America First vs. Holocaustian Mind-Control
Nick Fuentes and the Groypers defy moral intimidation.
by Hadding Scott
Nick Fuentes and the Groypers vs. Fake Conservatism
NICHOLAS J. FUENTES is a 21-year-old man from the Chicago area who has a show on Youtube called America First. In the course of 2019 Fuentes began making an issue of the fact that President Trump seems to have been sidetracked from the “America First” agenda that got him elected. In the introduction to his show, Fuentes uses sound-clips from President Trump’s inaugural address wherein he declared emphatically his commitment to nationalism, in opposition to globalism. Fuentes has made it his business to highlight the discrepancy between what President Trump vowed and what in fact has been happening under his administration.
Somehow President Trump has been sidetracked from halting demographic change and withdrawing from foreign military entanglements that reflect Israeli influence over the government of the United States. Part of the problem is that people in the Republican Party who opposed the populist agenda, instead of being swept aside as defeated adversaries, have been allowed to change their colors and continue exerting influence.
Part of their attempt to continue exerting influence is to distort the America First agenda, to twist populist demands into ideas acceptable to plutocracy and Zionism: most notably, to sidetrack the urgent demand for a halt to demographic change with the suggestion that “merit-based immigration” is the real way to “make America great again.”
A conspicuous example of this problem is an organization called Turning Point USA. This organization, funded by billionaires, arranges for “conservative” and ostensibly pro-Trump personages to give talks on college campuses. The nominal leader of this organization, Charlie Kirk, and others prominently associated with the organization, opposed Donald Trump’s quest for the Republican nomination in 2016. Fuentes describes TPUSA’s function as to control the Republican political conversation on college campuses, displacing the real America First agenda with a corrupt substitute.
The nexus of interests that TPUSA represents is disparagingly nicknamed Conservative Inc. This nexus of interests would like to see demographic change and unnecessary wars continue. On top of that, apparently they favor normalization of sexual deviance.* Conservative Inc. is far out of step with the electorate that put Donald Trump in the White House.
In late October 2019 viewers of Fuentes’ show (called Groypers, apparently an onomatopoetic neologism meaning toads), who had heard criticisms of Turning Point USA from Fuentes, began appearing at TPUSA’s events to ask uncomfortable questions. Fuentes promoted and encouraged this activity. The phenomenon quickly grew, so that almost every event staged by TPUSA became an utter embarrassment for the organization and a setback for its agenda.
This campaign could no longer be ignored after an event at the Ohio State University on 29 October 2019 where Charlie Kirk appeared onstage with an outspoken Black homosexual cohost named Rob Smith. It became abundantly clear that what TPUSA represented was not conservatism. The event was a fiasco for TPUSA and a victory for the Groypers, who overwhelmingly dominated the discussion period with maximally uncomfortable questions. Fuentes rejoiced:
“Tonight … every single question, with two exceptions, one after the other, presumably was one of our guys – maybe not an America First fan; I assume most were – but dissident right, critiquing Charlie Kirk from the right. And it was probably the most glorious thing I’ve ever seen in my life. And the best part about it was, every person that asked a question tonight … clean, well-dressed, optical, good-looking. […] All the questions tonight – clean, direct, to the point, framed well, nothing crazy, nothing out there…. The look was good, the questions were good, and, even in terms of the substance, every person attacked from a different angle. (America First, 29 October 2019 22:22)
TPUSA was badly shaken. All officers of the chapter at Kansas State University resigned.
The Counterattack: Labeling Fuentes as a Holocaust Denier
The next day came the counter-attack.
Conservative Inc. could not win by addressing the Groypers’ three main complaints – demographic change, Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy contrary to U.S. interests, normalization of sexual perversion – because the Groypers’ stated concerns would be concerns of probably a majority of the Trump electorate, whom Conservative Inc. was trying to bamboozle. Thus they diverted attention to a different argument that they thought they could easily win – if not in the realm of truth then at least in the realm of poorly informed public opinion.
