As we have better security now, the Jewish internet police, also known as Anonymous, have moved on to shut down other websites which spread the truth about Jewish lies.  Carolyn Yeager’s site was ddossed just after this message was left as a comment:

Carolyn Yeager: you will be down for the rest of the day maybe year

starting 11 30 am you will be downed , for the remained of the year , you can have you website back either by donating money to either the michael bronw eric garner jordan baker btamir rice etc families , or pay the 1000 fee of being a fucking dipshit rasict from kerrville .. any guff will result in a complete dump of all your website viewers info and picutre of there front doors and for the anti fasict community to see

The message was left under the name of “r0(h3z” and linked to anonops.com – so it is the same group of unbelievable faggots who attacked the Daily Stormer on numerous occasions, announcing that they were silencing us because we disagreed with Obama and the Jewish media.

I will again note the irony, which those who have been involved in chan culture over the past decade are already aware of: Anonymous was originally formed for the sole purpose of defending free speech and now it exists for the sole purpose of shutting it down.

What is fascinating about the attack on Carolyn is that it was so clearly an attack to defend the Jews. I follow Carolyn’s work, and she very rarely talks about the Negro menace, focusing almost exclusively on the Jewish problem and in particular historical revisionism. The attack came after she had posted several pieces about the upcoming Holocaust remembrance day.

Clearly then, this talk about extorting money from her to fund the cop-killers is merely cover for an obviously completely Jewish agenda.

Defending Berger’s Jewish Anti-Free Speech Campaign

Following this same pattern, earlier in the month when I was promoting a trolling of Luciana Berger, these fags – who cannot seem to effectively ddos us anymore – claimed that they could backtrace the IPs of anyone who posted on Twitter!  They then started posting addresses, saying they were of people from this site who were trolling Berger.

Worthy of mention here is the idiotic pattern we see – these Jew-lovers are continually claiming to have magic powers to shut us down.  You saw above they claimed to have the IP addresses of all Carolyn’s readers, and then here they are apparently claiming to have hacked Twitter’s network and have full access to it, which is an unbelievably retarded claim to make.

Here are some other documented false claims:

Many other claims were made, but Sven got angry and deleted all of the comments containing that evidence.  Among the other claims were that he had the ability to access the computers of anyone who visited this site, among various other insane/retarded claims that anyone could obviously see were false.

This is also the same group which claimed they would release a sex tape of Iggy Azalea if she didn’t apologize to a Negress rapper for hurting her feelings.  They did not have the sex tape, they just made it up.  It is also the same group who did the attacks on the KKK and claimed to have secret pictures of their families and then just published a bunch of pictures from Google image search.

Anyway, utter faggotry; these are completely incapable people and not real hackers by any definition of the word “hacker.”  Ddossing, for those who don’t know, doesn’t actually require any skills, it simply requires a few bucks to rent a botnet and use it to attack a site.  Doing it doesn’t make you a “hacker” any more than paying a Black guy to stab someone makes you a ninja assassin.

Moving on – it is telling that they attack Carolyn then use this weird excuse of Michael Brown, and it was telling they defended Berger and threatened anyone who trolled her on Twitter.

The only possible reason they would make a point to come out in support of Berger is that they are defenders of all Jews and defenders of all attempts to shut down free speech online.  We attack various Jews on this site all the time, but they don’t usually come out to defend specific Jews in this way, so it seemed related to the fact she was also trying to silence speech on the internet.

Anonymous is now Bizarro Anonymous, it seems – the exact opposite of what it used to be, which was a support of all forms of free speech, it is now a type of reverse-ACLU where it supports all forms of censorship.

The philosophy of Anonymous:

“I may not disagree with the speech you are trying to silence, but I’ll fight to the death to help you shut it down.”

Not Edgy

Basically, the leftist faggots have given up any and all pretense of being hip or edgy, and now just want to crush all opposition so they can… I don’t actually even know what their goals are.

There is no way you can be both counter-culture and fight against those who question the government, and the left is having a very difficult time coming to terms with this.  Anonymous literally silencing the speech of anyone who disagrees with the government or the media is the ultimate manifestation of this identity crisis.

This week, the DramaQuest continues, as the forces of conferences and book reviews once again confront men of action and attempt to dissuade people from taking part in the ultimate agenda of total justice so as they may continue to circlejerk without looking like fools for never doing anything and not even having any form of a plan to ever do anything!

Andrew Anglin has finally decided that he has zero interest in being cordial, and has declared Total War.

Will the forces of doing things prevail, or will those who don’t want to look stupid for spending decades doing nothing succeed in their plot to stop anyone from ever doing anything????

Find out, as Infinite DramaQuest continues, right here on the Daily Stormer!

Cast of Characters

Previously on Infinite DramaQuest:

The heroic White warrior Robert Ransdell launched a full frontal assault on the Jews, garnering massive media attention

The YouTuber RamZPaul attacked Ransdell, accusing him of being a Jew and a secret agent

Daily Stormer Commander Andrew Anglin rushed to the defense of comrade Ransdell, stopping RamZPaul and silencing him on the issue

Colin Liddell, chief servant of Richard Spencer, clumsily attacked Anglin, accusing him of being a secret agent for talking about Jews

Commander Anglin responded to Liddell’s attack, crushing his inane arguments and mocking him for lacking the intellectual capacity to produce arguments which go beyond name calling

Jobbik pulled out of Spencerfest 2014 due to disgust at the American racism, and the Hungarian government banned the festival

Spencer held the festival anyway, was arrested and deported from the country for being an evil racist

Liddell responded to Anglin’s defensive repelling of his attack with exactly six million tears

Carolyn Yeager assessed the situation, rightfully crushing the Hitler-deniers and hoax-confirmers

Greg Johnson wrote a six million word essay, attacking everyone involved in this situation and claiming that he himself is the only person who matters

Anglin responded to Johnson’s assault, annihilating his forces entirely

Alex Linder joined the fray

A Jew in Salon Magazine attacked Philosemite Jared Taylor, accused him of Nazism

Chechar and Matt Parrott defended Anglin, the latter claiming Nazism wasn’t extreme enough

And now…

This week on Infinite DramaQuest: Colin Liddell Posts a Blog, Attempts to Outflank Us to Save His Ego, Which was Previously Put Through a Wood-Chipper

In a gross attempt to gain some traffic to his completely unread blog, Alt Right – now constantly referred to by people on the internet as “Altistic Right” – Colin Liddell has launched a third attack on yours truly, the Big Bad Wolf.

Foregoing his opportunity to present an intellectual defense for his position, Liddell went with insults, a silly tautology and an superfluous analogy.

He begins by repeating his previous insult that I am a secret agent, while once again demonstrating that no matter how many times I explain it, he will be incapable of understanding what is happening on this website.

In defense the way to win is to get your enemies to attack you at your strongest point. In offense the way to win is to attack your enemies at their weakest point.

Now, just supposing you were a White-hating, globalist shill – or a slap-headed moron who just acted like a White-hating, globalist shill – and wanted to sidetrack nationalism for as long as possible, then you would want to trick nationalists into attacking by the most bloody, dangerous, and fruitless route possible, the one where their efforts would reap the lowest possible return, and which would lead to their destruction.

In fact, you might even set up something like The Daily Stormer, a populist mix of 4chan Nazi porn, monster truck machismo, and juvenile racist trolling that serves to repel normal people from nationalism, while ghettoizing existing nationalists ever further from the mainstream.

And there you see again – we are hurting his movement by actually getting people involved in a real pro-White movement.  I guess everyone needs someone to blame, but why not blame the people who are responsible?  Why not blame the sneaking rat Jews, Colin?

Note you also see that Colin is opposed to the following things: populism, 4chan, masculinity and racism.  Or at least, those are all the things he doesn’t like about the site, and the reasons he believes – or perhaps, merely claims to believe – I am a secret agent man.

Honestly, I was a bit shocked by the rehash of the secret agent accusations.  It just seems so lowbrow, for such a highbrow intellectual figure as Liddell.

Liddell then goes on to address the recent Johnson attack and my response.

