The Motto of the Holocaust Deniers

Contradictory agendas are pretty common with humans, conflicted critters that we are.

Back in my doper days I used to run across dopers who were adamant about how much they hated dope, but yet there was a punch line at the end. Their song went: “I hate dope! Dope sucks! Only losers do dope! You do dope? You’re a loser! You’re a scum!…Speaking of which … Dope … Hey! … Got any?

The Holocaust Denier sings a similar darkly humorous tune: “The Holocaust never happened, but let’s do it again, and this time let’s finish the job!”

Yeah right. You guys expect us to fall for that? How dumb do you think we are? You don’t even believe in Holocaust Denial yourselves. That’s just for the consumption of others, huh? You’re lying and you know it. SMH.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Conspiracies, Europe, Regional, The Jewish Question, World War 2

115 responses to “The Motto of the Holocaust Deniers

  1. hehehe

    Suck my jewish (i.e. small) cock Heg!!!!!!!

  2. Reader

    The Holocaust Denier sings a similar darkly humorous tune: “The Holocaust never happened, but let’s do it again, and this time let’s finish the job!”

    I disagree that more than a miniscule fraction of revisionists would want to kill large numbers of Jews, but in any case, your analogy doesn’t really work. Fact/value distinction.

    Whether drugs are good or bad is a matter of what you value. Some people might think they’re good, some people might think they’re bad, and you can’t really say that either is objectively wrong. But someone condemning drug use while seeking drugs himself is contradicting himself.

    In the case of the Holocaust, either Germans killed millions of Jews in gas chambers or they didn’t. It’s NOT dependent on what you value. So the political beliefs of Holocaust revisionists (which are incredibly varied) are irrelevant to the validity of their claims.

    Of course, I don’t know why I bother explaining this… the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the revisionist position that anyone arguing the exterminationist viewpoint is just fundamentally dogmatic and irrational. Nazis killed 6 million Jews in gas chambers and hey, no evidence? No problem!

    If you actually had proof to back up the Holocaust claims, you could just present it instead of writing these absurd posts that attempt to divert attention away from the total lack of evidence for extermination claims.

  3. Ron

    Suck my jewish (i.e. small) cock Heg!!!!!!!

    It wouldn’t feel that good anyway with a dry, keratinized penis.

    If you actually had proof to back up the Holocaust claims, you could just present it instead of writing these absurd posts that attempt to divert attention away from the total lack of evidence for extermination claims.

    Right. A simple thing to do but he can’t. He also said he was going to write a post in defense of the Jewish fat soap story, but hasn’t. You can’t square a circle, no matter how hard you try, it seems.

    Contradictory agendas are pretty common with humans, conflicted critters that we are.

    Indeed. The Marxists of academia rail against the rich, yet make upwards of $200,000 per year, have parking lots right next to classroom buildings (while students must walk), and make the registrar schedule their classes for their convenience forcing students to gradulate later than usual (and paying more tuition), just so they can make it home before rush hour to make their next tennis game.

  4. No one in academia makes a salary of more than $90,000 or so, at least in California anyway. Law school professors may make more. All of the professors I knew put in a tremendous amount of work a week. Surely they all worked more than 40 hours, often 50, 60 hours+.

    I’m not going to debate Holocaust Deniers. It makes no sense. Why should I debate someone who says the Earth is flat, Al Qaeda didn’t do 9-11, there was no Armenian Holocaust, men never walked on the moon, or WW2 never happened? That’s what Holocaust Denial is. You’re saying that the obvious, that every sane person knows is true history, never even occurred. Why should I talk to someone like that?

    The soap piece has a lot of material in it. I’ve gathered the material, but it will take it a while to put it into a post. I regard the evidence for turning Jews into soap as overwhelming.

    • Gary

      Why should you debate Holocaust Deniers? Why even bother debating anything in that case?

      Someone tells you that God’s is real do you question it or just accept it as fact? It’s critical thinking and open mindedness. Just because you were taught in school that the Nazis were responsible for killing 6 million Jews doesn’t make it true.

      Winston Churchill himself knew that history would be “written by the victors.” Needless to say the Nazis didn’t win… so here we are.

    • Jason Y

      Would washing with Jewish soap improve one’s intelligence? 😆

      The soap would definitely go handy with my trendy fashionable human lampshades. Is there any discount for both?

  5. Lafayette Sennacherib

    yawn holocaust schmolocaust

  6. Ron

    All of the professors I knew put in a tremendous amount of work a week. Surely they all worked more than 40 hours, often 50, 60 hours+.

    Certainly not wasting time with lowly undergrads. More important is their “research”.

    You’re saying that the obvious, that every sane person knows is true history, never even occurred. Why should I talk to someone like that?

    No one is saying that. No one is saying there was no Treblinka or Sobibor. By “denial” they mean no soap, no human skin lampshades, no shrunken heads, no gas chambers, no throwing Khazars into ovens, etc.

    Did you even bother to look at the site I posted earlier? Apparently not. Here it is again (created by a Palestinian):

  7. tomhdintino

    never heard of the shrunken head thing or the lampshades. interesting site. the author seems very genuine and well-mannered.

  8. Yeah I looked at it. Right off, it says that Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were not extermination camps. Ok, that’s flat out wrong right there. The reason Deniers can say that is because the Nazis really tried to cover their tracks in those places. And there were hardly any survivors either, because those were true extermination camps. I think there was only one survivor from Belzec. They razed them completely and planted them with a forest. And they tried to burn all the corpses.

    Nazis did indeed turn Jews into soap, and I can prove it. I don’t know about the lampshade thing or the shrunken heads. Every sane person knows there were gas chambers. The bodies were thrown into ovens after they were already dead, I believe. There was some burning of Jews alive, but I don’t think in ovens.

    The truth is that almost all Deniers support Nazis and Nazism. True, correct? There are few Deniers who do not support German National Socialism and Adolf Hitler. The reason they support Nazism and Hitler is because he killed 6 million Jews. I mean, the guy wins Greatest Antisemite of All Time Award. How could any hardcore antisemite not love Hitler. He’s the ultimate antisemite that ever lived.