The main theme of the attack on Nick Fuentes, beginning with a video-clip posted by Republican videomaker Caleb J. Hull on 30 October 2019, has been that he is a Holocaust Denier. Fuentes sees this labeling as an entirely cynical maneuver:
“What is the point to call somebody a Holocaust Denier to their one-million followers? Is that to tell the truth? Is that to engage in ideas? Is that to protect conservatism? Or is that meant to silence anybody that asks a legitimate question? Or is that to say that anybody who associates with this guy should be afraid of being smeared in the same way?” (America First, 6 November 2019 1:06:32)
The clip presents statements that Fuentes had made almost ten months earlier (on 8 January 2019). If the best example of Fuentes’ “Holocaust Denial” that Hull could mine is a ten-month-old humorous digression responding to a prompt from a viewer, then it does not seem that Fuentes has had much to say on the subject.
Here is a rough transcript of that digression from January 2019, divided into six sections, with an introductory statement of the significance of each part.
(1) The question: is it possible that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated?
“Mack says, if I take one hour to cook a batch of cookies and Cookiemonster has 15 ovens working 24 hours a day, every day for five years, how long does it take Cookiemonster to make six-million batches of cookies? I don’t know. That’s a good question. That doesn’t sound really correct to me. Wait a second. It takes one hour to build a batch of cookies, and you have 15 ovens — probably in four different kitchens, right? — doing 24 hours a day every day for five years. How long would it take you to make six-million? Hm. I don’t know. It certainly wouldn’t be five years, right? The math doesn’t seem to add up there. The math doesn’t quite seem to add up there.”
(2) There is no record of any number remotely approaching 6 million Jews deceased in German camps. The number recorded by the Red Cross is much smaller.
“I don’t think you’d result in six-million. Maybe 200 to 300 thousand cookies? And I think the Red Cookie Association said something like that, probably like 200-300 thousand cookies baked, probably.”
(3) Now the focus switches to gas-chambers. An exhaust-stack from a cyanide gas-chamber should be very tall to avoid poisoning people in the nearby structures. (This observation by Fred Leuchter was famously repeated by Bishop Richard Williamson in February 2009.)
“And in addition, you know, in this hypothetical I imagine that if you took aerial photographs over the kitchens, you would need to see certain smokestacks to release the smoke from baking the cookies, and the smokestacks would project certain shadows – but I guess they’re not visible in the aerial photographs taken over the kitchens.”
(4) Where are the remains of these supposed millions of gassed persons?
“Moreover if you look at the soil texture, it’s really not deep enough for mass cookie-storage underground.”
(5) Features of the Auschwitz Kremas make them unsuitable for use as gas chambers. Krema I has an ungasketed wooden door and internally a door with a window that would have been smashed. Both doors would have allowed cyanide gas to pour out of the alleged gas chamber, endangering people nearby. The alleged homicidal gas-chambers are contrasted to the Birkenau delousing chambers for clothes and bedding. (Revisionists usually refer to the delousing chambers not for structural differences as Fuentes seems to indicate, since they too were not designed to contain a panicked mob, but because the walls of the delousing chambers are conspicuously stained blue from daily use of Zyklon-B.)
“And so there’s a lot of things. You know, they say that in the cookie-kitchen the ovens are wooden, and they have windows on them, and they’re not totally secure, and the ovens that they used, they actually did sort of an ad hoc use of that particular kind of oven, even though they made a perfectly good design for ovens for a different purpose, for delousing – I mean, you know, for something else.”
(6) Fuentes however concludes by saying that he does not really mean anything that he just said.
“So, none of it really adds up. I don’t know. It just doesn’t really make sense, this crazy cookie analogy.
“That’s sort of an esoteric story. That’s from Cookie Rite. You wouldn’t understand it if you’re just sort of passing through, if you’re just a normie. So, six-million cookies? I don’t buy it.
“That’s all irony. I’m an irony-bro. That’s all irony. I love and respect everyone. Everything that the government says is true.”
The representation of Revisionist arguments in this impromptu, tongue-in-cheek digression is rather garbled. For one thing, most of the numbers are wrong. The number of Jews allegedly killed in camps is somewhat less than six-million, and the time in which this is supposed to have been accomplished is much less than five years. Nonetheless Fuentes shows that he is familiar enough with Holocaust Revisionism that he can vaguely recall half a dozen Revisionist arguments off the top of his head. And most importantly it is obvious, especially from the incandescently ironic last sentence –
“Everything that the government says is true”
– that Fuentes is disposed to believe that the Revisionists may be right.
