National Vanguard http://nationalvanguard.org News. For us. For a change. Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:54:26 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Generation Identity Activists Occupy Social Democrat Offices in Hamburg and Berlin http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/generation-identity-activists-occupy-social-democrat-offices-in-hamburg-and-berlin/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/generation-identity-activists-occupy-social-democrat-offices-in-hamburg-and-berlin/#comments Mon, 29 Jun 2015 04:47:20 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4187

DATELINE GERMANY: On Sunday, a group of Generation Identity activists occupied the two main business centers of the anti-White Social Democratic Party (SPD) in both Hamburg and Berlin. In Hamburg they occupied the regional business center in the Kurt-Schumacher-house, and in Berlin the party headquarters in the Willy-Brandt-Haus was taken over. This was reported on the Facebook page of the Identitarian movement in Germany.

The patriotic youth group stated “We are, as Germans, in just a few decades going to be a minority in our own country.”

However, the statement continued, establishment parties like the SPD “forbid our youth to even speak out against this population replacement.” German youth “cannot claim the right to a homeland, secure borders, and a future in our own country as Germans,” the statement said.

“We — the native European youth — will no longer be blinded and deceived by the disinformation and concealment . . . → Read More: Generation Identity Activists Occupy Social Democrat Offices in Hamburg and Berlin]]>

DATELINE GERMANY: On Sunday, a group of Generation Identity activists occupied the two main business centers of the anti-White Social Democratic Party (SPD) in both Hamburg and Berlin. In Hamburg they occupied the regional business center in the Kurt-Schumacher-house, and in Berlin the party headquarters in the Willy-Brandt-Haus was taken over. This was reported on the Facebook page of the Identitarian movement in Germany.

The patriotic youth group stated “We are, as Germans, in just a few decades going to be a minority in our own country.”

However, the statement continued, establishment parties like the SPD “forbid our youth to even speak out against this population replacement.” German youth “cannot claim the right to a homeland, secure borders, and a future in our own country as Germans,” the statement said.

“We — the native European youth — will no longer be blinded and deceived by the disinformation and concealment campaigns of the political and media elites in our country. We are tired of their lies and disinformation policy. We have given up the belief in a ‘multicultural society.’ We call for a world of diversity of peoples and cultures. We want to replace our politicians before they replace us as a people,” they said in conclusion.

In early June, the Identitarian movement of Austria occupied the balcony of an EU building in Vienna. Two weeks ago, a European Commission building in Paris was occupied by the movement Generation Identitaire in France.

The Identitarian movement “Generation Identitaire,” was founded in France in 2012. Since then, further action groups — excited repeatedly by the diverse spontaneous actions of the initial groupings — founded similar and allied organizations throughout Europe. They oppose migrant invasions and the Islamicization of their formerly all-White nations, but are not yet ideologically united on other issues.

* * *

Source: Generation Identity and Blu-News

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/generation-identity-activists-occupy-social-democrat-offices-in-hamburg-and-berlin/feed/ 0
Debating the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer Clash http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/debating-the-undebatable-the-weber-shermer-clash/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/debating-the-undebatable-the-weber-shermer-clash/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:30:09 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4170 weber_6Exchanging views on the Holocaust

FOR several years now, Jewish organizations have said that to debate those who dispute the Six Million story gives legitimacy to a view that is beyond the bounds of decent public discourse, and provides a forum for “hate.” Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust, insists that there is not and cannot be a debate on the Holocaust. In a few countries, including France and Germany, those who express dissident views on this issue are treated as criminals. (ILLUSTRATION: Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review)

Actually, there have already been a few scattered Holocaust debates. For several hours in April 1979, French professor Robert Faurisson defended his revisionist views against challenge by several “exterminationist” historians on Italian-language Swiss television. That same year the Italian history journal Storia . . . → Read More: Debating the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer Clash]]> weber_6Exchanging views on the Holocaust

FOR several years now, Jewish organizations have said that to debate those who dispute the Six Million story gives legitimacy to a view that is beyond the bounds of decent public discourse, and provides a forum for “hate.” Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust, insists that there is not and cannot be a debate on the Holocaust. In a few countries, including France and Germany, those who express dissident views on this issue are treated as criminals. (ILLUSTRATION: Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review)

Actually, there have already been a few scattered Holocaust debates. For several hours in April 1979, French professor Robert Faurisson defended his revisionist views against challenge by several “exterminationist” historians on Italian-language Swiss television. That same year the Italian history journal Storia Illustrata opened its pages to both Faurisson and anti-revisionist scholars to present their conflicting arguments. (See R. Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers: Truth or Lie?,” Winter 1981 Journal, pp. 319-373.)

Although nothing on this scale has so far been possible in the United States, on Saturday afternoon, July 22, 1995, a strong beam of light pierced the prevailing blackout when two scholars squared off in a debate at a hotel in Costa Mesa, California. Michael Shermer, history of science associate professor at Occidental College, and editor-publisher of Skeptic magazine, matched wits for two hours with Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review, and editor of its Journal of Historical Review. Greg Raven, Journal associate editor, served as MC for the event, which was sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review, and introduced the two participants. Each speaker delivered a 30-minute opening presentation, followed by a 20-minute rebuttal. A question and answer period concluded the event. (A videotape of this debate is available from the IHR Store.)

Changing Holocaust Story

In his opening presentation, Weber explained precisely what revisionists say, and do not say, about the Holocaust issue. He stressed that the Holocaust story has changed drastically over the years. What we are told today is quite different than the story given at the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-46. Weber continued:

Many extermination claims that were once widely accepted have been quietly dropped in recent years. For example, the great Nuremberg Trial of 1945-1946 supposedly proved that the Germans systematically killed people in gas chambers at Dachau, Buchenwald and other concentration camps in Germany proper. That part of the extermination story proved so untenable that it was abandoned more than twenty years ago.

As Weber pointed out, no serious historian now supports the once supposedly proven stories of “extermination camps” in the territory of the old German Reich. Even Simon Wiesenthal, the well-known “Nazi hunter,” acknowledged in 1975 and again in 1993 that, “there were no extermination camps on German soil.”

These days, said Weber, prominent Holocaust historians maintain that large numbers of Jews were gassed at just six camps in what is now Poland: Auschwitz (including Birkenau), Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno and Belzec. However, Weber said, the so-called “evidence” presented for gassings at these six camps is not qualitatively different than the now-discredited so-called “evidence” for alleged gassings at the camps in Germany.

At the great Nuremberg trial, Weber pointed out, the Allies charged that the Germans had murdered one and a half million people in the Majdanek camp alone. In the decades that followed, this charge was widely repeated. Today no one believes it.

Cornerstone Auschwitz

Weber and Shermer each devoted considerable attention to the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, and especially Auschwitz-Birkenau, the cornerstone of the Holocaust story. At the Nuremberg Tribunal, and for decades afterwards, it was universally alleged that the Germans killed four million prisoners at Auschwitz alone. In recent years, Weber pointed out, this figure has been drastically revised downwards. For example, prominent French Holocaust historian Jean-Claude Pressac has recently estimated that 775,000 persons, of whom 630,000 were Jews, perished at Auschwitz. While even such lower figures are incorrect, said Weber, they show how the Auschwitz story has changed drastically over the years.

Michael Shermer, editor-publisher of Skeptic magazine, addresses the IHR-sponsored meeting.

Michael Shermer, editor-publisher of Skeptic magazine, addresses the IHR-sponsored meeting.

Blame for the wildly exaggerated four million figure is today pinned in the Poles or the Soviets. “What is routinely suppressed,” said Weber, is the fact that the four million Auschwitz figure was not only promoted by the Soviets, but officially endorsed by the United States and Britain, notably at the Nuremberg Tribunal, and was widely and uncritically repeated in the American media and major reference works.

One document that is constantly cited as key evidence for the Holocaust extermination story, said Weber, is the postwar “confession” of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss. In his statement of April 5, 1946, which was submitted by the US prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial, Höss supposedly “confessed” to killing two and half million people at Auschwitz between 1940 and December 1943. (He claimed that another half million succumbed to starvation and disease during this period.)

But if far fewer than two million died at Auschwitz, as is now officially conceded in Israel and Poland, the Höss “confession” is implicitly fraudulent. In fact, said Weber, we now know that this “confession,” as well as Höss’ Nuremberg trial testimony, are not only demonstrably false on crucial points, but were obtained by torture. (See: Rupert Butler, Legions of Death [England: 1983], pp. 235ff.; R. Faurisson, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” Winter 1986-87 Journal, pp. 389-403.)

In spite of the drastic downward revisions in the once supposedly authoritative death tolls for Auschwitz and Majdanek, said Weber, no non-Revisionist historian has yet had the courage to draw the “rather obvious conclusion that the legendary six million figure cannot possibly be correct.” For the time being, anyway, it is still treated with reverence.

Weber cited detailed aerial photographs of Auschwitz taken by Allied reconnaissance aircraft on several random days in 1944, during the height of the alleged extermination period there. These photographs, which were first made public in 1979, “show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys or masses of Jews awaiting death,” all of which have been alleged, and which would have been visible if Auschwitz had indeed been the infamous extermination center it is said to have been.

Forensic Examinations

Weber spoke about the various expert reports and on-site forensic examinations that have been made of the alleged extermination gas chambers, especially at Auschwitz-Birkenau. He spoke first about Fred Leuchter and his February 1988 on-site investigation at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. In sworn testimony in the 1988 Toronto trial of Ernst Zündel, and in a technical report, Leuchter described every aspect of his investigations. Presenting photos of the facilities, plans, charts and scientific data, he explained his startling conclusion that the “gas chamber” story is absurd and physically impossible. It is worth noting that at the time Leuchter was widely acknowledged as America’s foremost execution hardware specialist. (See the Winter 1992-93 Journal, pp. 421-428, 485-492.)

Enlargement of an Allied aerial reconnaissance photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau, taken on August 25, 1944. It shows no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys or masses of Jews awaiting death. A large blow-up of this photograph was displayed at the Weber-Shermer debate.

Enlargement of an Allied aerial reconnaissance photo of Auschwitz-Birkenau, taken on August 25, 1944. It shows no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys or masses of Jews awaiting death. A large blow-up of this photograph was displayed at the Weber-Shermer debate.

Leuchter’s findings have been authoritatively corroborated by a major Polish research center, Weber continued. They prompted the Auschwitz State Museum, an agency of the Polish government, to commission the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow to conduct a similar forensic investigation. In a confidential report dated September 24, 1990, the Krakow Institute confirmed that its own findings very closely match those of the American gas chamber specialist. (See the Summer 1991 Journal, pp. 207-216.)

Dr. William Lindsey, an American research chemist employed for 33 years by the Dupont Corporation, likewise personally inspected the so-called gas chambers, said Weber. In a 1985 court case Lindsey testified under oath that the Auschwitz gassing story is physically impossible. Based on his careful examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: “I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B [hydrogen cyanide] in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible.”

Similarly, said Weber, a leading Austrian engineer, Walter Lüftl, declared in March 1992 that the stories of mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz and Mauthausen are “technically impossible.” Lüftl, a court-recognized engineer, heads a large engineering firm in Vienna. At the time his report was made public, he was president of the Austrian Engineers Chamber, a four thousand member professional association. (See the Winter 1992-93 Journal, pp. 391-420.)

German chemist Germar Rudolf similarly published a detailed report on the supposed gas chambers of Auschwitz, including Birkenau. His 1993 report, Weber said, is based on an on-site investigation, chemical analysis of samples, and meticulous research. Rudolf, a certified chemist and doctoral candidate, worked at the renowned Max Planck Institute research center in Stuttgart. “For chemical-physical reasons,” Rudolf concluded, “the claimed mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz did not take place … The supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose.”

‘Steam Chambers’ and ‘Jewish Soap’

A casting of this "gas chamber" door from the Majdanek camp in Poland is on display at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac has conceded that this "gas chamber" is a fraud. (See the Sept.-Oct. 1993 Journal, p. 39.)

A casting of this “gas chamber” door from the Majdanek camp in Poland is on display at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac has conceded that this “gas chamber” is a fraud. (See the Sept.-Oct. 1993 Journal, p. 39.)

At one time, Weber pointed out, it was seriously claimed that the Germans exterminated Jews with electricity and steam, and that they manufactured soap from Jewish corpses. At Nuremberg, he went on, the United States charged that the Germans killed Jews at Treblinka, not in gas chambers, as is now claimed, but by steaming them to death in so-called “steam chambers.” These bizarre stories have also been quietly abandoned in recent years. (See “Treblinka,” Summer 1992 Journal, pp. 133-158.)

In April 1990, Israeli historians conceded that the Germans did not manufacture bars of soap from the bodies of murdered Jews — contrary to what had been alleged for years in countless periodicals and supposedly authoritative history texts. If this story is not true, one might reasonably ask, how then did it ever get started? Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer had a ready answer. He charged that the Nazis invented it. In fact, said Weber, this particular fable was first widely circulated in 1942 by the World Jewish Congress, and especially by its president, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise.

Anne Frank

The Holocaust extermination story is superficially plausible, said Weber. Everyone has seen the horrific photos of dead and dying inmates taken at Bergen-Belsen, Nordhausen and other concentration camps when they were liberated by British and American forces in the final weeks of the war in Europe. These people were unfortunate victims, said Weber, not of an extermination program, but of disease and malnutrition brought on by the complete collapse of Germany in the final months of the war. In fact, he said, if there had been an extermination program, the Jews found by Allied forces at the end of the war would have long since been killed.

Perhaps the best known “Holocaust victim” has been Anne Frank, whose name is known around the world for her famous diary. Her fate, said Weber, is typical of many Jews who lost their lives in German camps during the war. The 15-year-old girl and her father, Otto Frank, were deported from the Netherlands to Auschwitz in September 1944. Several weeks later, in the face of the advancing Soviet army, Anne was evacuated along with many other Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March 1945.

Her father came down with typhus in Auschwitz and was sent to the camp hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews who were left behind when the Germans abandoned the camp in January 1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Soviets. He died in Switzerland in 1980. If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank, neither she, nor her father and sister (along with many other Jews), would not have “survived” Auschwitz. “As tragic as it was,” said Weber, “their fate cannot be reconciled with the extermination story.”

Himmler’s Order to the Camps

At the end of the Second World War, Weber said, the Allies confiscated a tremendous quantity of German documents dealing with Germany’s wartime Jewish policy, which was sometimes referred to as the “final solution.” “But not a single German document has ever been found that orders or even refers to an extermination program,” he emphasized. “To the contrary, the documents clearly show that the German ‘final solution’ policy was one of emigration and deportation, not extermination.”

Moreover, said Weber, there “is no documentary evidence that Adolf Hitler ever gave an order to exterminate the Jews, or that he knew of any extermination program.” Instead, Weber continued, “the record shows that the German leader wanted the Jews to leave Europe, by emigration if possible and by deportation if necessary.”

Contrary to the popular propaganda image, the wartime German authorities were concerned about the high death rate in the concentration camps due to disease, and took measures to prevent deaths among the inmates. In this regard, Weber quoted from a directive dated December 28, 1942, from the head of the SS camp administration office to all the German concentration camps, including Auschwitz. It sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and ordered that “camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps.” Furthermore, it ordered: “The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants …” Finally, the directive stressed, “The Reichsführer SS [Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced.”

‘Survivor Testimony’

Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review, makes a point during the IHR-sponsored Holocaust debate. He responds to claims made in "The Record," a mass-circulation ADL publication.

Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review, makes a point during the IHR-sponsored Holocaust debate. He responds to claims made in The Record, a mass-circulation ADL publication.

Holocaust historians rely heavily on so-called “survivor testimony,” to support the extermination story. But such “evidence,” Weber said, is notoriously unreliable. He cited an article by Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, himself a “survivor” (Jewish Social Studies, Jan. 1950). “Most of the memoirs and reports” of “survivors,” Gringauz pointed out, “are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.”

In addition, Weber continued, more than ten thousand of the twenty thousand so-called “testimonies” of Jewish “survivors” on file at the Yad Vashem Holocaust center in Israel are also unreliable, according to a front page article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post newspaper of August 17th, 1986. The report quotes Shmuel Krakowski, the archives director of the Israeli government’s Holocaust memorial center, who declared that “over half of the 20,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors on record at Yad Vashem are ‘unreliable’.”

As a fairly typical example of “eyewitness” gas chamber evidence, Weber quoted from the sworn statement of Regina Bialek, a former Auschwitz prisoner who supposedly survived a “gassing.” (See her statement on page 32). Calling this first-person account “absurd” and “ludicrous,” Weber pointed out that her description of a “gassing” is one that no serious historian today would credit.

ADL Disinformation

Weber took several minutes to deal with claims presented in one of the most widely distributed pieces of Holocaust propaganda. He held up a copy of The Record: The Holocaust in History, a publication of the Zionist Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith that purports to be a reliable account of how Europe’s Jews were treated between 1933 and 1945.

According to The Record, said Weber, no less two million Jews were killed at Treblinka alone. But it does not claim that the victims were shot or gassed, which is the generally accepted story these days, but maintains instead that they were steamed to death — a story no reputable historian now accepts. Another item, Weber continued, tells readers about mass killings at the Belzec camp. Citing an “eyewitness account,” The Record reports that Jews were put to death there, not by gassing, but by electrocuting them in a special hydraulic electrocution device. This is yet another discredited propaganda fable.

This ADL publication also includes a photograph of a door with a sinister skull and crossbones emblem, and the words in German: “Caution! Gas! Mortal Danger! Do Not Open!” Underneath this photo a caption tells readers: “Door of a gas chamber, typical of ones through which millions of Jews passed to their deaths.” In fact, said Weber, this photograph actually shows the door of a non-homidical gas chamber at Dachau used to kill lice in clothing. It was never used to kill people. At Auschwitz, the ADL Record goes on to report, “more than four million persons were systematically slaughtered.” As Weber had already mentioned, this is another once authoritatively accepted claim that has been consigned to the trash heap of history.

‘Holocaustomania’

“Even after more than forty years,” said Weber, “the vast Holocaust campaign shows no sign of diminishing, but instead seems to grow more intense with each passing year.” He continued: “This relentless media campaign, which Jewish-American historian Alfred Lilienthal appropriately calls ‘Holocaustomania,’ portrays the fate of the Jews during the Second World War as the central event of history.”

Non-Jewish victims just do not merit the same concern, said Weber. “For example, there are no American memorials, ‘study centers,’ or annual observances for the victims of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, even though it is well established that Stalin’s victims vastly outnumber Hitler’s … The Holocaust has become both a flourishing business and even a kind of new religion for many Jews.”

While we are endlessly told that the Germans murdered six million European Jews during the Second World War, said Weber, the public is kept largely ignorant of the conflict’s non-Jewish victims. Weber continued:

If you ask an average, reasonably educated American: “How many European Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II?,” the almost automatic answer is, of course, six million. But if you ask that same person: How many Americans lost their lives in the Second World War, or, for that matter, how many British, or Chinese, or Germans, died, the response is usually an admission of ignorance.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Weber noted, some 20 million Chinese civilian perished in World War II, while according to the Chinese government, 35 million Chinese lost their lives as a result of Japanese aggression. “How many Americans know or care about these Asian victims of the Second World War?,” Weber asked.

Shermer’s ‘Convergence of Evidence’

As Michael Shermer came to the podium the audience greeted him with a round of applause. The Holocaust is obviously a very emotional issue, he told the gathering, “if not the most emotional event in modern history.” All the same, he went on, as a “civil libertarian” he entirely agrees that the principle of free speech should also protect dissident views about the Holocaust. As it happens, he had just returned from Europe, where he inspected the sites of the wartime German concentration camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Mauthausen and Dachau.

He sought to discredit Holocaust revisionists (and their arguments) by comparing them with anti-Darwinian “creationists.” He rejected as specious Robert Faurisson’s often-repeated demand for “one proof, just one proof” of a wartime German homicidal gas chamber. “He’s not going to get ‘one proof’,” said Shermer, “because there isn’t ‘one proof’ of a gas chamber.” Faurisson’s call is like the creationist demand for “just one fossil” proving evolution. “Evolution is not proved by one fossil,” Shermer said.

“We are very confident of the sequence of historical events in evolution and in the Holocaust,” he continued. “The Holocaust, as it is generally accepted, happened,” said Shermer. Evidence for the extermination of six million Jews, many of them in gas chambers, is “constantly fine tuned and changed.” “While there may be problems with bits and pieces of the story,” said Shermer, “we have to look at the big picture.” What proves “the Holocaust,” he said, is a “convergence of evidence” or a “consilience of inductions.”

Greg Raven, Journal associate editor, introduces the speakers at the Weber-Shermer Holocaust debate.

Greg Raven, Journal associate editor, introduces the speakers at the Weber-Shermer Holocaust debate.

“Did the Nazis intend to exterminate European Jews?,” Shermer asked. He responded to his own query by saying that this question is too simple. “The Holocaust is not a single event that occurred at one time,” he said, but rather a collection of events. Rather than an over-arching plan or program, the “Holocaust evolved over time.”

Incriminating Statements?

Perhaps the most impressive evidence presented by Shermer to prove a German extermination policy were several wartime statements by high-ranking Third Reich officials. These included excerpts from the “service journal” of Hans Frank, governor of German-ruled Poland, passages from the diary of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and a portion of SS chief Heinrich Himmler’s well-known October 1943 Posen speech. (Shermer had already published these in the June 1994 “pseudohistory” issue of his Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 44-54.)

In spite of what Weber had said earlier about it, Shermer also cited the postwar testimony of former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss as important evidence of a German extermination program. Shermer offered no response to the specific points made by Weber about this, except to say that Höss’ testimony “has some funky things surrounding it,” and that Höss’ figures may be “way off.” Shermer also compared Höss’ postwar testimony with that of Perry Broad and camp physician Dr. Johann Paul Kremer. (On this, see: R. Faurisson “Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz,” Summer 1981 Journal, pp. 103-136.)

Holding up a copy of the 1994 anthology, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Shermer recommended this work and specifically endorsed the contribution there of Canadian architect Robert-Jan van Pelt. Quoting van Pelt, Shermer said that “Auschwitz has become a myth … Few events can rival the mythic power of Auschwitz.”

Auschwitz, said Shermer, was “never intended, he [Van Pelt] proves, to be an extermination camp.” Rather, it “evolved” into a killing center. Holocaust historians such as Pressac and van Pelt now contend that the supposed “gas chambers” at Kremas II and III were originally planned and constructed as normal morgues (Leichenkeller). Only later, they assert, were these rooms transformed into killing facilities.

Weber Responds

Weber stressed that while Shermer readily acknowledges that much of what we have been told about the Holocaust over the years is not true, and that many specific Holocaust claims are now demonstrably false, he entirely ignores the implications of this drastic revision of the historical record. Piles of once supposedly solid “evidence” are now acknowledged to be fraudulent, numerous “eyewitness” testimonies and “official” reports are now conceded to be worthless. But this is of more than academic significance. Many lives have been ruined because of such once supposedly “proven” Holocaust claims. Shermer ignored numerous specific points made by Weber, and was vague about precisely when and where Jews were supposedly gassed, even at Auschwitz.

Weber holds up a copy of The Record: The Holocaust in History, a mass-circulation publication of the Zionist "Anti-Defamation League."

Weber holds up a copy of The Record: The Holocaust in History, a mass-circulation publication of the Zionist “Anti-Defamation League.”

Shermer’s “convergence of evidence” thesis is fundamentally flawed, Weber went on, because it can readily be used to “prove” claims, such as gassings at Dachau, that are now universally regarded as untrue. Indeed, the evidence presented at Nuremberg for (mythical) gassings at Dachau, said Weber, is in some ways stronger than the evidence presented there for gassings at Auschwitz. To “prove” gassings at Dachau, Nuremberg prosecutors were at least able to point to the “gas chamber” itself, cite an official US congressional investigative report, and quote “eyewitness” testimony by former camp physician Dr. Franz Blaha.

The story of gassings at the Auschwitz I main camp has also changed, Weber pointed out. For years a room there was shown off to tourists as a homicidal “gas chamber” in its “original state.” Now it is acknowledged to be a postwar “reconstruction.” Claims of gassings there are played down ever more. Weber cited a recent issue of the French magazine L’Express, which reports that “everything” about this gas chamber “is false.” (See: “Major French Magazine Acknowledges Auschwitz Gas Chamber Fraud,” Jan.-Feb. 1995 Journal, pp. 23-24.)

Responding to Shermer’s citation of wartime statements of Hans Frank, Weber pointed out that at the end of the war the former Governor General of Poland had turned over to the Allies his own detailed “service journal” (Diensttagebuch), confident that it would exonerate him. Moreover, Weber went on, Frank testified at Nuremberg that he did not know of any wartime German program or policy to exterminate Europe’s Jews. (Testimony of April 18, 1946. IMT “blue series,” vol. 12, pp. 17-19. See also: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” Summer 1992 Journal, p. 195.)

Frank explained to the Tribunal that he had been very concerned over persistent reports that Jews were being exterminated. He said that on one occasion, when a report reached him about killings of Jews at Belzec, he went to the site the next day. He spoke with Jews who were working there, and was unable to find evidence of killings.

On another occasion, in February 1944, he raised this matter in a conversation with Hitler. “My Führer, rumors about the extermination of the Jews will not be silenced. They are heard everywhere … Tell me, my Führer, is there anything to it?” As Frank related, Hitler replied: “You can very well imagine that there are executions going on — of insurgents. Apart from that I do not know anything. Why don’t you speak to Heinrich Himmler about it?” Himmler denied the extermination allegations, Frank said. (Incidentally, the statements by Frank, Goebbels and Himmler cited by Shermer were all dealt with in detail during the 1988 Zündel trial, particularly by prosecution witness Christopher Browning, defense attorney Doug Christie, and defense witnesses Faurisson, Irving and Weber. See: B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? [Toronto: 1992], esp. pp. 93, 113-116, 130, 131, 208, 302, 336, 343-344, 369, 396, 405-409, 417.)

Dachau "gas chamber" door. This official US Army photo was taken at Dachau on April 30, 1945, one day after the camp's liberation. It shows a GI standing in front of a door marked with a skull and crossbones. According to the official caption, "these chambers were used by the Nazi guards for killing prisoners of the infamous Dachau concentration camp." In fact, this is a small disinfection gas chamber used for delousing clothes, as part of the routine to curtail the spread of disease. This chamber was never used to kill people. For several decades, this photo has been widely reproduced to help keep alive the notorious Dachau "gas chamber" myth. A large blow-up of this photograph was on display at the Weber-Shermer debate.

Dachau “gas chamber” door. This official US Army photo was taken at Dachau on April 30, 1945, one day after the camp’s liberation. It shows a GI standing in front of a door marked with a skull and crossbones. According to the official caption, “these chambers were used by the Nazi guards for killing prisoners of the infamous Dachau concentration camp.” In fact, this is a small disinfection gas chamber used for delousing clothes, as part of the routine to curtail the spread of disease. This chamber was never used to kill people. For several decades, this photo has been widely reproduced to help keep alive the notorious Dachau “gas chamber” myth. A large blow-up of this photograph was on display at the Weber-Shermer debate.

While conceding that many specific Holocaust claims are now known to be demonstrably untrue, Shermer does not hold anyone responsible for these falsehoods. In his 1994 Skeptic essay, he manifests a double standard: while quick to point to real or imagined errors of fact or interpretation by revisionists, he passes over in silence the numerous demonstrable historical falsehoods promoted by such groups as the ADL. In his Skeptic essay Shermer casts aspersions on the allegedly sinister motives of revisionists, while treating anti-revisionists as high-minded scholars of good will. In short, he questions the motives only of critics of the Holocaust story.

Weber cited a recent letter by Michael Berenbaum, research director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. From Australia came this question: “Why don’t you have homicidal gas chambers and/or some crematorium ovens on display in your large museum?” Berenbaum responded: “We do have crematoria ovens in the Museum. We could not bring over gas chambers because there was no original that was available for us to bring to the United States. Instead we made a model of the crematoria and labelled it a model.” This is a remarkable statement, because until very recently, anyway, it was asserted that “original” homicidal gas chambers existed at Auschwitz, Mauthausen and Majdanek. (Berenbaum letter of April 21, 1995. Adelaide Institute newsletter, May 1995, pp. 5-6.)

Although claims of gassings at the Mauthausen camp have been played down in recent decades, it should not be forgotten that this was once authoritatively regarded as one of the most terrible German killing centers. As an example, Weber noted that, according to the 1957 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (vol. 10, p. 288), “close to two million people, mostly Jews, were exterminated between 1941 and 1945″ in Mauthausen.

Referring to the mentality behind the seemingly ceaseless Holocaust campaign, Weber cited a statement by Abraham Foxman, national director of the Zionist Anti-Defamation League. (ADL On the Frontline newsletter, Jan. 1994, p. 2.) “The Holocaust,” Foxman declared,

is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and thus, on God himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.

