Monika Schaefer: All right. Good evening. Greetings far and wide. You are listening to the Republic Broadcasting Network. It is Saturday, the 22nd day of March, 2025. And this is episode 36 of The Flipside with Monika. I am your host, Monika Schaefer. Welcome to the show today.

So I would just like to send a shout out to last week’s program. Last week’s show we had a twofer, you could say a doubleheader with Blackbird 9 on his famous Saturday Snack Shack show preceding mine. And we did the two hours together with my brother Alfred. And you can find those shows in the archives. And yeah, we had a good time with that. And I would just like to remind the listener that this is a listener supported network and we just would like it if we could keep this network on the air. So if you can, please do consider supporting the network.

And if you are already a supporter, thank you so very much for supporting the network. And I’ll just give you the numbers. You can go to the website, of course, at RepublicBroadcasting.org, you can find all the information there. Various ways to either send cash or check in the mail. The address is there and here are the numbers that you could call, 512-246-9549, or toll free number 1-800-724-2719. Okay, now I have return. Okay, great, thank you.

So after the bottom of the hour, I will give out the numbers for if you would like to call in and join us in our conversation. I have a return guest today. His name is Jurgen Neumann and he came on in episode 15 and 18. If after you’ve listened to this one and you think, gee, I want to listen to the archives of the previous two shows, you can find them from last fall, episodes 15 and 18.

So his name is Jurgen Neumann and he was, I guess you could say, the right-hand man for Ernst Zundel or Ernst Zindl, if you pronounce it in German, for several decades. And Ernst Zundel [24 April 1939-5 August, 20017] is no longer with us. He died a few years ago, may he rest in peace. But I consider him to be an absolute giant in terms of having been a man who helped us along tremendously in our quest for truth about what actually happened during World War II. And the narrative about World War II, at least for my generation, and I would say for all of us, is probably the most distorted and lied about event in history. Everything was turned on its head and was really backwards.

I mean, the things I grew up with learning in school and through (((Hollywood))) and through the mainstream media is completely upside down and reversed from what actually happened. And Ernst Zundel did much to reveal that to the world.

And of course, for his efforts, he was persecuted, prosecuted, jailed, all those usual things. A great man who had so much to offer to the world. So in our first episode, we talked a little bit about his own awakening. Ernst Zundel, he didn’t know the truth about World War II until he was a grown man. He was born in 1939, so he was a war baby. He’s from Germany. He came to Canada as a young man. I think he was 18 or so.

And so, yeah, in episode one [15], we went through that, talking about his awakening and then some of the trials and tribulations. In our second episode [18] that we had last November, we continued with that. We talked about the Leuchter Report or Fred Leuchter who went to Auschwitz and did some actual investigation of the physical place there, and then his various trials and things that happen. So we really went into quite a lot of detail with that.

So today we would like to expand on some of the, I guess you could say, the epic work that Ernst Zundel did because there was so much that he did through the years.

So, first of all, greeting Jurgen Neumann. Are you there? Frank, did you say that you were able to pull him up?

Okay, so I guess I’ll just carry on until you do get him back on there.

So I’ll just tell you a little story. I pulled up a video from one of Jurgen’s online platforms. Not sure if it was on his Bitchute or Odysee channel. And it just randomly pulled up a video of Ernst Zundel addressing a crowd of people back in, I think it was in the early 1990s, I’m not sure. And I couldn’t find it just now to refresh my memory. But something really struck me, and it was quite amusing. In the first few minutes when he was greeting the large crowd in the room, and it was packed, I don’t know, maybe 50 people or so. he told the audience that a jew that he had been talking to before this talk, and I think he was talking mainly about Adolf Hitler in this talk, and the audience was mostly young people. And Ernst Zundel addressed that point and was so delighted that there were so many young people in the audience, because he says:

“Usually I’m speaking to a lot of gray hairs!”

So there were a lot of young people there. They were very interested to hearing Ernst Zundel talk. And then he told about what the jew had said. He said:

“Oh, you could do that, talk in a telephone booth.”

And Ernst says:

“Well, this is a mighty big telephone booth!”

And everybody, of course, roared with laughter.

Now, some of the young listeners to this show might not even get the reference to the telephone booth because we don’t see too many telephone booths out there in public anymore. [chuckling] But you might know from old movies and such, that was a pretty small thing that was on many street corners back in the day before everybody had a phone in their hand or in their pocket, you see. So yeah. Do you have our guest on the line yet? No! Maybe. Okay, no problem.

[08:17]

So what we’re going to address today is radio, I think it was all by radio, perhaps Jurgen will correct me, it might have been with video as well, but it was called “Another Voice of Freedom” that Ernst Zundel did, these radio shows or these programs. And I think he carried that on for a number of years.

Oh, wonderful! Jurgen, are you there?

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, I am. After going through a jungle of static and all kinds of other stuff, looks like we’re clear and full speed ahead!

Monika Schaefer: We are good to go. So perfect timing. I just gave a little bit of an introduction, talked about our previous shows that we did, and then I told the little story about the phone booth that Ernst Zundel, you know, was told by this fellow that. Yes, so I told that story already. And then I just started talking about the fact that he did many programs on something called A Voice of Freedom. And I wasn’t even sure if that was just radio or if it was with visual as well. I’ll pass it over to you to tell us a little bit about that and maybe how many years he did that for this show called, Another Voice of Freedom.

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, we got into that when we got enough support to be able to get some reasonable consumer video equipment and audio equipment in order to make material that could be broadcast. And we started off with video TV broadcasting. Chose, Another Voice of Freedom as the title, and we started it in June 1993. So we decided to get our outreach out there, better than it was.

And so this is before the Internet was a big thing, and we certainly weren’t conversant with the Internet at all at that time. So therefore, we’re doing the best we can. And this was satellite broadcasting. Down in the US they have companies that will broadcast for you up on satellites. There’s old satellites that are floating around in space that no longer fit the needs of the people who originally put them up there and now they put up new ones. But the old ones are still kind of useful. So they sell these companies time on the satellites that are still useful at a cut rate.

And then we send them our material and then they will broadcast it on a given time. Usually it was on a Sunday evening. So that of course, once we started that first thing we do, Ernst did, was send copies of the programs to the media.

And of course they just, they were very excited about that one. So we got lots of interviews about that and newscasts about that they even showed clips of the videos that we sent them. And so it was quite a job. Eventually we ended up, I think we were broadcasting about 275 programs.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, wow!

Jürgen Neumann: A lot of work over a number of years. And of course our opposition, they got very upset. And within the first six months, [chuckling] I think they went to the broadcaster that we had at the time and they said, this is the way I understand it, right? The broadcasting facility of that company was burned to the ground! So consensus was it was probably because of Ernst. They contacted the broadcasting company and they said:

“Look, we don’t like this here. We want you to, basically to censor him. You shouldn’t be putting that on there. It’s hateful. It’s this, it’s that.”

And their reply was:

“Well, we don’t censor things. This is the United States. We have freedom of speech here. But tell you what, we will make a deal with you. If you like, you can make counter programs against him. And we will play it before his program or after his program or before and after his program. But we’re not going to censor.”

So therefore that’s probably why it had something to do with burning the place to the ground.

After that, anyway, we got another one and that worked out quite well. And then we also started doing radio programs as well at the same time. Our TV video broadcasts were like once a week, but the radio programs were like every day.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, wow!

Jürgen Neumann: So he had two programs. One was on an AM station and one was on an FM station right in the heartland of the U.S. It was quite a large reach.

And yeah, we were pouring out the material. I was the, of course, editor for the video parts of it, stuff. And we had another supporter who did all the audio stuff.

So yeah, we were going concerned for a long time, that’s for sure! I think we had for five or six hundred radio shows, I think. All this is like all half hour stuff, right. Et cetera. So yeah, it was really interesting. They were all wound up about that, needless to say.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, I’m sure they were! [chuckling]

Jürgen Neumann: And at about that time we had a lot of supporters down in the US and they have a thing down there called Public Access TV stations that they are required by law to have to allow local people to make content and broadcast content on their cable networks.

So a lot of them would contact us and request our shows. So we would mail them to them and they would broadcast them in their local communities. But it wasn’t all the same.

[15:05]

Monika Schaefer: Oh, it wasn’t all the same. Go ahead. Sorry.

Jürgen Neumann: No, I mean like we were making half hour programs, right. But some of the public access stations, they didn’t broadcast half hour, they broadcast one hour. So there we had to re-edit stuff and maybe make something new just to fit the one hour slot. And all the formats were kind of different too. Some stations had regular VHS tapes, some used SVHS tapes, some used 3 quarter inch pneumatic tape.

So we had to get into all these different formats so we could fill the orders and they could broadcast all our material down there. So that was also a going concern. And they really got upset about that one too!

Monika Schaefer: You must have been working hard, Jurgen, because I understand that you were basically the guy who was really the tech guy and Ernst, you know, he was busy with the actual talking and that kind of thing. Right? I mean, you must have been really learning and working hard because this would have been a lot of new stuff for you?

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, for some, yeah, it was pretty new. We were working an average of probably about 10 hours a day. And there for a while there when we were pumping a lot of material, we actually worked for about almost two weeks straight without a pause, about 12 hours a day.

So that was really something else. Certainly was happy when that was over. The big rush! Everybody putting it up. And then one of our supporters down in Canandaigua, New York, he had, they really came down on him a lot of the Holocaust lobby, I’ll call them, Shelley Shapiro and a bunch of these other, basically anti-revisionist jews who went down there and they put pressure on the station to cancel his broadcast and so on and so he was going to have a press conference and so Ernst went down there as part of the press conference and yeah, it was quite the thing.

They had police there, they had everything. One guy had a big boombox where he was cranking up some audio thing. I forget what it was offhand, but you know, trying to drown Ernst out from talking to the media and so on. Yeah.

So it took a better part of the day and the station actually got Ernst inside and interviewed him about that, what that was all about. That was nice to do that.

Monika Schaefer: Yes, of course! And it sounds like Antifa type of activities, doesn’t it? I mean these days that happens a lot with protests and then counter-protesters trying to scream louder or something so that nobody can hear the actual speaker. [chuckling] Yeah.

Jürgen Neumann: And if you want to know more about that incident, that’s in one of our another Voice of Freedom programs which you can find on my Bitchute channel. And it’s called. I forget the number of it, but it’s called Public Access and Freedom of Speech.

Monika Schaefer: So speaking of that, can people find all these, Another Voice of Freedoms on your Bitchute channel or your Odysee channel? Do you want to just tell people.

Jürgen Neumann: The BitChute channel is where the complete collection is on there.

It’s JohnRobinson101, all one word.

Monika Schaefer: Fantastic!

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah. So you can go through the whole works if you like. Lots of very good information on there.

Monika Schaefer: Indeed! It’s just heady times, I would say doing that. And just to put this into context for the listener, if you have aren’t fresh up on when things happened with Ernst Zundel and all his trials. The trials, the big Holocaust trials in Toronto, those were in 1985 and 1988. So this is after that.

[See: Andrew Hitchcock with Monika Schaefer on “Sorry Mom” — TRANSCRIPT]

So I think that’s absolutely fantastic that work that you both did! And yeah, so people can go and find those and listen to those and just there’s endless. You know, you can really learn a lot from those programs. You know the other thing that really caught my interest and we touched upon it in our last episode together that you and I did.

But then I started to learn a little bit more. And I’d like you to go into more detail about the Congress that Ernst Zundel organized in Germany called the Leuchter Congress. And things happened there [chuckling] made it very interesting. Can you get into that story, please?

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. It was by 1991. This is when the actual meeting took place. By that time Ernst has been on the wanted list for Germany, right. He’s a wanted man because of his revisionist activities. So they always after him, but that didn’t stop him. [chuckling] So he flew in somewhere else and then drove him to Germany. And he talked to all these people to organize this Congress.