Since this line of attack on Fuentes commenced, he has been alternately ambiguous and evasive. He says that the Cookie Monster commentary was only joking, and that he has never “explicitly” denied the Holocaust. When Fuentes swears belief in the Holocaust, he usually includes a strong hint of irony if he is speaking on his own show, but omits any such hint during interviews. (For example, Fuentes tried to convey unequivocally that he believed in the Holocaust during his interview with Alex Jones, on 19 November 2019. Jones seemed unconvinced, but in any case it did not seem to be a problem: in fact, Alex Jones affirmed Nick Fuentes’ right to deny the Holocaust.) In the few weeks that I have listened to Fuentes, the closest that he has come to directly and unironically stating skepticism about the Holocaust was during his running critique of Ben Shapiro’s polemic against him (Ben Shapiro Gets Groyped, 1:13:52), when Fuentes recommended that anyone interested in the question read Ron Unz’s “American Pravda.” This is a regular feature in the Unz Review; Fuentes seems to mean the edition of 27 August 2018.
In that essay Unz discovers that the wartime propaganda about millions of Jews having been gassed was widely regarded with skepticism during the first twenty years after the war, and that some scholars known for their skepticism toward the Holocaust, like Harry Elmer Barnes, are not to be lightly dismissed, while a dogmatic Holocaust-promoter like Deborah Lipstadt writes books that are “of poor quality and quite unpersuasive.” Unz also mentions a variety of Holocaust memoirs and episodes that have been exposed as hoaxes. While formally making no assessment of the Holocaust himself, Unz (who is Jewish) demonstrates that skepticism is warranted, and recommends some Revisionist books for further reading.
Fuentes dislikes being called “Alt Right” or “White Nationalist” and prefers instead to be known as a paleo-conservative. He names Pat Buchanan, Samuel T. Francis, Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor, and Peter Brimelow as paleo-conservatives who have influenced him.
A paleo-conservative can perhaps be roughly characterized as a conservative who has not been reconstructed in accord with the so-called lessons of the Holocaust.
Paul Gottfried, who is Jewish, does not reject the Holocaust per se but has written a book called Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy (2002) that mentions the Holocaust as a psychological weapon used to disarm resistance to multiculturalism. He says that the Holocaust is not the greatest atrocity that ever happened, and he even implies that it is unreasonable to punish people for questioning details of the story:
“All respectable members of the political culture profess sensitivity on minority issues, call for open borders or ‘universal nations,’ and deplore the opening of moral questions that should have been settled by the awareness of past collective wrongs. Such sins include, but are not exhausted by, sexism, homophobia, slavery, and a by-now-multifunctional Holocaust, guilt for which has been ascribed to Jewish indifference as well as to Christian malice. […] In Europe judges and state officials make object lessons of those who question details of the Holocaust, deprecate Islamic theology, or propose to restrict immigration.” (P. Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, p. 4)
Patrick J. Buchanan has gone somewhat farther. He had the courage to defend Arthur Rudolph and John Demjanjuk against war-crime accusations, and even to make the observation that diesel exhaust, which was supposed to have been used to kill people at Treblinka, is not normally toxic:
“Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody. In 1988, 97 kids trapped 400 feet underground in a Washington, D.C. tunnel while two locomotives spewed diesel exhaust into the car, emerged unharmed after 45 minutes.” (New York Post, 17 March 1990)
Alleged gassings with diesel-exhaust constitute a large part of the Holocaust, and Pat Buchanan has taught his readers to reject at least that part.
It makes perfect sense that someone with roots in the older conservatism would progress from merely rejecting the lessons of the Holocaust to questioning the premise of those lessons — and we know that the Holocaust does not withstand questioning very well. If it is possible to disarm the enemy, why not do it?
Defending the Holocaust against Nick Fuentes
After Caleb J. Hull posted the clip of Fuentes’ “cookies” monolog on Twitter, a few other prominent Republican personages joined in attacking Fuentes as a Holocaust Denier. Most significantly, Sebastian Gorka, a former member of President Trump’s cabinet who now has a talkshow on the Salem Radio Network five afternoons per week, asked why Fuentes was allowed Twitter and even was distinguished with a blue checkmark.
