Isaiah 34:10, Revelation 14:11, Revelation 19:3.
No one knows more about Hitler and the Third Reich than David Irving. Irving says he doubts that there is anyone alive beside himself who has shook more hands that shook Adolf Hitler’s hand. Listen to this very good speech. He tells the story of how he has been fined and imprisoned for the modern Jew-crime of free speech and free thought. Listen to the protesters outside this meeting who are trying to drown him out, so terrified are they that someone, somewhere can freely express ideas that they find disagreeable. He’s a brave man who has loved truth more than fame and fortune, and that’s a very rare thing indeed. At one time, he was one of the world’s highest-paid historians. Now, he says his wife is “frantic with fear.”
Free downloads of Irving’s books.
Everyone wants to know Irving’s estimate of Jewish casualties during the war, which in itself is an odd thing. Sixty million deaths in all seem to pale in comparison, unfortunately. Though entire cities were incinerated in minutes by Allied bombers, no one cares. It’s even worse than not caring; they don’t even care to know about it.
Nevertheless, Irving’s estimate can be heard at 1:31:17:
From all causes, during the entire period of the Nazi regime, from 1933 to 1945, I would estimate that up to four million Jews will have died from all causes, including air raids, starvation, epidemics, being worked to death, dying of natural causes, everything else…
I think probably as many as 100,000 Jews died in Auschwitz, which was a brutal slave labor camp, where they had no business being. The fact that they died in that camp of “natural” causes – epidemics, mostly typhus – is neither here nor there. Of those 100,000, probably about 10,000 were actually physically murdered, in the criminal sense…
And of course, it raises the logical question: If you’re going to [exterminate] them…why ship them all the way across Europe and kill them when they arrive? It doesn’t make sense…
Here’s the death estimate from all camps, notarized in 1984 by the International Red Cross:
Irving is not nearly as accurate in parsing his estimate of four million deaths of Jews (from all causes, in all places). Depending on the day, he says that anywhere from hundreds of thousands to three million (2:28) Jews died in the Reinhard camps and the eastern front, and that Himmler was “the brains behind the operation.” In spite of his belief that millions were liquidated, he is still considered a “holocaust denier” because his conspiracy theory doesn’t conform to the official, Jew-approved conspiracy theory.
We saw the same thing happen ten years ago. Everyone believes in a 9/11 conspiracy. The difference is that the “respectable” theory is a conspiracy of 19 Saudi Arabians, funded and trained by former CIA employee Osama bin Laden, with former CIA employee Saddam Hussein having some connection that was never explained but was somehow deserving of a war in Iraq. All who dissent from this official, respectable conspiracy theory are called “conspiracy theorists.” Their disputes and questions go unanswered because they are widely considered to be nonconformist kooks with a devious agenda, not unlike “holocaust deniers.”
The odd thing about this is that the “respectable” conspiracy theorists have to keep revising their theories. In 1990, the estimate of 9 million deaths at Auschwitz, cited in the French documentary Night and Fog, was revised down to 1.5 million, and then lower. In 1963, the Encyclopaedia Britannica claimed that 2 million died at Mauthausen. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has now revised this number down to 14,000. There sure are a lot of Holocaust Deniers out there.
World War II was a horrible time for everyone involved. It was mankind’s worst blood-letting, and it almost erased the white race from the face of the earth. Many were treated brutally, and many lives were lost, Jews included. But as you know, it is no longer good enough to merely acknowledge the suffering of Jews. The religion of Holocaustianity demands sacrifice! Punishment awaits all heretics.
The holy scriptures of this religion are the proceedings of the post-war Nuremberg trial, which was a stunning miscarriage of justice that set new and dangerous precedents in jurisprudence and erected the framework of “hate speech” laws that have crippled the West for generations. Articles 19 and 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal prove it to have been no court at all: “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence… The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof…” There was no possibility of appeal.
Read what men at the time said of the farce:
No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. DouglasAbout this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.
U.S. Senator Robert A. TaftThis kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the “International Military Tribunal.” That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians… At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.
Rear Admiral Dan V. Gallery, U.S.N.I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world… I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty… This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.
Edgar N. Eisenhower, attorney, brother of President Dwight D. EisenhowerMy opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.
Major General J.F.C. FullerTo me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government. If an officer…should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military sevices would fail in the one reason for their existence – the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.
Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilised nations.
Dr. George Peabody Gooch, British historian and author[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.The Tribunal claimed in theory the right – it certainly had the power – to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence, any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.
F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author
Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the United States, called it a “high-grade lynching party.” It didn’t matter. The verdict was a foregone conclusion. A Gallup poll at the time showed that two-thirds of the American public wanted Hermann Göring executed without a trial.
At around the 30 minute mark in the Irving video above, you’ll hear confirmation of Admiral Gallery’s quote above. The Russians have now admitted the guilt of the Soviets for the massacre of Poles in the Katyn Forest, yet at Nuremberg it was blamed on the Germans. And since Holohoax laws are being enforced throughout Europe, such that the fiction presented during the “trial” has become sacralized, it means that to accept the Russian admission of guilt makes one a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. In France, it has been a crime since 1990 to contester (challenge) any part of the Nuremberg Charter, including the manufacture of “Jewish soap.”
At Nuremberg, it wasn’t just a question of jurisdiction. Proof for the alleged crimes was highly questionable or nonexistent. Yet even today, the judgment is used as the basis for hauling 90-year-old men into court to answer for crimes committed 70 years ago, for which there is neither evidence nor witnesses.
The prosecution at Nuremberg essentially argued that Germany had no right to fight against Stalin and the encroachment of Communism, but the West had every right to fight Hitler in the same way. The defense pleaded the necessity of a George W. Bush-style preemptive attack on the Communist menace.
The charge against the defendants was conspiracy. Conspiracy! The Allies could just as easily have been accused of “conspiring” against the Germans. But this was done so that the defendants would be lumped together rather than tried individually. Thus, there was no distinction between Göring and Streicher, though the latter had absolutely nothing to do with the German planning or conduct of the war. Streicher was sent to his death for writing mean things like this very blog post. Count Four against him was for “crimes against humanity by stirring up hatred against the Jews.” This is not yet a crime in America, though Jews are doing everything in their power to bring an end to the right of free speech secured by our Christian forefathers.
Nuremberg was quite the Jewish production. The American delegation was about 75% Jewish, according to U.S. Executive Trial Counsel Thomas J. Dodd’s estimate. Therefore, it’s not surprising that in the place of the judge’s stand was erected a giant video screen; a case of “documentary” covering for the lack of documentation. The arresting images had the desired effect on the jurors and audience.
John Ford, of Western fame, was the chief propagandist and included clever little animations in the ostensibly objective video, including one which showed concentration camps dotting Germany. Jew Simon Wiesenthal has said that “there were no extermination camps on German soil” (Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993), and that “gassings” of Jews took place only in Poland, in camps that were liberated by the lying Soviets and then kept hidden for many years behind the Iron Curtain.
The British invented what they called “concentration camps” during the Boer War (1899-1902) in South Africa, for the purpose of holding Afrikaner women and children. These were the first of their kind. Approximately 30,000 died in the camps. Americans interned Japanese in concentration camps during WWII. Britain was also the first country to practice mass civilian bombing, on May 11, 1940. Towards the end of the “trial,” the prosecution adopted a new term: “policy of genocide.” The word “genocide” was invented by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew, in a book published in 1944. The term “extermination camp” was also coined in November of 1944, by Jew Rudolf Vrba. The “holocaust” mythology did not begin to grow until the 1970s.
The first appearance of the term “gas chamber” was in December of 1941, when German author Thomas Mann appeared on the BBC to declare that in German hospitals, the wounded, elderly, and feeble were being culled with poison gas. Classic wartime propaganda. It’s very similar to what Iraqi soldiers were accused of doing in Kuwait hospitals, which was enough to secure American commitment in the conflict, but which later was found to be lies.
A sign at Dachau is surprisingly honest, at least in the fine print, right under the big words “GAS CHAMBER”:
One might say that the bookends of the 20th century were the lies about the Lusitania and Colin Powell’s yellowcake uranium presentation to the United Nations, where he said that “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”
One of the video spectacles during the opening days of the Nuremberg “trial” that produced a very emotional response was of a bulldozer pushing corpses into a pit. There was, of course, no explanation that it was not a German soldier who drove the machine, and no context was provided for the many starving and diseased wanderers who had come to the camp in the closing days of the war, looking for food and supplies. Josef Kramer, the commandant of Bergen-Belsen, even sent a delegation to British Field Marshal Montgomery’s troops to warn them that they were approaching a huge den of infection, and the typhus had to be prevented from spreading among the Allied soldiers and the German population.
Footage was shown of corpses neatly arranged in rows at Nordhausen, victims of an Allied bombing raid. The “documentary evidence” was propaganda. No one at the “trial” seemed concerned that the horrific images they saw were due, even in part, to Allied bombings which had broken supply routes and caused the general population to starve to death. Nothing spreads disease like lack of food and clean water. No one at the “trial” seemed to notice that there were far more photographs of sick or dying prisoners and refugees than dead prisoners and refugees. Given the circumstances, it was a wonder that so many of them lived. Confederate and Yankee prisoners of war did not fare as well in the 1860s. As Arthur Butz writes in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, “The simplest valid reason for being skeptical about the extermination claim is also the simplest conceivable reason: at the end of the war they were still there.”
According to David Irving, the Nazis didn’t realize that the British had built the world’s first computer, as big as a house, and were intercepting and deciphering all communications between Auschwitz and the chief of the SS in Berlin. Unaware that their enemies were listening, why would the Nazis not have been truthful about tens of thousands of executions per day? Instead, the daily report was of a “miniscule” number of deaths, due mostly to illness, but also to executions and hangings. (Anne Frank died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen, just weeks before the end of the war. Her father arrived at the camp sick but recovered at the camp hospital. Obviously, the Nazis restored him to health so that he wouldn’t have to be carried to the gas chamber on a stretcher.)
For Auschwitz to have a total capacity of 60,000 bodies to cremate per day, as Jews claim, it would have required 2,000 tons of coal per day to be shipped into the camp. Yet the Allied aerial photos show no such thing – not even smoke from the crematory stacks, much less the “color-coded smoke” of Judaic myth. No fuel depots for the raging fires nor “open pits.” Flower beds can be seen surrounding the crematories. It’s amazing that the thousands of Jews who were marched daily to their deaths managed to step gingerly over these flowers and not trample them. The CIA retouched these photos before publishing them, adding the missing hatches (more on this below) on the “gas chambers,” but they forgot to make the camp look like a murder factory.