While Shermer has described this Foxman statement merely as “an unfortunate choice of words” (Skeptic, June 1994, p. 33), it is actually “fortuitous,” said Weber, because “it refreshingly reveals the arrogant and bigoted mind-set of the ADL and, indeed, of much of the entire Holocaust campaign.” He continued:

When such people say “Never Forget,” they mean never: at no time, and until the end of time. Five years, twenty years, a hundred years from now, we will still be enduring a steady drumbeat of what is euphemistically called “Holocaust education” … This mentality helps explain why the Holocaust plays the quasi-religious role it does in our society.

As evidence both of the mentality of our adversaries, and of the progress that has been made in recent years. Weber cited the public declaration issued in February 1979 by 34 French scholars. “The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible should not be raised,” they stated. “It was technically possible because it occurred…. There is not nor can there be a debate over the existence of the gas chambers.” Today, and largely in response to revisionist skepticism, individuals such as van Pelt, Pressac and Shermer are earnestly investigating precisely this “question of how technically such a mass murder was possible.”

Shermer Responds

When Shermer returned to the podium, he affirmed that it is “obviously” proper to ask such questions, adding that his own research shows that he rejects the 1979 French scholars’ statement. During his recent visit to Europe, he asked numerous questions of officials at former camp sites in an effort to learn just how the “gas chambers” are supposed to have functioned.

During his visit to Mauthausen, Shermer said, officials there responded to his specific questions about the camp “gas chamber” with inadequate or contradictory explanations. He also conceded that there are problems with this facility. For one thing, the chamber’s “doors don’t lock.” Shermer expressed the belief that homicidal gassings were conducted at Mauthausen “at most on a small scale and experimentally.”

The Dachau “gas chamber” is a “non-issue,” said Shermer, because no one now claims that anyone was ever gassed there. Surprisingly, though, he went on to give a few reasons why he thinks prisoners may indeed have been gassed there.

Bogus Majdanek Chamber

At the former Majdanek camp (near Lublin, Poland), Shermer said, he inspected a building that is shown off to tourists as a wartime killing facility, with a “big sign” identifying it as a homicidal gas chamber. This “reconstructed” chamber, he said, “makes no sense.” Shermer said that he is “certain” that it was “not a homicidal gas chamber.” He speculated that it might have been a non-homicidal delousing facility. (Such non-homicidal gas chambers, common in German camps, were installed to prevent deaths. They used Zyklon B, with poisonous hydrocyanic gas, to kill typhus-bearing lice in clothing.) Shermer ascribed the misrepresentation of this building to the “unprofessional” character of the staff there. “I suspect at Majdanek [that] if there were homicidal gassings, it was done on a small scale,” he continued, albeit at other locations in the camp. He made no effort to defend the claim that one and half million people were killed at Majdanek.

Shermer also found problems with the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz. As he noted, it is frequently and authoritatively alleged that Zyklon B was dumped into Auschwitz-Birkenau “gas chambers” (at Kremas II and II) through ceiling-floor “wire mesh columns.” However, Shermer said he was unable to find any on-site trace of these columns. “I am skeptical” of the wire mesh columns story, he said.

Ongoing Revisionism

“For traditional Jewish historians,” Shermer said, the gas chambers are important because they are “what makes the Holocaust unique over other Holocausts.” In Shermer’s view, “the Holocaust is only unique in the sense of being contingently unique, as all historical events are … There’s nothing unique about states killing masses of people — it’s been done for thousands of years.”

Weber and Shermer converse during a break at the Holocaust debate sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review.

Weber and Shermer converse during a break at the Holocaust debate sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review.

Acknowledging that many specific Holocaust claims have been abandoned over the years, Shermer affirmed: “Clearly revision has been going on.” Over the years, he said, the Holocaust “story has been refined hundreds of percentage points,” and has been revised “umpteen times.” “How is it that some people can get away, so to speak, with revising the Holocaust?,” Shermer asked, while revisionists cannot? In our society, he said, it all “depends on who is doing the asking.”

“The problem you’re having as revisionists,” he went on, “is that you’ve been labeled … the assumption is that there’s an ideology behind the questions you’ve been asking.” Revisionist statements, no matter how factual and truthful, are simply dismissed. “You’ve been labeled,” said Shermer of Holocaust revisionists, and a pejorative “label has stuck there.”

“The Holocaust will be revised,” Shermer stressed,” by “van Pelt and others … but they’ll get away with it because they’re not associated with any ideology, and that’s the problem you’re encountering. I’m not going to impute ideological motives to any particular person here. I’m just saying that that’s the perception out there amongst non-revisionists, and that’s the problem you’re running into.”

Final Remarks

One member of the audience — an African-American journalist and television writer — was bothered by the abrupt and facile way that Shermer had acknowledged that a “gas chamber” shown to tourists at Majdanek is a fraud. During the concluding question and answer session, he asked the Skeptic editor-publisher if he isn’t offended by the fact that a “gas chamber” is deceitfully presented to tourists at Majdanek with a sign that is “so patently untrue.” While Shermer was willing to call this sign “not appropriate” and to say that it constitutes a “danger,” he did not seem particularly bothered by this fraud.

Shermer seemed similarly unconcerned over the ideological or religious agenda that obviously drives much of the Holocaust campaign — a campaign that portrays all of non-Jewish humanity as collectively guilty for what is regarded as the most terrible crime in history. With the passage of time, said Weber, and as ever more historical evidence comes to light, the Holocaust story diminishes in magnitude. At the same time, he went on, the Holocaust campaign continues — if anything, growing ever more intense with the passage of years.

In our society, the Holocaust story is treated with special reverence. It is simply not permissible to view the fate of Europe’s Jews during the Second World War with the same critical, open-minded consideration with which we look at other chapters of history. Consequently, revisionist skeptics are not only dismissed but smeared and vilified, and, in some countries, treated as criminals.

‘Politically Correct’ Skepticism

Shermer’s Skeptic magazine, Weber said, safely takes aim at phony UFO sightings, fraudulent health cures, Uri Geller spoon-bending tricks, witchcraft trials in centuries gone by, and so forth. In short, said Weber, it practices “PC skepticism.” This kind of skepticism takes no particular courage. “The real challenge” for sincerely open-minded skeptics, said Weber, “is to challenge statements made by governments.”

Weber addressed the argument by Shermer and van Pelt that the alleged “gas chambers” at Auschwitz-Birkenau crematory facilities II and III were originally designed and constructed as normal morgue cellars in 1942, and only later (in late 1942 or early 1943) modified or transformed into homicidal gassing facilities. Van Pelt believes that a decision to kill Auschwitz prisoners in gas chambers was made in the summer of 1941, while other “exterminationists” contend that this decision was made in early 1942.

In either case, this thesis makes no sense, said Weber. Why would the Germans design and construct Kremas II-V at Birkenau — the cornerstone of the Holocaust extermination story — as ordinary, non-homicidal crematory facilities in late 1942 and early 1943, that is, after the Germans had supposedly already inaugurated their extermination policy.

Furthermore, Weber said, the crematories at Auschwitz (and especially Auschwitz-Birkenau), with their limited cremation capacities, simply were not designed to dispose of the bodies of many hundreds of thousands of prisoners. In short, the Auschwitz crematories were not planned or built consistent with a plan or policy to exterminate prisoners in the camp. (See: A. Butz, “Some Thoughts on Pressac’s Opus,” May-June 1993 Journal, pp. 23-37.)

Finally, Weber responded to a question about the “bloodcurdling” remarks of high-ranking German officials quoted earlier by Shermer. While these statements do reflect a policy of brutal repression, Weber said, they do not refer to a policy to exterminate Europe’s Jews. These remarks are either rhetorical exaggeration or are taken out of context.

Several of those who attended the Weber-Shermer exchange commented that it was not much of a debate because Shermer made so many concessions to the revisionists. In any case, this event was a big step forward for the cause of historical revisionism because it dramatically gave the lie to the often-repeated claim that “the Holocaust” is “undebatable,” and showed that the revisionist view of the Holocaust story is one that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

* * *

Source: Institute for Historical Review

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/debating-the-undebatable-the-weber-shermer-clash/feed/ 3
Rudyard Kipling: White Man’s Poet http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/rudyard-kipling-white-mans-poet/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/rudyard-kipling-white-mans-poet/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:00:11 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4182 Rudyard_Kipling_1

by Dr. William L. Pierce

ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, in Lahore — today the second city in independent Pakistan but then an administrative center in British India — a 17-year-old subeditor, fresh out of school in England, worked very hard to get out each day’s edition of the Civil and Military Gazette. His name was Rudyard Kipling (pictured).

Every now and then the young subeditor, with his editor’s assent, would fill up a little left-over space in the newspaper with a poem of his own composition, much to the annoyance of the Indian typesetters, who did not like to use the special typefaces which Kipling deemed appropriate to distinguish his poems from the prose around them. In 1886 he gathered up all of these poems from the previous three years and republished them in . . . → Read More: Rudyard Kipling: White Man’s Poet]]> Rudyard_Kipling_1

by Dr. William L. Pierce

ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, in Lahore — today the second city in independent Pakistan but then an administrative center in British India — a 17-year-old subeditor, fresh out of school in England, worked very hard to get out each day’s edition of the Civil and Military Gazette. His name was Rudyard Kipling (pictured).

Every now and then the young subeditor, with his editor’s assent, would fill up a little left-over space in the newspaper with a poem of his own composition, much to the annoyance of the Indian typesetters, who did not like to use the special typefaces which Kipling deemed appropriate to distinguish his poems from the prose around them. In 1886 he gathered up all of these poems from the previous three years and republished them in a book, under the title Departmental Ditties. The book was an immediate hit with other British colonials, and the first printing sold out very quickly.

Then it was one book after another, for from 1883 until his death in 1936 Kipling’s pen was seldom idle; hardly a week went by that he did not write one or more poems. Because his poetry expressed so well the common sentiment of the race — the deep soul-sense of men conscious of their breeding and of their responsibility to live up to a standard set by their forebears — it became very popular with his fellows. He was by far the most widely read — and the best-loved — poet writing in English at the beginning of this century; every cultured person in the English-speaking world was familiar with at least some of his poems. In 1907 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Kipling chose as his symbol — his personal rune — the swastika, the ancient Aryan sign of the sun and of health and of good fortune. Most editions of his works published in the first decades of this century are adorned with this symbol. Beginning in 1933, however, Jewish pressure was brought to bear against the publishers, and the swastikas were dropped from subsequent printings.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Unfortunately, the censorship did not end there. Kipling’s poetry was obnoxious to the new men who began tightening their grip on the cultural and informational media of the English-speaking world in the 1930’s — obnoxious and dangerous. Actually, the whole spirit of Kipling’s writing was dangerous to them, totally at odds with the new spirit they were promoting so assiduously, but they could not simply ban all further publication of his works.

What they did instead was take measures to have dropped from new editions of his collected writings those of his poems and stories which expressed most explicitly the spirit and the ideas they feared: the spirit and the ideas of proud, free White men. Today every school child still reads a bit of Kipling’s poetry: such things as “Mandalay” and “FuzzyWuzzy” and “Gunga Din,” which superficially seem safely in tune with an age of multiracialism and “affirmative action” and White guilt.

But what American schoolchild has ever been given an opportunity to read Kipling’s “The Children’s Song”? The first two stanzas of that poem are:

Land of our Birth, we pledge to thee
Our love and toil in the years to be;
When we are grown and take our place,
As men and women with our race.

Father in Heaven who lovest all,
Oh help Thy children when they call;
That they may build from age to age,
An undefiled heritage.

There are many other Kipling poems, equally dangerous, which have been deleted from every edition of his works published since the Second World War. Here are three of them:

A Song of the White Men

Now, this is the cup the White Men drink
When they go to right a wrong,
And that is the cup of the old world’s hate —
Cruel and strained and strong.
We have drunk that cup — and a bitter, bitter cup
And tossed the dregs away.
But well for the world when the White Men drink
To the dawn of the White Man’s day!

Now, this is the road that the White Men tread
When they go to clean a land —
Iron underfoot and levin overhead
And the deep on either hand.

We have trod that road — and a wet and windy road
Our chosen star for guide.
Oh, well for the world when the White Men tread
Their highway side by side!

Now, this is the faith that the White Men hold
When they build their homes afar —
“Freedom for ourselves and freedom for our sons
And, failing freedom, War. ”
We have proved our faith — bear witness to our faith,
Dear souls of freemen slain!
Oh, well for the world when the White Men join
To prove their faith again!

The Stranger

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk —
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to.
They are used to the lies I tell,
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf —
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Song of the Fifth River

When first by Eden Tree,
The Four Great Rivers ran,
To each was appointed a Man
Her Prince and Ruler to be.

But after this was ordained,
(The ancient legends tell),
There came dark Israel,
For whom no River remained.

Then He Whom the Rivers obey
Said to him: “Fling on the ground
A handful of yellow clay,
And a Fifth Great River shall run,
Mightier than these Four,
In secret the Earth around;
And Her secret evermore,
Shall be shown to thee and thy Race.”

So it was said and done.
And, deep in the veins of Earth,
And, fed by a thousand springs
That comfort the market-place,
Or sap the power of Kings,
The Fifth Great River had birth,
Even as it was foretold
The Secret River of Gold!

And Israel laid down
His sceptre and his crown,
To brood on that River bank,
Where the waters flashed and sank,
And burrowed in earth and fell,
And bided a season below,
For reason that none might know,
Save only Israel.

He is Lord of the Last —
The Fifth, most wonderful, Flood.
He hears Her thunder past
And Her Song is in his blood.
He can foresay: “She will fall,”
For he knows which fountain dries
Behind which desert-belt
A thousand leagues to the South.

He can foresay: “She will rise.”
He knows what far snows melt
Along what mountain-wall
A thousand leagues to the North.
He snuffs the coming drouth
As he snuffs the coming rain.
He knows what each will bring forth,
And turns it to his gain.

A ruler without a Throne,
A Prince without a Sword,
Israel follows his quest.
In every land a guest,
Of many lands a lord,
In no land King is he.
But the Fifth Great River keeps
The secret of Her deeps
For Israel alone,
As it was ordered to be.

Annex: Kipling’s Most Famous Poem

If —

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream — and not make dreams your master;
If you can think — and not make thoughts your aim,
If you meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings — nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And — which is more — you’ll be a Man, my son!

* * *

Source: National Vanguard magazine, March 1984

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/rudyard-kipling-white-mans-poet/feed/ 0
A Closer Look at the Enemy http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-the-enemy/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-the-enemy/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:30:07 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4145 wlp_hadleyby Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

YOU KNOW, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what’s important from what’s not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what’s happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in . . . → Read More: A Closer Look at the Enemy]]> wlp_hadleyby Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

YOU KNOW, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what’s important from what’s not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what’s happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.

So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.

Here’s an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, “Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can’t be both, so make up your mind.” This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists — and neither. They are, first and last, Jews, and that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn’t occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That’s what is important.

And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn’t try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn’t have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti-communists simply said: “Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists.” And that was an oversimplification of the truth.

Here’s a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.

And so now some people have asked me, “Well, if Clinton is an obedient tool of the Jews, why are they now trying to destroy him? Why are some of the people who are in the forefront of those now pulling Clinton down Jews? Why would a Jewess, Monica Lewinsky, turn on him? Don’t you know that some of Ken Starr’s associates are Jews? Didn’t you notice that one of Clinton’s most important attackers is Connecticut’s Jewish Senator Joseph Lieberman? It has been the Jewish media, like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, which have exposed Clinton’s lies and other crimes. So how can you say that he is a puppet of the Jews? It doesn’t make sense.”

But of course, it does make sense — if one doesn’t try to oversimplify. I don’t want to spend too much time on this because I’ve already covered much of the ground in earlier broadcasts, but I’ll try to add a few more details, so that the picture is still simple, still clear, but not overly simple. The basic facts are these: First, the Jews control the mass media — or more accurately, they are the most powerful of the conscious elites in the media world; they wield more control over the media than any other coherent and self-conscious group. And because of this media control they are able to exercise a determining influence on the electoral process: in other words, through their media control they are able to control the politics of a mass democracy, where everyone, even the most easily manipulated elements of the population, has an equal vote.

Second, Bill Clinton is a talented but utterly corrupt man. He is a typical child of the 1960s. He grew up believing that the world owed him something. He grew up believing that he was entitled to whatever he could grab. And he grew up cynical. He grew up during a period when the Jews were turning American society on its head, when Jews were breaking all of the rules and getting away with it. Bill Clinton noticed this and learned from it. And Bill Clinton grew up with a talent for manipulating people, a talent for lying to people and getting them to believe him. This suited him perfectly for a career in politics.

And the Jews noticed Bill Clinton. They saw him as potentially very useful to them. He is exactly the sort of man they always are on the lookout for: corrupt but charming; someone who can attract votes but who understands which side his bread is buttered on. They supported him with their media and with their money. Without their support he wouldn’t have gotten into the White House. And Bill Clinton reciprocated. He gave them whatever they wanted. He appointed them to every high position in the government, and he pushed their policies and programs. On all of this the record is clear. So why are they abandoning, even attacking, their good friend Bill Clinton now?

Well of course, he never really was their friend: he was their useful tool. And he has become a badly damaged tool as a consequence of his own personal weaknesses. The Jews did not set out to destroy him. He did that himself. Remember, Ken Starr was ready to throw in the towel and give up on investigating Clinton three years ago. If anyone besides Clinton deserves credit for his downfall it is Paula Jones. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment she opened the Pandora’s box from which the affair with Monica Lewinsky eventually came to light. Remember, the Jewish media tried hard not to notice Paula Jones. That Paula eventually was noticed by the public resulted from several factors beyond the control of the Jewish media bosses.

And that’s one of those little complications we must deal with in the real world. Despite all their media power and all their money, the Jews are not able to control everything all the time. Sometimes the Jews are compelled by circumstances just like the rest of us. They also have their vulnerabilities.

Paula Jones opened a Pandora’s box that the Jews would have preferred to keep closed. But once the box was open, they had to decide what to do about Clinton. On the one hand, they have Al Gore waiting in the wings, and Al Gore is just as corrupt as Bill Clinton, just as willing a tool. But on the other hand, Gore simply doesn’t have Clinton’s talents. He’ll do what the Jews tell him, but he won’t be able to charm the voters as effectively as Clinton could. They’d like to keep Clinton, but he’s become a bit of a tar baby. And so we have had an opportunity to see another of the world’s little complications, and that is that not even the Jews are always in complete agreement about the best way to proceed.

The Jews don’t want to become too closely identified with Clinton’s corrupt image. Looking a little further ahead than the mass of Gentile voters who still think Clinton should stay in the White House, the Jews understand that it will not be helpful for them to have a very close historical association with the Clinton administration. They don’t want Clinton to be thought of as their man, because they have a suspicion that despite his present popularity his historical image will be very bad indeed. For some of them that is the primary consideration, and they’d like to see Clinton go quickly and then muddle through with Al Gore as best they can. Other Jews are still fascinated by Clinton’s approval ratings and his ability to charm the lemmings. They don’t want to trade him in for Al Gore no matter how much tar rubs off on them. And of course, they also have the consideration that if they all abandon him simultaneously and all begin attacking him, he conceivably could turn on them and lash out at them. Better to keep him mindful that despite the fact that some of them are pulling him down, if he wants to stay out of prison he’d better keep obeying orders. So there are complications in life even for the Jews.

I’ll give you one more example of the subtleties that one must deal with in trying to understand the role of the Jews in our society. Last week one of the most powerful Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith — the ADL — held a huge press conference at the National Press Club in Washington and simultaneous press conferences in a number of cities around the country, and they announced that I am the most dangerous man in America. Really: I am the most dangerous man in America! And the organization I head, the National Alliance, is the most dangerous organization in America. Really: not the Mafia, not what’s left of the Communist Party, not some violent and well armed militia group, not Louis Farrakhan and the Black Muslims, but the National Alliance.

Well, I long ago decided that any insult from the Devil is a compliment, but still there are some troubling aspects to what the Anti-Defamation League has done, and I’ll share them with you, because they can help us understand better the way the Jews operate. When the ADL held its press conferences last week it handed out press releases to the reporters and politicians. The press release began with a statement by the top ADL commissar, Abraham Foxman, saying, “The National Alliance is an alliance of bigots and bombers thriving on hate,” and then it listed a long series of violent crimes and terrorist acts the ADL claims are “linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda.” The list begins:

  • 1992-1995, Midwest: Authorities say the Aryan Republican Army, a white supremacist gang that required members to read The Turner Diaries, committed 22 bank robberies and bombings.
  • April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City: The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building is eerily reminiscent of a fictional bombing scene in The Turner Diaries, of which Timothy McVeigh was a devotee.
  • December 1995, Fayetteville, NC: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.

Et cetera. There’s a lot more to the ADL’s press release, but you get the idea: I and the other members of the National Alliance are bomb-throwers and bank robbers “linked” to 22 bank robberies and bombings in the Midwest, to the Oklahoma City bombing, to the shooting of a Black drug dealer and his girlfriend in North Carolina, and to lots of other things. Now, as a matter of fact, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of the Aryan Republican Army and its 22 bank robberies and bombings, or of Timothy McVeigh, or of the soldiers at Fort Bragg who shot the Black drug dealer, until we saw these people on television news programs, like everyone else.

But we are “linked” to them, says the ADL. How? Did some of these folks listen to one of my American Dissident Voices broadcasts? Probably. At least, I wouldn’t be surprised. Did some of them read my 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries? Probably. At least, I’ve seen evidence to indicate that Timothy McVeigh did, although I don’t know about any of the others. There are a quarter of a million copies of the book in circulation, and probably a half-million readers altogether — including, no doubt, Abraham Foxman and a number of his associates in the ADL.

So that’s how I and the National Alliance are “linked” to bombings, bank robberies, and murders. Very clever. So then, it’s fair to say that the Catholic Church is “linked” to Mafia operations, and that the Automobile Association of America — the AAA — is “linked” to drunk driving, and that the folks who publish various editions of the Bible are “linked” to the crimes committed by people who quote the Bible as they take an ax to their wives or blow away a neighbor with a shotgun.

“The National Alliance is an alliance of bombers and bigots,” says Abraham Foxman. I am not aware of a single instance of a bombing committed by a National Alliance member — although a couple of years ago a former member in Florida had a pipe bomb he was trying to build blow up in his face. He wasn’t a member of the National Alliance at the time, and he didn’t actually bomb anything except himself — but that’s enough for Abraham Foxman and the ADL to describe the National Alliance as an organization of “bombers and bigots.”

You know, every organization which recruits from the public will occasionally recruit a member who has had or will have a problem with the law, but here’s something to remember: the Democratic Party has a much higher percentage of lawbreakers among its members than does the National Alliance. We don’t tolerate criminal activity, but the head of the Democratic Party seems to thrive on it — at least he did before Ken Starr got on his case.

Abe Foxman and the ADL seem to thrive on criminal activity too. Five years ago, in April 1993, search warrants were executed on the Los Angeles and San Francisco offices of the ADL, and police seized hundreds of confidential police files which had been stolen by the ADL. Some of these police files were from investigations of anti-apartheid groups in the United States, and the ADL had given copies to the South African government in return for access to confidential South African police files on anti-Israel groups in South Africa. A lot of the people whose names were in those confidential police files the ADL had stolen sued the ADL for invasion of privacy, and that’s still working its way through the courts.

But here’s the really interesting part of all this: newspapers and other media took the ADL’s press release last week as gospel, and they printed big excerpts from it. It’s been in newspapers all over the country. You’ve probably seen some of these stories yourself. With one exception none of these newspapers even bothered to check with me first; they didn’t call me up and ask me if the ADL’s allegations were true or if I had any comment on them; they just ran sensational stories with headlines like “National Alliance linked to bombings and murders.” And of course, they said nothing about the ADL’s criminal activities or its links to the government of Israel. And many of these newspapers aren’t even owned or edited by Jews. But they all follow the party line. They know that the ADL is an official Jewish organization, and therefore it cannot be criticized, and nothing it says can be questioned. That would be like questioning the “Holocaust,” heaven forbid!

That’s a little frightening, don’t you think? So here’s one of those complications about the way the Jews wield their power. They don’t have to own everything in order to have things go their way. A newspaper editor or a television station owner doesn’t have to be Jewish in order to slavishly follow the Jewish party line. The Jews own enough of the media — they hold enough of the policy-making positions — so that no one, or almost no one, wants to cross them. When an institution becomes corrupt — and that, unfortunately, is the case with our mass media, just as with our political system — the Jews can count on using their power to make things go their way. They thrive on corruption. The ADL thrives on corruption. The ADL could not exist in an uncorrupted society.

Finally, here’s one other little complication in understanding the role of the Jews. I know and you know individual Jews who are not involved in any political or media activity, individual Jews who simply earn a living and go about their business and don’t pay much attention to what the ADL is doing. And so I often have people write to me and ask me why I am so hard on the Jews. They remind me that there are lots of evil people in our society, even in the media, who are not Jews. They remind me that Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner aren’t Jews, that Stalin wasn’t a Jew, and that Lenin was only part Jewish. And that’s true enough. And that’s why we won’t be able to dispense with the gallows even when we have no more Jews.

But the people who are focusing on the complications that many of the world’s evildoers aren’t Jews and that many Jews are not involved in sinister activities — these people are failing to see the forest because of the trees. When I speak about the role of the Jews in the world today or in the past I do simplify the world. I do simplify the facts, because my aim is for people to see the forest, to understand the forest, at least in rough outline, before they spend too much time studying the individual trees.

And the forest I want people to see, the big picture I want them to understand, even though it is a simplified picture, is this: Without Jews there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent selective murder of two generations of the best and brightest of the Russians. Without Jews as an organized community pushing “multiculturalism” and “diversity” and open borders and racial mixing in the United States, White Americans would not now be facing the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country in the near future. It is the Jewish presence as a whole and its effect on our society that we must understand first, before we start trying to understand all of the complicating details.

* * *

Source: Free Speech magazine, October 1998, Volume IV Number 10

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/a-closer-look-at-the-enemy/feed/ 0
My Role in the Zündel Trial http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/my-role-in-the-zundel-trial/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/my-role-in-the-zundel-trial/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2015 13:00:16 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4160 Mark Weber at IHR conferenceby Mark Weber (pictured)

FOR THE BETTER PART OF five days in March 1988, I testified as an expert witness for the defense in the “Holocaust Trial” of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. It was one of the most challenging and interesting experiences of my life, as well as one of the most emotionally grueling.

Zündel was on trial in Toronto District Court for publishing Did Six Million Really Die?, a 32-page booklet (often called the “Harwood booklet” after the pen name of its English author) that contests the Holocaust story, that the Germans systematically exterminated six million European Jews during the Second World War.

During my time on the stand, which included a detailed examination of the booklet itself, I presented evidence which, together with the testimony of the . . . → Read More: My Role in the Zündel Trial]]> Mark Weber at IHR conferenceby Mark Weber (pictured)

FOR THE BETTER PART OF five days in March 1988, I testified as an expert witness for the defense in the “Holocaust Trial” of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. It was one of the most challenging and interesting experiences of my life, as well as one of the most emotionally grueling.

Zündel was on trial in Toronto District Court for publishing Did Six Million Really Die?, a 32-page booklet (often called the “Harwood booklet” after the pen name of its English author) that contests the Holocaust story, that the Germans systematically exterminated six million European Jews during the Second World War.

During my time on the stand, which included a detailed examination of the booklet itself, I presented evidence which, together with the testimony of the other defense witnesses, powerfully discredits the extermination story. I also told the court about the solid achievements of Holocaust Revisionism in the years since the Harwood booklet was first published in England in 1974.

For the sake of clarity in this essay, I have reorganized and compressed my testimony into a coherent summary. I have also tried to convey something of the atmosphere in the courtroom, and have included a few personal observations.

Ernst Zündel

The defendant was born in Germany’s Black Forest region in 1939. After migrating to Canada at the age of 18, he made a successful career for himself as a professional graphic artist. Zündel was charged under a Canadian law, enacted in 1892 and used only twice before, which makes it illegal knowingly to publish “a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes, or is likely to cause, injury or mischief to a public interest.”

His first trial in 1985 for publishing the Harwood booklet received intensive coverage in the Canadian media and resulted in conviction. But the verdict was set aside in 1987 by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled that the judge had, among other things, improperly excluded defense evidence, permitted inadmissable prosecution evidence and had given improper instructions to the jury. The Ontario provincial government then ordered a new trial, which began on January 18, 1988. (On May 11, 1988, Zündel was found guilty and sentenced two days later to nine months in jail. His courageous and dedicated attorney, Douglas Christie, immediately appealed the verdict)

Zündel first asked me to participate in the second Holocaust Trial as a possible interpreter. William A. Curry, a Nebraska businessman who knew both Zündel and me, had strongly encouraged my participation in the trial and was instrumental in arranging our first meeting in Toronto on March 3. Zündel and his attorney quickly decided that I could actually be of greater help as a witness than as an interpreter.

