seem to be presenting, …

 

Fritz: … The actual pictures of the Jews from the Auschwitz Album and say that these people knew they were going to be gassed, or were waiting to be gassed. That’s crazy! These people were totally unrestrained, they’re not in shackles, as is done with the prisoners in Guantanamo when they really want to go to a bathroom. OK?

 

Eric: OK. Let’s talk about, …

 

Fritz: These people were not restrained physically at all. They were snacking and picnicking on the way supposedly to the gas chambers! Crazy, crazy, crazy!

 

Eric: Yeah. So, these people you say, “picnicking” are surrounded by the electrified barbed wire fence outside of crematorium IV and V, …

 

Fritz: Some of them might have been surrounded by a barbed wire fence, but not all of them.

 

Eric: All of them.

 

Fritz: Look at the Album carefully and critically, for a change!

 

Eric: Have you ever been to Auschwitz-Birkenau?

 

Fritz: Have I?

 

Eric: Yes.

 

Fritz: It was very easy to escape from the camp.

 

Eric: Have you ever been there? I’m talking about the layout of the camp. Have you ever been there?

 

Fritz: Me? Are you asking me?

 

Eric: Yes!

 

Fritz: Yes, I have.

 

Eric: Yes, OK. So, if you look at the Auschwitz Album the people I’m talking about, they’re actually photographed walking from the train station, walking past the central sauna. The central sauna was the perfect place for them to be deloused, to receive a shower, to get new clothing. Instead they walked past the central sauna and they’re shown corralled outside of crematorium IV and V. They look quite distressed. Some of the children appear to be picking at their clothing as if, you know, after the day’s journey on the train, they’re very filthy. Possibly infested with lice and fleas.

 

Fritz: So they walked past, … Not all of them at all! Not all of them at all!

 

Eric: I would say the majority of them look quite stressed, Fritz. They’re not having a picnic as you say.

 

Fritz: They are all having a picnic. They are snacking. In some of the pictures they are nibbling on sandwiches and having a gay old time!

 

Eric: Fritz, it was not a picnic, or a gay old time! These people were shown, …

 

Fritz: It was! Your completely wrong! Completely wrong. [garbled]

 

Eric: [chuckling] Auschwitz was a “gay old time”!

 

[Image] Victor Frankl’s book with a different German title (1946) and his English version titled, “Man’s Search for Meaning“. 

Wikipedia: The book’s original title in German is …trotzdem Ja zum Leben sagen: Ein Psychologe erlebt das Konzentrationslager: that is, “…To Nevertheless Say ‘Yes’ to Life: A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camps“. The title of the first English-language translation was From Death-Camp to Existentialism. The book’s common full English title is Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy, although this subtitle is often not printed on the cover of modern editions. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man’s_Search_for_Meaning

 

Ryan: “Man’s Search for Meaning”. This is interesting and makes a point for both of you. Victor Frankl was a psychologist, a Jewish psychologist who was also a prisoner at Auschwitz. And he wrote a long book about, you know, those who survive, and those who didn’t, because certainly near the end of the war, people started to starve to death, because the Germans themselves were starving to death. So, of course, prisoners are last on the list that you’re going to take care of.

 

[55:03]

 

He doesn’t mention any gassings, or anything, even though he was at Auschwitz the entire time and survived. But Auschwitz was certainly not a picnic. He said how he used to have dreams of getting the thick part of the soup from the bottom of the bowl. And that kind of thing. And how horrible it was and how little food they had, especially towards the end of the war. So certainly not a picnic.

 

Eric: Auschwitz was not a picnic, or a “gay old time”. It was, …

 

Fritz: I have a discussion on my website.

 

Eric: It’s not, it’s not worth debating with someone who says Auschwitz was a “gay old time” and a “picnic”, Fritz! Can I talk about the evidence, quickly. About what we’re talking about the Auschwitz Album?

 

Fritz: No, no, no! Let’s, …

 

Eric: A “gay old time” Auschwitz!

 

Fritz: Listen Ryan Dawson, please let me interrupt here. Let Eric come back to the alleged diesel gas chambers which were supposedly used at Treblinka. Tell me something about them and why you believe people were killed with diesel exhaust?

 

Eric: Were going into your stock phrase comfort area. I’m talking about what we were talking about, …

 

Fritz: Yeah my comfort area! We’ve been dealing with your comfort area long enough. Let’s try to get back to mine, …

 

Eric: So I wasn’t able to finish my talk about the Auschwitz Album and those people you claim are having a picnic and a gay old time! They’re shown in the woods outside of crematorium V. This is where all the witnesses claim mass gassing, via Zyklon B occurred. This is where aerial and ground photography shows large cremation pits outside of crematorium V. These people, these people unable to work, obviously segregated as unable to work, were never seen again. There’s no proof they were sent anywhere else. They passed the central sauna. If they were supposed to be deloused and enter the camp as the others seen in the next series of photographs in the Auschwitz Album were entering the camp. They’re older. They’re all able to work. You cannot tell where the approximate, well over 750,000 of these useless eaters, which would have sapped the German war effort of precious food clothing and other supplies, went after Auschwitz!

 

You cannot say this, …

 

Fritz: I did tell you that, …

 

Eric: OK, …

 

Fritz: I did tell you that. You just don’t want to believe it. I can tell you something else that’s very important, …

 

Eric: [garbled]

 

Fritz: Let me, don’t interrupt me now, for a change. You interrupted all the time here. When they went to other places, when they were shipped to a factory somewhere in Germany, you could be sure they were not wearing those dirty rags that they all wore when they arrived in Auschwitz. They were given clean clothes and clean hats, if they wore any hats and all. They got rid of those lice infested clothes and cleaned up these people before they sent them to work in Germany, OK!

 

Eric: So the toddlers were, …. So the toddlers shown in the pictures were sent to factories to work? The toddlers and the elderly and children?

 

Fritz: The toddlers were kept somewhere, they might have been sent to factories in Germany too. I don’t know and I don’t even care! But they certainly weren’t, …

 

Eric: So, you don’t care?

 

Fritz: Anne Frank was not gassed at Auschwitz! Do you accept the critical fact that Anne Frank was not gassed to death at Auschwitz?

 

[Image] Anne Frank.

 

Eric: Anne Frank was old enough to work as I was when I was fourteen years old. I worked legally.

 

Fritz: OK. So you think she was working at Bergen Belsen?

 

Eric: No. But those selected to work were sent to Bergen Belsen and of that age group. It’s no problem. It does not contradict the official story, whatsoever.

 

Fritz: Certainly couldn’t have been doing any very heavy work, if any. Young children, hundreds [of] children were sent to places like ???.

 

Eric: She wasn’t that young, she was like I said, I was working legally, …

 

Ryan: There’s a difference here. Like when you guys are saying children, fourteen, a teenager can work. I think Eric’s talking about like three, or four.

 

Fritz: Well, OK. I’ll concede that a teenager at age fourteen can work. OK? Big deal! She wasn’t gassed to death at Auschwitz, though. Right?

 

Eric: That doesn’t contradict the official story, Fritz. We’re talking about those people segregated and unable to work, are the ones that were gassed. Not those used for forced labor, not those able to help the German war effort.

 

Fritz: Well so. So how many people do you think were gassed to death at Auschwitz?

 

Eric: Well the figure’s about around one million. We’ve got transports, all on record. I mean. Sorry, I can’t say all on record. There’s reports of transports from Hungary, Poland and other countries. As you see, we’re talking about those unable to work. These those unable to work are the ones that were primarily gassed. And as I have, trying to piece together transports out of Auschwitz. It’s impossible to find these large transports of these useless eaters being sent to factories, as you claim.

 

[60:00]

 

Fritz: Well, they’re talked about it after the war and Maria Blough [sp?] was one I tried to actually engage in a debate with years ago. And she categorically refused to debate with anybody who didn’t believe in the Holocaust hoax to begin with!

 

Ryan: I have a question, … Someone has e-mailed a question. I’ll just read. Was the purpose of gassing at all? Why didn’t they just shoot them? This person is asking:

“Why build a chamber and then incinerated them and all that? Why didn’t they just machine-gun them on the first day, or whatever?”

 

Fritz: That’s actually good question. I don’t have an answer for that!

 

Ryan: Why not just shoot them, if you can tattoo them you can cut their wrist. Do, you know, why?

 

Eric: Well Ryan, the answer is that, and this is documented, that the SS and soldiers involved with these mass shootings. [It’s] a pretty terrible traumatic thing for the soldiers themselves to have to do and Germans themselves are claiming, have written, … There’s a reports of the Germans themselves not, … I believe the quote is, “Not wanting to turn their own people into psychopaths”.

So what was done was, …

 

Fritz: So, you gas them instead? You gas the jews instead?

 

Eric: Sure. It was a more impersonal process. You know, they got the Jews themselves, Sonderkommandos to take part in it. So, you know, mass shooting of women and children and the blood and the guts and the associated guilt is harder for these SS “heroes” as you say, to deal with.

 

Fritz: That might have traumatized the Jews! What do you think of that? Do you think the jews might have been traumatized also, by watching gassing, so people with urine and feces bubbling out all over the place afterward?

 

Eric: Sure! The Nazis were killing the Jews! I don’t think they cared about their, the feelings of the ones watching it.

 

Fritz: Well, look! If people are working with something like that, they tend to react rather violently against the tormentor, against the monster who is forcing them to do these terrible things. That’s what happens! That’s why we have ISIS today. These people half crazy from Allied bombing, the American bombing, react violently against everybody around them practically. You tend to go a little crazy if you have to endure the kind of horrors that people in Iraq had to endure, just in the last twenty years.

 

Ryan: I don’t know how, …

 

Eric: Well you’re talking, …

 

Ryan: … One million bullets saved, also, to help the war effort. You could still stab them, I don’t know. That was just a question someone wrote in and I want to bring it back on topic, …

 

Fritz: Can we get back to the, …

 

Eric: It’s well documented. Sorry, real quick, …

 

Fritz: Can we get back to my comfort zone for a change? We’ve been dealing with Eric’s comfort zone for a long time.

 

Ryan: We’re going to get into everything, …

 

Fritz: How did these gas chambers supposedly work?

 

Ryan: Eric, you did say earlier you would address the diesel question. Do you want to do that now and then we’ll get back to the photograph thing? Is that OK?

 

Eric: Yeah, sure. What Fritz is, …

Ryan So Fritz ask your question again about Treblinka and the diesel.

 

Fritz: All right. Let me see, … I actually wrote it down here.

 

Ryan: Well, you were saying for a long time this story was saying that they were using diesel gas.

 

Fritz: Right. Well, does Eric still believe people were killed with diesel exhaust at Treblinka?

 

Eric: Well, all the, as, you know, Fritz, all the evidence, eyewitnesses closest to and who operated the alleged liquid fuel gas chambers at the sites, testified they were petrol, or gasoline and not diesel.

 

Fritz: Oh, is that the story now? So you’ve changed the story, …

 

Eric: No I have not, Fritz! There’s several witnesses who describe the engines as “petrol engines”. The ones closest to them, …

 

Fritz: That is true, but the general story until 2008, promoted even by the US government, was that it was diesel exhaust. So, if you want to switch, … If you want to go through the gasoline story we can deal with that too. So, do you now admit that it was not diesel exhaust or don’t you have an opinion?

 

Ryan: Well, different question, Eric. Was that really the story from the US government, that it was diesel. Not your story, but was that sort of the official story for a while?

 

Eric: I mean, Fritz is a, he’s a educated mining engineer from Columbia University. So he knows that diesel engines are generally used in mines, because they are relatively safe under working conditions. They even output some oxygen, right?

 

[65:08] [1:05:08]

 

So I fully understand and sympathize with Fritz when he saw claims of diesel engines used to kill people, and thinking that diesel engines would be inefficient, because they, because of their use in mining and other areas. I totally understand, as myself coming into this as a skeptic, seeing sort of flaws in, what we say, my “comfort zone” right? So I understand. But as Fritz has said and he admits it’s true, that the witnesses closest to, him who actually operated the alleged liquid fuel gas chambers, testified they were petrol engines.

 

Fritz: Well, some did, some did.

 

Ryan: Some of them did, but how did it become diesels? Is that a mistake? Like from, we’re talking about the government, so, …

 

Eric: You know, personally it doesn’t particularly matter to me, but, like I said, it seems the closest witnesses and those who operated claimed petrol. But, I don’t know what Fritz’s point is, is getting at.

 

Ryan: Well, i’d say my point in this is like, yeah you’re correct that those closest, who were operating and that’s what happened. They know what would happen. But it is worthy to note that such an incorrect rumor could be spread, because that allows some credibility to other rumors being spread. Which we know there are a lot of exaggerations about the Holocaust. Not saying they’re not gassings, or anything but, you know, the soap and lamp shades and some of the other nonsense, the pooped diamonds and things you mentioned in the beginning, which cause people to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Image — click to enlarge] Propaganda display at Buchenwald Concentration Camp showing shrunken heads, pieces of tattooed skin and a lampshade claimed to be made from human skin (actually pig skin?). 

 

This is the reason why people are willing to be skeptical. And I would also say, you know, current lies about Iraq and Syria and Libya, … We see the mass media lie continually and have all these witnesses in Aleppo, over and over again, lying. And so, that’s why people are willing to be skeptical of the holocaust story. And you said yourself, well just because there are some exaggerations you can’t throw the baby out the bath water, it doesn’t mean you can become an extremist in the other direction, right?

But I just wondering about the diesel rumor, because, … OK it wasn’t diesel, it was petrol, fine. But, if that was a widely accepted belief, that’s still important, because it shows how uncritical the Allies are just accepting any story that fits the narrative they need.

 

Fritz: We want to scrutinize also the Soviet Union which promoted this diesel claim also in their farcical show trials in 1943 when they claimed that it was diesel exhaust that was used in the gas vans in Russia, to commit mass murder and Soviet citizens, not necessarily Jews at all. But it was diesel engines that was supposedly used in the gas vans!

 

Ryan: Right. So that may be one of these exaggerations then, but, …

 

Fritz: Well, it’s not an exaggeration, it’s a lie! It’s a lie! It’s a very blatant stupid lie! … The entire Holocaust hoax!

 

Eric: So, even if they were diesel, which they appear not to have been, but petrol, as those closest to and who operated the alleged liquid fuel gas chambers testify, Fritz himself admits that operated under certain conditions, under load, diesel exhaust will kill all those inside. It would just take longer.

 

Fritz: Well not quite. I haven’t admitted anything like that. You haven’t read my stuff very carefully. What I have said is that, … Well let me finish with what I actually say. Diesel exhaust can kill under certain circumstances and they’re not that hard to achieve. If I’m stuck in a small closet and someone blows diesel exhaust into that closet, the temperature in that closet is going to approach maybe two hundred degrees Fahrenheit. At that point I will be dead! And so will anybody else who is in that kind of a situation. And so you can kill people with diesel exhaust, if you go to an awful lot of silly, silly trouble. But, as a method of execution it does not work well, at all! And moreover, you end up killing people, but not with carbon monoxide, because there’s hardly any carbon monoxide in diesel exhaust.

 

There is plenty of carbon monoxide in gasoline engine exhaust and that’s a big difference. And that’s one of the reasons why people like Muehlenkamp and others who realize that they were just in trouble with their idiotic diesel claims, switched over to gasoline engines. But, you have a huge problem, an even bigger problem if you argue that gasoline engines were used instead, because when you kill people with lots of carbon monoxide, the corpses are bright cherry red! OK!

 

[70:12] [1:10:12]

 

And that is obvious to anybody who sees corpses of people who die from carbon monoxide. The corpses are red, with very, very, very, few exceptions, and it occurs almost instantly, but it becomes more dramatic within an hour, or two. And the corpses, sometimes even described as being lobster like in appearance! That is to say boiled lobster like in appearance. And yet none! None, none of the so-called eye witnesses to the piles of dead corpses at Treblinka, or Belzec, or Sobibor ever, ever claim that the corpses were red! They claim the corpses are blue, or yellow, or other colors. Or no different from ordinary corpses.

 

[Image] Victim of carbon monoxide poisoning showing reddish skin.

Source: Forensic Medicine: Colour Guide (Edinburgh; New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2003) page 12. 

 

Clearly, the alternative story which Eric is now promoting, that the people were killed with gasoline engines, gasoline engine exhaust instead, is absurd also! It’s not believable, because it flies in the face of what eyewitnesses actually said, supposedly, OK? What they supposedly saw, supposedly. Corpses of carbon monoxide poisoning are red and it’s a bright, very distinct cherry red! It’s described endlessly in the medical literature, which you should read someday, Eric, before you talk the kind of nonsense you’re spouting! Cyanide gassings are also red!

 

Ryan: OK. Eric the corpses would be red. None of the witnesses describe them as such.