Russian archives record the precise amount of coal delivered to Auschwitz during the entire course of the war, from start to finish: 2,188 tons.
The sacred number of six million soon-to-be-dead Jews had been repeated by Zionists since the 19th century.
At Nuremberg, the magical number was made official by former SS major Wilhelm Höttl. Höttl claimed, under oath and by signed affidavit, that Adolf Eichmann visited him at the end of August 1944 at his apartment in Budapest, and Eichmann allegedly claimed to have recently submitted a report to Himmler, who had wanted to know the exact number of Jews killed to that point. The answer, of course, was six million. (Nine months before the war’s end, when starvation reached its apex?)
But Höttl had good reason to lie. He had embezzled from the SS during the war but contacted the Allies before he could be arrested. He was more than willing to give the Allies anything they wanted; the alternative was deportation to Hungary, where he would have assuredly been hanged by the Communists. This was the sterling character who gave us the number that is now illegal to question, and his cooperation won him early release from confinement. As Robert Faurisson discovered, the affidavit accuses Eichmann of using the anachronistic term “extermination camps,” but this was never used by anyone until November of 1944, three months after the alleged meeting. Later in life, Höttl searched for a dignified escape from his lie. First he said that Eichmann was drunk on that fateful night in Budapest. Then he accused Eichmann of having an inferiority complex that led him to exaggerate the real number. Then, shortly before his death of old age, he wrote: “The figure of 6 million seems, anyhow, to be magical.” Indeed!
The judges at Nuremberg refused to allow Höttl to be cross-examined, and accepted as fact that six million Jews were killed…killed at the hands of Eichmann himself!
A brief aside: At the show trial in Israel that sent Eichmann to his death, one Jacob Biscowitz testified that at Sobibor, the floor opened and bodies fell into railway wagons below. No one still believes this story. Nor does anyone believe that the bucket of human heads and other stage props shown during the trial were the work of the Nazis. You never hear the bucket of heads mentioned along with the piles of hair (for mattresses!) and eyeglasses and shoes. To further embarrass the Jews, who had kidnapped him from Argentina and hauled him to Israel, Eichmann scuttled his own testimony with an outlandish story about turning two farmer’s hovels into a hermetically sealed room and hauling a captured diesel U-boat engine 250 miles from the sea to connect to this “gas chamber.” Diesel engines don’t produce carbon monoxide. For a large volume of carbon monoxide, a simple and cheap wood gas generator would have done the trick. Eichmann also claimed to have witnessed Jewish blood “shooting out of the earth like a fountain” at a site where they “had been shot some time before.”
The “proof” of Auschwitz being an extermination rather than a concentration camp was founded on the testimony of camp commandant Rudolf Hoess (or Höß), who claimed that he oversaw the deaths of 3 million. The trouble is that no one still believes this. The official estimate by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum of Jews who died at Auschwitz is 1.1 million, including starvation, disease, and all causes. This number is seldom questioned because it has the appearance of being a more conservative estimate than Hoess’s own testimony. Hoess might have been given a plea bargain in exchange for making up a large number, but it didn’t save him. He was executed by the Czech Commies a year later. Evidence that his testimony was intentionally false is supported by his reference to a camp named “Wolzek,” which didn’t exist, and that “Wolzek,” along with Treblinka and Belzec, existed prior to June of 1941. We know that Belzec, the first of the camps, was not constructed until November of 1941. Höess apologized to his wife for his confession, saying that it had been extracted from him under torture.
Additional “proof” for Auschwitz being an extermination camp hinged on the testimony of a French woman named Marie-Claude Vaillant Couturier, who worked opposite the train depot and saw people exiting trains as they arrived.
Listen to “holocaust survivors” themselves, in their own words, talk about various camp luxuries. There was a library with newspapers and books to borrow. There was a cantina with weak beer (oy vey!) and cigarettes. Prisoners paid for supplies with money they received (often from their kin in Vienna) or by Nazi-issued coupons that were redeemable in the cantina. Stamps and stationery were supplied to them by the genocidal Germans. There was a movie theater, an orchestra, quartets, various cultural activities, art classes, a grand piano, a theater stage in the dining room.
Let’s not forget the soccer teams that Jews formed to keep their minds off the long lines around the gas chamber (at Auschwitz, the sportplatz field was adjacent to it), and the screaming, and that awful sound of fingernails clawing concrete, and the wretched smell of burning flesh that lingered in the air. Soccer is good for toning the legs. The exercise can be very useful when Dr. Mengele is chasing you around the camp, trying to turn your skin into a lampshade. Be sure to see the footage of Theresienstadt, where soccer teams were organized by nationality. You see very well-fed athletes and a cheering throng of well-fed spectators. One “survivor” tells the story of when a couple of SS officers joined the game, one for the Poles and one for the Germans. He says pressure on the prisoners relaxed rather than intensified towards the end of the war, in 1944. British POWs at Auschwitz had their own team too.
One woman, who says she had to write out her own sheet music at Auschwitz (oy gevald!), often picked leaves from the trees and made tea for everyone in the camp. They probably couldn’t drink it outdoors because of all the ash that fell from the sky. There was a day care in the children’s barracks, with rooms full of toys. A woman tells of painting a large wall mural of a swiss chalet with cows and flowers in the meadow, and this inspired the children, who wanted Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs painted into the mural. The children then wrote a vaudeville play about Snow White. When asked how this could happen at Auschwitz, for crying out loud, and what the heck, she says that it was all kept very hush-hush – except that SS officers came to watch the play.
Many children were born at Auschwitz, and for some reason the clumsy Nazis sent the pregnant women to the hospital, missing the two-for-one special. (In Schindler’s List, Steven Spielberg hid the children in the cesspool, which makes a lot more sense than received history.)
What kind of retards were the Germans? What kind of extermination policies were these? Apparently, Auschwitz had a lot of things, but it lacked one very significant thing. Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot, in her book Le Système Concentrationnaire Nazi, 1933-1945, wrote that Auschwitz was “without any gas chamber.” The International Red Cross visited Auschwitz during the war and could not confirm rumors of gas chambers, and did not appear to notice the stench of burning flesh, but did verify that the slaves could receive postcards and packages in the mail and had other conveniences, like a swimming pool. The “tourist trap” gas chamber now on site was constructed by the Soviets three years after the war, and some fool built it with wooden doors that open inward, where the dead bodies allegedly piled up. Then some other fool had the idea to build this chamber that allegedly filled with explosive cyanide gas right next to the room containing coal furnaces that could reach temperatures of 900° C. We are asked to believe that German engineers were responsible for this absurd configuration.
The chimney doesn’t even connect to the crematory ovens.
Yet as inept as the Nazis were, they cleaned the ovens and chimneys before evacuating the camps? This is the testimony of the liewitnesses. They painstakingly collected their conspiracy documents and burned them, along with all the bodies they had already buried, and crushed the bones to powder, but forgot to do anything with the 7 tons of hair over here or the massive pile of baby clothes over there. The pile of baby clothes was 130 feet high, according to Kurt Gerstein, an SS officer who purposely discredited his confession by claiming that 25 million were killed at Belzec and Treblinka. This is a fascinating example of how Jews embellish their stories with emotion and Germans embellish their stories with precision. It’s common for those who are really innocent to plead guilty in order to get a lighter sentence which they know is inevitable. But it seems that the Germans were resigned to their fate and yet had the perspicacity to send a message to future generations. It worked. Gerstein was found dead in his prison cell in 1945, the alleged victim of “suicide.”
.jpg)
Only one set of core samples, only of Belzec, was commissioned by the Holohoax Museum, and the “graves” were oriented in such a way that they were directly underneath what were roads, barracks, a barber shop, a dentistry office, and a kitchen when the camp was in operation. Germans didn’t do anything like this when they identified the victims of the Katyn Forest, who were mass murdered by the Soviets. They actually exhumed the bodies.
Jew historian Yitzhak Arad writes that the Reinhard officers received orders to remove all debris, plow under the camps, and plant trees to hide the evidence. But while they were busy doing this, they accidentally left thousands of witnesses behind to tell the whole story of deception to the Soviets? The same witnesses say that they were beaten with rods on the way to the “gas chamber,” but seconds later the inept Nazis forgot that they had beaten them and tried to resume the ruse by giving each one of them a towel and a bar of soap and a haircut.
Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel (a.k.a. Oily Weasel) “survived” the gas chambers too. He and his father were given the choice, by the murderous and barbaric Nazis, to stay at Auschwitz until the Soviets arrived or leave with them for Buchenwald, and they chose to leave with the Nazis. You remember Buchenwald. That’s where the U.S. Army’s Psychological Warfare Division, run by Jews, put shrunken heads and lampshades made of Jew flesh on display. It was a Billy Wilder-produced extravaganza. At Buchenwald, where Nazis allegedly killed 10,000 Jews per day, Weasel’s father died of dysentery, and Weasel played chess (Time Magazine, March 18, 1985). Have you ever tried to watch a chess game? It’s as much fun as swallowing and defecating diamonds every day for a year and a half, which is “survivor” Irene Zisblatt’s claim to fame.
Weasel later deflected questions about the Holohoax religion by calling it “a sacred mystery, whose secrets were confined to a priesthood of survivors. In a diffuse way, however, the assertion that the Holocaust was a holy event that resisted profane representation, that it was uniquely inaccessible to explanation or understanding, that survivors had privileged interpretive authority – all these themes continued to resonate.”
The Nazis were so confused about how to commit genocide that in 1944 they allowed the Council of Elders of the Jews in Vienna to build and operate Jewish hospitals, a children’s home and day school, a community kitchen, a bath-house, an elderly home, a clothes and furniture depot, a welfare division, a library, and a cemetery. Then, in an infamous act of anti-Semitism, an Allied bombing raid completely destroyed the children’s hospital.
Churchill, Eisenhower, and de Gaulle never mentioned gas chambers in their memoirs, yet we now live in a time when Jean-Marie Le Pen can be convicted in France for calling the gas chambers a “footnote of history.” (Jew Raul Hilberg devotes only one paragraph in three volumes to the manual crushing of the bones of 1.5 million bodies. But far from a footnote, this is central to the claim of the Jews that remains of the bodies no longer exist.)