I was called to the stand on Tuesday morning, March 22. Defense attorney Christie began by briefly questioning me about my competence as a historian. Among other things, he established that I had received a Master’s degree in European history in 1977 from Indiana University (Bloomington), and had studied the Holocaust issue in considerable detail since 1979. Crown (prosecution) attorney John Pearson objected to my being allowed to testify, arguing that I am biased and not sufficiently “professional.” But Christie pointed out that I had more academic training as a historian than Raul Hilberg, who had testified for the prosecution in the first Zündel trial. Christie said that my testimony should be admitted on the same basis as that of historian Christopher Browning, who had appeared earlier as the main prosecution witness.

zundel

Ernst Zundel

Pearson suggested that my Revisionist writing is motivated by money. I have received for some of my writing on this issue from people whom Pearson called “Holocaust deniers.” Christie noted in response that Browning had received infinitely more generous funding from the Israeli government’s Yad Vashem center. Judge Ronald Thomas hardly hesitated in ruling that I be allowed to testify as an expert witness who could give, as he put it, “opinion evidence on the question of the Holocaust and the alleged extermination policy of the German government.”

Reviewing the Harwood Booklet

Doug Christie guided me through a line-by line evaluation of virtually the entire text of Did Six Million ReaIly Die?, an often tedious chore that took up the better part of three days. I was asked to assess the accuracy and comment on the historical background of nearly every sentence of the booklet, except for portions about the International Red Cross and the Belsen camp, which had been reviewed with previous witnesses.

Despite a number of errors, the booklet is “generally accurate,” I testified. I told the court that I agreed with its basic thesis, which is given in the very first sentence, “that the allegation that six million Jews died during the Second World War, as a direct result of official German policy of extermination, is utterly unfounded.”

I specified the booklet’s inaccurate and misleading statements, but stressed that these errors did not originate with the author. Instead, they were carried over from errors in the writings of Paul Rassinier and David Hoggan, upon which the author relied heavily. The Harwood booklet “does not purport to be a scholarly work of history,” I said. It is a “journalistic or a polemical account” which should not be “held up to the same standards of rigid scrutiny” as a serious scholarly work. “Its main value lies in encouraging further discussion and thought and debate.”

I also emphasized that the nature of the errors shows that the author did not write maliciously or with the intention to deceive the reader; For example, in cross-examination Pearson focused on the booklet’s assertion that the first accusation that the Germans were exterminating Jews was made in 1943 in a book by Raphael Lemkin. (p. 7) The Crown attorney made a point of getting me to acknowledge that this is not true. The first serious extermination claims were actually made in 1942 by the World Jewish Congress, I said, but stressed that this mistake by Rassinier is not critically important to his central thesis, and in any case can hardly be considered malicious or deceitful.

When Pearson asked me to agree that the booklet falsely claims that the Jews invented the extermination story after the war to make money for Israel, I referred him to the passage he himself had cited, which mentions the wartime origins of the extermination charge. Pearson and the Crown’s (mostly Jewish) supporters in the courtroom seemed somewhat crestfallen by this observation.

I testified that it is not especially remarkable that Ernst Zündel did not know about the mistakes in the Harwood booklet. Zündel is not nor has he claimed to be a historian. Publishers normally rely on the basic trustworthiness of their authors, I said. Besides, the errors in the Harwood booklet are trivial compared, for example, to the enormous fraud perpetrated by several internationally prominent periodicals, including Newsweek magazine, which published the forged “Hitler diaries.” I pointed out that despite its vast human and financial resources, Newsweek magazine did not undertake even the minimum effort that would have been enough to establish that the “diaries” were phony. The author of Did Six Million Really Die? at least relied on previously published material that he had much better reason to believe was accurate.

I also compared the Harwood booklet to William Shirer’s bestselling volume, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which contains numerous demonstrable errors of fact. And although the book has been reprinted many times, in many different editions, neither the author nor the publisher has ever bothered to correct these errors. For example, Shirer repeated the now totally discredited story that the National Socialist leaders themselves set fire to the Reichstag (parliament) building in February 1933. The Shirer book must be held to a higher standard of truthfulness and reliability than the Harwood booklet, which does not claim to be a scholarly work of history.

I compared the Harwood booklet to two Holocaust booklets published by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (The Record: The Holocaust in History and Anatomy of Nazism) which contain grotesque and demonstrable errors of fact. The prosecution objected to this comparison, and Judge Thomas agreed, declaring that “this evidence is not relevant to the charge and will not be admitted.”

I testified that “Richard Harwood” was a pen name used by Richard VerralL whom I met in England in 1977. Based on my conversations with Verrall and the booklet’s publisher, I told the court that the author graduated from the University of London with high honors, and that he had written Did Six Million Really Die? hastily but honestly. Verrall “did not maliciously or willfully make false statements of fact,” I told the court. When I first testified about Verrall, Pearson objected to my presentation of such information as hearsay. Later, however, during cross-examination, the Crown attorney reversed himself (apparently because the judge and jury seemed to accept what I had said on this issue), and asked for more information about my meeting with Verrall and the origin of the booklet. It seemed obvious that the prosecution knew all along just who really wrote the booklet, but had hoped to keep this information from the jury.

The ‘Final Solution’

A good deal of my time on the stand, especially during the first and final days, was devoted to questions about Germany’s “final solution” policy, which prosecution witness Browning had dealt with earlier. The “final solution” was a term sometimes used by the German government for its wartime Jewish policy, I explained.

At the end of the Second World War, the Allies confiscated a tremendous quantity of German documents dealing with this policy. But not a single document has ever been found which even refers to an extermination program. To the contrary, the German documents show that the “final solution” meant removing the Jews from Europe — by emigration if possible and by deportation if necessary. Later, during cross-examination, I agreed with the Crown attorney that the “final solution” was a euphemism, although not for extermination. But after I had a chance to consult a dictionary, I said that I had spoken too hastily, and that the term was not a euphemism because the term “final solution” was actually harsher-sounding than the policy it described. It would be more accurate to describe the term as a label or description, I said.

I emphasized that the German “final solution” policy is clearly explained in three important German documents, which I quoted. The first is the letter from Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring to SS security chief Reinhard Heydrich of July 31, 1941, which orders measures for “the intended final solution of the Jewish question.” As I pointed out, the document specifically confirms that the German policy was “to solve the Jewish question by emigration and evacuation.”

The second document is the so-called “Wannsee Protocol” a record of the “Wannsee conference” of January 20, 1942, in Berlin. (Nuremberg document NG-2586-G) The document, which contains nothing about extermination, explains the policy of deporting Jews to the occupied Soviet territories in the East. “The emigration program has now been replaced by the evacuation of the Jews to the East as a further solution possibility, in accordance with previous authorization by the Führer,” it notes. The document refers to the eventual “freeing” or “liberation” of the Jews (“bei Freilassung” in German), which implicitly confirms the intention of the German government to free the Jews after the war. Interestingly, these words were deleted from the English-language translation published in the official “green series” record of Nuremberg documents issued by the U;S. government (NMT “green series,” vol. 13, p. 213) The “Wannsee Protocol” also states that elderly German Jews and Jews who had served honorably during the First World War would not be deported to the East, but would instead be housed in the special Theresienstadt ghetto in Bohemia.

I pointed out that the real nature of the “final solution” policy was also confirmed by Heydrich in a speech to German officials in Prague two weeks after the Wannsee conference (which he chaired), and by his widow, Lina Heydrich, in her memoir. Heydrich explained that the German policy was to deport the Jews of Europe to the Soviet territories. Furthermore, I added, every one of the officials who participated in the conference and survived the war (with the exception of Adolf Eichmann in Israeli custody) later testified that the conference had nothing to do with a policy of extermination. I mentioned that even the prominent West German historians Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen had come to the conclusion in recent years that the conference did not involve an extermination policy.

Finally, the German Foreign Office memorandum of August 21, 1942, explains Germany’s wartime policy towards the Jews in clear and unmistakable language. (Nuremberg document NG2586-J.) It was written by Martin Luther, who represented the German Foreign Office at the Wannsee conference. I quoted from it at some length: “The present war gives Germany the opportunity and also the duty of solving the Jewish problem in Europe,” it notes, and refers specifically to the “territorial final solution.” The policy “to promote the evacuation of the Jews [from Europe] in closest cooperation with the agencies of the ReichsFührer SS [Himmler] is still in force.” The memo mentions that, unfortunately, “the number of Jews deported in this way to the East did not suffice to cover the labor needs.”

The document quotes German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop as saying that “at the end of this war, all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Führer [Hitler] and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.” This internal memorandum concludes by saying that the “deportations [of the Jews to the East] are a further step on the way of the total solution … The deportation to the [Polish] General Government is a temporary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied [Soviet] eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given.” I made clear to the court that when those who uphold the Holocaust extermination story are confronted with documents like this, they interpret them to suit what I called “their preconceived notion” and “try to make the evidence fit.”

Hitler and the ‘Final Solution’

I reminded the court that there is no documentary evidence that Adolf Hitler ever gave an order to exterminate the Jews, or that he knew of any extermination program. Instead, the evidence shows that the German leader wanted the Jews to leave Europe, by emigration if possible and by deportation if necessary.

Hitler sometimes spoke privately with close associates about his policy towards the Jews. I cited his remarks to colleagues at his headquarters on July 24, 1942, in which the German leader emphasized his determination to remove all Jews from Europe after the war: “The Jews are interested in Europe for business reasons, but Europe must reject them, if only out of self-interest, because the Jews are racially tougher. After this war is over, I will rigorously hold to this position: I will break up one city after the other if the Jews don’t come out and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish national state.” (Source: Henry Picker, ed., Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, Stuttgart 1976, p. 456.)

In response to an Allied radio broadcast that the Jews were being exterminated, Hitler angrily commented: “Really, the Jews should be grateful to me for wanting nothing more than a bit of hard work from them.” And I mentioned that when Hitler received a report in October 1944 about Soviet reports that the Germans had killed hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Majdanek concentration camp, he dismissed the stories as baseless propaganda, no different than Allied lies during the First World War. (Source: David Irving, Hitler’s War, Viking Press 1977 ed., pp. 362, 787.)

Six Million?

There is no doubt that the Jews of Europe “suffered a great catastrophe during the Second World War,” I said. There is indeed “a basis for the Holocaust story,” adding that it “is not just something made out of whole cloth.” For example, the large Jewish community of Poland was essentially uprooted during that period. But the Jews were hardly the only people to suffer. When I said that more Germans than Jews perished during the Second World War, the Jews in the courtroom were noticeably upset. More than five million Germans lost their lives during the war, including more than half a million who were killed in Allied bombings of German towns and cities, many of them literally “holocausted” in flames and fire storms. I stressed that it is difficult to estimate the number of European Jews who perished during the war because reliable and complete data are simply not available. I quoted from an article, “How high is the number of Jewish victims?,” that appeared in the daily Baseler Nachrichten of Basel, Switzerland, of June 13, 1946, and which is cited in the Harwood booklet. This respected newspaper concluded that not more than 1.5 million European Jews could have perished (of all causes) during the war:

One thing is already certain today: The claim that this figure [of Jewish dead] runs up to 5 or 6 million (a figure which has also been assumed by the Palestine Committee, which is very difficult to understand is not true. The number of Jewish victims may vary between 1 and 1.5 million, because a higher number was not “within reach” of Hitler and Himmler. It may be assumed and hoped that the final figure of losses of the Jewish people will be even lower than this figure. But clarification is necessary, which is why an investigation by a special United Nations committee should establish the truth, which is so terribly important for the present and for the future.

It should be kept in mind that all Jews who died during the war, no matter what the cause of death, are deceitfully counted as “victims of the Holocaust.” This includes Jews killed in Allied bombing raids on concentration camps and European cities. I mentioned the thousands of Jews who were killed in the final weeks of the war as they were being evacuated from camps in two German ships, the Cap Arcona and the Thielbeck, which were sunk by British war planes. They are counted as “holocaust victims,” even though if the policy has been to kill them, the German authorities obviously would not have bothered to evacuate them on desperately needed ships.

Wartime Propaganda

The Holocaust extermination legend began, I said, with stories circulated during the summer and fall of 1942 by the World Jewish Congress, and particularly by its president, Rabbi Stephen Wise, who also headed the American Jewish Congress. At that time, Wise preposterously charged that the Germans were manufacturing soap and lubricants from the corpses of murdered Jews, and that the Germans had given up gassing Jews in favor of extermination by systematically injecting them with air. (See, for example, the New York Times, November 26, 1942, p. 16.)

The prosecution attorney spent a good bit of time asking about the joint declaration issued by the Allied governments in December 1942, which: charged that the Germans were exterminating the Jews. He tried to argue that any “reasonably well-read” person would have known about this declaration, but I replied that it is doubtful if even one college-educated Canadian in a hundred had ever heard of it. Two important facts about this fateful declaration should be kept in mind, I said. First, it was issued in spite of private protests by the American and British officials responsible for Jewish affairs in Europe, who reported that there was no evidence for the Jewish extermination stories. Second, it was issued largely as a result of an intensive behind-the-scenes pressure campaign orchestrated by the World Jewish Congress, as the organization later boasted in its official history, a book entitled Unity in Dispersion.

The extermination stories were subsequently promoted by the Allied governments as part of their wartime propaganda campaign against Germany. The wartime German government protested against these fantastic allegations. Deputy Reich Press Chief Helmut Sündermann specifically refuted the Allied extermination claims at two press conferences in Berlin for foreign journalists, including some from neutral countries. The government of Hungary, which was a wartime ally of Germany, also protested against the Allied charge that Jews were being exterminated.

The Einsatzgruppen

Much of my first, second and final days on the stand was devoted to questions about the activities of the “Einsatz gruppen” security police units, a subject which prosecution witness Browning had dealt with earlier in some detail. The Einsatzgruppen, I explained, were special task forces responsible for quickly imposing a “sort of ‘rough and ready’ form of order and security” in the newly-occupied Soviet territories before the establishment of regular civil administration. I had spent quite a lot of time studying the detailed Einsatzgruppen reports at the National Archives, I said.

Contrary to the view of Holocaust historians such as Raul Hilberg and others, I said that when these reports are considered as a whole and taken in the context of other evidence, it becomes clear that these units were not established to exterminate the Jews of the Soviet Union. It is quite true that these Security Police units shot considerable numbers of Jews, I said, but that if the original reports are read objectively and in context, it is clear that Jews were shot for specific security reasons, including reprisal killings, and not simply because they were Jews. I pointed out that even Raul Hilberg, probably the most prominent Jewish Holocaust historian, acknowledges that the Einsatzgruppen did not kill Jews without a security reason. (Destruction of the European Jew, 1985 ed., p. 331.)

I stressed that the German policy towards the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories cannot be understood without taking into account the merciless war that was raging at the time between regimes with mortally opposed ideologies. The grim work of the Einsatzgruppen must be evaluated within the context of the savage conflict that was being waged outside of the accepted rules of warfare. I mentioned Stalin’s order of July 3, 1941, calling on the entire Soviet civilian population to conduct a campaign of terror, sabotage and guerrilla warfare against the Germans. The Jews were especially active in this campaign, as numerous Jewish historians have proudly acknowledged, I said.

History shows that only extremely harsh measures seem to work against guerrilla or terrorist forces, I said, citing the experience of the American forces in Vietnam and the French in Algeria. I also mentioned the current conflict between the Israelis and the fighters of the PLO, who are regarded as terrorists by the Israelis and freedom fighters by the Palestinians. At this point, Jews present in the courtroom noisily indicated their displeasure at my very brief reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Judge Thomas suddenly ordered a short recess. After the jury had left the room, he angrily criticized my reference as an “attempt to smear this trial” (which it most certainly was not) and announced that he would not tolerate any further references to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “There’s no need for this witness to bring into this courtroom the present environment in Israel.” I was free to make comparisons with the Vietnam war or other historical conflicts, he said, but not to current events. Although I had obviously touched a sore nerve, I was not the only one in the courtroom who felt that Thomas had over-reacted. Unfortunately, this was by no means the only time he lost control of his emotions.:

On another occasion, I compared the sometimes very severe measures taken by the Einsatzgruppen with the “free fire zone” policy of the Americans during the Vietnam war. American forces would evacuate all Vietnamese civilians from designated areas to so-called “strategic hamlets,” which in their forced resettlement of civilians were not unlike concentration camps. Any Vietnamese remaining in the so-called “free fire zones” were subject to extermination on the assumption that they were hostile and dangerous.

The tasks of the Einsatzgruppen were clearly laid out in an order by Heydrich, the chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, dated July 2, 1941, I said. This order specified that the only ones to be executed in the occupied Soviet territories as Jews were Jews in [Communist] Party and [Soviet] government positions.” It also ordered the executions of “other radical elements (saboteurs, propagandists, snipers, assassins, inciters, etc.)” as well as high-level, middle-level Communist officials along with radical lower-level Communist officials. When I mentioned that this document had only come to light in recent years, Jews in the back of the courtroom expressed audible skepticism that such an order ever really existed. So I quickly added that it has appeared in several works, including Documents on the Holocaust, published by the Israeli government’s Yad Vashem center in 1981. The courtroom crowd seemed struck by this citation.

The basic German policy towards the Jews in the Soviet territories is also laid out in the “Guidelines for the Handling of the Jewish Question.” (Nuremberg document 212-PS.) There is no mention of extermination, but instead this Security Police directive emphasized the importance of putting Jews to work, and specifically refers to the Peaceful solution of the Jewish question.”

I mentioned Himmler’s private conversation with Mussolini in October 1942 and his speech of December 16, 1943, when he spoke frankly to German officers in Weimar about his ruthless policy towards the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. This speech is also important because it clarifies the meaning of Himmler’s widely-cited speech of October 4, 1943, in Posen.

A rather typical Einsatzgruppen report, dated October 31, 1941 (No. 127, pp. 4-5), describes the situation in the Ukraine:

In this area the Security Police has come up against two major groups of adversaries. They are: 1) the Jews, 2) those once active in the former Soviet regime … In this regard it should be pointed out that in the Ukraine, those who sympathized with the Soviets were predominantly Jews … It can now be stated without reservation that the Jews were, without exception, supporters of Bolshevism.

Over and over again, particularly in the cities, the Jews are cited as the real Soviet rulers who exploited the people with indescribable brutality and delivered them to their deaths at the hands of the NKVD [Soviet Secret Police]. The [German Security Police] units have carried out approximately 10,000 interrogations during the past four months. Again and again, the Jews were cited as having worked actively for the Soviets, if not in responsible positions than at least as agents, collaborators or informers. Not a single Jewish corpse had been found in any of the numerous mass graves. In any case, it is evident that the Jews share the greatest guilt with others for the slaughter of the Ukrainian people and the ethnic Germans. For this reason, special measures against the Jews are considered necessary by the Security Police.

I also quoted from several Einsatzgruppen reports to show that there was no extermination policy. For example, the reports of July 24, 1941, and August 5, 1941, refer to the establishment of Jewish health centers in the newly-created Jewish ghettos to prevent the outbreak of diseases.

I quoted from the report of September 12, 1941 (No. 81, p. 14), which clearly suggests that the “solution of the Jewish question” was simply to get the Jews out of Europe, not to kill them. It also shows that these security units were glad when they did not have to deal with the large numbers of Jews who fled to the eastern areas still under Soviet control:

During the first weeks [of the military campaign] considerable numbers of Jews fell under our control, whereas in the central and eastern Ukrainian districts it has been observed that in many cases 70 to 90 percent, and sometimes 100 percent, of the Jewish population has fled. This can be seen as an indirect result of the work of the Security Police [Einsatzgruppen], since the removal [Abschiebung] at no cost of hundreds of thousands of Jews — most of them reportedly to beyond the Urals — represents a considerable contribution to the solution of the Jewish question in Europe.

Numerous Jewish sources also confirm that the great majority of Jews were evacuated or fled from the Soviet territories before they were occupied by the Germans.

The Einsatzgruppen report of August 25, 1941 (No. 63, pp. 6-7) also explains what was meant by “solution of the Jewish question”:

Slowly but surely, one of the most important problems, the solution of the Jewish question [emphasis in original], is being tackled. In Kishinev [the capital of Bessarabia, a Rumanian-speaking province], there were approximately 60 — 80 thousand Jews before the war. Most of them were deported with the withdrawal of the Russians. When the city was captured, there were only about 4,000 Jews present, but that number has since increased. Upon the initiative of the Einsatzkomando the Rumanian city commander established a Jewish ghetto in the old city which currently contains about 9,000 Jews. The Jews are being organized into work groups and assigned to various German and Rumanian units for clean-up work and other kinds of labor.

Altogether there were never more than about 3,000 men and women in the four Einsatzgruppen that operated in the vast occupied Soviet territory. And this number included administrative personnel, female secretaries, teletype and radio operators, truck drivers, and interpreters. The size and make-up of the Einsatzgruppen alone indicate that they were not organized for the purpose of killing the entire Jewish population of the occupied Soviet Union, as is often alleged.

The numbers of Jews said to have been shot in the Einsatzgruppen reports are wildly exaggerated, I emphasized, in much the same way that the so-called “body count” figures of enemy dead produced by the American military during the Vietnam war were greatly inflated. Although the Einsatzgruppen reports would indicate that 2.2 million Jews were killed, every reputable historian who has written on this subject acknowledges that this figure bears little relationship to reality. In this regard, I cited the works of historians Gerald Reitlinger, Raul Hilberg, William Shirer, Reginald Paget, and Werner Maser, as well as the most detailed work on this subject, Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges, by Helmut Krausnick and Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm. I also mentioned statements by Einsatzgruppen trial defendants Paul Blobel and Gustav Nosske.

British historian and member of parliament Reginald Paget specifically checked the accuracy of a February 18, 1942, report which claimed that Einsatzgruppe D had killed 10,000 Jews in Simferopol, Crimea. Paget found that the real number could not have been more than about 300, and that “these 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity.” (R.T. Paget, Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, pp. 168-173.) Raul Hilberg gives a figure of 1.3 million Jewish dead in the Soviet territories, which implies that he also acknowledges that these figures are greatly exaggerated.

I also spoke about the case of Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D, who told the main Nuremberg trial as a very cooperative prosecution witness that his unit had shot 90,000 Jews. Later, much to his astonishment, he found himself in the Nuremberg dock as a defendant. He repudiated much of his previous testimony, insisting, for example, that the figure of 90,000 Jewish dead was wildly exaggerated.

During my cross-examination, Crown attorney Pearson cited portions of Ohlendorf’s testimony at his trial in which he spoke about an alleged “Führer Order” to kill all the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. I replied by pointing out that no record of such an order has ever been found and that even Hilberg no longer speaks of such a thing. Also, the Heydrich order of July 2, 1941, as well as the Einsatzgruppen reports themselves are not consistent with such an extermination policy. The fact that there were large numbers of Jews living in these territories under German control in 1942 and 1943 cannot be reconciled with the alleged extermination policy, I said, and I mentioned that during the final chaotic months of the war, the Germans actually evacuated Jews from former occupied Soviet territories back to Germany.

In evaluating the testimony of men like Ohlendorf, the circumstances and the probable motives of the speaker must be taken into account, I stressed. The apparently self- incriminating nature of much of Ohlendorf’s testimony in his own trial is understandable, I said, because he was desperately trying to make a case that was reasonably consistent with what had supposedly been established as fact in the main Nuremberg trial. A common defense strategy in Holocaust-related trials has been to agree with the prosecution claims about an extermination program, but to insist that the defendant was not involved or responsible.

Prosecution attorney Pearson raised the matter of a November 1941 order by: General Erich von Manstein which directed the German army to cooperate with the Einsatzgruppen. “The Jewish-Bolshevist system must be exterminated once and for all. Never again must it encroach upon our European living space,” Manstein ordered. (Nuremberg document PS4064.) Pearson maintained that this was equivalent to an order to exterminate the Jews. I strongly disagreed. The “extermination” of a social-political system does not mean the extermination of people, I said. We have documents showing that at least some German soldiers were even punished for mistreating Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. I added.

Katzmann’s Galicia Report

The Crown attorney asked quite a few questions during cross-examination about a June 1943 report by SS Major General Katzmann on the “solution of the Jewish Question in Galicia.” (Document L-18. IMT, Vol. 37, pp. 391419.) This was a difficult session because I took the position that this document is authentic, but that many of the figures given in it are greatly exaggerated. Although it does refer, for example, to the “most severe measures to destroy Jewish banditry,” I stressed that this report, if read carefully and with an open mind, is not evidence of an extermination program, as Pearson argued. Although the prosecution cited only select portions of this report, I pointed out that a passage not cited by Pearson specifically mentions that the Jews in the 20 Jewish camps in Galicia were to receive “appropriate housing, clothing and medical care,” and that sick Jews in the camps were to continue to receive normal food rations.

Pearson quoted the document as reporting that the Germans confiscated enormous quantities of money, jewelry, gold and other valuables from the Jews, which were turned over to the Special Staff “Reinhard.” Pearson and I sharply disagreed about this “Reinhard” organization. Holocaust historians generally claim that it was responsible for exterminating the Jews of Poland, and that it was named after assassinated SS security chief Reinhard Heydrich. I strongly disputed this allegation and said that the Germans did not name units or operations after someone’s first name. The “Reinhard” group was actually responsible for processing confiscated Jewish property, not exterminating Jews.

In a sense, my testimony may sometimes have been helpful to the prosecution case because I did not deny or whitewash the severity of German measures against the Jews, particularly in the occupied Soviet territories. For example, I mentioned that Jews found outside of ghettos without the yellow star badge were normally shot. Although it would be nice to think that this kind of frankness strengthened my credibility with the Jurors, in reality it almost certainly hurt the defense case.

‘Eyewitness’ Testimony

Much of the evidence for the extermination story is “eyewitness testimony” of so-called “Holocaust survivors.” To support my statement that these testimonies are “notoriously unreliable,” I quoted from an article by Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz (who was interned in the Kaunas ghetto during the war) which appeared in the New York quarterly, Jewish Social Studies (January 1950, Vol. 12). The Jews in the courtroom were visibly upset when I read Gringauz’ emphatic denunciation of what he called the “hyperhistorical” nature of these “testimonies.” He wrote that “most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.”

In addition, more than 10,000 of the 20,000 so-called “testimonies” of Jewish “survivors” on file at Yad Vashem in Israel are also unreliable, I said, citing a front page article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post newspaper of August 17, 1986. The report quoted Shmuel Krakowski, the archives director of the Israeli government’s Holocaust memorial center, who declared that “over half of the 20,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors on record at Yad Vashem are ‘unreliable.” The article continued:

Krakowski says that many survivors, wanting “to be part of history” may have let their imaginations run away with them. “Many were never in the place where they claim to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers” according to Krakowski. A large number of testimonies on file were later proved inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian’s appraisal …

Pearson objected to my quoting of this article, claiming that it was hearsay. But Judge Thomas overruled the objection, saying that an expert is permitted to cite what might normally be considered hearsay. The judge added that he assumed that I was quoting from an actual newspaper report. I also cited French-Jewish historian Olga Wormser-Migot, who wrote in her detailed study of the camps about the tendency of Jewish inmates to invent stories about gas chambers.

Gas Chambers

Although a few individuals have claimed to have personally witnessed gassings of Jews, I told the court that I did not believe these stories because they are “not consistent” with other available evidence. For example, it would not have been technically possible to cremate the vast numbers of Jews said to have been gassed and cremated at Auschwitz in the cremation facilities there. The extermination and cremation of one million persons at Auschwitz within this period of time is “virtually impossible,” I said.

In this regard, I also referred to the Allied aerial reconnaissance photos taken of Auschwitz in 1944 and made public by the CIA in 1979. These photos, taken at random during what is supposed to have been the height of the extermination period there, show no trace of piles of burning corpses, smoking chimneys and masses of Jews awaiting death, all of which have been alleged and which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz had indeed been an extermination center. (See: D. Brugioni and R. Poirier, The Holocaust Revisited, 1979.)

At the time they were first made public in 1979, I was struck by the fact that these photos are simply not consistent with the orthodox Auschwitz extermination story, and I was astonished by the way in which they were seized upon by Elie Wiesel and others to charge that the wartime U.S. government not only knew about mass extermination at Auschwitz, but consciously decided to do nothing to stop it. I concluded that if such gross distortion of evidence was possible so many years after the war, it is at least possible that other Holocaust claims might likewise be wrong. These remarkable photos, and the way in which they were misrepresented, first prompted me to seriously investigate this entire issue, I said.

On one occasion Zündel’s attorney presented large blow-ups of striking photographs taken from 1942 to 1944 at Auschwitz III camp (Monowitz), and I explained that what they show cannot be reconciled with the orthodox extermination story. (I had examined these photos in the Dürrfeld defense exhibit file at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.)