 

Eric: Actually, that’s not true. First of all, I’m going to address the diesel gassings claims. So, what Fritz is engaging in amounts to a thought experiment, “How to build a better gas chamber”. That the often makeshift concrete rooms used as homicidal gas chambers could have been designed better, isn’t in dispute. What witnesses describe, in not only so-called lying Jews, but Poles, Soviet POW’s and Germans themselves, was a brutal process. The fact of the matter is that if you put any group of humans in a closed concrete room and pipe in engine exhaust, or cyanide pellets they will die! In the total, … Isn’t that true Fritz?

 

Fritz: Scott! You’ve got to help me here. [talking to someone with Fritz]

 

I knocked out my connection here. Ryan?

 

Ryan: Yes!

 

Fritz: Anybody there?

 

Ryan: I hear you.

 

Fritz: I may have mucked up my connection, here, folks.

 

Ryan: We can hear you. Hello?

 

Fritz: We hear you, OK. I have inadvertently messed up my connection here and I apologize but. Maybe we fix it quickly…. People in a small chamber like a bomb shelter, and the Germans had bomb shelters that were gas tight all over the place. Many, many, tens of thousands of bomb shelters. Anyway, the gas chamber stories get crazier and crazier when you look into them. I don’t know if you can still hear me. I don’t know if anyone is listening to me.

 

Ryan: We’re listening.

 

Fritz: Now the testimony of true survivors from Auschwitz from 1944, everybody in the gas chamber was dead in three minutes! From the introduction of the Zyklon pellets.

 

Eric: OK. What about the other witnesses that testified longer times?

 

Fritz: I’m sorry, but I have a problem here and I don’t know what to do about it at the moment, …

 

Eric: Just call him back.

 

Fritz: Scott Smith and I are working on this and if you can hear me OK, ….

 

Ryan: I’m going to call him back.

Part II of the debate about the Holocaust between Eric Hunt and Fritz Berg. So, anyway we heard what you were saying. And I think this is a big problem is like, when there are sincere accounts there seems to be a flood of goofy ones, like a female body and male body burn at different rates and, … There’s so much nonsense that people want to dismiss the entire thing.

 

[75:18] [1:15:08]

 

Eric: That’s true, Ryan. The fat on women and women’s breasts and buttocks and things aid the process.

 

Ryan: Yeah, but I’ve talked to people about that too, and it’s very insignificant.

 

Eric: I agree! Absolutely insignificant! But it shows how desperate Eric is to come up with something to support the lies of people like Rudolf Virba who actually claimed that the smoke from the cremotoria chimney was different! Different colors depending on whether it was Lithuanian Jews, or other Jews from different locations. He clearly, Rudolf Virba was a liar! And yet he was one of the important witnesses to the so-called holocaust gassing! Even if people had died in gas chambers that particular claim is a lie! If nothing else.

 

 

[Image Text: Left inmate: Do you see that? …Blue flames! … There goes Irving … Look! … Green flames! … Must be Seymour … Do you see the colour of poor Seymour’s flames?

Right inmate: What ya talkin’ about … I don’t even see any flames.

The Miracle of the Colour-Coded Flames …

During the 1985 Zundel Trial in Canada, media-certified actual Holohoax eyewitness and “survivor” Arnold Friedman testified that while in Auschwitz he could tell who was being burned in the ovens by the colour of the flames that shot out of the cremation chimney. Mr. Friedman told the court that if blue flames shot out of the chimney it meant a Hungarian Jew was being burned. if green flames came out of the chimney it meant that a Polish Jew was being burned, and so on. (5)]

 

Ryan: There certainly were people who lied, or exaggerated and Eric said in the beginning, he pointed out some of the idiotic testimonies about poop diamonds [Zisblatt] being thrown over an electric fence and landing on a train and some of that. But that isn’t, we’ve heard all that. You guys agree on that. Were talking, the main question is, “Where did the people go?“

 

Fritz: [loosing his connection]

 

Ryan: Can you hear what I was saying?

 

Eric: Yes, I can hear.

 

Ryan: I’m just trying to get back onto the central question.

 

Eric: That’s good.

 

Ryan: We know there are lots of exaggerations, we know that. We can throw out a lot of stupid things, but, …

 

Eric: You know, Germans didn’t say stupid things as some of these, you know, Zisblatt and Wiesel witnesses. But they do describe being separated. I mean, the Jews do describe being separated from their family forever. They’re never seen again! There’s absolutely no proof they were ever found alive again. And, …

 

Fritz: You know, that’s not true. That’s not true. Let me interrupt here. Again and again in the newspapers you hear about people meeting each other after having been separated for so many years. These are Jews, Jewish Holocaust survivors. “Oh! I thought my aunt was killed and now I meet her and it’s oh so wonderful!”

 

There are plenty of stories like that, even fifty years after the war about Jewish survivors meeting each other after they had thought the other relative was dead. OK? It happens all the time! It happens in Israel! It happens in Europe, all over the place! The US Holocaust Memorial Museum has plenty of cases like that if they ever want to talk about it.

 

Eric: That’s not a surprise. Nor does it contradict the official story! It does not, …

 

Fritz: It flies totally in the face of what you just claimed! When you said that this, “they never met again!” There are plenty of people who have met again after having gone through the so-called holocaust. Now in 2003, …

 

Eric: Let me interrupt, please, …

 

Fritz: Now I’m losing track of what’s, …

 

Eric: Very quickly. Can I interrupt. So, the people Fritz is talking about do not contradict the official story.

 

Fritz: Yes they do.

 

Eric: No one, … First of all, all these people, if they’re talking about through Auschwitz, they were perfectly able to work. They were of the age where they were selected for labor. If you’ve actually found someone transported through Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibor to the Russian East that reunited with their family, that would be great! Can you tell us who they were?

 

Fritz: I’ve never found anyone and I don’t care! I know that they were not killed at Treblinka with diesel exhaust and they were not killed with gasoline engine exhaust. All the testimony to the contrary is, or are lies! Every one of them! Every one of them, so-called eyewitnesses who claimed that he saw bodies of people after they had supposedly killed with carbon monoxide from diesel exhaust, or gasoline, is a liar! Everyone! No exceptions!

 

Eric: So everyone’s a liar, including Germans themselves who described this happening?

 

Fritz: No, I don’t think there are any Germans who described this happening, at all. There aren’t any!

 

Eric: Yes there are.

 

Fritz: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You’re living in a fantasy world! You don’t have a gas chamber that works! You don’t even have a gas chamber that even works! You don’t even know how a diesel engine works!

 

Eric: You can’t find, you can’t find, …

 

Ryan: Do you have any sources that show Germans admitting these things?

 

Eric: Well, yeah, absolutely. Fritz is talking about all these Germans who supposedly are admitting it’s a hoax and providing evidence. This is actually largely contrary to what actually did happen to the Germans. But the standard stock answer is that they were tortured and they couldn’t submit this, supposed, acquitting evidence, even [throughout] their entire lives.

 

[80:24] [1:20:24]

 

So the deniers call all Jewish, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and other witnesses to gassing and mass shooting, liars. What about the Germans? You know, we just hear, “Oh, they were tortured. They can’t tell the truth.” They couldn’t tell us where they were transited after going to Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor, right? The revisionist excuse that some reason, German, …

 

Fritz: Let’s deal with a simple piece of evidence that I’ve cited before. Sergio de la Pergola [sp?] studied the total number of Jewish Holocaust survivors, not in 1945 or ‘46. But in 2003! He found more than 1,093,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors! And he discussed them and gave their locations to the Israeli government. He is an Israeli Jewish demographer. He came up with 1,093,000 alive in 2003. Now since the war, many Jews died from natural causes and it leads me to conclude that if 1,093,000 were alive in 2003 there must have been millions of Jewish Holocaust survivors alive at the end of the war! Is that somehow far-fetched? Do I know where they all were or what happened to all of them, of course, not!

 

Ryan: It’s not far-fetched, but we’re kind of going in circles here, because, I think that’s not addressing what Erik’s really asking. Because, …

 

Fritz: Well, I’ve told him!

 

Ryan: It’s not the total death count, six million and all that. He’s saying those who were able to work were in labor camps and forced to work and were not killed. He’s talking about the portion who were not able to work. Because he believes they were gassed and were shot.

 

Fritz: He doesn’t even have a good reason for thinking they were gassed. They might have been taken out in the back woods and shot. How can you not exclude that as a possibility. It certainly makes more sense then to try to kill them with diesel exhaust.

 

Eric: Fritz likes to go back to his stock answer of general demographic information when we’re talking about specific camps, specific people, specific communities of Jews sent to these sites, never seen again. That there is a massive, …

 

Fritz: Yes they were seen again. Helen Schwartz was seen again. Wasn’t she? ??? was seen again. How can you deny that? So you’re saying that they were never seen again. You’re lying!

 

Eric: You denied it yourself. You said that you can’t find one person transited through the Russian east through Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor.

 

Fritz: Well, I can’t find any that went to Russia. So what, they could have gone any number of other places. And they did!

 

Eric: Well, you say, “So what?” Transited to the Russian east is a code word Russian demographer Richard Korr used in a report for Heinrich Himmler, when he called to get explanations, …

 

Fritz: Code words? He spoke very clearly! Stop lying! You didn’t come up with any code words. He spoke very clearly in his report. He doesn’t, …

 

Eric: He said transited to the Russian east, but you can’t find any one transit to the Russian east. What you can find are pits of mass cremation pits of bones and human remains! You can find all the evidence, all the eyewitnesses claiming gassings and mass cremations, …

 

Fritz: Even yourself looked for cremation pits and you found nothing of the sort!

 

Eric: No. First of all, what I did in my video, “Treblinka Archaeology Hoax”. Although some of it I can stand behind, the main conclusion I can not! Part of the reason I presented that video and maybe Fritz I can calmly tell you that I’m sorry if you’ve been mislead by that video. I feel mislead as well. I was involved in a bit of an echo chamber that hides a lot of the evidence. Or claims that all the archaeologists and all the witnesses are absolute liars.

 

There are photographs of these mass cremation pits, I don’t believe I showed them in that presentation. I don’t think I talked about the Polish and various other archaeological investigations at the site. I don’t think I’ve talked about, well first of all, I don’t agree Caroline Colls would lie about the general science and evidence of mass graves at the site. And as I said, the photographs and all the eyewitnesses show, [garbled] … Bones, human remains at the site. And, of course, we can’t find one Jew transited through this site to the Russian east in accordance with the Korr report to Heinrich Himmler.

 

[85:08 mins] [1:25:08]

 

Also evidence in the Hoefle Telegram found in British archives, …

 

Fritz: Hold on, the Hoefle Telegram doesn’t claim these people were shipped to the Soviet Union and I don’t think the Korr Report does either.

 

Eric: The Korr Report does claim that they, …

 

Ryan: What you said was the Korr Report say they were liquidated, doesn’t it?

 

Eric: No. That they were transited to the east and it lines up with the Hoefle Telegram, the amount of trains transited to the Russia east. Transited to the Russian east is generally determined by all serious historians to, …

 

Fritz: Yeah, yeah, yeah! Shame on you! “Code words”, come on! What code words? s there a code book somewhere that shows the code word and what it really meant? Why not? You don’t have anything like that! It’s just BS that you are just hatching together to make an argument. And a very bad argument! Is there a code book somewhere?

 

Ryan: There’s no code book, but if there were that number, like over a million that were transported to Russia, then even though there was an Iron Curtain you would certainly find some of those people.

 

Fritz: If you were free to look hard enough we would find them., you know, it used to be, …

 

Eric: We would.

 

Fritz: … That when I was young that there were only eight thousand Jews left in all of Poland. You know, that the client the standard claim was actually made with regard to Vienna. That there were only eight thousand Jews left after the war, in all of Vienna. Well, I must of met all of them. Because I lived in Vienna from time to time and there were plenty of Jews there, all over the place and very prominent positions, running the major newspaper there. There was no shortage of Jews in Vienna, or in Poland, when I was there. There were at least eight thousand Jews just in Krakow alone! OK! Now should I have interviewed, a demographic study? I wish I could have of all the Jews in Poland. But I can tell you one thing. None of them are wearing kaftans and these ugly black coats that they were wearing before the war. OK?

 

And when they were shipped to Germany to work in factories they weren’t wearing their kaftans and black coats either.

 

And when they had the chance to blend in and pretend that they were Gentiles, or Christians that’s what they did! Because lots of people hated the Jews and rightly so for having brought about World War Two! The Jewish declaration of war against Germany in 1933 already was, to my mind, the beat the Jews! They had damn good reason to be angry at the Jews!

[Image — click to enlarge] Declaration by organized jewry of war on Germany on Fri, March 24, 1933.

 

Ryan: I’d like to bring up an interesting anecdote just to cool things down a little. You know, I’ll let you address, during the war just pretended to be Chinese and that’s how like, fortune cookies are actually from Japan. Now they’re in all the Chinese restaurants, but, because there wasn’t a clear date after the war where they could suddenly go, “Oh yeah, we’re actually Japanese!” so they continued to run Chinese restaurants, even as Japanese. So, Jews pretending to be Christians is plausible I suppose. Go ahead [Eric], I just wanted [to mention] that little anecdote.

 

Eric: So all the witnesses, all the physical evidence points to mass extermination at these sites, …

 

Fritz: You’re lying! The same lie over and over again! I’m going to keep on interrupting when you do that, …

 

Ryan: … Tell me one quick forensic evidence, …

 

Fritz: All of the eyewitnesses, he says.

 

Eric: Yes absolutely! There’s no eyewitness who describes transits through Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibor. There is zero eyewitness! Can you tell me one?

 

Fritz: I can’t give you any of those, but I give you plenty of so-called eyewitnesses to the alleged gassings!

 

Eric: But why did they lie?

 

Fritz: They did lie! Let me try to share. There are plenty of so-called eyewitnesses to the alleged gassings at Treblinka, all clearly did lie! Again and again! When the claim was that the bodies were blue as Kurt Gerstein  claimed, he was lying! Very simple.

[Image] Kurt Gerstein (11 August 1905 – 25 July 1945) was a German SS officer and member of the Institute for Hygiene of the Waffen-SS and Head of Technical Disinfection Services. In 1945, following his surrender, he wrote the Gerstein Report covering his experience of the “Holocaust“. He died, an alleged suicide, while in French custody.

 

Eric: So Fritz, there are witnesses that describe mass transits to the Russian East.

 

[90:02 mins] [1:30:02] IN PROGRESS

 

One wants to call the weather, because liars. Including Germans for it’s want to call the witnesses liars. He wants to deny the physical evidence of these promotions gets into trouble in my life I have known people who were at the Russian front to assure the trains of Jews going to the east. OK that was less like what I hear it’s the woman soldier who was at the breast look tough strawberries Apple, or any number of other major crossing points would have seen plenty of Jews on trains going to the east. Well what year is it important to know is what year this happened. Well like you’re talking about Dad is that close enough.

You want the parents of these people want to look at labor as contraband if you are of the I who told me that his name is France. Frank should be a woman. Of France there were forced laborers sent to quote Russian east through our shores actually through Auschwitz actually in a Baltic state that’s not who we’re talking about already flies in the face of what you’ve been claiming no no it’s not.

You’re talking talking about right. None of them were transited through for blanket Belzec, or Sobibor and that is camps run a different ally different railroad line going basically north to south south to north. OK so the train stretch was from my Donek, or liberal and up to all Kenya. And those three camps were along that line along the old Polish so we had borderline. OK That was a very logical demarcation Alliance for controlling typhus which was the real big killer during the war. You haven’t even acknowledged that typhus was a serious problem for Jews and non Jews in Poland and Eastern Europe generally it was the big killer. So there’s actually an interesting story about one Jewish girl translated to the Russian east you could say. I showed this story to the moderator of the committee for open debate on the Holocaust. He said it’s proof that.

You know she this is a woman Caroline called Girl. Caroline Cohn. Who was sent to Sobibor. And I showed this to the man and he said oh that’s proof. She was sent to Minsk as the story says right. Already. However, it’s true. Caroline only said I think what he wanted for so before was even though. I’m sorry if she was sent from Berlin to Minsk in one nine hundred forty one before Sobibor was even open. She was sent back from the men’s ghetto.

To Sobibor where. Recently a pendant others was found for it’s why was this girl sent back from means to Sobibor they have physical evidence that she was there she was never seen again. What happened to this girl you don’t know that she was never seen again you think she was that was she going to you didn’t find any evidence that she was seen again. She might have been in Brooklyn all slushing New York at the end of the year. I know it doesn’t matter, but she certainly was killed in a gas chamber and somebody that you were else. You haven’t come up with a good reason to see either been. A few course all of the witnesses for some reason, or a list of maybe, because they had some kind of works for her and some people were aware she could fit. That’s all there were lots of Jews shipped to places like Minsk and like Uncle Mike Gernhardt truck versus what’s actually in the US. I’m not sure that’s making a lot of noise can you stop that it’s all right. Yeah. I did. I mean, the trouble hearing the two of you also.

Now it’s better now. Yeah just don’t trust. OK.