On the following day, the Zionist Organization of America called for Fuentes to be deplatformed from Youtube.
Two representatives of Conservative Inc. included in their attacks on Fuentes some attempt to bolster belief in the Holocaust. Sebastian Gorka did it in his radio show on 30 October, and Ben Shapiro did it in his speech at Stanford University on 7 November.
Sebastian Gorka and the Holocaust Educator
On the same day that Sebastian Gorka complained about Fuentes’ presence on Twitter, he also spent most of his three-hour broadcast that afternoon attacking him.
An apparently prearranged call came from Ann in New Brunswick, New Jersey, who claims to have been “a Holocaust educator for fifteen years” and to know “a lot about the Holocaust.” This woman had been previously introduced to Gorka by another talkshow host, Mary Walter.
Ann claims that The New York Times “suppressed the information to come to America” with the result that “people didn’t hear about the Holocaust until the American soldiers saw with their eyes what the Nazis did to people – not just Jews, people. There were 12 million people that were killed during that time!” She asserts, “Everyone needed to worry! It wasn’t just the Jewish people!”
It is obvious that Ann has never looked into news archives to see what wartime reporting actually said.
During the Second World War, The New York Times‘ editors may have taken a somewhat skeptical attitude toward atrocity-reports since so many such stories from the First World War had been admitted to be false, but there was nonetheless a report on 10 May 1944 from Joseph M. Levy: “Jews in Hungary fear Annihilation; Gas-Chamber ‘Baths’ on Nazi Model Reported Prepared by Puppet Regime.” There were also reports from the Soviet Union: “Many Jews Killed in Cherkassy Area; Tour of Ukraine Reveals How Nazis Followed Plan to Exterminate Them” by Ralph Parker, 5 March 1944; “2 Lwow Jews Tell of ‘Death Forest’; Husband and Wife Who Fled Say Nazis Killed 100,000 There – One Crucified,” 29 March 1944. So, these are reports of an alleged genocide of European Jews that appeared in The New York Times before U.S. Forces arrived at any German concentration camp, which means that Ann is wrong to say that The New York Times entirely blacked out such reports.
But The New York Times was not the only conduit for atrocity-reports from Europe to reach America. In November 1942 Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the President of the World Jewish Congress, announced that all “4 million” Jews in Axis Europe (which was then at its maximum expanse) were being systematically murdered in order to make soap. This was reported by the Associated Press. (AP, 24 November 1942)
What “the American soldiers saw with their eyes” is not evidence for the Holocaust, because according to current mainstream Holocaustology the death-camps were all in present-day Poland, and American soldiers did not see them.
Also, Ann’s figure of “12 million people” does not reflect the current consensus of Holocaustology. When was 12 million ever claimed? For several decades 11 million was the oft-repeated figure. After President Trump issued a statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day that did not specifically mention Jews, the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum’s academic advisor Yehuda Bauer declared that fewer than half a million non-Jews had died in German concentration camps, while the conception of the Holocaust as a specifically Jewish event was emphasized especially by Deborah Lipstadt. (CODOH, 23 February 2017)
When Gorka asks the “Holocaust educator” how she feels about what Nick J. Fuentes said about baking six million batches of cookies, noting that Fuentes is still on Twitter with a blue checkmark, she declares:
“It’s nauseating, it’s absolutely nauseating and scary!”
When Ann suggests that those who deny the Holocaust might themselves become victims if it happens again, Gorka asserts:
“If something bad happens, guess what? They’re the ones who are going to be closing the doors on the cattlecars as people are being boxed up. They’re the ones who are going to be making sure that the trains are on time in the deathcamps, just like they did in Germany and across eastern Europe.”
That is of course a completely baseless slander. Such accusations are used in war-propaganda to justify extreme violence against those accused of intending violence.
“For the life of me, I can’t understand how these people’s minds work.”
Unfortunately, she was not going to get a better understanding by listening to Gorka’s show, because, although flooded with callers who supported Nick Fuentes and even callers who supported what he had said about the Holocaust, Gorka was determined not to let them explain anything.
