web analytics

Category: Holocaust

Categories
Holocaust William Pierce

Wm. Pierce

on the Holocaust

Thanks to the comments section of yesterday’s post, I discovered an article by William Pierce from 1981. I quote a couple of paragraphs:

Actually, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the truth of the matter. There are reckless “revisionists” who assert that no Jews were killed, solely for being Jews, by the German government. That is almost certainly not true.

I have spoken with SS men who told me that they shot Jews, and I believe them. They also told me that the claims of mass killings of Jews put forth after the war have been greatly exaggerated, and I believe them on that score also.

Read it all here.

Categories
Holocaust Miscegenation

Lawyer

and prosecutor

I still can’t find a place to move, so I don’t have time to resume my full-time activities for the sacred words. But today, at the bank, and already at home watching a video on how the old left thought (‘How the Left Destroyed Itself’ with Yanis Varoufakis), my mind doesn’t stop its train of thought.

Recall once again the faces of white Mexicans in my recent post ‘Blue pill’. In one of Mexico City’s best-known malls, where I was today because the banks are open there on Saturdays, I saw a huge billboard in the car park showing a Caucasian male with a black couple. I had seen such billboards in London but apparently, they are now catching on in the third world. The West suffers from an endless hatred: an exterminationist hatred of the white race even in countries where, like Mexico, there are very few true whites.

I didn’t take a picture of the huge billboard I saw in the mall with my mobile phone (although as a priest of the holy words I don’t use a mobile phone in a city without friends, for banking matters I have to carry it). But I think we Westerners have seen such billboards in various countries.

On the other hand I must confess that, although I don’t have time to read at the moment, I find fascinating what I have barely read of the 1455-page Spanish translation, which I recently acquired, of the classic book The Destruction of the European Jews. In digital form, I own the revisionist counterpart: the Holocaust Handbooks series (pic of one of them on the left). It would take a lifetime—many years that I no longer have on my horizon—to assess both sides. Hopefully, future priests will follow my method: listen to both the prosecutor and the lawyer before rendering an educated opinion.

In any case, as we can see from my featured post ‘The Wall’, the priest is not affected by the official story as he is a man who has already transvalued his values. As a Swede said on page 83 of my anthology On exterminationism:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality.’ Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think: (1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners, (2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do, (3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous and (4) Every human life has the same value.

None of these statements ring true to a man who has rejected Christian morality. Even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathise with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

Who within the American racial right, which largely subscribes to Christian ethics, thinks like this neo-Nietzschean Hyperborean?

Categories
Holocaust Videos

Mark Weber

It is always a pleasure to listen to Mark Weber, whom I mention in the most important article of this site, ‘The Wall’.

Weber is a revisionist about the official story of the Second World War, Hitler and the Holocaust.

Categories
Autobiography Free speech / association Holocaust

The BBC brainwashed me

As we see in the highlighted posts ‘Myth’ and ‘Throne’ which appear in red letters at the top of this page, it is the story we have been telling ourselves for the last few decades that has produced the darkest hour for the white race. That is why it is so important to assimilate the meaning of the Shakespeare and Faulkner quotes in the post I uploaded a little after midnight today.

A pen pal overseas has informed me that someone, who surely hates me for what I write here, has been impersonating me in the comments section of Occidental Dissent (OD) writing nonsense and using my full name. I haven’t been able to locate the specific threads because the admin of that site has been unwilling to respond to my emails (I guess the admin also hates me for my criticism of his site!). Whoever the guy is who’s posting comments in my name without the OD admin banning him or her, the hatred and contempt that many feel for what I say here might be better understood if I confess that, before, I was exactly like them.

The books I devour, I underline copiously. If you visit my library, you will see that many of my books are marked not only with highlighter pens but with my hand-written footnotes. They are a real treat to open a window on the normie I was in the last century.

In 1999, when I was living in Manchester, I bought and devoured Laurence Rees’s The Nazis: A Warning from History, a BBC book. It is Allied propaganda at its worst, precisely the propaganda exposed in the aforementioned ‘Myth’ article. A couple of decades after I read the book I saw an internet image of Rees standing next to a Negress. Cuck Island Britons like him commit ethnosuicide precisely because they have been telling themselves stories like this one from BBC TV, and then passed on more formally to books.

When I lived on that island, propaganda had infected me about the Third Reich and the Second World War. The things I wrote in the blanks of that book represent a window into my biographical past that sheds light on those who now hate me because they still think as I did last century.