The only alleged homicidal gas chamber that the prosecution ventured to show in a film, during the entire course of the Nuremberg “trial,” was at Dachau. But in 1960, Martin Broszat, of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, wrote: “Neither at Dachau, nor at Bergen-Belsen, nor at Buchenwald were any Jews or other detainees gassed.” A vast portion of the judgment at Nuremberg is based on erroneously alleged events at these camps. Yet still, we hear of men like Moshe Peer, who “survived” the gas chamber at Bergen-Belsen six times, and Alexander Donat, who survived nine “death” camps, with his wife! And if you think that’s amazing, William Lowenberg survived on his own saliva for three years by keeping a magical thirst-quenching pebble in his mouth. He never had to drink water. You wouldn’t want to be convicted of a hate crime for doubting these tall tales.
Auschwitz commandant Hoess claimed that guards entered the “gas chambers” only ten minutes after the Zyklon B had done its work. Zyklon B was invented by a Jew in 1922 to kill vermin such as lice, the carriers of typhus. At Auschwitz, the story is that it was dropped through four hatches in the roof. Unfortunately, these hatches were installed after the war by Polish Communists, as the curator of Auschwitz, Francizek Piper, admitted, and as Jew R.J. Van Pelt was forced to concede in 2009, going so far as to conclude that the lack of evidence makes conservation of the camp useless, and nature should be allowed to take it back. “No holes, no holocaust,” is the famous conclusion of Robert Faurisson, who calls Van Pelt “the last of the Jewish Mohicans.” Leaving aside the idea of using slow-acting hydrocyanic gas to kill anyone in such a short time, the guards themselves would have been exposed to great danger since it normally takes 20 hours to fumigate an area exposed to the gas. It adheres to surfaces as a substance called Prussian Blue, and as Fred Leuchter showed, it can even permeate brick and remain there for decades. It bonds with the iron in the brick. Even today at Auschwitz, there is a distinct blue color even on the outside of the de-lousing chamber, where it has seeped through the walls, but none at all around the so-called “gas chambers.”
.jpg)
Then, Hoess said the guards smoked cigarettes (kaboom!) and ate outside the chamber (yummy) after removing the bodies. This testimony was taken seriously at Nuremberg, as was anything else that might have incriminated the defendants.
Attempts by the defendants to exonerate themselves were ignored, but they managed to make themselves heard on a few key points. For instance, Göring insisted that the single document that mentions what has come to be known as the “final solution” was misinterpreted. It referred to a final territorial solution, according to Eichmann, not a final solution for extermination, as it has been understood. The plan was to extirpate the Jews from Europe, not to exterminate them. The program of evacuation, resettlement, and deportation was well-known and well-executed.
“There was no pre-established guiding plan. As for the question of the decision, it is in part unsolvable: no order signed by Hitler has ever been found, doubtless because no such document ever existed. I am persuaded that the bureaucracies moved through a sort of latent structure: each decision brings on another, then another, and so forth, even if it isn’t possible to foresee exactly the next step.” ~ Jew Raul Hilberg, the most famous of all Jewish historians, in Le Monde des livres, October 20, 2006, p. 12
Faurisson has documented other loopy statements by Hilberg, who has said that the conspiracy came together “by an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading,” and without any “basic plan,” through “basic understandings of officials resulting in decisions not requiring orders or explanations.” Hilberg explains that “no special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe… In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands, as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.” Didn’t the Eagles sing about this paranormal phenomenon during the 1970s when they were smoking peyote? Of course, if Hilberg is correct about extermination ex nihilo – and who would dare to accuse a Jew of lying? – it completely contradicts the accusation of conspiracy at Nuremberg.
Perhaps the Nazis were guilty of telepathy. I mean, just look at them.
Robert Faurisson’s three questions have never been answered, even with a substantial reward on the line:
- Show us one single document that, in your view, proves that Hitler or any other National Socialist ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews.
- Show us that weapon of mass destruction which, as alleged, was a gas chamber; show us a single one of them, at Auschwitz or elsewhere; and if, by chance, you claim that you cannot show us any because, according to you, the Germans destroyed the “murder weapon,” provide us at least with a technical drawing representing one of those slaughterhouses which, as you say, the Germans destroyed, and explain to us how that weapon with such a fabulous killing performance had been able to work without bringing on the death of either those who ran it or their helpers.
- Explain to us how you have arrived at your figure of six million victims.
“I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we should reclaim our history and ask why. Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East? Surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history. If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocon agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity… The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, to nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value.” ~ Jew Gilad Atzmon
David Irving, in a speech linked above, can answer some of Mr. Atzmon’s questions.
In Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in particular, the local populations had bitter scores to settle with the Jews, because during the one year when those countries were occupied, from 1940 to 1941, under the Hitler-Stalin pact – they were occupied by the Soviet Union – the NKVD, the secret police, which was the forerunner of the KGB, had occupied those countries with a reign of terror. And using Jewish officers, because the KGB or the NKVD was largely Jewish at that time, they had carried out a rule of liquidation and purge in those three countries, murdering hundreds of thousands of local, middle-class entrepreneurs, the priests, the businessmen, the intellectuals, were rounded up and driven off in the dead of night by these Communists, by the Jewish organizations, and murdered. And a year later, when Hitler’s armies invaded and marched through these countries, they found the local population busy solving the Jewish Problem for them.
You absolutely must watch this documentary, The Last Days of the Big Lie, that dissects various Jew-lies, from black drama queens who have pretended to be camp liberators to the way in which Holohoaxery gave birth to the war that followed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. It’s a fascinating glimpse into psy-ops on the order of 9/11. Hitler was correct that “the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood can be exploited.” The Big Lie works on our race because it never enters into our minds to tell epic lies, much less to conspire in their service. Therefore, the big lies in which Jews specialize tend to be believed.
One of the best documentaries you’ll see on Holohoaxery is One Third of the Holocaust, a study of the Reinhard camps where 1.5 million were allegedly killed, by diesel exhaust, in minutes at a time. The creator of this video has the audacity to go to the sources of the fiction, where we learn all kinds of interesting scientific facts, like how chimneys bellow fire, and the bodies of women, especially fat women (according to Yechiel Reichman), can be used as kindling to burn the bodies of men. We also learn that the best way to build a fire is a layer of bodies, a layer of wood, a layer of bodies, and a layer of wood. Except that the wood isn’t really needed since bodies burn on their own. Sometimes dried tree branches were used for kindling, according to the liewitnesses, but they also report that the camp perimeter was barbed wire intertwined with tree branches. Yet somehow, the fires raging day and night never caused the fence to ignite, even though it was a mere 14 feet away from the grill made of “old railroad tracks.” Somehow, though Jews themselves managed the burning of oh, let’s say, a quarter billion pounds of wood, and even admit that they smoked cigarettes, not a one of them thought to set flame to the fence and escape. They sure do make good movies about escaping from prison, though.
As for the Nuremberg “trial,” in 218 days and over 1,000 hours of testimony, the Reinhard camps (Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor), were discussed for only about 20 minutes. Belzec is mentioned one time, in the 12th volume of the 22 volume set of the court transcript, where there is a sentence fragment referring to a homicidal electrified floor in the bath-house, which never existed. Treblinka, where it is alleged that John Demjanjuk worked, was once alleged by Jews to be the location of homicidal “steam chambers.” These stories have been consigned to Wonderland, where lampshades, soap, and shrunken heads are found.
Tales of the Holohoax, a gift for the serious comics collector.
Jew Abraham Bomba claims to have been one of several barbers at Treblinka who cut the hair of 150 naked women, sitting on 16 benches in a room that measured 12 by 12 feet (later he said 18 by 18 feet). Just picture it. According to Eli Rozenburg, 400 were crammed into this space. Bomba adds that the room was cleared of the bodies in only one minute.
Only about half a million Jews lived in Germany in 1930, making them about 1% of the population. (They were 10% of Poland.) By 1939 many had emigrated, and about 270,000 remained. No more than five million Jews lived in lands that came under German control during the war. About two million of these were absorbed by the Soviet Union during the war. Millions more emigrated to other countries prior to and during the war, but mostly after the war, especially to America and Palestine. It’s interesting that in 1924, Hitler perfectly predicted that if the Jews are ever successful in founding their own Israel, they will not want to go there in large numbers but will take refuge in their host countries like America. But, he said, if they’re ever convicted of crimes, they will take refuge in Israel, from which it will be impossible to extradite them.
Read this excellent article and learn something you might not know: The bloody Brits offered Palestine to the Arabs before they offered it to the Jews, and then reneged on the deal. Until the reniggering, Emir Feisal actually welcomed the Jews, amazingly enough. This goodwill was extended for – get ready for it – racial reasons. Though the two sides were of different religions, Feisal said he was “mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people…” Of course, the arrangement was never going to work, but for a time the Arabs thought they could live in peace with their cousins, with well-established boundaries between them, according to the Balfour Declaration.
We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
The Arabs are no longer so naive in dealing with Jews, but white people are just as stupid as ever, thinking they can butt into everyone’s business around the world with only positive consequences.
Arab hatred of Jews. Watch the animation at 8:20.
At the Nuremberg “trial,” a great deal was made of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, enforced by Göring, that prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews. (One of the laws prohibited the employment of German women under the age of 45, of child-bearing age.) Of course, this was utter hypocrisy. The Nuremberg Laws were strikingly similar to laws that exist in Israel today which outlaw relations between Jews and Arabs or other foreigners. Even as America led the way in prosecuting the Nuremberg “criminals,” most of our states rightly prohibited marriage between whites and persons of other races. After all, ours used to be a Christian nation.
What more can be said about it? In the words of Mark Twain, “You can’t reason people out of something they weren’t reasoned into.”
“The first Russian premier who faithfully set and carried out the task of Jewish equal status, despite the will of the Tsar, died – was this History’s mockery? – at the hands of a Jew.” ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
In the 13th century, Pope Gregory IX approved the order of Louis IX for the burning of 24 cartloads of Talmud volumes, for the reasons that:
- Rabbinic emphasis on the sanctity of their own oral law nullifies the Law of God found in the Bible
- The Talmud fosters anti-goy and anti-Christian bigotry
- The Talmud blasphemes Jesus Christ
The best spoof ever made by The Onion:
An art display created by Palestinian children, depicting the horrors of the Gaza war (2008-2009), is deemed by Jews to be unsuitable for children.