Gorka’s motive for going after Fuentes so aggressively may have been fear, because he himself has been attacked as a “nazi” due to his reported association with right-wing Hungarian organizations, the Vitézi Rend and the Magyar Gárda. It is obvious that this was on his mind, because he mentions in the first hour of his diatribes against Fuentes that he was called a “nazi” and a “fascist” at his daughter’s graduation from college last May. To be the loudest accuser against Nick Fuentes thus looks like a cowardly attempt by Gorka to avoid being accused himself.
Ben Shapiro thinks that Crematoria mean Murder
Ben Shapiro is supposed to be “the cool kids’ philosopher” according to the introduction that he was given at Stanford University where he was invited to speak by Young America’s Foundation on 7 November 2019. Shapiro certainly talks fast, but his response to Nick Fuentes was not very intelligent. For all his vaunted mental acuity, Shapiro exposes himself as a very uncritical Holocaust Believer.
Shapiro avoids naming Fuentes, but identifies him as an influential figure of the Alt Right before giving an abridged rendition of Fuentes’ “cookies” monolog, reciting essentially part 1 and some of part 6 of it. (See above.) Shapiro omits the final sentence, “Everything that the government says is true,” perhaps because Fuentes’ ironic humor would have resonated with a conservative audience.
As a rejoinder, Shapiro quotes from alleged Holocaust eyewitness Henryk Tauber. Shapiro does not tell his audience that he is using a document generated by the Communist legal system of post-war Poland. This information might have generated some questions about the credibility of what Shapiro was reading.
The credibility of Tauber’s alleged observations as a member of a Sonderkommando in Krema II at Birkenau became an important point of contention in David Irving’s libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 2000. Tauber had indicated the locations of four square holes in the roof of the alleged gas-chamber (in fact a morgue) of Krema II where Zyklon-B pellets were to be introduced. The blueprints do not indicate these holes, nor is there any sign in the ruins of Krema II that these holes existed. The only indication that these holes existed is the word of alleged eyewitnesses like Tauber.
Revisionist Ditlieb Felderer first noted the absence of these holes in the 1970s. During Irving’s libel suit, defense-witness Professor Robert Jan van Pelt explicitly admitted under questioning that there was no physical evidence that these holes ever existed:
“Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab.” (R. Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz)
Mr. Justice Gray, who presided over the libel suit, noted:
“Irving produced a photograph which appears to show no sign of any hole in the roof. Van Pelt conceded in one of his supplementary reports that there is no sign of the holes. It would be impossible for chimneys of the size described by Tauber and Kula to have disappeared.” (Justice Gray, Trial Judgment 7.92)
Of course, the fact that these legendary holes cannot be found in the ruins (nor in the blueprints) does not lead Holocaustians to concede that the holes never existed. Instead they devise not-very-credible explanations for why the holes are undetectable today.
There is no way to patch such holes in a concrete roof that would make them invisible. Furthermore, the steel reinforcement in the concrete roof would have had to accommodate those large holes adjacent to central support columns, and an investigator like Van Pelt should have been able to discover those accommodations. The necessary conclusion is that the holes were not there and that Tauber’s account is false.
Not only that. It means that there was no way to introduce Zyklon-B and that the Kremas at Birkenau could not have been used as gas-chambers in the manner that alleged eyewitnesses like Tauber indicate. About this, Professor Robert Faurisson quipped:
“No holes, no Holocaust!”
For whatever reason, Shapiro does not quote Tauber’s embattled account of the gas-chamber, only his account of cremations.