The climactic pages of The Nazis, obviously, are descriptions of the so-called Jewish holocaust. The César I was last century wrote, in the book, things like: ‘By now, there should have already been a plot to kill him [Hitler]’ (about a passage on page 107); ‘Here it is clear: even the British didn’t recognise the danger in Czechoslovakia after the atrocities in Kristallnacht and humiliation of the Austrian Jews’ (about a passage on page 116); ‘Wow: a decent German among monsters’ (about a passage on page 129); ‘This is why I bought the book: just as I think, let’s distribute guilt to all the German people’ (about the introductory passages on pages 10ff); ‘Clear-cut case of folie à nación, Austria’ (about a passage on page 110); ‘Close your heart to compassion. Act brutally, Hitler’ (about a passage on page 122), ‘Now I know why I unconsciously identified myself with Stauffenberg [the ringleader of the bombing of 20 July 1944]’ (about a passage on page 215); ‘One good thing really came out of this trip to England: discovering the BBC’ (when on 14 June 1999 I finished reading The Nazis).

Well, well… If I can have empathy, and even sympathy, for the brainwashed César of the last century, I must now have it for those who haven’t crossed the psychological Rubicon.

What would I say to the César of the last century if I could visit him through a time tunnel?

First of all, I hope that by now visitors have seen my post yesterday linking to a video by David Irving showing what I believe about the historical facts of the so-called holocaust from the viewpoint of what Irving calls ‘real history’. Let’s start from that, and also from what I responded to Jewish Enrique Krauze in The Occidental Observer on the subject. Krauze’s position is the same as the position of Rees in his BBC book, where on page 194 Rees picked up a quote: ‘Nobody can explain why the Germans did it’ when the explanation is so obvious that even the Jew Albert Lindemann laid it out in his scholarly Esau’s Tears.

But there is more to it than that.

The César of the last century had to cross the Rubicon. To move from identifying with Stauffenberg (!) to wanting history to be told before and after Hitler (!), which is what I want now, requires a great metamorphosis.

The first step, I have already confessed on this site, I owe to the fact that on 20 April 2010, Greg Johnson posted in the comments section of OD the full text of an article by Irmin Vinson, if I remember correctly this one, which Johnson then published in the webzine Counter-Currents and eventually in print along with other essays by Vinson.

That was the first stepping stone for me to start crossing the psychological Rubicon.

I don’t want to link here all the other stepping stones I had to step on before I reached the other side of the river because it would overwhelm the reader with countless links. But even the first stone gives an idea of the direction in which I was heading.

I want to say a final word about César in the last century.

There is something I underlined a quarter of a century ago in that book that I still believe, ‘Despite being widely bought [Mein Kampf] it was not widely read [in Germany]’ (page 90). That’s because, in my humble opinion, the Führer had to divide his message in twain: a message analogous to today’s American white nationalism for the masses, and a more anti-Christian one for his inner circle of friends. The problem wasn’t Hitler’s hypocrisy, but that the masses of Germans were unprepared to receive his full message (He didn’t say anything to them without using a parable; but when he was alone with his own disciples he explained everything…).

This bifurcation of the NS message is now unnecessary. Hitler’s after-dinner conversations, an anthology like The Fair Race or Savitri Devi’s memoirs linked in my featured post explain it so clearly that, unlike Mein Kampf in the 1930s, they would be devoured as highly entertaining novels once the American troops leave Europe and the Germans and Austrians reinstate the freedom of press eliminated since 1945 (again: see what Irving said in yesterday’s post).

Categories
David Irving Holocaust Videos

Real history

‘Talking frankly’ (five videos)

Categories
Holocaust

Interviewing Weber?

What I replied to commenter Alfons yesterday about the so-called Holocaust has given me an idea: Why not ask Mark Weber of Institute of Historical Review (IHR) to give us an interview to find out why he changed his mind from denialist to accepting that perhaps 2 million were executed under the orders of Himmler’s SS?

I wrote to Weber a few years ago and got no reply. (Similarly, a while ago I wanted to purchase a copy of Savitri Devi’s edited book by William Pierce from the National Alliance [NA] and got no reply.)

I guess they don’t respond to me because, unlike David Irving, Mark Weber and the vast majority of white nationalists and even neo-Nazis, I am an exterminationist (cf. my featured post ‘The Wall’). And in general, those on my left don’t want any contact with those who, like me, have transvalued our former Judeo-Christian values to Greco-Roman values. (Remember that in the pagan times of Titus or Hadrian whites didn’t give a damn that Roman legions were genociding Jews in Jerusalem; many even liked it!)

Since I am more or less shunned on the racial right because, unlike them, my Nietzschean transvaluation is genuine, someone else has to do the job of inviting Weber for an interview (I don’t mention Irving because the historian of the Reich’s most notable personalities isn’t in the best of health).

If any of the commenters or visitors to the thread I linked above would care to do that job, I would appreciate it. It’s a discussion that, as far as I know, on serious and notable sites only happened years ago at The Occidental Observer when Greg Johnson argued there with Hadding Scott. I’m referring to an internal discussion about the Holocaust, between people who are more or less sympathetic to the Third Reich (I don’t mean, obviously, discussing the subject with Jews or white traitors).

