You Can’t Fix Stupid

by Michael Walsh

SIT THE STUDENTS down and explain slowly: “According to the World Jewish Encyclopaedia there resided 2.4 million Jews in German-occupied Europe. After the war, 3.8 million Jewish ‘holocaust survivors’ were receiving pensions from the German government. Tragically, the remaining six million were lost.”

Let us see if the students have been paying attention and now ask the class how many Jews died during World War 2.

“Six million, sir!”

Okay, let’s start again: Doctor Charles P. Larson, one of America’s leading forensic pathologists, in 1945 was assigned to the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s department. As part of a US war crimes investigation team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other camps examining on some days more than 100 corpses.

Dr. Larson confirmed that none of the autopsies he performed showed any evidence of death by poison gas. His conclusion was that death had occurred by the agencies of typhus and starvation (as a consequence of USAAF and RAF saturation bombing).

Testing the students to see if attention is being paid the question is again asked — and the knee-jerk Pavlovian response is, “Six million, sir.”

It is exasperating, I know — but let us persist. “Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the National Socialists in Auschwitz from four million to just over one million. According to Jewish media in Tel Aviv, ‘The revised figures support claims by Israeli researchers that Poland’s former (Communist) government exaggerated the number of victims.’”

Deep breath: “Students; how many Jews were gassed at Auschwitz?”

The six million figure is again parroted — and the lesson on truth awareness becomes a surreal experience.

You try again: “Students, Norman Finkelstein joins others, including prominent Jews, in conceding that the ‘Holocaust’ is a criminal deception: The prominent Jewish researcher says, ‘Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense if not sheer fraud.'”

Exasperated, you repeat your earlier question — and again the reply is that six million died. Yes, it is wearying — but surrender to gormlessness simply isn’t an option. With a thin smile, the straightening of your spine, and marshaling whatever patience you have left, you press home your point.

“I see you have been paying attention (eyes roll). Listen: Germany is trapped in a defensive war not of its making. Caught in a pincer movement by three world empires, this nation, smaller than the state of Texas, is fighting for its very survival against hopeless odds. Throughout Germany the basic necessities of life are exhausted; life is in disarray; its outnumbered and near-defeated armies are out of ammunition; schoolboys are conscripted to defend German cities. Yet, despite these tribulations, we are supposed to believe that Germans find the time to identify three times as many Jews as are known to exist. They then transport them thousands of miles across war-torn Europe in rail cars they don’t possess. These millions are delivered to a score of camps scattered across remote areas of Germany and Poland. There they are fed, tattooed, and then afterwards gassed in gas chambers that have never since been discovered. Nor have the remains of six million corpses. Students, this is what you believe?”

“Yes, sir.”

Do you give up at this point?  No; let’s try another direction:

“Any normal court of law requires evidence of a crime. However — and bizarrely — Articles 19 and 21 of the ‘Nuremburg Statute of Court’ dispensed with any requirement that evidential proof of deliberate homicide be provided. Now, tell me again, how many Jew were killed?”

“Sir, six million!”

Your fingers are now drumming on your desk: “Did you know, students, 9 million of the 16 million Jews in this world are collecting ‘reparations’? Benefits extend to children and dependents born to ‘survivors’ even though they had been born after World War 2. On registering their claim they are handed $35,000, receive $2,000 per month, and receive free health care for life. Tell me again, how many Jews died?”

“Six million, sir.”

“According to the Jewish World Almanac the Jewish world population in 1933 stood at 13,315,859. By 1938, one year before the outbreak of war, the census showed a total of 15,748,091 Jews. Residing in the Third Reich were 210,000 Jews, some refugees fleeing Polish pogroms. In 1948, three years after the war ended, the census reveals a total of 15,753,638 Jews worldwide. In 2017 the figure is still under 16 million. Now, let’s repeat my question: How many Jews died in the war?”

“Er, six million, sir!”

The aforementioned explains the power of what Hitler accused the Jews of using: the big lie. If a lie is big enough, and it is repeated often enough, the gullible will continue to believe the lie — even in the face of absolute proof to the contrary.

Now you know why Winston Churchill remarked, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”


“Gentile worship of, kowtowing to, servile deference toward, and desire to be led by Jews baffles me. Their maniacal, frenzied, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred and bloodthirsty cruelty, their endless Big Lies — I don’t get the worship.” — Douglas Reed (1895-1976), chief central European correspondent for the London Times, later the author of classic Politically Incorrect books of dissent such as The Controversy of Zion

* * *



New Stories and YouTube videos every day.