Simply excellent.
This is a superb work you have put together.
Truly, one of the best postings ever.
Yes. This is a tour de force on the absurdity that is the ‘hoax.
I should clarify the importance of pointing out that David Irving has shaken so many hands that shook Hitler’s hand. This is because Irving goes directly to primary documents hidden in archives and directly to the people who personally knew and worked alongside the principals. Study the approach to history of the other side and you’ll see that they don’t do this at all. They simply recycle the same old second or third-hand material. And what they call “source” documents are, for example, Hilberg repeatedly footnoting the ridiculous book about Treblinka by Yankel Wiernik, trimming out all the parts that are obviously unreliable, and knowing that no one will check up on him because it’s all long out of print.
Keep in mind that Hilberg published The Destruction of the European Jews in 1961 but only got around to visiting Auschwitz in 1979, and only for part of a day!
Here’s Doug Christie grilling him on the stand at the second Zundel trial (1988):
Have you ever visited Bergen-Belsen?, asked Christie.
“No,” said Hilberg.
Have you visited Buchenwald?, asked Christie.
“No.”
Have you visited Dachau?, asked Christie.
“No, I have not visited — I can tell you, to save your questions,” said Hilberg, “I have visited only two camps… Auschwitz and Treblinka.” (4-771)
…
So you wrote a book about a place before you went there, suggested Christie.
“I wrote a book on the basis of the documents,” said Hilberg, “…I did not write a book about the place. I wrote a book about an event in which a place is mentioned, albeit repeatedly.”
…
So we agree, said Christie, that you wrote the book before you ever went to the place you were writing about?
“That’s correct,” said Hilberg.
When you went to Auschwitz once in 1979, how long did you stay there?, asked Christie.
“One day,” said Hilberg.
And to Birkenau?, asked Christie.
“That was the same day.”
And to Treblinka?
“That was another day,” said Hilberg.
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/09hilberg.html
As for the document from the Wannsee Conference, the single document in existence that mentions what is commonly called the “final solution,” it actually uses the words “a final *territorial* solution of the Jewish question.”
One proposal on the table was to send them all to Madagascar. But the Nazis were hardly alone in believing that a territorial solution had to be found. The Zionists themselves actively sought for a homeland. The British proposed British Guiana as a homeland.
Abraham Lincoln sought a final territorial solution to the Negro question by having all black people recolonized to Liberia. He obviously did not want to *exterminate* Negroes.
I shall speak frankly: I believe you are indirectly breaking the commandment against “giving false witness” by uncritically repeatingthe party-line of radical revisionists.
I don’t even LIKE this role of having to “defend the holocaust” but you are forcing my hand, so to speak. IMHO, when you try to argue that there was no systematic Nazi attempt to wipe out European Jewry you are sinning against the truth.
First of all, you are relying types like Robert Faurisson (an anti-Christian crank, btw) whose biased tendentiousness is so obvious that is has not gone without criticism by more reasonable revisionists:
“On technical subject matter, Robert Faurisson is hopeless! He is a kind of techno-retard locked into his fixed ideas about “impossibilities.” Unfortunately, so are many “revisionist” true-believers who seem to worship at his feet. Denial is their new religion. That may explain why holocaust revisionism is not far more successful than it is.”
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/fritz-berg-disses-other-denier-gurus.html
Revisionists may have many legitimate points to say about various details of the WW II Jewish massacres, but the “big picture” seems undeniably clear to me: millions of Jews never left the “Pale of the Settlement” area alive.
I have given thought to this subject before:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=221845&highlight=1959#post221845
“So, in the combined USSR-Poland area there were about 7 million Jews in 1939, and about 2,5 million in 1959. A deficit of about 4,5 million Jews in this area alone. I do not think that emigration to Israel or elsewhere can cover it all.
It was this simple math that originally made me conclude that Holocaust promoters might actually have some concrete evidence going for them.”
And the overall tone of your piece here also reminds me unpleasantly from that of dishonest anti-Kinist debaters – in the sense that while you take full advantage of the WEAKER points of your opponents and deal with them in detail, you do not so much as touch their STRONGER ones, like this for example:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/06/goebbels-on-27-march-1942-dalton-keeps.html
“I also pointed out that Goebbels, this everything-other-than-squeamish man, who could write unabashedly about killing and death in his diary, didn’t want to go into further detail, in his diary entry of 27 March 1942, as concerns the “barbaric procedure” whereby the majority of the General Government’s Jews were being or would be “liquidated”. What was happening to these Jews was something so horrendous (Goebbels accordingly spoke of a judgment that was being visited upon the Jews, and of the Führer’s “prophecy” becoming true “in the most terrible manner”) that Goebbels considered it something “not to be described in any more detail”. It made even his stomach turn.”
And while I’m at it: this claim that WW II had “sixty million” casualties is possible due to two factors:
a) this figure includes the huge casualties that the Chinese suffered in their war against Japan;
b) it includes the huge casualties that the Russians suffered in their war against Germany (about as many civilians perished in the siege of Leningrad alone as in all the Allied bombings of Germany.)
So you cannot blame this huge figure on the Allies (Western allies, at least).
Petr,
I admire your candor very much and always appreciate your presence here. I do disagree with you on the issue of holocaust revisionism.
“IMHO, when you try to argue that there was no systematic Nazi attempt to wipe out European Jewry you are sinning against the truth.”
My issue is that there is no primary source documents that would indicate a systematic Nazi attempt to wipe out European Jewry. I don’t doubt that there were Jews, perhaps many that were murdered by Nazis. This does not equal a systematic attempt to wipe jews out. Karl Koch ran Buchenwald for a number of years during the war. He was responsible for the murder of several inmates, both German and Jewish. He was arrested, tried in an SS court, and hanged for crimes against humanity. This seems remarkably stupid if you are attempting to commit mass murder against a group of people.
“First of all, you are relying types like Robert Faurisson (an anti-Christian crank, btw) whose biased tendentiousness is so obvious that is has not gone without criticism by more reasonable revisionists”
I don’t approve of Faurisson’s anti-Christianity, but the Church is admittedly acting completely cowardly on the issue of revisionism. It probably is true that Faurisson might discredit revisionism with some of what he says, but it is manifestly false to suggest that revisionism might be considered acceptable if not for Faurisson. The established religion of the West (including among most professed Christians) is holocaustianity flavored with cultural Marxism. What’s preventing revisionism from moving forward isn’t Faurisson’s rougher edges, its prevailing Western cowardice. I do admire Faurisson’s willingness to flip off the establishment, which means he’s doing something right in my honest opinion.
“Revisionists may have many legitimate points to say about various details of the WW II Jewish massacres, but the “big picture” seems undeniably clear to me: millions of Jews never left the “Pale of the Settlement” area alive.”
I don’t think that the methodology that your source relies upon is accurate. My main source of information on the “holocaust” is Germar Rudolph’s, Lectures on the Holocaust. He goes into considerable detail on why simply looking at the number of Jews in a given area isn’t a reliable means of determining how many were murdered, especially with well-documented Typhus epidemics plaguing the camps. This article also addresses some of these arguments: http://www.thenewsturmer.com/Historical%20News%20Letter/number_of_jews_in_the_world_befo.htm
“And the overall tone of your piece here also reminds me unpleasantly from that of dishonest anti-Kinist debaters – in the sense that while you take full advantage of the WEAKER points of your opponents and deal with them in detail, you do not so much as touch their STRONGER ones”
This isn’t a valid analogy. Alienist almost never address kinist arguments at all. They are a study in the fallacies of ad hominem and straw men.
I also think that citing a journal entry by Goebbels is fairly weak. Do we know of any official documentation that suggests that liquidating 60% of the jewish population was adopted as official policy? Where is such documentation. We no mention of this in private communications from Auschwitz when they didn’t know anyone was listening? If millions of jews were killed, where are their mass graves? I believe that admin was simply questioning the official account of the allegation of German genocide, not stating that he was a fan of Goebbels or any other Nazi.
“So you cannot blame this huge figure on the Allies (Western allies, at least).”
Fair enough, but it turns my stomach when people idolize Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin when they obviously had no qualms about killing civilians in their rapacious hatred of Germany. Just my two cents anyway. Always nice to hear your input Petr!
Another fun fact. Our favorite ecclesiastical fugitive from discipline John Lofton is a big fan of the kangaroo court at Nuremburg and considers it a sterling example of justice on his facebook wall. Interesting position for a man who’s had his own legal and ecclesiastical issues.
You say that Jews never left the Pale of Settlement alive, and yet they turned up in about 50 other countries after the war. You may not “think” that emigration covers it all (and no one ever said it did – a lot of Jews died during the war), but the whole point of this post, and the whole point of revisionism in general, is that if there is a case to be made, it had better be based on proof and not thoughts or feelings.
This post was never meant to be comprehensive, or else it could have turned into a book. But you’re right that the Goebbels diary is an important thing to consider. If it’s authentic, it serves as the basis for further inquiry; because no one, in a real court of law, could prove that there was a real plan of extermination based solely on what the propaganda minister wrote in his own diary. In other words, proof needs corroboration. If Goebbels wrote that 60% of the Jews were to be liquidated, we ought to see real evidence that this actually happened.
As you probably know, there are problems with accepting the diary as authentic. Legend has it that at a certain point Goebbels began to dictate his diary entries to his secretary, and only after this point does he start to admit of crimes. But this is not the picture we get of the man anywhere else. He, of all people, was firmly convinced that the Nazis were right. In the typewritten (incriminating) pages, he vacillates, unlike before, writing things like his party “might be considered justified.”
Another problem is that you have to rely on the word of only two men, Louis Lochner and Frank Mason, neither of whom were under oath, for the authenticity of the questionable diary pages. And as part of it, we are asked to believe that the Soviets threw the pages out into the street, where they were scooped up by a collector.
Why were the pages not made available at Nuremberg?
But it’s possible that the whole diary is authentic. In that case, we have to wonder what Goebbels means by writing first that 60% of the Jews will be liquidated, and then “there’s not much left of the Jews,” and then “tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.” Tens of thousands are a far cry from millions. And remember that Goebbels was writing about things (if he actually did write them) for which he had no personal part or responsibility. He overheard many things by bragging generals that were not true. Everyone acknowledges that the generals were trying to impress Hitler in the face of defeat, and many things were exaggerated.