Of course he wasn’t going to be officially part of it because otherwise he’d be arrested. But he was there anyway and helping them along. And it was one of the main organizers was a young man by the name of Ewald Althans [sp].

And so they got this whole thing together and they got speakers like all lined up like for revisionism, had people like Fred Leuchter, right, which they named the whole Congress after him. And French revisionist Robert Faurisson, Swedish revisionist Ditlieb Felderer, and of course famous British author David Irving, who hardly needs any kind of introduction or anything.

And then there’s another gentleman German former judge by the name of Wilhelm Stäglich. He wrote, he was back in the day, he was, I think he was part of an anti-aircraft unit as a young man around in the Auschwitz area.

[21:42]

[Image: Wilhelm Stäglich]

So anyway he wrote a book about that. And of course he had been retired at the time. So they took away, I think most of his pension and took away his judge credentials and all that, for that.

So it was all set up and it was on. It’s going to be in Munich in one of the big museums there. They had a big hall for rent, very big hall, perfect for our purposes. So we get there, everybody, you know, gets to Munich, we’re all set to go and wa laa, the last moment the hall cancels! Needless to say we were a little bit upset about that. Our lawyer, our main lawyer, Jurgen Rieger, he went in there and you know, needless to try to get them to change their mind stuff, but they weren’t having any of that.

Monika Schaefer: I’ll just jump in here Jurgen, because this is classic, absolutely classic tactic of our opponents! They knew that Congress was taking place. They could have said:

“No, you can’t do it here!”

They could have done that I’m sure a month ahead or even months ahead. But this is a classic tactic. I’m sure that other people have heard of events or been at events where the same thing happens.

I had it happen in Jasper, little town of Jasper where I organized a speaker event. And my downfall or the disadvantage was that I did have time to organize this. And so people knew well in advance. And the last day before this event happened they were going to cancel me. But I kind of managed to actually get the woman who was on the board of this church hall. I talked to her for over an hour and at the end she says:

“Monika, you are very persuasive!”

But I’m talking about a small town where [chuckling] I had known this woman for decades. You know, so!

But there was a big storm. We could not have had it outside at all! But yes, I’ve heard of big events in big places where that happens. But do carry on and tell the story. What happened next?

Jürgen Neumann: I mean, yeah, they just try to get you to waste your time and your money.

So anyway, so everybody was kind of:

“Okay, what are we going to do about this? Everybody’s here, all the people are here, etc.”

So it was decided that:

“Okay, heck, we’re just going to do it right out on the street in front of the museum!”

And of course all the police were there, etc.

And so we started off with a car where the speakers would come up and they would open the door and you’d stand up, you know where you get into the car, you stand on that, look over the roof of the car and speak to the crowd. And those who couldn’t speak German. Then Mark Weber from the IHR, California, he was there and he would translate from whatever the speaker was saying in English to German.

Monika Schaefer: Institute for Historical Review.

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, review.

Monika Schaefer: Continue.

Jürgen Neumann: Yeah, they have their own website, people can check that one out. They’re an excellent group to find all kinds of good solid intellectual information on these subjects. Plus they do a lot of political stuff.

Monika Schaefer: IHR.

Jürgen Neumann: Actually I think it might be IHR.org, okay, check both.

Monika Schaefer: But basically with the abbreviation IHR, not all spelled out is what you’re saying.

Jürgen Neumann: Yes, it’s just IHR.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, so people can find that. Okay, carry on.

Jürgen Neumann: After be talking for a while, Fred Leuchter got up and he initially wasn’t going to say much because who knows who’s going to get arrested for what. So eventually our lawyer who had been talking with the authorities came up to Leuchter and he said:

“Look, just been talking to the judges lawyer, showed him the Leuchter Report and they agreed that it was just a scientific report and we can’t censor scientific reports. So you’re allowed to talk about it.”

So he did. The crowd went wild. They were just great! Everybody loved it!

And so after a bit of course it was decided that this car is not good enough. So somebody went out quickly and rented a truck, flatbed truck, and they brought that up and so all the speakers and everybody got up on the truck, so it was much better. Everybody could see you and everybody could hear you better. We had a sound system up, better sound system on the truck and so on. So it worked out very well. There was a like back in the day the Leftists in Germany were nasty to the point of being terrorists.

But the only Leftists that showed up on that day was about half a dozen of them in a bus, in a regular street bus, who went by holding signs up in the bus.

So everybody got a laugh out of that. Obviously they’re not what they used to be.

So, yeah, it was a very exciting day and a lot was said and a lot was done. And then something happened. After it was over, we all went to the various beer halls and stuff, restaurants, got together and so Ernst showed up for that. And not long after that, somebody said something to the authorities because the authorities came in and they arrested him. They found him and they arrested him.

Monika Schaefer: Oh my goodness!

Jürgen Neumann: Yes. So they took him away to jail, etc. So that was kind of not the best of all things. [chuckling]

[27:54]

Monika Schaefer: Remind us what year this was.

Jürgen Neumann: 1991.

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

Jürgen Neumann: Then he negotiated his way out of there. They said:

“Okay, well, you’re going to be charged with anti-Holocaust activities and so on. Denying the genocide of the jews.”

And so on, which is a law in Germany, right. So what you can get, I think they had a maximum of five years, for that. So eventually they put him on parole because he said:

“Yeah, okay.”

Not parole:

“But you can leave, but you have to come back for trial.”

So they thought he would do that, and he would do that because, oh yeah, there’s a big chance he wanted to try to organize a Leuchter type trial in Germany. So he was all good with that.

And about that particular issue, his trial and so on, there are videos of it up on my channel, Ernst Zundel in Munich, Munich trial in German and in English, where he talks about all that. So I’m not really going to get into that. I haven’t really brushed up on that particular thing. But if you want to see hear more about it, you can go there or we can do another show on it at some point.

Monika Schaefer: Yeah. And we will come back after these messages. Thank you.

[29:26]

[music]

[29:44]

[ad]

[36:00]

[music]

[36:50]

Monika Schaefer: All right. Welcome back to The Flipside with Monika on the Republic Broadcasting Network.

So before the break, Jurgen Neumann, our guest, was telling us about this Leuchter Congress in Munich, I think it was in Munich. Did I get that right?

Anyway, in Germany in 1991, and exciting things were happening, and then he ended up being arrested and went to jail. How long did he go to jail for? He was let out pretty quick. Oh, yes, you said he was let out on the promise that he was going to be back for trial. Do you want to just carry on with that story?

And then we do have a caller on the line. He’s been waiting very patiently for a while, which is wonderful! Oh, and actually, I did forget to do that, is give the calling numbers if you’d like to join the conversation.

So I’ll just do that first and then Juergen, if you could tell the rest of that story and then we’ll start with callers.

So the number is 512-2488252 or 1-800-313-9443. Okay. Over to you, Jurgen.

Jürgen Neumann: Well, I must confess that I hadn’t brushed up on that story. So as I’m sitting here right now, my memory says:

“Well, can’t think of a whole lot but say about it at this moment.”

I just did mention [word unclear], but if we were going to ever do another show, I would brush up on it and we can get into some details.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, no problem!

Jürgen Neumann: Flopping around like a fish out of water wouldn’t work very well right now.

Monika Schaefer: Oh, God!

Jürgen Neumann: I would like to say one thing.

Monika Schaefer: Yes, go [chuckling] ahead.

Jürgen Neumann: I would like to say to me one of the final things about the Leuchter Congress that reflected in my life afterwards. And that was later on that year. This took place in March. So a few months later on, I was visiting my mother. And while I was there, the mail came. And in her mail was a copy of National Geographic. She’s never ordered National Geographic. She never reads it. So this was a mistake. This actually was addressed to somebody else on a different street, maybe six or eight blocks away. But it showed up in her place. Well, I thought:

“Just for fun, let’s have a look at it.”

So I pulled it out of the wrapper. And I had just started paging through it and lo and behold, what do we see? We see that National Geographic had been in Germany at that time of the Leuchter Congress. They were doing a thing about Germany and about the political situation and so-called Right-wing neo-Nazis, all that kind of stuff.

So they actually had part of their article on the Leuchter Congress. And they had a big picture, a big picture of that truck and the people standing on the truck talking. And on the truck, also on the left hand side of the picture was yours truly, me with the camera!

Monika Schaefer: Hey!

Jürgen Neumann: You couldn’t really see my face, the camera was covering it. But there I was.

And so I pointed it out to my mom and she was really excited:

“Wow, that’s cool!”

She never got another National Geographic, before or since!

Monika Schaefer: Yeah, into the National Geographic. That’s fantastic! That National Geographic magazine was meant to come into your hands even though it was mis-delivered. Yes, that’s wonderful, wonderful!

So we had Johnny from Michigan, but I guess he dropped off.

But we do have a caller, Joe in Florida. Are you there? Would you like to join our conversation, ask a question or give a comment on anything about Ernst Zundel or ask Jurgen a question, anything you want. Welcome.

[40:58]

Joe: Yes, Monika, thank you for taking my call. And greetings to Jurgen. Yeah, just a quick thing I want to say.

So thank you, Monika and Jurgen, for keeping the memory of this great man, Ernst Zundel alive. The other day recently I don’t know, Candace Owen, very kind of big, very popular blogger now she’s doing her pieces on the Hoaxicost is what I call it. And the lie of those events. And I just can’t help but think that, it’s Ernst that did the great groundwork. I mean he would be very proud.

But it’s on his amazing work that now it’s basically going mainstream. The lies that they built. I just wanted to say that thank you both for keeping his memory alive. And then Jurgen, the real question I wanted to ask you a question was. So among the things that jews like to do is to promote the idea that they’re all still peaceful people, but there can be very violent. And among the things they can be violent with this there preferential is bombing. We saw the King David Hotel, right? Jewish terrorists bombing people!

[See: Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript]

So tell us about, if you can, how it was that Ernst was really the first, one of the first victims of this bombing in Toronto. And am I right in thinking they bombed his house, which was a residence, or exactly how, where, was that a place that he worked out of but tell us what you can remember about that terrible incident.

Jürgen Neumann: Okay. Talking about bombings and stuff, as far as I’m aware, when it comes to revisionists, the very first bombing was in France, I think it was 1965. Maybe a French revisionist by the name of François Duprat. Him and his wife were going out. They got into their car, turned the key, and there was a car bomb. And it blew up and killed him and took off her legs below the knee. So that’s first one, and probably worse for revisionist terrorism.

[See also: Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years, and More, of Terrorism in France]

Now come up to 1984. And we are at Ernst Zundel building. Okay. So what it is, or what it was, really was his, number one, was when he first got it, he was an artist. And so he made it, he had his business, commercial art, and then he was also fine art painted. He was the most prolific artist in Canadian history. Actually sold over 600 paintings.

Joe: Wow!

Jürgen Neumann: And so he had his gallery on the main floor and his commercial art business in the back. And upstairs he had the usual living quarters. That’s his home, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, stuff like that. So, yeah, it was a combination of our work environment plus his home.

Actually, as it turned out, I ended up staying there with him for a decade or two. I’d stay there basically during the week and then go home on weekends and stuff. So that’s basically what the building was.

So 1984, there was a bit of an explosion we had. And it turns out at the back, by his garage door, they had set off a bomb, pipe bomb, as the police discovered, you know, told us about later, a pipe bomb. So it blew up the garage door and actually sent splinters all around the neighborhood, damaged cars and stuff. If anybody was walking by and been hit by those splinters, they could have been fatal. Not that they care, of course.

So that was the first one. But what was interesting about it was the police said:

“Oh, yeah, we’re investigating, etc.”

After a week had gone by, or 10 days ago by nothing. We hadn’t heard anything. So Ernst contacted the police. And the one officer was very honest about it. He said:

“No, we’re not investigating, actually. We think that you did it yourself for publicity.”

Monika Schaefer: Wow!