Anyway. At any rate it was Eric one particular girl that she was killed. No I mean. Well if you look at all the available evidence that all of the people cry bill that’s all, because all the physical evidence of mass cremation bone fragments found at the site cremation found at these sites. All described mass gassings shows, you know, this isn’t even a seriously exactly these bone fragments as to what the cause of death was if there are any and sound when they should it shows these bone fragments are of people killed in history you know.

Well there’s no reason to deny all of them claim good reason. Captain I think I’ve given you plenty of good reason to dislike the so called Guest it was that you’re fantasizing about never existed.

 

[95:02 mins] [1:35:02] IN PROGRESS

 

They could possibly have worked so he says that if you put people in a close concrete Wellman pipe and exhausted couldn’t possibly have worked. I don’t know if would look like the way your system. I’ve told you that it’s no sense. I don’t understand what you’re talking about you could kill anyone in a close concrete room if you pipe an exhaust. Ensuring that let’s you keep killing it’s really not doing it right out there. But sure. Well that’s much more likely, but there’s a couple That’s right. It’s that it was claimed easily insurance what do you do you write it was also you want to create a straw man and it seems like nobody should Yeah yeah and there’s your whole case full support when one looks at the specifics against charges you have that specifically it’s claimed at all, but I don’t understand what you’re talking about your other constantly you don’t is a. About why that’s nice of you to look at that that’s true. I was just going to talk about I guess guys for a second. OK. If you’re things going back and forth. I like Eric saying I witnesses. Why would he been this guy story I mean, all these eyewitnesses are saying this and maybe they’re all going on. And all of them first place. Right OK not everybody, but they’re obviously a number of people. Either concocted this story, or actually saw people being gassed right. If there was really no way if it really wasn’t diesel and it was like that. Surely there should have been red bodies yet there aren’t accounts for that. So either it was diesel, or it definitely couldn’t have been gasoline, because there are any reports that accurately how the bodies let every single one of those bodies are cremated, you know, whenever someone, or something so diesel Eric is saying would have worked, you know, you can make it better gas chamber, because you can always make something a little better doesn’t mean they didn’t have a crude one in a bomb shelter, or whatever, because if you do that with diesel it will and then you’re saying well not. OK maybe it wasn’t three minutes but. They would still try that at the mains and if this back and forth, you know, it’s fair. Well these the exhaust look and the entire history of this is of the use of diesel engines which goes back to the east and I did twenty, you know, many cases there are people just accidentally, or otherwise from diesel exhaust the idea. Eric I believe you pointed to one I believe you point to some others, but like I said this is a straw man. This is a straw man just real diesel exhaust usage Yammer getting trucks, for example, of people stuck all over the you to put in their trucks in order to allow the air conditioner to run, because there is only one case of a person to well you possibly from diesel exhaust and it turns out to be a bogus case as well.

If we have all the rest of the world in the last hundred years. There’s only one other case of a person possibly having died of diesel and still it’s OK So even with these elite engines even in a closed chamber makes for a little sad, because for one thing it’s like what’s actually cooked. It’s a lot of oxygen as you’re running in it and very heavy load so as it hasn’t left the sense of any mass murder. The decent story is just like even if you could conceivably kill people in wits with a kid like so sad. So it’s technically absurd for it’s first of all I do not accept that the evil gas was used as I said, the closest I’ll accept August at. The close is witnesses all describe petrol being used there. You’re creating a straw man. Yes I have to carefully talk a lot about the security officer who also claimed at length that he’s witnessed the gassing of I think eight hundred people. So he’s one witness. You see the Germans told had a different story. It was diesel according to him and his story as many used to little sleep by the fast majority of Holocaust scholars like yeah I’d made by the people who are highly regarded Leo was probably still bird, for example, and others again and again they referred to her first sight. He was German and who claimed it was easily joyously been again and his story did certain to turn into these all these leads, or else the cetera et cetera and that actually it was accepted by the whole world practically until about 2008 when even the United States government officially still claimed that it was diesel exhaust that those claims are absurd.

 

[100:00 mins] [1:40:00] IN PROGRESS

 

You are a pack of lies first of all you liar. Kurt Kirk Erskine only visited the camp for less than a day he was a person in a wristwatch with a stopwatch in his hand he showed the age thing. So, how did, you know, he saw me and I’m going to knew it was diesel exhaust and not, because he was a mining engineer himself and you can tell if it’s in these legions from now on if, you know, anything about cars which I doubt you’ll recognize he’s a legend for the salvage first of all, because if it’s a rapid fire of many many explosions. That’s how, you know, it’s a diesel and you’re going to have to open the hood to tell that it’s a piece and then Jim OK let’s for the sake of argument except for it’s claim that diesel was used. However, Fritz you did write an argument. That’s what I claim my claim is that these lists. You said all I claimed sex for girls sign and the others are so you liars. First of all you did write an article describing how long it would take to kill someone with a kill groups of Jews with a diesel exhaust engine it was under half an hour under load under certain conditions correct. Well not quite I quite like that at all. Really I didn’t even try stopping to get the article it read for it for a change read something I had a while brought it up by. Yeah well how long would it take to kill people and with the diesel engine in a closed concrete room I mean, you describe in your article less than forty five minutes less than forty loads of ten has a number of things like how small the room is constant the real chili ingredient is a diesel exhaust is the carbon monoxide at all, but the temperature that you reach inside the room once the temperatures above one hundred ten degrees, or one hundred twenty degrees. People will be dead. I know like flies. But that’s to use these changes to see God I was just trying futilely Christmas strategic commodity for the Germans, but plenty of it. I have to about the fact that John stews and I think I’m saying made from wood chips from the place they had literally hundreds of thousands of trucks that generated their own substantial concentrations of carbon dioxide those things would have made sense for a last word. I’ve said that again and again make sure it’s all of them my website will all of my essays and I’ve pushed some for you to just have a little guess execution take knowledge if they did you ever wanted to against anybody, but the guy with the producer gas vehicles which generated carbon dioxide directly from wood chips into concentrations of carbon dioxide gas is up to thirty five percent. You can could have killed lots and lots of people very easily very cheaply just by using one chips made from ordinary wood. You could have gotten almost anywhere in the construction and Polish that would make the perfect Central Committee mass murder, but to use diesel engines and some ship an intermediate step is just plain nuts just like all the rest of your claims. Yes no it’s OK with you. Well I’m sorry. So what about while I can make up. A claim any artist. I mean, like my profile is that what I call what I believe is not to claim how short a time that acts against me as against Germans who were camps as you should stop making ad hominem attacks yourself. I don’t mean they’re easy to say why. He actually believes.

Go and so what it says it gauging in amounts to a thought experiment how to build a better gas chamber. That you often make should not read this. Homicidal gas you have been designed better isn’t in dispute. In the total absence of witnesses claiming Jews were not gassed. So you can so Book one and bells. And the absence of any witnesses describing mass transit through these sites to the Russian East which is your radical audit of how to build a more efficient. Yes chamber is totally meaningless.

Well. Well there was something happened I mean, I can’t I can’t say no one was gassed at the train station. I just left from, because no one really I guess now is going to bring it up, you know. A really good analogy brought in so I think that these places such as Treblinka Belzec and Sobibor there are so called fake railroad. Well wait signs so.

 

[105:00 mins] [1:45:00] IN PROGRESS

 

These individuals that. Germans themselves through were some of them are actually free men after the war. Friend Stangl friends. Josef Oberhausen, or another primary defendants could have easily said What are you talking about we can guess anyone return we recruit routinely transited these Jews here and here. Maybe a look. Vive Pinsky and Vilnius to the locations listed on the supposed fake railway sign so. Well just, you know, they so that witnesses could not say the kind of things that they might have said during all this was staged. Also if they see your side statement it was not able to speak freely at the Nuremberg trial for example. Otherwise I’m sure he would have given them an earful. But these post-war trials were all carefully rigged so that he would. German defendant could always be heard saying what the prosecution wanted him to hear the Auschwitz trials in Germany and sixty’s were thoroughly discussed by Dr Wilhelm stately in his book. I can’t I think it was called Auschwitz and he described how the witnesses were carefully chosen first of all if they were going to, or if they were likely to give supporting evidence. If a witness was unlikely to give supporting evidence he couldn’t testify they blocked him if, in fact, from testifying one German commandant from Auschwitz Eric. There actually was with diet before he was able to testify at the house and it’s trials in Germany in the early one nine hundred sixty S. These proceedings after the war were all very carefully controlled just like the witchcraft trials in the late Middle Ages nineteen and sixteen ninety three and so forth were all carefully controlled if you want to believe. Perhaps that these trials were open and so for the nonsense that your image trials even today in Germany are not open the way they should be at all. You can’t just get up there and denounce the liars who are in the courtroom and expect your testimony to ever be heard from again. That’s the way things are done and it’s a disgrace. But we can look into the allegedly Yes chambers to see if they would have even worked and the eleven. Regarding those yesterday was are absurd totally absurd before anything clearly yesterday on it and so it will I says reclaim the corpses are blue, or didn’t show any color at all, or even yellow, or other colors other than red they are liars. There’s no escaping that so. So the deniers call all Jewish. Polish Russian Ukrainian and other witnesses to gassing and mass shooting liars. Let’s talk about these Germans for it’s want to say they’re just on trial. They were tortured there though. There’s that the excuse is that for some reason these Germans never had the courage to defend their airing their nation’s innocence I tell you from the U.K, you know, I tell you from the nick perspective of a political prisoner This is so highly unlikely it becomes impossible. You can point your building prisons have to ignore it. Well that’s a political rant that it’s fresh. A certain point of view. That’s what I have gets crushed. I do know about this point, you know, and you can tell you can point. Norm very trial point just I mean, you have people who could have just told somebody you’re in there, you know, when they’re eighty years old, or something right. I mean. Yeah I would like to go into that role. Quick. I mean, first you could point to revisionist themselves who often serve lengthy prison sentences and the majority do not fold and continue a proprietary of their innocence after release. Even the face of further prosecution. So the revisionist claim was it so impossible for all of these Germans severed tell the truth about the so-called gas chamber hoax so let’s look at the case of Joseph Ober Hauser who was stationed at Belzec a sermon ation camp filmed in cloudland Simmons’ film show up over Hauser was a free man after sent serving his sentence working as a bartender in Germany. It’s entirely unbelievable for me to accept these Germans could find no way to release the truth about this supposed hoax. For instance Oberhausen himself a free man working as a bartender could have written a lengthy explanation proving Belzec was a transit camp only to be published by trusted confidant friends of lawyers, or family after his death as Ryan just said. Here any direct witness of these gassings could have explained where these massive transports of Jews in the hundreds of thousands were

 

[110:01 mins] [1:50:01] IN PROGRESS

 

Why would he have known White why do you. I think he was probably a very small guard that most probably couldn’t even read he might have even know how to write. More than his name. I guess your that’s a good excuse. Are you saying he’s illiterate he he. My dear. I think he decided never to protest his wife why is the miters drinking buddies. Why fight city hall when City Hall has all the guns in the control. He might have been starving even more than he was at the end of World War Two in Germany. OK. People were struggling just to survive for many years after the war you think they’re going to come up and say oh I was there and it was nothing like that some people did my own.

Distant relation friends buoyant did, but he didn’t get anywhere. He was lucky he didn’t get fired from his government job, but if he had spoken out publicly the way you suggest he would have been fired. He would have been on the street and his family are going to been starving my my other will I understand this very hard trial berthed he had been in the S. And S. At Minsk managing a small closing factory employing about three thousand Jews according to the story. I have in Minsk OK when the war ended he was thrown into a concentration camp in radians Boric and he spent several years there until he was somehow could somehow show that he had been rehabilitated and reeducated and then he was able to go back to his wife and his one surviving child and makes well over an existence for himself, but he couldn’t get a job that was worth a damn any time for the rest of his life. You think, you know, that person and I protest when I don’t. Oh and I just don’t know much about the subject and so there are also those who are essentially guaranteed the death sentence including at a White man and others who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by producing evidence for a vote proving the so-called transit camp theory the revisionists like Fritz make the NSA’s an elite military force feared throughout the entire world into a big softies they claim that the S.S. Did not met kill masses of civilians and didn’t have the guts, or brains. There are literate after all. So I don’t leave your primary notes in my mouth. Shame on you shame I use a lot of your jewelry all over the place. It’s not a place in which character you said OK how is there was a literate he didn’t have the brains. I didn’t say he was he might have been speculation as most careful. Try to be a little bit careful about the things you are saying you’re obviously very reckless in the actual say should try to make You’re both a little bit right here. I mean, it would have been very hard as a lot of political pressure to shut your mouth. They lost the war they were, you know, death camps after the war starvation exaggerated stuff like the Internet and it would have been much harder than it is today saying anything, because it’s not going to matter are you going to say something and maybe the media people around you hear about it and then you’re just going to go to jail. You’re Fired and It’s going to change. Nowadays you can say something you can go all around the world. You might have an effect but. Much less motivation and it would be now all that there’s another. There should be someone saying that would have done it anyway. Out of this fight to see what had happened in their country after the war to say Dammit these are transit camps and write a letter, or something. It seems like we did it, because they like, but there’s not that many, but there is big here who had been a commandant at our suites was more than prepared to say precisely that. And then for some mysterious reason see Guy just a few days before he was supposed to testify at the a big Auschwitz trial in Germany at the early one nine hundred sixty S. OK So look at Rudolph those little has been kept in prison for his for his lifetime given a life in prison and when all he had done was try to make peace with Britain. OK. He was a prison you think he could have made a lengthy essay about how he knew nothing about any gay extermination plans, or something like that, of course, not it would have been totally destroyed by his captors.

And that’s the way these things were stark they forced this young Vironment so that the any real testimony to the contrary.

Is totally destroyed. Joseph Wilhelm shakily was punished for his book he was nearly ruined. He barely got old age pension.

 

[115:03 mins] [1:55:03] IN PROGRESS

 

Crits I think there’s a better explanation is that these oh you don’t have a lot happened. You don’t have it you don’t even have a gas chamber that really could have worked the way you allege be easily exhaust, or gasoline engine exhaust you don’t know what you’re talking about you want to be ashamed of yourself. I go back to kill the garden and study the subject that’s beginning again this, you know, every I understand your passion about the topic, but kind of personal insults aren’t really an argument. They’re entirely justified they’re entirely justified, because before I don’t listen to him insult the S.A.’s, or Germans in general as he is doing. I’m going to insult him. I think asking for it deserves it. I understand you’re using I don’t think they’re conscious Germans, or anything like that you. Yes Yes Well this is a problem with this kind of topic like people want to we want to have these kind of civil debates, but it’s difficult. The reason that people don’t want to debate, or don’t want to voice their opinion on these subjects is, because they know that they will be met with such visceral acts on their person, you know, I fight. I mean, anti Zionists, for example, and Al’s speak up for Palestinian rights and say what the Israelis are doing and I, of course, I’m going to be met with waves of people accusing me of being anti sematic in this and that and that kind of personal attack keeps prevents people from speaking up on these topics and let’s see if Eric’s wrong with safety is you’ll never know that unless you have these debates in civil and you give them some evidence that there’s mine and vice versa if you’re wrong. You’ll know that if, you know, you’re constantly just personally attacked. Because it just ends up in a shit throwing contest and it’s entertaining and all, but it doesn’t really, you know, move to mark, or anywhere in figuring out the truth matters. Well frankly I’m more than inclined to agree with you completely. Ryan I agree. I know it looks bad one likes them is critical as I am about Eric, but he’s just plain misguided for emotional reasons Scott I can’t even get you kill me, because I was that’s not a little one more little detail in the United States you actually have guessings to death people of interest of full were guilty of murder and maybe rightly so. Whatever the last guess execution. In the entire world occurred right here in Arizona. In one nine hundred ninety nine, you know, long it took to kill that one poor guy. And the idea. I don’t know if it was just a non sequitur for it is no it’s not no it’s not the same. Well you know.

It’s not it’s not sequitur at all it took eighteen minutes to kill one person in a well designed gas chamber here in the United States. Eighteen minutes and I had a claim to that you might find interesting is the reason they’ve changed sort of the method of getting prisoners and the reason they’ve moved away from the electric chair is, because they actually harvest and sell their organs and so they don’t want to destroy their organs that’s why I think, you know, way from frying them in May may, or may not have a reason for why the gas and differently to try and preserve as much as possible, because well that’s likely nation, but it’s not the official explanation. The official isolation is that it is a kind of cruel and unusual punishment. Yet it.

They don’t care about that look at the people are the organs OK whatever whatever whatever, but the last guess execution took eighteen minutes in the United States and most many of the guests executions in the United States took as long as eighteen minutes as well. Other guests executions. So it’s not some sort of quick easy way to get rid of somebody. If you do a mask gassing it gets kind of messy. Especially if it’s done in a large room where the little guy every little I use like might be hiding in the corner lying down on the ground so that the guests the cyanide which is lighter than air can stay well above his head. If you use anything like the electorate guessing technology, you know, I kind of situation it would have been a disaster. It would have been a mess that would’ve been a lot so rocky a little angry Jews left afterwards to welcome the guy opening day. Yes chamber door it would have been a catastrophe, but the Germans knew how to do it right and they had the technology, but nothing like what the Germans had in their stock of technological.