The diary is not evidence on its own. It can only serve as corroborating evidence, and it doesn’t at all.
I won’t dwell on the part about bearing false witness “by uncritically repeating the party-line of radical revisionists,” but keep in mind that Hilberg claimed originally that Hitler issued two orders to exterminate the Jews, but under the onslaught by Faurisson and others he had to completely change his tune. Now he admits that there was no order, and the Nazis telepathically executed their plan to destroy the Jewish race.
There’s so much false witness on the other side, and worse, that a counterbalance is needed. This does not mean that we “uncritically” accept whatever Faurisson or anyone else says. We’re trying to honestly weigh the evidence.
“You say that Jews never left the Pale of Settlement alive, and yet they turned up in about 50 other countries after the war.”
Where did I use the word “never”? I said millions of them did not, not that none of them did.
And I do not see myself led by emotions here. On the other hand, I could make some unflattering speculations about how YOU are being misled from scholarly objectivity by anti-Semitic emotionalism.
“Our favorite ecclesiastical fugitive from discipline John Lofton is a big fan of the kangaroo court at Nuremburg and considers it a sterling example of justice on his facebook wall.”
Yes, in spite of not respecting the Nazis or their cause, I also refuse to venerate this blatant showcase of “winners’ justice.” Ultra-revisionists have had field day in exploiting the sanctomonious hypocrisies of Nuremberg.
Here is one Nazi atrocity that hypocritical liberals today do not like to tout much because it so much resembles their own goals:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39548&highlight=holocaust
Nazi atrocities that liberals do not like to talk about
“Bormann developed an eight-paragraph secret order that one historian termed “perhaps the most extreme policy statement ever issued from the Fuhrerhauptquartier.”[4] It included the following:
“When girls and women in the Occupied Territories of the East have abortions, we can only be in favor of it; in any case we should not oppose it. The Fuhrer believes that we should authorize the development of a thriving trade in contraceptives. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply.[5]”
This was not the first such statement. On 25 November 1939, shortly after the occupation of Poland, a Nazi SS organization called the Reich Commission for Strengthening of Germandom (RKFDV)[6] issued this decree:
“All measures which have the tendency to limit the births are to be tolerated or to be supported. Abortion in the remaining area [of Poland] must be declared free from punishment. The means for abortion and contraceptive means may be offered publicly without police restriction. Homosexuality is always to be declared legal. The institutions and persons involved professionally in abortion practices are not to be interfered with by police.[7]”
This policy was confirmed on 27 May 1941 at a Ministry of the Interior conference in Berlin. There a group of experts recommended population control measures for Poland that included authorization of abortion whenever the mother requested it.[8] On 19 October 1941, a decree applied the measures to the Polish population. Hitler’s 23 July 1942 decree extended it to other parts of Eastern Europe. Hitler confirmed his order on August 5.[9]“
I can buy the information regarding the Nazi tolerance for abortion and contraception for non-Germans. This seems more in line with true national-socialist objectives.
It wasn’t linked above, but here’s an aerial photo of Auschwitz on a day when it was supposed to be at full tilt, liquidating almost half a million Hungarian Jews that began to arrive in May and also receiving Polish Jews when the photo was taken:
http://www1.yadvashem.org/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/aerial-photos/photo03.jpg
Looks like a pretty clear day.
Anyone standing outside must be “on way to gas chamber.” I’m sure the plane flying overhead hovered like a hummingbird and watched them until they got there.
The captions were added by the CIA, which angered the National Archives. In the lower right, you can see four marks on a roof, and these are supposed to be the holes or hatches through which Zyklon B was dropped. But if the marks themselves (smudges, really) were not added by the CIA, they still don’t work as holes or hatches. You can see that shadows are falling to the northwest. On the second from the bottom, the shadow does not fall at the same angle as the others, and all of them have shadows at an angle that is different than the shadows of the chimneys to the south. If these are real shadows, they are from chimneys that are about 10 feet tall, not the hatches shown to tourists that are a couple of feet high. But even that is unlikely, because some of them are in places where there is nothing but concrete today.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgo_m0RR3Ho
The same is true for the “gas chamber” south of Crematorium II, but in this case the marks are all on the east side of the building. In the ruins of this building today, two of the openings are visible at the southern end, but on the western half. So if the pictures of the building while in operation don’t match the ruins of the building, what are we to conclude?
The CIA published the aerial photos in 1979, but unfortunately for them, two years later Martin Gilbert published another aerial photo in his book “Auschwitz and the Allies,” and in it there are reportedly no holes visible on the morgue (“gas chamber”) behind Crematorium II. If anyone knows where to find this picture, please post it.
By the way, if you were a German engineer (the best in the world at the time), would you design a mass-killing facility like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI5qjzOLHsg
There are obvious reasons for installing a morgue underground, where it is much cooler. But if thousands and thousands of people per day are to walk down a narrow stairway to be killed, what’s the purpose of killing them underground? Who’s going to carry them upstairs to be cremated? At least in the old Westerns, they had the good sense to make the criminals dig their own graves and stand in front of them. Then the only cost is a single bullet, and the only work involved is covering the body with the loose dirt.
You can see that there was nothing on the roof of the morgue – sorry! “gas chamber” – when the facility was built:
http://www.cwporter.com/SCAN%2040/beeld-134.jpg
There is nothing in the plans like what is shown in the doctored aerial photos:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/image_files/285-01.jpe
Here’s a winter photo showing something on the roof, but these were apparently temporary:
http://www.codoh.com/graphics3/vrba2.jpg
Another shot with the furnaces obviously in operation, but nothing of the kind on the roof of the morgue:
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_ponygallery&func=watermark&id=718&Itemid=3
A closer view:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Rodoh_Hans/Pressac_sketch3.jpg?t=1261767234
The hatches that were installed after the war are obviously not part of the original design:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/Photos2005/CeilingHole.jpg
They look like they were hastily installed by soldiers and leak easier than a skylight on a mobile home.
Another doctored photo:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html
Another witness-statement whose authenticity revisionists seem to acknowledge by their attempts to spin it:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/06/evidence-for-presence-of-gassed-jews-in.html
“Report dated 17.10.1942 from the same OFK, translated as follows (emphases added):
“The resettlement actions continue undiminished. The Jews are informed of their fate. Indicative is the statement of a member of the Lwow Jewish council: We all carry our death certificates in our pocket–only the date of death is not yet filled out.”
Mattogno lamely tries to explain away the above as “a hyperbole relating to the fear and expection[sic!]” of the “potential partial mortality of the Jewish deportees due to the evacuation process”. It must have escaped this specialist in text analysis and critique[416] that the OFK is stating that the Jews are informed of what he, the OFK, knows to be their fate, and supports this statement by quoting a statement from a member of the Jewish council whereby the expected fate is certain death, and not just for some but for all future deportees (“we ALL carry our death certificates in our pocket”). “The Jews know what I know, i.e. that they are all going to die” – that’s the OFK’s statement in a nutshell.”
Thank you for this outstanding article.
…I survived (six years of imprisonment in ghettos, labor camps and concentration camps as a child during World War II)… When, as a nine-year-old, I spent a month in Buchenwald, it never occurred to me that those of my fellow-inmates who were Gypsies, Soviet prisoners of war, or Danish policemen arrested for helping the Jews escape, were undergoing experiences that were different from mine…. Ever since, for over half a century, I have not been able to accept the singling out of this one front, horrible as it may have been, as a unique epoch-making event that requires its own grandiose name, its own capitalized dictionary entry, its own academic discipline called “Holocaust studies.”… But the recent, officially accepted revision of the number of Auschwitz victims from four million to a million or so has made me wonder….. Both of my parents survived, and I had no siblings. I have no tattoo (though I sometimes perversely envied those who had them). I was never beaten or starved. After the War I went on with school at the normal grade level. And when I recently visited the Buchenwald memorial site, the foremost thought in my mind – unrepentant cinephile that I am – was to find the location of the barrack where I saw my first movie; never mind that my first screen image was of a smiling Hitler on horseback, introducing a newsreel. The search for the site of the barrack where I actually lived took second place. … I spent the last months of the War, after Buchenwald, in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp…
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~coby/essays/confden.htm
Actually, we all carry our death certificates in our pockets, only the dates not filled in. Oy veh.
I often tell people (including the jewess from L’viv that I sometimes drink bloody mary’s with friday afternoons) “they intend to kill us,” meaning our current regime. And I am serious. Yet, this is hardly something that could later be used to “prove” this or that extermination program being carried out by the Obama admin. My statement stands, even though I doubt that the Obama admin has yet set up such a program.
Petr, are you a jew?
“Petr, are you a jew?”
Not so. Just someone who knows better than to rely merely on radical-revisionist echo chamber in his knowledge of WW II.
Just like I have no use for that tendentious “unspeakable monstrous-ogre Nazi Germany” mainstream myth, so likewise I have no use for schmaltzy “poor almost-wholly-innocent Nazi Germany” revisionist myth.
I object to that, Petr. There’s nothing wrong with echoing the research that others have done, as long as an open mind is kept and objections are weighed. How can only side (the minority) be an “echo chamber”? I personally detest the view of history that looks for the white hats and the black hats. In real life, there are good and bad sides to everyone and every country.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that Hitler and the Nazis had a covert operation to kill as many Jews as possible. It’s certainly possible. But where’s the evidence?
Nothing was mentioned in this post about the Einsatzgruppen, but it does seem to me that they were a mobile assassination squad, looking for radical Jews who were working with the Communists. But I doubt that the numbers alleged to them are accurate, and they certainly did not have the resources for wholesale genocide.
Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that one of the main points shaping my outlook in this matter is a total distrust of the American government, the British government, and most other governments. They have lied about too many things to count. But to the white hat/black hat crowd, this makes me a Nazi-lover. This way of thinking is too ridiculous to deserve a response, and it seems to be what you imply in your previous comment.
We all know that this is one of those politically-charged subjects on which people feel the need to take a side. I’ll give you another one. I was just reading about Tony Bennett and a media-manufactured crisis in which he was lambasted on news programs for daring to express an unpopular opinion. He said America brought 9/11 on itself for bombing raids in the Middle East. This caused the usual suspects to denounce him vigorously and threaten boycotts, etc. The clear signal from the media is that you’re allowed only one view of 9/11. Those who dare to have their own opinions will face trouble. After all, they say, think of the families of the firemen and what they’ve endured. But, someone will say, didn’t Tony Bennett serve his country in the Holy Military at the Battle of the Bulge? Why yes, he did, comes the response, and therefore perhaps he does not deserve to be ruined. A light chastisement will do. The message is that a man’s opinion doesn’t count unless he passes a loyalty test to the empire.