    The guy who wrote that site sounds like an ok guy, but most Deniers are ferocious antisemites, including Ron and Reader. Is it a coincidence? Why are almost all Deniers ferocious antisemites? Because Denial is a form of antisemitism. In fact, it is one of the most evil forms of antisemitism ever thought up.

    One Third of the Holocaust flat out states that those three camps were not death camps.

    Those things you listed – shrunken heads, lampshades, soap, etc. are very much debated even in Holocaust Believer circles. That’s not Denial. But Deniers use those dubious things to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.

    If there was anything to Holocaust Denial, a lot of Deniers would not be antisemites. Some would even be Judeophiles.

    Furthermore, we must ask why Denial is so associated with support for Hitler and Nazism. That cannot be a coincidence. Reason is that in general, Denial is a form of Nazism or support for such.

    BTW, the reason I don’t want to debate Holocaust is in part because I spent a couple of years on alt.revisionism watching SuperJews and Denier Nazis fight it out, so I am familiar with many, if not most, of the arguments. Why is this website not going to give me more of the same old shit?

    That Pallie has an agenda for his Denial. It’s true that Zionism has used the Holocaust to justify the theft, colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. So obviously the Pallies want to take that tool away from Zionism.

  9. Re: Olive’s comments. I read one guy, well, he doesn’t like Jews too much. He’s a White nationalist. He agreed with you about anti-Semites and SuperJews. He said he didn’t think that Jews were worthy of all that attention. That actually seemed to be an appropriate reaction for a guy who didn’t care for Jews too much. If you’re not wild about Jews, why think about em?

    So why is it that anti-Semites are tuned in to the Jew Channel 24-7. Something is going on here.

    I admit I’m sort of obsessed with Jews myself, or at least I can’t stop writing about them. I find them fascinating, and also I think deep down inside I really want to be a Jew. Well maybe or maybe not. I’m not sure if I could deal with all the anti-Semites. The few times I was able to actually empathize fully with Jews and “turn Jewish” for a bit while anti-Semites attacked me (because they thought I was Jewish) the antisemites scared the living shit out of me and left me trembling. I don’t know how Jews do it. Maybe they are tougher than we think.

  10. Yeah, I think you are right. I don’t really have a love hate relationship with Jews, but I admit I dislike the SuperJews, so maybe I do? I think the critique of Jews is absolutely fascinating, but so is the philo-Semitic view. I’m fascinated by lots of groups, and Jews are just one of them. If you read the Jewish press a lot, you will see that when the doors are shut and there are no Gentiles around to listen, the Jews really go at each other and slam away. Actually, that’s really cool.

    I sort of want to be a Jew because Jews are smart and neurotic, and that’s what I am. I just feel Jewish. Gentile society is very anti-intellectual and anti-neurotic, and Jewish society really accepts people like me. Gentile women (except Asians) are anti-intellectual and don’t give two damns about brains. All they care about is money. Jewish chicks like smart guys, and even Jewish guys respect brains and degrees.

    My Mom always said I should have been Jewish because I always wanted to argue with my parents. Jewish parents supposedly encourage the Jews to do that.

    I’m fascinated by the Jews as irreverent trailblazers in everything and anything. The money thing, I don’t care about so much, but at my age, give me some too!

    If you go back to the old blog, you see I wrote about all sorts of ethnic groups.

    I grew up with Jews, because my parents are extreme philoSemites, and their friends are these brainy, liberal, irreverent Jews. That’s who I grew up with, and I love those people. I never even thought about the downside, and I hardly ever even thought these people were Jews. Being a Jew or not was just not important. Some of them, I knew them for decades before I even found out they were Jews. These are the nicest, most honest people you ever met. You could give them $100,000 and they would hold it for you til you came back.

    Super Jews used to come here all the time and be real mean and nasty and call me anti-Semite. They’re the whole reason I had to make an evil comments policy. A whole bunch of these clowns got banned. When I’m around Super-Jews, it’s true, I start to really hate them a lot. But if I’m away from them, I don’t have much negative feelings about the Jews.

    Jealousy has to be a lot of anti-Semitism. I have a feeling that a lot of Jewish success is just pure biological IQ, but I guess there is some pressurizing in there too. I don’t care about Jewish success or Jewish $ or any of that. My attitude is invite me to the party, mix and match and let me have a few tokes off the money jay.

    A lot of anti-Semites are not necessarily poor or unsuccessful. That’s a Jewish conceit. Quite a few of them make good money and have done well for themselves.

    It’s still an open question whether or not many successful Jews have used discrimination as a means towards their money – power thing. I suspect that may be a part of it. But keep in mind that even in very anti-Semitic societies, Jews had a lot of success and power, and they didn’t do it with discrimination. Ashk Jewish IQ may be as high as 115 and verbal IQ may be as high as 125. With killer IQ like that, success is nearly assured.

  11. Hi Olive. His name is Igor Alexander.

  12. Reader

    That’s what Holocaust Denial is. You’re saying that the obvious, that every sane person knows is true history, never even occurred….

    Every sane person knows there were gas chambers.

    And, how does every “sane person” know this? They’ve carefully evaluated the evidence for themselves, or they’re just sheep uncritically accepting what they’ve read in grade school history textbooks and seen in Hollywood movies?

  13. Reader

    If there was anything to Holocaust Denial, a lot of Deniers would not be antisemites. Some would even be Judeophiles.

    “Holocaust denial” is the greatest taboo in the Western world, and one of the few beliefs that will get you thrown in prison in many European countries. Obviously few people are going to openly profess these views, or even investigate revisionism privately, unless they have some kind of motivation.

    Furthermore, we must ask why Denial is so associated with support for Hitler and Nazism. That cannot be a coincidence. Reason is that in general, Denial is a form of Nazism or support for such.

    I tend to think the Nazis were a mixed bag. Obviously I don’t buy into the Hollywood notion that the Nazis were the living embodiment of pure evil – that’s just ridiculous. In any case, if you ask most people why the Nazis were bad, they’ll generally reply “because they killed 6 million Jews!” Well, that’s just flatly false. The main reason for viewing the Nazis as pure evil is just wrong. Sure, Nazis did lots of things that are hard to defend but so did the Soviet Union, Britain, the US, etc.