Was applied for the a legit mass homicidal gassings.

 

[120:08 mins] [2:00:08] IN PROGRESS

 

It’s very different. It’s a very different technology the Germans had the technology for mass guessings with cyanide if they had ever wanted to, but it’s totally different from the idiotic technology that is alleged for Auschwitz for mass gassings, or for any of the other camps. The Germans had a system with forced yes circulation throughout the gas chamber, but that was the way to do it. The Germans knew that and we can practically read the lines of the German technicians and experts on this field in the German literature and even through McGrady sent in American language literature American Sign of a company. Actually, used to cycle on the end cycle on disquiets for a few only geisha and throughout the United States and it worked very, very well and, in fact, in some of the literature now published on Rodeo. You can actually read how to make your own gas chamber it’s not that hard, but it involves some rational technology using force. I guess circulation to disperse the gas throughout the entire chamber. Otherwise you end up with something that’s very, very slow comparable to what was used to fumigate barracks which required about twenty four hours of exposure so that the science I could get out of the ground ules, or that this, or it’s whatever and kill off everything in the barracks. But in a real gas chamber you would have had forced yes circulation and that’s totally different from what’s even alleged in any of the so-called cycling I’d be guest chambers anywhere in Auschwitz Birkenau and I was when you look into the claims specifically about guessings they all turned out. Beat garbage garbage doesn’t mean you couldn’t possibly kill people. Yes you can like it. While some very different kind of technology from any of the garbage that is alleged in the Holocaust literature only has several lousy seamers I guess was what was the gas chamber building then if it wasn’t a gas chamber morgue. What was the US official Can I just for you here. I’m just I’m like I’d like to respond first so Fritz described it it would have been very messy. This is actually what the witnesses did describe it as a very messy tangle bodies feces menstrual blood all over the floor. There’s a lot of need to go live so prevention alive after twenty minutes, or even five minutes. Well it’s all stuff that’s not lots of people, but there have been instances where they did describe as you say a little Isaac alive in a gas chamber. So it absolutely does not contradict what you claim it was a did very messy people process and sometimes there would be one straggler. But as you say it’s totally possible to spot for example. Is absolutely lying about her even gas chamber how well she lying and the others are not all maybe she just she was out. She’s the one I mean, I don’t really have to defend her wise, but what I wish I would like is, you know, well what is right in line doesn’t mean everyone else has. But if I were her justify this if I were to justify her lies she did her mother and sister appear to have been gassed Unfortunately they’re not alive to tell their stories. Well then they must have been guessed if they are if they’re not alive to tell their story. Then that’s proof that they must have been guests according to Eric. Oh yes as you say the DA was segregated and separate and separated as are unable to work. I don’t even know what your point is you say they did work it makes them. Well they may have died of typists, or starved, or I don’t know he’s saying that these toddlers and elderly people did work. It makes no sense. First of all there were separate get separated and segregated as on able to work and says they did work. Well some of them did. I’m sure sure there’s a there’s all kinds of stuff that could be done. Even children can do work, but these children were not able to make that thirty miles trite to the railroad station and live it’s so somebody decided well you guys better stay here and wait for the Russians and maybe they’ll take care of you and the old women and old men I suppose who were unable to make that a long foot long try conflict in the winter in the cold and snow. To the life it’s thirty miles Well, you know, that’s a that’s a hike take stayed in Auschwitz also.

 

[125:16 mins] [2:05:16] IN PROGRESS

 

And when the Russians came day waved to them and told them all kinds of stories and made happy talk with the Russians the Russian women. I mean, the women left in Auschwitz they were all right. They were all right by the Russian side was their reward for having decided not to go West with the retreating Germans and there was plenty of testimony is that like that. Stats for side the point the point I’m making is that it was THEIR MONEY program not all Welsh which I added and so on. Second I can just interrupt. So Fritz is which Fritz for his point is that those separated and segregated as are able to work photographed in a group obviously unable to separate is on able to work actually did work. That’s his point. Well I don’t make them any work let’s let’s get that straight. I don’t know what they might have done minor things like sweep the barracks anything any number of things could be done by people who are older and so forth. Help. Keep track of things and a number of things can always be done by people if they’re functional at all. While there are those who do know what happened, or where these people separated and segregated as unable to work were last seen alive. And gassed you jump to these people you jump again to the liberation of Auschwitz are to debunk these photographs that you said as these elderly and children their autographs are since for their right so they would have been exterminated before being OK, but I brought it up. I brought it thinking really, or even if the gas chambers had not been operating they could have been just shot going to save a lot of food for those months two months. Until the Russians actually saw if you can see that these first of all your disregarding entire purpose gassing series. The reason gassing ceased was to keep the Jews alive so there weren’t wouldn’t be as many recover repercussions against the German people themselves result. Absolutely. Let me check. Absolutely. Would be very. It would. Certainly incite this so it’s to find Mass piles of shot children and elderly at Auschwitz to further kill and kill German. People do you concede now that the those in the copyright children aren’t reading this is very interesting article although you have your now mean mind reading Schuller and the Germans for their reason for stopping the gassings, or the electorate guessing since November. You’re really fantastic. I am so sad earlier, because like I said I want the heart of the issue here are there once you leave that people are caring for a girl quick. Let me ask this. Are you concerned I think it’s going to help you make your point to you. Dispassionately just whatever I don’t care who’s right. I just want to know what’s right. I would like to know, because you said well these pictures of elderly and children suffer after they were orders to stop guessing. Are there survivors who, or children, or elderly who are there, or order things. Elie Weisel their own. Well really was first forced labor. Fred C. Was holding office forced labor. Now let’s stick to this point before you jump to the next thing. What kind of forced labor. Do you think Elie Weisel was ever likely to do when he got to Belsen, or why you could see the guy was a physical misfit at the very least I doubt if he did a stitch of work when he got to Germany. Well one second, you know, I’m sure we all did forced labor to be honest I he was sent to the bono work labor camp a subcamp about should model what his father was even lifeforce to work. Was he a life if you think you think it’s why many of the latter is there the cooling towers, or anything like that. So it was a physical right. OK from source on I dare say let’s talk about the logic here for it says Elie Weisel teenager. Perfectly suited for work was able to work, but first he says he’s talking sense on science part yes sorry. Perfectly unsuitable for work. However, these elderly men women and children children were. Suitable for work right.

 

[130:05 mins] [2:10:05] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Well they could do some work I won’t argue that, but some work.

He might have done something like just swept the floor. It’s not much else.

OK great. So I don’t understand your illogical point here. If you tried to do it and he was working and I showed you. He was working in you finally agreed to it. OK, because that’s what worked what didn’t work. L. You still do when he got to Germany. Tell me that you are not talking. We’re not talking I just look like you. You mean like.

Talking about we talk about modern weights which is subcamp of Auschwitz. But what do you think it was a pipefitter. He worked there. I’m he was not a pipefitter, but he and his father worked there, you know. To be honest, because of what happened recently try to push it in the back of my mind I don’t really talk about exactly. I really not to up on the subject of what we sell did, but as you say he was selected for forced labor along with his father his mother and younger siblings were much like those shown in the Auschwitz Album which were segregated unable to work useless leaders and all evidence points to were gassed.

So why wasn’t all you sell guest when they making he was used for forced labor at the bono work we were camped subcamp of that was for what what do you think he could have done well aside from something clerical maybe a little bit of bookkeeping keeping track of the elbow fittings and the keys she fittings something like that. What else do you think he might have done that was so valuable for the job, or war effort to keep to justify keeping him alive giving him shelter. Well I’m sort of you sort of coming to agree with me that those segregated as totally. I don’t know that they were really segregated. But you keep talking about some documents that ordered them to be segregated and separated. I don’t see any I’ve never seen any documents like flat at all. There’s photographs of them being separate except separate and segregated and there’s a photograph of them and then were separated so that when they went to the showers the women didn’t stay with the men and the men stay on the men stare at the women the women were given showers. Separately from the man. That’s not so surprising, you know, I know this is a modern liberated age and so forth, but in those days people kept the women separate from the men well it’s not some sort of showers. Oh my. Isn’t that terrible those evil evil Nazis some of the women from the men as well that were sending them to the showers and sending babies, or children. Maybe separately again to different showers. Oh lawdy those evil evil Nazis separating people from each other. Oh well they don’t seem I can. I can see that brilliant points of us. Eric you really are so brilliant I hadn’t seen that before they separated from the men they separated the old people from the young people maybe, because the older people were not likely to do I useful work for a while. So let them sit on a chair in a bunk, you know, Barack somewhere. Oh well that is so fiendish on those part of those Germans. Well I’m not talking first of all you’re only devolving into all this emotional stuff I’m talking about how I’m going to like you. It’s not sense from you and it was really I’m talking about this photograph I’m not talking about separation of sexes I’m talking about a photograph of mixed sexes of those as you say having a picnic outside of crematorium five. These are all mixed sexes. There are mixed.

Of those unable to work. Well you don’t know that they’re on they will work you and I, you know, make your points be a little more careful. I don’t know that they are unable to work. Maybe they are maybe not. I which picture you talk about I have the Auschwitz Album in front of me right here. Tell me which I think you mean are you are you denying Are you denying there were those elected on able to work. Maybe I don’t know I don’t know, but I do know that none of them were killed in yesterday’s birth as well didn’t for them being segregated based order, or on autographs. That’s all we all witness testimony photographs and evidence points to it always being separate separated and segregated as unable to word These people never show up anywhere else. Those separated segregated as on and able to work lasting again outside of these gas chambers.

 

[135:01 mins] [2:15:01] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Talking nonsense I mean, your family are looking at pictures here at home and it’s gathering so yeah I’ll give you a page number here are the kids on page one fifty two and on page one fifty three. I’ve used these pictures before sitting around you see the kids are actually looking at each other’s me old C.J. You got a peanut butter sandwich and all I got was a cheese sandwich. Maybe we can trade then dimpling quite peacefully. There’s no sign of fear, or terror on the faces of any of them. Not one. Look I think it’s no that’s right. That isn’t true at all. There’s a woman yes it’s true. Yes it is this notion talks are, you know, if people are terrified they showed that pretty easily just by Riley they run as fast as they can and wherever like wherever there’s any kind of an opening for daylight these people are not terrified at all when people like you say that you’re simply lying. Sure. But, you know, me talk. Let me talk for about ten minutes here. I talk to try to get this in your article there. Yes, or yes there is yes it is it is a photograph in my article. First of all these people are surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence in the pen. Of crematorium four and five. That’s all there is in this specific area of the camp it’s called Birkenau it’s the Burke Birch forest, you know, What you can absolutely see this last time he filled our guest you run it through the fence you run through the fence as far as fast as you possibly can you try to get over the fence you try to get under the fence. If you’re that terrifies you do stupid things like that the fence may be unbeatable may may not be possible to climb over, but you still try if you’re afraid of being gassed to death. People panic going to run. That’s a no sir. Reaction. I don’t see that he flung death row like that. Try to kill, because there are absolutely reports of those who ran to the yeah like over, or between yes yes yes that’s it. You have no real evidence, or anything of the story. Well reported by CNN used him doing, or saying now you’re a mind reader and, you know, their motivations I mean, we don’t know, but I can tell you prisoners who are on death row don’t like try to just kill the police they just walk and Except. That they don’t usually commit suicide before they get lethal injection, or the chair whatever so, you know, if they’re going to get in. I’m not going to, you know, if they are likely we hung by the neck. They often jewel and, in fact, the standard probably procedure in prisons is to shut the entire prison down when they know when the prisoners know that someone is about to be hung, or executed. That’s a standard procedure, because they have riots. All the other of for instance in the camp. Even for the prison they riot. When they think something like that is going on. They don’t sit passively in their cells waiting to get the word that. Such and Such a person was guest to death, or Hong, or electrocuted people panic and they riot. That’s the normal reaction when they’re at Tara. But you don’t see like that in any of these pictures and Eric’s claims to the contrary are sheer nonsense these people are very relaxed like you and you, you know, route rather relaxed way sitting casually showing no signs that they’re going to be gay and still are tortured are treated horribly and all just look at the pictures it will open my coffee take a few cups of coffee before you look at these pictures. There’s nothing in there to support the claim that anyone he was killed in gas chambers and things which you’re looking at well which was a much smaller human being. Well Eric just by Eric Yeah I mean

I’d like to talk for about two minutes without being interrupted with the motional ad hominum attacks. Yeah yeah you try there are and how I know tax of your own and then we can have a more intelligent debate. But I don’t think I’ve done much of that yet. Certainly I have to say you certainly have. Certain So we’re talking about the photographs and if they’re just going to tell us once. OK let’s see let’s talk about the photograph of the woman being held by three men being manhandled in my thinking and writing from the entrance of crematorium five. You can see criminal for in the background for it’s talks about writing things like this really tore him for in the background was blown up in a prisoner revolt the son the commander when I was another.

Nearby Q. And A camp blew up the crematorium to resist the mass gassings operations.

 

[140:09 mins] [2:20:09] NEEDS PROOFING

 

So there were rioting there were people who ran to the barbed wire there were people resisting in this specific photograph you do see a woman resisting she’s being held against her will by three men apparently Jewish at the steps of crematorium five. There’s no other places photograph could happen. It shows crematorium four parallel and just. And she is absolutely not having a picnic in her time she lost her luggage. You might be worried. Where did my luggage go. I said OK.

So her her her two hands are restraint on two points by two men opposing her and there’s one man in the background there moving towards a photographer who was standing at the entrance of crematorium five. She’s not asking where her luggage why and she said I don’t know that you don’t know anything of the sort, or you create really sort of ridiculous claims like they’re having a picnic, or that she lost her life. Many of them there are many signs of right below that picture in my own article you see a child who does have a face of distress on him. He’s got a part of his clothing on he certainly does not look to be having a picnic another woman is looking towards him just to look there’s others and, or the one of the woman sitting down there sitting down in many ways, because they were transit in the three days some of them were standing up on the box cars for three days. Having to oh my goodness, you know, they had to urinate on themselves on the way to the camp. Oh it was so terrible. My goodness you think maybe the Nazis could have just put them on the road and forced them to march for. They actually that might have been that alternative they could have saved the railroads for the war effort in that case, but they actually transported these Jews who were there to this terminate Inderal road car as they could have guessed it right there in Budapest many of these Jews were supposedly hung Garion Jews in Budapest they had an excellent guest chamber for fumigating entire row trial at those fumigation chambers the Budapest guest chamber is the subject I’ve discussed in many of my essays were perfectly excellent guess chambers that would have killed everyone in those railroad cars in the right there at Budapest Why ship these Jews one hundred twenty miles to Auschwitz if all you want to do was yes them, but there are some pretty critism again proposing better more efficient ways they could have what is short of they could’ve would’ve should’ve done it. The bottom line is I heard. That’s what not for tickle thinkin. Thanks. In your job they were going to use the majority of them for labor. And not some were strong, but you could have made the selection right there in, you know, a pest, or somewhere in Slovakia. Why ship the useless ones to Auschwitz. If all you’re going to do is kill land as Eric claims you could have saved all those train fares for really important people, you know, for the pipefitters sort of people who could do some serious work to get the Germans. Germans did a lot of inefficient things during a war. This is why they lost, or after all. Right. So you could have always selections right there and you would have passed, or some other location from where they were selecting and shipping Jews I think it’s a logical thing to do just taking the best.

And murders the murders the camp, because people at camps knew what kind of job.

That’s where is often do a lot of logical sure Yeah well the real mass murder is where the Americans when they bombed German cities in World War Two It was a real mass murder is so if you want to talk about mass murder talk about the real one. It’s not the fact that the make believe mass murder as well unfortunately we’re talking about these people such as at Auschwitz that were selected as unable to work segregated, you know, you first told you what they were selected for you don’t cite any documents showing that as selector that this guy for this, or this guy for that. Are you going to get anything trucking about selections. Without any solid evidence whatsoever. Thanks for these so-called eyewitness claims OK we’ve known. And even you admit that many of these eyewitness claims are just bogus they are lawyers so old you have to be a little more scholarly if you’re going to start kind of arguments.

 

[145:11 mins] [2:25:11] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Let’s talk about scholarly the records we have of those transported out of Auschwitz, or all of the ages and you say you have a table to work able to work out the records yourself a little I yes I have actually I saw them a while researching Irene’s this, but it records. I don’t believe it, but now, you know, that there are records OK you don’t believe there are actually it’s also records, but not the kind of records that you’re talking about. Yeah there are no records at this crime. What happened to those unable to work, because there are gas to decide the Germans. Well they’re all you witness there are no records of people being yes and yet. That would have been something to keep track of you would have at least shown that this guy is no longer around. Anyone he’s gay, you know, So let’s dispose of his. Personal possessions which are kept in Canada, or let’s not, you know, worry about finding a bank for him, or a place for where he might work if a person is killed. You want to keep some sort of a record of it so that you don’t waste time in the woods around the camp running to try to catch him, you know, people did escape from Auschwitz and if they.