Holohoaxery and 9/11 fanaticism are cut from the same cloth, it seems to me.
“How can only side (the minority) be an “echo chamber”?”
The orthodox, “pro-holocaust” narrative out there has acquired pseudo-religious, cultic traits – this is rather self-evident. But you shouldn’t flatter yourself thinking that underground revisionist “anti-holocaust” scene would be free from culticness either, simply because it’s less powerful and smaller.
Like C.S. Lewis aptly observed in “Screwtape Letters”:
“I had not forgotten my promise to consider whether we should make the patient an extreme patriot or an extreme pacifist. All extremes, except extreme devotion to the Enemy, are to be encouraged.
… Any small coterie, bound together by some interest which other men dislike or ignore, tends to develop inside itself a hothouse mutual admiration, and towards the outer world, a great deal of pride and hatred which is entertained without shame because the “Cause” is its sponsor and it is thought to be impersonal.
Even when the little group exists originally for the Enemy’s own purposes, this remains true. We want the Church to be small not only that fewer men may know the Enemy but also that those who do may acquire the uneasy intensity and the defensive self-righteousness of a secret society or a clique.”
http://pasx.5u.com/upload/Lewis,%20C%20S%20-%20The%20Screwtape%20Letters.html#7
I would hate to see Kinism (or revisionism for that matter) becoming a “hothouse of mutual admiration” characterized by “defensive self-righteousness”.
The Great Holocaust Trial (25th Anniversary Ed) by Michael Hoffman is in print.
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com
This is not research (although a lot of research went into it), it is a report and record of the “persecution of German Canadian Ernst Zundel by a de facto Sanhedrin for publishing the book Did Six Million Really Die?”.
In 1985, Zundel put the ‘Holocaust’ on trial.
This was the first time EVER that material purporting to be Holocaust facts of matter and primary source was ever submitted to the discovery, scrutiny, rules of evidence, critical and forensic analysis of mere mortals.
It was the first time EVER Holocaust witnesses were put on the stand and subjected to cross-examination by the goyim. (OH!! the Shonda!)
And as it all went pear shaped for the Guardians of the holy grail of The Holocaust’ – all the media blacked out the proceedings of the trial.
Zundel was acquited because The Holocaust could not be proved.
When Zundel was hauled back in 1988 for the same ordeal – he used that shabbos goy Kangaroo Court to discover evidence that could not be obtained without a subpoena and he used that forum to conduct a forensic investigation.
The onus to prove it is on anyone who wants to argue pro “the Nazi attempt to wipe out European Jewry”.
It is a false accusation and witness to say that the evidence based arguments of Zundel (and those who use his evidence) is somehow “a sin against the truth”.
O.K. So why are they a “sin against the truth”?
The goyim are going to jail in Europe for statements of truth which place the entire 20th century of Jewish wars against white nations in a context that is substantiated with a strong evidence base.
Give one example of “false witness”, Petr -
“uncritical”, “repititious”, “tenditious”, “techno-retardery”, “fixed ideas” is not going to cut it here.
Give one example of false witness on the part of the goyim on this subject and I will be happy to set that against the absolute MATZOH MOUNTAIN of lies and false witness of the Jews against white Russia, Germans, Poles, Czecks, Hungarians, Balts – indeed against the entire gentile (kindred) Israelite race that converted as nations and tribes to Israel’s Messias and King – the Lord Jesus Christ.
Such remnant of that Christ Bearing race as remains true to the holy faith is still taking His Evangel to all the nations of the world. And nothing hinders that mission more than the false, Jew centred religion of Holocaustianity and its false witness that has been demonstrated to be false.
Petr,
Respectfully, I think you’re engaging in an equally absurd exercise to the white hat/black hat extremes you rightfully despise.
You’re looking at the extremes, computing a gray median, and then assuming the truth must lie ‘in the middle.’ It’s like some inverse function of the American notion (fetish?) of compromise.
It rarely works that way. Reality is much more interesting.
I cannot look at that rogues gallery of 27 Jew communists without feeling an overwhelming sense of total revulsion. It’s exponentially more nauseating than the feeling I get when I see a group of five or more members of the Congressional Black Flash Mob Caucus.
Anyone else get a like feeling?
A related story from the CofCC website:
—————————–
http://cofcc.org/2011/10/other-losses-back-in-print-in-the-us/
Other Losses back in print in the US.
Following WWII, 750,000 POWs died in US custody. Many were only 16 or 17 years old. Conditions in US run camps were so deplorable that US General George Patton unilaterally freed 30,000 German POWs under his care. Patton died from a minor car crash under highly suspicious circumstances shortly after.
From TalonBooks.com…
A retired officer in the US army has apologized to the German army for the mass deaths of German prisoners in US army camps after World War Two. Following extensive private investigations in the US and Germany, Merrit P. Drucker has sent an e-mail to Lt. Col. Max Klaar, head of the Verband der deutscher Soldaten (German Veterans’ Association), regretting the lethal conditions in the US camps where some 750,000 Germans died while they were denied available food and shelter.
Drucker has also formed a committee of six people, in Germany, the UK, Canada and the US to pursue further investigations and make amends by way of apologies to the families of the dead, and veterans’ institutions. Drucker’s first e-mail letter has been posted on the veterans’ website where there is also a questionnaire asking for details of prisoners’ internment.
The book Other Losses by James Bacque, which helped to set off the investigation, is being re-issued in an American edition in October. The launch will be held in Washington in the Marriott Hotel where Drucker plans to present a formal letter of apology to Klaar who is flying over for the occasion. Klaar will present in his turn a proposal for a peace treaty between the USA and Germany. It has 14 points. Two films about postwar Germany are included in the program.
Other Losses, a world-wide best-seller published in 13 countries, has been suppressed in the US for over 20 years. The new edition is being published by Talonbooks of Vancouver, whose editor, Karl Siegler, is the son of a former prisoner in a US army camp. When his father told him what had happened to him in the US camp, Siegler said, “I don’t believe you.” He changed his mind after reading Other Losses. Because of such sad events, Lt. Colonel Klaar has said that “Germany is a country of wounded souls.” Many Germans have already written to Major Drucker to thank him for taking a heavy weight of grief and guilt off their minds.
TIME AND PLACE Monday, October 31, 2011, at the Courtyard US Capitol Marriott Hotel, 1325 Northeast Street, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 898-4000. The meeting will be in the Congressional and Monument Rooms. Time TBA.
Admin,
You are to be commended once again for an extraordinary effort. It’s also been very interesting reading the comments. I don’t have the time to pursue these historical questions as I would like, but I think several things ought to be very clear to us by now, if only we will heed them.
First, jews have shown themselves incapable of being good citizens in christian lands. For the long-term good of all concerned, we need to separate. I am of the same opinion with regard to all non-christian religions, lest anyone think I’m picking on jews.
Second, western nations need to stay home and mind their own business, while at the same time jealously guarding their own heritage and lands. God is the ‘nation builder’, we are not. Which means we need to scuttle all forms of big centralized government, permanently.
Third, the prerequisite for all big government and militarism is fiat money and credit. Fortunately, the system is failing as I write, but we do need to think ahead to what could (or should) replace it. Obviously, real silver and gold money and a return to the biblical regulation of usury would have a restraining influence on the size of government, while also promoting stability, thrift and hard work within a more localized and agrarian economy.
Fourth, speaking as a protestant, we need to admit that many of the excesses of the 20th century grew directly out of the reformation. Americanism is nothing but individualistic protestantism run amok. How’s that working out for you? True, the last 500 years have brought spectacular gains in technological wealth. But those gains have come at the expense of a fractured, irrelevant, and incoherant church, lasting socio-economic stability, and the loss of wholesome traditions and ethno-nationalism for white europeans, as well as creeping genocide for our people. It’s time to look honestly at this track record, repent where repentance is needed, and reconcile, to the degree we can, with our catholic brethren, with an eye towards eventual reunification. I don’t believe a church splintered into thousands of denominations was EVER the original desire of our Lord, in light of Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17. It needs to be said that Protestants have simply not valued the unity of Christ’s church the same way that Jesus did. John 17:21 references a unity that is PHYSICAL AND VISIBLE, here and now. When the church is no longer a house divided against itself, THEN we will have a 2nd christendom more glorious then the first. And this time around, it will inhabit every continent, and embrace every nation, not just Europe and europeans. May the Lord hasten that great day.
“It’s time to look honestly at this track record, repent where repentance is needed, and reconcile, to the degree we can, with our catholic brethren, with an eye towards eventual reunification.”
Blasphemy. Roman Catholicism is a false religion with a wicked, false gospel. That you would even THINK of “reunification” with such heresy proves that you are do not believe in justification by faith alone. You’re no Protestant, despite what you say, so do not speak for those of us who actually are.
Joel, you should take the Bible seriously and read the Book of James.
Lynda: “Joel, you should take the Bible seriously and read the Book of James.”
And how would my reading of the book of James change anything? Just because Roman Catholics don’t understand James 2 doesn’t mean the rest of us suffer from the same inability.
You should take the Bible seriously and read Romans.
—–
It’s the type of ecumenical nonsense espoused by Gerard Bonneau that will ultimately doom any “Christian” ethno-nationalism that compromises the truth of the gospel for the sake of racial/ethnic unity. All will be for nothing if justification by faith alone is brushed aside and made to no effect.
For what will it profit a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose his soul? What will it profit the white American people to regain their identity and reclaim their homelands, and yet in the process remain in spiritual darkness, exchanging one yoke (cultural Marxism) for another (Roman Catholic nationalism)?
I can actually agree with Joel’s main point, if not with his tone of voice. Purity of faith is more precious than any secular political scheme.
But moreover, it would not even make WORLDLY sense for Kinists to court Rome – even before its modern decadent phase, the Vatican has always been a big promoter of Babelist universalism (in the case you folks haven’t noticed), and out of principle and not mere temporary convenience.
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – papal ex cathedra teaching.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/B8-unam.asp
Shall we accept this teaching or tell this guy, and people claiming to be his successors, to get lost as false prophets?