Jürgen Neumann: So, yeah, well, I was right. Okay, fast forward to 1995. About the anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, May 1995. Ernst was off on a speaking tour, Western Canada way. And I was holding fort there. And where I sleep is in, it’s a long building, right. Not wide, but deep.

So I was sleeping in the back on the second floor beside the washroom, my little bedroom. And I’m lying there in the neighborhood in which we were located, it’s called Cabbagetown. And always a lot of weird stuff happening. There’s a lot of weirdos in that area and stuff. So it’s not unusual to hear all kinds of interesting things happening.

But anyway, I was sleeping and suddenly I woke up. And I mean woke up just like snap of the finger from asleep to totally wide awake! And I thought:

“Wow, what’s that?”

So I’m lying there for a second, wondering, and I hear way in the back, some very low voice called “Fire!” So I thought:

“Oh, yeah, a bunch of, … I wonder what’s going on in the neighborhood tonight?”

So I lie there for a little longer. And then The Voice gets louder, it gets closer:

“Fire! Fire!”

I thought:

“Oh, no, I better go have a look.”

So I get up, and when I step out of the out of my bedroom, I can look down the length of the house, the second floor, right into the kitchen. And the kitchen has a big window out on the street. And here’s flames rising up above the second floor window.

Joe: Wow!

[Image: TORONTO, ON, 206 Carlton St., Ernst Zundel’s house on May 7, 1995, showing the aftermath of the fire there]

Jürgen Neumann: That’s what the fire is about. All right, so I ran up forward a little bit, grabbed a phone, but that one had already burned out for that one.

So I went downstairs and I got another phone and phoned you know, 9/11. And they said:

“Oh, yeah, oh yeah, no problem. Don’t worry about it.”

They said:

“Other people have already called in, so everybody’s on their way.”

I said:

“Okay, great!”

So I started getting myself together, getting stuff. I’m going to leave the house, right? I hear this pounding at the side door. So I go over the side door, and all it is kind of a regular framed wooden door. It’s got a couple of hooks and that’s it. And the fire department’s out there and they can’t get through this door.

So anyway, I go out and unhook it, and they come in:

“Oh, are you alone here?”

“Yep, I’m alone.”

“Well, you know, get out this fire. We gotta go!”

I said:

“No, I’ll leave when I’m ready.”

They said:

“No, you have to leave.”

I said:

“No.”

Monika Schaefer: Good for you!

Jürgen Neumann: :

“And when I’m ready, I will leave.”

Because I still had a couple of things I wanted to do. So I quickly packed up the last of the things and then I left. Oh, I did phone. Make one more phone call. One of our supporters lived about three, four blocks away. And this is about five in the morning. So I phoned him and I said:

“If you want some excitement, Ernst’s house is on fire, so come on over!”

Then I went outside and away. Eventually other people came up, our supporters, they came up to see what was going on, etc. And he showed up eventually and he said:

“Well, he said, boy, your voice was really calm for what’s going on.”

So we’re sitting there or we’re standing there. I was talking to one of the fire-fighters and we were talking about response time, you know how you get there fast. And he said:

“It doesn’t really matter how fast we get here.”

I said:

“What do you mean by that?”

He said:

“We can’t touch it until Toronto Hydro comes and turns off the hydro, so that we don’t get electrocuted with water touching the electricity. So they actually have to be here first.”

I said:

“Oh, okay.”

So we’re standing there waiting and a man comes up to me and says:

“Are you one of the people from the house?”

I said:

“Yes.”

He said:

“Well, I saw the whole thing.”

I said:

“Oh, really?”

He said:

“Yeah, I’m in the store next door to us.”

Somebody had broken their plate glass window.

And so he was there replacing the window. And he said the man walked past him with his container of flammable liquid. He saw him walk. I mean, he could have reached out and touched him as he walked by. So he walked up to the house, poured the liquid on there and a trail out, which he lit up and away it went. And then he walked past him again.

I said:

“Oh, so you’d be willing to talk to the police?”

He said:

“Sure. That’s why I’m still waiting here.”

“Okay.”

So I went and told the police:

“Hey, we’ve got an eyewitness!”

The guy waited another hour and a half and then he had to go because he had other business to do. And the police never did talk to him.

Monika Schaefer: Unreal!

Joe: Unbelievable! Yeah.

Jürgen Neumann: So that was that one.

And then about a month later, it was about that, maybe a little longer, maybe two months later, got a package in the mail. It was a brown box, basically, reasonably light.

And so I brought it in, mailman brought it in, and Ernst looked at it, looked at, and he’s getting, he’s very sharp man, experience. He says:

“Okay, everybody, nobody touched this. Something I don’t like about this.”

It’s addressed to him. It’s got a return address out in British Columbia. So, okay. So he put it on the shelf. And the way we went about our business, except me being a foolish man at the time, I couldn’t resist. I went over and picked it up when nobody was around, shook it a little bit. Very foolish!

But anyway, I didn’t hear anything, didn’t feel anything. Put it back. This one.

So eventually a fellow phoned Ernst and it was one of our supporters from out west BC. So he asked him about the PO Box address and he said:

“Oh, that was an address I used to have a couple of years back. So obviously somebody else is using it, blah, blah, blah.”

So this is suspicious. So we took the box down to the police station, told them it might be a bomb. They freaked out!:

“It might be a bomb! And you brought it here! What’s the matter with you?”

Anyway, they cleared out the area around the station by about three blocks. So they took it and eventually they took it down to the bomb disposal place where they set it off. And they got back to us and said:

“Yeah, it was a bomb.”

And it was set to go off when the package was opened. Having done so, it would have killed everybody within 100 meters.

Joe: Unbelievable!

Jürgen Neumann: Very powerful!

So that was the explosive encounters that we had.

Joe: Unbelievable! Thank you Jurgen and [word unclear] tell me to say thank you. So Ernst is a true hero, right? In other words, he was one of the free speech pioneers and they obviously tried repeatedly to kill him and he stood his ground.

So thank you, Monika, for this show, keeping his memory alive, because he is a real hero and it’s great to see if only he ived long enough to see that what his efforts really are paying off where people can speak truthfully about history. Thank you.

Monika Schaefer: Joe, I really appreciate. Yeah, I really appreciate that you called. That was an excellent call with these questions. And those stories are incredible! Thank you so much! Thank you again. And yes, we do intend to keep Ernst Zundel’s memory alive.

And I’m gonna do a shout out to Katana who encouraged me to do exactly that. And that did prompt me to call you up, Jurgen, or to write to you and say:

“I’m gonna have you on regularly. Like maybe every couple of months we’re gonna do another show on Ernst Zundel because there are very many things to talk about.”

So a shout out to Katana. He has a website, katana17.com. His specialty is making transcripts out of videos, or out of talk shows, or things that are in audio form, he turns into transcripts quite a lot. And his website is excellent! Has a lot of resources there. I would encourage everybody to visit that website again. That’s katana17.com. And katana with a ‘k’ and just like it sounds, so just another.

[53:54]

Joe: God bless you, Monika.

Monika Schaefer: Okay, bye bye. Joe, thank you so much!

Joe: Thanks. Jurgen too. God bless.

Jürgen Neumann: Bye bye,

Monika Schaefer: Bye bye. Jurgen, something else about those attacks and who, … Somebody claimed responsibility for at least one of them, did they not? Do you know about that? Didn’t a jewish, …

Jürgen Neumann: 1984 one? Some kind of jewish, I don’t know, it was a very convoluted name anyway. But yeah, it was some jewish organization that claimed responsibility for the 84 bomb.

But what was interesting is that one thing that not too many people know about that. Around the beginning of the 1985 trial, as it was just about to get underway, Ernst was approached by the RCMP, which is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. And they gave him a folder and they said:

“We have information that seems that there’s an assassin. An assassin has been put on a case to assassinate you. It’s a foreigner who’s going to be coming into Canada, or might already be here. And it’s a woman. And so you should be careful and on the lookout.”

And in the folder they had a picture of her even:

“So that if you can recognize her, everybody should look at the picture and if you see you’re wandering around or something, you know what’s going on.”

So that was nice of them to do that.

[Image: Police image of Merchant assassin]

Monika Schaefer: Wow, isn’t that something?

And yet the contrast to the police not being interested seemingly in talking to the eyewitness at the later episode. I think that was the later up episode. And then also just, yeah, they didn’t seem to want to uncover this or they didn’t seem to want to help Ernst Zundel. You know, this slow response, what not. I just find that quite interesting.

But good that they did warn him and good on Ernst Zundel that these things did not stop him from carrying on with his epically important work. And it was always his intention to restore the honor of Germany and the German people once he realized what had happened with the lies and deceptions.

But we don’t have a lot of time left. I want to pass it back to you. Do you want to tell people where they can find your channels? We did already talk about the Bitchute channel. John Robinson 101. I do believe you have an archive also. Do you want to talk about that, please? Where do people find your work?

Jürgen Neumann: Okay, yes, on Bitchute, you might call it my flagship channel. It’s called JohnRobinson101, and it is all videos. And I have about, I’m guessing about 500 Ernst videos on there. Want to look at it? But I have well over a thousand videos.

And so it’s not just material about Ernst, but there’s material from other sources about subject matter that would be of interest to all of our people and all people who are interested in different points of view on various documentaries. I even have culture on there. I’ve got some classical music, orchestras playing and so on. Everything that may be a interest to us and help for us, I have on there.

Now on archive.org I have, I had a couple of other channels and they’ve been kind of deleted in the meantime.

But finally, of the two that have been deleted, I finally figured out that maybe the problem there was is that I had a lot of material about Holocaust revisionism and Ernst Zundel. So I figured, okay, I’ll start another channel on there and stay away from those directly.

And so I started a PDF channel called Researcher_PDF and it’s all books and David Irving books, pamphlets, all kinds of stuff. If you have an interest in history from our point of view, that’s a good one.

Monika Schaefer: That’s on archive.org is it?

Jürgen Neumann: Yes.

Monika Schaefer: Okay.

Thank you so much for joining us again. Jurgen Neumann, and we will talk to you again next week. Thank you very, very much, all the listeners and the caller and the producer. Thank you all. Bye bye.

[58:30]

[music]

[58:49]

[ad]

[1:00:00]

END

top

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

RBN Comments

top

(Comments as of 3/24/2025 = 4)

kati
March 23, 05:21
Here my favorite of Ernst Zuendel, all episodes of his “german holocaust” in one big video file, i sure listened them 10+ times, as german alot new things.
https://archive.org/details/ernst-zundel-the-german-holocaust-the-complete-collection-parts-1-34

kati
March 23, 05:25
All Samisdat episodes of Ernst Zuendel, about 300 maybe, are sure on Archive org too, or easier to watch on Odysee, this link you will have all episodes https://odysee.com/@ErnstZundelVideos:8

kati
March 23, 05:39
I linked the Odysee, here, i cannot watch Jürgens Bitchute here in germany, it gets geoblocked cause of the content against our laws, but the Odysee channel is not blocked.
Im avoiding bitchute in general now, too much blocked in germany and the ads are annoying.

kati
March 23, 05:48
Micheal Collins Piper told me alot about Mark Weber, its now silenced but Weber took shekels to let nationalist books out of print, you can hear the story on Pipers podcasts over several episodes. I asked a friend of Piper, the one who runs now FTJ if the story is true, he said yes.
So im careful to recommend Mark Weber now, sure the IHR is not to blame, its jsut Webers doing long ago, maybe 2 decades ago. I think “Silesias Inferno” is one of the books he run out of print, i got the german version here, its witness reports from what the red army did in Silesia/Schlesien, its the most graphic book i ever read and i had to pause a day after most reports. You can still buy the english version sure, for a good price. The german version is cheaper, from 1966 i think and not printed anymore, noone would print that now, i paid 2€ for it.