If they escape you want to catch him. But you can say, you know, let’s see if, you know, the guy is already dead for it is gone again into this coulda woulda shoulda as we say there’s no records of those people sent anywhere else. All right. Points and I think he actually just chambres all of that right. I want to thank you. When, you know, there’s all all the physical evidence all the eyewitnesses all know your life on the call from the school evidence all the records no nonsense you don’t have that you don’t have to have any physical evidence that anybody was killed in a gas chamber. Oh absolutely. There’s physical evidence you don’t like it that you want to accept. I want to talk critical I know you have no let up since, for example, to show that even one person one corpse found anywhere was of a person killed and I guess you understand. Zach first of all. Well first of all there are the Polish investigation of her blanket they found intact human skulls and neck bones without bullet holes in them. But I have talked personally it’s possible they want to this.

Actually, these mass cremation pits shown in the investigations and photographs and all witness testimony say they don’t have didn’t die of disease I want to how exactly why my opinion. Everybody’s lives are probably told that the already at the very beginning of World War Two typhus and particular years ago we had a brief argument you and I about the fact that you didn’t seem to realize that the typhus epidemic was killing huge numbers of people already in Poland and you thought it was terrible to some way, because I kind of slammed you down for not knowing that if, you know, anything about last fall foliage you would know that typhus was a major killer. That was the real killer in Auschwitz and then other camps not. I mean, I’d like to talk for about two minutes in on her on her.

So this is false. I know all about epidemic tiredness I don’t know I was really about trying to tell me all about trifles I’ll be very patient and listen, because I really want to learn about trifles from, you know. Well I was willing to sort of sort of think that this. First of all what Fred said is not true. It’s an invention he did not quite say with claims I did going into this I was willing to accept that for instance those photographed in mass cremation pits outside of crematorium five may have been Didn’t victims of disease. However, all available evidence including those who took the photographs themselves and those who worked in these gas chambers including Germans themselves to talk all evidence points to guessing at Kurds, or law he talks of he talks about your ally and he is not he told me that before yes yes he is a lawyer I thought they were people starving he said actually.

He was willing to entertain that you can say he’s wrong, but he’s not right for talking us out he says it will be evidence he’s definitely lost he doesn’t know what all the evidence is. It’s absolutely all the evidence which includes documents includes eyewitnesses who includes R.K.. Logical investigations include also

 

[150:05 mins] [2:30:05] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Yeah you just don’t like the evidence, because frankly you’re German yourself use you have talked about being a victim of discrimination of your family and after what were you such as that it. My goodness.

There are many revisionists who are Germans themselves who are frankly biased, but do not want to see evidence. Who do not want to accept the evidence they can look at the subject level headed.

You know so I sympathize all about trifles that’s how you started this little chit chat here just now I don’t I don’t except that those bodies that were blank. And those cremation pits that do exist are all types as victims of the large looked at some of them were some of them were from typhus I mean, there are descriptions of those crammed into these train cars that were blanket being pulled out before they can be gassed. I mean, you talk about autopsies how exactly are you going to do an autopsy on cremated ashes and bones fragments to prove cyanide gas and I told you they didn’t find bullet holes in skulls and neck bones as would be consistent with shooting. So that is consistent with being gassed. That is consistent with a quote autopsy. Well frantic pathologists have much more advanced Let’s say I don’t know whether one can tell if the Bulls are going to show cyanide guessing, or carbon dioxide guessing, but one of the reasons for why cremation was actually allowed in Germany. In the early nineteenth. Thirty. It’s was, because even evidence, or even when the person had been poisoned one could careful medical examination. Tell whether that person had been poisoned, or gassed. That was a big issue in the early days of criminalization even in Germany and elsewhere that even crim aided remains could reveal strong evidence of the use of poison to kill a victim. Otherwise cremation was the perfect thing to do you any relative. A wife who were who might have been poisoned you send them right away. It’s a crime authorial and evidence is gone forever and ever. But made it remains can in many cases reveal clear evidence of the use of poison was one of the reasons why crim a shot was even Kermit is in Germany at least and possibly other countries as well. The technology is very sensitive today doesn’t mean every. Poisoned person would be exposed to every corpse of a poison print would be exposed by a careful chemical investigation I don’t know I’m not an expert, but some cases clearly it is the case and even on my miserable TV I do see a TV program supposed crime investigations where they have talked about even created remains showing proof that poison was used at some point by someone, or other and so I don’t rule anything out, but they remain such as they are extra points, or anywhere can be Exuma some day and they examined very, very carefully by. Forensic pathologists and they may. Proves one thing one way, or another. The fact that they don’t have bullet holes in them is already evidence of non execution by firing squad, but the people may have died from typhus nonetheless and that shows itself sometimes in damage to the bones and so don’t rule anything out especially about things you don’t like much about to begin with. Well you just said you’re not an expert on that subject so I know more than you do obviously not actually I mean, I talked about the law. It was actually plenty. Not actually respond I talk. I mean, we’re talking about the logic vary and you are all if you insult like Eric are the same ask for that I can see that. I mean, let’s talk was, you know, the arguments.

 

[155:04 mins] [2:35:04] NEEDS PROOFING

 

So he talked about a lot. So he talked about the logic of autopsies of car, you know, diesel is petrol, or some sort of petrol, or diesel exhaust. I told him it’s pretty senseless to do autopsies Like I said on those killed in those methods and cremated it is only cremated. I can simply actually say senseless. Well first of all I propose you can actually so some of the flammable substances used to actually cremate the remains are released the same gases that you claim are used in so well that are claimed to have been used inside the gas chamber to look at cremated to ashes and bone fragments and try to determine they were killed by inhaling poison gas.

As he sort of we are sort of conceding the methods used back then, or couldn’t determine that. But you say, because of modern TV shows like C S I, or that they could do that today frankly. All of your case revolves around someone like who has watched these shows such as C.S.I. And want to play an amateur detective in take away all the available evidence eyewitness testimony documents in archaeological investigations photographs and throw it all out the window, because you say wouldn’t have happened exactly the way you say it would have, but no I don’t actually think there’s a way to actually autopsy these ashes and cremated bone fragments and determine they were killed in handling poison gas especially, because carbon and other materials would have been released by the fire itself.

And that’s your theory. Well, you know, that’s not what you’re talking about, you know, you’re no expert. I’m no expert, but I do know that the technology for examining corpses and bolts has advanced enormously. I don’t think I’m overreaching when I say that Mr Bennett in the forty’s. There’s a big difference between most poisons thanking kill somebody and a specific type of gas, because like Eric said there salt your salt. Anyway. Well yeah I mean, logically a fire release is many if not many of the same chemicals that were claimed to use to kill these people be inhalation. If not the exact same chemicals were used as fire starter’s themselves. So it’s illogical to claim autopsies on cremated bones and ashes. To up a somewhat upset. I fail, but some if they are just to show you left like a. Internal organs as would be the case with a mass burial. And when you do open cremations open aircrew Masons you don’t reduce everything to just bone fragments. There’s plenty of tissue left. So if they actually do a serious examination of some very old pixel cremation pits. They may well find something serious. One way, or another on the subject, but they’re obviously not very interested in doing that and you’re obviously not interested either. I think Caroline Christian graves and use them as props for a television series, or show. But wouldn’t, you know, which he respected the wishes of the rabbis and they went and dug up any bishops, or anything about that was rather.

Instead I agree completely. I think really the people in there who are Jewish deli in America and their bosses are all topsy as far as I know they’re autopsied rather routinely when there’s any question as to the cause of death in the here in the United States. A lot of Jews in United States are secular. Right. Right. So what and rightly so, but yeah. Well being. So what means different to me, but I mean, it seems like that would answer things immediately if they would just dig up her blanket and see if there’s a whole bunch ashes, or not. Well it’s that’s already been proven that there are quote a whole bunch of ashes in the Polish investigations and the photographs of these mass graves with ashes and bone fragments and all the bell witness testimony. It’s there are those that just don’t want to accept the evidence and somehow we are seeing things we ask questions we think a little bit about the so-called. All evidence that we West. Maybe this is not right.

 

[160:03 mins] [2:40:03] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Maybe this is not the way it should have been done. I know that’s terrible. I know that’s evil for many people to even question these stories, but that’s what goes on with sane people when they hear these wild fantastic stories about mass murder and things like that they ask a few questions. That’s very painful and all cord for you. Eric and for people like, you know, it’s called questioning the holocaust not all mind at all. Oh my goodness. People are questioning the Holocaust. Oh well that’s already a sign of evil anti-Semitism. Ratcheting up answer it’s a question and a Holocaust as I’ve determined is realizing that these mass gassings a mass murders such as Bobby are did happen. I think your heart, you know, you haven’t come up with one and I’ll tell you these wild atrocity claims you have zero evidence of mass transit through these camps. Well I don’t care that doesn’t matter. That doesn’t matter you admit it and you don’t care. Yet this is the central issue of the whole cause controversy in twenty seventeen. It’s not an important controversy for me at all. It’s not an issue. I don’t care where these people went they were definitely not killed in these idiotic gas chambers that Jews have actually come cock that they were not killed in gas chambers with diesel exhaust, or gasoline engine exhaust.

That’s the important point. White White White why should I care where the survivors when they went all over the place they went to Brooklyn that Flushing New York Israel whatsoever went to Israel can you do you did you understand that a lot of Jews in Israel at the end of World War Two were from Europe. When how do. Do you suppose that happened.

That they were there reborn.

Where they were reborn somehow after being burned in the guest chair in the Kremlin Torreon pits where they resurrected.

Well Prince you say don’t know when you don’t care you don’t know when you don’t care, because you have no life, or the things I don’t care about the science is easier for you. It’s easier for you have got you. Yes you have you have no answers to this question and this is the one thing. Religion is, or is that they have you focus on what happened to those jewels. I don’t think that’s all that important at the end of not only at the end of the twentieth century there were well over eight million the Holocaust Jewish Holocaust survivors alive in the world according to Sergio Della pergola one million nine hundred three thousand Jewish Holocaust survivors alive in 2003. That’s not some Nazi revisionist talking. That’s a Israeli professional doggerel for you can read his entire reports by the law just using the link on my website just look up search year old. Della pergola it’s unusual name it’s one of the reasons why I meant. I remember it so well, but one million ninety three thousand. That means I think that there were several million Jewish Holocaust survivors from Europe a lot of in Europe and at the end of World War Two. I think that’s an entirely reasonable solution. I don’t know some of them may have may not have been in Eastern Europe, or in Russia. OK. Some of them were hanging out in France in Germany Poland just like a pox mind he had was a jewel. But he was raised by Polish family. In Poland as a child he went to some sort of Christian school and he pretended to be Christian. OK. Clearly he was not killed in a yes chamber.

So why, you know, that right that bothers you. A lot doesn’t it. That I actually have some strong sort. He is a survivor. It’s a proxy Holocaust survivor a lot of it’s not dealing with the specifics of those sent to Treblinka Belzec and so aboard those documented stand there are never seen again. So no one can say you don’t have any evidence you even your own evidence shows that some of these people were definitely seen again. Helen Schwartz was seen again. Pearl what sort of first time she was seen again. So when you say they were never seen again you’re wrong you’re just talking about I’m talking about those sent to the Russian He’s there talking about Helen Schwartz.

 

[165:00 mins] [2:45:00] NEEDS PROOFING

 

She was sent from Alice stock which is east of her blanket to west supposedly through her blanket to my Donek in one nine hundred forty three. You can fire at any one in nine hundred forty two center blank and sent to the Russian East these are seven hundred thirteen thousand will tell you don’t know what’s. How to hell. It’s what’s get to the east to begin with. Well that’s where she lived for it. Oh OK. Aren’t you. She was there so. So there were Jews in the Soviet East. OK. Were they all just lifelong residents of the East, or is it possible that some of them had been shipped to the east from Germany, or hall, or Europe. Many of them were I know that any body who knows anything about what was going on knows that was earlier and I don’t know that seems like they were just letting, you know, where they shipped from Sobibor and so. So I mean, for a little brings up. Fritz brings up Helen Schwartz and I want to, you know, Tell Fritz. Sorry if you were misled. I was one of the people who brought this Alan Schwarz testimony to the forefront and it’s one of the reasons I’m coming out and talking about this. I don’t like in this lead in I hope I’m not trying to mislead others so this brings up this one. Yeah. Prince brings up this woman who describes being sent from Alice Dr Gronow to her blanket from the east to the West and then being sent, because she and others were useful for forced labor in one nine hundred forty three as small amounts of transports were to my Donek. She does not contradict official story. This is documented and has been documented before I brought these out. Unfortunately Jewish Holocaust experts such as you Irad. Falsely claim absolute such as that everyone sent to these place were killed there are reports of those sent even in between the camps. To clean up, for example, as the camps shut down and small very small amounts of those obviously useful for forced labor being taken off of the trains not continuing on through that he too bad as they say in to the gas chambers where those they witness it witnessed were never seen again. So there are small amounts that did transit through, but they were able to work. So I’m sorry.

For it’s believes that Helen Schwartz.

Disapproves that the revisionists somehow prove the revisionist transit camp theory that all of these transit through Trip Link a Belzec in Sobibor worst actually sent to the Russian East when, in fact, two.

You’re missing everything else you’re mixing things up. I didn’t see anything about Helen Schwartz proves there was shipments of these I don’t know I don’t know if that’s what I’m mixing it with and now we know you don’t. Little facts straight about things I’ve said things that I haven’t said. I know you said you don’t know and you don’t care, because you have zero answers you can’t name one Jew transited through these camps to the Russian East and that’s why you don’t know. That’s why you don’t care, because you cannot answer that question at all for question for me. The important question is whether people were killed in gas chambers and I’ve answered that those who can answer the question all witnesses all the evidence points to that these people you can’t name. Existing anywhere else in the world were, in fact, gassed their cremated remains are photographed investigated by archaeologists in all available evidence points that the reason you can’t find them is, because they were killed at these sites. Well they might have been shot somewhere it’s not possible they might have died from typhus somewhere so those are alternative explanations and your insistence that you, because you see no evidence to think where she actually shipped that they were there for guests. That’s silly. That’s silly. That’s just plain stupid. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but you usually, because we. I know what people like me can’t account for the spurs these people to the east. Therefore they must be given. That’s who. There’s so many other things that can happen every day I might die tomorrow, you know, it doesn’t mean that I was guest I could have died from anything in a car accident that happens. I mean, frankly it has no logical, or rational wherever it was so large you are the one who is totally illogical with your insistence that the lack of evidence that people were transported to the east is true it’s not only that it’s not only us that’s what’s not only. Yet it will all be available. I will use all the I don’t know what you mean little evidence it’s the only available evidence is something you choose to ignore!

 

[170:11 mins] [2:50:11] NEEDS PROOFING

 

You try to go after the fact the staff changes simply were ridiculous state would not have worked. Well if they had two things here. It’s not knowing like the ones who are so going east may have just shot may have died of typos, or may have starved to death, or may have whatever. However, his argument rests, you know, just OK we don’t know where they went. Therefore they may have died. It’s, you know, that’s right, or were killed. And the reason he thinks there are gas chambers. As the method is because. Witnesses and forensic evidence like. Photographs of holes and things like that. Well it’s not only there. When Fritz one first started. Revisionism he. There very well was a great exaggerated false, you know, a lot of it by the Soviet so his claim regarding all of these things that happen. So when Fritz started there were no identified gas chambers at these sites however recently archaeologists and your blanket and so we were have on Earth the buildings that all witnesses have identified were the homicidal gas chambers there is no other explanation for what these buildings were absolutely match. Well for it’s can I continue to match up exact point you did. Well I think these two lines that you wanted welling out so despicable and so stupid I have to interrupt you. I mean, you claim just no evidence of this, or that you’re wrong you’re lying. You don’t look you haven’t done the most basic kind of critical thinking, but were the buildings.

Well if it was a transit camp there were buildings for giving people showers, for example, and there was a guess. I’m sure for a fumigating closing. You want to give people back clothing that had only fumigate it. That’s what you had I’m sure in trouble. Well taken. Sobibor that’s all you had you had real cancer risk for gaining clothing and giving them those clean clothes back to the Jews, or whoever so that they could survive. That’s what those camps were for and there were plenty of camps like that throughout the German occupied East to keep German soldiers alive to keep what Mary workers alive to keep people alive generally and to help fight the typhus epidemic which was the real and I mean, the real killer inside German occupied Eastern Europe. I mean, it’s still Eric’s insistence that all the evidence says something else just who just plain cuckoo. Don’t you have a belief in the forests even if you mean you found a building somewhere and you’re saying this supports yessing claim to go. Shame on you. OK you’re safe. I know there are.