RCs should become Protestant Kinists (many of them, even or especially traditional-minded ones, are already sick and tired with the decadence of Vatican II church) instead of Kinists approaching Rome.
Admin, thank you for putting up this most excellent exhibit. It is an especially good sign since Southerners and Germans are as removed from each other as is possible within the European race, almost akin to the difference between Anglo-Saxon and Slavic.
The most important thing I deem from it is that our ingenuity, which has created this worldwide information access, has allowed the average European to see beyond the smoke and mirrors continually effected by our “respective” governments (all branches of the same).
It demonstrates that the same ridiculous atrocity stories that are told of the defeated, WHOEVER THEY MAY BE, are the chains that bind us.
Twenty, or even ten, years ago, Southrons ran for cover when compared to patriotic Germans of the Hitler era. This is changing because it is finally dawning on us that the atrocity stories and the propaganda that has sold for decades is always a lie.
I want to go further into this thought but I’ll post that later. The one thing I would like to point out is that, when barbarians physically abolish enemy camps, disastrous scenes will be encountered – through no fault of the conquered!
As to Irving: I enjoy reading his site. It’s obvious that he knows the score. He is, however, understandably concerned with his ability to survive at his profession. He is thus likely to kowtow to the system to some extent (see his statement at the Austrian court).
All in all, Irving is less cowardly than is Michael Hill, who – in 2011 – monitors his site for “anti-semitic” comments.
I’m confident that it’ll all come together. It is definitely heading in that direction. It does bother me that the people who claim to want to lead us out of this morass are the last to appreciate their transparency.
You, admin, whoever you are, are far more qualified to lead our people. Please consider doing what needs to be done – confronting the cowards who claim to be our leaders while never daring to even name our enemy.
Regards,
I do take the Bible seriously, Joel.
Faith is the vision of the heart – “the evidence of things not seen”. And the vision of the heart is living – therefore it will have issue whether in words (confession), actions, plans, deeds, adherence to one’s duty of state, mortification of the desires of the flesh that are sinful. The Church does go on about this and so do the Apostles.
The Book of James spells this out. The Book of Romans contrasts the issue of faith in “works” with works done under observance of the Law the “tutor” which convinces us that sin is indeed the problem between us and God.
Your remarks seem to come from an idea of minimalism. What is the minimum you have to do to be saved? Well, just believe in Christ would seem to be the “faith alone” answer.
Very good. But even the devils believe that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
What you are hung up about is hierarchy and authority. There is no evidence in the scriptures or in the early Fathers of the Church – taught by the Apostles – that perseverence in the holy faith is like a Jesus movement where everyone just believes and that is cool.
Clearly the Church is an order and that order has hierarchy, charisms, and dispenses the graces necessary for salvation – starting with faith ( a gift). Don’t imagine that you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because of your own merit. You believe because someone prayed for you – starting with our Lord.
You are probably hung up about indulgences. Well, I am sure there are many who die with a kind of minimalist faith. They might even have only the desire to be baptised. But they truly believe and they have true contrition for their sins. None one can judge the heart.
The apostle states that some are saved “through fire” – as in purgation. The Church prays for them.
This is not spiritual darkness – this is mercy and grace.
Why should you have a problem with this?
David Irving does make a good point about Heinrich Himmler being a vastly underrated historical figure. I think the upcoming book will be very good.
I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that he was the real brain behind the operation of the Third Reich, but he was certainly a military genius on the order of Napoleon or Alexander.
Consider that he built a unified police force (the Waffen SS), created an industry of slave labor during the war, engineered the return of ethnic Germans from all over Europe (Irving calls it an “extraordinary logistics operation”), and invaded Ukraine, Crimea, and Baltic states, with his trek commanders attacked by pestilence, privations, trials, tribulations, insurgents, fighter bombers, partisans, pestilence, starvation, and plague.
“Twenty, or even ten, years ago, Southrons ran for cover when compared to patriotic Germans of the Hitler era. This is changing because it is finally dawning on us that the atrocity stories and the propaganda that has sold for decades is always a lie.”
Atrocity stories told about Nazi Germany were “ALWAYS a lie”? Oh please. Even revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II knows better (debating here with crank Faurisson):
“In the many tens of thousands of words I have written in the past twenty-five years, I have never failed to describe Churchill and Roosevelt as heinous war criminals, while I have never described the German people as criminal, only their leadership. The Wehrmacht in World War Two was not a “Nazi” army. Hitler could not completely transform the Wehrmacht in his image in twelve years. The values of the Wehrmacht reflected the historic Lutheran and Catholic values of the majority of its personnel, along with the customary decency of the German people generally, so I do not understand the phrase “German crimes” unless they are placed in the context of your own trenchant description of war, as being itself a crime.
I am appalled that you insinuate, since Hitler did not operate homicidal gas chambers and sought only a territorial solution to the “Jewish question,” that it is perfectly permissible for a revisionist spokesman to be “a Nazi” or “nostalgic for Hitler,” And Hitler’s concentration camps? His political murders? The mass shootings of women and children? The one party state? A revisionism led by a follower of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin or Hitler would be odious and objectionable. But to have a neo-Nazi as the spokesman for a German human rights movement, in connection with a public relations tactic centered on a “revisionist anti-defamation league,” is so demented it is something out of a Hollywood script.”
http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=michael+hoffman+strasser+reich&fr=yfp-t-892&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=michael+hoffman+strasser+reich&d=5053110936274670&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=e670ebac,4a3bbe9d&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=rLcJkIePCh9gfz1tKjNiog–
SWB:
“Twenty, or even ten, years ago, Southrons ran for cover when compared to patriotic Germans of the Hitler era. This is changing because it is finally dawning on us that the atrocity stories and the propaganda that has sold for decades is always a lie.”
End Quote
Petr:
I am appalled that you insinuate, since Hitler did not operate homicidal gas chambers and sought only a territorial solution to the “Jewish question,” that it is perfectly permissible for a revisionist spokesman to be “a Nazi” or “nostalgic for Hitler,”
End Quote
Come on, Petr. You’re guilty of that which you accuse.
Why are you doing this?
What I am guilty of, CL? I was CITING Hoffman, not my own opinions. I meant to show that even Hoffman, who is a more moderate kind of revisionist, a “centrist”, could not help but be nauseated by the blatant Nazi-whitewashing attempts of Faurisson-types.
“Why am I doing this?” Well duh, because I don’t want Kinism to become a Hitler/Nazi fan-club (like “Alfred Rosenberg”, a guy naming himself after a viciously anti-Christian Nazi leader, clearly advocates), that’s why!
Lynda: “Your remarks seem to come from an idea of minimalism. What is the minimum you have to do to be saved? Well, just believe in Christ would seem to be the “faith alone” answer.”
My concern is how one is saved at all. My concern is that of justification, a doctrine of such importance that it cannot be understated.
Lynda: “Very good. But even the devils believe that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”
The matter is not about the proper type of faith; rather, what separates saving faith from non-saving faith are the propositions believed. The demons are damned because Christ did not die for them and hence they cannot believe the gospel: “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” (I Cor. 15)
Why do you bring up James at all, other than to introduce works into the justification process? Like all Roman Catholic heretics, you mix law and gospel, works and grace. Like all Roman Catholic heretics, you do not understand the epistle of James. Because you falsely believe that James speaks of justification in the relation to God, in the same sense as the apostle Paul used the word, you pit the two of them against each other, so that one says, “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” and the other says, “one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Is one mad and the other sane? Is one a liar and the other a saint? Are they both devils? We must assume this if God’s entire word is not to be made null and void, for God is not a liar, and yet here we have an irreconcilable contraction, which by sound reason we must conclude that one or the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. So which is, Catholic? Which one is the wicked prevaricator? Because they cannot both be right.
There is no one good, no not one. All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags. Only Christ lived a perfect life, whose works were in full and complete obedience to the law. Only by Christ’s righteousness imputed to us through faith in Him can man be justified before God. And yet here you talk to me about the works of man, of which even the best are marred by sin. If Christ’s perfect righteous is not enough, then tell me how the supplication of man’s puny efforts bridges the gap even one iota?
Lynda: “Don’t imagine that you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because of your own merit. You believe because someone prayed for you – starting with our Lord.”
I do not imagine any such thing. I believe because God caused me to believe. My works have nothing to do with it. You act as if you’ve never heard of Calvinism before.
I would say to you, Lynda, not to imagine that you are saved in whole are in part by your merit or the merits of others. Only Christ and Christ alone can save. If you believe anything less, you will be damned.
Petr:
“What I am guilty of, CL? I was CITING Hoffman, not my own opinions. I meant to show that even Hoffman, who is a more moderate kind of revisionist, a “centrist”, could not help but be nauseated by the blatant Nazi-whitewashing attempts of Faurisson-types.
“Why am I doing this?” Well duh, because I don’t want Kinism to become a Hitler/Nazi fan-club (like “Alfred Rosenberg”, a guy naming himself after a viciously anti-Christian Nazi leader, clearly advocates), that’s why!”
End Quote
None of that follows from the passage you cited, which wasn’t from Hoffman–or even concerning him.
As formulated, what you posted is a non-sequitur.
Joel, the Apostle James does speak of faith and therefore justification.
The scripture ‘hangs together’ and can not be divided up in the way you are thinking.
The passage I cited was definitely from Hoffman, and the import I claimed does follow from it. Are you suffering from dyslexia?
Petr wrote:
The passage I cited was definitely from Hoffman, and the import I claimed does follow from it. Are you suffering from dyslexia?
End Quote
Better dyslexia than stupidity. The former can always read backwards.
You don’t cite. That’s a big part of the problem. You choose rather to throw quotes around unattributed.
Petr ‘cited’:
“Twenty, or even ten, years ago, Southrons ran for cover when compared to patriotic Germans of the Hitler era. This is changing because it is finally dawning on us that the atrocity stories and the propaganda that has sold for decades is always a lie.”
End ‘citation’
That’s not from Hoffman, that’s from user Alfred Rosenburg.
http://spiritwaterblood.com/2011/10/and-the-smoke-of-their-torment-rises-forever-and-ever/#comment-18814
Are you positing they’re the same person? The way the conversation flowed, I’d assumed the quote were from the administrator of this website.
Further, what a queer statement to argue over. It’s self-evidently correct to any thinking Southerner. Nothing you wrote follows from it.