Following Greg Johnson’s thoughtful and precise article against such self-destructive Vantardism, which merely referred to The Daily Stormer in passing, that sites’s publisher Andrew Anglin was stung into writing a long, rambling, defensive, and idiotic article – Fortress Defense Saga: Greg Johnson Joins the Assault on Our Base – which, predictably, failed to address any of the pertinent criticisms made.

More obfuscation and outright lies.  Johnson himself has not denied that the criticism was largely aimed at me, and the entire thing was framed in that context.  Is Liddell incapable of grasping that, or is this merely another cheap shot, which he expects that his readers will not catch?  Does it even matter, given that he has no readers, except when he writes about me, when all of his readers are my people?

And he says that I failed to address criticisms.  He said that last time, without specifying which criticisms I had failed to address.  In fact, my response was, as usual, thorough to the max. This is just another weak insult.  If there were points that I failed to address, surely Liddell would have mentioned them explicitly – saying that some unknown points were not addressed is just Liddell taking advantage of the fact that this whole situation has been made extremely confusing by the refusal of the Right Whinge to engage in straight-talk, given that they apparently believe that saying it straight is only for coal miners and meth addicts.

Eventually, Liddell gets to his super-killer argument.

But, better than this, Anglin was flushed out by Johnson’s article into revealing his secret plan and the simplistic mechanism of his anti-nationalism. Halfway through his outpouring of butthurt flummery, there is a moment of unwitting clarity when he reveals his formula in a direct address to Johnson:

“You cannot preserve the White race without addressing the Jews.
You cannot address the Jews without addressing their hoax.
You cannot address their hoax without addressing Adolf Hitler.”

This is the article’s eureka moment – the cockroach caught in the kitchen light, so to speak – so, go back and have a good look at it again, and think deeply about what Anglin is actually saying.

What Anglin is unequivocally saying here is that before you can do anything at all about preserving and protecting the White race – stopping mass immigration, say, or encouraging White women to have at least 2.1 babies – you must first get everyone to love Hitler and hate the Jews, and if you can’t accomplish these supposed preconditions then you had best forget the whole shebang, So what he is really saying is simply:

“You cannot preserve the White race.”

Interesting that if he is trying to appeal to some sort of intellectual class, he would choose to use such a sloppy rhetorical tautology to explain his argument, huh?

I could, of course, simply flip it around to make my point:

But, better than this, Liddell was flushed out by Anglin’s article into revealing his secret plan and the simplistic mechanism of his anti-nationalism. Halfway through his outpouring of butthurt flummery, there is a moment of unwitting clarity when he reveals his formula in a direct address to Anglin:

“You cannot preserve the White race while addressing the Jews.
You cannot avoid addressing the Jews while addressing their hoax.
You cannot refuse to address their hoax without distancing yourself from Adolf Hitler.”

This is the article’s eureka moment – the cockroach caught in the kitchen light, so to speak – so, go back and have a good look at it again, and think deeply about what Liddell is actually saying.

What Liddell is unequivocally saying here is that before you can do anything at all about preserving and protecting the White race – stopping mass immigration, say, or encouraging White women to have at least 2.1 babies – you must first get everyone to ignore the thing you will constantly be equated to and get support from Jews, and if you can’t accomplish these supposed preconditions then you had best forget the whole shebang, So what he is really saying is simply:

“You cannot preserve the White race.”

But I wouldn’t ever do that, because I have this thing in my back called a “vertebral column” which physically prevents me from being capable of engaging in such base intellectual dishonesty.

Instead, I have offered detailed arguments as to why we should attack at the absolute weakest point of Jewish power, which is their idiot gas chamber hoax.

Ah, but Liddell claims that this is their strongest point!  Without explanation.  He just says it.

He gives us this super-cute analogy (apparently for no reason, as it does nothing to push what he is selling, it is just an arduous method of repeating his “the hoax is unbeatable” theory; but as he does not have arguments to support this theory, he resorts to pointless analogies).

Imagine, if you will, a fortress that has two approaches. One is from the West, over easy terrain, over which you can move your cannon easily, towards a point where the walls are quite low and weak. It is the obvious place to attack.

On the East, however, the approach is rather more difficult. Lets say it passes over a weak rope bridge, surrounded by enormous towers packed with enemy archers. Underneath a moat full of man-eating crocodiles awaits. Once across the bridge, it is a sheer climb up slippery rocks with the approach enfiladed on three sides by the enemy’s artillery, until you reach the gate of death, where any survivors can easily be drowned in boiling oil.

Now which way would you attack? Led by a sane, honest, and wise leader, you would of course attack from the West. But led by the likes of Anglin, you would be conned into attacking by the narrow tortuous route of certain death, the Hitler route.

If it is the strongest point of fortress defense, Mr. Supersmartintellectualguy, why are they making laws all across Europe to keep people from researching or talking about it?  One would assume that this is a last-ditch effort to hold together a rapidly collapsing lie.  Instead of recognizing this obvious weakness, Liddell says it is their strongest point, and we should simply forget about it.  This is stupidly wrong on the face of it, but Liddell is now committed to it, and can’t back down.

I have an analogy too, buddy.

Imagine, if you will, a fortress that has a completely rotted-out front door.  It is the only entrance to a stone castle with 10-foot thick walls.  The door is so rotted-out, the soldiers in the fortress are literally using their own bodies to try and hold it up. It is the obvious place to attack.

On the East, however, there is a field containing a gigantic rock.

Now which way would you attack? Led by a sane, honest, and wise leader, you would of course attack the rotted-out front door and force your way into the fortress. But led by the likes of Liddell, you would be conned into going out into the field and repeatedly smashing your head against the gigantic rock, the Holocaust avoidance route.

I however, don’t require redundant analogies, as I have actual arguments.

The entire structure of Jewish dominance – which in agreeing with Johnson, maybe Liddell has pulled a kick-flip and now agrees is the main problem, but that remains unclear – is based upon the Holocaust.  Without that, they stand naked as the singular destroyers of Western Civilization.

Liddell then, for reasons unclear, compares the Holocaust to Christianity, in the process apparently denying the Holocaust and also celebrating the Jewish-backed destruction of Christianity as a good thing.

No matter how long you persist, the great mass of the population is never going to start seeing Hitler through the same rose-tinted spectacles that Anglin pretends to wear; and even though there are plenty of flaws in the story of the Holocaust, most people are going to keep on seeing it in the way that the mainstream media present it. Harnessing ethnonationalism to that dead weight is the political equivalent of sinking its body in the lake.

It took hundreds of years for the equally mythic construct of Christianity to be partially overturned – and that was with most of the forces of modernity working in tandem towards that end. With that in mind, do really think that Anglin, from the depths of his internet hole, can persuade the world that Hitler was a saint and the Holocaust was a jolly good thing and didn’t happen?

Firstly, thank you for finally admitted the hoax is a hoax, Colin. Though you did it in the most spineless way possible, at least you did it.

Bravo.

Next – what are you talking about, that it took “hundreds of years” to destroy Christianity? In fact it took a single generation – the baby-boomers – when the Jews sold the forbidden fruit of free sex and drugs and unlimited money and no responsibility forever no matter what to a bunch of gullible goyim.

I don’t want to argue about Christianity, but pretending as if the majority of the West was not Christian at the time of the war and that it was nigh exclusively Jewish cultural manipulation through the entertainment media and the university system (along with the Jewish take-over of the churches themselves) which led to a collapse of the religion is simply stupid and factually wrong.

Here’s a graph for you, good buddy:

The comparison is idiotic in the first place, as Christianity is a religion, as such based on faith rather than facts, meaning it required a philosophical change of heart about something that can’t be proved either way, whereas the Holocaust is simply a lie which can be easily disproved with already meticulously documented facts.

Seriously, man.  Why would you even say that?  Do you like being made to look stupid?  This whole thing you wrote seems to have been designed for easy ridicule, to the point where some of my readers are likely to suspect I’ve convinced you to work for me and launch the most benign possible attacks so as I can respond and make myself look smarter than I actually am.