So Eric why haven’t these buildings were not just ours and so forth they actually are gas chambers. Well I mean, yeah I’m trying to ignore the cuckoo clock right here over here but. So the evidence is for instance not for blank blank archaeology show they talked about the tiles from there to witness who described the tiles seventy years earlier. Describe the building as a gas chamber. That some evidence right there the physical tiles that prove an earlier witnesses claim that this building was a gas chamber there’s absolutely no evidence of France’s transit camp of pretties seven hundred fifty thousand yet just play like yeah the evidently supports the tree. It’s a kind of theory also with me on later a kid you go there and there’s something.

To build the remains are found in the ruins.

Like I said for blanket they wind up with the earlier I believe is Abraham Parakey who described the tiles of this room. That was used as a gas chamber for instance just repeating these false claims that I’m somehow lying, but as we show you can’t let, you know, what is definitely lying. Some of it when you see evidence says this, or that then you are simply lying. All right. Fritz I’ll give you another chance communing Well son of my friends I did this transit. Can you name one Jew transited through these trying to get it, but that’s not the only evidence and that’s not the only issue.

Hello church was obviously not killed there. The other another survivor sides I said to the east in nineteen. I don’t buy that. I’m not, you know, I don’t think you are you.z

 

[175:07 mins] [2:55:07] NEEDS PROOFING

 

You are, because the revisionist transit camp theory in accordance with the richard core claims. Oh not that I’m sorry and I continue to code word used for transit to the east was code for extermination be a poison. That’s your this is what that’s called Word. Where did you get that crazy idea that was some sort of a code word to Korea are sort of read in German. It’s very clear and logical and very specific it says nothing can be used to believe target, or some kind of code word Germans do it themselves Germans themselves testified that this is the code where, you know, the nation and the fact that we cannot find any of these chariots and east transit camp there is proof this small amount like I said. Did for fourth place bring nine hundred forty three as the Germans needed this forced labor does not prove that these mass transit to the Russian East. There’s no evidence of these mass care camps in the Russian He’s for those transmitted through these transit camps for it’s cannot name one transit east through these quote transit camps they were not transit camps there were extermination camps as all the evidence points to be OK and I was, because I felt like they didn’t go to the they got shot. Whatever you just say they were in their gas chambers and you’re saying well they were shipped East. They obviously weren’t, because there’s like records, or evidence are shipped East they must therefore they were gassed. But that really just proves they were killed. Is there other forensic evidence besides the man who said the the there is there any physical evidence not witness evidence of the gas chambers.

Well the cremation pits the mass cremation pits photographed and investigated by the Polish investigative commission as well as other archaeological investigations throughout the years including at the Belzec extermination camps core samples taken that show there are massive mass graves at these sites which could hold hundreds of thousands of bodies. He’s.

Who were not cremated which were not criminals right, or they were cremated. Well some of them were I’m sure there must have been plenty of dop bodies there that were not crewmate it. I don’t know if one of those bodies actually takes the trouble to do a serious forensic examination of the site then one might find lots of bodies of people who were still wearing their ordinary clothes time they were tossed into the ground if that’s at all the case. OK When you find bodies. People still wearing their clothes you often find little photographs, or letters that they were old news. Ferber clippings all kinds of important evidence to show when and when they were tossed into the grave. That’s what was done at the massacre site which is a model for a good forensic examination of any mass murder site then when the Germans investigated the cathing site. They invited. Medical personnel from. The whole world practically to come to cutting to see what was there and to allow professional forensic pathologist pathologists of every sort to look at the bodies and to see when these people were killed. How they might have been murdered by the Soviets as it turned out and have an open investigation. Nothing like that has really been done for this huge huge burrow site at all. OK there was some fencing around by the Poles after the war and that’s it. But a serious medical examination. Is nothing nothing of the sort has occurred OK they might have found something else. I remember seeing some photos Mulan camp showed. Well you see little bone fragments mixed in with ordinary soil. Well that’s not terribly convincing one way, or another, but the fact is people are brainwashed very easily when they see a pile of dead bodies and all this shocked, or horrified the strongest evidence for the Holocaust hoax is nothing from Auschwitz. It’s the pits at Bergen Belsen those pits are filled literally with naked bodies of people who are. It may see aged before they were thrown in those pits and people look at those pictures and they say oh it’s well obvious they must have been guessing people to death.

 

[180:01 mins] [3:00:01] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Well the fact is no one was gassed to death at Bergen Belsen and everybody who seriously looks at the subject recognizes that, but the pictures of Bergen Belsen which are far more horrible than those pictures that Eric showed from I was sure it’s crap of five areas separate those pictures one could also are psychologically very powerful evidence for mask reality they are false evidence people are easily brainwashed at the sight of a dead body that’s that’s a horrible carry ality. And that’s the basis essential of what Eric is talking also he tries to the see a little bit, but he has no pictures of people killed in gas chambers at all anywhere. Those pictures of dead bodies at a crime of five when they were criminal. So maybe perfectly genuine. But there’s nothing in the picture says what the claim that these people had died in the gas chamber. All he has is the usual B.S. Bullshit generated by the Jewish holocaust industry to support these idiotic and vile racist claims against Germany and against the S.S. And against perfectly decent people who were the ones running our shoe it’s whether it’s gross. Joseph Mangal, or any number of the Germans who were there. Those were innocent. These people and I’ve discussed that I’m even wasting time here talking to someone like Eric they go yellow Rudolph cautioned me about a debate with Eric. And I’m sorry to say it, but I think you’re always right. Just, because no idea what he’s talking about he’s blah blah. Usual holocaust propaganda of Jewish contacts wherever they may be and that’s it. He. I guess I’m selfish. It’s your work. It was more we talk about it. So yeah let’s go get back to what this is essential. You have no evidence, or even no good evidence that even one person was ever killed in a gas chamber by the Nazis you don’t even have this theory as to how they guess chambers would have worked. You should be ashamed of yourself. I shall have to waste time talking to you, because you’re blind to not only chimes. To have a debate. This is what you both agreed. But the core of the debate that was agreed upon the specifics of what happened to people unable to work. Where they transited to the east, or where they shot, or where they get whatever that was the question. Which I feel I think, you know, we have. And you believe either they went somewhere, or they got killed, but they weren’t gassed and they are going in some of dire typhus some of them starved and some of more gas to and he’s based on these witnesses they claim that there were gas lines and I was getting into whether there is some some physical evidence of the chambers not, because cremating bodies you can cremate type his victims to if you don’t want life it’s right you want to burn the body obviously so, or is there evidence. But the killing themselves is what I’m saying. Yes there is so cool. All the evidence, but when one looks at the evidence one sees that those so-called gas chambers are laughable. They make no sense. Why would one want to even put a guest chamber underground. We’re going cool in order to generate this scion I guess and drive it out of Cyclops be granules you need something more man. I mean, if you are talking. It may not have started out as a gas chamber and but any Well, you know, that’s sort of the state had that story and it’s evolved obviously, but these so-called gas chambers were completed in early nineteen forty three and used shortly after the crime it’s come as two three four five were finished for it supposedly guessing people to death. It’s ridiculous, because there. There is all the evidence of how big a real get this and they were based on something like the guest chamber the real guessing was there used to fumigate clothing and those things were there there in the Auschwitz even to this very day, you know, the Germans knew how to make excellent guesstimates that could be used to fumigate clothing, or kill people. If you had taken any of the standard fuel efficient chambers lousing chambers one could also call them that were used to cure McKay closely you can stuff people in there, but that is not what’s alleged at all.

 

[185:04 mins] [3:05:04] NEEDS PROOFING

 

It’s just nuts. It’s just crazy that the lousing chambers. If you could use a large railroad thought was in chambers as well. Are not implicated in the stories instead we get these little cuckoo claims that the war exist at the Kremas were used as guests Shamus it doesn’t make much sense that makes no sense at all really, because you would have had serious problems in generating the old distribution of cyanide gas throughout the gas chamber. They said the claim is that holes were it existing in the roofs of these chambers and the cycle of B. Was dropped down either directly on the prisoners, or into so-called cycle on introduction columns makes no sense you would have needed a fan to distribute the Scion I guess. Throughout the gas chamber that makes sense only Anybody who see any kind of an engineer would understand that instantly you have to disperse the cyanide throughout the chamber otherwise you would only kill off the few people who might be right next to the cycle I’d be granules it’s a very different ballgame psychologic the release of cyanide slowly. It’s that’s the way it was made. Less And this is what you see real glass chambers unless you force some kind of a blower, or fan. That was easy enough to understand anybody would half a brain trying to design a gas chamber would have understood that the Germans didn’t understand that perfectly well, you know, that from their literature which was even in English published by the American cinema company look at road discussion forum and you can read the actual literature and you can literally read the minds of the gas chamber of the scientists that one would have been so those a legit guest chamber really just crap as to what three zero four zero five disaster. Everything every time they would have tried to they would have had an ugly disaster. Lots of the frustration in broccoli.

A life. When as soon as the gas chamber to all was open.

OK I thank you for sharing your two cents on that, but again. I just ask the refrain from these kind of tactics series like anyone who isn’t an idiot is going to agree with on about the say is loading a question. Well, of course, it’s a loaded question. But that’s what are expanding along here. Well now I’m just as a moderator I think we’re trying to have an honest discussion, because Eric for about ten years was on the other side of the so you can’t use them is somebody who’s listening to you and whatever like that, but I, you know. She was sick of being a lazy and dishonest. All right let me talk. Well it would work whatever.

Interrupt for a while, because he was patient, you know, Yeah I mean, I was patiently sitting here. He was throwing ad hominem attack one after the other. I’ve been dealing with the evidence in the logic so for it’s talked about this is a sort of a propaganda cute coup for the Germans they found this massacre site of the Soviets of Polish Polish intellectual class I believe very officers.

So. Part of the reason all these part of the reason of their actions at these camps including Auschwitz Treblinka Belzec Sobibor, or end Babi Yar destroying evidence covering up evidence destroying evidence such as the crematories at Auschwitz. Covering up the evidence after their cremations has followed after their cremations and is trying to hide very, very situation for it’s talked about about catching the Germans went through very large lengths to cover up the evidence to create the situation we see today were those who deny that these mass killings ever happened. So well that your two areas just like killing the so-called gas chambers are still there. I cry about true, for example, I did I was rich money.

Yes and you deny that. They were used as gas chambers even though the Germans. Well they did I think I’ll be right but. Really slick what you’re talking about those things were not destroyed.

 

[190:04 mins] [3:10:04] NEEDS PROOFING

 

They forced broke I don’t mind it if they don’t you might as well, because it’s the gas chambers so posable a well disposed get the still there. It’s still there. Our roof is parole an unusable. But still they are if the Germans aren’t strongly the evidence as you allege. They would have done a much better job would have could have should have they dynamited these buildings. If for leaving the camp. To cover up the evidence after removing knowledge there are no in your mind reading again doing a very badly. Pull I mean, because you don’t want the enemy to really able to use the building for something that fire is purpose for helping the Soviet war effort giving shelter, or refuge to Soviet forces.

That’s what happens. What time does have something going at their best. That’s not the only evidence that was destroyed, or covered up as a one on intra blanket balance I told you happened it’s all the evidence was the German No no I don’t know yet. Well yeah if I said all that’s an absolute There’s a lot of evidence that survives the proves that these mass killings happened for instance that Babi Yar. The Germans were they actually left records in Berlin captured by the Soviets of the exact amount sent to Babi Yar thirty three thousand seven hundred seventy one murdered a bad P.R. On the days of the largest mass killing at Babi Yar these were civilian women children then sent to the river of being Babi Yar outside of key.

Photographs all the eyewitnesses. Documents themselves lists the amount. Killed at these places. Now Fritz what happened at Babi Yar if you don’t want to believe the German arguments. I there was an uprising at Bobby at Key have as many of the partisans I’m sure were shot and tossed into the mass graves there are such as it is, but there are there is one. Einsatzgruppen report which disagrees completely with the story that you have just spouted so when you say evidence all the evidence says this, or that you’re wrong all the evidence does not say this and the next I said reports you had your chance the I’d say, you know, it’s there was some of the easiest links and actionable to forage and falsify by the Russians which was pretty routine on the part of the Russians. Now there was no serious examination. You’re talking forensic examination. There was no serious forensic examination ever at Babi Yar after the war by anything like neutral observers, or international observers. Surely that would have been the perfect place to have eight you which international investigation of this mass murder site and that would help exonerate the Soviets, but that was nothing like that all we get is the same kind of nonsense. That Eric’s been spouting here since the beginning. Are you not talk about the evidence OK. Yeah thanks for it says. Talks about why did it was an investigation and I’m talking about the Nazis covering up evidence. First of all he claims only partisans justifiably shot at Babi Yar. This isn’t true at all. Always miss isn’t family members and photographs are very again you’re saying you have all this if you don’t know the whole witness. Absolutely. And all you need to store it all witnesses. There’s no witnesses that say Babi Yar was a transit camp there’s photographs of women and children at this place being under arrest. There’s massive piles of clothing at this camp. Now we’re talking about covering up evidence the cremation. It’s cremation. The cremation that occurred at the site of these victims. These women and children not male partisans those who well it might when someone points it still can you get that tree ahead. Can you imagine thirty three thousand and seven artisans.

So government wants to I mean, for it’s image sent. Fritz wants to sort of justify, or minimize and deny all the evidence of who went there. No there were people there that were not partisans there were innocent civilians women children not engaging in partisan activity there is a German That’s right. Some more you would probably probably a handful.

 

[195:01 mins] [3:15:01] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Oh, probably a handful come on, you know, you’re a child. You’re a higher interest illegal child. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but you deserve it. I’m not going to name call like you do. There are some names I can call you. I’ll be I’ll go. Well I don’t I don’t know that’s not really debate for it’s I’ll be more mature than you. OK yes you’re so sure old why I was so nervous and there is a German order for quote all kikes of the city of Kiev to appear at a certain location they were shown March.

Good recent sure.

OK So he was very, very Soviet partisan. Can you can you when you register said even register would you. Jules in Russia were very active with this show via partisan force is.

Well I’m saying no it was like, you know, if they can’t get an old Jewish one, or the push a baby carriage with a bomb in it into a group of German soldiers all the better. That was perfect. You think they didn’t use women. For partisan warfare. Oh my you’re a child if you think that Fritz we’re talking about thirty three thousand seven hundred seventy one people who aren’t a larger Germans themselves in their own hands not group in report. So you don’t know that at all these I’m such great reports. Were not even given a security classification above the most minimal security classification they were the easy things to get and falsify and that’s what the Soviets did. And these so. These reports were used by a very strange little Jewish judge after a war to prosecute and hang a German I had such group and officers and based on. These so-called Einsatzgruppen reports. It’s likely they engaged. No serious forensic examination of the Babi Yar So cite. Well you have all I said we have been covered up. We have photographs of war not taken observers, or photographers and all. Yes they were taken by Germans. So one of the photographs taken by Kerman don’t show anything like a mass execution at all the one you showed, for example, some very ordinary scene. There’s no mass murder at all. Of there at all. That’s one of the pictures you actually clued it in your lengthy boring treaties which with Jews starting your debate proposal here that shows no extermination of mass killing in all just look at it. First of all there are multiple photo. Graphs. You know, you know, graphs. Now you are talking about some other photos other than the one you actually showed stick to the one you showed for a lot about all of them. I’ll talk about all of them one of them is a group of children and young women.

Rounded up in under-estimate German guards are there with soldiers armed German soldiers are there with weapons they’re being directed to the execution side as all witnesses clown. Yeah yeah they’re, you know, as the I would this is clean. But tell us about the reason for people to strip. That’s one of the things you do in a security check if you have some good reason to believe some people are carry weapons you search them is that amazing. It goes on all over the world especially in those places where America is defending democracy when you have a suspect who was suspected of being a terrorist you strip them search for weapons, or one sort, or another maze amazing that actually happens. There are no witnesses you describe being sent to Bobbie are being submitted to a security check and go on further on. I think the masses of clothes walked over by Germans. At the bottom of the ravine show that they were not giving new clothes and sent on to somebody else, you know, can you show that little. Kid was I if I accept the official story.

You know you look I’m not looking at all the evidence all the all you have to look at you’re making up alternate conspiracy theory. Have you as I have why would they leave I have clothes. I have possibly take I have weapons in their little guys bombs guns pistols all kinds of stuff they’re trying to check out these people for they ‘re possible involvement in partisan warfare. Superficially logical thing to do. They think for all that a piece of paper trying them to some. Partisan organization that’s very important!