There is nothing about crematoria, even multiple crematoria with a high capacity for cremation, that really constitutes evidence of gassing, or other mass-murder. Crematoria have existed in many places where there is no serious accusation that anybody was gassed. There was a very good reason for having a high capacity for cremation at a concentration camp, because such camps, used by the Spanish in late-nineteenth-century Cuba, by the United States during the Philippines Insurrection, and by the British during the Second Boer War, have always been prone to disease-epidemics. Regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau, the Auschwitz Museum tells us:
“1942-1943 (and especially 1942) went down in the history of the camp as a period of raging epidemics, and especially typhus, which claimed the greatest number of lives.” (http://auschwitz.org/en/history/camp-hospitals/sicknesses-and-epidemics/)
In reaction to this situation, on 28 December 1942 Heinrich Himmler ordered:
“The death rate in the camps must be reduced at all costs.” (Scrapbook Pages)
One of the ways that the SS tried to reduce the death-rate was by cremation. The practice of cremation grew rapidly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, largely because it was seen as a way to minimize the spread of contagion. A report of the United States Navy’s chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, from 1891, states the following:
“The question of the greatest importance to the health of communities is the disposal of the dead, so that no ill consequences shall flow periling the lives of the living. It is claimed that the ordinary method of interments in coffins is fraught with grave danger to the health of the living by the materials of decomposing bodies, especially those dying of zymotic diseases [e.g. typhus], being washed into the water and polluting the water used. To remedy this evil two courses are open, one the entire and speedy destruction of the body by fire or cremation, and the other, destruction of the body by a slow oxidation which occurs when the body is unprotected by coffin or casket, called the ‘earth to earth’ burial. The former method is more especially indorsed by the educated classes, and is gaining ground rapidly, as evidenced by the number of crematories springing up everywhere in Europe, and by the support given it by the advanced thinkers and sanitarians of the day.” (Philip S. Wales,Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, 1891, pp. 91-92)
After burial of some of the disease casualties at Birkenau in 1942 caused serious contamination of groundwater, those corpses had to be dug up and burned, and during this time of need the decision was made greatly to expand the capacity for cremation in the camp. There is nothing about the capacity for cremation at Birkenau that is inherently indicative of gassings. What it signifies is an attempt to keep disease from spreading.
If Shapiro would have us conclude from a story about large numbers of cremations that there must have been gassings or some other form of mass murder in the camp, we must respond: non sequitur.
In addition to the fact that what Shapiro quotes from Tauber is irrelevant to the point that he is trying to prove, it is in some ways also demonstrably false. To demonstrate this I will be relying mainly on information from Carlo Mattogno’s paper “The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz” (pages 367-407), the first (German) edition of which appeared in 1994.
Shapiro credulously repeats the following claim from Tauber:
“On average, we incinerated 2500 bodies a day.”
From the context in Tauber’s deposition it seems to mean that 2500 corpses per day were cremated, not in the entire camp, but just in Krema II where Tauber worked. With 15 retorts in Krema II and (for the sake of argument) 24 hours in a day for cremation, that would mean about 7 corpses cremated in each retort every hour.
Another reason to believe that Tauber’s deposition is supposed to mean 2500 cremations per day in Krema II alone is that this produces a maximum annual figure of about 2.3 million for cremations at Birkenau. That is consistent with the Communist claim until 1990 that 4 million or more (5 million according to a Soviet encyclopaedia published in 1950) were killed in the Auschwitz complex.
If we try to make Tauber’s position more reasonable by assuming that he means that this many were cremated in all the active 38 cremation retorts of Birkenau in a day (15 each in Krema II and III, and 8 in Krema V), it still means that 2.74 corpses were burnt in each retort every hour.
Both of these figures are impossible. Carlo Mattogno tells us that in the Ignis-Hüttenbau ovens in Theresienstadt, which were “by far the most modern and efficient of all those ever installed in German concentration camps, “it took on average 36 minutes to cremate a male corpse and 35 minutes to cremate a female corpse.
That is extremly fast. A present-day commercial crematory in Arizona states in its advertising:
“It can take anywhere from one to three hours to completely cremate the human body. Weight, size, percentage of body fat to muscle mass, cremation container, and the efficiency, performance and temperature of the cremation equipment are all factors….” (Simply Cremation, Surprise, Arizona)
Note that the size and weight and composition of the corpse affect the time required for cremation. More mass placed into a cremation retort means that the process will take longer.
Tauber’s claim is that it was possible to stack 5 to 8 corpses in a retort in order to get a higher cremation rate. In fact it is not possible to achieve an overall higher rate of cremation by stacking corpses. In Westerbork Concentration Camp in the Netherlands for which there are detailed records of cremations, Carlo Mattogno found no recorded example of multiple adult corpses being cremated together. Measures were taken to conserve fuel in the crematorium, but stacking adult corpses was not one of them. However, it is recorded that in Westerbork a corpse of a newborn baby would sometimes be cremated together with the corpse of an adult. It turns out that cremating an adult together with a newborn took on average 14% longer than just cremating an adult. It implies that the time required for cremation is increased at least in proportion – or perhaps even out of proportion – to the amount of body weight added, so that there would be no gain in efficiency by stacking corpses for cremation as Tauber claimed.