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

See Also

top

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 1 – Intro – Jun 29, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 2 – Jul 6, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 03 with Paul Fromm – Jul 13, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 04 with Oscar – Jul 20, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 08 with Alfred Schaefer – Aug 17, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 09 with Grace Eki Oyama – Aug 24, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 15 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zündel – Oct 12, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 18 with Jürgen Neumann – Nov 2, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 20 with Kathleen Dudley – Nov 16, 2024 – Transcript

Monika Schaefer – The Flipside with Monika – Ep 24 – Prof Tony Hall – Dec 21, 2024 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 27 – Germar Rudolf – Jan 18, 2025 – Transcript

The Flipside with Monika – Ep 36 with Jürgen Neumann on Ernst Zundel – Mar 22, 2025

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

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Joel Davis: And it is the Joel, Blair and Tom Show this evening. We have come up with a new name, but I just wanted to get the graphics made, so I don’t want to launch the new name until the graphics are all sorted and we can launch it with a coherent graphic style.

So you’re still waiting for promised name.

Blair Cottrell: What is the new name? Are we’re not going to know?

Joel Davis: We’re not going to announce it now. We’re not going to kill it now. Like:

“I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what it is!”

Blair Cottrell: I actually don’t know either. I literally don’t know!

Joel Davis: So there you go. That’s even better. Like, you won’t.

Blair Cottrell: I wasn’t consulted. If the name is shit, if the name sucks, I wasn’t consulted! [chuckling]

Joel Davis: You were consulted. I did consult you. I don’t know why you don’t remember this conversation, but it’s good that you don’t remember because that way you won’t say it and that way it’ll remain a surprise for the audience.

Blair Cottrell: Strategic. I like it. Yeah.

Joel Davis: Don’t worry, I will reconfirm with you now that you’re telling me you don’t remember our conversation to make sure that you are happy with it. But I’m basically going with something that you said that you already liked.

Blair Cottrell: No, that’s all right. You guys do what you want. I’m just a passenger on this ship.

Joel Davis: [chuckling] You’re not a passenger! We’re all in the same team. We’re a unit. You know, we were to move together as a unit.

But anyway, speaking of moving together as a unit, it is the 6th of September 2024. And on this stream we’re going to just talk a lot about World War Two, World War Two revisionism in particular. But where I want to start is I want to talk about the interview of, he goes by Martry Made on Twitter. He’s got a very large Twitter account. He actually has me blocked on Twitter, which maybe we could talk about. [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: How do you spell that, Joel? Because I want to look him up right now. Martyr Made. MARTYR.

Joel Davis: What was his name again? His actual name? Was it?

Blair Cottrell: Darryl Cooper?

Joel Davis: Darryl Cooper.

Blair Cottrell: Darryl with, two Rs, I believe.

Joel Davis: Yeah. So he’s an American. He has a Substack, he makes a podcast, and he talks about history on his podcast. Tucker Carlson had him on the show. It got retweeted by Elon Musk. He then deleted it because the jews attacked him for retweeting it. And the jews are attacking Tucker Carlson pretty hard right now. It was probably the most based collection of statements we’ve ever heard from Tucker Carlson. He interviewed him extremely sympathetically. He called him:

“The greatest historian, popular historian in America right now.”

And then just set him up to talk about how our whole narrative on World War Two is total bullshit!

And then they then went on after Martry Made, after Darryl Cooper broke down a lot of talking points that are actually David Irving talking points, kind of softened them up a little bit. Talking about how he kind of intimated a Holocaust revisionist narrative. He didn’t quite go there, but he kind of gestured towards it. Then he said that:

“The real bad guy of World War Two was Churchill.”

And then he then argued for that position by talking about how Hitler sent the British multiple attempts at making peace, and that it was actually in the strategic interest of Britain to make peace. But Churchill was determined to continue on with the war because, well, he gave a few BS reasons.

But ultimately, he pointed out that his backers, the so-called “Zionist financiers”, ultimately installed him in the prime ministership for a reason, which was to pursue war with Germany at any cost. Which is basically the key thesis of David Irving’s book Churchill’s War, which I highly recommend! It is one of the greatest books ever written on history, period!

But it’s integral to understanding the Second World War.

So he kind of made that argument. Tucker Carlson was very sympathetic.

They even then got into a discussion about the World War Two narrative and how the narrative around World War Two was used to justify, essentially White genocide. And they basically talked about the problems in Western Europe with mass immigration and the replacement of White people in European countries and so on. And they related it all to the World War Two narrative. It was, Tucker Carlson even said at one point that:

“We should have the Nuremberg trial for the people responsible for filling up Europe with non-Whites.”

For the Liberal elite, basically.

And also, I noticed Martry Made actually used a Thomas777 talking point. And I know that he definitely listens to Thomas777 because I think he follows him on Twitter.

And also, they’ve been interviewed by the same people on multiple occasions. And Thomas is a friend of mine who I’ve streamed with just a few weeks ago, actually. And we’ve done many things together. He’s an American kind of like dissident, academic, eccentric guy, interesting guy. And he’s a Nazi.

But Thomas, one of his favourite talking points is that after Nuremberg, Nuremberg initiated a new paradigm in international law. This is something which is part of David Irving’s thesis as well about the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials initiated a new paradigm in international law, that was their express purpose. And effectively, it made it illegal to be Right-wing in the Western world after the Second World War. The Nuremberg paradigm.

[05:22]

This is a Thomas777 talking point. It’s true. And it was repeated! Anyway, this video has got like 50 million plus views already across different platforms. It’s kicked up massive controversy, particularly on Twitter, because that was the main place where it was posted.

But you can watch it on YouTube. You can watch it on probably other sites as well. It’s brilliant! I thought about playing clips, but the clips are so long, we just end up spending half the stream re-watching the clips. So after this stream, if you haven’t seen it, I do encourage you, go and watch the interview. It’s a very interesting, enjoyable interview. They talk about some other subjects that are quite interesting as well. It’s like 2 hours.

And it’s a really interesting cultural event because this is the re-mainstreaming for the first time in that I can remember in living memory of World War Two revisionism. So this is a pretty interesting watershed moment.

And if Tucker Carlson can stick the landing and just continue going forward, that basically gives licence now to the conservative movement in general in the English speaking world to go there on this subject, because he’s pretty much the biggest conservative political commentator in the English speaking world, I would say, at this point in at this point in time. So very, very interesting stuff!

That’s why I thought, you know, of everything else that’s happened this week, this is by far the most interesting thing that’s happened. So we should just do a whole show talking about this and spurg out in general about World War Two.

But I want to go to you guys, Blair and Tom, like, what you thought about this. I know, Blair, you watched it today, the whole thing. I know, Tom, you only saw clips.

Nevertheless, obviously, you have a lot of thoughts about the Second World War and the importance of World War Two revisionism.

So anyway, it’d be very interesting to get your takes on it.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah, I’ll go first. I guess. I’ve watched it nearly twice, but I skipped to parts which I considered more interesting and relevant. And it made me want more from Darryl Cooper. Apparently, the guy does 30 hours long podcasts! Multiple episodes!

So the guy really spurgs out and gets into really fine details about specific historical events in which he’s interested. And one that he brought up in the interview, you’ll know if you’ve watched it, was Jonestown and Jim Jones. The Jonestown suicides.

And I was surprised to learn that 75% of the Jonestown suicides were black people! Black children and elderly, mostly pensioners over 60. I suppose they were the most malleable, people most likely to follow a cult leader like Jim Jones. But Jim Jones was also, according to Darryl Cooper. I know we’re going to keep it to World War Two. I’m just kind of segueing for a couple of minutes because I was interested in this.

Jim Jones was a big political power broker back in America during his time, which I think was around the sixties, where he was most active. And he rubbed shoulders with various politicians at the time who really fed into his ideology, or at least encouraged his followers to believe in his own special status. And he was one of the first ever racial equality Civil Rights Activists in America.

And what Darryl Cooper said in this Tucker Carlson interview, was:

“Had he not gone rogue and committed mass suicide in the jungle with all of his followers, he would be regarded as a similar figure to Martin Luther King junior this day by liberals.”

He had that sort of impact on the racial equality culture. And he was one of the first people to pioneer that sort of revolutionary ideology, which was very revolutionary and unpopular back in those days.

I was surprised to learn all that. I didn’t know that. Every time I’ve learnt anything about Jonestown, I see video clips of White people drinking Kool Aid. I didn’t know it was mostly black people! But when I discovered that fact, I wasn’t surprised. I realised, yeah, black people seem to be the most receptive to that kind of fundamentalist, radical religious stuff. I mean, a lot of missionaries like to go to Africa to sell versions of Christianity to Africans because they seem to be a lot more receptive to that kind of thing for some reason. So they abandon Europe and go to Africa to get better results

But I’ve written down a few notes. But specifically, …

Joel Davis: I just wanted to say quickly. I didn’t know that there were blacks either, watching this interview. I never really looked into it. But I guess I should have known, considering that they all drank Kool Aid*! It just seems so obvious now. Like, what kind of group of White people commit suicide with Kool Aid? You know what I mean? It doesn’t make any sense.

[* According to Wikipedia is was actually a brand called, “Flavor Aid”.]

Blair Cottrell: Yeah.

Joel Davis: White people gonna commit mass suicide with watermelon lq ike, yeah, [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: Whatever you can poison. But Darryl Cooper approaches all of these talking points, whether it’s Jim Jones, the suicide in the jungle, or World War Two, whatever it is that he studies, you can tell he makes strong effort to approach it, or at least explain it from the perspective of a humanitarian.

And his way of, I suppose, making himself appealing to his audience, to who’s listening to him, especially in this interview, is to help people try to get into the boots or look through the eyes of the people that he’s talking about specifically. He reminds the audience that Jim Jones was once a three or four year old boy. And he said he’s very suspicious of biographies and versions of history where it’s said that:

“The child already possessed some sort of psychopathic quality. And everything was kind of established from some schoolyard bullying incident.”

He was like:

“Oh, I’m going to get revenge!”

And that’s what makes the Stalin’s and the Jim Jones is of the world. He said:

“That’s not really true. There’s a series of events which leads to causing these people to do what they do and become the men that they become.”

Which I think is an honest approach. But it is very humanitarian as well. But it makes him seem more honest. And therefore, I think it’s a skillful way, Darryl Cooper opens the consciousness of the listeners because they’re ready to hear something now from a fair and honest man. So even if it’s not deliberate, it is a skillful way to open up the interview.

Now, his exact words regarding Churchill weren’t that he was the “bad guy”, but “the foremost villain”.

So it’s not necessarily that he was declaring Churchill was the leading bad guy, but he was the worst of the bad bunch, I think, is what he’s trying to insinuate, maybe? But he didn’t really say that specifically. He just said:

“He was the foremost villain of the Second World War.”

And he did say, you were correct. He did say that he wanted some style of Nuremberg type rallies [lol] for what, … Darryl didn’t say this, tucker Carlson said that.

Joel Davis: Not Rallies, trials! The Nuremberg trials, very, very different.

Thomas Sewell: It’s important to mention that as well, because we can’t have the Nuremberg trials without Nuremberg rallies.

[12:07]

Blair Cottrell: That’s a good point. But that’s what I meant, the Nuremberg trials. I’ve just made an error in my notes here. Keeping up with Joel’s opening. They’re trying to keep up. But Darryl describes the Nuremberg trials or what they’re talking about, Darryl and Tucker Carlson, when they’re bringing up that we should have Nuremberg style trials for the people who have done this. The people who have done this, who they’re referring to is who Darryl describes as a “superclass of limousine liberals” is how he puts it. Right. An international superclass of privileged, powerful people, most of whom are jewish or Whites. And far removed from the working class. Darryl specifically says they don’t identify with the working class of their own nation. They identify with each other. They identify with other members of this international superclass, which has all of them, the majority of the influence in Western institutions. And he’s right about that. He’s right.

But interestingly, after that was said Joel, did you pick up on the fact that Darryl said after Tucker Carlson said:

“Why can’t we have Nuremberg trials for these people, for what they’ve done to our nations?”

