Today I got, and watched, David Irving’s ‘The Life and Death of Heinrich Himmler’ (English, 82 mins): a superb lecture that may serve as a prelude to the second volume on Himmler (alas, since Irving recently became ill, we can’t be sure he will finish it).
The central part of the DVD is of paramount importance, so much so that I will link to the first endnote of the featured post, ‘The Wall’, the page promoting the DVD on Irving’s site. So important are Irving’s claims about the so-called Holocaust that I don’t think I should upload any more posts this weekend, to invite visitors to purchase that DVD.
If whites, including white nationalists, are as insane as Marco and Blinken (cf. my other post today), it is because they are not exterminationists like Himmler. Too bad the Allies murdered him.
6 replies on “Himmler DVD”
So, Irving (who didn’t change his mind about the subject, since he was never a revisionist to begin with) finally discovered (with a little bit of help of the neo-stalinist government of Russia) irrefutable “proof” that the “holocaust” happened, huh? A little bit o forensic data, I suppose. This idiot here wonder why the soviets waited so long to reveal this information, instead of showing it during the farce at Nuremberg and subsequent show trials…
I’ve said a million times that this is not a place for white nationalists. Now I could say that it isn’t a place for holo deniers either. It is a place for Kalki’s apprentice: he who identifies with Savitri Devi’s post-1945 NS. And from that POV, holo denial is tremendously demoralising for the exterminationist. As someone tweeted long ago:
• ‘The WN [white nationalist] meme that the Nazis dindu nuffin and dindu mass grave killings is ridiculous and goes against the violent attitude we need to have.’
• ‘Nearly every White Nationalist info source is cleverly scripted towards re-pacifying Whites into the Christian, pro “justice system” fold.’
• ‘So sick of the whining and aggrandizement of Jews like they’re supermen. It’s White traitors and our own weakness that’s the main problem.’
• ‘There’s enough WNs right now to take down the system if they had balls, not blogs.’
• ‘If WNs operated more like ISIS instead of complaining about them, we’d be noteworthy, and not a pathetic bunch of politicking wannabes.’
• ‘Wahhh, you support genocide, you’re anti-White and bad’ – said the WN fag pussy. Whites won’t survive if they don’t genocide non-Whites.
So who’s the real idiot?
It looks like the self-deprecating nature of my ‘this idiot here” eluded you a bit, but that doesn’t really matter.
Have you ever considered the logistics involved in this alleged extermination? I wonder if the Irving did in his latest work.
I’ll just leave a link here, if you don’t mind: link. I hope it works. Have a nice day!
I’ll add a post on the subject this morning.
Savitri Devi accepted in the 70’s that the holocaust indeed did not happen. I can quote the paragraph if you request. As for the sentiment that we need to go farther than ever and eliminate our enemies forever; yes, I agree. And yet, lying about this is building on sand. We’ll get nowhere if at any point it is so easy for our followers to realize that we are feeding them a distorted version of history, and for what?
We can always say “it never happened, it should have and it will”. This is really the only honest and efficient approach. There is something liberating about the truth, something that gives power in the way that a lie never can. With the truth you know exactly where you are and what you need to do to become what you need to become. Lies obscure that. Consider it.
No need to do that. I knew it already.
Both Mark Weber and David Irving modified their opinion. No one is ‘lying’. Irving is interesting, because he oscillated from believing in the holocaust to going through a stage of denial upon learning of Weber’s work, and only because of his historical integrity did he return to his original position.
We are not talking about Auschwitz, which wasn’t what lying Hollywood claims, of course; but about Treblinka, Sobibor and the ethnic cleansing operations in the Soviet Union. There is a credible record of that.
I tend to trust those who have modified their strong religious or ideological views and I’m sceptical of those who never modify them even with, say, evidence provided by sympathisers of the 3rd Reich. I have a lot of experience in abandoning erroneous paradigms, a task that took me years in the case of Eschatology and parapsychology (1978 to 1995). Those eschatologists or parapsychologists who weren’t able to give up their faith with the relevant evidence are dishonest, even if originally I believed in paranormal powers. Anyone who can, by sheer evidence, change their most cherished beliefs earns my respect.
The people who have come to this site to deny the holocaust often get emotional, just as those who discover that I don’t believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories get emotional. That’s another marker for whom to distrust: the inability to tolerate any sort of cognitive dissonance.
I would love if you interview Weber for example, and ask him all the hard questions you can imagine about exactly why he changed his views. If anyone does this I would be the first to publish the results of the interview here. (For example, it would be ideal to have Carolyn Yeager or Hadding Scott elaborate on the hard questions.)