I quoted from an important document that came to light in 1987 which confirms that numerous stories of “gassings” at camps in Germany and Austria were inventions. This is circular notice No. 31 of October 1, 1948, of the Austrian Military Police Service in Vienna. It was issued by Major Müller and certified by his assistant, Lt. Emil Lachout, who later testified in the Zündel trial and swore to its authenticity. (Incidentally, this document also corroborates the Stephen Pinter letter quoted in the Harwood booklet, pp. 21-22.) The Muller/Lachout circular notice reads in part:

The Allied Investigation Commissions have so far established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau. Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its satellite camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsberg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, [and] Theresienstadt. In these cases it has been proven that confessions were extorted by torture and that statements by witnesses were false. Former concentration camp prisoners who gave information during interrogations about the murder of people, especially Jews, with poison gas in these concentration camps, are to be made aware of the results of this investigation. If they persist with their claims, they are to be charged with making false statements.

I mentioned several claims about Treblinka that were once widely believed but which no serious historian now accepts. I cited the charge by the U.S. prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial that masses of Jews were killed at Treblinka not by gassing, as is now generally claimed, but by steam in so-called Steam chambers.” (Nuremberg document PS-3311). And at the Nuremberg trial against Oswald Pohl, U.S. judge Musmanno said that Jews were killed at Treblinka by gas, steam and electric current. (NMT “green series,” Vol. 5, pp. 1133-1134.)

On the other hand, I said, former Treblinka inmate Samuel Rajzman testified after the war that Jews were killed at the camp not by gassing or steaming, but by suffocating them to death with a machine that pumped air out of chambers. I quoted from The Black Book, a volume published in New York in 1946 by the “Jewish Black Book Committee,” which alleged that three million Jews had been killed at Treblinka by gassing and steaming, but that the most “widespread method consisted of pumping all air out from the chambers with large special pumps.” (See also: M. Weber, “Open Letter,” Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1988, pp. 176-177.)

At one point I criticized the deliberate confusion by some Holocaust writers of the distinction between gas chambers and crematories, and I mentioned the references in popular Holocaust literature to so-called “gas ovens.” This is “a nonsensical term,” I said, which is “typical of the kind of sensational terminology used in much of the literature about the Holocaust story.”

Camps

The Crown attorney and the Jews in the courtroom appeared visibly upset when I read a portion of the official German regulations for the concentration camps. This document was first made public many years after the war by a former Auschwitz-Birkenau inmate in a Polish medical journal. English translation in: Anthology, Inhuman Medicine, Vol. 1, Part 1. Warsaw: International Auschwitz Committee, 1970., pp. 149-151.)

Among other things, the regulations ordered:

The new arrivals in the camp have to be examined carefully. Those suspected should immediately be put into the camp hospital and kept there for observation … Prisoners asking for medical treatment should be brought before the camp doctor that same day to be examined.

The camp doctor should regularly check how the food is prepared and its quality. Any shortcomings should immediately be brought to the attention of the camp commandant. Special care should be given to the treatment of accidents, so as to avoid impairment of the prisoners ability to earn their living. Prisoners who are to be set free or transferred from the camp should be brought before the camp physician for medical examination.

Consistent with this, I testified that SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who was ultimately in charge of the concentration camp system, was so concerned about the high death rate due to disease that he issued an emphatically worded order in December 1942 to improve the nutrition of the inmates and take all necessary measures to reduce the death rate. (Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2. Published in: NC&A “red series;” Vol. 4, pp. 833-834.) I quoted from a January 1943 directive from the inspector of the concentration camps, Richard Glucks, to the commandant of each concentration camp, including Auschwitz. “As I have already pointed out,” he ordered, Every means must be used to lower the death rate in the camp.” (Nuremberg document NO-1523.)

I referred to the allegation that the Germans manufactured lamp shades and other household items from the skin of murdered camp inmates. (Harwood booklet, p. 24. This story was once seriously endorsed. See, for example, W. Shirer, Rise and Fall, paperback ed., p. 1280.) I pointed out that General Lucius Clay, Commander in Chief of U.S. forces in Europe and Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone of Germany, 1947-49, repudiated this particular horror story as early as 1948. (See: M. Weber, “Buchenwald,” Journal of Historical Review. Winter 1986-87. PP. 406-407.)

Asked about the photo in the Harwood booklet showing “healthy and cheerful inmates” at Dachau at its surrender to American soldiers in the final weeks of the war, I replied that it is an official U.S. Army photo, one of a series I had examined in the archives at the Pentagon. Another photo in the series, which was taken at the same time, shows Jewish mothers and their babies in the camp.

A large chart showing the monthly death rate at Dachau during the war was also presented to the court as a defense exhibit. I testified that the figures given were from a U.S. government prosecution exhibit presented at one of the postwar trials in Germany. The chart graphically showed a tremendous increase in the death rate during the final months of the war, which was the result of disease brought on by tremendous overcrowding and other unavoidable consequences of the chaotic wartime conditions. The figures implicitly confirm that there was no extermination program or policy at the camp.

A plaque placed at Dachau shortly after the end of the war proclaimed that 238,000 people had died in the camp, I noted. Today, the total number of Dachau dead is pretty universally acknowledged to have been about 20,000. In the case of other camps as well, I said, the numbers of alleged victims have been drastically revised downwards over the years, although the public is rarely ever told that these figures have been changed. New figures are given without explaining why the old ones are no longer accurate.

The German guards at the Dachau, Buchenwald and Mauthausen camps were simply murdered after the camps were taken by the Americans in the final weeks of the war, I testified. The murder of more than 500 guards at Dachau is confirmed, I said, by two eyewitnesses to the atrocity. The first is U.S. Army officer Howard Buechner, who described the killings in detail in his book, Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger. The second is by Turkish inmate Nerin Gun, who describes the atrocity in his memoir, The Day of the Americans. U.S. Army records, which were declassified at my request, also confirm the atrocity.

Konrad Morgen Testimony

Quite a lot of my testimony was devoted to the Nuremberg Tribunal testimony of Konrad Morgen, an SS judicial official who is cited in the Harwood booklet. (pp. 13, 22) From July 1943 until the end of the war, Morgen investigated some 800 cases of corruption and murder within the SS, which resulted in about 200 trials. Five concentration camp commanders were arrested, and two of them were shot. For example, Buchenwald commandant Karl Koch was executed by the SS for corruption and murder. After the war Morgen established himself as a successful attorney in Frankfurt.

I quoted from Morgen’s description of Buchenwald, where he lived for eight months:

The prisoners were healthy, normally fed, sun-tanned, working … The installations of the camp were in good order, especially the hospital. The camp authorities, under the Commander Diester, aimed at providing the prisoners with an existence worthy of human beings. They had regular mail service. They had a large camp library, even books in foreign languages. They had variety shows, motion pictures, sporting contests and even had a brothel. Nearly all the other concentration camps were similar to Buchenwald. (Source: IMT “blue series,” Vol. 20, p. 490)

Morgen also explained the reason for the terrible conditions in the camps in the final months of the war, which resulted in the horrible scenes filmed by the British and Americans when they overran the camps:

To a great extent the horrible conditions at times prevailing in some concentration camps did not arise from deliberate planning, but developed from circumstances which in my opinion must be called force majeure, that is to say, evils for which the local camp leaders were not responsible. I am thinking of the outbreak of epidemics. At irregular intervals many concentration camps were visited by typhoid fever, typhus, and other sicknesses caused especially by the arrival of prisoners from the concentration camps in the eastern areas. Although everything humanly possible was done to prevent these epidemics and to combat them, the death rates which resulted were extremely high. Another evil which may be considered as force majeure was the fluctuating numbers of new arrivals and the insufficient billets. Many camps were overcrowded. The prisoners arrived in a weakened condition because, due to air raids, the transports were under way longer than expected. Towards the end of the war, there was a general collapse of the transportation system. Supplies could not be carried out to the necessary extent; chemical and pharmaceutical factories had been systematically bombed, and all the necessary medicines were lacking. To top all, the evacuations from the East further burdened the camps and croweded them in an unbearable manner. (IMT “blue series,” Vol. 20, pp. 498-499)

Pearson later made quite a lot of the fact the Morgen also testified at Nuremberg that he believed that mass killings of Jews were carried out. However, I was able to show that Morgen believed that these mass killings were carried out not at Auschwitz I (the main camp) or Auschwitz-Birkenau, which is supposed to have been the main Auschwitz extermination center, but instead at Auschwitz-Monowitz, which no serious historian, including those who accept the Holocaust extermination story, now contends was an extermination center.

Pearson suggested that Morgen may have mixed up the two sites, but I was able to point out that the SS official not only referred to “the extermination camp Monowitz” several times, but that he also specifically said that it “lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.” As even Pearson had to concede, this clearly refers to Monowitz and not Birkenau. (Source: IMT, Vol. 20, pp. 499, 503, 504.)

I also pointed out that Morgen was not able to complete his judicial investigation of the Monowitz extermination story and bring formal charges against Commandant Höss before the Soviets overran the camp complex. Finally, I quoted Morgen as confirming that an internal inquiry established that there was no German or SS extermination policy. In this case, I emphasized, the prosecution has failed to carefully read or understand its own evidence, which actually refutes the Holocaust story. (IMT, vol. 20, pp. 507, 510)

It is not surprising that Morgen might have made the mistake of believing that mass killings were being carried out at Auschwitz-Monowitz, I said. Apparently most Auschwitz inmates believed the same thing, and its likely that Morgen accepted their testimony. In this regard, I quoted from an affidavit by Charles Coward, a British soldier who was interned at Monowitz in 1943 and 1944. He testified after the war that “everybody” there believed that mass gassings were being carried out. This is quite understandable, I said, when one considers the following portion of Coward’s affidavit:

… At Auschwitz we got radio broadcasts from the outside speaking about the gassings and burnings at Auschwitz. I recall one of these broadcasts was by [British foreign secretary] Anthony Eden himself. Also, there were pamphlets dropped in Auschwitz and the surrounding territory, one of which I personally read, which related what was going on in the camp at Auschwitz. These leaflets were scattered all over the countryside and must have been dropped from planes. They were in Polish and German. Under those circumstances, nobody would be at or near Auschwitz without knowing what was going on. (Nuremberg Document NI-11696, printed in NMT “green series.” vol. 8, p. 606)

Torture

Rudolf Höss, the Auschwitz commandant whose “confessions” and “affidavits” have been such an important part of the Holocaust extermination story, was tortured to produce “evidence” for the prosecution, I said. Details are given in the book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler. (See also: R. Faurisson, Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389403.) The Höss affidavit of April 5, 1946 (document 3868-PS), which is still widely-cited and quoted, is nevertheless “quite inconsistent with the Holocaust story” as told today, I said. It refers to a fictional extermination camp, “Wolzek,” which is not mentioned anywhere else. The affidavit also alleges that Jews were already being exterminated at Treblinka in the summer of 1941, which no reputable historian now believes.

During cross-examination the Crown attorney read aloud at length from the apparently incriminating testimony of Oswald Pohl, the head of the SS agency responsible for the concentration camp system (WVHA), at his Nuremberg trial (Case No. 4), and questioned me about this. When I first mentioned that Pohl had been tortured by the Allies, Crown attorney Pearson asked me to cite my source for this statement. When I replied that, unfortunately, I could not remember the source off hand, Pearson seemed quite pleased with himself However, over the weekend I was able to obtain a copy of the statement about his treatment by the British and American military that Pohl wrote after he was tried at Nuremberg but before he was finally executed by the Americans.

In this statement, which is dated June 1, 1948, Pohl described his mistreatment in 1946 by British soldiers, who kicked and repeatedly beat him. He lost two teeth in these beatings before he was turned over to the American military. Because Pohl held the rank of general in the German armed forces, his treatment by the British and Americans was therefore completely illegal according to the international agreements on the treatment of prisoners of war. “As a result of the brutal physical mistreatment in Nenndorf and the treatment in Nuremberg, I was emotionally a complete wreck,” Pohl wrote: “l was 54 years old. I had served my country for 33 years without dishonor, and I did not feel that I had committed any crime.”

Pohl was intensively interrogated for more than a half a year in sessions that lasted for hours. There were about 60 to 80 interrogation sessions altogether. He reported that although he was generally not physically mistreated in Nuremberg as he had been at Nenndorf, he was nevertheless subjected to the less noticeable but, as he put it, “in their own way much more brutal emotional tortures.” During his interrogation by the Americans, Pohl was accused of killing 30 million people, and of condemning 10 million people to death. The interrogators themselves knew very well that such accusations were lies and tricks meant to break down his resistance, Pohl declared. “Because I am not emotionally thick-skinned, these diabolical intimidations were not without effect, and the interrogators achieved what they wanted: not the truth, but rather statements that served their needs,” he wrote.

During this period of interrogation he had no access to an attorney or any other help, and he was never formally charged with anything, nor even told precisely why he was being interrogated. Pohl also pointed out that the American prosecution at his trial used false affidavits which he had been forced to sign: “This is how affidavits were produced and presented which contain provable errors of fact regarding essential points.” Pohl cited specific examples of phony affidavits that had been produced for the trial by others. He pointed out that German defense attorneys were not allowed free access to the German wartime documents, which the prosecution was able to find and use without hindrance.

The total number of those who died of all causes in all the German concentration and labor camps between 1933 and 1945 was 200,000 to 250,000, Pohl wrote. They were not victims of any extermination program, he explained, and most perished during the chaotic final months of the war. The practice of using torture to produce incriminating statements was certainly not limited to German prisoners, I said. It is well established that such torture techniques have been and are being systematically used by many governments around the world today.

Changing Holocaust Story

On several occasions I pointed out that the Holocaust story has changed significantly over the years. In this regard, I mentioned the “human soap” story. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was president of both the World Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Congress during the Second World War, charged in 1942 that the Germans were manufacturing soap from the corpses of murdered Jews. This story was also repeated at the main Nuremberg trial, and has appeared often in the popular press ever since. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was still making this claim in a booklet published and distributed by it during the 1980s, Anatomy of Nazism, although, as I put it, “no reputable historian now accepts it,” not even those who generally support the Holocaust story.

At Nuremberg and for some years afterward, I said, it was seriously claimed that Jews were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald and other concentration camps in Germany proper. American historian William Shirer wrote in his most influential work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, that “All the thirty odd principal Nazi concentration camps were death camps and millions of tortured, starved inmates perished in them.” (Fawcett/Crest paperback ed., p. 1259. This quotation is also given in the Harwood booklet, p. 21.) The Holocaust story these days, of course, is that there were only six “extermination” camps, all of them in what is now Poland. I noted that even famed “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal acknowledged in 1975 that “there were no extermination camps on German soil.” (Books & Bookmen, London, April 1975, p. 5) But historians such as Hilberg have never bothered to acknowledge the profound implications of these changes. For one thing, the great shift in the Holocaust extermination story means that countless affidavits, “testimonies” and many other pieces of “evidence” are implicitly acknowledged to be invalid and untruthful.

One of these, which I cited, is a document submitted by the French prosecution at the Nuremberg Tribunal:

Everything had been provided for down to the smallest detail. In 1944, at Buchenwald, they had even lengthened a railway line so that the deportees might be led directly to the gas chamber. Certain [of the gas chambers] had a floor that tipped and immediately directed the bodies into the room with the crematory oven. (Document 274-F, in IMT “blue series” Vol. 37, p. 148.)

In his closing address to the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross described Buchenwald as a camp where “murder [was] conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens.” No serious historian today believes that anyone was ever gassed at Buchenwald.

Even Raul Hilberg is, in a sense, a Revisionist, I said, and I mentioned a significant change he had made about a key aspect of the Holocaust story. In the first edition of his major work, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), he maintained that Hitler issued two extermination orders: one in “the spring of 1941″ to kill all Jews “on the spot” in the occupied Soviet territories, and a second a short time later to exterminate all European Jews. (p. 177) This passage was drastically rewritten for the revised “definitive” edition published in 1985 (p. 273). Hilberg now made no mention at all of any order by Hitler to kill Jews. As he has since explained, Hilberg’s view these days is that there was an extermination program, but that it developed “spontaneously,” without a plan or budget. Every reputable historian of this subject now acknowledges that there is no documentary evidence of a German extermination program or policy. As a result, those who basically accept the Holocaust story increasingly refer to alleged verbal orders, and the growing school of “Holocaust functionalists” maintains that there was only a “spontaneous extermination,” supposedly conducted without specific orders.

The Revisionists

Crown attorney Pearson argued that Holocaust Revisionists are not serious scholars, but merely neo-Nazis motivated by hatred who dispute the obvious in order to rehabilitate Hitler and attack Jews. I emphatically stressed that this portrayal is wrong.

I spoke about Paul Rassinier, the French professor who is now considered the pioneer of Holocaust Revisionism. He was no Nazi. To the contrary, he was a Socialist who was arrested by the Germans during the war for illegally helping Jews to flee to Switzerland. Rassinier was then sent to the Dora and Buchenwald concentration camps in Germany. When he returned to France at the end of the war, he was astonished by the stories that were being circulated about the camps, and he felt honor-bound to refute them.

For example, a French priest who had also been an inmate at Buchenwald, Jean-Paul Renard, claimed to have seen “thousands and thousands of persons” going into gas chambers at Buchenwald. When Rassinier met with the priest and pointed out to him that no one was ever gassed in the camp, Renard replied: “Right, but that’s only a figure of speech … and since those things existed somewhere, it’s not important.” (Source: P. Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, 1978, pp. 129-130.)

Unfortunately, Rassinier’s writings are not free of errors, I said. But it’s important to remember that he was in poor health after the war, and particularly during the years when he did most of his writing on this subject. Furthermore, I said, his errors were neither malicious nor deceitful, which is shown by the fact that they are not critical to his central thesis. The tradition of a French Revisionism spanning the ideological spectrum did not end with Rassinier. In recent years, the director of the main French publisher of books supporting the Revisionist view of the extermination story is a Marxist who vehemently opposes racism and Nazism.

I told the court about the eminent American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes. Earlier in the trial, Pearson had talked of Barnes with respect as a reputable scholar, apparently not knowing that Barnes had included the Holocaust in his Revisionism. Barnes publicly expressed doubts about the extermination story in an article that appeared shortly before his death in the Summer 1967 issue of the libertarian periodical Rampart Journal. (The essay is quoted briefly in the Harwood booklet). Barnes’ rejection of the Holocaust story is also confirmed in several private letters and by individuals who knew him well. Like so many others, he was understandably reluctant to publicly express his doubts about this highly emotional issue.

Contrary to what Pearson had suggested earlier, Barnes suffered tremendously for his Revisionist views, I said. His career was ruined because he sharply disagreed with the prevailing notion of exclusive German responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War. He was effectively blacklisted, even though he had been one of America’s most widely read and highly regarded historians. During the final years of his life he was forced to finance the publication of his writings.

James J. Martin, personal friend of Barnes and a life-long fighter for freedom of expression, is a member of the IHR’s Editorial Advisory Committee. Martin brings impeccable professional credentials (University of Michigan Ph.D. in history and 25 years’ teaching career) to the Revisionist cause. He is the author of the critically acclaimed Men Against the State and Americal Liberalism and World Politics, and a contributor to recent editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Another important Revisionist was the late Dr. Austin App, who wrote a booklet entitled The Six Million Swindle. Dr. App, was a fervent Roman Catholic and a respected professor. He was certainly no Nazi. In fact, he strongly opposed racial discrimination of any kind. Until his death in 1984, he was a staunch supporter of the Institute for Historical Review.

The most prominent Holocaust Revisionist in Australia is John Bennett, who is also president of the Australian Civil Liberties Union. He is a well-known defender of the rights of non-White immigrants in Australia. Bennett is a member of the IHR’s Editorial Advisory Committee. Samuel Konkin, a leading libertarian theorist who steadfastly opposes any and all forces of state collectivism, including Nazism, is another important Revisionist who is a current member of the IHR Editorial Advisory Committee. Major articles by three Jewish writers — Alfred Lilienthal, Bezalel Chaim, and Howard Stein — have appeared in the IHR’s quarterly Journal of Historical Review over the years.

Even in West Germany, where Holocaust Revisionism has been subject to unrivaled legal constraint, Dr. Helmut Diwald, a senior professor of history at the University of Erlangen, has supported the Revisionist view of the extermination story. He wrote about Germany’s wartime policy towards the Jews in his sweeping and well-written book, Geschichte der Deutschen (“History of the Germans”). The first edition was published in 1978 by the prestigious Propylaen publishing house.

I cited the two pages of his book devoted to the “final solution,” in which Dr. Diwald pointed out that there were no extermination camps in Germany proper. He described the postwar Holocaust campaign as one of distortion, deception and exaggeration which is meant to morally degrade and totally disqualify the German people. Jewish deaths in the German concentration camps were not the result of an extermination policy, he wrote, but rather the consequence of chaotic and unavoidable wartime conditions. Diwald concluded his section on this issue by pointing out that in spite of all the literature that has been written on this subject, the central questions about the fate of the Jews during the war are still not clear. (Some years earlier I was, incidentally, the first person to translate this section of Diwald’s book into English.)

Although his book became an immediate best-seller in Germany, which is unusual for a heavy, 760-page work of history, Dr. Diwald quickly learned what happens to even a prominent and reputable scholar who questions the official version of history. As a result of protests from Jews and others, sales of the first printing of 100,000 copies were immediately stopped, and a new edition with a hastily rewritten and “acceptable” section about the “final solution” was quickly substituted.

The Crown attorney’s claim that Holocaust Revisionists are only Jew-hating, unscholarly neo-Nazis is not only completely false, but many other scholars-including some whom I know personally – would publicly support the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story if it were not for the climate of intimidation and fear surrounding this subject (as manifest by the Zündel trial).

The prosecution tried to argue that what Revisionist historians have written should be rejected out of hand because they are anti-Jewish. This view is bigoted and prejudiced. What any historian writes should be judged on its own merits, and not on the basis of any preconception. Fair consideration for even controversial views is essential to fruitful scholarship. Every fair and competent historian has a responsibility to evaluate historical writing on the basis of a careful consideration of historical evidence, and not on the basis of the historian’s religion or race, or his political or philosophical views. It is just as closed-minded and bigoted to dismiss the Revisionist view of the Holocaust story on the basis of the irrelevant points raised by the Crown attorney as it would be to reject the writing and conclusions of Holocaust historians such as Raul Hilberg, Lucy Dawidowicz and Christopher Browning because they are either Jewish or affiliated with blatantly Zionist organizations.

‘Holocaustomania’

During cross-examination of a previous witness, the prosecution attorney had suggested that the Holocaust media campaign is directed only against evil “Nazis” and not against the Germans. That’s simply not true, I said. This perpetual campaign, which Jewish historian Alfred Lilienthal has called “Holocaustomania,” defames the German people as a whole. To support this view, I first cited the widely-reported statement some years ago by Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin that because of the twelve Hitler years, the guilt of the German people would last until the end of time. (I was surprised at the audible expression of unhappiness by Jews in the courtroom when I made this point, which was certainly neither secret nor particularly remarkable.)

I then cited the statement by Elie Wiesel, former Auschwitz inmate and one-time chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, who declared (in his book, Legends of Our Time), that because of Germany’s wartime policy against the Jews, every Jew today should maintain “somewhere in his being” a “zone of hate” for the Germans. And finally, I pointed out that Israel and individual Jews around the world are still receiving vast reparations payments from West Germany, even though most of the Germans paying this money were not alive during the Hitler era.

Motives

The Crown attorney had repeatedly asserted that Revisionists claim that the Holocaust story was invented after the war by the Jews to extort money for Israel from the German people. It is certainly true, I said, that West Germany has paid out massive reparations to Israel and individual Jews around the world. The basis for these payments is the 1953 Luxembourg Treaty signed by Israel, West Germany and the “Claims Conference,” a special ad hoc international Jewish organization. The very nature of this reparations agreement, which I said “has no parallel” in diplomatic history, “presupposes that the Jews of the world are to be represented not by the governments of which they happen to be citizens, but rather by the State of Israel, of which most Jews are not citizens, and by a special international body called the Claims Conference.” I also cited the words of Australian Jewish professor W.D. Rubinstein, who wrote in 1979: “If the Holocaust can be shown to be a ‘Zionist Myth,’ the strongest of all weapons in Israel’s propaganda armory collapses.”

At the same time, I emphasized my belief that even more important than the financial benefits for Israel has been the role of the Holocaust story as a vehicle for promoting Jewish group solidarity. A key lesson of the Holocaust story for many Jews, I said, is that non-Jews are never completely trustworthy. If a people as cultured and as civilized as the Germans could turn into murderers, so the thinking goes, then surely no non-Jewish nation can ever be completely trusted. I noted that the well-known Jewish author Jacobo Timerman has pointed out that the Holocaust has become a “civil religion” for many Jews. The nations of the world can only live together in peace, I said, when the passions and hatreds of past wars are put behind us. Normally such passions diminish after terrible conflicts are over, but in this one case, they are artificially kept alive.

Prosecution Tactics

Pearson expended quite a bit of effort trying to discredit me because of my brief affiliation, more than eight years earlier, with an organization called the National Alliance. He had me read the entire text of an article I had written for the May 1978 issue of National Vanguard, the National Alliance paper. The essay, which I hadn’t seen in years, was a personal and rather heart-felt explanation of why I had joined the pro-White organization. Many people in the courtroom, I was told later, were expecting an emotional tirade. In that sense, what they heard was disappointing. I had written, for example, of my “devotion to truth, no matter where it may lead.” All the same, the essay almost certainly detracted from the overall effectiveness of my testimony in the eyes of the jury and the judge.

Pearson also had me confirm that I was the author of two articles that appeared in the weekly Spotlight paper. One was about the Allied torture of Germans to produce evidence for the Holocaust story (Dec. 24, 1979), and the other dealt with Zionist power and influence in the state of Nebraska (August 9, 1982).

In response to all this, I pointed out that I had not had any affiliation whatsoever with the National Alliance for more than eight years. I told the court that since that affiliation I had contributed several articles to the pro-Jewish but anti-Zionist monthly newsletter, Middle East Perspective, which was published by Jewish-American author and historian Alfred Lilienthal. In any case, I emphasized, what I write about history should be judged on its own merits, and not prejudicially on the basis of an affiliation eight years ago.

During my first day on the stand, Crown attorney Pearson tried to suggest that I, and by implication, other Revisionists, have taken the position we do on this issue in order to make money. During my fifth and final day of testimony, I responded to this accusation, calling it “ludicrous and contemptible.” I specifically mentioned three prominent Holocaust Revisionists who had paid a heavy price for their views. Joseph G. Burg (who later testified on Zündel’s behalf was beaten up by thugs. Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, a West German judge, had his pension cut and his doctoral title revoked. And Prof. Robert Faurisson has been beaten several times [the latest and most severe instance resulting in a broken jaw, nose, and ribs, and head injuries on September 16, 1989. — Ed.], repeatedly dragged into court by powerful and influential organizations, and had his family life thrown into turmoil.

As a result of my own support for Revisionism, I said, I had received numerous death threats. Unlike Browning, who had appeared earlier for the prosecution, I was not receiving $150 an hour to testify. I had not received any compensation for appearing beyond the satisfaction of helping in a struggle that I said is worthy of the support of every defender of free speech. The Crown attorney objected to this reference, insisting that this case did not concern the issue of free speech. (Even the New York Times acknowledged that Zündel was on trial for his beliefs. March 30, 1988, p. 7.)

Crown attorney Pearson seemed to be a capable lawyer, but he was often surprisingly ignorant of the historical questions at issue in this trial. For example, I mentioned at one point that although the alleged extermination camps of Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec and Chelmno were supposedly obliterated by the Germans to destroy all traces of their crimes, the two allegedly most important extermination centers, Lublin (Majdanek) and Auschwitz-Birkenau, were left intact by the Germans. Pearson then asserted that Auschwitz-Birkenau was destroyed by the Germans. “You are speaking in ignorance,” I replied. The camp was left almost totally intact, I said, and the barracks and other buildings are still there today. In fact, I added, the Germans left behind thousands of inmates who were too weak to be evacuated, and they were there when the Soviets took control of the camp in January 1945.

Pearson spent a good bit of time citing a recently-published book by Canadian-Jewish professor Michael Marrus, The Holocaust in History. (Marrus sometimes sat in on the court proceedings.) Apparently confident that it would impress the jury, the prosecution attorney asked me to acknowledge Marrus’ not unsurprising reference to Holocaust Revisionist historians as “malevolent cranks.” Pearson also referred to Marrus’ citation of the well-known letter by Göring of July 31, 1941, about the “final solution,” as if this is a sinister reference to extermination. But as I pointed out, Marrus does not let the reader know that the document itself specifically refers to solving “the Jewish question by emigration and evacuation.” This method of selectively presenting history, which is all too typical of Holocaust historians, is essentially deceitful, I said.

With regard to the alleged extermination program, Marrus writes that “the Nazis’ own records provide little help. Typically, Hitler and his lieutenants cloaked their most criminal activities in euphemistic language, [and] tried strenuously to keep their murderous plans secret … ” Marrus also mentions “the absence of a clear record of Hitlerian decision making on the Final Solution … ” This is Marrus’ roundabout way of saying that there is no documentary evidence for the alleged extermination policy. He simply ignores the numerous German documents which confirm that there was no such policy or program. Nor does he bother to explain why the highest-level German officials should deceive each other about an extermination policy that was not only supposedly well-known in Germany, but which Allied propaganda was tirelessly announcing to the entire world. Like other Holocaust historians, Marrus starts with the unproven extermination thesis, and then tries to find evidence to support it. This is precisely contrary to the methodology of an honest and open-minded historian.