Darryl reiterates:

“We have to win first!”

That’s an interesting phraseology. “We have to win first”, as though he’s associating himself with our side, with us. We have to win first. I thought that was a really interesting statement by him.

But what do you reckon, Tom, from the clips that you saw, what was the vibe you got? Do you like the guy? Do you think he’s useful? What do you reckon?

Thomas Sewell: He’s definitely very intelligent and he’s definitely our guy. The talking points that he had, again, I haven’t watched the whole thing, but the clips that I’ve seen.

And while Joel was doing this introduction, actually, I didn’t realize he had a Twitter. I just went through his Twitter Martyr Maid and he’s just doubling down. He’s resharing stuff that’s completely consistent. It looks like one of our news feeds, really. It looks like one of our Twitter feeds. He’s even resharing people that are having a go at Drew Pavlou, which is hilarious! Like, even Pavlou somehow gets in the into the hive mind here.

Blair Cottrell: Which I’m sure he loves. I noticed that Andrew Tate, I noticed Andrew Tate had to get in on the comments of the main Tucker Carlson post with a video of him doing like shoulder press or something while watching the video. All of these people, they just need to get in on the action every time, don’t they?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, they do, they do.

But, yeah, just going through his feed and seeing the clips, especially the one you shared about how he mentions the little spot of England and I think Tucker Carlson talks about Germany and Spain and France and, I mean, the point of the show here is, I think, twofold.

Firstly, the importance of World War Two as revisionist history becoming a mainstream talking appointment.

And secondly, how World War 2, 100% is connected to the White replacement, the White genocide, and a collapse of Western civilization! And that you cannot separate the two. It is impossible!

And anyone that tries to address White nationalism or White genocide or being pro-White and tries to avoid, somehow they think:

“If I don’t talk about World War Two or I don’t talk about Hitler or I don’t talk about the Holocaust, that somehow we’re going to make more progress this way.”

Not realizing that it is the linchpin! It is what everything rests on! And it’s just so wonderful to be, … I guess I’ll go into a bit more depth.

I started my journey with watching David Irving videos and Ernst Zundel videos on YouTube back in 2013.

I started like, it’s been eleven years. And I was up at 03:00 in the morning watching David Irving or Zundel or Frederick Tobin talking about the Holocaust being a lie, or talking about, … Because I loved World War Two, I loved studying it, but I didn’t necessarily, back then, think:

“Oh, Hitler’s the best! Hitler was the best guy!”

My dad and my granddad are English, so they’re like:

“Churchill’s the best!”

And then I studied in history that maybe Roosevelt was pretty based. And I never had any affinity with Stalin or anything like that. But I always had this kind of secret admiration for Hitler. Not a strong admiration, but a secret one.

And then watching all these videos on YouTube back in 2013 was like:

“Oh, my God! Hitler was the guy! He was actually the man. Churchill was actually the villain. Churchill was actually the bad guy. And he dragged Hitler into war!”

And when I learned about Hess, and Hess flying over to personally try to, … I don’t know if this is covered in the interview. I didn’t see any of the clips, but correct me if I’m wrong, …

Joel Davis: It wasn’t.

[17:13]

Thomas Sewell: It wasn’t? Well, a lot of people need to know that Rudolf Hess, who was Adolf Hitler’s right hand man from day one, he was just his most loyal supporter, follower, brother, leader. He was an absolute legend, Rudolf Hess. And he actually flew over against Hitler’s orders. Probably the only time he disobeyed Hitler’s orders, he flew over to the UK. I think he landed in Scotland, to personally try to hand the British government, or Churchill, the peace treaty that Hitler was asking for from the British, saying:

“We don’t want to go to war with Britain. We don’t want to firebomb Britain.”

Blair Cottrell: What did they do when Rudolf did that? Didn’t he parachute in? And what did they do? Did they arrest him?

Thomas Sewell: They locked him up! They locked him up for the entire duration of the war. They trialed him, they imprisoned him basically for life. And then he was put in Spandau prison back in Germany at the end of Nuremberg.

And then the day before his release, they had an African kill him. They assassinated him, when he was like. I think he was like, 87 years old. He was an old man. He was very old. I think it was in the 1980s. And they just killed him. Yeah, the day before he was. So they punished him to 50 years prison or something like that. And then he did the time.

And then they didn’t release him. They just assassinated him the day of his release or the day before his release.

So, you know, learning all this back in 2013 completely, radically changed my life! I am who I am now, and I’ve set the course and path, and I’m involved in the politics that I’m involved in, and I’ve been doing all the activism that I’ve been doing and building the Mannerbund and the organization that I’ve been building. And it’s the reason why I first met you, Blair, and I’m sure later on, it’s the reason why I met Joel, because we all have this common knowledge, this common understanding of the truth! And it’s just drastically changed all of our lives.

And for that to now be put in front of 50 million people is game changing! We’re just one step closer. It’s over for this evil, lying tyranny! It’s over! It’s getting so much faster that it’s impossible to tell when it’s going to be.

I’ve always said we’ve got about 40 or so years to get this done, between 30 and 50 years to get the job done before it’s basically impossible to get it done. We’ve got to get it done within about 30 to 50 years.

And a lot of people say:

“Oh, it’ll be done a lot sooner than that.”

And I always try to be a bit open minded to how long Roman Empire collapsed.

I mean, these things can drag out for a long time. It can be intergenerational, it can be fucking horrible! It can get a lot worse.

But then you see things like this and you’re like:

“Maybe it’ll be quicker!”

At this rate. It’s gonna be like five years. We need to get organized. Anyway, I’ll leave it there, for now.

Blair Cottrell: Well, if it’s gonna move, if anything moves as quick as the Internet does, it will be quicker because the Internet moves faster than reality, and we’ve all got to speed up to try to keep up with the Internet. Maybe that’s why society moves so quickly these days. I still remember after the day I first met you, which I think was April 4, 2015, first ever Reclaim Australia rally?

Afterwards, we spent probably an hour and a half, 2 hours on the phone, and you were just so excited! I remember you told me you didn’t think this moment would come in your lifetime, but you were so enthralled and fascinated by the public activism, and you saw it as an opportunity. You were really excited and you just were genuinely inspired by it all, I remember. I still remember that phone call. I took it in front of the fireplace.

Thomas Sewell: Talked about Hitler for about an hour as well.

Blair Cottrell: Yeah. And we’re like:

“What are we gonna do? Like, we’ll start a political party.”

And I’m just like:

“Alright!”

So that was kind of how we tried to springboard ourselves into politics. Didn’t work out that way, but here we are now.

But look, one thing I want to say before, … Yeah, yeah. You have to learn by doing! You have to make mistakes. You have to make mistakes, learn from your mistakes and keep moving forward. It’s the only way you gain experience. And I don’t think a lot of the mistakes we made were even that bad. Like, we always managed to still look pretty cool! [chuckling]

So, anyway before I throw it back over to you, Joel, what I have to say is Darryl Cooper, in the Tucker Carlson interview, presents himself as someone who is an objective historian. Okay?

But regardless of how objective Cooper considers himself to be, I think he does realize this, but maybe he’s pretending not to realize. By being truthful and more facts based. You’re actually serving yourself, you know how should I say this? You’re putting yourself forward as a propagandist for our side. Right? So even if he’s claiming to be totally objective and honest, it only helps our cause, because that’s what our cause is essentially. It’s based on the truth!

And World War Two, I said in the Space last night with Joel, really is the datum point from which all perspective of the present day is forged. And the reason people have the views that they have in society today, and the reason people have been so Hoodwinked by racial equality, mass migration, feminism, etcetera, is because of the perspective they have of the Second World War. And if we can flip that perspective or shift it somewhat. We need to totally reverse it, in my opinion.

But if we can flip it, then suddenly the perspective of reality for the ordinary person in our country will shift. It will change. Suddenly they’ll realize who they are and who their enemy is. Suddenly they’ll realize what they’re fighting for and what they’re losing as a result of these mass migration programs, something they can’t get back, their ethnic identity.

I’ve got a few notes on the interview itself. What’s the subject we want to move into next? Do we want to move through it structurally? How do you want to do it, Joel?

[22:59]

Joel Davis: Well, we can just kind of move naturally, but I just want to make a few comments on, like, building off what you just said, because most people that follow me, I noticed because I have pretty consistently, for some time, taken the view that World War Two is this, like, central event, which is the most important event in the “what went wrong” narrative. Like there are more abstract answers to the question, like talking about the history of jewish involvement in Western civilisation going back millennia, talking about the development of Greek metaphysics and Christianity and the fall of Rome and so on, and how that set up the modern world or the rise of nominalist theology or the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and the Freemasons. And there’s all these different aspects to the problem. Like the British monarchy being decapitated by Cromwell, basically, and then reinstalled but then overthrown again, and William of Orange being brought in with the jews, so the Rothschilds could set up in London and so on. There’s all these pivotal moments in history.

But at the end of the day, World War Two is the most pivotal, because prior to the Second World War, we lived in a completely different world ideologically. And afterwards, a completely new world has been constructed. And Europe lost political agency in World War Two. That’s the key point, is that Europe lost World War Two! It wasn’t just Germany that lost World War Two. Europe lost World War Two! Britain lost World War Two! That is something that people don’t think about enough, because people say:

“Oh, Joel, you’re an Anglo Saxon, you’re an Australian. Why do you side with the Germans and Hitler in the Second World War? You’re betraying your own side!”

Well, no, my side lost World War Two! Okay, we beat the Japanese like Australia beat the Japanese with the Americans, but the British Empire lost World War Two.

During World War Two, the official flag of Australia was the Union Jack. We didn’t even officially have our current flag yet, like, that’s how still British we were. Like, it was just taken for granted that if Britain goes to war, we go to war. We had this imperial Anglo consciousness, this pan-Anglo consciousness. We were all one king, one flag, one race, one people, at that time.

So it was a completely different world than the Australia that we grew up in that has more of its own identity in those days. And obviously, the Australia at that time also had a White Australia Policy and also was kind of anti-semitic, actively tried to stop jews from immigrating to Australia and so on.

So the Australia that existed prior to the Second World War simply cannot be counterposed to Germany in the way that the post-war narrative is put up.

But secondarily, the Second World War meant our empire collapsed. And now we were behest to the United States. Now we are basically America’s bitch, as is Europe. So we fell under American control due to the Second World War, as well as part of the British Empire. Not just Britain, not just Europe, but also us.

And that American influence is jewish influence! Because America is run by jews. So that meant we fell under jewish control1 And you could say that the British Empire had jewish infiltration and jewish influence. Obviously, it did that was one of the main reasons why they went to war against the Germans. But it wasn’t to the same degree of what we have in the post-war international order underneath the so-called Americans. So that’s very important to take into consideration.

But also when examining Churchill’s treachery, and we can get into this a little bit more, maybe later in the show. Churchill sacrificed the British Empire to go to war on behalf of the jews, and he tried to drag America into that war. And he mentioned this in the interview, Darryl Cooper, that after there was the successful annexation, basically, of France, after basically the British and French forces were routed in France by the Germans. The blitzkrieg just smashed through in six weeks, basically, and they kind of fled at Dunkirk. There were no British forces left on the Continent. All of Western Europe was basically under German control, and Britain had no hope of reinvading Europe and doing anything about it. They were still at war with Germany, but they were in no place to really do much about it whatsoever in terms of actually changing that basic kind of landscape geographically.

[27:36]

All that was left for them to do was either basically negotiate peace or drag one of or both the Soviet Union and the United States into the war. That was all they had left to do. And Churchill was fundamentally determined in particular to drag the Americans into the war. And what dragging the Americans into the war meant was he was basically saying:

“We’re going to drag Europe under the control of America. By dragging America into the war now, America gets to set the tone for once the war is won the fate of western Europe.”

And also that support that the Americans gave to the Soviet Union also enabled the Soviet Union to resist the German invasion. And that was part of why Hitler wanted peace with Britain. He wanted peace with Britain for two main geopolitical reasons.