Petr responded to the above ‘citation’:
I am appalled that you insinuate, since Hitler did not operate homicidal gas chambers and sought only a territorial solution to the “Jewish question,” that it is perfectly permissible for a revisionist spokesman to be “a Nazi” or “nostalgic for Hitler,”
End Quote
It’s as if you spun it out of air, or picked-up in mid-thought from some other, unrelated coversation.
So, please in the future:
a) cite
b) cite accurately
c) don’t blame your victims for confusion due to your own oversights (and undercites?).
Thanks.
(I do realize the nature of this software makes formulating posts challenging, to say the least.)
I do not recognize this passage from Hoffman, Petr.
Michael Hoffman regards Nazism as Zionist Judaism’s blackest false flag. He regards ‘Holocaustianity’ as the idolatry of the anti-Christ. He has gone to some lengths to nail their colours to the mast.
There is nothing ‘centrist’ about Hoffman’s position.
And many Jewish writers who spell holocaust with a lower case ‘h’ and lost relatives on the great killing fields of WW II have called Adolf Hitler the ‘father of Israel’ and quoted Hoffman.
‘Judaism Discovered’ by Michael Hoffman contains many quotes by the rabbins in praise of Adolf Hitler who credit him with the death of the Kaballistic 6 million in homicidal gas chambers.
One of this ilk will do. Ovadia Yosef, a rabbi who heads Israel’s third largest political party [Shas] claims that the Kabbalistic 6 million of Holocaustianity were “reincarnations of the souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts of things that should not be done. They had been reincarnated at that time to atone.” ( p. 60 – 61 )
Indeed, chief among the things they did that “should not be done” were that European Jews as a population did not obey the call of the Zionist rabbinate to return to Israel. Therefore, they were sacrificed at the hands of Nasi (prince) Adolf that ‘the nation born of the holocaust’ might emerge.
Only this thesis explains all the data and clarifies the occult objectives of WW II.
The film “The True Believer” also makes this point when the character ‘the Eternal Jew’ tells Jews who (as portrayed in the film) survived the Holocaust – “you are putzes. YOu are all putzes”. Totally obscene. No wonder at the screening Jews got up and walked out. Yet this film is not banned as “hate speech”. I have yet to read one word of criticism on this film from Abe.
Hoffman notes that both Judaism and Nazism begin from the some premise of racial supremacy – quoting Father Denis Fahey.
If you want Hoffman in a nutshell on this subject – here it is:
“To our dearly beloved Judaic reader, we say, the truth cannot harm you and only a liar and a spiritual heir of the Father of Lies would accuse us of being a “Jew hater”. If this writer were “a Jew hater” we would leave you to stew in your sins, as many of the Protestant preachers, Catholic bishops [ the entire novus ordo, actually ] and blueblood ‘Aryan’ aristocrats who cooperate with the rabbis, extol the Talmud and support Israeli leaders from the perch insude the masonic and other occult societies, are pleased to do. Classic Jew hate is sown by the rabbis themselves.” [ p. 51 ]
All quotes from Judaism Discovered: from its own Texts. A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstitution and Deceit. by Michael Hoffman. Independent History and Research. Anno Domini 2008
Http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com
Great article. Comments by “Petr” seem to be one extended trolling exercise.
I agree with Robert.
“Petr” is either a jew, or a gentile that has been thoroughly jewed.
I could demonstrate this from the form of his argumentation above, if it is not already obvious to all the goyish readers already.
You are babbling incoherently, Lynda. Just check out the cached link I provided (I could not find the original) and see how uncomfortable Hoffman feels with glorifying Hitler or Nazis (understood as a thing apart from German people).
And you, Robert, are apparently used to talking only in uncritical echo chambers – thus not understanding what true debate is all about. I’m sorry if my comments seem like “trolling” to your limited mind.
I have so far been rather polite with you, Vittgen. See, I have always tried to make sure that my un-PC opinions are based on rational thinking and good evidence – in a word, to truthful facts – instead of knee-jerk bigotry. You seem to take this cautious attitude as evidence of Jewishness.
It’s people like you who give prejudice a bad name. So congratulations for conforming to “Hollywood Nazi” and “ignorant hater” stereotypes, buddy. Go find some Jews under your bed, simpleton.
Petr — There are other people that give prejudice a good name?
One obviously does not have to wiggle your funny bone very hard before the venom starts to spew.
No, your jewiness is not a “cautious attitude,” but rather an approach that jumps on motives rather than facts, and advocates a “balance” rather than nailing the truth regardless of whether it is “extreme” or not (which is not an adjective that is applied by real truth-seekers).
On top of this, you convey an arrogant tone of being the judge or moderator, granting the precedence to this or that disputant (“I can actually agree with Joel’s main point, if not with his tone of voice”) and ruling whether it is time for you to change your tone (“I have so far been rather polite with you”), almost as if this is your blog, not someone else’s. This too is very jewy of you. I believe you/they call it “chutzpah.” No need to look under my bed.
Whatever, Vitt. I getting bored with this, and I think I will just turn my other cheek from hereon.
And btw, this is not YOUR blog either.
That’s good, Petr, turn the other cheek and check that your comments and the sources for your comments agree.
In regards to the deplorable record of the churches in fighting against the big lie of the holohoax — Yes it is certainly true that the great majority of all denominations have proven themselves to be cowards. I am happy, however, to point out one prominent exception:
Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX.
Two years ago when he was hounded out of the country in which he was living and prosecuted for hate crimes in Germany, there were predictions made here and elsewhere that Bishop Williamson would soon cave in. So far he has not budged an inch.
Even after being convicted in Germany, he has continued to appeal his case. Recently a letter was made public from the superior of his order threatening to kick him out unless he keeps silence. Yet his response has been to publish the following as the latest edition of his weekly newsletter”
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=8004
Oct. 15, 2011
ANCESTRAL PRIDE
In his second volume on the life of Jesus published several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI made remarks enabling journalists to jump to the conclusion that the Jews must no longer be held responsible for deicide, i.e. the killing of God. Worse, on May 17 the executive director of the US Bishops’ Conference’s Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs said that one cannot charge the Jewish people with deicide at any time in history without falling out of communion with the Catholic Church. Against what many people today want to believe, it is time to recall, however briefly, what the true Church always used to teach on the judicial murder of Jesus.
Firstly, the killing of Jesus was truly “deicide”, i.e. the killing of God, because Jesus was the one of the three divine Persons who in addition to his divine nature had taken a human nature. What was killed on the Cross ? Only the human nature. But who was killed on the Cross in his human nature ? None other than the second divine Person, i.e. God. So God was killed, deicide was committed.
Secondly, Jesus died on the Cross to save all of us sinful human beings from our sins, and in this sense all men were and are the purpose of his death. But only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the Gospels that the Gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion (Mt. XXVII, 20). Certainly the learned leaders were more guilty than the unlearned people, says St Thomas Aquinas (Summa III, 47, 5), but they all cried together for Jesus’ blood to come down upon them and their children (Mt. XXVII, 25).
Thirdly, at least Pope Leo XIII considered there to be a real solidarity between the Jews clamouring then for Jesus to be killed and the collectivity of Jews of modern times. Did he not in his Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus have the entire Church, from the end of the 19th century onwards, pray to God that he turn his “eyes of mercy towards the children of that race, once God’s chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Saviour; may it now descend upon them a laver (i.e. washing) of redemption and life” ?
But Leo XIII is by no means alone in observing such a continuity amongst Jews down the centuries. Do they themselves not lay claim today to the land of Palestine on the grounds that it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament ? Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages? Originally raised by God to cradle the Messiah, alas, when he came they refused, collectively, to recognize him. Collectively also, meaning there are always noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that rejection, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses and the Old Testament to that of Anas, Caiphas and the Talmud. Tragically, their very messianic training by God drives them to go on rejecting the one whom they hold to be a false messiah. Until they convert at the end of the world, as the Church has always taught they will do (cf. Rom. XI, 26-27), they seem bound to choose to go on acting, collectively, as enemies of the true Messiah.
How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths?
Kyrie eleison.
[end of newsletter]
BTW, I noticed while viewing the videos you provided above, that Bishop Williamson featuring prominently under the list of related videos that Youtube generates for you based on the video you are watching. This demonstrates the extent of the impact he is having. The video of Bishop Williamson saying, “Not a single jew died in a gas chamber,” has over 200,000 views and nearly 20,000 comments, more than any other video on the holocaust.
He certainly is having a big impact. Here’s a float that was made for a parade in Germany showing Williamson shaking hands with the devil:
Great photo find!
I think you misinterpret the caption, and yet you may have hit the nail on the head by accident. That float actually depicts the pope shaking hands with Bishop Williamson dressed as the devil. The point of the float is to associate the pope with Williamson, since the pope has been speaking to the SSPX about reuniting with Rome. There is much speculation right now that Williamson is the fly in the ointment preventing a deal between the SSPX and the jewish ass-kissing Vatican.
Heh. It looks like Williamson *is* the devil, shaking hands with Pope Ratzinger–a good likeness!
Yes, you’re both right. I had a temporary case of visual dyslexia.
Here’s a better view of the same float:
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/10813/world_jewish_congress_urges_rome_to_sideline_opponents_of_catholic_jewish_reconciliation
Actually, the World Jewish Congress has just read the riot act to the anti-pope on the SSPX which the Southern Poverty Law Centre refers to as a “powerhouse” of anti-semitic and extremist views.
In fact the Society of St Pius X adheres to the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and the ordinary, constant magisterium of what the Church has always and everywhere taught.
Where Vatican II and the post Conciliar Church contradicts or minimizes this – the SSPX does not follow these “anti-Christs in Rome” to use the expression of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Oct 2011 both the SSPX and the anti-pope have issued position statements for international goals and mission.
While the anti-pope was readying himself for the Assisi ecufest with all the world’s (false) religions – the SSPX Angelus Conference in Kansas City Missouri issued what will certainly be the SSPX position to temporal leaders – “He Must Reign”.
By contrast, the anti-pope has just used a subverted office of the Church to issue a call for a new global financial system.
Omnia Instaurare in Christo ( to restore all things in Christ ) and The Social Kingship of Christ the King is an idea whose time has come.
The logo of the SSPX – the union of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts is the in hoc signatio vinces of our time.
Those who would be Roman Catholic will have to choose between the ‘justice and peace’ call of the anti-pope and the SSPX crusade.