Unhappy Spectators

What I said on the stand often upset the group of Jews who regularly attended the proceedings. It wasn’t long after I began testifying that they began to loudly mutter “liar!” and make other noises to indicate their displeasure. For example, this group was noticeably agitated when I spoke about conditions in the Warsaw ghetto, and made the point that while some were starving, there were other Jews in the ghetto at the same time who were very well off and spent money on expensive meals in ghetto restaurants. When I saw that the Jews in the courtroom were obviously skeptical of this statement, I quickly added that my source for this information is the well-known Warsaw ghetto diary of Jewish historian Emmanuel Ringelblum, which is often cited by Holocaust historians. Sabrina Citron, the “survivor” who brought the original charge against Zündel that started this whole legal battle, walked out of the courtroom shortly after this remark.

During a 20-minute recess on my first day of testimony, a group of mostly elderly Jews gathered together in the courtroom to verbally assault me with epithets like “liar” and “neo-Nazi.” One said to the others “he even looks like Hitler,” and another cursed me with the words “God should strike you dead.” Later in the hallway, an elderly Jewish woman rather incoherently told me that I “should be washed with human soap.”

Reflections

A major lesson I learned from this whole experience is the importance of careful preparation and close attention to detail in a trial. Although I had prepared myself as I had been asked, the duration and far-ranging scope of the interrogation was a surprise. I did not know, for example, that I would be questioned about virtually every sentence of the Harwood booklet. As a result, I had to rely heavily on memory, and it wasn’t until my second or third day on the stand that I learned that I could read from documents and other prepared material.

Probably my best day was Thursday, the 24th, which was due in large part to careful review of the material the previous night with Christie, his able associate Keltie Zubko, attorney Barbara Kulaszka, and Zündel himself. By far my most difficult session was Friday afternoon, when an almost total lack of sleep during the previous four nights caught up with me. My fatigue was apparent, I’m afraid, and I answered many of the prosecution attorney’s questions too quickly.

The adversarial nature of a trial, and especially one as emotionally charged as this one, makes it inherently almost impossible for a jury of very average men and women to arrive at a clear understanding of historical truth. The prosecuting attorney’s task was not to determine historical truth, but rather to convict Zündel by discrediting him, his witnesses and Revisionism generally. Pearson’s job was to uphold the historical doctrine which Judge Thomas had proclaimed at the outset of the trial when he took “judicial notice” of the Holocaust story.

Zündel’s Achievement

Ernst Zündel announced at the outset that his main goal in this trial would be to set straight the historical record about this critically important chapter of history. He said that this task is far more important than his own personal fate.

In spite of the disappointing verdict, Zündel and his supporters are justifiably proud of what they achieved in this costly and time-consuming struggle. To wage the campaign that was forced upon him, Zündel brought together an impressive international team of Revisionist scholars, legal specialists, researchers, and many others. From numerous libraries and archives in North America and Europe, this group assembled one of the most impressive collections of evidence anywhere in the world on this chapter of history.

The dedicated Zündel legal team and the many defense witnesses presented exhaustive and compelling evidence refuting the Holocaust extermination story to the court and thereby made it part of the permanent public record. Much to the chagrin of Zündel’s enemies, these lengthy court proceedings have immeasurably strengthened the conviction of the defendant and his supporters, as well as many others, that the Holocaust extermination story is a great fraud. All this is a great tribute to Zündel’s organizational ability and extraordinary personality.

Zündel, who often describes himself as a “Swabian peasant,” is outgoing, good-humored, confident, and blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and sober realism. He maintains this infectious spirit even under very trying conditions. He is an unusually sensitive man with a keen understanding of human nature. He knows how to persuade, cajole and encourage his supporters to give their best for the greater good. He inspires confidence, loyalty and even affection. He does not ask more of others than he himself is willing to sacrifice. No one at “Zündelhaus” works more tirelessly.

Anyone who visited the Zündel headquarters during the trial could not help but be struck by the electric spirit of comradeship, purposeful activity and devotion to a righteous cause that pervades the place. At the end of each day’s court session, a debriefing meeting was held in the headquarters “bunker” during which Zündel and Christie would review the day’s events, sustain morale and explain the next round of tasks. A typical meeting brought together an eclectic group of individualistic men and women from half a dozen different countries — often speaking in as many thick accents — who share a common loyalty to a man and a cause.

For me, it was a tremendously challenging and instructive experience, as well as an honor to be a part of such a historically important legal battle.

* * *

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1989-90 (Vol. 9, No. 4), pages 389-425.

Source: Institute For Historical Review

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/my-role-in-the-zundel-trial/feed/ 0
The Code of Enmity http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-code-of-enmity/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-code-of-enmity/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:30:40 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4136 hating_self_by_pedrozsa-d36jwep

WE GET a few letters from idealistic young Majority members lamenting that so much of what we write is full of hate. Unfortunately, in these laments our Majority idealists are demonstrating the heavy suasion of the liberal-minority party line, which paints Majority members who stand up for their race as hate-filled bigots, while calling the more consuming hatred exuded by minorities righteous indignation.

If you want to measure hatred fairly and accurately, carry a “hate meter” into a room full of unassimilable minority members discussing Hitler, Franco, or Celine. The needle will run off the dial. Take it near a clutch of Harvard professors talking about Gobineau, Madison Grant, or Jensen, or a group of Javits Republicans discussing Reagan, or liberals unfondly remembering Joseph McCarthy, or black revolutionaries honking about “crackers.” You’ll see how . . . → Read More: The Code of Enmity]]> hating_self_by_pedrozsa-d36jwep

WE GET a few letters from idealistic young Majority members lamenting that so much of what we write is full of hate. Unfortunately, in these laments our Majority idealists are demonstrating the heavy suasion of the liberal-minority party line, which paints Majority members who stand up for their race as hate-filled bigots, while calling the more consuming hatred exuded by minorities righteous indignation.

If you want to measure hatred fairly and accurately, carry a “hate meter” into a room full of unassimilable minority members discussing Hitler, Franco, or Celine. The needle will run off the dial. Take it near a clutch of Harvard professors talking about Gobineau, Madison Grant, or Jensen, or a group of Javits Republicans discussing Reagan, or liberals unfondly remembering Joseph McCarthy, or black revolutionaries honking about “crackers.” You’ll see how hot and humid hatred can get.

Belonging to the world’s most introverted race, Majority members can be made to feel guilty about most anything. Members of every other race would laugh at the command to “love your enemy,” especially the members of the race which came up with the idea. As everyone seems to know except some European sentimentalists and a few scabious gurus, loving your enemy is tantamount to succumbing to him. It is precisely this total unconcern about hate which permits minorityites to outhate Majority members ten or twenty to one.

There is a double standard of hatred, as there is for so much else in this double-thinking age. We are not allowed to hate. They are. When we hate, we are committing a sin. When they hate, they are not really hating, but hating the haters. If this is considered as a negation of a negation, a verbal trick dear to the hearts of Marxist scholasts, the hatred of a minorityite for his fellow man can be easily transformed into an act of love.

American Negroes don’t hate the African chieftains who rounded up and sold their kith and kin to slave traders. But we are supposed to hate the slave traders, even though if we had been around in those days many of us would have condemned slave trading more vigorously than 20th century bleeding hearts.

Jews don’t feel bad about depriving 3,500,000 Palestinians of their homeland, yet we are supposed to feel bad about the so-called Six Million.

The truth is that Majority members are never going to emerge from their thralldom until they stop being afraid to hate. We cannot fight atom bombs with pea shooters. We cannot begin to fight effectively until we employ the same deadly psychological weapons that have given our opponents so many victories.

It is asinine of us to let professional haters dictate the object of our hatred. They told us to hate the Germans. They tell us to hate the white South Africans and Rhodesians. They tell us, in other words, to hate our own kind. But if we should hate our real enemies, then we are hatemongers.

Every oppressed people worth its salt hates its oppressors. We should feel no more guilty about hating our enemies than a rodent should feel guilty about hating a snake or a fly about hating a spider. Enmity is a key component of the art of individual and group survival.

The man who hates to hate is only half a man and a poor defender of his family and race.

Majority members are still not in the mood to die for their cause, or go broke for their cause, or even risk their careers for their cause. Some of them are so wishy-washy they even refuse to hate for their cause.

Can a person so emotionally sterile that he is incapable of hate be capable of love? Without love there is no creation. Without hate the creation cannot be defended. Hate is just as much of a unifier as love. By binding the group against aliens and outsiders and thereby encouraging the spread of beneficial mutations within the group, it has been a vital factor in evolution.

It is very human to hate because without hate there would be no humans. The only hatred of which we should be ashamed is the kind that, paradoxically and ironically, is gnawing at the vitals of the very Majority members who seem most disturbed by hatred.

Self-hatred!

* * *

Source: Instauration magazine, January 1977

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-code-of-enmity/feed/ 0
Building Our Community of Consciousness http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/building-our-community-of-consciousness/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/building-our-community-of-consciousness/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:00:32 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4152 tumblr_llv3baRnOt1qk6uvyo1_500

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I TALKED TO YOU last time about what we want to accomplish, in the way of building our movement, in the next few years. The essence of what I said is this: the goals which lie before us are not political goals in the ordinary sense. We are not thinking now in terms of having won over a certain percentage of the electorate — of having taken a certain portion of the Jews’ power away from them — by a certain date in the future.

Instead, our goals are organizational goals. We are to think in terms of increasing our capabilities. We talked about two thresholds we must cross, the first and more pressing being the threshold of viability, and the second the threshold of aggressive . . . → Read More: Building Our Community of Consciousness]]> tumblr_llv3baRnOt1qk6uvyo1_500

by Dr. William L. Pierce

I TALKED TO YOU last time about what we want to accomplish, in the way of building our movement, in the next few years. The essence of what I said is this: the goals which lie before us are not political goals in the ordinary sense. We are not thinking now in terms of having won over a certain percentage of the electorate — of having taken a certain portion of the Jews’ power away from them — by a certain date in the future.

Instead, our goals are organizational goals. We are to think in terms of increasing our capabilities. We talked about two thresholds we must cross, the first and more pressing being the threshold of viability, and the second the threshold of aggressive action.

When we have crossed the threshold of viability we will have an organization capable of preserving and safeguarding our Truth indefinitely, complete and undistorted. When we have crossed the threshold of aggressive action, we will have an organization capable of seizing a wide range of opportunities to pave the way for the eventual triumph of our Truth.

Now, it is the fashion these days for organizations of various sorts to pretend, right from the moment of their inception, that they have already crossed the threshold of aggressive action. Typically, they call a press conference, and then, with great flourishes of militant rhetoric, they proclaim an ultimatum. Or they stage some spectacular stunt.

A good example is the Black Panthers. One of the first things they did was muster their whole strength — a dozen or so Negroes — give everyone a shotgun, and then march into the California State Legislature in Sacramento with the shotguns over their shoulders. They began waving their guns and making threats until they were arrested, and the news media gave the incident enormous coverage, greatly helping the growth of the organization.

There are two criticisms which can be made of such activity. First, while it worked for the Panthers, it certainly won’t work for everyone. The news media, while not directly praising the armed invasion of the California Legislature, reported it in such a way that it seemed like a heroic action: the downtrodden but nevertheless noble, brave, and manly Blacks taking up arms to gain his rights, etc.

If the sympathies of the media masters and their rank-and-file employees had been different, the action could have been reported instead as a hollow and silly gesture, because the Panthers clearly had no means at all to back up their theatrics. In general, when such stunts are tried by right-wing organizations, that’s the way they are reported. In fact, it doesn’t even work all the time for the left wing.

The Symbionese Liberation Army is an example of a left-wing group which foolishly imagined that it had crossed the second threshold and began acting accordingly. It had not even taken the precaution of making sure that it would have a sympathetic press gallery before it began its theatrics.

But there is also another criticism of this fashion of pretending to be much bigger and more powerful than one really is. Even if it does not make an organization look merely silly instead of potent — even if it works the way it did for the Panthers — it yields, at best, an inorganic sort of growth. That is, it results in the mere agglomeration of an undigested mass of members and supporters.

Now, there are instances where inorganic growth is perfectly satisfactory — in the building of front groups, for example, ad hoc organizations with a limited purpose and limited duration.

But for what we are trying to do now — the crossing of our two thresholds — we must have organic growth. Each new man or woman we win for our cause, in this stage of our development, if he or she is to be a real increment of strength for us, must be someone who understands our Truth and makes a full commitment to it. Each new member must become fully integrated into our community of consciousness.

This is quite different from winning the approval of a portion of the public. It is different from selling ATTACK! subscriptions to people who are in general agreement with our position on regaining control of the news media, for example, or with our position on racial separation. And it is different from most of what we have been doing in the way of interaction with the public in the past. We had a reason for what we did in the past. We had to establish contact with the public. We had to become known to a number of people measured in the thousands, at least — better, in the tens of thousands — so that from those thousands or tens of thousands we could begin sifting out the few, measured in the hundreds, who were ready to make a commitment, ready to join our community. And a newspaper is really a mass organ, by its very nature. It is simply not economically feasible to publish a newspaper for an audience of only a few hundred people, even very dedicated people.

And so in the future our newspaper will continue to be directed toward the public, and we want to see the number of people it brings us into contact with each month rise from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. But we must also do something else, which our newspaper by itself cannot do. That is to devote ourselves to promoting the organic growth of our community. We must recruit, one by one, the few from the many; we must recruit those capable of making a full commitment and becoming integral, full functioning, fully participating parts of our community. We must find and separate out these few from the many who will only stand on the sidelines and cheer. Finding and winning one such person is more valuable to us now than any public demonstration we might stage.

And this calls for a new type of effort by us. It calls for a much more personal, much more intensive recruiting effort. It will no longer suffice to put a leaflet under someone’s windshield wiper or sell him an ATTACK! on the street. Now we must also make a personal contact. We must explain, almost on a one-to-one basis, our identity and our mission, the meaning of our Affirmation, and how the life of that particular person will be changed when he or she begins living for the sake of eternity instead of for the moment and begins serving the Creator’s eternal Purpose instead of only his or her personal whims.

Each of us must become a missionary for the Alliance, as well as an ATTACK! distributor and leaflet distributor. For many of us, that may mean coming out of the closet, but it must be done.

In order to make this missionary work easier and more effective, we have been preparing some new materials. We already have an Introductory Meeting Tape, about 45 minutes in length, which was designed especially for this purpose. All you need is a cassette tape player and a place where you can bring new prospects, one or two or three — or a dozen — at a time and sit them down to listen. Within a few months — perhaps this year, if we can solve our labor problem in the National Office — we’ll have a book in print which presents, in coherent form, the things we’ve talked about in our earlier meetings, as well as a few things we haven’t talked about. It will explain, as simply and completely as possible in a few dozen pages, our identity and our mission, our Purpose. It can serve as a guide for us in explaining these things to new people. And we also have a couple of other things in the works which should help this missionary effort.

But most of all we’ll have to depend on ourselves for this new effort to be successful. If we’ve been keeping our Alliance activities a secret from our friends and neighbors and fellow workers, because we didn’t want them to think we’re radicals, we’ll have to change. We’ll have to stop worrying about what the wise guys will think, the people who have never had an idea that didn’t come from their television sets. Let them go back to their funny papers and their TV and their Jewish view of the world. We have more important things to do — infinitely more important things.

This new work — this person-to-person missionary work — will be different, and it won’t be particularly easy. You may play our introductory tape for 20 or 30 or 40 people before you can find one with the open-mindedness to understand something so different from the Jewish lies he’s been taught all his life, and with the character to make a commitment to it once he’s understood it. But all that effort is worth it. If each of our members wins for us only one new member each year in this way, then we will double our membership each year.

We will also still be winning new people through our public distributions of ATTACK!, as in the past. But the most important activity contributing to our growth in the future will be our new person-to-person missionary work.

This work, for many of us, will be — and should be — at least in part, a transformation of our lives. The way it is now, one can dispose of one’s monthly quota of ATTACK!s in a few minutes and then forget about one’s obligation to the Alliance until next month’s package of ATTACK!s arrives. But this person-to-person recruiting is something one must think about and work at every day.

The work itself, even if it does not go beyond playing our introductory tape for someone every time you find a chance, will serve to raise your own consciousness, of course, just as the little exercise I described for you at one of our earlier meetings. Pretty soon, you should have only one thought in your mind each time you meet someone, or each time you talk to someone you’ve already met. That thought should be: How can I arrange to have this person hear our tape?

But beyond this increased awareness of a purpose in our social contacts, becoming a missionary for our Truth should change our lives in other ways. Types of behavior which we may have tolerated in ourselves before, when we stood for nothing and had no mission to fulfill, will become intolerable when we are fully conscious of our identity as parts of the Creator and our mission as agents of the Creator. Drunkenness, for example, the wasting of our precious time in foolish and meaningless diversions, whether in front of a television set or in some bar or nightclub, for example.

With an increased consciousness of just what our work stands for, should also become an increased consciousness of our own personal worth. We should all be better people for it, leading lives which are not only busier, because of our additional recruiting activity, but also more dignified, more meaningful, and better examples, for all the world to see, of our Truth applied to daily living.

* * *

Source: National Alliance BULLETIN, October, 1976

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/building-our-community-of-consciousness/feed/ 0
Dr. William Pierce on the Difference between National Socialism and Fascism http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/dr-william-pierce-on-the-difference-between-national-socialism-and-fascism/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/dr-william-pierce-on-the-difference-between-national-socialism-and-fascism/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:30:32 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4114 Mussolini & Hitlerby James Harting

THE NOTION that the National-Socialism of Adolf Hitler is a type or variant of a more generally defined “fascism” is a staple of Marxist propaganda and analysis. Indeed, the Marxists have been so persistent and strident in making this false claim that it has infected the thinking even of some of those who claim to be NS themselves. (ILLUSTRATION: Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler in 1941)

Back in 1970, Dr. William L. Pierce addressed this issue in his column “Questions & Answers for National Socialists,” that appeared in WHITE POWER: The Newspaper of White Revolution, which was a mass distribution tabloid of the National Socialist White People’s Party. (Dr. Pierce is listed as the “Associate Editor” for the issue in which this particular column was printed.)

Q: Liberals often refer to National Socialists . . . → Read More: Dr. William Pierce on the Difference between National Socialism and Fascism]]> Mussolini & Hitlerby James Harting

THE NOTION that the National-Socialism of Adolf Hitler is a type or variant of a more generally defined “fascism” is a staple of Marxist propaganda and analysis. Indeed, the Marxists have been so persistent and strident in making this false claim that it has infected the thinking even of some of those who claim to be NS themselves. (ILLUSTRATION: Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler in 1941)

Back in 1970, Dr. William L. Pierce addressed this issue in his column “Questions & Answers for National Socialists,” that appeared in WHITE POWER: The Newspaper of White Revolution, which was a mass distribution tabloid of the National Socialist White People’s Party. (Dr. Pierce is listed as the “Associate Editor” for the issue in which this particular column was printed.)

Q: Liberals often refer to National Socialists as “fascists.” Are they correct in this practice?

A: Liberals apply the label “fascist” to anyone whose ideas they find abhorrent or dangerous — even conservatives. They tend to use this term as a smear word, not restricting it to the adherents of any specific ideology. Thus, they probably feel as justified in trying to smear us with the label “fascist” as any other of their opponents.

Q: Well, is it proper for National Socialists to refer to themselves as “fascists?”

A: Certainly not. When we use the term we are virtually always referring to the adherents of the specific social-political doctrine on which Benito Mussolini founded his governmental system in Italy — that is Fascist with a capital “F.” Although it may not seem important to the liberal, there is a profound difference between National Socialism and Fascism.

Q: But I thought that both Fascism and National Socialism were highly centralized, authoritarian and strongly nationalistic forms of government, with only slight differences between the ways they operated.

A: You have been reading too many textbooks written by liberals. Certainly the Fascist state and the National Socialist movement are authoritarian, and they both have a strong social basis. Furthermore, both Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist government and Mussolini’s Fascist government administered most of their programs for national and social renewal on a centralized, nationwide basis. Both governments brought forth immense popular enthusiasm, which was manifested in numerous public demonstrations and celebrations. All these things contributed to a seeming similarity. But the differences betwen the two systems are by no means slight!

Q: What are some of these differences?

Mussolini Time 1A: The really fundamental difference lies in the role of the state and the race under each system.

In Mussolini’s word’s:

“The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing: outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have any real worth. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state — a synthesis and a unit of all values — interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of a people…It is not the nation that generates the state…Rather it is the state which creates the nation, conferring volition and, therefore, real life on a people…In the Fascist conception, the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative…”

To the National Socialist, on the other hand, it is our Race, not the state, which is all-important. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote:

“The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar creatures… States which do not serve this purpose are misbegotten monstrosities in fact.” (II:2)

There are many important consequences of this basic difference in attitudes. For example, under Fascism anyone, regardless of racial background can be a citizen, as long as he accepts his responsibility to the state. Under National Socialism, on the other hand, membership in the racial community is the first requirement of citizenship. (Source: WHITE POWER: The Newspaper of White Revolution, number 11, January-February 1970, p. 5)

Comments by James Harting

Apart from theoretical considerations that Dr. Pierce discusses, historically Fascism was notoriously weak on the crucial issues of Race and the Jewish Question. This is true both of Mussolini’s original and of knock-off copies, such as that of Sir Oswald Mosely.

From 1914 through 1935, Mussolini’s mistress, confidant and political advisor was Margherita Sarfatti, a wealthy Italian Jewish intellectual. She undoubtedly influenced Fascist doctrine and policies during this period, and was probably responsible for the Duce’s initial hostility to National-Socialism and the Hitler movement.

A more public example of Fascist policy is the 1935 invasion and subsequent conquest of Ethiopia by the Italians. This action is absolutely unjustifiable from National-Socialist standpoint. Apart from all other criticisms, the end result of bringing tens of millions of Ethiopians into Mussolini’s neo-Roman empire would have been a disastrous racial contamination of the Italian bloodline. Even with the most stringent laws against miscegenation, Negro genes would have inevitably drifted into the Italian gene pool over time, and thence to all of Aryan Europe.

Adolf Hitler TimeI am aware that the attitudes and policies towards Race and the Jews were markedly better during the second incarnation of Fascism, that of the Italian Social Republic of 1944-45. Under pressure from the Germans, either direct or indirect, the Fascists made an attempt to bring themelves into line with the Hitlerian New Order. But it was too little, too late.

On the fringes of the Fascist movement, Baron Julius Evola (1898-1974) made an effort to provide Fascism with an ideological racial underpinning, but his effort fell way short of what was needed. Evola’s theories are based on a “spiritual” racialism that is at odds with National-Socialist scientific, biological racialism. At the instruction of Heinrich Himmler, Evola’s theories were investigated by the SS and formally rejected as non-NS.

I know that there are some in the Movement who want to define Fascism more broadly, and include as “small-f” fascists, including all sorts of parallel movements from the 1930s and 1940s, such as the Falangists in Spain, the Arrow Cross movement in Hungary, the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania and Vidkun Quisling’s Nasjonal Sammling in Norway. Despite some superficial similarities, each of these movements was ideologically distinct from the others — and miles apart from the Hitler movement. Each country produced its own form of national regeneration, based on its own unique historical experience and immediate political needs. Whatever justification for existence these movements may have had in the pre-1945 world, in the post-War era they have none, for only an international, pan-Aryanist Hitler movement provides the way foward for our Race in the 21st century.

Note on the Movement career of Dr. Pierce: William Pierce’s Movement career may be divided into three periods:

Early — From the early 1960s through the assassination of Lincoln Rockwell in 1967. During this period, he served as a consultant to Commander Rockwell, and produced the first issues of National Socialist World, but otherwise his active involvement in the Movement was minimal.
Middle — From 1968 to 1970, Dr. Pierce played an active role in the National Socialist White People’s Party, of which he was a member and leading officer, and of the World Union of National Socialists, of which he was the General Secretary.
Late — Following his dismissal from the NSWPP and WUNS in 1970, he took over and then re-molded the National Youth Alliance, which he later renamed the National Alliance. During this long and productive period of Movement involvement, he authored four books, made numerous American Dissident Voices broadcasts, gave innumerable speeches and wrote countless articles, essays and editorials.

During the first two periods, when he supported the American Nazi Party/NSWPP, he openly identified himself as a National-Socialist, and his writings were explicitly NS. During the third period, he no longer publicly identified himself as NS, but everything he wrote, said and did was implicitly, although not explictly, National-Socialist.

There is no discontinuity in ideological content between what Pierce first wrote in National Socialist World in 1966 and his American Dissident Voices broadcasts of 2002. Rather, his words comprise a seamless whole, from the beginning of his involvement with the American Nazi Party to the end of his life. I consider everything that William Pierce produced to be an integral and important part of American National-Socialism, no matter what the period was in which he produced it.

* * *

Source: White Biocentrism

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/dr-william-pierce-on-the-difference-between-national-socialism-and-fascism/feed/ 0
A Drive Through the Empire http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/a-drive-through-the-empire/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/a-drive-through-the-empire/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:00:57 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=3699 route-66-roadtrip-5505a6511c3ee

by Yggdrasil

LAST WEEK the Ygg and Mrs. Ygg drove from southern California to Texas and back. The kids stayed home.

The purpose of the trip was to look at housing in Texas, just in case we might want to join the great White migration out of Southern California. The trip had nothing to do with politics.

The Ole Ygg hasn’t gone for a long drive in about 15 years. You see, yuppies in the information elite fly everywhere. We don’t drive. In fact, on the few occasions when I have told my partners that I am driving the short haul from LA to San Fran, they look at me like I am crazy. The elites would rather stroll West Los Angeles naked than drive in the open country.

Like most who earn a living in . . . → Read More: A Drive Through the Empire]]> route-66-roadtrip-5505a6511c3ee

by Yggdrasil

LAST WEEK the Ygg and Mrs. Ygg drove from southern California to Texas and back. The kids stayed home.

The purpose of the trip was to look at housing in Texas, just in case we might want to join the great White migration out of Southern California. The trip had nothing to do with politics.

The Ole Ygg hasn’t gone for a long drive in about 15 years. You see, yuppies in the information elite fly everywhere. We don’t drive. In fact, on the few occasions when I have told my partners that I am driving the short haul from LA to San Fran, they look at me like I am crazy. The elites would rather stroll West Los Angeles naked than drive in the open country.

Like most who earn a living in the information industry, I get my impressions of cities and of regions of the country by what I see in airports and the glass towers I visit.

Well, it didn’t take too many hours on the road in the Southwest to realize that my view of America from inside Airports and the glass towers was less than a total picture of reality.

Once on the road, I was judging America by the people I saw at gas stations rather than by the people I saw in its airport lobbies.

What a contrast!

The first impression is that the interstate highways are the exclusive province of factory workers, farmers and service workers. Some have money for nice cars and trucks. Many do not.

However, none of our elites are out there on these highways.

This pattern is actually a sharp contrast with the 1950’s and the 1960’s. Then, the elites vacationed by driving. That was a period of rapid freeway construction. The new roads were as smooth as glass.

The interstates are much bumpier now. The inescapable impression is that the United States is no longer willing to invest money in its automotive highway network. Repairs are spotty. The “wrong” people use them.

A second inescapable impression is that there are large tracts of the United States in which Euro-Americans are foreigners.

We all know that Euro-Americans cannot wander the streets of Newark, Camden, South-Central Los Angeles, most of Detroit, most of Manhattan Island, and similar venues after dark without a near certainty of death or mayhem. Euro-Americans cannot enter these venues in daytime without a visibly obvious reason.

In these urban combat zones of America, Euro-Americans yield the sidewalks in a classic reversal of roles from the old South.

Driving Interstate 10 from San Diego to El Paso leaves one not so much with a sense of danger as with a sense of alienation.

There is a large swath of real estate in which you rarely see Euro-Americans. It runs North from the Mexican border about 100 miles, beginning about 20 miles inland from the Pacific and extending through Southern Arizona, New Mexico, to San Antonio, Texas. You will see Euro-Americans in the airport at El Paso, but you will not see any on the streets or roads, nor any working at any of the motels or fast food outlets.

Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto booming up through the sunroof of a white Porsche had a dramatic effect on locals who had never heard anything like it before. They stared in amazement. The culture from which that auto and its music came were so profoundly alien, there wasn’t a hint of recognition.

In El Paso, like San Diego, the U.S. Government has abandoned control of the border. Instead, there is an INS checkpoint about one hundred miles East of the border. It is the same in California, where the real border begins about 40 miles north of San Diego at the inspection station at Camp Pendleton, and in Fallbrook on Interstate 15.