Reason number one is that Britain had one of the world’s best navies. The only nation that could compete with the Britain as a naval power was the United States. But they had to build it up. They really rapidly built up their navy through the Second World War. But the United States and Britain were the world’s two pre-eminent naval powers.

And Germany needed access to the world’s oceans. Because Germany and Europe in general lacks a lot of natural resources, which it needs to get through trade, that is primarily through the oceans. It’s very expensive and difficult to move freight by land across large distances, like from East Asia or the Middle East or wherever. Obviously its impossible to move from America to Europe without using the oceans.

So controlling the oceans means controlling global trade. And that is vital to Germany, because if they don’t have access to the worlds oceans, that means they don’t have access to a reliable supply of oil and other significant resources, which means if they are cut off from accessing oil in a state of war, their entire war machine, which depends upon oil to function because it’s mechanised, can collapse and they can be brought into existential peril.

There were oil fields in Romania that were key for Germany to have access to because they were connected to continental Europe. But that was then under the shadow of potential military action by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has massive oil reserves as well, that it controlled in like Ukraine and other territories, that was under its control.

So that was a lot of the reason for Barbarossa, by the way. It wasn’t just about the threat of communism. Obviously, the ideological threat was significant, but it was also the geopolitics of managing resources and securing resources. Hitler did not want to be caught with his pants down, where Stalin moves on the oil fields in Romania, cuts the Germans off. And now they don’t really have the means to defend themselves, potentially against the communists sweeping across Europe.

So Hitler wanted a peace with Britain because he studied history and he saw Germany tried to go to war with Britain and Russia at the same time, in World War One, didn’t work. Napoleon tried to go to war with Britain and Russia at the same time and fight on two fronts. Didn’t work.

And so he didn’t want to make the same mistake again. He wanted peace with Britain for that reason, but also because Britain neutralises American influence. He didn’t fundamentally trust America. He understood that America was falling under jewish control, that America was basically an emerging superpower that would assert itself in the world and that Europe would lose its capacity to assert its own destiny, and Germany in particular.

But Europe in general would lose its capacity to assert its own sense of destiny and will in the world if America rises and the Soviet Union gobbles up half of Europe, and basically the Western European powers are kind of cornered and their empires are stripped of them, and they are kind of isolated. Which is exactly what happened at the end of the Second World War.

So Hitler saw those threats rising and saw a strong British Empire as key. The Germans would try and control the continent, repel the Soviets, and Britain would basically try and maintain a global order that prevented America from rising and kind of consuming the whole thing. That was his grand strategic vision.

So it was actually in his interest, which is why the Germans were so fair to the British, and they were offering peace offer after peace offer after peace offer, and they basically demanded nothing. The Germans didn’t demand anything for peace. They were like, basically:

“You keep everything that’s yours. Let’s just have peace. We don’t want to take anything from you. We don’t want to exact anything from you, even though you declared war on us first. We’ll just give you peace for free!”

And the way that it was responded to ultimately was, as was mentioned in the interview, the largest scale terrorist attacks ever in human history committed by the British covertly from, in terms of their own population, against the Germans.

So Churchill started ordering his bombers to go and bomb civilian areas all across Germany. And no one in Britain knew about this. It was classified top secret. While the Germans are trying to send peace offers to Britain, saying:

“We want peace, we don’t want war. We don’t want anything from you. Can we please shake hands and do a deal?”

At this exact same time, Churchill is ordering for women and children to be bombed in Germany! While, by the way, the British had – we know now that with the records – that the British had full access to the internal communications within Germany. They had decoded their internal communications and knew exactly what the strategic mentality of the German leadership was for the entire duration of the war, which is a big reason why they won, because they were able to get on the phone to, … Not on the phone. They would Telegram the Soviets and say:

“The Germans are about to attack here, and then they’re going to do this, and then they’re saying they’re going to do this next week.”

And so the Soviets were always one step ahead of them, because the Germans didn’t realise that the British could literally hear and see everything in all of the key high level communications.

[33:41]

So they had full knowledge of the fact that the Germans were sincere in wanting peace and that they wanted peace, and they just wanted to go and focus on fighting the Soviet Union, and they wanted no beef with Britain. And they saw what they were saying publicly was actually what they felt privately. They knew that and they had full knowledge of that.

Nevertheless, they started bombing the shit out of innocent civilians! They also knew that Hitler had an order, a directive to the Germans to not bomb civilian areas in Britain.

And even though German towns were getting blown up and some of the bombings were egregious, where like, 20, 30,000 innocent civilians are, like, burning to death in the space of an hour, …

Blair Cottrell: Imagine your own mother melting into a tar road!

zz Imagine not just your mother, everyone all of your friends, all of their children and so on in your whole neighbourhood just being, yeah, incinerated! This is what was happening across Germany. And Hitler ultimately broke. Like, he couldn’t handle it anymore. And it was like:

“Well, fuck! Like, fuck them! We’re going to bomb them back!”

And started bombing, you know, started bombing the shit out of London, which was he showed a lot of restraint waiting that long. Or his generals are practically begging him, saying:

“We’ve got to retaliate. This is getting ridiculous!”

He finally retaliates. And then Churchill spins at:

“Look at the German aggression! We will not stand for this! And we will fight them on the beaches when they try to invade!”

Churchill knew that they weren’t going to invade. They had no plans to invade and that it would make no strategic sense for them to invade.

Nevertheless, he made out like:

“This German aggression, we won’t stand for it!”

And so on.

Meanwhile, all the efforts of British intelligence was concocting BS. Kind of like how the Israelis concocted a bunch of BS narrative to drag America into war in Iraq. They were doing the same thing, like, creating all these fake documents, spreading them in America that that Germany was going to go and invade South America and had plans to take over the Americas and that they were going, …

Thomas Sewell: Propaganda!

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! All this bullshit that they were spinning, which was total nonsense, as if Hitler is going to know, try and invade South America while he’s in the middle of fighting the largest ever individual war between two countries in world history, between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Like, the scale of that war is so far beyond the scale of any particular front in the history of warfare! As if he’s going to go and invade, like, on the other side of the world!

By the way, Germany at this time is under naval blockade, and can’t even sail to South America, let alone invade the whole place. It made no sense.

But anyway, this shit is getting spread so much. You know, everything that could be done is being done to try and drag the Americans in. And Roosevelt wants the war with Germany because Roosevelt has plans to create a kind of globalist, liberal, international order, much like what was ended up being created after the Second World War. And saw the kind of battle with Germany as key for American dominance over Europe to be asserted, and then therefore over the world.

But the American people didn’t want to go to war with Germany, didn’t want any bar of it. And ultimately with the Pearl Harbor bombings and the issue with Japan. Which, by the way, was also by design, because they imposed such intense sanctions on Japan while Japan is at war with China, to basically cripple the Japanese. And all through Asia to basically cripple the Japanese economy. Japan, like Germany, was reliant upon getting oil from the outside and other key natural resources from the outside. Because Japan doesn’t have a lot of natural resources. And so sanctions and naval blockades basically being imposed upon the Japanese completely cripples their capacity to have industry, and therefore cripples their war machine while they’re engaged in so much active warfare across the whole Asian region at that time.

So the Japanese felt they had no choice but ultimately to just start fighting the Americans directly because the Americans were crippling their war effort already.

And the Americans knew that it would ultimately result in Japan attacking. And actually, Australian intelligence told the Americans two months before, or six weeks before, or something, that Pearl Harbor was going to get bombed by the Japanese. And the Roosevelt administration allowed it to happen, just kind of like, move people that they were quite happy to die into the area and ships that they were happy to get blown up, moved all their key personnel out and just let it happen, basically, so that they would have a pretext to go to war with Japan.

[38:24]

Blair Cottrell: It makes me realise what like, passive “good guy Greg” role Australia played in the Second World War. We basically just fought some battles for the English. Won most of them. Apparently, Menzies* was involved in a lot of the war cabinet meetings with Churchill and kept a private diary about how insane Churchill was.

[* Robert Menzies-Australian politician, 12th Prime Minister of Australia (1894-1978) Sir Robert Gordon Menzies was an Australian politician and lawyer who served as the 12th prime minister of Australia from 1939 to 1941 and 1949 to 1966. Wikipedia]

And then the Japanese are heading to Pearl Harbor, and we’re like:

“Hey, they’re going to Pearl Harbor. We’re the good guys down here, just going to try and help!”

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! I don’t think anyone in the Australian leadership at the time would have wanted the war to become what it became because it wasn’t in our interest.

But ultimately, we had to fight the Japanese because we couldn’t, …

Thomas Sewell: Even in the United States, there was a survey done, a very large survey, basically one step down from a census, done on America’s involvement in World War Two. Well, obviously, before World War Two existed as a concept, but involvement in the European war, I think, is what it was described. As and they polled, like, less than 30%. I think like, 20 something percent had any interest in going, engaging, and involving in that war. And both political parties at the time, the Republicans and the Democrats, both ran their election campaigns on not being involved in it. So, obviously, the jews had ulterior motives. And, yeah, it frustrates me. It’s been a frustrating, I guess, eleven years of dealing with a certain faction of, I think Hitler describes them as historical, not “historical enjoyers”, but he has a really unique way of describing them in Mein Kampf, in one of the later chapters. I think it’s around, I could do quote and verse. I think it’s around page 168. [chuckling] I don’t know why I know that! But I really like Hitler.

Blair Cottrell: Paragraph three, beginning at word 17, …

Thomas Sewell: I’ll just get it. I’ll just get it out. I didn’t actually prepare this earlier. But he talks about people, but they don’t see the forest for the trees, …

Blair Cottrell: Is that the Mannheim books? Is that Mannheim books? The black one?

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. It’s a Rolf Mannheim that everyone hates.

Blair Cottrell: Have you got more than one of those, or is that yours? Because I need one of those.

Thomas Sewell: I should have a couple of them. Yeah. I’ve got an order in at the moment for the one Jacob was recommending.

Joel Davis: You should get the Dalton one as well, Blair, because the translator, Thomas Dalton, is very competent and is actually a National Socialist. And tried to do a translation that really honoured what the original German says to the that, as accurately as possible. Whereas the other translations, because of ideological bias, you still get the idea, obviously, of what he’s saying.

Blair Cottrell: But is Ralph Mannheim jewish?

Thomas Sewell: I don’t know. I could Google it, but I don’t know. I don’t think the translation of Mannheim is the problem. It’s mostly the footnote, obviously.

Blair Cottrell: I think the Mannheim translation is quite good.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, I enjoyed as well. I just ignore the footnotes. So sometimes I read the footnotes because they just add context. It’s not necessarily biased, obviously, just there’s footnotes about the Holocaust in there. But that’s nonsense!

But the most important thing about reading Mein Kampf is, I mean, Joel just went on, like, a 30 minutes rant about the history of World War Two and its relationship, obviously, with Australia, the UK, America, the Soviet Union.

When you read Mein Kampf, Hitler describes his idea of a New World Order without jewry. Without world jewry. He describes that alliance between Germany, the United States, Germany, and Great Britain. It describes these relationships all the way back in 1925. So Hitler was completely transparent with his intentions. Hitler was completely, like, he’s writing stuff, how many, basically two decades before the end of World War Two, before the Nuremberg trials, and before all the lies and slander really started to go hard. But he already wrote it, and it was the most published book, I think, in history, after the Bible and the Quran.

So that’s why it’s so important to read, because when you read the words from the man, you can feel a sincerity, and it deprograms all of the “Holocaustianity”, as Jacob and William Luther Pierce call it. There’s a Holocaustianity. That’s the new religion. I think there’s a Catholic, a famous Catholic anti-semite as well. I can’t remember his name. Maybe Joel knows him, but he calls it “Holocaustianity” as well.

And I think that’s a really important understanding, too.