Previous post

2017 John Tyndall Memorial Meeting

Next post

Hood Lives Matter


  1. 9 June, 2017 at 1:29 pm — Reply

    For the record, Norman Finkelstein absolutely believes in the official narrative of the “holocaust” including “gas chambers”. He’s stated publicly that his parents are “survivors”. The only thing he objects to, and which he states in his book, The Holocaust Industry, is turning the official narrative into a cash-making machine, as he believes that denigrates the memory of the “millions of dead Jews”. When he says that the holocaust is “replete with fraud” and “nonsense”, he’s ONLY referring to many of the outlandish survivor stories that are too preposterous to be believed even by the holocaustians. In admitting the obvious, he’s just covering his Jewish ass and trying to save whatever shred of credibility is left of the Big Lie. The only thing that’s “replete with fraud” is Finkelstein himself. Even “historical revisionist Jew (sic)” David Cole believes gassings happened at the Reinhardt camps, which is impossible when looking at the geographical, forensic and documented evidence, and even the recorded accounts of Jews themselves.

    In the same way, there are NO “prominent Jews” or any Jews for that matter who will state categorically in a mass media/public forum that the holocaust is a complete fraud, the biggest psy-op in all of history and that there were zero homicidal gas chambers and no established plan to exterminate European Jewry. Why? Because they know the truth isn’t good for the Jews. How many Jews, prominent or not, came to the aid of Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, Vincent Renyoud, Ursula Haverbeck, Sylvia Stoltz, Robert Faurisson, Fredrick Tobin and others when they were being hauled off to prison? Absolutely ZERO. How many Jews, prominent or not, spoke out on behalf of free speech when Amazon censored 146 different book on holocaust truth with one stoke of their delete key? Absolutely ZERO. Don’t fall for the “Not all Jews are like that” deception. Wake up, people.

  2. 12 June, 2017 at 9:11 pm — Reply

    Weird. I commented on this post three days ago and yet, it’s never been approved. I see it on my computer, but likely no one else can view it. Hmmm.

    • 18 June, 2017 at 12:44 pm — Reply

      Sorry for the delay in approving comments. We suffered a spam attack and had to manually sort through thousands of fake comments, which took a great deal of our volunteer editors’ time.

  3. 13 June, 2017 at 3:32 pm — Reply

    “You try again: “Students, Norman Finkelstein joins others, including prominent Jews, in conceding that the ‘Holocaust’ is a criminal deception: The prominent Jewish researcher says, ‘Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense if not sheer fraud.’”

    Norman Finkelstein believes in the official holocaust narrative and claims his parents are “survivors”. The only thing he objects to in his book, The Holocaust Industry, is using the holocaust narrative as a money-making machine, because he believes that disrespects the “millions of dead Jews”. He also says the holocaust narrative is “replete with fraud” ONLY referring to the so-called survivor stories that are too preposterous for even the exterminationists to believe. In doing so, he’s trying to save any shred of false credibility that the official narrative still contains.

    No, there are NO Jews, “prominent or otherwise”, as this piece claims, that will state unconditionally in a mass media forum that the holocaust is a total fraud, the biggest psy-op the world has ever seen. How many Jews, prominent or otherwise, defended Ernest Zundel, Ursula Haverbeck, Vincent Renyound, Germar Rudolf, Jurgen Graf, Sylvia Stoltz and others before they were hauled off to prison or condemned Amazon for censoring 146 holocaust truth books with one click of their DELETE key? How many Jews? Absolutely ZERO. Why? Because doing so wouldn’t be good for the Jews. Wake up.

  4. 14 June, 2017 at 12:56 am — Reply

    Odd. I’ve posted to this article three times and yet none of my comments appear. An explanation would be nice for giving my perfectly relevant comments the treatment.

  5. 14 June, 2017 at 3:53 pm — Reply

    You people running this site have zero integrity. You talk about freedom and such, yet you refuse to let people speak. What’s next? Censoring people for what you deem to be “hate speech”? Apparently, my last three posts on this article and one on the Bilderberg piece, which was also deleted, rang too true for someone on the other side of the National Vanguard veil. Dr. Pierce would be appalled at this despicable behavior.

    Mike Walsh is presenting disinformation in this piece by stating that Norman Finkelstein and other “prominent Jews” support the holocaust truth movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Walsh has even posted articles on other sites where he claimed–quote: “The holocaust isn’t about race” (!!!???) and that we shouldn’t be so hard on Jews and focus more on the non-Jews that participated in the hoax (as if the few gentile puppets involved had any decision-making authority whatsoever). I can only guess that my calling Mike Walsh out as disingenuous and even possibly deceptive in this regard was too much either for Walsh himself or his colleagues at National Vanguard, even though I didn’t state as such directly in my posts. I stuck with the facts and simply pointed out, in Finkelstein’s own words, that he supports the holocaust narrative unconditionally and claims his parents are “survivors”.