Anyway, the fact that you would bring up the Jewish destruction of Christianity as a positive social change shows where you are coming from (I doubt you are much of a fan of Neo-Paganism either, which is generally the context of such statements in our little community).  You are a liberal.  You agree with Jewish agendas, which is why you would wish to obfuscate the fact that Jews are responsible for everything by claiming we shouldn’t blame the Jews for our problems.  The sole issue you have is the invasion by these savages, and thus you try to separate that issue from the entirety of the Jew problem.

That is the real reason you don’t want to discuss the Hoax.  If we directly attack the Jews, this whole system comes crashing down, and the balance of nature will be restored.  All the Jew influence will be deleted.  Masculinity will be restored, and all that comes with that.  And that idea makes you very uncomfortable, I am quite certain.

What are These People Even Talking About?

One of the key questions in this entire DramaQuest is: what are those in the Right Whinge actually arguing for?  They have made it clear they are against us and apparently all of our issues, and yet it is unclear what they want or how they plan to achieve it.

I think it is very telling that Liddell and Johnson both wrote essays against me and praised one another for their clever attacks on my person, when the reality is that they agree with each other about very little, ideologically.

Liddell has said that if you are going to talk about the Jews you have to be sneaky about it so that you don’t get called a Nazi, even though everyone gets called a Nazi anyway, while Johnson has said Jews are the number one enemy and that anyone who doesn’t address them is a coward, and he cited Le Pen as an example of such.  Liddell cites Le Pen as an example of successful nationalism and what we need to aim for in America.  Richard Spencer, who is the love object of Liddell, is apparently trying to model himself directly after the European “mainstreamers” that Johnson condemns as enemies.

The reason these two are on the same side against me is that they share the quality that they have no interest in a popular movement, and despise anyone who would attempt to take that route.

The ultimate idiocy here is that there is absolutely no need for “intellectual arguments” in our situation.  Any single intellectual is capable of looking at the facts and determining his own conclusions.  If he is incapable of that, then by definition he isn’t an intellectual, and thus needs to be appealed to on an emotional level.  Kevin MacDonald has already laid out all of the needed facts for any true intellectual to consume and draw the obvious conclusions from.  So the idea they are trying to convert the intelligentsia is silly because it is conceptually impossible.

So who?

Watch one of the presentations of Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor, and ask yourself: “who exactly it this supposed to appeal to?”  Go peruse Counter-Currents – or any of these other “intellectual” blogs – and ask yourself the same thing.

The answer, obviously, is middle class White liberals over the age of 40 – precisely the most useless group of people on the face of the earth, as well as the group that is the least likely to have any interest whatsoever in issues of White survival.

That is why virtually no one at all cares about Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor or any of the rest of these people, and no one ever will.

So then, who am I targeting [in America]?

First, I am targeting all disenfranchised and angry White males under the age of thirty, which is where all of the real power lies.  This site appeals to members of all socio-economic classes in that age bracket.

Second, I am targeting all age groups of traditional American conservatives, who generally come from the working and middle classes.  This is still the core of America – people who are uninterested in Spencer’s purposeful avoidance of straight-talk and surely uninterested in Johnson’s promotion of homosexuality and Antichristism.

An added bonus is that any true intellectual is able to grasp what I am doing here (it isn’t particularly complicated).  They are then surely able to gather their news from here daily, maybe having a laugh here and there while they’re at it.

Liddell is not an actual intellectual, just an upper-middle class liberal who sees subhuman hordes preparing to destroy everything he likes.  Johnson is something closer to an actual intellectual, but apparently cares very little about getting anything done and just genuinely doesn’t like people who don’t read philosophy books and read and/or write reviews of them.  Also, given that he doesn’t have children and presumably isn’t planning on producing any, he doesn’t have much of a dog in this fight, and views this as a hobby, as evidenced by the lack of a consistent ideology in his writings.

The one group I am not attempting to appeal to here is middle class liberals.

I am, unashamedly, a populist.  Every successful revolutionary movement in history has been populist in nature, for what I would have to assume are obvious reasons, but will go ahead and state anyway: a ruling minority can only ever be ousted by a disenfranchised or otherwise enraged majority; if a minority is overthrown by another minority, it is simply a power-transfer and the existing system doesn’t change in any noticeable fashion.

If this rule is wrong, give me an historical example of when something different happened.

What’s the Plan?

What these people need to explain – in real terms, rather than wordy gibberish (I won’t hold my breath) – is why, if their plan works, they have gained absolutely no traction in the many, many years they’ve been attempting this, and why, when the people are in a state of extreme need, and looking around for a solution, their popularity has not increased at all.

If Richard Spencer is the savior of the White race he has been marketed as, why does no one care about him?

And finally, if I am going about this in exactly the wrong way, why is the Daily Stormer the number one pro-White site in the United States?

You know why I don’t promote Richard Spencer?  Because no one cares.  No matter how many conferences he has in historic European cities, no matter how many essays he writes, no matter how many podcasts he does, no more than a handful of people are ever going to care about anything he has to say.  There is absolutely nothing inspiring about this man. He is inoffensive to the point of lifelessness, he purposefully employs a form of politician-speak that isn’t even used by real politicians anymore given that it is so widely recognized as fundamentally dishonest and has thus been abandoned by professional public speaking coaches and he refuses to offer clear solutions.

I don’t usually say these things, because I believe in solidarity, and have no beef with you people.  But at some point – I can’t pinpoint it – this debate got so ridiculous that it became necessary to inject a little bit of reality into the situation.  The idea that it is easier to get Richard Spencer elected to office than to use the internet to expose the Jews as the open and public destroyers of society is so monumentally stupid that it is almost inconceivable that anyone would be capable of formulating such an idea.

But Spencer isn’t even running for office, is he?  I guess he needed a conference in Budapest with a bunch of non-Americans before it made sense to run for office in this country.

If you people want to be in charge, then be in charge.  You don’t need my permission.  Start a movement that is more effective than the one I am presently involved in, and the people will join you.  If it works, I’ll join it myself.

The fact that you attack me and blame me for your failures simply demonstrates how pathetic and incompetent you are.

How is that not obvious to you?

It is surely obvious to most everyone else.

These Attacks of Theirs

As we saw above with Liddell’s most recent flailing attack on this site – and saw with each of the other attacks as well – these people struggle, immensely, to explain what exactly it is they don’t like about us.  Their arguments are obviously weak, based on nothing much, seemingly made of nothing they pulled out of nowhere and then expanded across dozens of paragraphs for the purpose of distorting the fact that there is no actual content.

First it was a general attack, then I responded and it was reduced, then I responded again and it was reduced again and now it is just “eh, too much Hitler – don’t do the Hitler.”

This is because they don’t actually know, consciously, why they are against us.  But I do.

What we are actually dealing with is a dislike of the basic idea of populism by a group of people who despise working people.

I have read Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, I have been to probably fifty different countries.  I am not Homer Simpson (a Jewish caricature mocking the traditional American White Man, the posting of which certainly says a bit about Colin’s general mindset), nor am I am obese basement troll.  What I am, however, is post-liberal.  I understand that the system of liberalism is unsustainable, that if Liddell and Spencer were to have their way the same exact situation would happen again, and that the only solution to the problems we face is radical Traditionalism in every sector of society.

Hitler was a populist.  That is why Liddell dislikes him.  Not because he actually believes in the hoax or believes this was some “dark part” of history.  Johnson respects the aesthetic of National Socialism (as well as a lot of post-Hitler Nazi esoterica), so doesn’t condemn Hitler, but recognizes our use of this aesthetic is for populist purposes, and so condemns us for using it.

These people won’t ever change anything, because even if they claim to want to, they are unwilling to recognize the only way it could be done, which is through direct and unapologetic appeal to the masses.

The Sheer Idiocy of Pro-White Liberalism

The last point in the entire debate is that no matter what you do, if you are attempting to restore traditional European society, you are going to look and act basically exactly like Nazis. Because NS was the post-industrial revolution embodiment of traditional Europeanism.  It was scientifically formulated as such.