Incidentally, the discussion between Johnson and Scott in TOO didn’t progress because they both held, in my opinion, irrational positions. Johnson said that the subject of the so-called Holocaust should be abandoned, forgotten completely (something that seems absurd to me, since the System uses the crucified Jew as a psyop to induce feelings of guilt in the Aryan man). Scott, in turn, started from a very peculiar definition of the word ‘Holocaust’, from which he claimed that the victims of the Holocaust had been ‘exactly zero’.

We need to raise the internal discussion to another level. Where are the volunteers? I don’t like to keep sending more emails after IRH or NA didn’t answer me. So it has to be other people: younger people than me who can, with English as their mother tongue, do the right interview.

Categories
David Irving Heinrich Himmler Holocaust

Himmler DVD

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.

Categories
Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 5

Editor’s note: This is a translation, from Spanish to English, of a passage from Alemania Pudo Vencer by Salvador Borrego:

 
AUSCHWITZ WAS MENTIONED LATER

At the end of 1944, the Soviets entered the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they found no gas chambers, and captured the archives with the documentation of what had happened there during its five years of existence. And, remarkably, Stalin said nothing—neither then nor later—about the millions of dead denounced years later as the ‘Holocaust’. The same is true of Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman and Pope Pius XII, who never mentioned the ‘six million’. Were they all Nazi cover-ups?

According to the famous ‘Nazi hunter’ Simon Wiesenthal, the National Socialists burned 6 million Jews and 5 million more of other races. On this, the Canadian crematorium specialist Ivan Lagace did a study and concluded that it could not be calculated how many centuries it would take to burn 11 million people.

Regardless of the above, a trial in which the accusers are both judges and executioners, as was the case with Wisenthal and company, is never and nowhere in the world considered lawful. This irregularity is one of the reasons why there are more and more doubts about the alleged dogma of the ‘six million’. Another reason is that different figures are being bandied about. For fifty years there was talk of four million dead in Auschwitz, and then suddenly the figure dropped to 1.5.

Moreover, it is the only subject in history that is forbidden to investigate. The ‘deniers’ from various countries note: ‘You can freely discuss whether or not Christ was the Son of God, whether he raised the dead or made the deaf hear, whether or not the Virgin Mary had more children, but never doubt the Holocaust!’

Categories
Holocaust Kevin MacDonald

Carolyn Yeager confronts KMD

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for replying! I wrote that you had ‘never admitted that [you] seriously doubted that “it” occurred as generally described’. So it’s not what you have said but what you have failed to say. Also, publishing someone else’s articles in your capacity as editor of The Occidental Observer is not equivalent to a statement from you.

In 2017, you participated in a videocast of Torah Talk with Luke Ford, a non-ethnically Jewish student of Torah and Talmud. One of Ford’s young students asked you the clearly unexpected question: ‘What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?’ I quote your answer word for word:

Yeah, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I haven’t seen anything that would really, you know, convince me. And I, frankly, haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know, how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly, and all that is something that I don’t think is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Definition of ‘third rail’: A subject that tends to be avoided because of its offensive or controversial nature.

I’d like to insert here that IF it’s not important whether the H. actually happened, how can there be a culture about it that is important? We need to know whether it happened or not—if not, there can be no culture based on it. You were also asked your feelings about Adolf Hitler. You answered:

Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality… got in the way of [the generals] carrying out their strategic military [goals] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was… horrible, that was a disaster.

There was more, which you can read for yourself at [Carolyn’s site].

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Read the whole exchange at The Occidental Observer.

Categories
Final solution Holocaust Reinhard Heydrich Third Reich

The Führer’s monologues (vii)

In his Anmerkungen zu Hitler, Sebastian Haffner argued that the character of the National Socialist leader was determined early on and ‘astonishingly always remained the same’. This is especially true of the basic ideological positions.[1] The proof was provided by Eberhard Jäckel in his study on Hitler’s Weltanschauung.[2]

Here we will only briefly touch on the thoughts that Hitler developed in the monologues recorded by Heim. The defeat of 1918, he thought, and the harsh terms of the peace treaty so wounded the national pride and self-confidence of the German people that they exerted all their strength to get out of the distress. Without the uncompromising attitude of the victorious powers of the First World War, it would never have been possible to inflame the national passions to such an extent, to achieve the will tension to regain the former world status. Hitler, in contrast to many of his followers and voters, sought it, however, only as a prerequisite for the establishment of a larger Reich, which at the same time was to become the organising power of a new Europe. To achieve this goal, no state should be in a position to oppose these aspirations. Hitler was deeply convinced that the land ‘according to eternal natural law’ belonged to the one who conquered it, ‘because the old borders did not offer sufficient possibilities for the growth of the people’ (table talk #117).