That is where the INS begins to apprehend and chase undocumented aliens. But within most of that 100 mile strip of land along the border the policy is “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Within this nation of Aztlan, Euro-American culture has disappeared. Its residents will not attack (as in Detroit) but will watch Euro-Americans with wary suspicion. It is obvious to them that we are “outsiders” who do not “belong” there.

However, once you hit Austin, Texas a remarkable transformation occurs. Euro-Americans are everywhere.

You have arrived at the border of the Euro-American nation.

When you say that you are from California, the Texas real estate agents explain that there are thousands like you who move there every year in a mass exodus. Neighborhoods in Texas aren’t like California. “People go to Church here. You won’t find drugs all over the schools.” But if you aren’t comfortable with the overt religiosity of the people, you will not be comfortable living there.

We took the northern route back, along interstate 40 from Amarillo in the Panhandle, through Northern New Mexico and Arizona.

We stopped for a bite to eat in Gallup, New Mexico, just off the Interstate, on old Route 66. There were 60 restaurants and most looked like mom and pop operations, so just to be safe, we picked a Pizza Hut franchise and went in. The physical layout of the place was strictly Pizza Hut, down to the seats, salad bar and sign that said “please wait to be seated”.

But this wasn’t any ordinary Pizza Hut. For the service was extraordinarily different.

A young lady came over, fumbled and hesitated, and led us to a table without making eye contact. We waited 15 minutes and began to notice that the waiters and waitresses seemed to avoid eye contact with us. All of the workers and all of the patrons were Indians. We were the only Euro-Americans in the place.

After we had been there about 10 minutes, a man with blonde hair and a pony tail came in, was seated, waited for about 5 minutes to be served, and then quietly left. Finally, after 15 minutes, a young man came over to take our order. The body language was bad. He was stiff and uncomfortable. 40 minutes later, and our pizza still had not arrived. Valuable road time was lost.

While we waited, the counter was doing a land-office business in carry-out pizza orders. All of the carry-out patrons were also Indians. Not a single one was White.

Mrs. Ygg was getting angry. Now Mrs. Ygg is not really a white nationalist. She is non-ideological, something of a racial “liberal,” a fairly typical National Charity League “society mom” instinctively respectful of society’s manners and conventions for preventing ill feeling and conflict.

And it was the breach of public manners that threw her into a rage. She sensed that the Navajo did not want Whites in their restaurant and asked why they just didn’t post a sign to that effect so that she could take her business elsewhere. She demanded that I go ask where our pizza was.

I went to the counter, waited two minutes for the waitress to make eye contact, and then finally blurted out to her back “how is our pizza coming along?” The visibly agitated and uncomfortable waitress said “I will check” and ran into the back room where the pizzas were being cooked.

The waitress came out and said she didn’t know what happened to our pizza, but that they would prepare a new one, it would be ready in 12 minutes and we did not have to pay. 15 minutes later the waitress came over with the pizza, said nothing and did not make eye contact. The silent message was “eat this and get the hell out of here!”

By this time, Mrs. Ygg was ready to re-fight the battle of Little Big Horn.

I tried to calm her. I said that “we are now in the Navajo Nation just like the sign next door says. They don’t mis-label anything. It is our culture that claims race and nation do not exist. They can be as uncomfortable with us as they want in their nation. We should do what they say, keep quiet, avoid eye contact and then leave.”

Mrs. Ygg said “BS, this is a retail establishment on a major interstate highway. They see thousands of whites. How could they be in business here and be so uncomfortable with us. They are seething with hostility and suspicion.”

“Furthermore, all the Indian men in this place are wearing “gang pants” and high tops. They listen to rap music in the back. They sure as hell understand American symbols of anger!”

I then said, “you know, it is quite strange that the kids who run this place are so suspicious and uncomfortable. They have had at least 4 generations of contact with us along this highway — and two generations of television — and they have not learned to put up a friendly front during business hours. Maybe acting friendly when they don’t feel friendly would be cowardly in their culture. Who knows!”

“But this is what I mean when I talk to Ygg Jr. about the failure of multi-racial empires. If you had paid attention, you would know to expect this sort of thing. You would not now be surprised or offended. It is our presence here with them that is unnatural, not their breach of the manners that you expect them to learn from us.”

Mrs. Ygg then angrily said “I don’t care about that. I don’t need their free pizza or their charity! I am going to pay for the pizza!”

The Ole’ Ygg replied. “No you are not! They have told us the rules. We are to eat and get out with no more contact. Insist on paying and you risk serious conflict. Much as you might like to see me kick these pudgy little people through the window (as the Koreans taught me to do many years ago) you know I can’t do that, even in self-defense, without my political views being uncovered and becoming an issue.”

As we finished our pizza and walked toward the door, several young female patrons at the carry-out counter looked at us with alarm, as if we were men from Mars. They saw the Ole’ Ygg first, and became uncomfortable, but became much more agitated at the sight of Mrs. Ygg. It was as if she were George Armstrong Custer.

Curious!

As we drove away, I could not help thinking back to Yggdrasil’s Lesson One, and the thoughts of Professor Barro from Harvard, who observed that if the “constituent characteristics” of ethnic groups within a single country differ by too much, it might be wise to split the country into separate nations.

A handy guide occurred to me. Any population that needs a quota or explicit preference has “constituent characteristics” that differ enough to justify separation. All you need do is keep the current questionnaires and administrative apparatus in place.

And in the meantime, we were only a few miles from the White Nation beginning in Flagstaff, extending through Kingman and winding across the desert to Bakersfield, California. It is a different White Nation from the traditional one in Texas.

It is a nation that knows it is under attack. Like America’s pioneers, they know that the eastern elites will send the cavalry to protect the black and brown attackers if they defend too visibly.

They know yuppies when they see them and they have learned to keep their true feelings and ideas to themselves. While sitting in a diner in Kingman, I spotted a copy of “The Arizona Republic” reporting the arrest of 30 Aryan Brotherhood members in Arizona. McPaper had reports of a debate between McVeigh’s lawyer and the prosecutor, as well as an article to the effect that McVeigh might want to testify at his trial and claim he never touched a bomb.

It occurred to me that our Euro-American elites are going to be exceptionally angry and fearful as it becomes more and more apparent that their integrationist dream is failing. They are likely to blame these poor working class Whites and pursue them with a vengeance as the only remaining group within our Multi-racial empire upon whom they can enforce their will.

Look for the jails to fill with offenders who cross the line of manners and belief into the proliferating categories of “hate crimes” applied selectively on the basis of race and social class. Look for sporadic mass prosecutions for child molestation in these small towns, as social workers isolate children from their parents and interrogate them for weeks at a time behind closed doors to “recover” their memories.

Look for the clever among these working class Whites to learn the diaspora art of concealing their true feelings lest they become targets.

Marranos of the desert and the trailer park!

Herrnstein and Murray were right in their seminal work “The Bell Curve.” The information elites have become so profoundly isolated from working class Whites that they have come to believe that whites truly are the passive, emasculated creatures portrayed by Hollywood. Treatment of poor Whites by our elites and their legal system will not know any of the usual boundaries of “civil rights” and “civil liberties” that apply to blacks or browns. Our elites see no reason for caution. “Justice” (tzedek?) meted out by our custodial state to poor Whites uppity enough to think for themselves is “likely to be brusque.”

Our information elites see America only from the air.

* * *

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/a-drive-through-the-empire/feed/ 0
Media Myths http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/media-myths/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/media-myths/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:30:46 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4103 william_pierce-102by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE SUBJECT I’ve discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I’ve spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It’s also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn’t matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn’t make any difference, critics tell me. They’re just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That’s why they’ve gained control, and it’s no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.

I think that many of the people who tell me this don’t actually . . . → Read More: Media Myths]]> william_pierce-102by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

THE SUBJECT I’ve discussed most often is the dominant Jewish influence in the mass media of news and entertainment. I’ve spoken most often about this because it is the most important problem with which we must deal. It’s also a subject on which I receive a lot of flak. One of the most common forms of flak is the objection that it doesn’t matter. Sure, the Jews control the media, but it doesn’t make any difference, critics tell me. They’re just good businessmen, and they know how to run the media profitably. That’s why they’ve gained control, and it’s no worse than it would be if a bunch of Irishmen or Mormons were in their place.

I think that many of the people who tell me this don’t actually believe it themselves. They just want to be Politically Correct, and it’s Politically Correct to absolve the Jews of blame for anything. Even many of the people who are distressed about what Jewish media control is doing to our society don’t want to identify that control as Jewish. The Baptists, for example, who have launched a boycott of the Disney Corporation because of the raunchy movies its Miramax films division has been turning out, refuse to identify either Disney boss Michael Eisner or the Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein as Jewish. The Baptist protest is against immorality in films, they insist, not against the Jewish control of the film industry.

That’s a bit like saying you’re against syphilis but you have nothing against spirochetes. And it’s not really honest, this determination to be Politically Correct. Political Correctness is based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in the place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit Politically Incorrect truths, has very serious consequences for all of us. If we refuse to talk realistically about the Jewish control of the mass media, we may as well give up on trying to do anything about the negative effects this Jewish media control is having on our society.

Let me give you a specific example of refusal to face a Politically Incorrect truth. Steven Spielberg has a new film out, Saving Private Ryan, and it’s been getting a lot of attention by the reviewers. They say that the film is good because it is so realistic, because it gives such an honest portrayal of the Second World War. And of course, the film does show the blood-and-guts aspect of the war a bit more starkly than other films have. But honest it is not. It propagates the same lies about the Second World War that every film — and I mean every film — made by the Jewish film industry in Hollywood for nearly 60 years has propagated. And the reviewers, regardless of what else they say about these films, all repeat these same basic lies.

These lies are that the Second World War was a “necessary” war — that is, that there was no way we could have avoided it — and that it was a “good” war — that is, a morally justified war. We were forced to fight Germany in order to protect America. We could not have stayed out of the war or fought on the other side, because that would have been immoral. The other side was evil. We fought against evil. By destroying Germany and Hitler we saved the world, Hollywood tells us. We saved freedom. We saved the world from slavery and tyranny. Hitler was an evil man, the most evil man who has ever lived, and with his evil SS troops he intended to enslave the world and destroy everything beautiful and good. But we stopped him. We saved America. We saved the world.

That’s Hollywood’s unvarying story, and it’s a lie: an extremely dangerous and destructive lie. Unfortunately, it is a lie which is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by almost everyone, and not just by the lemmings. We hear that lie today in connection with Spielberg’s new movie; and in fact, we hear it from television news anchormen and from politicians and from other authority figures every time the war is mentioned. No dissent is permitted. But that’s the case only for the Second World War. One can have dissenting views about the Spanish-American War, the First World War, or about the Korean War. One can question the morality or the necessity of those wars without being considered an evil person. And as for the war in Vietnam, one can even take the position of America’s enemies, as film actress Jane Fonda and a student activist named Bill Clinton did.

But it has not been the government’s hard line against dissenters which has kept people parroting the dogma that the Second World War was a war which was both necessary and good. And it hasn’t been any reluctance to offend the veterans of the Second World War, because we have more living veterans of the Vietnam war in our society, and those opposed to the Vietnam war have never worried about offending them.

No, the dogma that the Second World War was necessary and good, that it saved the world or that it preserved our freedom, is entirely the creation of Jewish propagandists. Of course, the Second World War didn’t preserve America’s freedom. America’s freedom was never threatened by Germany. Hitler could not even have imagined taking away America’s freedom. His war against America was entirely defensive. We were the aggressors. The U.S. Army invaded Germany and took away Germany’s freedom, not the other way around. There was never the slightest danger that Hitler would invade America.

And we certainly didn’t save the world; what we did was turn half of the world over to rule by communist butchers for nearly 50 years. We didn’t even defend America’s vital economic interests by destroying Germany. The only people whose vital interests were defended by America’s participation in the Second World War were the Jews.

And these facts really aren’t even disputed by serious and knowledgeable people today. No reputable historian or military leader would make the claim today that the United States was in danger of being invaded by Germany or that our vital interests were threatened by Germany. In other words the war was not necessary. Every knowledgeable person understands that, but very few will say it.

As for the claim that Hitler and his SS were evil monsters, and that America was on the side of righteousness in destroying them, we can simply look at the facts again: look at what the two sides actually did during and after the war. It is generally conceded that the Germans treated American prisoners of war about as well as they could under the circumstances. And it also is generally conceded that Hitler’s troops, SS or otherwise, behaved themselves better toward the civilian populations of the countries they occupied than did the armed forces of any of the other combatants, including the Americans. Hitler’s SS troopers did not rape civilians, for example. Contrast this behavior with that of the Americans and our allies, such as the Red Army.

The Red Army, our comrade in arms, was notorious for raping and murdering civilians; in fact, Red Army men were encouraged to engage in atrocious behavior by their own government, our ally. And the U.S. Army itself engaged in several massacres of German prisoners of war: for example, the massacre of more than 500 disarmed SS prisoners at Dachau by members of the U.S. Army’s 45th Division on April 29, 1945. And then there was the mass starvation of German POWs in prison camps after the war. And there was the massive ethnic cleansing, in which more than 2 million German civilians were murdered after the war. The U.S. government approved of this mass murder, of this ethnic cleansing — we gave the OK — and our allies carried it out.

If we consider the mass rape and murder of civilians to be evil, if we consider the mass execution of prisoners of war to be evil, and if one of our motives for going to war was to fight evil, then clearly we were fighting on the wrong side. And it’s not as if we didn’t know how our gallant Soviet ally would behave before we began our effort to destroy Hitler and his forces. We had plenty of evidence of massive Soviet atrocities even before the war began. Our government knew what the communists had done in Ukraine. Our government knew about the mass arrests and executions in the Soviet Union. And before we crossed the English Channel to invade Europe we knew about the mass executions of Polish officers by the Reds at Katyn and elsewhere. And yet we allied ourselves with the mass murderers. We helped the mass murderers and mass rapists murder and rape millions of more Europeans. And so the claim that we were going to war to fight evil is simply a lie. The Second World War was not a good war. It was not a moral war. It was the most atrocious war of modern times. And we were on the side of those committing nearly all of the atrocities during that war: we were deliberately on the side of evil.

And there is just one reason that we fought on the side of evil. It was because that was the Jewish side. In the years before the war Hitler wasn’t rounding up people by the thousands and shooting them the way the communists were. Hitler wasn’t shooting anybody. His SS troops weren’t raping or terrorizing anyone either. Hitler was doing one thing which resulted in a huge, lying hate-propaganda effort against him from Hollywood. That one thing was Hitler’s campaign to break the grip of the Jews on Germany. In Germany Hitler took the news and entertainment media away from the Jews. He kicked them out of the legal profession, which they had monopolized. He kicked them out of the teaching profession, where they had been pumping their ideas into the heads of German children. And Hitler did all of this peacefully, non-violently. He didn’t round Jews up and shoot them. He simply made it illegal for them to own German newspapers and German radio stations. He made it illegal for them to practice law or to teach in German schools. And so the Jews were leaving Germany. Between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews in Germany emigrated. At the same time Jewish commissars in the Soviet Union were butchering millions of people. But the hate propaganda coming out of Hollywood was entirely anti-German, not anti-Soviet. The Jews’ only concern was the welfare of their fellow Jews. They didn’t care how many Russians or Ukrainians were murdered. But they screeched at the top of their lungs when Hitler took the German media away from them.

And they lied to the American people about what was happening in Europe. They lied in order to try to make us hate the Germans the way they did. When a Jew assassinated a German diplomat in Paris in 1938 and the German people reacted by smashing up Jewish department stores and synagogues in several German cities, the Jewish news media in the United States reported the incident as if Jews were being massacred wholesale in Germany. That was the famous “Crystal Night,” which the Jews still continue to remind us of every year in order to milk a little more sympathy from us. The picture of Germany painted by Jewish hate-propaganda in the United States during the years preceding the Second World War was a complete distortion of reality. Americans were told that Germans lived in constant fear of the Gestapo and the SS, that Hitler was a madman who terrorized the German people and who fell to the floor and chewed the edge of his carpet when he became angry. Americans were told that Germany was a land of concentration camps and barbed wire and police dogs. Our invasion of Germany was to be a “liberation” of the German people from the tyrannical rule of Hitler and the SS. That’s actually the word the Jewish propagandists used to describe the American and Soviet terror bombing, rape, and dismemberment of Germany: “liberation.” The American and Soviet invaders were to be the “liberators.”

Of course, the Jews didn’t control all of the mass media before the Second World War. They didn’t control the National Geographic Magazine, for example, and this magazine, with its articles and photographs on life in Germany flatly contradicted the hate-propaganda coming from Hollywood. A good example, if you have access to old National Geographics, is the February 1937 issue. But the National Geographic Magazine really wasn’t a mass medium, and Jewish Hollywood had a much stronger grip on the average American’s mind. And so the image of Germany most Americans had was the Jewish image of a land of terror, fear, brutality, and repression controlled by Hitler’s SS automatons, a land which needed to be “liberated” and which was a deadly menace to America. The hate-propagandists of Hollywood lied us into the most murderous and destructive war of all time solely because they hated the Germans, and they wanted us to destroy the Germans for them.

And they have maintained their pre-war lies even to this day, their portrayal of Hitler as a crazed carpet chewer and the SS as a gang of sadistic thugs, and they have added to this their postwar hate-propaganda of gas chambers and of lampshades and soap supposedly made from the bodies of murdered Jews. Most Americans still believe that their fathers or grandfathers “liberated” Germany and “saved” the world. They still believe that the Second World War was a “necessary” war and a “good” war. And the reason they believe it is that they have seen hundreds of Hollywood films and television shows which have repeated these same lies to them over and over and over again, and no public figure has ever had the courage or honesty to contradict them. We’re still hearing the same lies in films like Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and in the reviews of that film in the controlled media: Americans as “liberators.”

The fact is that Hollywood’s lies about Germany led to millions of White Americans and Europeans being slaughtered solely for the sake of punishing the Germans for throwing the Jews out of Germany. And we are put at a great disadvantage even today by those same lies, because they prevent so many of us from examining the past honestly. And if we cannot understand what happened in the past, we are much less likely to choose a wise course into the future. But the real point of my example of Hollywood hate-propaganda about Germany before and during the Second World War is that the Jews, with their control of so much of the mass media today, are able to sway the attitudes of the whole country to suit themselves. They are able to persuade us to give precedence to their interests and concerns instead of ours. They are able to change the course of history to their advantage and to our disadvantage by changing the way the American masses see the world. They were able to do that in the 1930s and 1940s, even before television. Today, with television, they are even more able to change American attitudes and opinions to gain advantages for themselves.

And today there are plenty of other examples of the Jews’ misuse of their media power to manipulate the opinions and attitudes of our people to our disadvantage. There is the current prospect of another war in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are being held up as a threat to America, a threat to the world, just as Germany was represented as a threat to the world before the Second World War, when in fact Iraq is a threat only to the Jews’ plans for the Middle East, and Germany was a threat only to the Jews’ plans for controlling Europe. But the prospect of another war is very real, and it will remain real as long as the Jews retain their control of the media and of U.S. government policy. Iraq certainly is no threat to America and never has been, but if the Jews become worried about Saddam Hussein’s ability to thwart Israel’s further expansion, you can be sure that we will be called on again to save America, to save freedom, and to save the world by “liberating” Iraq. And unfortunately, most Americans will respond to the call. They will believe that they are being patriotic by responding, just as most of the veterans of the Second World War still believe that they were being patriotic in responding to the call to save America from Hitler.

That’s not the way it should be. Our people’s patriotism shouldn’t be abused like that. Our mass media shouldn’t be used to manipulate our people to our disadvantage. Of course, most people being what they are, they will be manipulated one way or another. Most people will believe what they’re told to believe by their television. Which means that it is essential that the people who control the mass media, the people who decide what the masses should be told — these must be our people, people with our interests — not people with an entirely different agenda of their own. The mass media could be a powerful force for good, a powerful force for enlightening and uplifting and guiding our people rather than for exploiting them.

A lot of people understand that; they understand the power of the mass media. Our political leaders certainly understand that. Many academics understand it. But they won’t buck the Jews. They prefer to go with the flow, to get what advantage they can for themselves, but not to speak out against the way the media have been and are being misused to exploit our people. They are afraid of becoming targets of Jewish hate-propaganda themselves. And they understand the difficulty of convincing the public of the truth after the public already has been convinced of a lie. The public is fond of its myths, especially its patriotic myths, and hardly any patriotic myth is more cherished than that of the Second World War being a necessary and a moral war.

And so the politicians and the academics won’t point out the lies inherent in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. And that means that we’ll have to do it ourselves, the hard way. We’ll have to continue building our own media: media like American Dissident Voices and Free Speech. That’s a long and difficult job. And while we’re doing that we’ll be hearing and seeing a lot more romanticized propaganda from Steven Spielberg and the Weinstein brothers and the rest of the Jewish media establishment. But at least we are reaching more people with the truth this month than we did last month, and we’ll reach more still next month.

* * *

Source: National Alliance

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/media-myths/feed/ 0
Ludwig Klages on Judaism, Christianity and Paganism (Excerpts and Aphorisms) http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/ludwig-klages-on-judaism-christianity-and-paganism-excerpts-and-aphorisms/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/ludwig-klages-on-judaism-christianity-and-paganism-excerpts-and-aphorisms/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:00:25 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4123 Klages

Translated and edited by Joseph D. Pryce

LUDWIG KLAGES (pictured) (1872–1956) was a prominent German philosopher associated with the intellectual movement known as ‘vitalism’ (Biozentrismus). He seems to have been a solitary child, but he developed an intense friendship with a Jewish classmate named Theodor Lessing, who would himself go on to achieve fame as the theorist of “Jewish Self-Hatred,” a concept whose origins Lessing would later trace back to passionate discussions that he had had with Klages during their boyhood rambles on the windswept moors and beaches of their Lower Saxony home.  Shortly after the NSDAP seized power at the beginning of 1933, one of Klages’s disciples established the Arbeitskreises für biozentrisches Forschung (Working Group for Research on Vitalism). From 1938 onwards, when Reichsleiter Dr. Alfred . . . → Read More: Ludwig Klages on Judaism, Christianity and Paganism (Excerpts and Aphorisms)]]> Klages

Translated and edited by Joseph D. Pryce

LUDWIG KLAGES (pictured) (1872–1956) was a prominent German philosopher associated with the intellectual movement known as ‘vitalism’ (Biozentrismus). He seems to have been a solitary child, but he developed an intense friendship with a Jewish classmate named Theodor Lessing, who would himself go on to achieve fame as the theorist of “Jewish Self-Hatred,” a concept whose origins Lessing would later trace back to passionate discussions that he had had with Klages during their boyhood rambles on the windswept moors and beaches of their Lower Saxony home.  Shortly after the NSDAP seized power at the beginning of 1933, one of Klages’s disciples established the Arbeitskreises für biozentrisches Forschung (Working Group for Research on Vitalism). From 1938 onwards, when Reichsleiter Dr. Alfred Rosenberg delivered a bitter attack on Klages and his school in his inaugural address to the summer semester at the University of Halle, the official party spokesmen explicitly and repeatedly condemned Klages and his friends as enemies of the National Socialist Weltanschauung. Yet many prominent NS officials and many influential German academics in the Third Reich and after WWII had a very high opinion of Klages’ work.

The following material is derived from two sources:

Hans Eggert Schroder’s book: Ludwig Klages, Die Geschichte Seines Lebens (Ludwig Klages: The Story of His Life) (Bonn: 1966,1992), hereafter GL

Ludwig Klages’ book Rhythmen und Runen (Rhythms and Runes)(1944), hereafter RR.

The quotations from RR ‘disappeared’ after the WWII in subsequent German editions.

Mankind and Race

We must draw a sharp distinction between the man who sees the world as divided between the “human” and the “non-human,” and the man who is most profoundly struck by the obvious racial groupings of mankind (Nietzsche’s “masters”). The bridge that connects us to the Cosmos does not originate in “man,” but in race. (RR, 245)

Sin and the Pagan World

The idea of “sin” was quite alien to the pagan world. The ancient pagans knew the gods’ hatred as well as their revenge, but they never heard of punishment for “sin.” The ancient philosophers did understand something of the “good,” but when they employed this expression, they were certainly not endorsing the concept of the “sinless.” Quite the contrary: they were actually speaking of the pursuit of every type of excellence. (RR, 317) 

The True Master of Secret Societies

In the forefront of our secret societies, we have the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the “Odd Fellows,” and B’nai B’rith. The educated classes are provided with such recent varieties as … the Einstein cult and Freudianism. For half-educated fools we have H. P. Blavatsky, Anny Besant, Rudolf Steiner, and Krishnamurti. For the poor in spirit, there’s the Christian Science of Mrs. Eddy, the Oxford Movement, and biblical fundamentalism. All of these groups, along with innumerable lesser organizations, are humanitarianism’s masks. Jewry is the center from which they are ruled. (GL, 1345)

Christianity and Wakefulness

Even in the garden of olives Christ begged his disciples to remain awake by his side. The saints indicate by their sleeplessness that nothing can harm them. Christianity is the war against sleep and dreaming, two states for which a reviving elemental life will always be yearning. Against the activity of astral wakefulness, elemental life places consummation and the pagan feeling for fate. True pagans regard sleeplessness as the most monstrous conceivable evil. In addition, the wakefulness of the Christian manifests a slavish impulse: the lurking wariness and prudence of submissive souls. (RR, 253)

From A Letter Re: “Anti-Semitism”

I’ve never endorsed the claim that the Nazi Bonzes [big-wigs] belonged to a superior race. However, I must also add that I have consistently refused to accept the claim of a certain other race to be the “chosen people.” The arrogance is identical in both cases, but with this significant distinction: after waging war against mankind for more than three thousand years, Jewry has finally achieved total victory over all of the nations of the earth.

Therefore, I will have nothing to do with the contemporary kowtowing on the part of almost the entire civilized world before the haters of all mankind (Tacitus spoke of Christians, but he certainly meant the Jews, as will be obvious to every alert reader of his works). I despise all this kowtowing to the Jews as an utterly mendacious tactical ploy. (GL, 1350)

The Prophecy of a Jewish Friend

I might easily fill ten pages…with anecdotes concerning the life of Richard Perls. He was born a Jew, but he eventually abandoned Judaism, a religion that he had come to hate. One year before his death, which occurred, to the best of my recollection, in 1897, he said to me: “Herr Klages, the ancient world was destroyed by Judaism, just as the modern world is about to be!” When I voiced my skepticism as to the accuracy of his prophecy…he merely responded: “Just wait—you will live to see my prophecy fulfilled!” (GL, 196)

The Great Deceiver 

To the Jew, everything human is a sham. One might even say that the Jewish face is nothing but a mask. The Jew is not a liar: he is the lie itself. From this vantage point, we can say that the Jew is not a man. … He lives the pseudo-life of a ghoul whose fortunes are linked to Yahweh-Moloch. He employs deception as the weapon with which he will exterminate mankind. The Jew is the very incarnation of the unearthly power of destruction. (RR, 330)

How Yahweh Expresses Himself

Yahweh’s medium of expression is the gesture. The meaning of all of his gestures, so far as they actually possess any metaphysical significance, can be interpreted as an ever-deeper subjugation of one principle at the hands of an ever-loftier one: consecration, blessing, etc., on the one side, and repentance, contrition, and adoration on the other. Semitic religiosity is restricted to adoring worshipper and the adored deity. When this religiosity attaches itself solely to the personal, the emblem of worship becomes the individual person. Only the Semitic religions bow to the “One God.” In adoration, the believer achieves the non-rational form of ego-consciousness. Pagan rationality glides right past the god to the ego; in the Semitic “service of God,” however, the transcendental “One” brings destruction to the world of “appearances.” Apollo is, so to speak, an ethically developed Dionysus; he works on the soil of blood-thinning. Yahweh is the all-devouring nothingness; he works on the soil of blood-poisoning. (RR, 321)

The Cult of the Christ

It is impossible to conceive of a more fatal blindness than that of the cult instigated by this Jewish sectarian and his apostles and camp followers. Torn from the bonds of nature and the past, man must now direct his gaze at the wasteland known as the “future”; into that desert he stares, paralyzed by dread of the vengeful Jew-God. And before this insane masquerade of the “kingdom come,” the “last judgment,” and “eternal punishment” can be consummated, the true heroes and the real gods must first be made to grovel before the cross! (RR, 285)

* * *

Source: Occidental Observer

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/ludwig-klages-on-judaism-christianity-and-paganism-excerpts-and-aphorisms/feed/ 0
Honor, Discipline, and Dylann Roof http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/honor-discipline-and-dylann-roof/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/honor-discipline-and-dylann-roof/#comments Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:00:51 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4180 Roof_100_1688American Dissident Voices broadcast of June 27, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

JUDGED FROM a Cosmotheist perspective, the recent actions of Dylann Roof — who killed nine Blacks by shooting them in their largely-segregated Charleston, SC church a few days ago — are simultaneously understandable, inevitable, and misdirected. And they may contribute — in ways that neither Roof nor our enemies anticipate — to breaking the stasis that holds White people in our current downward slow-death spiral. (ILLUSTRATION: Dylann Roof; photograph from his LastRhodesian Web site)

What Dylann Roof did on June 17 was understandable for many, many reasons — almost all of which are considered unmentionable by the powers that be in the former United States of America.