What happens is that the further you try to get away from the label of “Nazi,” the more you necessarily have to compromise, because in fleeing the label, you abandon stances and doctrines with similarities to those of the NSDAP, and so are forced to abandon key aspects of a nationalist platform.

Basically, what the Right Whinge are trying to do is combine modern liberalism with a whites-only society. And though I want something very much more extreme than that, if I thought it was possible to achieve that, I might put aside my agenda and embrace it. After all, a whites-only society, whether based on liberal principles or not, would at least give us more radical folks the option of existing how we wish to exist, free from harassment by the system.

We would also end up voting our way into power anyway through the liberal democracy system that the pro-White liberals would doubtlessly leave in place, as conservatives are still the majority in America if you get rid of the Jews and non-Whites, at which point we could form a one-party system and end the vote.

However, this plan for a liberal White revolution can’t possibly work. Even if you could manage to combine liberal thought with the concept of a Whites-only society (that is, isolate racial identity from other forms of social conservatism) – and you couldn’t, as is evidenced by Johnson’s attempts to do so, which contain endless inconsistencies and outright contradictions (one of the most blatant being complaining about the White birthrate while celebrating homosexuality) – it would be incapable of achieving victory over the present system, largely due to the fact that liberals are weak and gutless cowards, as evidenced by Liddell and others continually speaking out against “hate” and defaming anyone who ever accomplished anything that mattered.

As I have said, they are also fundamentally incapable of rallying the masses.

What rallied the masses in the sixties, when liberalism began its conquest of the West, was seduction. They offered free sex, drugs and a general lack of any personal responsibility. Plus a lot of really good music. But the people now have all of these things. So what would you then rally them behind? Just “we need rid of these foreigners and Blacks, so we can have peace”?

It cannot work. Yes, of course people are fed up with foreigners and Blacks, but that idea alone cannot maintain a new Zeitgeist. It cannot stir the youth to revolution. What can stir the youth to revolution is a critique of the entire system of the Jews, and the way it has affected all of us on a personal level.

The fact that we can see all of these people invading our countries and feeding off of us like buzzards on a still breathing man is indeed powerfully upsetting, but at this point those who are inspired by liberal thought – who are definitively a part of a very specific socio-economic class – can still avoid them, for the most part, and it doesn’t much matter if in thirty years they are the majority, because who cares what happens in thirty years?  Certainly childless middle class White liberals do not.

However, if we look at the entirety of the effects of Jew liberalism on us, the levels of alienation we’ve suffered in our individual lives, the way our families have been torn apart, the way we have been undermined by the fairer sex which was created by God to be our faithful companion, the way our masculinity has been stripped from us, the way our identity and sense of belonging has been crushed into powder and swept out into the sea – then we are left with material fit for Total Revolution.

We are vocalizing an idea which appeals to the masses, a full-on rebellion against modernity.  Hitler is the ultimate symbol of that, because Hitler is Old Europe, and Old Europe is what our very bones are calling out for.  National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization.  In order to progress forward, we must first return to that point.

This is the only plan which can possibly work.  Thus we should relish in extremism, not avoid it.  It is all or nothing.  There is no halfway.  Halfway is impossible.  The entire Jewish system must be removed.

Unlike Johnson, I won’t attack “mainstreamers” as useless, as I believe they ultimately move things in the right direction, even though they don’t go the whole way.

However, in the end, the only way we are going to fix society is through hardline National Socialism.

The Jew system doesn’t accept apologies for being White and I wouldn’t be willing to offer one anyway.

I am White.

I am a National Socialist.

And I am not sorry.

Hail Victory.
Andrew Anglin

The new viral “Holocaust” truth video by heroic filmmaker Eric Hunt has caught the attention of The Jewish Press, which hilariously calls him a “serial Holocaust denier”:

The way the Anti-Defamation League describes a newly-released Holocaust denial film, “The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax,” released by serial Holocaust denier Eric Hunt, it sounds pretty much like old lies repackaged in a new format.

Apparently Holocaust deniers, taking a page from master Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels (wait – was he real or a hoax?), just love to hear the same impossible evidence, over and over, expecting it to either become “true,” or have enough people believe it that the truth becomes irrelevant.

The film is available on YouTube. It is a faux documentary which claims to provide “revelatory information debunking the greatest hoax in human history -’The Holocaust’ — the fraudulent claim that six million Jews were murdered by Germans, mostly in ‘Gas Chambers disguised as Shower Rooms.’”

The film purports to have documented proof that Treblinka was a simple transit camp where many Jews took real showers in order to keep them alive. It also claims there is no evidence of deaths from any gas chambers, and that “Holocaust survivors who gave eye witness testimonies are “fraudulent Jewish witnesses.”

The film claims that bodies shown in footage after the concentration camps were liberated were of people killed by the Allies’ bombing and not by the Nazis, and that “Zyklon B was actually used to save Jewish lives.”

The “Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax” claims that the Holocaust is the “greatest hoax of human history,” and that it is just something used by the Jews to “justify” all the bad things Jews do, such as “destroy people and nations,” and “good ideas.”

The ADL also has a write-up on the video that mentions Carolyn Yeager as well as Eric and summarizes the recent interview they did together on The White Network.

Carolyn has also had the honor of being put on the SPLC’s “hate map” recently, making her a focal point of two of our most vicious domestic enemies in just a few short days.

Here is the write-up:

Eric Hunt, a Holo­caust denier known for attack­ing Nobel Peace Prize win­ner Elie Wiesel, released a new Holo­caust denial film on March 5 titled The Jew­ish Gas Cham­ber Hoax, which is being widely pro­moted by other Holo­caust deniers.In the film, which describes the Holo­caust as “the great­est hoax of human his­tory,” Hunt uses clips of Holo­caust sur­vivors’ tes­ti­monies from Steven Spielberg’s 1998 doc­u­men­tary The Last Days and from the USC Shoah Foun­da­tion Insti­tute for Visual His­tory and Edu­ca­tion (estab­lished by Spiel­berg in 1994), por­tray­ing these tes­ti­monies as “fraud­u­lent.” Hunt used the same tac­tic in his pre­vi­ous film The Last Days of the Big Lie (2009).

On the March 8 install­ment of “Sat­ur­day After­noons with Car­olyn,” hosted by Holo­caust denier Car­olyn Yea­ger on The White Net­work, which describes itself as “Whites talk­ing to Whites about White inter­ests,” Hunt pro­moted his film to Yea­ger and The White Network’s audience.

Dur­ing the inter­view with Yea­ger, Hunt elab­o­rated on his the­ory that Jews use the Holo­caust “to jus­tify every­thing that they’ve done and are doing since World War II.” He con­tin­ued, “Their attacks on other nations keep grow­ing larger and larger, and they keep bring­ing up the Holo­caust.” He added that because of the “Jew­ish suprema­cist fairy tales,” the West is “essen­tially com­mit­ting sui­cide wor­ship­ping this hoax.” Yea­ger agreed with Hunt’s analy­sis stat­ing that the Jews “destroy things. They destroy peo­ple. They destroy whole peo­ple and nations. They destroy per­fectly good ideas.”

Later in the show, Holo­caust denier Charles Krafft, who received main­stream media atten­tion due to con­tro­versy over his Holocaust-themed art­work in Feb­ru­ary 2013, praised Hunt’s film, and Hunt thanked Krafft for being “instru­men­tal,” offer­ing his input “through­out the project.”

Hunt, Yea­ger, and Krafft then had a dis­cus­sion about pro­duc­ing more mate­ri­als, but lamented the fact that they lack funds. Krafft sug­gested that they seek fund­ing from Mus­lim nations stat­ing they should “get those oil sheiks that are sup­posed to be anti-Zionist to pony up.”

Krafft also rec­om­mended that Holo­caust deniers pro­duce more mate­ri­als like Hunt’s film to “cap­ture the imag­i­na­tions of these young hip­ster types with media rather than lit­er­a­ture,” adding that no one wants to read the long “schol­arly” Holo­caust denial works of years past.

Below is a sam­pling of some of the main points of The Jew­ish Gas Cham­ber Hoax:

• There is “no evi­dence” of deaths from the gas chambers.