    Since you’re so big on this kind of reasoning though (“Why are all revisionists also Nazis?”), then why do all exterminationists hate free speech? Why the need to lock revisionists in prison? What are you guys so afraid of? Does anyone lock flat earthers in prison? Why do so many exterminations say “of course I don’t support locking people in prison” but none will actually condemn this state of affairs or call for these people to be released?

  14. bongoparty5

    I don’t think it’s about “jealousy.” People like to say this a lot, along with claiming that “anti-semites” scapegoat Jews for no reason. As if the Nazis just said eeenie meenie minee moe and the Jews were picked. You’re assuming Jews are some kind of “urban Amish,” that they don’t take part in politics for the purpose of expanding Jewish power and influence. This isn’t a surprise considering in the mainstream there isn’t any real representation of who Jews are and how organized Jewry operates. They don’t have anything to reference in terms of Jewish power.

    As far as Olive’s statement that “anti-semitic” groups today are working class and poor, well I don’t know what anti-semites you’re really talking about here. Jewish power is so great that I don’t think anyone could really operate in business or at high levels without the Jews coming after them. If you’re talking about white activists who are also critical of Jews, well there isn’t a class basis for it, they’re within all sorts of class or professions. Maybe you’ve just got an active imagination.


    “You could give them $100,000 and they would hold it for you til you came back.”

    That’s what the thousands of Jews who entrusted untold billions with Madoff thought…and look where that got ’em! Madoff’s client list reads like the attendance list of America’s largest synagogue –

    Now, throughout history Jews as a whole have economically used and exploited non-Jews in the manner that Madoff ripped off all those Jews. With the Madoff case Jews are finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and obviously they don’t like it one bit.

    In terms of Holocaust denial…

    The 6 million number is rather arbitrary and seems to have popped up sometime in 1945 only a few months after the war ended and repeated over and over and over until it has been accepted as a ‘fact’ just because of repetition in the media. The “6 million Jews exterminated” number is likely an exaggeration and a very misleading number.

    FACT THE FACTS – There is no way that the number of murdered Jews could have been known that soon after the war ended, after only a few months following the war’s end – the records of Germany, Poland, the USSR, etc weren’t even available that fast for exact tabulations to be made. For instance, Albert Einstein gave a speech in December 1945 saying that “6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis in Europe” – how did Einstein or ANYONE else know that exactly 6 million Jews were killed just a few months after the war ended? Did the people (mostly journalists for newspapers, NOT serious scholars and historians) claiming 6 million killed somehow manage to tabulate the exact number that quickly, sorting through perhaps MILLIONS of pages of records and such (remember, this was before decent computing technology existed – most of these records were hand written or typed and would have to have been tabulated manually).

    It’s an utter impossibility that the journalists, scholars, historians, politicians, and others could have know that 6 million were murdered that soon after the war ended…totally impossible – yet the 6 million number continued to be repeated over and over beginning shortly after the war’s end in 1945 until it became a ‘thought crime’ to question it, with people even spending time in jail for questioning numbers and such.

    I’m not minimizing the Holocaust here…it was a terrible thing, and I say that as a person resolutely opposed to Jewish hegemony in the USA and elsewhere – yes, millions of Jews were most definitely displaced in Europe during WWII, as were many millions of non-Jews. When the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939 many hundreds of thousands of Jews fled eastward in to the Soviet Union and escaped Nazi persecution that way…also, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 millions of Jews fled eastward far in to the Soviet Union as quickly as possible and escaped the Nazis. There is simply no way to know exact numbers involved because of the chaos caused by the war how many Jews managed to flee or immigrate, how many Jews were rounded up and put in concentration camps, how many Jews were immediately killed by the Einsatzgruppen and such, how many were slowly worked to death, how many hid out or were hidden by non-Jews, how many converted to Christianity to avoid being persecuted, how many died from diseases or natural causes, how many died in combat while fighting in the Soviet army or in the communist partisan groups which roamed Eastern Europe, etc.

    After World War I a Jewish publications also claimed that 6 million Jews died during that war – – so 6 million Jews died in both WWI and WWII? Absurd. The Jews are known for their notoriously inaccurate and hysterical hyperbole.

    Overall, the numbers just don’t add up – they are very sloppy numbers. It took over decade (until well in to the 1950s) before halfway accurate numbers of the overall number of people who died in all of WWII were quantified and released – and there is still much historical disputes regarding those numbers.

    The fact is that the “6 million Jews killed” number started popping up in the media before all the facts were in, only a mere few months after the war had ended. In the interest of historical accuracy and historical truth these numbers need to be thoroughly re-examined – “HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM” IS NOT THE SAME THING AS “HOLOCAUST DENIAL” – history is constantly revised, updated, and reinterpreted as new information comes to light or old data is re-examined, and the exact numbers involved in the Holocaust should be no exception.


    RL: “If you read the Jewish press a lot, you will see that when the doors are shut and there are no Gentiles around to listen, the Jews really go at each other and slam away.”

    That’s a virtual impossibility because the REAL Jewish press is all in Yiddish and/or Hebrew which is entirely inaccessible to non-Jews for obvious reasons. What you read in the Jewish press in English is a sanitized version made safe for dissemination amongst non-Jews – only in the REAL Hebrew/Yiddish Jewish press can you learn some true facts regarding the Jewish world. And think how many books on Jewish history and other Jewish issues are in Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino, etc and have yet to be translated because they contain potentially ‘damaging’ information about Jews which they don’t want the goyim to learn about them.

    But hey, Ben Bernanke knows Hebrew – I wonder if he uses it to communicate with other Hebrew-speaking or Hebrew-reading Jews in high positions since there are so many of his fellow Jews who work at the FED and in the American government? I wonder if Alan Greenspan knows Hebrew too and uses it in his “Jewish eyes only” communiques?


    Olive: “I am afraid of these antisemites on the internet though. Im afraid theyll try to start a “revolution” some day and riot in jewish neighborhoods.”

    You are right to be afraid because that is exactly what is happening – not the riots of course, but the use of the internet to disseminate factual information regarding the incredibly disproportionate Jewish control of America and the often terrible effects this has on our nation.