A letter dated 1 November 1940, from crematorium manufacturers Topf und Söhne to the SS New Construction Office at Mauthausen, stated that the kind of crematory furnace used at Birkenau could accomplish one cremation per retort per hour. Under interrogation by the Red Army’s counter-espionage agency SMERSH, Topf’s engineers Kurt Prüfer and Karl Schultze on March 4, 1946 stated the same, that each retort could cremate one corpse per hour. This means that 360 corpses, not 2500, could theoretically be cremated in 24 hours in Krema II where Henryk Tauber allegedly worked, or, in all the 38 retorts of Birkenau operating nonstop, 912 in 24 hours. Either way, Tauber has grossly exaggerated the rate at which corpses could be cremated.
There are further problems, however.
The crematoria could not be operated nonstop as Tauber claims. Every day they must be out of service for several hours to be cleaned. The instructions from Topf und Söhne indicate four hours for this work to be completed. An engineer testifying in the Communist show trial of the Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Hoess stated that only 3 rather than 4 hours per day would be required to clean the crematoria. At most there could have been 21 hours per day for cremations.
But it is not even evident that the crematoria were always operated as much as possible. At most, there could have been 20 or 21 hours of cremation per day, but there is a document that refers to a “twelve-hour workday” for the crematoria in connection to the amount of fuel that they would use.
Tauber’s claim, uncritically repeated by Shapiro, that female corpses burned much more easily than male corpses, seems to be false. In the super-fast Ignis-Hüttenbau crematoria at Theresienstadt female corpses took only 1% less time than male corpses, which implies that pound for pound the female body may in fact take longer to burn.
An interesting detail from Tauber’s account that Shapiro could have mentioned but for some reason did not is the claim that by putting eight emaciated corpses into one retort he and his coworkers could cause flames to extend more than 45 feet beyond the cremation chamber to the top of the exhaust stack (thus attracting the attention of Allied airmen). This is obviously quite impossible.
Henryk Tauber’s figure of 2500 corpses cremated every day is a ridiculous exaggeration, consistent in spirit with other unlikely claims in his deposition, but also consistent with the Communist propaganda of the time.
Life after Holocaust Denial
The operatives of Conservative Inc. who thought that labeling Nick Fuentes as a Holocaust Denier would be a quick and easy way to destroy his movement clearly have miscalculated. It hardly had the intended effect.
Moreover, by employing the accusation of Holocaust Denial they raised the stakes enormously. They put the fundamental myth of the entire post-war order on the line in an effort to stifle complaints about the direction that the country is taking at the moment – and it failed. One month later, the negative consequences for Fuentes have been minimal: his show, America First, was removed from Apple Podcasts, but is still on YouTube. He is still on Twitter and he is still on Facebook. Tucker Carlson picked up on some of the Groypers’ themes, while Michelle Malkin, who has recently written a book criticizing plutocratic support for demographic change in the United States, has very explicitly endorsed Fuentes and his movement. She is being attacked for defending a “Holocaust Denier” but shows no sign of retreating. The accusation, “Holocaust Denier,” clearly does not carry the same weight as 20 or 30 years ago. By making this failed attack on Nick Fuentes, they called attention to the fact that the Holocaust is much less respected than formerly, and they called attention to the existence of a group of well-spoken young men for whom the Holocaust is not sacred at all — and now they have a respected conservative commentator, Michelle Malkin, outspokenly on their side, at least in regard to their position on immigration and for their right to speak. Since labeling Fuentes as a Holocaust Denier did not seriously damage him, it is the Holocaust as a weapon that has been damaged.
* * *
* Opposition to sexual license and perversion is one point in the Groypers’ agenda that is not supported by anything that Donald Trump said in 2016. The rationale for this position comes from Dr. E. Michael Jones, a right-wing Catholic author who has argued in his book Libido Dominandi that “sexual liberation” and pornography are promoted by exploiters and oppressors as a means of weakening resistance in a subject population. Jones has been a guest on Fuentes’ show, and the questioner at the Ohio State University who asked rhetorically how anal sex was supposed to help win the culture-war happened to be one of Jones’ employees.
* * *