• Holo­caust sur­vivors who gave eye-witness tes­ti­monies are “fraud­u­lent Jew­ish witnesses.”

• The death camp Tre­blinka was not a death camp but rather a tran­sit camp where Jews were given “dis­in­fect­ing showers.”

• “Zyk­lon B was actu­ally used to save Jew­ish lives.”

• Bod­ies seen in actual footage from after the con­cen­tra­tion camps were lib­er­ated were the bod­ies of those killed by the Allies’ bomb­ing and not by the Nazis.

• Gas cham­bers could not have existed because vic­tims of the gas cham­bers should have been “bright cherry red,” but Holo­caust sur­vivors sup­pos­edly more fre­quently describe the skin of vic­tims as blue or grey. Friedrich Berg, who pro­duced Hunt’s film, has an entire web­site ded­i­cated to this theory.

Thanks to James Damon (right) for the English translation of this outstanding interview given by Erich Priebke to his Italian attorney Dr. Paolo Guchini and translated anonymously into German.

The Interview

Question: Herr Priebke, several years ago you stated that you never deny your past. Now that you are 100 years old, do you still think that?

Answer: Yes.

Q: Would you please elucidate?

A: Long ago I made the decision to remain true to myself.

Q: So, do you still consider yourself a National Socialist?

A: Loyalty to our past determines our convictions and our character.
This is the way I view the world and my ideals. It is what was once our German Weltanschauung, the way we view the world. It is what still determines my sense of honor and my self-respect. Politics is something different. National Socialism perished with the defeat of Germany and today there is no longer any prospect of its continuation.

Q: Does this Weltanschauung that you mention also include anti Semitism?

A: If you want to discover the truth with your questions you must stop using certain clichés and prejudices, because to criticize does not mean to exterminate. Since the early 20th Century the conduct of the Jews has been widely criticized in Germany. The fact that Jews exercised enormous economic and political power, even though they were a very small part of the population, was considered unjust. Today it is still a fact that, if we consider the thousand richest and most powerful men in the world, we must acknowledge that a very large number of them are Jews, Jewish bankers and Jewish owners of multinational corporations. Especially after Germany’s defeat in the First World War and under the yoke of the Versailles Dictate, Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe led to a catastrophe in Germany. This was caused by their sudden immense accumulation of capital at a time when the overwhelming majority of Germans were suffering severe poverty under the Weimar Republic. In this climate of desperation the usurers greatly increased their wealth, which caused feelings of frustration and resentment of the Jews.

Q: What is your opinion about the old story that Jews are allowed by their religion to practice usury while this is forbidden for Christians?

A: This is certainly not my idea. You have only to read Shakespeare or Dostoevski to realize that, in the historical perspective, such problems with the Jews have existed from Venice to St. Petersburg. This does not mean that Jews were the only usurers, however. I agree with the poet Ezra Pound, who said “I see no difference between a Jewish usurer and an Arian usurer.”
 
Q: Do all these things justify anti Semitism?

A: No, Jewish usury does not mean that there are no upright and honorable Jews. I repeat what I just said: anti Semitism implies unconditional hatred. Even during the long years of my persecution I, an old man deprived of my freedom, always rejected hatred. I choose not to hate even those who hate me. I insist on nothing but the right to criticize and I always explain the reasons for my criticism. I would also like to point out that, because of their unique religion, many Jews consider themselves superior to other peoples. They identify themselves with “God’s chosen people” as mentioned in the Bible.
 
Q: Didn’t Hitler also speak of the superiority of the “Aryan” race?

A: Yes, Hitler also succumbed to ideas of racial superiority, and this caused certain errors from which there was no returning. However one has to consider that racism was the norm all over the world. It was not just a popular belief, it was enshrined in law and government. Even after the Americans ceased being slave dealers and importing Africans they continued highly racist and they practiced official discrimination against black people. Hitler’s first “racial laws” did not restrict the rights of Jews any more than Americans restricted the rights of negroes in many states of the USA. The same was true of English discrimination against Asian Indians. The French acted no differently toward their so-called inferiors in their colonies. We won’t even mention the treatment of ethnic minorities in the old Soviet Union.
 
Q: In your opinion, what brought about the escalation of discrimination against Jews in Germany?

A: The situation became radicalized and ever more intense. It turned into German Jews, Americans, British and then global Jewry on one side and Germany on the other. The situation forced the German Jews into an increasingly difficult position. The decision to impose restrictions on Jews in Germany made life ever more difficult for them. In November 1938 a Jew named Grünspan killed a member of our consulate in France, Ernst von Rath, as a protest against Germany. The result was Reichskristallnacht in which groups of demonstrators throughout the Reich smashed windows of Jewish shops. After that the Jews were treated strictly as enemies. After coming to power, Hitler initially encouraged the Jews to leave Germany. Ultimately, in a climate of great and growing distrust of Jews caused by war, boycotts and open conflict with global Jewish organizations, the Jews in Germany were interned in camps as enemy populations. This was of course a catastrophe for many innocent families.
 
Q: So, in your opinion, were Jewish sufferings their own fault?

A: Jewish suffering was inextricably connected with the War and there was guilt on both sides. There was guilt on the side of the Allies who unleashed the Second World War against Germany after the partitioning or repartitioning of Poland. This was a region in which the large ethnic German population was exposed to constant depredations, a region that had been placed under control of the newly resurrected Polish state by the Dictate of Versailles. Nobody raised a finger against Stalin’s Russia on account of the partitioning. On the contrary: At the end of the conflict, which ostensibly came about to defend Poland against German aggression, Stalin was rewarded with all of Eastern Europe including all of Poland.
 
Q: Apart from political revisionism, do you sympathize with historical revisionism?

A: I am not sure just what “revisionism” means. If we are talking about the Nuremberg Tribunal I can only say that it was political theatre. It consisted of fantastic show trials staged for the sole purpose of depicting the German nation and its leaders as inhuman monsters. Its aim and purpose was to slander our defeated nation, which was completely unable to defend itself.
 
Q: What is your basis for this allegation?

A: What can you say about a self-appointed “court” that prosecutes only the crimes of the vanquished while ignoring those of the victors? What can you say about such a “court,” in which the victors are simultaneously accusants, prosecutors and judges and impose unique new criminal laws ex post facto merely in order to convict? Even US President Kennedy called the Nuremberg trials “disgusting.” In his words, they “violated the American Constitution in order to punish a defeated enemy.”
 
Q: Even if, as you allege, the “crimes against humanity” for which German leaders were convicted in Nuremberg had not previously existed as such, but were first so designated by the International Tribunal, must it not be said that the charges were based on horrible crimes?

A: Consider that at Nuremberg the Germans were prosecuted for the Katyn massacre. Then in 1990 Russian President Gorbachev admitted that these same prosecutors had ordered the murders of twenty thousand Polish officers in Katyn Forest. In 1992 President Yeltsin published the original document ordering the executions, which was signed by Stalin. The Germans were even accused of having made soap from Jewish corpses. Bars of “Jew Soap” were exhibited in museums in Israel, the US and other countries. It was not until 1990 that a professor at the University of Jerusalem finally admitted that “Jew Soap” was a hoax.
 
Q: Yes but the concentration camps were not inventions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, were they?

A: In those terrible war years there was natural expediency in interning civilian populations that were considered a threat to national security. Every country did that. In the United States, persons of Asian descent were interned whose ancestors had immigrated generations before. Germany also interned civilian populations that it considered a threat.

Q: But in American concentration camps there were no gas chambers, were there?

A: As I have said, a great many bogus charges were manufactured for propaganda purposes. As for homicidal gas chambers in German camps, we are still waiting for proof of such allegations. The internees of course had to work. Many of them worked outside the camps during the day and returned in the evening. The severe manpower shortage during the War is incompatible with allegations of internees standing in line to be murdered in gas chambers. The danger of using a gas chamber extends beyond its immediate vicinity and would have been hazardous for everyone in camp, including the guards. It is an absurd idea that millions of people could have been sent to their deaths in this way, at the same place where large numbers were living and working. As a practical matter it is impossible.
 