    Because the internet is largely out the realm of the Jew-controlled mass-media it is helping to expose the full extent of Jewish hegemony, control, and criminality like nothing ever before it has…and as the internet continues to expand more and more people around the world will use this wonderful tool of free speech and free research to learn about the negative effects which Jewish power and control has upon their society.

    Yes, you are correct: there are strong worries pervading the Jewish community about the internet being used to expose their negative activities in the USA and other countries, and thus many Jew are the forefront of trying to ‘manage’ (i.e., censor) the internet in order to remove what they perceive as ‘objectionable content’ – it just so happens that the vast majority of the ‘objectionable content’ they want to completely censor involves discussions and information about Jews.

    Face the facts: 99% of Jews HATE that the internet is being used to discuss them and their largely negative influence, and they seek to stamp out any and all unfavorable discussions regarding their influence in America and elsewhere precisely because they are not able to control/censor such discussions. Thus JEWS STAND AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE MOVEMENT TO CENSOR OR OTHERWISE ‘MANAGE’ THE INTERNET – Jews already control Google and as a result are able to block websites which they deem to be objectionable…Jew-controlled Google continues to daily block or bury the search results of web pages related to Jewish influence, power, and control. The pathetic reality is that Jews generally support all kinds of free speech unless it involves speaking freely about Jews and Jewish influence.

    The next anti-Jewish ‘revolution’ will indeed come just as it always has so many times in the past in so many different countries and regions; various movements and ‘revolutions’ have arisen time after time in country after country throughout history as a natural reaction to overwhelming Jewish control and power, and such a movement will be coming to America soon considering Jews have very negatively affected so many aspects of America in the past 50+ years.

    I predict that within the next 10-20 years or so (or perhaps even sooner) a definite anti-Jewish movement will be in the works in the USA. As you say, it will be spread using the internet due to the fact that Jews control America’s mass media and thus will not allow free discussion of Jewish issues within their owned media. This is why people will continue to turn to the internet for a non-biased source of news and information regarding the Jewish Question.

    However, you display a typical Jewish paranoia when you write about ‘murderous antisemites attacking Jewish neighborhoods’ and such. That hopefully won’t happen because the majority of Americans truly are a fundamentally decent people and will not stand for that unless the situation becomes truly dire in the country – my preferred scenario is one where America’s Jews will gracefully admit their wrongdoing and seek to correct it by ceding the vastly disproportionate power and influence they have gained using less-than-legal methods – if not then off to Israel they go, no questions asked.

    If they do abide by the new Jew-aware rules they would be allowed to stay in America as long as they can live with the understanding that they can only wield power in American society that is proportional to their numbers in the overall population…so, for instance, Jewish quotas are needed…meaning they cannot own more than around 5% of the mass media, cannot control more than 5% of banks or America’s finance capital, cannot hold more than 5% of top government jobs, cannot have more than 5% of the slots in top schools, cannot be more than 5% of the professors at certain schools, cannot be more than 5% of America’s lawyers, and so forth. That is a very reasonable proposal as it only seeks to check unnecessary Jewish power which has run roughshod over the American people for several decades now – and it is very far removed from the raving antisemitic mob you which you imagine.

  18. Lafayette Sennacherib

    Well said Oppose Jewish Control. That’s a good summary of the problems with the mainstream holocaust story. In fact, there are NO historians now, not even the most zionist propagandists like Yad Vashem, who claim that 6 million were gassed, though they still claim about 5.2 million died. But I still see and hear the H defined a’Germany gassed 6 million jews ‘, quite casually in the MSM. Never has there been such a propaganda campaign.

    But some of the revisionists lean the other way too much for credibility. We know from German and local records that about 1 million jews were rounded up and deported from Europe, excluding Poland and Soviet Russia. That’s the mainstream figure, and tallies with the figures given on Nizkor ( which Robert likes to quote). The question is, ultimately: how much can we trust the Soviet figures for their jewish population, when their was no compulsion for jews to identify as such in any official monitoring; and, given the high percentage of jews in the communist party, and the resentment that might provoke, it might be in the communists’ interest to downplay such immigration.
    But any immigration must have taken place largely before war broke out – including from the German occupied part of Poland. When Operation Barbarossa got under way, Poland and European Russian were overrun so quickly that fleeing to free-Russia would have been very difficult, and there must have been massive mortality of those who tried. Given the huge mortality rate in Poland an European Russia, where the jews were concentrated, and that moreover they were concentrated in the cities which were the nazis prime targets, and that the nazis had a special hostility to the jews, it would be incredible if the jews didn’t suffer proportionately more than the slavs. What are the estimated non-military slav fatalities in Poland and European Russia – about 15 million? It is just unbelievable therefore that the jewish losses due to general conditions of war, and special persecution, did not run into millions. And even the exerminationists now claim ‘only’ about 2 million gassings. But this figure itself must allow for a huge margin of error, including the possibility that there were no gassings, and only limited mass-killings.

    IMPORTANT POINT: Do we have figures for the percentage fatalities of non-jewish concentration camp inmates? This percentage should be immediately subtracted from the jewish total. Do we have percentages for the number of women and children amongst the concentration camp survivors ( these were supposedly killed immediately on arrival)?

    “What about the witness statements”, they always say. Robert repeatedly refers to the Nizkor site, for documents and statements that destroy the ‘deniers’ case. I was not impressed. One important point they claim, however, is that in 50 years not one person has come forward to retract a statement or claim they were tortured or bribed. That’s a serious point which needs some answering.

    But as to the witness statements provided by Nizkor: there are 8 ‘statements’. none much more than a half dozen lines, most less. One isn’t even a statement; it’s a report of a ‘statement’ by a special prosecutor investigating crime and murder (of inmates) in the camps – the reporter puts his own slant on it. Of the other seven, four only mention gaschambers, one claims to have seen a gas-chamber and bodies after use, and only 2 claim to have participated, giving little detail.

    Either as ‘the best they can do’, or a random sample, this is not very impressive, much less conclusive. And Nizkor. is a very well financed and resourced organisation. This suggests that all these ‘ witness statements’ could do with ‘further investigation’. And who can get access to these statements? And could they be criticised without incurring a jail sentence? That one side of the argument gets closed down by legal sanction suggests someone has something to hide.