 

[200:04 mins] [3:20:04] NEEDS PROOFING

 

And the reason to strip somebody for security. After doing so and not finite for finding, or whatever. After getting rid of any weapons and that’s why I leave all the clothes piled up just well in the bottom saying I don’t know they might have wanted to clean those clothes, or give them some other clothes, or keep them they could, because it would be easier to keep them on the control I don’t know, but the idea that there was a systematic extermination program in Babi Yar, or anywhere else is just not supported certainly if the Germans had people that they suspected of being involved reporters and like to release. They may very well have shot them that happened. No doubt about it. I can’t blame them, but it’s it’s one of those things that happens in modern warfare. Especially when the group of people like the Jew lose has been a rouse to hate every German on the planet and make atrocity claims of one sort, or another, or engage in terrorism of one sort, or another. What do you expect that Germans to do. So when Fritz is confronted with something and this proves his theory pretty easy actually. But there is a he said he says we have Bobby, or no one was killed in gas chambers Do you concede that at least there the reports are about shooting not guaranteed to be OK I’m about guessing that also nobody was guessed at Babi Yar But, you know, you’re making a bizarre straw man and not a serious historian believes they are talking mass shootings. So we don’t know it all that a serious historian either fact you’re a joke. So we don’t pretend it’s just, or say that that’s an expression right out of Mark Webber and it’s serious a story a whole. My God we don’t want to deal with certain historians that are not serious. If you’re a serious historian not. So, you know, you’re inventing a straw man for no reason it’s sort of, you know, I think that if you leave Lynch and he insists back into a corner you want to go into your safe comfort zone just talked about I said I first of all I don’t even accept that diesel engines were used. I agree with the closest eyewitnesses that claim petrol engines were used. But like I said we’re sticking to Babi Yar now when confronted with evidence that totally contradicts your alternate conspiracy theory. I want to talk with your cult for it’s own to expand into a Babi Yar OK you’ve switched on talk about many things I talk about in my article which is what you do. Agreed to debate. So any time backed into a corner for it’s usually says I don’t know, because he has no I don’t think there is a time not that into a quarter of our shame on you yet you said you guys are you say I often think what basically we’re talking about in the article and you’re saying both of you agree they weren’t there. That’s not the contention here this is just shooting terminating people that’s all, or to show it’s efforts and if we’re to seriously proposing gassing and probably our choice is not research whatsoever and is just as I said, in the intro just calling B.S. On things he doesn’t know about so to claim that, you know, there are Jewish families who still visit the site Babi Yar today their family members were not parties and some of them were little girls some of them are women there it’s not justified to kill these under accepted rules of warfare and well you don’t know these, or you don’t know that I sure want to just like I don’t you just say it for it. So if you want to justify killing women and children just say it, but to deny that these things happened when all the evidence points to it you’re lying.

You’re lying again you don’t know all the evidence you think, you know, there was never any serious forensic examination of Bobby our site. That’s that’s would be the kind of evidence that would mean something. But you have our John. Neither of us anyone else. So when you say all the evidence. You’ll are lying. Certainly on the children unique first of all it’s only a lawyer. Yeah well you certainly are not personally is she is lying when she is when he says all the evidence, you know, snow all the evidence and all the most serious kind of audience just the evidence for us. He’s just going to be are never occurred. First of all the Germans covered up. Bobby are the photograph of an earlier version of an earlier cover up nine hundred forty one of masses of Soviet prisoners of war with shovels trying to cover up the evidence to create the condition we see today of people denying these murders their Jewish families who as I said, I was I’m trying to say please don’t interrupt me for at least two minutes.

 

[205:06 mins] [3:25:06] NEEDS PROOFING

 

There are Jewish families who lost their loved ones that were not involved a partisan activities little girls and women taken from them ripped from them never seen again. They were murdered at this site it was not a transit camp where they were given new clothing and sent anywhere else. Part of the reason there was no first of all there has been investigations about your second of all.

The German cover up has as skewed a lot of the evidence.

In about the nine hundred sixty S. At Babi Yar there was a chemical spill. That flooded the ravine. There will never be total examination of the evidence, because the entire site has been contaminated at this point. But all the existing evidence points to mass shooting and cremation at Babi Yar in. German cover up involving silly prisoners of war. Literally with shovels covering up the evidence to try to hide these crimes to create the condition we see today of those who deny it. I’m not lying at all that all the existing evidence points to this happening. Oh yes you are however I’ll keep reminding of you that reminding you that you are lying about all the evidence you don’t know what all you have done says even existing holders of dirt and shovels by Russian prisoners. You can still own to get open it up and do a serious fest occasion afterward Katina was also covered up by K.G.B. Agents and soldiers, but the Germans dug up the ground and exposed the bodies and what remained and then you had a serious investigation the fact that so many cultures sing something over the shovel doesn’t make any later investigation impossible at all. So all the evidence you’re lying when you say that. Shame on you. Difference being all it’s all. I didn’t start this, you know, that’s a big yes it’s like really. He said that’s what he said he said all the evidence not all the potential evidence. The only evidence is something I said all the existing evidence says Ryan said Possibly I started there the possibility that thing and you correct, but I haven’t. Well the I just know it’s also very stupid to say the least. So all the existing evidence so, you know, there is your way. Why don’t we wait for you and it’s a minor detail. You said you haven’t. I’m not a denying that these people were murdered there. They never existed. They never came back to exist and came back to their families. I don’t think you don’t know just like you. Yes I do I’m aware of no. Oh yeah yeah. Yeah I don’t know anything of the sort you talk oh yeah. Three hundred. People know it’s hard thirty thirty thousand thirty three thousand seven hundred what I was going to get you still that’s a lot of people and they’re wealthy, but it’s OK let’s not go there is a school report which gives a much smaller number and more, in fact, Mark were found this years ago and you can, or that your brain is the bigger number. Yes Kim why.

OK. Anyway that’s not the number just you just going round in circles I have to agree with Mark there are more rewards me about trying to have a debate with Eric and I actually criticized Jamar for his not agreeing to the Bay I wrote I’m kind of a flowery essay about the importance of debate which I think is enormously important, but with dealing here with a person who really doesn’t know what he’s talking, but I hate to be so like you if you are capable debate with anybody who disagrees, you know, it’s hard to believe that just aren’t being is, you know, you said before that if a started it was going to be hard for you to be civil and everything, because this is such an emotional topic which is fine. It should be especially if you’re if you’re German yourself and, you know, there’s so much, you know, place in the German people and we all know about the holocaust industry and exploited in all the terrible things that come from it. It wouldn’t be possible to be anybody on this topic. Who didn’t agree with you. Well maybe it’s hard to I’m sure. I’m sure, because I, you know, the emotional strings that are pulling people and gear and Eric is very much. The price that you had Hamann in a terrible time of the tax some times are very appropriate. Thanks to you John. It’s what you heard sometimes if you want to talk to the arms and I’m today evidence we went in circles if you times I might have to to close this debate, because of the time sink, but we can pick it up later. If you want to.

 

[210:08 mins] [3:30:08] NEEDS PROOFING

 

But, you know, I understand. Because I do this too. I will destroy someone’s argument and then call me a bitch. Afterward just as extra, but there wasn’t just like a point to be made and sometimes to be a little back and forth and then this topic is so big that it would jump to another area another quite a let’s talk and frankly let’s talk about diesel Let’s talk about this and, you know, this may be my fault too. But this is hard hard to moderate also but, you know, the main questions in the article what we’re trying to address and so it’s kind of splitting hairs like where they shot, or were they. Yesterday. He’s like we all agree a lot of people died and were killed. We’re just talking maybe Fritz can get maybe Fritz can give his clothing is closing statement closing argument I can give mine and you can have yours. So you are sure it will that be OK Just if you want to argue for me in the mornings just saying. I gotta go there right. It’s closing statement first and hopefully will have enough time for me to make a closing state why afterwards. Both make you think. OK Eric would you like to go. Yeah I want to be on Earth uninterrupted it’s in four, or five minutes. I just want to get into some of the things he says and repeat what I said in the morning I might enter direction, because I believe I succeeded in what I said in my introduction I do in this debate. So let’s talk about Gary more Rudolph here more Rudolph desperately try to have friends avoid this debate. Supposedly because. I was going to act in a way we’ve seen for it’s act in this debate constant ad hominem attacks names legal you can count to over one hundred of these insults Francis thrown around. Despite me sticking to the evidence and the logic, but also garam are desperately garam are up committee for open debate on the Holocaust desperately wanted for it’s to avoid this debate, because I’ve shown through the evidence and logic including in my article that these conspiracy theory that for blanket Belzec Sobibor and including now Babi Yar apparently as well as it’s in some circumstances of those unable to work where transit camps are completely unfounded for it’s cannot name these people transited not even one transit through troubling to Belzec and Sobibor to the Russian East. He cannot name one person sent sent to Babi Yar that was supposedly given new clothing and sent on elsewhere. All the existing evidence documents photographs eyewitness testimony archaeological investigations physical evidence and more demonstrates the mass gassings and shooting of Jews at the sites we focused on today. There is zero eyewitnesses who worked at the extermination camps in question who deny these mass gassings that had personal close access to what happened there is zero eyewitnesses who claim thousands of Jews were not mass murdered by bullets at Babi Yar.

There is zero eyewitnesses claim to Blanka Belzec and still the border secure and the Russian East in accordance with the revisionist, or denier transit camp theory. There are only those who weren’t there calling as Fritz says bullshit on one aspect after the other. I said this introduction and he actually did this in an interview twice.

And he’s very predictable or produced are, you know. France is also participating in what amounts to a thought experiment how it should have been done, or could have been done, or how to have built a more efficient gas exchange.

Many revisionists are entirely biased for itself as spoken of the anti German bias and treatment his family has received in America especially during and after World War Two. I sympathize and I also want to do everything I can. It’s defuses anti German bias and overblown guilt complex attached to people. Nothing to do with S.S. Mass murders. Unfortunately do it to his German heritage and experience a bit anti German bias. Mr Byrd is too biased to look at the evidence impartially and be a fair level headed arbiter of the facts. There are several major revisionists of German heritage including grammar Rudolph were entirely biased in unable to accept the reality of what happened. Another major revisionist in close collaborative gammer Rudolph. German descent. FRIEDRICH Toben deniers a plane hit the Pentagon on September eleventh.

 

[215:06 mins] [3:35:06] NEEDS PROOFING

 

I’ve repeatedly shown the man photographs of the debris on the lawn of the Pentagon with clear lettering it belongs to the same plane which hit the building there even DNA tests of the corpses of every victim on the flight. Except for a baby. But for some all the evidence in the world is not enough. Everyone is lying their evidence is fake forgeries cetera et cetera. There is a peculiar wish to deny all available evidence for entirely Baseless conspiracy theory it is obvious to me now that if there were a massive gas chamber hoax. The revisionists with these and other totally illogical beliefs would not be the ones to expose it. When confronted with the evidence revisionists often instead do not answer the claims, or the evidence presented that is vert attention to an area. They are more familiar with, or feel is a better point they can argue such as A D. Good diesel gassing straw man. All known evidence. Eyewitnesses documents photographs an archaeological investigations prove the S.S. Murder Jews be amassed gassings in mass shootings principal called the S.S. Heroes. He called on the show.

A picnic and a gay old time. These places were not a gale time shoot was not a gay old time. It was a place to mass murder suffering and death. I highly doubt those who had their family members ripped from them at Auschwitz Treblinka Belzec Sobibor and Babi Yar.

Would agree with Fritz Berg’s that search and that these were heroes to be clear. There are have been very exaggerated eyewitness testimonies inflated Soviet death tolls and others. Some of these exaggerations are perfectly understandable if you realize the enormity of these mass murders which did happen through the show just it’s just witnessed. When asked the central questions for it’s response. I don’t know. If you would throw a totally Baseless conspiracy theory about.

Suits, or blanket on claiming it was a transit camp he said I don’t know don’t care. Multiple times for it said he is quote not an expert when confronted with the logic of conducting autopsies on the remains of cremated own fragments and ashes. For it’s claim that he watches TV shows such as yes saw in crime investigation.

Frankly this is all that the argument of him and those like him.

Pass through.

Friends of television programs and others who want to claim that. These mass murderers would have could have should have done something I’m our mission where. What is required of me I can’t point out. Herders don’t do them always do logic most logical efficient methods of mass murder. What’s this I just what happens through. I don’t know what’s described is happening which we don’t.

Anyone yet make up more efficient ways to get people, but all the existing evidence points to what happened and the fact that these quote revisionists are, you know, I just can’t name one person. Oh transit through these fermentation sites and for blowing stuff. Well to consult reports obvious hours per. What they claim is a Baseless conspiracy theory. For it’s also said that for it’s also came up with the illogical claim that Elie Weisel was totally worthless to be useful, or slaver yet claim that those selected instead would gated as on able to be used for forced labor such as toddlers an elderly were used for forced labor not gas. I prove my point today in just thanks for coming on. I don’t really appreciate all the insults, but I understand he has no evidence to justify his point. So. I’m sorry he.

Story he couldn’t, you know, be more mature about it I guess I thank Fritz for appearing to debate. My website is questioning the Holocaust dot com. I just real quickly I want to just say, you know, unfortunately. I found myself in between two fanatical groups those powerful blind believers who in media journalism and academia sweep under the rug some of these vERY REAL of errors in the Holocaust related falshood and outright inventions such as Weisel and I resist by and those like Fritz who deny access massacres as a whole and it gassing these in the mass shooting such that probably are gray hair in these black and White side as. Determine the truth. Lars

 

[220:02 mins] [3:40:02] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Right thanks Rob. I don’t think the rich really get your thing. I mean, you know, let me see if I can. Oh I got to have a heart. Well, there’s so much to say. And it’s hard to know where to begin. But one of the things. Eric has claimed again and again and again it is all the evidence says this, or that. Well that’s just wrong all the evidence is not what Eric is focused on he’s focused on a very small amount of evidence the evidence which goes against what he’s claiming. Is fairly simple autopsies. OK where are the autopsies to show that any body found here, or there in Auschwitz, or anywhere was killed in a gas chamber says none of that Dr Charles People are saying Dr Hirmand Volcker were doctors assigned by the United States war crimes branch doc how to do autopsies on people that. The Army thought. Would more than likely have been guessed at Don how and other camps nearby a thousand, or top series were performed by Dr Charles P. Larson DR HIRMAND Bulker actually went to Harvard more where people were birdied who were supposedly killed in gas chambers also and he found both of these doctors found nothing. They found no evidence that even one person was killed with poison gas of any sort. Dr Charles Larson believed nonetheless that there were. Were guessings at the house, but he at least had the decency to admit that he could never find any evidence of it now. Other autopsies were performed. I’m sure very early on by the British when they got to Bergen Belsen They realized very quickly that nobody had been gassed. There were not so nice to have evidence of that, but they just couldn’t make it up. They couldn’t get some Dr Tiller actually lawyer for them on their oath and say oh yeah I found this body here, or there of a person who showed a high C O concentration a liver, or whatever he couldn’t get that. So when Eric talks about all the evidence all the evidence that’s just not true. I will call him a liar at this point, but it’s just plain wrong all the evidence does not show what Eric is claiming at all. And that’s so essential. Now when else can I say. So other evidence. Such as the kind of thought experiment that I’m supposedly engaged in when I speculate about how the gas chambers might have worked, or not have worked well thought experiments are perfectly reasonable things to engage in this kind of a an issue. Eric doesn’t like that, because it’s a real thought experiment I think I’ve done that with my work on diesel gas chamber claims and carbon dioxide. If you do real thought experiment experiments you come up with conclusions that show that these guessing claims are absolutely ridiculous. There is no serious evidence that even one person whether that ever gets to death anywhere, in fact, you don’t even have a theory as to how these guesstimates would have worked just these vague vague claims about a diesel engine running for half an hour, or something like that doesn’t have any real credibility. How did you get to yes Lynch and to produce carbon monoxide. It does bother explaining that he knows perfectly well that on that sort of a subject which is in my comfort area. He loses and all of these guys lose when they are forced for one reason, or another to actually look at the serious issues about illegitimate illegitimate ask guessings. My contention has always been Nazi past guessing has never happened. And I’m still alive. God hasn’t struck we did yet. OK now what is Holocaust problem get it. This is racist filth. That’s all it is it is racist filth just like the Jews have been passing around about everybody. If you want to see what mass murder is really all about go to the Old Testament. If you are any kind of a religious Christian, or whatever read the Old Testament read about the mass extermination of Jericho, for example, where the Hebrews killed not only all the citizens of Jericho. But the cats and dogs and animals every living thing which breathes!