Q: When did you first hear of a plan to exterminate Jews in gas chambers?

A: I was a prisoner in an English camp along with Walter Rauff when I first heard of such a thing. We were both amazed. We could not believe such a terrible story: homicidal gas chambers to murder men, women and children!
I discussed the matter with Col. Rauff and other prisoners for days on end.
We all belonged to the SS and were all Party members, serving in various capacities but nobody had ever heard of such a thing. Just imagine: Many years later I learned that Rauff, who shared many a hard loaf with me in prison, had been accused of inventing mysterious “mobile gas vans.” No one who knew Walter Rauff could have come up with such an idea.
 
Q: What about the eyewitnesses to the existence of gas chambers?

A: No homicidal gas chambers were ever found except for one at Dachau, which the Americans built after the War. Judicial or historical evidence simply does not exist. The statements and confessions of camp commandants, the best known of which is Rudolf Hoess of Auschwitz, would be unacceptable in any real court of law. His admissions were wildly self-contradictory. He was severely tortured at Nuremberg, then gagged and hanged at the insistence of the Russians. In the absence of evidence, confessions of defendants and statements of witnesses were vitally important for the prosecutors. Reliance on coercion in cases where the defendants or witnesses refused to confess or testify was inevitable, and it included threats against family members. From my own experiences as a prisoner of war, as well as those of friends, I am familiar with the methods used to force confessions from German prisoners, who often did not understand English and could not read what they signed. The treatment of German prisoners in the Russian camps is now widely known: the prisoners were simply forced to sign whatever was placed before them.
 
Q: Do you consider the millions of deaths in concentration camps nothing but an invention of the victors?

A: I was personally familiar with the German camps. The last time I visited a camp was Mauthausen in May of 1944 in order to interrogate the son of Badoglio. I spent two entire days there and observed the huge kitchens in operation to feed the inmates. Mauthausen even had bordellos – it had everything except gas chambers! Unfortunately a great many people died in those camps at the end of the War but it was not because they were murdered. Harsh conditions, starvation and lack of care at the end of the War caused their doom. Civilian tragedies were not restricted to concentration camp inmates, however. They were the order of the day throughout Germany primarily because of the Allied carpet bombings of cities.
 
Q: Do you trivialize the tragedy of the Jews during the Holocaust?

A: There is little to trivialize. Tragedy is tragedy. We should be concerned with historical reality rather than “trivialization.” It obviously was in the interest of the victorious powers to avoid being held responsible for the atrocities they committed. They totally destroyed entire cities in Germany in which not there was not a single German soldier in order to kill as many women, children and elderly as possible. Their intention was to break our will to fight. This was the fate of Dresden, Hamburg, Lübek, Berlin and many other cities. Our enemies exploited the advantage of their heavy bombers to target civilians in their homicidal frenzy. The same fate befell the population of Tokyo and then, with the atomic bomb, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Because of these unsurpassed atrocities against civilian populations, it was necessary for the victors to invent bizarre stories of atrocities that they alleged were committed by Germany. They depicted Germans as satanic creatures in horror stories that Hollywood made into horror movies. Little has changed in the propaganda of the global power elite since World War II: they still see themselves as “exporting democracy” with “peace missions” against “scum.” In the process they manufacture images of their targets as “terrorists” bent on committing ever more monstrous atrocities. In actuality they attack everyone who does not submit to their wishes, primarily with their air forces. They delight in mowing down masses of civilians and soldiers who lack the means to defend themselves. In the course of “exporting democracy” to one country after another it happens that their “humanitarian interventions” result in the establishment of puppet governments that serve their economic and political interests.

Q: How do you explain unambiguous evidence of atrocities such as photographs and films of concentration camps?

A: These films are in fact more evidence of falsification. Almost all of the pictures of “German death camps” are of Bergen Belsen. That was a camp that various agencies created by bringing inmates who were unable to work from all the other camps. There was a huge convalescent facility there, which tells us a great deal about the intentions of the Germans. It would be very odd to construct such facilities for prisoners who were going to be gassed. By 1945 the Allied bombing raids had left the camp without food, water, medicines and other supplies to combat raging epidemics of typhus and dysentery, which killed many thousands of inmates. The horrific movie of the camp was made in April 1945 after Bergen-Belsen had been devastated by the epidemics. The movie was made specifically for propaganda purposes by Alfred Hitchcock, the masterful English producer of horror films. The cynicism and total absence of human feeling in the movie are indeed horrifying. For many years Hitchcock’s movie has been broadcast on TV accompanied by somber background music. It unscrupulously deceives the public by linking terrible scenes with gas chambers that did not exist. Pure falsification!
 
Q: So, in your opinion, the reason for this deception was to cover or trivialize the atrocities of the victors?

A: Yes, this was true even at the beginning. General MacArthur followed the Nuremberg scenario with the Tokyo Trials in Japan. In that case the victors again thought up novel crimes and atrocities that ended with the death of the accused by hanging in order to criminalize the Japanese, who had already suffered atomic weapons of mass destruction. The Allies even accused the Japanese of cannibalism!
 
Q: Why do you say it was “at the beginning” that the victorious powers used deceptions to cover their own atrocities?

A: Because after that, the Zionist state of Israel began using the “Holocaust” story for its own benefit. It profited in two ways. The first way is explained very well by Prof. Norman Finkelstein, the son of Jews who were interned at Auschwitz. In his book “The Holocaust Industry” he explains how “Shoa Business” brought many billions of dollars in damages and reparations to Israel and Zionist organizations. He refers to this as “regular organized extortion.” The second way Israel benefits from “Holocaust” is explained by Sergio Romano, who no one considers a revisionist. Following the war in Lebanon, Israel realized that exaggerating and accentuating the dramatic elements in “Holocaust” literature gives it advantages in its territorial disputes with Arab countries. This gives Israel a kind of diplomatic immunity.
 
 Q: All over the world people refer to the Holocaust as “extermination.” Do you deny or have doubts about that?

A: The propaganda of the global power elite is indeed overwhelming. A historical subculture is manipulating the world’s conscience by playing on our human emotions. The younger generations in particular are being brainwashed in school, besieged with gruesome stories that suppress their ability to think critically or form individual opinions. As I stated earlier, the world has been waiting for 70 years for evidence of the atrocities for which we Germans are blamed. The historians have not found a single document supporting the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Not a single written order, instruction, report by a government agency or communication by personnel. There is absolutely nothing. In the total absence of documentation the judges at Nuremberg pointedly assumed that the German program for a “permanent solution to the Jewish problem,” which provided for the deportation of to Madagascar or other locations in the East, was a secret code word for “extermination.” How absurd! In 1941, while the War was fully under way and we were still winning in Africa as well as Russia, the Jews were encouraged to leave Germany voluntarily and then they were more strongly encouraged to leave. Only after the War had been underway for more than two years did Germany introduce measures to limit their freedom.

Q: If evidence such as you mention – that is, a document signed by Hitler or someone else in the hierarchy – were found, what would be your reaction?

A: In that case I would propose a rigorous investigation of the crimes indicated. Any use of force against groups that does not take individual responsibility into consideration is unacceptable and should be condemned, absolutely and without exception. Extermination is what happened to the Indians in America, the Kulaks in Russia, the Italian Foibe victims in Istria and the Armenians in Turkey. It is what happened to German prisoners in the American death camps in Germany and France as well as in the Russian camps. Some died on orders of General Eisenhower, others on orders of Stalin. Both Eisenhower and Stalin deliberately ignored the Geneva Convention in ordering those atrocities. All crimes against humanity must be unambiguously condemned, and this includes persecutions of the Jews. I mean real persecutions, not false and hate-filled allegations invented for propaganda purposes.
 
Q: Do you admit the possibility that evidence of exterminations by Germans at the end of the War might have eluded historians and could some day come to light?