    ” my preferred scenario is one where America’s Jews will gracefully admit their wrongdoing and seek to correct it by ceding the vastly disproportionate power and influence they have gained using less-than-legal methods – if not then off to Israel they go, no questions asked.”

    What? No prosecutions? Anyway, what chance of them coming clean? You have to get them bang to rights. How to do it? How to get indisputable evidence of racially selective practices on the parts of the jews? We have the big picture. We know some broad statistics; 50% of the billionaires; 30% of the rich; some figures for the percentages in academia etc. But we tend to know about this because the jews boast openly about it in mainstream outlets. But I don’t see many official surveys quoted. Are there any? I don’t think jews in the USA are compelled to identify as such in any equal opportunities monitoring – are they? I suspect your eq opps monitoring is probably, like in the uk, on optional self-identification on monitoring forms. Is it? Can you imagine the cries of ‘ Hitler returns’ in the jew-owned media if there was a movement for compulsory, with sanctions, eq opps monitoring? Can you imagine the jew-run human rights/anti-racist groups and NGOs supporting such a campaign? How could you get the jew-funded political parties to support it?
    Imagine if you were to start a leafletting campaign for such a movement; a serious, nation-wide one – the facts and figures, and sources for them, put through every letter-box. Are there no rich gentile Americans who are concerned, who could put up money? Maybe not – they’re all too afraid of the jews ganging up on them.

    How to do it? Treat it as crime! This is a mafia; but unlike the Italian mafia, it includes nearly ALL jewish organisations, almost the entire rabbinate, and maybe as much as 50% of those of jewish descent, many probably reluctantly, to be fair.

    If you leave it too long, one day you’ll wake up and find that you have a jews-only ‘Republican Guard’ , armed with much higher-tech equipment than the regular army, to ensure that the army doesn’t rebel against the jews-only elite – Saudi Arabia has such a Guard.

  19. Ron

    but most Deniers are ferocious antisemites, including Ron and Reader.

    No. I have no problems with Arabs.

    Why is this website not going to give me more of the same old shit?

    Well, for one, there is David Cole’s video and Phil Donahue’s interview with Cole (who is Jewish, so there goes your anti semite card).

    The soap story is addressed in one of his (the Palestinian’s) videos. The famous six million figure is also discussed in OneThird (it has something to do with Reader’s Digest, but I don’t remember the exact details).

    At least watch the OneThird videos. It’s called “One Third of the Holocaust” because he felt that it was only necessary to debunk one third of the Holocaust.

  20. whodareswings

    Wouldn’t it be cool if Bono went to the town in Argentina where Bishop Richard Williamson lives and found some really poor street musicians with supporating sores on their elbows and paid them each, like, $57 to go into a local recording studio and cut this great song with him?


    Whenever I am feeling sad,
    Because an argument is lost,
    I simply emulate my Dad,
    And scream his hate word, “Holocaust”.

    The patient seeker after truth,
    Sifts documents his whole life long,
    Who dares to read his well-turned proof,
    When “Holocaust” I call upon?

    The journalist at times may roar,
    Lion-hearted to defend free speech,
    But when I call out “Holocaust”,
    He darts for cover with a screech.

    The Church, which long ere Luther’s time,
    Would guide to Christ its Gentile flock,
    Now has become a Judas shrine,
    A holy Holocausting shop.

    Each day through movies, books, and sketches,
    The Holocaust is battered in
    To brains of trauma-pated wretches,
    Fills up my coffers to the brim.

    History, the way I write it,
    This is the law from time long past,
    The Goyim’s love of truth I smite it,
    With hate-filled myths of Holocaust.

    -John Bayldon

  21. tomhdintino

    so john bayldon, how comes u like bono?

  22. Wow, this post is really bringing them out of the woodwork. I’ve never heard any serious discussion of the “1 million Jews left for Russia” stuff. Keep in mind that the mainstream, non Denier historians grant figures ranging from 4.2 million to over 6 million. I have seen the evidence that it is actually more than 6 million killed (that came out in the last decade or so) and it is very interesting.

    The whole question of the exact numbers (or as close as we can get) is totally open to discussion, and historians are still researching this question. To say that the numbers killed is illegal to discuss is completely wrong.

    I don’t think that anyone says “6 million gassed.” It’s well known that even in the extermination camps, bullets were often used. They mostly switched to gassing as a cost saver. In Russia, about 1 million Jews were killed, and I don’t think one was gassed. So that’s really a straw man.

    There are vastly more than 8 witness statements on the Nizkor site, and many are much longer than a few paragraphs. The number of witnesses who have given statements must be in the 1000’s to 10’s of 1000’s, or possibly even more. The number of Nazi participants who gave often lengthy statements is also very large.

    The truth is that the evidence for the Holocaust is simply overwhelming.

    By the way, the “Jewish soap” sample was analyzed in 2006, and human fat is indeed one of the ingredients. So the Jews to soap thing is proven.

    It is not correct that the consensus number is 5.2 million. It is 5.7 million. The 6 million figure is arrived because it appears that around 4-6.5 million Jews appear to have vanished off the face of the Earth during the war. They didn’t go to the moon.

    It is completely wrong to subtract the Jews from the non-Jewish fatalities in the camps. First of all, the 6 million or so figure is arrived at via population studies, not tallies of dead per camp. Further, the entire Nazi extermination campaign seems to have killed maybe 11-15 million, and Jews were only 6 million of that. So the real Holocaust, including Jews, was way over 6 million. My understanding is that the witness statements on the gas chambers is very large. Further, we have the chambers themselves, empty Zyklon-B canisters, the whole works.

  23. I spent a couple of hours talking to a guy who was an heir to a Jewish media fortune. He was up in Canada and his family was into radio bigtime. They were friends with the Bronfmans. The guy had read my website and wasn’t really against it. He agreed that Zionism was racism and apartheid and he didn’t really dig Israel. But he had no illusions about Islam either.