According to Hitler’s worldview, the first and most important prerequisite for the expansion of Germany’s sphere of power was the strengthening of the people’s vital energies, and the mobilisation of their readiness to fight. Since Hitler could not imagine history without war, he considered it necessary to educate the people to affirm the struggle for existence. He therefore consistently wanted the German people to wage war every fifteen to twenty years (table talk #17). Only in this way would they be able to summon up the utmost strength and maintain the necessary toughness. To get young and old, poor and rich, citizens and workers to identify with the National Socialist regime, to get them to unreservedly link their private existence with that of the state privileges were abolished, discrimination ended, and educational and promotional opportunities improved. Above all, the entire population was to be given access to the nation’s cultural assets. However, the National Socialist leadership reserved the right to determine what art was, and which works of music, poetry and painting corresponded to the consciousness of the people. In addition, Hitler expected everyone to take advantage of their opportunities, to make full use of the possibilities offered to them. If he failed to do so, if he deliberately withdrew from the struggle for life as demanded by the state, all support and tolerance would be withdrawn. The same applied to the people as a whole. Hitler spoke of them with appreciation and respect, and praised their diligence, loyalty and many other positive qualities. But he demanded that they accept the struggle and prove themselves in it. If they did not fight resolutely and bravely, if they showed symptoms of weakness, there was no excuse: ‘If the German people are not prepared to stand up for their self-preservation, fine: then let them disappear!’ (table talk #114)

Hitler himself spared no effort and no means to increase the strength and readiness to fight, but above all the inner unity of the nation. This was served by the attempt to bring as many people of German nationality as possible into the Reich from the occupied areas of Europe and other states, to have ethnic Germans or volunteers from related nations fight in units of the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS, and to enlist minorities or individual members of foreign nations, as far as they were considered assimilable, for cooperation.

The declared enemies of the regime were fought with the same uncompromising zeal that was used to select those who were considered useful and qualified according to ideological principles. These included, among others, Czechs, Poles, Russians and, first and foremost, the Jews. Hitler repeatedly emphasised with emphasis that there was no leniency for ‘aliens from the community’. It has recently been claimed that the deportation and murder of the European Jews took place without the knowledge of the German head of state.[3] According to another view, the order to kill them was only given after the conflict between rival forces had become so disastrous that there was no longer any alternative.[4] In my opinion, both theses are untenable. The assumption that the decision to the ‘final solution to the Jewish question’ in Europe was taken by Hitler in the face of the realisation that the war could no longer be decided militarily[5] is not confirmed either in these records or in other sources.

Hitler was the undisputed leader, he made or approved all essential decisions, including the most momentous of the whole war. The ‘removal’ of the Jews from Europe corresponded to the consistency of his worldview, as all his statements on this subject show. And the consequence of his actions from 1939 to 1941 can also be seen in the orders and measures he gave. The Einsatzgruppen that followed the German armies into Russia had clear instructions. On 31 July 1941, Heydrich was instructed to develop a concept for the removal of the Jews from the entire German sphere of power and influence. The fact that expulsion was no longer on the agenda is shown by the impediment and, from October 1941, the ban on all emigration. On 15 October the systematic deportation of Jews from Germany and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia began.

Ten days later, on 25 October, Hitler declared in the presence of Himmler and Heydrich at the Führer’s headquarters: ‘Before the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that the Jew would disappear from Europe if the war was not avoided. This criminal race has on its conscience the two million dead of the World War, now hundreds of thousands again. Don’t tell me: We can’t send them into the mire! Who cares about our people? It is good if we are preceded by the terror of eradicating Judaism. The attempt to found a Jewish state will be a failure’ (table talk #44). Without a doubt, all the fundamental decisions were made at this time. Heydrich then made the technical and organisational arrangements so that in November he could invite the state secretaries of all the ministries involved to the house on Wannsee for a meeting on 9 December 1941. The date for the conference had to be postponed given the events on the Eastern Front, but the ‘Final Solution’ was not. It began in December 1941.

________

[1] Sebastian Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler. Munich 1978.

[2] Eberhard Jäckel, Hitler’s Weltanschauung. Entwurf einer Herrschaft. Tübingen 1969.

[3] David Irving believes that Bormann, Himmler, Goebbels and others ruled the Reich while Hitler waged his war (Hitler’s War, p. 251). However, he fails to provide any convincing evidence for this.

[4] Martin Broszat, Hitler und die Genesis der »Endlösung« (Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’). On the occasion of David Irving’s theses. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25, 1977, p. 746 ff.

[5] Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler (op. cit.) p. 157.