It is a fact that some 90 per cent. of interracial . . . → Read More: Honor, Discipline, and Dylann Roof]]> Roof_100_1688American Dissident Voices broadcast of June 27, 2015

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

JUDGED FROM a Cosmotheist perspective, the recent actions of Dylann Roof — who killed nine Blacks by shooting them in their largely-segregated Charleston, SC church a few days ago — are simultaneously understandable, inevitable, and misdirected. And they may contribute — in ways that neither Roof nor our enemies anticipate — to breaking the stasis that holds White people in our current downward slow-death spiral. (ILLUSTRATION: Dylann Roof; photograph from his LastRhodesian Web site)

What Dylann Roof did on June 17 was understandable for many, many reasons — almost all of which are considered unmentionable by the powers that be in the former United States of America.

It is a fact that some 90 per cent. of interracial violent crime is Black on White in this country. It is also a fact that far more than 90 per cent. of the national news coverage of interracial crime carried in the controlled media concerns allegedly “racist” Whites (or proxies for Whites such as the racially-mixed George Zimmerman) who kill or harm Blacks or other non-Whites. From the Rodney King affair a quarter century ago, to the “unrest” stoked by media outrage over the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray cases in recent years, there is a repeated pattern of media sensationalism and the deliberate creation of a narrative of alleged nationwide “White racism” to justify Black violence. But when young Whites are raped and tortured and murdered execution-style by Blacks — when a little White boy is blowtorched to death by a Black — when innumerable other crimes against Whites are committed — there is no outrage, and usually no national coverage at all, from the controlled media.

(It’s interesting to note that Dylann Roof’s own actions are now the subject of exactly the same kind of selective media outrage that awakened Roof in the first place. Just as the CIA drone bombings of innocents in the Middle East produces hundreds of new “bin Ladens” for every “terrorist” killed, so too does the Jews’ own overreaching and unabashed hatred of Whites bring new White awakenings every day.)

And Dylann Roof noticed all this. He saw he was being lied to on a massive scale. He saw who the real victims and real perpetrators were. He did research and found White nationalist Web sites that told the truth — the verifiable truth — on these matters. He checked the facts, and even found some of the data on interracial crime on Wikipedia. And, angered because he had been lied to, and by the fact that he saw no real, effective action to counter the liars, he decided that he had to act himself. And he unfortunately decided to make his act an act of mere revenge.

Since Roof’s act of revenge there have been several other mass shootings, two of them in Philadelphia and Detroit in just the last few days. Since these were all Black-on-Black shootings, of which there are hundreds every year, they received close to zero media attention. Not a single network pundit bade us worry about the epidemic of Black crime — which is real — but plenty opined on the almost nonexistent threat of “White racist” violence.

As one astute observer remarked to me recently:

Spree killings are now relatively common among all races in America.

But elites care only about those perpetrated by Whites, especially racially conscious ones. They selectively use such killings to advance the state’s genocidal agenda. If there were no White spree killings at all, nothing would change. There would merely be different excuses and “justifications.” The killings don’t make matters worse (or better) for Whites; they don’t speed up genocide or slow it down.

Three episodes must be separated from run-of-the-mill killings: the activities of The Order in the 1980s, Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s, and Anders Behring Breivik in Norway in 2011. These are of an entirely different degree of sophistication and magnitude than the others. McVeigh, of course, was not a racialist, but he was anti-government.

The 1980s and ’90s already belong to a different era from the standpoint of social and political milieu. Jewish power and hatred has enormously increased in the interim, Whites are on their deathbed, and Big Government is more sinister and extremist than ever. Ominously, Jews keep ratcheting up murderous hatred against Whites. Their shrillness and bloodthirstiness is impossible to ignore.

As far as the other killings go, the most remarkable thing about them is their pointlessness. The perpetrators are aware that they will die or wind up in prison for life. Yet they do not even choose high-value targets. There is essentially no rhyme or reason to their actions. This makes me view them more as symptoms than individuals.

Jews, the Left, and the government are committing genocide. There is no doubt about that. It can be denied, but denial does not alter the fact. When a decision is made to eliminate an entire race of people, never mind a major race of mankind — the first time in history that such an operation has been contemplated and undertaken — there is bound to be a reflex action on the part of the victims, no matter how mild and ineffectual. Spree killers are one such reflex.

My view is that the members of the ruling class responsible for the greatest crime against humanity ever committed should thank their god, the Devil, every night that they have been let off so easily. They don’t, of course, but they should. It is remarkable that basically nothing has happened to them, or will happen to them, apart from a massive increase in their wealth and power. Amerindians put up a far more spirited fight against dispossession than have Whites against intentional genocide which the ruling class itself sanctimoniously declares to be the most serious of all crimes!

They are obviously running a well-oiled killing machine with utmost efficiency.

Since Dylann Roof’s deed, the Jewish power structure has been in double overdrive, seeking to ban the Confederate flag as a “racist symbol,” censor pro-White speech, and ratchet up government persecution of White dissidents, using Roof as an excuse. The media frenzy has been monomaniacal and continuous. The spilling of blood, as it often does, has flushed out the enemy from his hiding places and kicked all of us out of our former stasis, so new dangers — and opportunities — are about to emerge. (Large rallies in the South to oppose the demonization and banning of the Confederate flag are being planned — and the National Alliance will be there, raising racial awareness with this flyer, downloadable here [5.5×8.5 inches and 2-up 8.5×11 inches].)

Dylann Roof’s actions were inevitable because our race still produces men of honor, and men of honor do not go gentle into that good night. A man of honor is not submissive when his loved ones, his family, and the innocent among his folk are killed, tortured, cruelly abused, and enslaved. A man of honor is moved to action when his people are being exterminated and when that willful murder is covered up and justified by lies. A man of honor does not keep silent and do nothing even when keeping silent and doing nothing would result in a painless, easy life. A man of honor steps forward and takes responsibility regardless of personal consequences. As long as our race survives, it will produce men of honor. Honor without discipline, organization, and understanding, however, is ineffective.

Dylann Roof’s understanding was incomplete, and his choice of actions was more than unfortunate — but there will be many more who choose to act in the years to come, men of honor who cannot stand aside and be a spectator to a slaughter of the innocent, to the genocide of our people. And it will be our responsibility to see that those men of honor have a more complete understanding of our people’s plight than did Dylann Roof; it will be our responsibility to ensure that their lives are not wasted on a fruitless gesture of revenge, a slaughter of the innocent among other peoples — while leaving the real murderers unscathed. It will be our responsibility to organize men and women of honor into an organization and a community — and to make that organization the unquestioned vehicle for our people’s rebirth, so that organizational discipline and training and education can direct the energies of such men into a finely-honed and expertly-directed  sword that cuts out all of the rot and the evil and, to the maximum extent possible, only the rot and the evil and leaves the innocent unharmed. My vision is not merely one of Dylann Roof being held back from throwing away his life on an unworthy act, but of building a whole new nation — in the beginning, a nation-in-the-making — in which the martial instincts and inborn patriotism of our youth can find a healthy outlet in the defense of our race and our culture, instead of being thrown away murdering innocents in the Middle East for Israel — or murdering innocents in Europe for NATO and the bankers.

Roof’s actions were misdirected because the Blacks that Roof targeted were the least offensive, least dangerous, and among the most self-segregated Blacks imaginable short of actual separatists; and because they and other Blacks have no power to create — and no intellectual ability to engineer — the multidimensional pincer movement of violence, demoralization, moral perversion, wealth transfer, and mass replacement that threatens White survival. Without the agitation and self-interested manipulation of both Whites and Blacks by the Jewish power structure, American Blacks would either be self-segregated to the point of near-harmlessness — or they’d have been placed on the other side of a border or an ocean from us long ago. If Dylann Roof wanted to sacrifice his freedom and his life in order to inspire Whites to awaken to their grave danger, or defend them against those who are engineering their downfall, why target non-Whites who were most likely not involved in any conscious way in the war against us? — who were perceived as merely trying to live their lives in peace? Such a choice helped our enemies enlist the support of empathetic, altruistic, and sympathetic Whites in their efforts to outlaw speech and organizing on behalf of our race.

How different it would have been if, say, three major operatives of the banking cartel that is bleeding us to death — and three bought-and-paid-for Jew-fawning war-criminal White politicians of the most corrupt and sickening type — and three tax-sucking academics whose careers are based on teaching White students to hate their own race and work for its death — had all been removed from the ranks of the living instead. And how different it would have been if — instead of the way of the barbarian, the Mongol, and the Jew, the way of summary execution — these men had been arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, and punished for capital murder, incitement to murder, genocide, war crimes, theft, fraud, and all the rest of their unspeakable crimes, as appropriate.

How different it would have been if such punishment had been meted out not just by an individual outraged at the crimes of the illegal regime and its overlords, but by a group — a government-in-the-making along the lines of the Irish freedom fighters or the PLO — dedicated to restoring freedom, self-government, and self-determination to our people. Call it the Provisional Revolutionary Government of North America if you like. Whatever you call it, it doesn’t exist — yet. And that’s where we have failed the current generation of White youth. That’s where we failed Dylann Roof.

With discipline — with an organizational vehicle for their physical, mental, and moral energy — with a thorough understanding of their people’s history and a firm grounding in who we are in both the biological and historical senses — with a support network of thousands of racial patriots — with a healthy community in which they can find mates and build for the future — and with the moral certainty of a new, unshakable, fighting creed of iron — our future warriors will be assets to a new and rising nation with an unlimited destiny, instead of out-of-control liabilities to a cowed and cowardly herd of domesticated cattle whose highest aspirations are to live without exertion and to die without pain. Building such a vehicle is the task of the National Alliance, which is well expressed in the National Vanguard logotype: Toward a New Consciousness; a New Order; a New People. Join and help us in that great task — today.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at Whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. You can join and support us by visiting natall.com — or write to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.

Listen to the broadcast ]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/honor-discipline-and-dylann-roof/feed/ 9
Podcast: Western Spring’s Matt Tait on Red Ice http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/podcast-western-springs-matt-tait-on-red-ice/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/podcast-western-springs-matt-tait-on-red-ice/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2015 22:00:40 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4169

“MATTHEW TAIT joined the British National Party (BNP) at age 18 and founded a local party branch from scratch. He has stood for election at the local and national level on many occasions and faced persecution in the press and at work. Matt went on to found Western Spring, a fast growing ‘post-Nationalist’ community group who advocates innovative strategies to further the cause of Western Civilization and the European people. Matt is also the leader of Legion Martial Arts Club, which organizes camping events for younger people and aims to teach a variety of life skills.

In this talk, Matt focuses on positive solutions and strategies where he is taking the lead and reaching out to all those who wish to play a meaningful and successful part in a new century of European achievement. Before . . . → Read More: Podcast: Western Spring’s Matt Tait on Red Ice]]>

“MATTHEW TAIT joined the British National Party (BNP) at age 18 and founded a local party branch from scratch. He has stood for election at the local and national level on many occasions and faced persecution in the press and at work. Matt went on to found Western Spring, a fast growing ‘post-Nationalist’ community group who advocates innovative strategies to further the cause of Western Civilization and the European people. Matt is also the leader of Legion Martial Arts Club, which organizes camping events for younger people and aims to teach a variety of life skills.

In this talk, Matt focuses on positive solutions and strategies where he is taking the lead and reaching out to all those who wish to play a meaningful and successful part in a new century of European achievement. Before this, he stresses the need to correctly diagnose the source of our malaise and provides reasons why none of us should give in to pessimism and hopelessness. We speak about the profit-driven corporate matrix we live in, where no system of control exists and machines are becoming more powerful than man. We also touch on the victim mentality that prevents ordinary people from doing anything really useful in society and the deliberate separation between Europeans and their history that prevents them from comprehending their sheer potential. Matt tells about some of the encounters with citizens in his community he experienced while campaigning for the BNP, relating how desperately people are craving new leadership and radical change towards a traditional culture.

In the second half, Matt continues on the theme of the urgency for self-examination and greater personal dedication to the cause as well as taking more varied and intelligent approaches to overcoming our enemies. He speaks about his dream of writing a digestible form of the European story in order to bring alive the vision and message of nationalism in a simple, traditional and factual way. To conclude, we envision the steps to creating a stimulating, supportive, confident community that is accessible to like-minded people and those who are fed up with the current social justice warrior-ridden mess of liberal politics and ready to contribute to a promising movement.”

* * *

Source: Western Spring

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/podcast-western-springs-matt-tait-on-red-ice/feed/ 4
The Interesting Case of Verda Byrd http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-interesting-case-of-verda-byrd/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-interesting-case-of-verda-byrd/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:00:43 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4163 Verda-Byrd-4aby Max Musson

FOLLOWING hot on the heals of the Rachel Dolezal case we have been presented by the mass media with yet another story obviously designed to confuse people and blur our perception of the issues of race and ethnic identity, the case of Verda Byrd. Unlike Rachel Dolezal however, Verda Byrd is not a White woman pretending to be Black, she is described in the media as a ‘White woman’ who for seventy years believed she was Black.

We are told in the various news media accounts that have been published that Verda Byrd was as a baby, first fostered and subsequently adopted by an ‘African-American’ couple, Ray and Edwinna Wagner, and was raised as a ‘Black child’, having been told by her adoptive parents that she was a ‘light-skinned African American’. Having lived as an . . . → Read More: The Interesting Case of Verda Byrd]]> Verda-Byrd-4aby Max Musson

FOLLOWING hot on the heals of the Rachel Dolezal case we have been presented by the mass media with yet another story obviously designed to confuse people and blur our perception of the issues of race and ethnic identity, the case of Verda Byrd. Unlike Rachel Dolezal however, Verda Byrd is not a White woman pretending to be Black, she is described in the media as a ‘White woman’ who for seventy years believed she was Black.

We are told in the various news media accounts that have been published that Verda Byrd was as a baby, first fostered and subsequently adopted by an ‘African-American’ couple, Ray and Edwinna Wagner, and was raised as a ‘Black child’, having been told by her adoptive parents that she was a ‘light-skinned African American’. Having lived as an ‘African American’ for most of her life, Verda decided at the age of seventy to begin tracing her biological parents and discovered they were both recorded as ‘White’. Subsequently, Verda has been re-united with three siblings, the only surviving children of her biological mother who had ten children in all.

Verda-Byrd-5Verda Byrd has been angered by the Rachel Dolezal case and has spoken out critically, as she feels that Dolezal has deceived people, claiming to be something she is not. This however causes us to examine Verda Byrd and her true racial status, as Byrd’s criticisms of Dolezal would appear to be misplaced if not hypocritical if she too were found to be claiming to be something she is not, and this issue of true racial status is brought sharply into question when one sees photographs of Byrd, who would appear to be of mixed race and not ‘White’ as she claims.

So, free from media hype and stories driven by an evident bias towards causing confusion over these issues, let us examine the facts of Verda Byrd’s background, just as we did regarding Rachel Dolezal, in my earlier article about her.

Earl and DaisyVerda Byrd was born Jeanette Beagle on 27th September 1942, apparently the fifth child born to a White couple, Earl and Daisy Beagle. Very shortly after Jeanette was born however, Earl Beagle walked out on his wife and never came back. It would appear that something significant had happened that motivated Earl Beagle to abruptly end his relationship with Daisy, the mother of his four other children, and sadly in February 1943,  just months after Earl had walked out, Daisy was involved in an accident at work which left her hospitalised and unable to care for her children for many months.  The children were all placed in care and while the older siblings were later returned to their mother, Jeanette who was still a baby and by this time had no memory of her biological mother, was deemed as too settled with her foster parents to have her life disrupted again. Daisy agreed to Jeanette’s adoption by the Wagners, who renamed her Verda and raised her as their adopted African American child.

Verda-Byrd-4bIf one examines photographs of Verda as a child, and as a young woman, she bears a striking similarity in appearance to her adoptive mother Edwinna Wagner, who was a ‘light-skinned African American’ woman and this was undoubtedly something that would have pleased Edwinna Wagner and been a significant factor in her decision to adopt Verda.

If one compares the photographs of Verda as a child and a young woman with a photograph of Earl and Daisy Beagle, it becomes apparent that she bears very little resemblance to either parent. We know that Daisy acknowledged Verda (Jeanette) as her biological child, but the obvious physical dissimilarity between Verda and Earl Beagle leads one to strongly suspect that he was probably not her biological father. For Verda to have the appearance of the ‘light-skinned African American’, one would logically expect her biological father to be a somewhat less lightly-skinned African American rather than the very European looking Earl Beagle.

In a report of this case in the San Antonio Express News, it states: “Interesting questions have been raised on the journey of self-discovery. One of Byrd’s sisters [presumably Sybil Panko] wondered whether their father was the same man. She noted Byrd seemed to have black features … [another sister, Kathryn Rouillard] said any concerns about Byrd’s heritage, or why Byrd was put up for adoption are a moot point …”

Verda-Byrd-1

If one looks at a photograph of Verda Byrd with her three surviving siblings, it is evident that appearance wise, she is very much the odd-one-out. Sybil Panko, who is seventy-six years old and was evidently one of Earl and Daisy Beagle’s first four children, bears a strong similarity to her father, while Verda does not. The two younger siblings, Kathryn Rouillard, who is fifty-nine and Debbi Romero, who is fifty-six, resemble their mother and because of their ages, are obviously children that Daisy Beagle had much later with her second husband — her name was Daisy Pierce at her death.

The balance of probability therefore overwhelmingly suggests that Daisy and Earl Beagle had four children together and when Daisy became pregnant once again, eventually giving birth to Verda (Jeanette), Earl noticed the non-White appearance of the new baby and suspecting his wife of infidelity, walked out on her.

Once Daisy had recovered from the accident she later suffered, she regained custody of the four ‘legitimate’ children by her former husband, but was persuaded by social services to allow her ‘light-skinned’ but evidently mixed-race baby to be adopted by the Wagners. In race conscious 1940s America a White woman with four White children could still envisage finding a new husband, but a White woman with four White children and a mixed-race baby would have great difficulty finding a new husband, either Black or White.

While a comparative DNA analysis of Verda and her three half-sisters would be interesting to see,  it seems virtually certain that Verda, a person of very dilute non-White ancestry, was correctly identified by her adoptive mother and is as she has always previously believed, a ‘light-skinned, African American woman’ — not the ‘White woman’ she now believes herself to be.

* * *

Source: Western Spring

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-interesting-case-of-verda-byrd/feed/ 1
The Evolution of the Jewish Banking Swindle http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-evolution-of-the-jewish-banking-swindle/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-evolution-of-the-jewish-banking-swindle/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:30:58 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4158 img_3431_hdr

by David Sims

MOST PEOPLE assume that the banks act in good faith and in the public interest. They could not be more wrong. Our money system is the creation of the Jews, a predator race, for whom usury, deception and subversion are basic tools.

During the middle ages, gold coins were used as money. Gold is heavy, and thieves would try to steal it. So people who had a lot of gold, but who didn’t have any safe places of their own to keep it, began renting strongboxes from others who promised to keep the gold secure. For a fee, of course. Think of it as a rented locker for gold coins.

Most of the people who owned the deposited gold were European nobles. Most of the people to whom the gold was entrusted . . . → Read More: The Evolution of the Jewish Banking Swindle]]> img_3431_hdr

by David Sims

MOST PEOPLE assume that the banks act in good faith and in the public interest. They could not be more wrong. Our money system is the creation of the Jews, a predator race, for whom usury, deception and subversion are basic tools.

During the middle ages, gold coins were used as money. Gold is heavy, and thieves would try to steal it. So people who had a lot of gold, but who didn’t have any safe places of their own to keep it, began renting strongboxes from others who promised to keep the gold secure. For a fee, of course. Think of it as a rented locker for gold coins.

Most of the people who owned the deposited gold were European nobles. Most of the people to whom the gold was entrusted for safekeeping were goldsmiths, and most of the goldsmiths were Jews. Whenever a European noble would leave some gold with a goldsmith for safekeeping, he would get a receipt for the amount of gold he’d deposited, and by this receipt he would claim his gold again when he had need of it, reduced by the amount the Jew charged as his fee.

As the years went by, the nobles discovered that they could use the receipts as money of the “bearer bond” sort. Whenever the noble wanted to buy something, he didn’t like to go running to the Jew to make a partial withdrawal of his deposit—especially since the Jew was charging for that service also. Instead, when he made his deposit, he had the Jew write him receipts for 1%, 5%, 10% portions of the gold on deposit, which added up to 100% altogether. And when the noble bought something from somebody, he would sign over the ownership of one of these fractional receipts to the seller. By this means paper money came into common use. Originally, it was a certificate by which an amount of precious metal could be claimed.

For a while, it is possible that the Jewish goldsmiths were scrupulously honest in their accounting. Maybe. But things didn’t stay that way. Over time, the Jews discovered that the nobles had come to rely on their paper receipts as money, and they hardly ever came to call upon him for a return of their deposited gold. By careful estimation, the Jews calculated that they could safely begin using about 90% of this gold as they pleased. So what they started doing was lending the gold to third parties at interest. The Jews had no right to do this, since the gold didn’t really belong to them, and each loan carried a risk of default or of simply being stolen by thieves.

Remember that the whole point of the Jews keeping the nobles’ gold was to keep it safe, in a strongbox, so that thieves would not have an opportunity to steal it. So not only did the Jews begin taking income from lending valuable property that was not theirs to lend, the very act of their using the deposited gold in this manner was a breach of contract with the nobles who really did own the gold. The Jews had begun putting at risk what they had promised to shield from risk.

More time went by, and a further financial development came about. Instead of releasing any of the gold right away to borrowers, the Jews started writing promissory notes on the deposited gold. That’s a note that promised to pay gold to someone who borrowed it—from the Jewish goldsmith, who didn’t really own the gold that he was promising to pay with. Instead of walking out of the goldsmith’s office with any actual gold, a borrower walked out with a promise written on a piece of paper. A Jew’s promise was supposed to be “as good as gold.”

So now there was, upon each coin of gold in the Jews’ strongbox, two written instruments by which it might be claimed. The first one was the receipt that the Jew had given to the noble, whose property the gold really was. The second one was the promissory note that the Jew had given to a borrower. And both the receipts and the promissory notes entered general circulation as paper money.

Since the Jews had taken the step of creating more possible claims on gold coins than could be satisfied by the number of gold coins they had, there didn’t seem to be any reason for them to hesitate about issuing a second promissory note upon each gold coin, and then a third, and so on. And charge the full rate of interest against each borrower, as if they could have paid them all in real gold.

But, although each gold coin could be claimed by more than one written instrument, the rate at which the Jews had to produce the actual gold coins was low enough that they never got caught short. If anyone had known that the Jews would be caught short of gold were all of the possible claimants to present their demands, there would have been a “run on the bank” as each depositor and each borrower tried to make sure that he wasn’t one of the persons upon whom the Jew would have to default.

But by maintaining the illusion that there was enough gold to pay everybody, the Jews were able to continue making promises to pay that they could not keep, and so they were also able to continue extracting interest on loans of gold whose aggregate principal was several times greater than the amount of gold (other people’s gold!) that was actually in their strongboxes.

This was sort of a gamble for the Jews, during these early days of the Jewish banking swindle. If the nobles and the kings had caught on to the Jews’ tricks soon enough, then matters could have been set aright by having the king’s soldiers forcibly seize all the gold and execute the offending, presumptuous Jews. But the European nobility did not catch on in time, or else they did not see where the Jews were going with their scam and so did not muster the necessary amount of concern to nip it in the bud.

And so the devil’s seed grew. The Jews kept getting richer and richer by lending out other people’s gold, and lending it in several different directions at once, while the working classes kept getting poorer because of the interest that the Jews charged on their loans.

Eventually, the Jews had so much money by this means that kings who found themselves in need of funding started coming to them for loans, which meant that the Jews began to have financial leverage over the governments of Europe. Leverage that could be used, for example, to start wars. The Jews had an incentive to start wars because, being expensive, wars forced governments to borrow from them further and going ever more deeply into debt, which provided the Jews with an income from the interest. The more war, the more borrowing, the more debt, the more interest, the more wealthy the Jews got, the more the Jews could incite more wars, forcing governments to do more borrowing… and so on.

And that’s why Europe’s history went the way it did, for the past 400 years.

Several Jewish families, including the Rothschilds and the Warburgs, formalized their financial swindles as banking houses. It was still the same assortment of cheats and tricks, only now it had a patina of respectability from the spaciousness of the lobby, the sumptuousness of its furnishings, the dress and grooming of its employees, etc. And this predatory Jewish activity continues today as the Federal Reserve System, as the Bank of England, as the House of Rothschild, and other institutions that might strike you as respectable until you know what they really are: huge financial frauds, the like of which the law should never treat with friendly hands, improperly, immorally, and treacherously given a legal license to cheat people.

Henry Ford, writing in the Cleveland News on 20 September 1923, recognized that the only way for the world to escape from the snare of Jewish finance was to round up all of the Jews who were involved in its scams and “control them”; i.e., either execute them or hold them fast and incommunicado in a prison until they died.

“Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will put an end to it all.” —Henry Ford

The fundamental reason that American businesses can’t both be profitable and pay good wages is the money system used in the United States: the Federal Reserve System. It’s a usury-based scam disguised as “the dollar,” more or less run by Zionist Jews, and it sucks wealth away from employers and workers alike. It’s been doing so for 100 years, after the most significant failure of government in history, which was Congress allowing the Federal Reserve Act to pass in 1913 and then failing to repeal it in 1914. Similar Jewish scams exist in the United Kingdom (the Bank of England) and in almost every country of Europe.

* * *

Source: David Sims

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/the-evolution-of-the-jewish-banking-swindle/feed/ 0
Jewish Intolerance http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/jewish-intolerance/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/jewish-intolerance/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:00:41 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4154 devi

by Savitri Devi (pictured)

JEWISH “racism” has been much discussed. And the doctrine of the “chosen people” is often regarded as an expression of this “racism.” Yet in reality the Jews of Antiquity (I mean, of course, orthodox Jews) believed that membership in their race, that is, in the “family of Abraham,” had value only if it were combined with exclusive service to the “jealous God” Jehovah, Israel’s exclusive protector. According to the Bible, Moabites and Ammonites, though enemies of Israel, were closely connected racially to the Jews. Did not the former descend from Moab, son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot and his youngest daughter? (Genesis 19.36-38) Now, Lot, son of Haran, was the nephew of Abraham (Genesis 11.27). Evidently genealogical kinship did . . . → Read More: Jewish Intolerance]]> devi

by Savitri Devi (pictured)

JEWISH “racism” has been much discussed. And the doctrine of the “chosen people” is often regarded as an expression of this “racism.” Yet in reality the Jews of Antiquity (I mean, of course, orthodox Jews) believed that membership in their race, that is, in the “family of Abraham,” had value only if it were combined with exclusive service to the “jealous God” Jehovah, Israel’s exclusive protector. According to the Bible, Moabites and Ammonites, though enemies of Israel, were closely connected racially to the Jews. Did not the former descend from Moab, son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot and his youngest daughter? (Genesis 19.36-38) Now, Lot, son of Haran, was the nephew of Abraham (Genesis 11.27). Evidently genealogical kinship did not facilitate relations between these peoples and the children of Israel. If blood joined them together, their respective cults nevertheless separated them. Chemosh, god of Moabites, and Milcom, god of the Ammonites, were in the eyes of the Jews “abominations” — as were all the gods of the earth, save their own God — and their worshippers, enemies to be exterminated.

Jewish racism, independent of religion — the attitude which consists in accepting as a Jew and treating accordingly anyone born Jewish, whatever his religious beliefs might be — is apparently a much more recent phenomenon, dating at the earliest from the eighteenth or the seventeenth century, that is, from the time when masonic lodges of Israelite inspiration began to play a role in determining the politics of Western nations. It was perhaps a product of the influence of Western rationalism on the Jews — in spite of themselves. It found its most striking expression at the end of the nineteenth century and during the twentieth in Zionism, which could be called an innovative, avant-garde Jewish nationalism. The Zionist movement does respect, certainly, the religious tradition of the Talmud and the Bible, but without in any way being identified with it. Its political faith is “national,” but could not be compared with that of modern Greece, since the latter is so inseparable from the official state religion. But I shall call Zionism a nationalism rather than a “racism,” because it implies the exaltation of the Jewish people as such, without any enthusiastic consciousness of a blood solidarity uniting all the various desert peoples customarily called “Semitic.”

Although modern in its expression, this Jewish nationalism is not in its essence different from the solidarity which, after the introduction of the Mosaic law, existed among all the children of Israel from the thirteenth century before the Christian era. The religion of Jehovah played a paramount role then. But its role consisted precisely in forming a feeling in all Jews, from the most powerful to the most humble, that they were the chosen people, the privileged people, different from other people, including those closest to them in blood, and exalted above them all. The Jews have felt that more and more in modern times, without the aid of a national religion; hence the decreasing importance of this religion among them, except in a few permanent centers of Jewish orthodoxy.

hebron

Intolerance on the Occupied West Bank (Hebron, August 2001): A Palestinian mother is kicked by a Jewish boy while a Jewish woman rips off her Islamic headscarf.