A: I just stated that certain crimes must be condemned unconditionally. In the extremely unlikely event that we should one day find real evidence of the use of homicidal gas chambers in German concentration camps, then the imperative for prosecution of whoever planned and carried out such crimes would be unequivocal. In my long life I have learned that surprises never end but in the case of homicidal gas chambers I feel absolutely safe in my conclusion. For almost seventy years the German documents confiscated by the victorious powers have been minutely examined by hundreds of professional historians, thus it is extremely unlikely that they will find any such evidence in future. It is unlikely for another reason as well: even while the War was still under way, Germany’s enemies had begun spreading rumors about mass murders in our concentration camps. I am referring to the Allied declaration of December 1942 in which they speak of “barbarous atrocities” against Jews in Germany and demand punishment of those responsible. By the end of 1943 they were not only continuing their usual propaganda, they were manufacturing falsified evidence of atrocities. The first news I had of this came from my comrade Major Paul Reinicke, who served as chief of the escort of Reichsmarschall Göring, the number two man in our government. When I last saw him he informed me of Allied plans for systematic falsifications. Göring was furious because he considered the falsifications scurrilous and outrageous. Before he committed suicide he denounced the falsifications in the strongest terms before the Nuremberg Tribunal. I later received additional information about Allied falsifications of evidence from Chief of Police Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who succeeded Heydrich after his death. Kaltenbrunner too was sent to the gallows following the show trials. I visited him shortly before the end of the War in order to report on the evidence pertaining to the treachery of King Vittorio Emanuel. Kaltenbrunner informed me that the enemy propaganda agencies were busily manufacturing falsified evidence of atrocities and gruesome concentration camp stories about German brutality. He said the enemy propaganda ministries had reached agreement on details of a unique procedure for dealing with the losing side. Most significant of all I met General Kaltenbrunner’s close colleague, Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller, in August 1944. I was admitted to officer school on his recommendation, so I was greatly indebted to him, and he liked me as well. He was sent to Rome in order to assist in a personal problem of my commander, Colonel Herbert Kappler. At that time the American Fifth Army succeeded in breaking through at Cassino while the Russians were entering Germany. The War had already been lost.
Mueller invited me to his hotel where, on the basis of mutual confidence, I ventured to question him on further details of the Allied plans for postwar Moscow type show trials. Mueller informed me that through our espionage we had received explicit indications that, in expectation of victory, the enemy was manufacturing evidence of German atrocities in order to stage spectacular trials. The purpose of these trials would be to criminalize Germany. He knew many exact details and was seriously concerned. He said our enemies could not be trusted to conform to international norms because they were completely unscrupulous and had no concept of honor whatsoever. I was still rather young and did not give his words the credence they deserved, but everything turned out exactly as Gen. Mueller had said. He knew the names of the enemy propagandists who, as we know today, concocted the stories about exterminating Jews in gas chambers. I would consider all this to be ridiculous and laugh at it if the results had not been so tragic. When the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003 under the pretext that Sadam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction” and Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his brazenly false oath to the U.N. Security Council, I said to myself, “There is nothing new under the sun!” The imperialists, the only ones who have used such weapons in war, are accusing small countries of having them.
 
Q: Are you aware that several laws in Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland impose prison sentences on those who deny the Holocaust?

A: Yes. The global power elite has demanded such laws and soon Italy will pass them as well. The object of such laws is to make people believe that those who oppose Zionism and Israeli colonialism in Palestine are anti Semitic. Anyone who dares to criticize Zionism is called an anti Semite. Anyone who dares to ask for evidence of the existence of gas chambers is automatically persecuted as an advocate of exterminating Jews. It is devilish manipulation, but these laws expose the global elite’s fears that the truth is coming to the surface. The elite is terrified that despite its vast propaganda campaigns, historians will demand evidence and scientists will expose falsifications. The very existence of these draconian laws opens the eyes of those who still believe in freedom of speech and the indispensability of independent research. Of course I am aware that I can be prosecuted for what I have just said. My situation would become even more difficult, but I must say these things because they are true. For me, courage to be truthful is duty to my Volk. It is an expression of gratitude for the hundred years of life that was granted me. It is my contribution to the dignity of my Volk.
 
Signed: E. Priebke
“From the vantage of my hundred years of life!”

What is the “Holocaust” theme? To make the Germans feel guilty! The media coverage of the NSU trial since the court in Munich reconvened in September after their month-long summer holiday seems to have dried up. I just found this article at Deutsche Welle from Oct. 1, 2013, from which I have liberally quoted.

Family members are now testifying in the Munich court and being given every consideration and opportunity to express their feelings. For instance, the father of slain Halit Yozgat calculatedly used his testimony to give an emotional account of how he found his 21-year-old son dead in his Internet cafe. He even went as far as to get out of his seat and lie down on the courtroom floor to demonstrate the position in which he found his son.

“Why did they kill my son?” He asked the courtroom, his voice choked by tears.

Then he looked towards the five accused and, addressing them directly asked: “What gave you the right to do this?”

They could just as well have asked back: What gave you the right to come here to Germany, to bring your son and family here? But of course, that is not allowed. Instead, they sat silently, impassively looking at him.

His wife, wearing headscarf, appealed the next day directly to Beate Zschäpe, saying “Please explain these events,” and that “she never slept” anymore. [They want Zschäpe to go on the witness stand. -cy]

Yozgat is calling for the renaming of a street in Kassel after his son — Dutch Street, where his son grew up and opened his tiny business. At the end of his testimony, he again appealed for Höllandisch street to be renamed Halit street. The poster demands that the street becomes Halit street or “I want my son back.” 

There is quite a bit of this type of demand from all 8 immigrant victims’ families — that they should be memorialized in Germany far beyond what a simple murder victim would normally be. The political “left,” both elected representatives and activists, are eager to potray them as martyrs in their great cause of racially-mixing German society.

This Turkish family, like all of them, are treated as special, valued guests of honor, while Germans are treated with hostility and, in the case of these four, found guilty before their trial barely gets underway. For instance, Deutsche Welle writes:

Halit Yozgat, who died on April 6, 2006, was the ninth victim in a series of murders carried out by Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, both members of the extreme right-wing group National Socialist Underground.

That these two are the perpetrators has not yet been proven but is constantly reaffirmed to the German people via the media and by the words and actions of German officials.

Federal Agent just happens to be in cafe at time of murder

On the same day, another witness testified: Andreas T., a former agent with the Office for the Protection of the Constitution in the central state of Hesse, where Kassel is located. 

He testified that he was in a booth in the Internet cafe visiting a chat room at the time Yozgat was murdered. However, he said he neither saw nor heard anything at the time, and only learned of the murder in the newspaper. 

He has previously said that he had been in the internet cafe not on the Thursday when the murder occurred, but on the previous Wednesday. Under questioning from the presiding judge, Andreas T. denied having initially said he wasn’t on the premises at the time of the murder because he wanted to avoid being involved in the case. He said he just had his dates and times confused.

Halit Yozgat was killed with two shots to the head.

Place for teens to view porn

According to a news story in Der Spiegel published on Sept. 4, 2012, five customers were in the Internet cafe at the time of the murder.  Among them were two boys, age 14 and 16, who were “surfing porn websites.”

A pregnant woman with her 3-year old daughter was in a telephone room talking with her brother in Turkey. Faiz H., an Iraqi, was at another phone booth only a few meters from the front desk where Halit Yozgat (green figure) sat. Agent Andreas T. (yellow figure) was at a computer station in the back of the room.

The cost of computer use was 50 cents for one-half hour. How did Halit Yozgat make a living when it appears he had only 7 computer stations? It is indeed a wonder how any of these Turkish murder victims made a living at their inconsequential businesses. Germany is an expensive place to live. It must be that they were subsidized by the German government?

Shortly before Faiz H. hung up at 5:01 p.m. and 2 seconds, he heard a bang followed by another. He later described the noises as sounding “like a balloon popping.”

At this moment, Yozgat slumped to the floor, fatally wounded.