    I was actually kind of probing the guy when talking to him to see what the scam was, but I could never really figure it out. Just seemed like he inherited tons of money. He said that they were getting into porn, and distributing porn via the TV’s in motels. He didn’t act like he was doing it to decay the morals of the Gentiles or any of that. He just saw it as a cool way to make a bunch of money. He was basically a good person. I didn’t see him as a criminal at all. His only crime was inheriting a bundle.

  24. David Cole is an utter moron. We spent years going over his crap on alt.revisionism. You act like I’m a virgin when it comes to this Denial crap. Forget it. I spent years reading it on Usenet in alt.revisionism.

    To tell the truth, I didn’t like those SuperJews and their Judeophilic Gentile buddies on that group, but when it came to the Holocaust, they really knew their stuff. For one thing, those idiots kept calling me anti-Semite. And if you throw out some Denier arguments to see the anti-revisionist response, the antis accuse you of being a Denier just for asking. I made it clear from the start that I accepted the standard story, but some stupid Jew on there named Daniel Keren I think kept calling me “denier.”

  25. whodareswings

    There was a little bit of soapy residue found in a forensics lab in Poland at the end of the war which the Russians insisted was made from Jewish fat. There was no way to tell if this soap sample was Jewish or not. Come on! It’s like those Hollywood (Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock directed ) movies of skeletal corpses being bulldozed into pits at the liberation of Buchenwald. How do we know they’re Jewish.? (Well, I suppose you could push the “pause” button and check for circumcisions). A Nuremburg prosecutor says they are so we believe him. Jochim Neander is an amateur expert on the Jewish soap legend. He’s studied it and put it into its proper perspective at the RODOH forum here:
    Soap is apparently a natural by product of rendered human fat. It practically turns itself into soap. It was a forensics lab, after all, and there were bodies and body parts all over the place. What they found was no soap factory. So stop with the soap story, already!

  26. Ron

    I dont understand why its important.

    Wonderful. You need not comment further in this post or in any future posts concerning this topic.

  27. No way, whodares. We have testimony of the people who worked in the lab. It was at the Danzig Anatomical Institute in Gdansk. We have the sworn testimony of workers who worked there. They produced 50 pounds of soap from dead bodies! We have photos of the bodies to be turned into soap. I have the photos on my hard drive back at my apartment! We have photos of dead bodies lying in tubs.

    They were “cured” there for 3 or 4 months and then I think the bones removed and they were boiled in vats to remove the fat and the fat was turned into soap. The women made better soap than the men because they have more fat. It’s true, we don’t know if they were all Jews. One of the bodies had a tattoo with Polish Navy on it, so he was probably just a Pole. The bodies came from concentration camps where there were Poles, Jews, all kinds of people. That’s who they made soap out of!

    They used to soap to clean up and disinfect the lab, and it was said to be best soap available for this purpose. The worker said he took home 5 pounds of the stuff and he used it on his laundry and whatnot. At first the soap had a bad smell, so they added some ingredient to it to get rid of the smell. Soap-making was just experimental, and it was at the end of the war.

    The camp was seized by the Soviets and they and the Poles and an international team inspected the facility and found the soap making facility, the soap, the dead bodies, etc. The soap was already on display on trials after the war and was entered in as evidence. There were newspaper stories at the time about it.

    Two years ago, they went back and did tests on this soap and it turns out it was made of human fat. We don’t know if it was Jewish fat, maybe it was Polish fat. But they made it out of dead bodies of Nazi concentration camp victims.

    At the same facility, they experimented with turning human skin, via tanning, into a leather type product. I’m not sure how well that worked out, but it was definitely done. This was just experimental stuff.

    I don’t know anything about lampshades or shrunken heads.

  28. smileyfrogs

    I think Olive has plenty reason to care, Ron. Why do you care so much?


    RL: “The 6 million figure is arrived because it appears that around 4-6.5 million Jews appear to have vanished off the face of the Earth during the war. They didn’t go to the moon.”

    Yes, we are to accept these numbers as fact because it “appears” that way. No, it appears that Jewish journalists and other Jewish public figures and politicians started writing all kinds of non-sourced articles in Jew-owned newspapers and making shrill speeches about “6 million Jews gassed” only a few months after the war ended before all of the facts were in. The 6 million number crept in to the public consciousness because of repetition in the Jewish-owned mass-media and ever since it has been virtually a crime to oppose or question the exact numbers involved. Basically, Jews have hijacked the historiography of WWII and the Nazi persecution of Jews – and to question the ‘official’ Jewish interpretation of those events it means you are a horrible Jew-hater who wants to repeat it.

    Look, the fact is that, as I said above, accurate census numbers regarding the number of Jews living in ALL of Europe and ALL of the Soviet Union were not at all known with any accuracy, so how are we to ever truly know the numbers that were actually killed in the Holocaust? There were, however, multiple millions of Jews who escaped far in to the Soviet Union when the Nazis invaded Poland, Belarus, and the Ukraine, and these Jews remained uncounted because of the chaos of war. Millions more Jews escaped the Nazis in Germany and other Western European countries by immigrating to the USA, Canada, South Africa, South America, and various Caribbean islands during the 1930s-40s. Additionally, millions more immigrated to Israel both before, during, and after the war.

    During the Nazi years Jews scattered all over Europe and indeed the whole world which again makes accurate census figures extraordinarily difficult to come by. Hell, for all we know 20+ million ethnic Jews could be living in the USA because they do not report as ethnically Jewish on the census, nor would all of them do so if they actually had the option – meanwhile the best estimates by ‘experts’ put the number at around 7 million American Jews or so, which is clearly an underestimate. So if we cannot get an even halfway accurate number of the Jews currently living in America or any other nation (except possibly Israel), how are we to know the number who were rounded up in Europe during chaotic WWII and eventually killed?

    Thousands of Jews were living in Berlin until the war ended in 1945 [ ] – if the Nazis were fanatically tracking down and gassing or shooting every single Jew they could get their hands on during the war years why were thousands of Jews still living in the capital of the Third Reich when it was taken by the Soviets in May ’45?