Joel Davis: [words unclear]

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. I’ve actually never heard you say call it, but it’s a very good way of describing it, because it really is a religion built around the Holocaust. And reading Mein Kampf and learning the truth about World War Two breaks the spell of Holocaustianity! And when you break the spell of holocaustianity, your politics is now free. You can choose to be whatever you want to be politically, but you’re most likely going to be on some sort of pipeline between racist, libertarian, and National Socialist. And you’re going to probably argue about something benign or irrelevant rather than the securing the future for our people. And to have a free mindset, to not be shackled by holocaustianity, and to have a free mindset allows you to address all information from that free mindset.

And so it’s interesting how everyone gets involved in the movement, if we want to describe it by that, I mean, we’ve got Darryl Cooper. Is it Darryl Cooper saying “we have to win first”?

So we’re a movement that’s trying to win! We’re trying to achieve state power across Western civilisation, across White civilisation. And it’s fascinating that we all come into the movement from maybe these different angles.

[44:20]

And a lot of the people our age that have been around for some time, we probably got red pilled through 4Chan or YouTube or some sort of alternative media source, even if it’s on a mainstream source, but the backwaters of it that are now banned as part of dead end Internet theory. But we were in that part of the Internet that doesn’t really exist anymore, but it doesn’t need to anymore. It’s become mainstream. Like, they tried to smother it! The Pandora’s box is open. They tried to rig the YouTube algorithms.

And I talked about this with Blair. You were there when we talked to, … Who was the guy from Mirror Mirror, the Channel Ten reporter, that American or Canadian guy? What was his name? Journalist Todd Sampson asked me a leading question because obviously they were trying to get it on the documentary. He said:

“Did you, when you were on YouTube, did you feel that the algorithm, that it was YouTube’s fault, that the algorithm set you down this path?”

And I was like:

“No, it was the opposite. I just randomly came across these videos by just deep diving into history, autistically.”

And then, I didn’t say that, obviously, on television, [chuckling] but, …

And then the algorithm tried to take me out. I’d be watching a Hitler video. And then the most recommended, the top recommended was like, a Ben Shapiro video, or a Jordan Peterson video. It was these astroturfed system people or Joe Rogan video. It was like always trying to pull me out of the rabbit hole. The algorithm was doing the opposite.

And he just paused and stopped his line of questioning and then just looked at his notes and then asked a different set of questions. He was like:

“Damn it!”

He wanted the sound bite. Like:

“I was groomed by YouTube. YouTube’s responsible. We should sue YouTube because YouTube’s making all these people racist!”

And now it’s like, [chuckling] Tucker Carlson is making all these people wake up to the true the World War Two. And obviously they’re going to go after him.

It’s interesting, the observation about Musk supporting the show and then realizing the implications of that and be like:

“Oh, shit! I’m not ready to go that far yet!”

And there’s a lot of people, a lot of chatter. I have checked the comment section of the show today, and there’s a lot of chatter about:

“Oh, this person’s controlled opposition. This person’s controlled opposition!”

It’s like:

“We’re all here! We all made it!”

And if the system is doing these things in a controlled manner, well, look, they’re clearly losing! [chuckling] Like, if that’s what they have to do to control the narrative, that’s the down, …

Joel Davis: This is losing control of the narrative. This is like:

“Well, in order to stop White people from waking up, what we need to do is talk about how actually Churchill was the bad guy in World War Two and maybe slightly deny the Holocaust and talk about how the jews were behind it in an indirect way and how that’s what’s justifying White genocide.”

That’s the controlled demolition!

Like, if the system is doing controlled demolition on the World War Two mythos, which is literally the fundamental pillar in the kind of ideological structure of the modern world, that’s victory!

I don’t think the system is doing that. I think Tucker Carlson is from a faction of the American elite, which are somewhat free agents to a certain extent, and who, I think, look at basically the current state of the United States and of the American empire and realise that if White people aren’t resupplied with some kind of dignity, then, basically the empire is toast! Because you need to have young White men moving up within the system, occupying positions of power and prominence and running America so that it maintains, that they can have a functional empire.

And right now, the way that it’s set up, they’ve denied so much dignity to young White men and to the White race in general. They’re being so destructive towards the high quality blood that is necessary for the empire to sustain itself, that it is on a trajectory to self destruction in very short order.

So I think there are a certain element of the American elite, I think, which are still kind of WASPy. They’re not jews, because, you know, his dad’s a CIA agent, and he’s got a lot of connections. So, I mean, he’s a part of the elite. He’s not just some guy.

Thomas Sewell: When people say:

“Oh, Tucker Carlson, you know, he’s, …”

I agree. He wore that Kabbalah bracelet. That’s suspicious, on a previous show. That’s an odd thing to wear, that crimson bracelet. Maybe it means something else in other circles, but most people are aware that’s a sign of tether or tie or submission to the Kabbalah mysticism.

But again, let’s say that’s correct. Let’s take that information and we all agree on it. How does that explain or justify what he’s done today? To me, I can only think of, obviously, that’s a clear answer, that there’s infighting within the Deep State and even there’s cabal, and it’s just CIA agents that are trying to get the American empire back on track and White people back supporting the government, because they’ve lost all trust. There’s no trust at the moment.

I think Republicans are at like 7% trust in the mainstream media, or it’s basically hit, … We’re like a couple years away in theory, a couple years away from the collapse of the Soviet Union. If you think about where public trust was in the mainstream institutions of the Soviet Union in 1987 or 1988, it was pretty obvious that the whole thing was going to come apart.

And there’s a lot of history, a lot of firsthand history of people that talk about how they would walk around in the Soviet Union in the late eighties and walk into car dealerships and pretend to buy a car, because they knew they weren’t for sale, because they weren’t getting manufactured. And they would have these fake conversations with the car dealer, like pretending to buy a car and pretending that they had the money to buy the car. And everyone just like, played pretend. And it was just like this really strange time where they were living in this, I think the term was called hyper, maybe not “hyper realism”. I think it was hyper realism. I watched a documentary called Hyper Realism on it, and that’s kind of similar to what we’re living. We’re living in a different version of hyper realism. But the two notes I have is that, …

[50:42]

Blair Cottrell: We’re in hyper faking gayism!

Thomas Sewell: Yeah, exactly! [chuckling] Yeah. It’s the same thing, but just gay and brown.

Joel Davis: They kind of had, like, ironic communism at that point. Like no one actually believed. So it was just like this ironic performance art. Because no one can step out and openly criticise it because that’s a capital offence, Gulags.

So everyone just ironically goes along with it to show that:

“Yes, I’m aware that this is bullshit and you’re aware. We’re both aware that this is bullshit, but we’re not breaking any laws.”

And it’s almost like liberalism is getting to that point where no one actually fucking believes that this shit is actually true anymore. Except retards! Even Drew Pavlou does not believe liberalism is true!

Thomas Sewell: No he doesn’t.

Joel Davis: He knows that the jews run everything and that racism is actually the only thing that’s actually funny or interesting. He’s a totally cynical actor.

Thomas Sewell: What he said on the Spaces last night that why do Right-wing people, someone asked AI, or maybe it was you, Joel. Why do Right-wing people wink at each other and that, …

Blair Cottrell: Some Leftist, why do like, Nazis smirk at each other in conversation or when they’re in an interview together, and the AI answered:

“To indicate a connected consciousness and the fact that they’re both in on some propaganda ploy.”

And I said:

“Yeah, yeah, that’s right.”

Thomas Sewell: It’s the bees. The bees. I probably told the story many times, but I’ll do it in the short version. When the wasp comes into the beehive, the bees don’t fight back straight away. They kind of just, … Bees are industrious. They’re kind of like, they’re kind of Anglos without, you know, well, they kind of like Anglos in a lot of ways, the bees. And they don’t necessarily fight back straight away. It takes a long time for the Saxon to begin to hate. Like, the bees kind of just tolerate the wasps coming in, just like eating people. Sometimes the wasps, even eat the young and start fucking up the royal jelly. And the bees are just like:

“Oh God! And they just, they got to get to work. You know what I mean? They’re stuck in traffic and there’s a traffic jam and life sucks! And I got to get the pollen and get the pollen back to the beehive. And this is more important things. Yeah, we get there’s a wasp, but it’s not my job. I don’t have to deal with it. It’s a police job!”

And the police are like dysfunctional, the bee police.

Anyway, how they eventually kill the wasp is they just start like, waving their wing a certain way, like a different way. And the wasp doesn’t really realise it.

And then eventually when all the bees are all just like doing this little twitch with their wing, and when everyone’s doing it, like, it starts with just a couple bees, like:

“Hey, we got to deal with this problem.”

And they start doing this little wink, this little smirk, this little. Like a little bee sieg heil. And they all start, …

Blair Cottrell: Like they’re bashing their spears against their chest plate.

Thomas Sewell: Yeah. Yeah, sort of but it’s like a subtle one. It’s like an Anglo. It’s like subtle racism. It’s like an Anglo subtlety.

And eventually, when they’re all doing it, then the bees. It’s a hive mind, you see? And when the bees all tune into the hive mind and they’re all geared together. And I say this on purpose because, I mean, Joel didn’t want to give it away, but we’ll talk about it later.

But when all the bees are all doing the little mini seig heil and the hive mind is all activated, when the hive minds all mobilised, then when that hive mind has achieved its purpose, then the bees just swarm the wasp and they vibrate the wasp to death. They can overheat the wasp and actually have a rotating meat grinder where they basically can overheat the wasp, and the wasp dies. But the bees just pass out before they die.

Blair Cottrell: I think, in there, there’s a clue as to the new name for the show, is there?

Thomas Sewell: [chuckling]

Blair Cottrell: I picked up on that. Yeah. A couple of questions I have, you guys.

First of all, I’ll make a remark regarding Mein Kampf. What you’ve basically explained, Tom, is that in a world where most books, especially books on politics and philosophy, are just spells trying to spell you, trying to get you to believe and invest yourself in a certain thing. Mein Kampf stands out as the spell breaker! It’s the book that dispels you. And allows you to think clearly for yourself see things as they are.

And whether Tucker Carlson realises it or not, he’s essentially putting himself forward now as a propagandist for nationalism, hardline nationalism, even National Socialism.

I did feel that Tucker Carlson was a little bit soft in the interview on a few occasions. Maybe he does it deliberately to try to seem fair. I know that that’s his game sometimes. But he brings up certain talking points that are quite “humanitarian”. Human rights and everyone having the right to live peacefully and in freedom. But those are the same talking points that led us to this fiasco in the first place. Like this mass egalitarian, mass migration culture that we have to tolerate now, the dispossession of our lands and eventual genocide of our people. So I hope that he realises that at some point and lays off that kind of rhetoric.

But question for you, Joel. You said that, or you alluded, … And both Tucker and I don’t know if Darryl Cooper did, but Tucker also alluded to the same point, that Winston Churchill, as a result of his stubborn refusal to accept Hitler’s peace offers, is responsible for the state Britain is in right now. But do you think Churchill knew that? Do you think back in 1940, world leaders could even conceive of the fact that a superclass of Leftist psychopaths were going to try to replace native Brits with Muslims and Indians? Right. Do you think Churchill actually understood that?

[56:10]

Joel Davis: The answer is absolutely that he didn’t! But Churchill was drunk off his tits every single day! I mean, the man was a total mess!

Blair Cottrell: What you’re saying is where Britain is at now is a consequence of Churchill, but it’s not what Churchill wanted.

Thomas Sewell: He didn’t necessarily know the exact plan, but he knew that these were nefarious agents because he wrote about them. Millions of dollars from the jews.

Joel Davis: Yeah, exactly! Yeah, exactly, Tom, is so, …

Thomas Sewell: He knew they were nefarious for a fact.

Blair Cottrell: He’s in bed with snakes. Churchill’s in bed with snakes. He knows he’s in beds with snakes. He talks about the fact he’s laying in a bed with snakes, but he stays in the bed anyway.