A poster on the phone booth’s glass door is said to have blocked the Iraqi witness’s view of the crime scene. Shortly thereafter, he says that he saw through a slit a “muscular man, roughly 180 cm tall (nearly 6 foot), wearing light-colored clothing,” who glanced at the desk and was in a hurry. [Neither Uwe Böhnhardt or Uwe Mundlos ever appeared to be “muscular” -cy]

If this is correct, Andreas T. was still logged into his computer at this time, even though he insists he had left before that and saw and heard nothing. He had been online for 10 min. 44 seconds, visiting a dating site named iLove.de, logged in as wildman70.

People were there but no one saw anything

According to both of these cited news stories (in Der Spiegel and Deutche Welle) there were people in the premises with a view of the front desk at the time of the killing, but no one can testify that they actually saw it.  However, the prosecution says Yozgat was killed with the “same” Ceska pistol that killed the other 7 immigrants over a 6-year period. That seems to be what the case is built on.

This is what is being protected

The so-important Office for the Protection of the Constitution is protecting places like this Internet cafe and people like the Yozgats. It’s called Democracy. Ideas that reflect a return to the fine, clean days of the National-Socialist Third Reich are what today’s Germany must be protected from.

Above: Ken Waltzer’s now notorious signature photo connecting him to his claim, for years, that Elie Wiesel was in this photograph of  youths from the Buchenwald children’s barracks being marched out of the camp after so-called liberation.

We have further proof that Elie Wiesel was not at Buchenwald because Prof. Ken Waltzer is still unwilling to publish his book about the “rescue of children from Buchenwald,” a book which has always included the “Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel”among the children.

Since Waltzer is the only holocaust “historian” I know who is still on record as saying he can prove that Elie Wiesel was a prisoner at the Buchenwald concentration camp—and that his father Shlomo died there—I think that makes Waltzer a fitting subject for this website. And the 84-year old Wiesel himself is not doing anything that I can find news of these days, so I’m a little hard up for inspiration.

Thus I ask: What is Waltzer up to? Well, he has been heading a group of Michigan Jews in creating a traveling exhibition that is meant to remind Jews, and convince if necessary, of all the poisecution they experienced during the WWII years and to celebrate how extraordinarily well things have been going for Jews since (while, of course, still having to be on guard against new poisecution).

Thus, the exhibition is titled Uneasy Years: Michigan Jewry During Depression and War. Michigan Jewry! How many Jews are in Michigan? According to a Jewish website, in 2012 there were 82,270, which is 0.8% (8/10 of 1%) of the total Michigan population. But that is enough for Ken Waltzer and other Jews to build an entire traveling exhibition for.

Or could the reason really be that Waltzer,  as a professor at Michigan State University, must always show that he is active and contributing scholastically in his area of expertise. Since his book on the “rescue of children at Buchenwald” continues to be in a state of “research”—after all these years—he must find other projects to work on. 1 Last year he was consultant on a Jewish film project about holocaust survivors. This year he’s got the traveling exhibition.

What is learned from the exhibition

The 21st Century Jews of Michigan are told that in past times they had to join together to help needy fellow Jews. The message is conveyed that they still need to do so because Jews are always in need, as “anti-Semitism” is always a threat—somewhere. Hasn’t it always been so? Elie Wiesel would approve of this message! [Right: Theme image for the Allied Jewish Campaign, 1938]

The main thing I notice about this exhibit is that it is totally, 100% about Jews and specifically Jewish concerns. The few non-Jews mentioned are enemies of the Jews. While it starts out saying that by the 1930′s Jews were increasingly comfortable with American ways, it shows nothing about Jews integrating socially with American gentiles and Christians, but only sticking closely with their own kind, their own organizations, their synagogues and businesses. Jews want to be accepted by the majority Gentile culture as “just like them,” but they do not want to participate in the majority Gentile culture, except politically and financially. [Left: Bar Mitzveh Day for Harry Klein] It tells us that Michigan Jews were terribly affected by the war in Europe—the spread of Nazism in Europe brought rising “anti-Semitism” in the U.S, and Michigan was not spared! Evil people like Catholic priest Father Charles Coughlin were openly “anti-Semitic” and 30 million non-Jewish Americans listened to his weekly radio broadcasts. [Shown at right speaking over WJR radio in the 1930s]  The exhibit particularly excoriates Father Coughlin simply because he warned about excessive power of the Jews. The exhibit shows that Life and Time magazines, and the powerful Detroit Free Press were all on the side of the Jews against Father Coughlin … so where was the problem? Are we dealing with a real threat or with some kind of Jewish agenda here?

At the same time, Jews like  Lauren Bacall [at left as a young woman at home – look at the nose on Mom! Was Lauren given a nose job?] and baseball player Hank Greenberg were given great, positive media attention.

The exhibit tells how the Jews of Michigan supported the war. America’s participation was a wonderful thing. Helping the European Jews was what we should all be doing. Jews like young Harriet Fields collected 381,000 pounds of household waste fat! The Federation of Polish Jews in Detroit [shown right, publicizing their war service] sent packages to the men and women of the Armed Services. The Jewish-owned Paramount Coffee Company of Lansing sent out New Year’s Greeting flyers about helping one another (without mentioning the war at all, though). The Temple Beth El Bulletin encouraged people to buy war bonds!

Jewish organizations made sure they offered social and spiritual support for specifically Jewish soldiers. Beginning in 1942, Jews began protesting a “Nazi Holocaust” of European Jews in Detroit newspapers and in public meetings. The exhibit shows pictures of two whole Michigan Jews who had fallen … they are portrayed as heroes. And it doesn’t leave out that America did not want to take in all of Europe’s Jewish refugees who wanted to come here. It points out everything that the Jews did to help other Jews, and how they got non-Jews to help Jews too.

The Allied Jewish Campaign raised money to help Jews. Wow, what sacrifice! “Between 1932 and 1940, its theme shifted from taking care of the needy Jews in the United States to supporting rescue and survival of Jews abroad.” It’s fundraising goal rose from $165,000 to $925,000. Guess who they got most of the money from?

And, of course, “Michigan Jews, especially in Detroit, were active on behalf of building a Jewish homeland in Palestine.” Finally, the stories of four Jewish children who came to the U.S as refugees and are such treasures. Then, MSU’s Jeanette Abeles , Ken Waltzer and Michael Seadle tell stories, with pictures, of their Jewish family history, though none were connected with Michigan. Have we heard enough about Jews yet?

From whence the money comes

This traveling exhibition was made possible with financial support from Congregation Shaarey Zedek of East Lansing, Michigan State University Jewish Studies Program (that’s Waltzer’s domain), Michigan State University Museum, the Michigan Humanities Council, the Ben Teitle Foundation, the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs and private donors.

For a fee of $800, plus shipping, the exhibition has been displayed at the following sites so far (according to the website): Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI; Macomb Community College, Clinton Twp, MI; and Kalamazoo Valley Museum, Kalamazoo, MI.

This “anti-anti-Semitism” project extolling the virtues of Jews is what Ken Waltzer has kept himself busy with in 2013, instead of finishing his book on the children of Buchenwald. What will he come up with next? It’s been clear for some time that the main guiding force for Waltzer is the promotion of Jewry, in whatever way best achieves that goal. Holocaustianity is certainly one way. Heading a Jewish Studies program at a university is another. Working in conjunction with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is another. And certainly, protecting and promoting the image of Elie Wiesel is also one.

It’s possible, however, that he’s run into a brick wall on Elie Wiesel.

Endnotes:

1. Waltzer admittedly relies on survivor testimony – the least dependable form of “evidence.” In this 2011-2012 Q-A session linked to above, he says:

… my own book, Telling the Story: The Rescue of Children at Buchenwald, will be finished in about a year and will tell the story in much greater detail and more attention to complexity, drawing on information obtained from nearly 200 of those who were helped to survive at the Nazi camp. It will say more about who these boys were, what their experiences were both before Buchenwald and then inside Buchenwald, and where they went and what they did with their memory of experience after liberation. A second book, to be prepared thereafter, will be called Children’s Stories, and will pull together many distinctive stories I’ve been told or have encountered while working on the collective story.

Note that Waltzer is “telling a story” that has been told to him by old men about what happened to them as children. Realize what “story” means to Jews – one is freed from all necessity of accurate fact.