    And no one ever addressed my above question about the absurd Jewish claim that 6 million Jews were also killed or otherwise died during the World War I years –

    I’m not a Holocaust denier, because clearly many Jews were rounded up and put in to detainment and/or labor camps during WWII due to the fact that they were correctly perceived as enemies of the Nazi war effort – a large number of them were indeed Communist/Soviet partisans and sympathizers who aided the Soviet side, and thus under the common sense rules of war the Nazis were correct to detain them. Many Jews or course died or were killed during the WWII years as did so many others, but my point here is that the exact numbers can never be truly known because of the unclear census figures and the chaos of wartime.

  30. No historian accepts that 6 million Jews were killed in WW1. Some stupid Jew just started shooting off his mouth after WW1 and saying that 6 million Jews got killed in the war. Every race has its idiots and blowhards. I’ve never heard that any historian takes that seriously. There was a large commission after the war that looked into the numbers of dead in the war. No one really knows.

    I think Poland and Germany each lost 10 million. Poland lost 30% of its population and Ukraine and Belarus lost 25% of their populations. Russia lost 27 million. All of these are roundabout ballpark guesses. This commission, using primarily population demographers, studied the question of Jewish losses intensively and came up with an approximate figure of 6 million killed, mostly just out and out exterminated.

    Since then, there has been intense scholarly interest in the topic, and many studies have been done. I am not sure how they do these studies. It is not true that the 6 million figure is sacrosanct. However, this intensive debate has produced figures ranging from 4.2 million to over 6 million dead. The debate is ongoing. Some of the most recent studies have suggested *over* 6 million dead. Raul Hilberg, the Dean of Holocaust Studies, says it is 5.1 million. I put it at 5.7 million.

    No more than 800,000 Jews were in Palestine a few years after the war.

    Out of 3 million Jews in Poland, only 300,000 survived, so millions could not have fled.

    1 million Jews were killed in the USSR by death squads, Einsatzgruppen.

    That’s 3.7 million right there.

    It’s true Jews survived in Germany. They were hidden. It’s not really true that Germans were trying to exterminate every Jew they could find. Mostly they just wanted to grab as many as possible of the easy pickings. Only 200,000 Jews were killed in Germany. Most fled before the war as those Jews had $.

    Now we are up to 3.9 million already.

  31. blocked

    Lindsay, you’re Jewish (racially), right? I’m more convinced of it every time I read your inane rants. (Your photo doesn’t scream ‘nordic’ to me, though you claim it.)

    I don’t claim to know how many jews were killed. It may very well be as the standard narrative claims. But revisionist arguments certainly make plenty of sense. Yet the reaction to them has been to lock people up. Hardly fills a guy with confidence now, does it.

    Now we’re getting these kooky claims that exterminationists have been there crossing swords with revisionists all along. Yeah, right.


    “It’s true Jews survived in Germany. THEY WERE HIDDEN.”

    Yeah, if by “hidden” you mean living openly in some German cities by the thousands and/or openly married to Germans, even by the time the war ended.

    Also, some tens of thousands of mixed Jews served openly in the Nazi Army, some even as Generals or other high-ranking officers – there’s been a univ. press book written about it called “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers” –

    “No more than 800,000 Jews were in Palestine a few years after the war.”

    No way to tell because of inaccurate population figures – but it is true that many millions of Jews were living in Allied controlled refugee camps all over Western Europe after WWII ended, in some cases for over 2-3 years…they immigrated to Israel or America as quickly as they could.

    There are more and more holes being punched in the Jew-approved Holocaust story by the day…WAKE UP.


    blocked: “Lindsay, you’re Jewish (racially), right?”

    Of course RL is Jewish, at least partially. Probably a Jewish grandparent or great-grandparent somewhere down the line somewhere.

    One drop is all it takes…

  34. tomhdintino

    oh no you didn’t, blocked! glasses and curly hair don’t make somebody jewish (i think)

  35. Answered the Lindsay is Jewish bit in a post. Not a trace of Jew in me and I’m 100% White, Dinaric and Nordic, too.

  36. Ron

    We have the sworn testimony of workers who worked there.

    Wow…just wow.

    You act like I’m a virgin when it comes to this Denial crap.

    I reasonable assumption for any visitor to this blog to make. Who is Robert Lindsay, anyway? I’ve never heard of him.

  37. Who is Robert Lindsay, anyway?

    Just some asshole.

    I don’t think he even exists in r/l. Do you know anyone who actually knows this freak in meatspace, or is just an anonymous author hiding behind some fictitious identity.

  38. tomhdintino

    I believe in you, Peter!

  39. John Thames

    Mr. Lindsay:

    I am the author of the infamous “History As LSD” essay you found so offensive. I can only laugh at your amazing ignorance. You know everything – without having studied anything.

    • Thank you very much, sir. Yes, you are quite an extreme anti-Semite, I can see that.

      You are right about one thing though. I’ve done a fair amount of psychedelics in my time, maybe 40 times. Long ago in another world. I am indeed an acid Bolshevik.

  40. John Thames

    The LSD would be justifiable, if it improved your thinking. Unforunately, it does not.

  41. John Thames


    Career academics, when confronted by the heresy of “Holocaust Denial”, invariably revert to the doctrine of “academic correctness”. Academic correctness is the doctrine that only university-trained historians are competent to pronounce on the truth of any supposedly settled historical controversy. This, of course, is the mentality of a priestly caste, self-appointed to pontificate to the people who lack their superior wisdom. It is not hard to puncture the illusions and pretensions of this pack of charlatans. In fact, it is ridiculously easy. These professional know-it-alls are constantly having to “revise” their findings on all kinds of subjects. This is a polite way of stating that they got it all wrong the first time. Naturally, they will not admit they got it wrong. Instead, they will argue that they were reasoning based on incomplete information and, naturally changed their minds when they got “fuller information”. The possibility that the hoax of the extermination of Europe’s Jews may have been hidden behind a fog of disinformation and that a hidden archive of “new information” may be awaiting them is, of course, too implausible to consider.