Thomas Sewell: Because he’s compromised.

Joel Davis: Churchill wrote a book in the early twenties talking about two strategies for jews, zionism and Bolshevism.

[Churchill’s 1920 article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald on “Zionism versus Bolshevism”. (click image to enlarge)]

[See: Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 04 – The Russian Revolution of 1917]

And also, there are other private communications. David Irving talks about this, of things, because Churchill was a prolific writer. There’s so much documentation of things that he wrote throughout his life. You know, Churchill had a very long life in public life. You know, he was a high ranking, a very successful politician, a high ranking member of the navy and so on. And World War Two is quite towards the end of his life. So when he was a younger man he was incredibly anti-semitic in some of his remarks. His book on the jews shows a very deep understanding of the jews.

Martyr Made in that interview, by the way, or Darryl Cooper, I should use his real name. He actually totally misrepresented that book, by the way, because he was like:

“Oh, I think Churchill was always a Zionist and he had sympathy to zionism because he thought that, like, jews, if they could either become Zionists or communists, and we would rather they become Zionists rather than communists, because communism is the real kind of threat.”

But if Churchill really felt that way, why the hell did he enable the Soviet Union to, why did he allow the Soviet Union to invade Poland, but not Germany? Why did he enable the Soviet Union to gobble up half of Europe with its actions. Why did he effectively ally with the Soviet Union if he was so [word unclear] communism?

Blair Cottrell: Apparently he had serious problems with Germany because of several military blunders that he was responsible for.

Joel Davis: That’s bullshit! When he said that was total bullshit! The reason why Churchill was fixated upon going to war with Germany was because Churchill went fucking bankrupt! Churchill was voted out of office. His political career failed. His military career was a fucking disaster, and he was a failed man, and he went broke. But he wanted to live a high society life of a rich, well to do, noble, you know, high ranking Tory British guy.

So he wanted to live in the fancy manor and have all these maids and servants and be part of high society and so on.

Blair Cottrell: And bottles of whisky, …

Joel Davis: He needed cash! And he was actually. He was engaged in all kinds of nefarious behaviour. Like, he would create counterfeit, he would do counterfeit painting where he would try and paint like, this famous French painter and pass off paintings like they were painted by someone else, so that he could sell them. Basically commit fraud to sell paintings at high values and so on. And he was doing all kinds of odd jobs, but he was completely broke.

And then jewish financiers came in and offered him literally the equivalent today of, like I think five or $10 million or something, or even more to become their guy, basically.

And the condition was:

“Here’s a whole bunch of money. We’re going to fund you back into politics, as well as paying off all your debts and enabling you to live this highfalutin lifestyle. And we’re going to get all, …”

The jews ran the media, right?

“So we’re going to get the media to start shilling you. But you’re going to be the guy who leads the charge against this Nazi threat against the Germans!”

And Irving points out that when Hitler rose to power, he actually has Churchill’s diaries and Churchill’s writings from that time. When Hitler comes to power in the early thirties. And Churchill doesn’t really care, he barely writes about it. If he was so passionate about Germany being a problem and Hitler being a problem, wouldn’t he have said something? It’s only after the jews come in and bail him out in the mid thirties with literally millions of dollars in today’s money, I can’t remember the exact figures. That all of a sudden he becomes, like, this public advocate within British politics for an aggressive foreign policy against Germany, and he becomes the biggest critic of Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement over Czechoslovakia and so on.

And so Churchill was effectively funded and promoted by the jews to be the anti-German war hawk in British politics. And ultimately elevated into the prime ministership, fueled by the jewish media and jewish financing, backing him and putting him in that role. So he owed his entire political, like, his kind of revived political career to the jews 100%! And it was conditional. And if he was to take Hitler’s peace offer, that support would be totally gone!

[1:01:24]

[See: That Blackguard — Winston Churchill]

And also he would look like a fool because he had basically pushed for war with Germany for so many years. If he then finally becomes prime minister and then goes and signs a peace deal with Hitler and tries to become Hitler’s ally, he’ll immediately get voted out because the British people have been sold this idea by Churchill that Germany is the greatest threat, we must defeat Germany and so on. So if he then cucks to Hitler, then there goes his political career, and also the jews would totally abandon him. He’d get cut off all the funding, all the money that he was receiving, or he can keep going along with, keep the jewish money flowing, keep the media on his side, save face, drag the Americans into the war and become the hero and so on, which is what ended up happening. Right?

So he basically sold out his people! He sold out our people. He sold us out. He destroyed our empire, because he’s of our blood. I mean, he’s an Anglo Saxon. He basically sold us out, destroyed Europe for petty personal reasons, ultimately. His own personal ambitions in politics and in lifestyle and so on. And Churchill was a racist and an anti-semite. He understood the theory. He didn’t have the honour!

[Something to keep in mind is that Organised jewry would have has several potential traitors like Churchill ready to replace him if he didn’t fullfill their agenda, so in other words he was a useful tool, but not indispensable – Kat]

Blair Cottrell: Wasn’t almost everyone racist and anti-semitic back then?

Joel Davis: Definitely! Yeah, but we have documented evidence showing that he understood. It wasn’t like he was a retard that didn’t understand ideology, didn’t understand race and what was going on, and that he didn’t understand jewish power and influence and the nefarious nature of the jews.

And actually, when Churchill tried to revive his political career again, because, remember, he was basically voted out immediately after World War Two ended. When he tried to kind of relaunch his political career again in the late 1940s, he actually, I think, almost ran with the catchphrase or whatever of “Keep Britain, White” or something akin to that, those words. He was going to try and do White nationalist populism as his, like, final hurrah to take back over the Tories and go back into the prime ministership and so on. They ended up kiboshing that idea. But like that shows that Churchill was not like some anti-racist libtard or secret communist or something.

He was just literally a piece of shit sellout! And yeah, and as I said, he was wasted drunk. Obviously that demonstrates like a lack of character to be running the British Empire, basically, be the prime minister. It’s such a pivotal moment in history and you can’t like, fucking sober up and make decisions?

But you just see, like, throughout his life, like so many incompetent decisions, so many selfish decisions, and just a complete train wreck within his personal life.

You know, David Irving talks about the fact that Churchill’s wife or widow, I guess, after he died, was willing to actually work with David Irving and hand over a bunch of Churchill’s records, knowing that David Irving was trashing him! Because she hated him so much, because of how much of a piece of shit he was! He didn’t have loyalty even from his own wife or whatever, or mistress or whatever she was.

Anyway, the point is that he was just a total piece of shit, like as a human being on every level. And that is, I think, the core to his motivation, which makes it all the more worse. Like if at least if he was like a anti-racist libtard, then at least like he would have actually had some kind of even though they’re completely wrong morals, at least he would had some principles that governed his behaviour.

Like Roosevelt seemed to have like a certain kind of ideological motivation behind what he did. You know, like he wanted to create this, like liberal globalist world order or whatever. And obviously that’s evil and fucked up, because it’s fundamentally immoral construction and look at what that has led to. But it was more conscious with Roosevelt, where Churchill was just like a scum piece of shit that was just used by these forces ultimately to bring down probably the society that he actually loved and wanted to be a part of he just wanted to be “the guy”, he wanted to be the hero, he wanted to be the high status, you know, Englishman with the top hat and respected and so on and so that makes it all the more disgusting!

[1:05:51]

Blair Cottrell: Seems like standard narcissism. Like the guy had deep feelings of inadequacy maybe, and was overcompensating. That’s just standard narcissistic behaviour. Every man’s flawed, and obviously Churchill was significantly flawed.

But it’s like no matter where you look, what Darryl Cooper is trying to put forward in the Tucker Carlson interview, that is that Churchill is the foremost villain of the Second World War. You find evidence of that everywhere you look!

When you look at other revisionists, when you look at former soldiers. I can recall watching an interview of some former members of the Royal Air Force from World War Two saying that:

“They felt like their orders came from cowards, that they were carpet bombing Germany, German civilians on orders, but they didn’t want to do it, and they felt sick about it afterwards.”

They didn’t understand why they were being ordered to do that.

So I suppose I harbour some resentment towards the man. And it’s funny because I’m not particularly well read on Second World War. I have a good general understanding. I remember, I suppose I first started developing my understanding by watching William Luther Pearce edits on YouTube, edited by Norse Wolf, who was a clever editor, back when YouTube allowed these clips.

And that’s how I learnt that what started the Second World War was actually Britain and France declaring war on Hitler, and not the other way around. Not only did Hitler not declare war on England or France, Hitler had nothing to do with the start of the Second World War, other than invading Poland to retake former German territory, which German civilians or German citizens were being slaughtered in because they still hadn’t moved out of that territory. And the Poles thought they had the British and the French on their side. So they thought they could just keep slaughtering those Germans and not suffer any consequences. According to Darryl Cooper, …

Thomas Sewell: It was a Polish variation of the NKVD. [words unclear] Part of the jewish administration in Danzig.

Blair Cottrell: That means they probably didn’t stop at murder. It was probably worse than that, too. And so Hitler was in a precarious position where he could either just continue letting these Germans get raped and slaughtered in former German territory because the Poles were ignoring Hitler’s advances and requests to stop killing his people so he could get them out of there safely, or he could just go in there and take the land back to protect his own people.

According to Darryl Cooper in the Tucker Carlson interview, Hitler didn’t actually expect England and France to declare war on him after retaking that land because he saw it as a perfectly reasonable thing to do, considering the circumstances and the position that he was in. And he was really surprised and upset when they forced him into a war, which is why he put so much effort into trying to sue for peace. Apparently, he was firing off peace office for months and months and months!

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

• 4 days ago

  rambetter

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

  Reply·16·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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]

  Edited 4 days ago

  Reply·4·Flag

• 4 days ago

  Fakenukes

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

  Reply·1·Flag

  • View all 7 replies
  • 4 days ago

    Marcus CeltOrwell’s Daughter

    LOL Im gonna have nightmares tonight

    Reply·1·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    Orwell’s DaughterMarcus Celt

    You’ve been Stockholm Syndromed by Babs

    Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  Fakenukes

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

  Reply·3·Flag

• 4 days ago

  @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.

  Reply·1·Flag

  • Hide replies
  • 4 days ago

    drumbum

    LOL

    Reply·2·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    Marcus Celt

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

    

    Reply·4·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    SafariSam USA

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

    Edited 4 days ago

    Reply·1·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    SafariSam USAMarcus Celt

    Did they Not have Bagels back then?

    Reply·0·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    @abx0018b50cSafariSam USA

    Mr not so bright that isn’t my username

    Reply·0·Flag

  • 2 days ago

    papasha408@abx0018b50c

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

    Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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.

  Reply·8·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    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.

    Reply·4·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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]

  Edited 4 days ago

  Reply·2·Flag

  • Hide replies
  • 4 days ago

    @abx0018b50c

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

    Reply·0·Flag

  • 4 days ago

    Jochen88@abx0018b50c

    Here comes the flood of filth…..

    Reply·1·Flag

  • 2 days ago

    papasha408@abx0018b50c

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

    Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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.”

  Edited 4 days ago

  Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  Fredziffle108

  do they take credit card?

  Reply·1·Flag

  • 2 days ago

    papasha408

    Yes, they do!!

    Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  Regensordo

  The handbooks are a massive achievement.

  Reply·3·Flag

• 4 days ago

  Fredziffle108

  Hunt’s work on Majdanek was sooo good

  Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  RebellischerCherub

  fred Leuchter is art professor?

  Reply·1·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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.

  Reply·1·Flag

• 4 days ago

  Revision

  THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. NOT SOME CONSPIRACY BS.

  Reply·1·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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]

  Reply·0·Flag

• 4 days ago

  niemsong

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

  Reply·4·Flag

• 4 days ago

  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]

  Edited 4 days ago

  Reply·1·Flag

  • 18 hours ago

    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]

    Reply·0·Flag

• 2 days ago

  papasha408

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

  Reply·1·Flag