 

[225:11 mins] [3:45:11] NEEDS PROOFING

 

With the kind of racist hatred that the Jews were overwhelmed by and which drove them showed itself already long before the war. I have a booklet here somewhere. Written by Johannes Steele that. Scott Smith just found and gave me I don’t know where it is right now, but it shows the most vile kinds of hate and atrocity propaganda and I had said well this is the stock in trade of the Jewish Zionist establishment going back long before World War Two and it’s filth just like it was at that time and that’s what every contest been spouting here. This is racist filth against the German people against the S S against the Nazis ago. It’s perfectly decent wonderful people like Dr Joseph Mengele he was as fine a doctor as anyone could ever hope to have in anywhere. He was a decent man who actually came down with typhus and self while he was at Auschwitz and yet. He survived and help people wherever he could. I’m sure to stay alive. That’s what it was all about that was nobody died in gas chambers the Germans used a real guess Shamus to keep people alive and used advanced technology that they had actually developed before World War Two and none of that advanced technology is indicated anywhere in the so called Zion cycle and be a guest chambers at Auschwitz. Anyway I think I’ve said about enough here. But I’ll say one thing on behalf of Galileo they did not desperately want me to not debate. Jerram award me about trying to have a debate with Eric and I’m sorry to say that his warning was entirely appropriate, but they did try to stop me from the debate and the people that kowtow did not try to stop the debate either they didn’t lend themselves to making it any easier, but Eric’s contention that they desperately wanted to stop me from the bait is just not true. Anyway. I hope we can have some more debates in the future, but at this point it’s clear that. Eric just doesn’t know what he’s talking about he hasn’t really grown up. I have no doubt that his reasons for having this discussion has everything to do with some sort of mental breakdown I’m not a psychiatrist, but that is what’s going on here. Maybe Eric is trying to get himself a job with the I it’s you are aware that other great backslider Mark Webber has apparently gained game some. Maybe he could give Eric a job. I don’t know I don’t care. They’re both despicable creatures.

The the pamphlet that I just got from Scott Smith today is typical of the right this is the Tri-City probably get the Jews were cranking out before the war even started this one and that was actually from nineteen forty three. It’ll be posted eventually on the road discussion forum for everyone to look at it in it’s, you know, all of it’s filth. It’s a titled Nazi atrocities the punishment by Joe how to steal it. It’s by Joe a while and it has lots of nice pictures which people like Eric will love are sure the chicks getting murdered at little cheeky in places like that. Well, the war was a terrible terrible war. The real mass murders where the Jews themselves they were pushing for the kind of bombing that America engaged in Germany and on the territory of.

German occupied Europe. They’re the ones who should be ashamed of themselves. I’m afraid we may actually lose our argument in general we may not succeed in waking up the world as to what really happened in the war, but we may have a disaster far bigger than World War Two any day now. I hope that doesn’t happen, but if we think critically about these horrible horrible atrocity. Fabrications. We might come to our senses and avoid a bigger disaster. Anyway I’m thankful Eric agreed to debate me and I thank you Ryan Dawson for doing a very heroic job and I think your advice is just very well, you know. But I let all the blacks and I had Eric on the power.

 

[230:03 mins] [3:50:03] NEEDS PROOFING

 

Asked. I have them on now. I had David Cole on the past. Adam on rain change his mind, you know, I’m all for free speech and I try to keep it calm and cool if I can and I know these topics are so charge and ought to be talking about war and death and prejudice and always are smarter. We have mass murder. You can say the same thing that the other side of the world to what was happening in Asia so, I really think you guys are coming on and will try to I prefer to have a civil. I don’t mind if you add how many in this scenario it’s whatever, but people will be able to pick the meat out of these arguments and we can have debates in the future. I’m tired I’m kind of at this and throw it up on the web and I will say this if you links and again there’s

Nazi gassings dot com and questioning the holocaust come, or are you going to sites and I think we need more dialogue and debate on this. He says he does it gets this is what’s necessary to move forward on this these kind of questions have to be addressed if there was a transit camp where did they go was evidence for. If there were gas scenes where is the physical evidence for that so I hope to fish. These out in the future and I appreciate your time and impatience in doing these kind of things for both of you.

 

 

 

[231:27 mins] [3:51:27]

 

END

 

============================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post:   (not yet available)

 

 

Version History

Version 10: Jul 26, 2020  —  Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Total complete = 90 mins.

 

Version 9: Jul 26, 2017  —  Updated Transcript Progress Chart. Color coded IN PROGRESS and NEEDS PROOFING text.

Total complete = 90 mins.

 

 

 

Version 8: Mar 8, 2017  —  Added 3 images.

Proofed 10 minutes (80:00 to 90:00).

Total complete = 90 mins.

 

 

Version 7: Mar 7, 2017  —  Added 1 image.

Proofed 10 minutes (70:00 to 80:00).

Total complete = 80 mins.

 

 

Version 6: Mar 6, 2017  — Added link to the audio files (split into 4) at Archive.org. Added 1 image.

Proofed 10 minutes (60:00 to 70:00).

Total complete = 70 mins.

 

 

Version 5: Mar 2, 2017  — Proofed 10 minutes (50:00 to 60:00). Added 3 images.

Total complete = 60 mins.

 

Version 4: Mar 1, 2017  — Proofed 5 minutes (40:00 to 45:00). Added 6 images.

Proofed another 5 minutes (45:00 to 50:00).

Total complete = 50 mins.

 

Version 3: Feb 28, 2017  — Proofed 10 minutes (30:00 to 40:00). Added 1 image. Total complete = 40 mins.

 

Version 2: Feb 27, 2017  — 10 minutes (10:00 to 20:00) of transcript proofed by Hieldner.

Proofed another 10 minutes (o0:00 to 10:00).

Proofed 10 minutes (20:00 to 30:00). Added 8 images. Total complete = 30 mins.

 

Version 1: Published post Feb 26, 2017  — Added rough draft of transcript.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/02/26/anc-report-holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg-2017-transcript/feed/ 27 Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott — TRANSCRIPT https://katana17.com/2017/02/19/jim-rizoli-interviews-hadding-scott-transcript/ https://katana17.com/2017/02/19/jim-rizoli-interviews-hadding-scott-transcript/#comments Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:49:37 +0000 https://katana17.com/wp/?p=13513 Continue reading →]]>

[In yet another interesting interview Jim Rizoli talks with a well-known figure in the Revisionist movement, Hadding Scott. We learn about Hadding’s earlier years and how he first learnt from his mother the old saying, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!”

Then, we learn how he became aware of some of the character traits of jews from listening to the Larry King radio show. Hadding recounts it was in 1992 that he became finally convinced that the “Holocaust” was a myth after listening to a Dr. Willian Pierce radio show.

Further on, the matter of the “revisionists” who have moved away from revisionism, like Irving, Weber, Cole and now Eric Hunt, is discussed.

— KATANA]

 

 

_______________________

 

 

 

YouTube Description

 

 

Jim Rizoli interviews Hadding Scott, Feb 2017, discussing Hadding’s ‘awakening’ concerning revisionism of Iraq and then, of course, WWII.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_553gsl07TQ&feature=youtu.be

[No longer available on Youtube]

 

UPDATE: Jul 2, 2022 – BitChute Video available here:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/rQwBYc2s8vHJ/

 

 

Jim Rizoli

 

Interviews

 

Hadding Scott

 

 

 

Published on Feb 17, 2017

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(47:40)

 

[00:00]

 

 

Jim: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

 

So Hadding again, welcome to the program.

 

Hadding: Well, hello!

 

Jim: First of all, the only, really thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say is, because my brother Joe. He was very much involved listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

 

Hadding: Oh yeah, “The International Jew Study Hour”.

 

 

Jim: Right, right! So, maybe you can tell us a little bit, … I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you. So, what would you consider yourself?

 

Hadding: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying! This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to “Holocaust” revisionism through other things.

 

Jim: Yup.

 

Hadding: My origin has a lot to do with, … My parents were about a generation older than people my age. I just born in the ninety sixties. My parents were born in the nineteen twenties. And my mother was raised by her grandparents who were born not very long aft the War Between the States. So I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true. That this was exaggeration. And that slaves generally, were treated very well. And that the war was not about slavery, right?

 

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionist. And I grew up with that.

 

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

 

Hadding: I have been a teacher.

 

Jim: OK.

 

Hadding: Not presently.

 

Jim: OK. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

 

Hadding: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust revisionist, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the jews. Right?

 

I grew up with this idea that the jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the [???] jews were victimized by some mass psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

 

 

[05:01]

 

I used to, actually I dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King from my perspective was insane! [Jim laughing]

 

This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew first hand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time the he identified as jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City jews and the fact that jews were very prevalent in the mass media and had no shame about using their positions in mass media to promote specifically jewish interests.

 

And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and, … Well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

 

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in it’s imperfect form and the others. So, Larry King was sort of “concentrated jew”. And I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of jews!

 

Jim: Did you ever call into the show?

 

Hadding: I did a couple of times.

 

Jim: And what happened?

 

Hadding: It was a long time ago, … I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

 

Jim: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to jews. And he’s such a wack job anyway, that guy!

 

Hadding: The thing about Larry King is he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

 

Jim: Really?

 

Hadding: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t, you don’t get the shameless promotion of jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

 

Jim: Did he ever talk about the “Holocaust” or anything like [it]?

 

 

Hadding: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there and Eli Weasel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until the late nineteen eighties. I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. All right? Before I started to question the Holocaust. I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. And R. D. Laing labeled and demonized, obviously Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.

 

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists might have their own story. That what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right?

 

So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed the “Holocaust” must have had at least some truth in it.

 

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to short wave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strong. But once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

 

[10:16]

 

And I was certainly already open to the, … I knew from listening to Larry King that jews had a lot to do with these problems. That jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989. It had Adolf Hitler on the cover, it was the one hundredth birthday of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue”. I had heard and read before that before the Zundel Trial. I heard Ernst Zundel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine.

 

I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody that reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but, it seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there. He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

 

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed him, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema one in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Krema’s [crematoria]. And this convinced me!

 

Jim: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

 

Hadding: I didn’t do very much was Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and the invocation of the “Holocaust” played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed of gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians! That Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein legend, which I knew to be false by that point about Adolf Hitler.

 

 

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Fallujah and there was nobody in the town. But then some Kurdish rebels went into Fallujah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Fallujah. What happened aft the Iranians went Fallujah and saw the dead Kurds is that they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

 

[14:48]

 

If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical what the Iranians say. The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw one hundred or so, bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Fallujah. But what happened after, Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower. jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September first, 1988.

 

There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times. In which William Safire mentions that this cyanide gas had been used to kill the Kurds at Fallujah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

 

So we have this war in 1991, but I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story that April Glaspie, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded Iraq.

 

Also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine of the fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

 

Jim: I’d like to see that picture.

 

Hadding: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, “Life magazine Auschwitz”. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up, to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend these people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was there was no such wall.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: Anyway, so this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for fifteen years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda. Because this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works. Most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear.

 

So what people will do, is that they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called “reifications” where you have a few, a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there. That’s called “reification”. It literally means “making the thing”, “thing making”.

 

 

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this, is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! All right, this is a crazy man! A man who might very well have been involved in the 9/11 attacks!

 

You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9/11 attacks, because that would that would require checking the evidence and most people will never do that. But it would fit, … If people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. And this is something that has to be addressed is also in regard to the Holocaust.

 

 

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, “What kinds of people were these that were accused of doing these things?” “What is the character of the people making the accusations?” That’s extremely important!

 

[20:12]

 

Now, since 9/11 and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9/11, there’s a lot less trust of jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9/11 that there was a lot of dishonesty.

 

I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if you believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust jews, he’s open to the possibility that the whole cause could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed if you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining, “Oh yes! The Nazis were these horrible people!” you’re not going to be very convincing.

 

Jim: The big thing for you to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too, … And I do I do believe you, what you say there about this psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved than that. That a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard, it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean?

 

I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name, Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

 

 

Hadding: Yeah.

 

Jim: So I mean, she was saying, …

 

Hadding: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

 

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the “Holocaust”. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, the tribes she belongs to, the tribe and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

 

 

Hadding: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance”. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind.

 

 

It’s irresistible to make the analogy, jews hearing the rumors in Auschwitz, or someplace like that. If they were, … If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were communists and had bad intentions and had been locked up in this camp. But were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seem justified. They would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumors that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumors that the jews had.

 

Jim: Can I ask you this about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it want on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

 

Hadding: Yeah, it was some 50 chapters.

 

Jim: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

 

Hadding: It was about a year, I guess.

 

Jim: Yeah, my brother, … I mean, the reason I know about that, is my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it and, you know, it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. My brother he, … And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. You know, right now I’m listening to “The Myth of German Villainy”. Are you familiar with that book?

 

 

Hadding: No. Who wrote that?

 

Jim: Oh my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to, … You have to read that book. Because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

 

[25:14]

 

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it.

 

So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as a mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

 

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

 

Hadding: She’s not doing very much these days, so she just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

 

 

Jim: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then OK, all right

 

Hadding: “jan27.org”

 

Jim: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

 

Hadding: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

 

Jim: Oh, OK. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

 

What do you think about, … Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting! They have [moved??] now. Like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

 

Hadding: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if it’s really “high ranking”. He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent, because he makes videos, …

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: I think mostly, … Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: With Cole, he had an argument, …

 

Jim: Oh! David Cole, yeah, yeah, …

 

 

Hadding: And apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole. And he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead” [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

 

Jim: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the “Holocaust”-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

 

Hadding: To prove it didn’t happen!

 

Jim: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they want were killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

 

Hadding: That’s right.

 

Jim: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, “puff” and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

 

[30:12]

 

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

 

Hadding: I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

 

Jim: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR [Institute of Historical Review] material and, you know, the old stuff. And, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Webber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

 

Hadding: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed and prominent and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich” came out. David Irving wants his career back.

 

So that is why David Irving is espousing this semi-revisionism the continues the demonization of Goring and Goebbels and Himmler, .. But not Goring, but Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. That he constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming jews behind his back.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: But this is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And really he’s just gone back to that. Mark Weber has a different motive, I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

 

In the case of David Cole, … David Cole got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel. The holocaust industry was, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer to The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, “They can count, you know!”

 

They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992. David Cole as a “Holocaust” revisionist.

 

By that time it was the period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books could be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: But during that time David Cole got involved. He endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a jewish face on what others had already discovered.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

 

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

 

Hadding: Carto.

 

Jim: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

 

[35:12]

 

Hadding: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR.

 

Jim: Yes, she was part, …

 

Hadding: ??? And Carto had embezzled it and, …

 

Jim: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result, was he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out.

 

Hadding: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against the Zionist jewish power!

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: He’s apparently happy to talks about Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the “Holocaust”.

 

Jim: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

 

Hadding: Who knows?

 

Jim: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. Because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

 

Hadding: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

 

Jim: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And, you know, we interviewed, we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but, you know, it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

 

Hadding: Well, I don’t think. I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber, all right. Mark Weber, I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account. Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they are in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a, just look at him. He does not convey strength.

 

Jim: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Luechter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too.

 

But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Luechter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

 

 

Hadding: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

 

Jim: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

 

[40:11]

 

Hadding: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

 

Jim: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

 

Hadding: Irv, …

 

Jim: OK, OK. Irv Ruben, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now.

 

So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

 

Hadding: Well Irv Ruben has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Ruben is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the interest that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust, as such. That is never what he wanted to do. He tried, like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: That’s my thesis.

 

Jim: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the “Holocaust” museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause, here. And doing videos and research for the pro-holocaust people.

 

Hadding: As Stein?

 

Jim: Yeah as Stein.

 

Hadding: OK.

 

Jim: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not really worry about it.

 

So what, … Do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

 

Hadding: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National hyphen Socialist hyphen Worldview dot blogspot dot com [http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com].

 

 

Jim: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

 

Hadding: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

 

Jim: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

 

Hadding: Germar Rudolf!

 

Jim: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

 

Hadding: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but the Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on the Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

 

Jim: Right, right. Who runs the Occidental Observer?

 

Hadding: That’s Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald is afraid of, seems to be afraid of, that subject.

 

Jim: Well, you got to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

 

Hadding: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

 

Jim: Oh, is that what it is. OK, well I can understand that. So, well that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the “Holocaust” handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

 

[44:51]

 

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time. Just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you know, you’re a good writer. You know, you have a nice, you know, style and insight. I would say about things and I think that’s important that people, you know, see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

 

Hadding: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

 

Jim: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

 

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

 

Hadding: I think that we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing that is what I keep doing.

 

Jim: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody even the revisionist views are! I know common sense! You know, me I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

 

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let, you know, that, OK!

 

Hadding: Thank you very much.

 

Jim: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us to, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

 

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

 

Hadding: All right. Well, thank you very much.

 

Jim: All right. Bye now!

 

 

 

[47:40]

 

END

 

 

============================================

 

 

PDF Notes

* Total words in post = 7,731

* Total words in transcript = 7,582

* Total Images = 27

* Total pages = 29

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.0 MB):

Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Jul 2, 2022  — Improved formatting. Added BitChute link to video.

 

Version 4: Feb 3, 2020  — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 3: Mar 14, 2017  — Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 2: Feb 23, 2017  — Added 25 images.

 

Version 1: Feb 20, 2017  — Published post.

]]> https://katana17.com/2017/02/19/jim-rizoli-interviews-hadding-scott-transcript/feed/ 3