In other words, the Jews, who for centuries had been an unimportant Middle Eastern tribe among so many others, a tribe quite close to others in language and religion before Abraham and especially before the Mosaic reform, gradually became, under the influence of Moses and his successors, Joshua and Caleb, and then under the influence of the prophets, a people completely filled with the self-image they had manufactured; having nothing but contempt for men of the same race who surrounded them and, with greater reason, for people of other races; seeing only “abominations” in all their gods; even repudiating, as the prophet Ezra commanded after they returned from their long Babylonian captivity, those of their kinsmen who, having remained in Palestine, had married Canaanite women, under the pretext that the latter would loosen the link that bound them and their families to Jehovah and thus weaken their consciousness that they were a “chosen people,” a people unlike others.

They could have remained so indefinitely, isolated from the rest of the world by a national pride as incommensurable as it was unjustified, for even in Antiquity they were already rather mixed-race hybrids, if only because of their prolonged sojourn in Egypt. Had the Jews remained in their self-imposed isolation, the world would certainly have suffered no great loss — quite the contrary. But they did not, because the idea of a “single, living God” — the “true” God, in contrast to “false” gods, to local gods whose power was limited to other peoples — could only imply, sooner or later, the idea of universal truth and human community. A God who alone “lives,” while all others are merely insensate matter, at most inhabited by impure forces, can only be, logically, the true God of all possible worshippers, that is, of all men. To refuse to admit it would have required that they ascribe life, truth and benevolence to other peoples’ gods as well, in other words, that they cease seeing them only as “abominations.” And that the Jews refused to accept, after the sermons and threats of their prophets. The One God could indeed prefer a single people. But it was necessary that he be, by necessity, the God of all peoples — the one whom they, in their insane folly, were unaware of, whereas the “chosen people” alone paid him homage.

The first attitude of the Jews, as conquerors of Palestine, toward peoples who worshipped gods other than Jehovah was to hate and exterminate them. Their second attitude — after Canaanite resistance in Palestine had long ended, and especially after the Jews had lost most of what little international significance they had ever possessed, being reduced to mere subjects of Greek kings, Alexander’s successors, and later of Roman emperors — was to throw into the spiritual pasture of a declining world not only the idea of the futile emptiness of all gods (except their own), but also the false concept of “man,” independent of and distinct from peoples; of “man,” a nationless citizen of the world (and “created in the image of God”) whom Israel, the chosen people, the people of Revelation, had the mission of instructing and guiding to true “happiness.” This was the attitude of those Jews, more or less conspicuously daubed with Hellenism, who from the fourth century AD until the Arab conquest in the seventh century formed an increasingly influential proportion of the population in Alexandria, as well as in all capitals of the Hellenistic world, which would later become the Roman world. It is also the attitude of the Jews of our own era — an attitude which, precisely, makes them a people unlike others, a dangerous people: the “ferment of decomposition” of other peoples.

It is worth tracing the history of this attitude.

Its seeds, as I have suggested, already existed in the fanaticism of the servants and prophets of the “sole” and “living God,” from Samuel to the redactors of the Cabala. An important fact that should not be forgotten, if one wants to try to understand it, is that the “sole God” of the Jews is a transcendent god, but not immanent. He is outside of Nature, which he created from nothingness by an act of will, and in his essence is different from it, different not only from its sensible manifestations, but also from everything that could, in a permanent way, underlie them. He is not that Soul of the Universe in which the Greeks and all other Indo-European peoples believed, and in which Brahmanism still sees the supreme Reality. He made the world as an artisan manufactures a marvelous machine: from the outside. And he imposed upon it whatever laws he wanted, laws that could have been different, if he had wanted them different. He gave man dominion over all other creatures. And he “chose” the Jewish people from among other men not for their intrinsic value — that is clearly specified in the Bible — but arbitrarily, because of a promise made once and for all to Abraham.

From this metaphysical perspective, it was impossible to consider the gods of other peoples as “aspects” or “expressions” of the sole God, and all the less so since these gods represented, for the most part, natural forces or celestial bodies. It was also impossible to emphasize less the indeterminate variety of men and the irrefutable inequality that has always existed among the various human races and even among people more or less of the same race. “Man,” whatever that might be, had to possess, alone of created beings, an immense intrinsic value, since the Creator had formed him “in his own image” and had placed him, for that very reason, above all other living creatures. The Cabala states the matter clearly: “There exists the uncreated Being, who creates: God; the created being, who creates: man; and … the remainder: the entirety of created beings — animals, plants, minerals — which do not create.” This is the most absolute anthropocentrism, and a false philosophy from the outset, since it is obvious that “all men” are not creators (far from it!) and that some animals can in fact be creators.

But that is not all. From this new humanist perspective, not only did Jewry maintain its position as the “chosen people” — the “holy nation,” as the Bible says — destined to bear unique Revelation to the world, but everything that other peoples had produced or thought had value only insofar as it was consistent with this Revelation, or insofar as it could be interpreted in that sense. Unable to deny the enormous Greek contributions to science and philosophy, the Jews of Alexandria, Greek in culture (and sometimes with Greek names, like Aristobulus in the third century BC), did not hesitate to write that all of the most substantial products of Greek thought — the works of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle — were only due, in the final analysis, to the influence of Jewish thought, having their source in Moses and the prophets! Others, such as the famous Philo of Alexandria, whose influence on Christian apologetics was considerable, did not dare deny the obvious originality of Hellenic genius, but only retained, of the ideas they elaborated, those which they could, by altering or even by deforming them completely, bring into “concord” with the Mosaic conception of “God” and the world. Their work is that hybrid product which in the history of ideas bears the name “Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy” — an ingenious collection of interrelated concepts drawn more or less directly from Plato, though not always in the spirit of Plato, mixed together with old Jewish ideas like the transcendence of the sole God and the creation of man “in his image.” All of this was undoubtedly a superfluous scaffolding in the eyes of orthodox Jews, for whom the Mosaic Law was sufficient, but it was a marvelous instrument for seizing spiritual control over the Gentiles, in the service of Jews (orthodox or not) eager to wrest from other peoples the direction of Western (and later, global) thought.

Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and religion, increasingly permeated with the symbolism of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia and so forth, and professed by the ever more racially debased people of the Hellenistic world, constitute the backdrop against which Christian orthodoxy gradually emerged in the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the first Christian apologists, eventually taking shape during a succession of Church Councils. As Gilbert Murray remarks of the latter: “it is a strange experience … to study these obscure assemblies, whose members, proletarians of the Levant, superstitious, dominated by charlatans and desperately ignorant, still believed that God can procreate children in the womb of mortal mothers, misunderstood ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit’ and ‘divine Wisdom’ as persons bearing those names, and transformed the notion of the soul’s immortality into the ‘resurrection of the dead,’ and then to think that it was these men who followed the main road, leading to the greatest religion of the Western world.”

In this Christianity of the first centuries, preached in Greek (the international language of the Near East) by Jewish and later by Greek missionaries to raceless urban masses — so inferior, from any point of view, to the free men of the ancient Hellenic polis — there were undoubtedly more non-Jewish elements than Jewish. What dominated was a common religious subject I dare not call “Greek” but rather “Aegean” or “Mediterranean pre-Hellenic” — or even Near Eastern pre-Hellenic, for the people of Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia all more or less exemplified it in their primeval cults. It was the myth of the young god cruelly put to death — Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus — whose flesh (wheat) and blood (grape juice) became food and drink for men, and who came back to life in glory every year in Spring. This subject had never ceased to be present in the mysteries of Greece, as much in the classical era as before. Transfigured and “spiritualized” by the allegorical meanings attached to the most primitive rites, it manifested itself in the international “salvation” religions, namely in the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and Attis, Christianity’s rivals in the Roman Empire. As Nietzsche saw so clearly, the genius of Paul of Tarsus consisted in “giving a new meaning to the ancient mysteries,” taking hold of the old prehistoric myth, revivifying it, interpreting it in such way that, in perpetuity, all those who accepted his interpretation would also accept Jewry’s prophetic role and its status as “chosen people,” bearer of unique revelation.

Historically next to nothing is known about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so little about his origins and the first thirty years of his life that some serious authors have even doubted his existence. According to the canonical gospels, he was raised in the Jewish religion. But was he Jewish by blood? Several scriptural passages tend to make one believe that he was not. It has been said, moreover, that the Galileans formed a small island of Indo-European population within Palestine. At any rate, what is important, as the source of the historical turning point that Christianity represents, is that, Jewish or not, Jesus was presented as such, and what is more, was presented as the Jewish people’s expected Messiah, by Paul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity, and by all the Christian apologists who followed over the centuries. What is important is that he was, thanks to them, integrated into the Jewish tradition, forming the link between it and the old Mediterranean myth of the young vegetation god who died and rose again, a myth the Jews had never accepted. He became the Messiah, acquiring the essential attributes of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus and all the other dead gods who triumphed over Death, pushing them all into the shade for his own profit, and that of his people, with an intransigence that none of them knew, the typically Jewish intransigence of Paul of Tarsus, his teacher Gamaliel, and all the servants of the “jealous God,” Jehovah. Not only was “new meaning” given to the ancient mysteries, but this meaning was proclaimed the sole good and the sole truth, the rites and the myths of pagan antiquity, from the most remote times, having only “prepared” and “prefigured” it, just as ancient philosophy had only sensitized souls to receive the supreme revelation. And this revelation was, for Paul as for the Jews of the Judeo-Alexandrian school before him, and for all the Christian apologists that followed — Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Ireneus, Origen — given to the Jews by the God “of all mankind.”

Jewish intolerance, until then confined to a single people (and to a despised people, whom no one dreamed of imitating) extended itself, with Christianity and later with Islam — that reaction against the Hellenisation of Christian theology — to half the globe. And, moreover, it is that very intolerance that accounts for the success of the religions linked with the tradition of Israel.

I have mentioned the salvation religions, in particular the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and her lover Attis, which flourished in the Roman Empire when Christianity was still young. At first sight, each of them had as much chance of attracting to itself the restless masses for whom Roman order was not sufficient, or was no longer sufficient, and who, increasingly bastardized, felt alienated from any national cult, whatever it might be. Each of them offered to the average individual all that the religion of crucified Jesus promised, and with rites all the more able to assure his adhesion, since they were more barbarous.

mithras

Mithras Tauroctonos (“Mithra the Bull-Slayer”)

In the third century AD, the worship of Mithra — the old Indo-European solar god, contemplated through the thousand deforming mirrors that the races and traditions of his new worshippers represented — seemed destined to become dominant … provided that no decisive factor should intervene in favor of one of his rivals. The god was popular among Roman legionaries and their officers. Emperors had believed it worthwhile to receive initiation into his mysteries, under a shower of the Bull’s hot, redemptive blood. A growing number of common people followed the movement. One can say with complete confidence that the world dominated by Rome just barely failed to become Mithraic, instead of Christian, for some twenty centuries. One can say with no less certainty that, though it did not become Mithraic, this failure was due neither to any “superiority” of the Christian doctrine of salvation over the teachings of the priests of Mithra, nor to the absence of sanguinary rites among Christians, but rather to the protection granted to the religion of the Crucified by the emperor Constantine, and not to any other factor. Indeed it was Christianity’s very intolerance — especially, perhaps even exclusively — that procured the preference of the master of the Roman world.

What the emperor wanted above all was to give to this immense world, populated by people of diverse traditions and ethnicities, the most solid unity possible, without which it would be difficult to resist for long the external pressures of the so-called barbarians. Unity of worship was certainly the only kind of unity that he could hope to impose on his empire, on condition that it could be achieved quickly. Among the popular religions of salvation, Mithraism undoubtedly counted the greatest number of faithful. But it did not seem capable of being spread rapidly enough, first and foremost because it did not claim to be the only Way and the only Truth. It risked allowing its rivals to survive, and the unity that Constantine so much desired would therefore not be accomplished — or would take centuries — whereas the interest of the empire demanded that it be done within a few decades.

One could say as much of the old cult of Cybele and Attis: its priests did not proclaim, following the example of the Jews, that they alone possessed the truth; on the contrary, they believed, as did all men of Antiquity (except the Jews), that truth has innumerable facets, and that each cult helps its faithful grasp an aspect of it. They, too, would have allowed rival religions to flourish in complete liberty.

Fourth-century Christianity, although penetrated with ideas and symbols borrowed from neo-Platonism, or from the old Aegean mystical substrate, or from still more remote forms of the eternal Tradition, had itself inherited the spirit of intolerance from Judaism. Even its most enlightened apologists, the most richly nurtured in traditional Greek culture — such as a St. Clement of Alexandria or an Origen who, far from rejecting ancient wisdom, regarded it as a preparation for that of the gospels — did not put the two wisdoms on the same plane. There was, they believed, “progress” from the former to the latter, and the Jewish “revelation” retained its priority over the distant echo of the sole God’s voice which one could detect in the pagan philosophers. As for the great mass of Christians, they dismissed as “abominations” — or “demons” — all the gods of the earth, except that One who had been revealed to men of all races through the Old Testament prophets — Jewish prophets — and through Jesus and his posthumous disciple, Paul of Tarsus, the latter entirely Jewish, the former regarded by the Church as a Jew, a “son of David,” though in fact his true origins are unknown and even his historicity could be questioned.

The profound link that attaches Christianity (and in particular the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”) to the ancient mysteries ensured its survival down to our own era. And it was, for Paul of Tarsus, a stroke of (political) genius to have given to the oldest myths of the Mediterranean world an interpretation that ensured to his own people an indefinite spiritual domination over that world and over all the peoples it was destined to influence during the centuries that followed. It was, for the emperor Constantine, a stroke of genius (also political), to have chosen to encourage a religion which would, by its rapid diffusion, give to the ethnic chaos that the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire. And it was, for the German tribal chief Clodwig, known in French history as Clovis, again a stroke of genius (political, in his case also) to have felt that nothing would better ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other German leaders, than his own adhesion (and that of his warriors) to Christianity, in a world then already three-quarters Christian, where bishops represented a power to be sought out as allies. Political genius, not religious — and still less philosophical — because in each case it aimed at power, personal or national, at material stability, at success, but not at truth in the full sense of the word, that is, accord with the Eternal. It involved mundane human ambitions, not a thirst for knowledge of the Laws of Being, nor a thirst for union with the Essence of all things — the Soul, at once transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.

For if it had been different, there would have been no reason for the religion of the Nazarene to have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were its equals. Christianity had only one practical “advantage” over them: its fanaticism, its infantile intolerance inherited from the Jews — a fanaticism, an intolerance, which, during the early days of the Church, cultivated Romans or Greeks could only find laughable, and which Germans, nurtured in their own beautiful religion, simultaneously cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd, but which would give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed, since orthodox Judaism remained — and would remain — the faith of a single people.

Christianity could henceforth be combated only by another religion with equally universal pretensions, just as intolerant as it. And it is a fact that, until now, it has lost ground on a significant scale only when confronted by Islam and, in our era, by the false religion which is Communism.

* * *

The preceding text is from Chapter III of Savitri Devi’s Souvenirs et réflexions d’une Aryenne (Calcutta: Savitri Devi Mukherji, 1976). Trans. Irmin Vinson. Savitri’s footnotes have been omitted; the title is editorial. The original French text is also available.

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/jewish-intolerance/feed/ 0
Hillary Clinton and Her Enduring Ties to Jews http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-her-enduring-ties-to-jews/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-her-enduring-ties-to-jews/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:19:25 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4150 hillaryclinton2-1435142985

Hillary Clinton is not an exceptional case, perhaps only in degree. The unfortunate reality is that every major U.S. Politician have long, similar ties and connections to the world’s wealthiest and influential Jewish minority.

FROM THE man who married her grandmother to the man who married her daughter, from working a room full of bar mitzvah guests on behalf of her husband’s political career to headlining major pro-Israel events during her own, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey has never wandered far from Jews.

Clinton’s Jewish encounters have been a natural consequence of her East Coast education, her trajectory in the party favored by a substantial majority of Jewish-Americans, and her embrace of the Jewish narrative of triumphing over adversity and bigotry, longtime friends of the 2016 presidential candidate say.

Sara Ehrman, whose friendship with the Democratic . . . → Read More: Hillary Clinton and Her Enduring Ties to Jews]]> hillaryclinton2-1435142985

Hillary Clinton is not an exceptional case, perhaps only in degree. The unfortunate reality is that every major U.S. Politician have long, similar ties and connections to the world’s wealthiest and influential Jewish minority.

FROM THE man who married her grandmother to the man who married her daughter, from working a room full of bar mitzvah guests on behalf of her husband’s political career to headlining major pro-Israel events during her own, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey has never wandered far from Jews.

Clinton’s Jewish encounters have been a natural consequence of her East Coast education, her trajectory in the party favored by a substantial majority of Jewish-Americans, and her embrace of the Jewish narrative of triumphing over adversity and bigotry, longtime friends of the 2016 presidential candidate say.

Sara Ehrman, whose friendship with the Democratic front-runner dates back more than four decades, told JTA that the Clintons, upon arriving in Arkansas in the mid-1970s, quickly established ties with leaders of the state’s tiny Jewish community.

“They were a smart, educated young couple … who had come down to this wonderful little city,” said Ehrman, now 96, referring to Little Rock. “The Jews gravitated to them. Among her best and most fervent supporters were Jews.”

The Clintons would attend seders at the homes of Jewish friends during their Little Rock years, and in 1988 Bill Clinton as governor co-officiated with Rabbi Zeke Palnick of Arkansas’ capital city at the Jewish wedding of Richard and Sheila Bronfman.

The Clintons are “both very spiritual and they tend to like to experience different cultures around them,” Sheila Bronfman, who traveled the country to campaign for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and for Hillary Clinton in 2008. (Plans are underway for a road trip in advance of the 2016 presidential election, she said.)

Ehrman, a longtime activist with the Democratic Party and with pro-Israel groups, met Hillary Rodham during the 1972 George McGovern presidential campaign.

“I went down to San Antonio to run south Texas for McGovern,” Ehrman said of the Democratic nominee. “We were doing voter registration, Mexican-Americans. I wanted a lawyer to make sure everything we did was right. I called D.C., I said ‘You gotta send a lawyer down here.’ The next day, a young woman comes in, she looks 19, all in brown with Coke-bottle glasses. She said, ‘I’m Hilary Rodham, the lawyer.’ And everyone in the room said, ‘We don’t want a girl, we want a real lawyer.’ We immediately bonded as outsiders.”

Two years later, Rodham was hired by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee to investigate President Nixon’s role in the Watergate scandal. So she called Ehrman, asking whether she knew of cheap digs. Ehrman invited her to bunk at her house, and Rodham agreed.

After Nixon resigned, the two drove together from Washington, D.C., to Fayetteville, where Bill Clinton was teaching law at the University of Arkansas and where Rodham planned to join him.

“All the way down, I would say, ‘Are you out of your mind? It’s a godforsaken place, you can’t get decent food there, what are you going to do?’” recalled Ehrman, speaking to JTA in her apartment on Embassy Row here.

In Fayetteville, Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham soon befriended another law professor, Mort Gitelman.

“They were both very happy to come to the bar mitzvah of my son, Eliot,” Gitelman said in an email.

Palnick’s son Lazar, who attended the bar mitzvah, remembers Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton working the room for political support. And when his rabbi father would travel to Fayetteville for pastoral work, the teenage Lazar would ride along to help leaflet neighborhoods in support of Clinton, who would go on to lose his 1974 congressional bid to the Republican incumbent.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign, Paul Fray, Bill Clinton’s campaign manager in the ‘74 race, told a writer that Hillary Rodham, in a heated argument on election night as it became clear that Clinton would be defeated, called Fray a “f***ing Jew bastard.” Both Clintons have vehemently denied the charge, and noted that they had fallen out with Fray after the campaign. They also said that they had no idea Fray was one-eighth Jewish.

A year after the loss, the couple were married by a Methodist minister in their Fayetteville living room. The following year, Bill Clinton became the state’s attorney general, and two years after that he was elected governor of Arkansas.

“I remember them coming for seder at our house,” said Lazar Palnick, now a lawyer for the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania. “The Clintons fit very much in with a group of people who cared about feeding the poor, educating people, making sure everyone gets an opportunity.”

Hillary Clinton’s maternal grandmother, Della, who was divorced, had remarried a Jewish man, Max Rosenberg. And the presidential hopeful has credited Rosenberg with encouraging her mother, Dorothy, and her grandmother to reconcile years after Della sent Dorothy at age 8 to live with her strict and forbidding parents.

In her first autobiography, “Living History,” Hillary Clinton recalls, when she was 10, noticing numbers tattooed on the arm of an acquaintance of her father. Hugh Rodham explained that Nazis had tattooed his acquaintance when he was a prisoner of war, and told her how the Nazis also tattooed Jews, whom they murdered en masse.

“I knew that my grandmother Della’s husband, Max Rosenberg, was Jewish, and I was horrified that someone like him could have been murdered just because of his religion,” Clinton wrote in 2003.

By the time Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992, the youthful governor and his wife had become favorites among Jewish Democrats. Ehrman described a presidential campaign headquarters buzzing with Jewish activists.

“The Jews loved the Clintons so much, they were coming from around the country,” she said. “If they couldn’t come, they would send food – the whole staff would end up in the Jewish room because there were bagels from New York, Danish pastries, Goldenberg’s peanut chews.”

The “Jewish room” she describes refers to the area where Jewish activists would congregate.

Steve Rabinowitz, a campaign volunteer who went on to become a deputy communications director in the White House, recalls 100 people coming to a Yom Kippur break-fast he organized in Little Rock during the campaign.

The Jewish sensibility permeated the Clinton White House, where the first couple inaugurated the annual Hanukkah party in 1993, in part because of the abundance of Jewish staffers. They included communications chief Ann Lewis, senior adviser Rahm Emanuel and Rabinowitz. There was Jack Lew, a special assistant to President Clinton who would go on to become Treasure secretary under President Barack Obama, and Ron Klain, the chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore and now Obama’s Ebola czar.

“I said, ‘You’re having a Christmas party, you’ve got to have a Hanukkah party,’ ” Ehrman recalled. (Unlike the formal Hanukkah parties inaugurated by President George W. Bush and continued by Obama, these were for staffers and their families, although on occasion children from Washington-area Jewish day schools made an appearance.)

The Clintons’ first Israel visit, with a church group in 1981, also included the West Bank. Approaching Bill Clinton’s presidential run in 1992, they reached out to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and AIPAC helped set up a meeting with Martin Indyk, a former staffer who founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank. The trio hit it off — the meeting ran hours overtime as both Clintons peppered Indyk with questions, according to a source who was present. Indyk went on to become the U.S. ambassador to Israel and Clinton’s top Middle East peace negotiator.

Bill Clinton’s embrace of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization — initiated by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin — further strengthened the couple’s ties to national Jewish groups. Hillary Clinton’s eight years in the Senate representing New York cemented those ties. Her pro-Israel advocacy included exposing incitement in Palestinian media and helping to win full membership for Magen David Adom in the International Committee of the Red Cross. She also blamed the Palestinians, and not the Israelis, for the collapse of the 2000 Camp David peace talks and the subsequent second intifada.

Her advocacy followed the headline-making fallout from an appearance by Hillary Clinton in 1999 at an event with Suha Arafat, the wife of the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Speaking in Arabic, Suha Arafat accused Israel of poisoning Arab children. Clinton, ostensibly listening to a translation on headphones, did not react and kissed Suha Arafat after her remarks. Clinton claimed that she did not hear the reference to poisoning; she noted that others in the room missed it, too.

The subsequent tabloid attention rattled her, coming just as Clinton was launching her Senate campaign, and helped shape the political caution that has come to define her.

“I had learned a hard lesson about the hazards of merging my role in the international diplomatic arena with the complexities of local New York politics,” she wrote in “Living History.”

After winning the Senate seat in 2000, Clinton repeatedly secured the Tuesday-morning slot at national Jewish conferences for AIPAC and the Jewish Federations of North America, among others – a slot reserved for the most respected pro-Israel figure in Congress. Clinton chose the annual AIPAC conference in 2008 to concede the primaries to Obama.

For her 2016 bid, Clinton has lined up pro-Israel funding powerhouses who helped fuel her ‘08 bid, like entertainment mogul Haim Saban, and has added some of Obama’s most prominent Jewish bundlers, notably movie executive Jeffrey Katzenberg. Lewis, the former White House communications chief, leads her Jewish outreach.

There were other alliances, less noticeable back in the 1990s, that would also be consequential, at least personally.

The 1992 election swept into Congress the largest class of Jewish lawmakers ever, 51. Among them was Rep. Marjorie Margolies, D-Pa., who served a single term before being ousted in the Republican takeover of the House in ‘94. Her opponents raised the issue of Margolies’ tie-breaking vote in 1993 passing Bill Clinton’s unpopular tax bill.

The Clintons, known for their loyalty to those who fall on their sword for them, campaigned for Margolies in her 2014 congressional bid; she lost in the primaries. Neither Hillary Clinton’s office nor Margolies responded to requests for comment.

Margolies’ son, Marc Mezvinsky, met the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, when they were children at a political retreat, and fell in love when they met again at Stanford University. At their wedding, co-officiating was Rabbi James Ponet, the head rabbi at Yale.

Ponet chatted only briefly with Hillary Clinton at the wedding, but got to know her more recently at a memorial for the philanthropist Edgar Bronfman. Ponet in an interview with JTA said Clinton spoke with sensitivity about Bronfman’s efforts to make Swiss banks accountable for Holocaust-era Jewish assets.

“There’s a sense of foundational connection to the Jewish people and a sense of the responsibility to the Jewish people in the world,” he said.

Ponet also described a pre-wedding meeting with the young couple and discussing the huppah. The rabbi advised the couple that any cloth with meaning to the family could serve as a wedding canopy.

“Marc said, ‘My bar mitzvah tallit, that could be used, but I don’t know where it is’,” Ponet recalled. “Chelsea said, ‘I know where it is.’”

* * *

Source: The Forward

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/hillary-clinton-and-her-enduring-ties-to-jews/feed/ 0
NYC Grants $1.5 Million to “Struggling Holocaust Survivors” http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/nyc-grants-1-5-million-to-struggling-holocaust-survivors/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/nyc-grants-1-5-million-to-struggling-holocaust-survivors/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:56:48 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=4148 Nielsen Host Pre-Grammy Celebration

Special Jews-only grant goes to members of world’s wealthiest ethnic group; based on extremely improbable claim that half of New York City Jewish “survivors” have less than $11,000 annual income

EDITOR’S NOTE: Apparently, the richest special interest group ever known on planet Earth wants the taxpayers to take care of its elderly poor instead of providing for their needs themselves. (That’s assuming that they actually are poor, instead of just adept at concealing income.) Multimillionaire half-Jew Benjamin Bronfman (pictured), son of billionaire Edgar Bronfman Jr., heads the Founding Committee of “The Survivor Initiative” that lobbied for these funds: He could have paid the $1.5 million himself without even missing it — but no, that’s not the Jewish way.

* * *

NEW YORK CITY’S budget includes $1.5 million . . . → Read More: NYC Grants $1.5 Million to “Struggling Holocaust Survivors”]]> Nielsen Host Pre-Grammy Celebration

Special Jews-only grant goes to members of world’s wealthiest ethnic group; based on extremely improbable claim that half of New York City Jewish “survivors” have less than $11,000 annual income

EDITOR’S NOTE: Apparently, the richest special interest group ever known on planet Earth wants the taxpayers to take care of its elderly poor instead of providing for their needs themselves. (That’s assuming that they actually are poor, instead of just adept at concealing income.) Multimillionaire half-Jew Benjamin Bronfman (pictured), son of billionaire Edgar Bronfman Jr., heads the Founding Committee of “The Survivor Initiative” that lobbied for these funds: He could have paid the $1.5 million himself without even missing it — but no, that’s not the Jewish way.

* * *

NEW YORK CITY’S budget includes $1.5 million to assist Holocaust survivors living in poverty.

The $78.5 billion budget finalized Monday night includes more than $25 million for senior services, JP Updates reported. The Survivor Initiative, a 3-year-old group that, according to its website, “seeks to raise awareness and funds to assure survivors live their remaining years in dignity,” pushed for the city to allocate the $1.5 million.

In New York, the group helps fund UJA-Federation of New York’s services for survivors, which include legal services, cash assistance, mental health support, end-of-life care and home care.

According to the Survivor Initiative, approximately half of New York City’s 64,000 Holocaust survivors have an annual income of less than $11,000, and the average age of New York survivors is 83.

* * *

Source: Jerusalem Post

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/nyc-grants-1-5-million-to-struggling-holocaust-survivors/feed/ 0