    This website is open to the public and operates, from within the United States, on a PUBLIC forum called the internet. As such, you should be subject to all the laws that govern the public in the society in which you operate, namely the U.S., and thus be “bound by the chains of the Constitution” and freedom of speech because it’s clear that you cannot be relied upon to give deference to the First Amendment in these matters. Apparently, freedom of speech carries no weight with you. There was nothing in the content of any of my last four posts to this site that would have warranted their being obliterated into cyberspace by the administrators of this site. As previously stated, my only guess is that the content struck a nerve with someone on your side who was invested in promoting an alternative message that they didn’t want effectively challenged.

    It’s unfortunate, but I’ve found that most of these kinds of “pro-White” sites are infiltrated by people that actively seek to spread disinformation and confuse or dilute a unified message from coalescing into action. When this kind of content consistently appears on a site, it becomes clear that the administrators aren’t just unwitting aids in the disinformation process, but accomplices in it. As such, I’m afraid I must relegate National Vanguard, once a trustworthy and respectable forum for White awareness, to the growing heap of co-opted front organizations like Rebel Media, InfoWars, Breitbart and more, and alert others to my experience.

    Just remember, there is no such thing as “hate speech”, just free speech that’s hated. As Thomas Paine stated, “Where one dare not offend, one cannot be honest.”

    Now see how long it takes you to hit that DELETE key in 3, 2, 1…

    • 18 June, 2017 at 12:55 pm — Reply

      I agree that some ostensibly pro-White authors and sites and organizations are questionable and possibly funded by our enemies, though I also think it’s preposterous to even think that Mike Walsh ought to be put into that category. But you seriously err when you start making such accusations simply because it took some days for your comments to be approved. Our unpaid, dedicated volunteer staff were not all available this week, which just happened to be the same week that a large attack was launched on this site, resulting in our having to manually go through thousands of fake comments in order to locate and approve the real ones.

    • 18 June, 2017 at 6:59 pm — Reply

      Get real, Mr. Realist.

      Do you often shoot from the hip like that? I doubt that Mr. Paine would find your criticism of to be very honest, but at least you are being offensive.

      Maybe you haven’t noticed, but is the National Alliance’s online magazine. When you accuse of being just another infiltrated, co-opted front organization, spreading disinformation to keep people from “coalescing into action,” do you also claim the same of the National Alliance? You say “Dr. Pierce would be appalled at this [perceived] despicable behavior.” Really? How do you know that? Did you know Dr. Pierce? I knew him and saw him work through and solve real world adverse challenges a lot worse than spam attacks and infiltrators, and Kevin Strom was usually right by his side during those testy times. Kevin had Dr. Pierce’s full trust and confidence to handle National Alliance media and so do I, as the current NA Chairman.

      You want some action? I’ll give you some action. What can you do? Are you willing to help Kevin put up content, fight off spam attacks, and do whatever else needs doing to put at the top of the heap? As an unpaid volunteer like the rest of us?

      Thanks for your input on Finkelstein. Didn’t realize all that. Dr. Pierce liked to get the facts right, and would try to correct what had been misstated. He would have liked Walsh’s “You Can’t Fix Stupid,” even though the title was originated by Ron White:

      • Anthony Collins
        19 June, 2017 at 6:25 am — Reply

        You can’t fix stupid, but I hope that Realist is able to fix his bad manners, and I think he should apologize for his offensive comments. It’s out of order to make nasty insinuations and accusations about others simply because one’s comments weren’t published, or because some writer expresses views that differ or appear to differ from one’s own. One should try to clarify things as much as possible before condemning others, rather than read things into their writings and write them off as fools, liars, and traitors.

        There is some value in Norman Finkelstein’s work — I believe that William Pierce discussed The Holocaust Industry in one of his ADV programs and had National Vanguard Books sell it — but this doesn’t mean that people on our side should read him or others like him uncritically. I don’t think that Pierce was playing into the hands of the Jews by selling such books via National Vanguard Books, or by listing such books in his recommended reading guide in the catalog of National Vanguard Books.

        I don’t see any sign that National Vanguard is playing the game of “good Jew, bad Jew.” Indeed, I quite like its intelligent, informed, and radical anti-Semitism.

        It should be kept in mind that National Vanguard is a webzine that republishes material published elsewhere, material that might not be entirely congruent with its worldview. Speaking for myself, I might take issue with particular aspects of particular articles published on National Vanguard, but I have no criticism to make of its overarching editorial policy.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.