    Now, as to the lengthy record of misinformation and deliberate lying achieved by these charlatans. I have already commented at length on the World War One and Pearl Harbor lies of these distinguished academics. Now I shall address another such example. For years now, the real history of the Zionist state has been hidden behind a propaganda legend of the “only democracy in the Middle East”. The average American remains abysmally ignorant of the real history of Zionism. Most Americans do not even know that the British were ever in control of Palestine between the two world wars. As for any knowledge of the British White Papers or Royal investigations during the 1920’s or 1930’s, one might as well speak Greek to the average American. The first major history to attempt to write the suppressed story for the benefit of an American audience was Dr. Robert John’s “The Palestine Diary” back in 1970. The publication of the book has a very interesting history. Dr. John submitted it to a great many university presses for publication. It was invariably rejected. The reasons for rejection had nothing to do either with the quality of the research or the writing, both of which were admittedly very good, but with fear of Zionist reprisal. Dr. John found that there was always at least one Zionist on the university review boards, who would immediately veto publication. Despite the fact that his book had the approval of, and a foreword by, world-renowned historian Arnold J. Toynbee, Dr. John was unable to find an academic publisher for the “Palestine Diary”. Eventually the “Palestine Diary” was published in Beirut by the Institute For Palestine Studies and in New York by New World Press. New World Press had its presses burned by unknown assailants and its entire run of copies destroyed. The publishers were themselves severely beaten with metal rods wrapped in rubber (a well-known Israeli torture technique). and their spines permanently injured. Dr. John, a consultant to American corporations on their legal obligations, was then driven from job to job as penalty for having published his book. The “lobby” had gotten him. Today, Dr. John’s book is regarded as a classic in its field. But in those days of historical cover up, the price of telling the truth was very high. De. John’s experience with the terrible power of Zionism parallels, in many ways, the ordeals of the Holocaust revisionists.

    Now I shall review the lies and distortions of the historians of Zionism. For many decades the orthodox historians and media pundits have pretended that
    : (1) there were never any Arabs in Palestine; (2) that if there were Arabs in Palestine they only arrived in response to the enormous prosperity the Jewish immigrants were supposedly creating (the Joan Peters “From Time Immemorial” nonsense); (3) that the Arabs voluntarily vacated Palestine in 1948 rather than being expelled by Zionist force; (4) that the Jews in the 1948 war were confronted by Arabs who had them outnumbered and outgunned; (5) that the Jews did not commit atrocities in the war to deliberately terrorize the Arab civilian population, etc. Those lies have been repeated endlessly by “reputable people” in the universities and media for decades. Only now are those lies starting to break down. The Israeli revisionist historians ( Sima Flaphan, Benny Morris, Ilan Pape, Avi Shlaim, etc. ) have proved conclusively that the histories of their forefathers were shame-faced lies. Had any student of the 1950’s dared to make the charges since corroborated by Morris,, he would have been denounced as a “conspiracy theorist” suffering from delusional right wing fantasies. It would be the same charge, in essence, as that leveled against the increasingly confirmed Pearl Harbor revisionists. In short, the decades old historiography of Zionism is as much a lie as the English saga of World War One, the myth of a German sneak attack on an innocent, unprovoked Russia, the myth of Roosevelt’s “surprise” at Pearl Harbor, the myth of Hitler’s hostility toward the British Empire, the myth of scientific socialism and the greatest myth of all, the so-called Holocaust.

    Academic correctness is the cover for a priestly caste of intellectual prostitutes, courageous in their timidity, devoted to the vested interests which employ them and willing to attack any myth of the political underground while fleeing in terror at any exposure of the ethnic blanket that tucks them beneath the unpleasant facts they are paid to ignore.

    • I see, so you are a Holocaust Denier too. IOW, you’re a Nazi. Holocaust Denier = Nazi. Like most anti-Semites, you’re a Nazi. I always thought that was a Jewish lie, but the more anti-Semites I meet, the more I realize the Jews are right. Most anti-Semites are a bunch of Nazis. Too bad.

  42. John Thames

    Sorry, LSD head, but Holocaust denial is not National Socialism. Actually, Roosevelt’s New Deal was precisely National Socialism for America – as many Hitler era Germans recognized. Both systems were based on deficit spending, government make work programs and opposition to the gold standard. Both operated on the Fuehrer principle, too.

    I simply do not like Jews and their historical fairy tales. As for National Socialism, you have not the slightest idea what the system actually was. You have a lot to learn – but you probably never will.

  43. John Thames

    In between smoking opium, you should read my essays while I wrap you around my little finger.


    “Jewish Organizations Response To Communism And To Senator McCarthy” by Aviva Weingarten is a very recent (2008) but very informative examination of the hidden topic behind Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist investigations – the Jewish involvement in same. As Miss Weingarten makes clear, McCarthy was extremely unpopular with Jews, because the communists McCarthy was exposing were disproportionately Jewish. The Jewish defense organizations (the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti Defamation League) conceived the strategy of opposing communism while upholding civil rights against McCarthy’s “excesses”. They also made alliances, somewhat reluctantly, with non-Jewish anti-communist groups, such as the All American Conference To Combat Communism (the AACCC). This was basically an attempt to portray their “anti-communist but pro-civil rights” positions as something other than the Jewish defense mechanism it basically was. The defense organizations were less enthusiastic about such organizations as the American Jewish League Against Communism, headed by Rabbi Benjamin Schultz. McCarthy made intense efforts to make sure that his anti-communist crusade was not portrayed as an anti-Jewish crusade. Thus, he stated in a speech of April 1954 speaking of the communists: “First, they emphasize the religion of traitors and security risks in those instances where it so happens that they are of the Jewish faith. This type of propaganda, as the Communists well know, catalyzes latent prejudices and creates race hatreds.”

    McCarthy, although despised by the vast majority of America’s liberal/leftist Jews, nevertheless had a significant number of anti-communist Jewish supporters. These included the so-called “China Hands”, George Sokolsky, the well-known newspaper columnist and Alfred Kohlberg. It is also highly probable that McCarthy appointed Roy Cohn, the Jewish lawyer, as chief counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in an effort to prove that he was not anti-Semitic. Cohn and David Schine, his assistant, were never popular with the media. Their ill-fated trip to Europe to search overseas American libraries for communist books was a fiasco. Schine’s drafting into the Army lead to subsequent charges of attempted preferential treatment by McCarthy’s subcommittee. It became a highly contentious issue during the later Army-McCarthy hearings. McCarthy also made efforts to get Roy Cohn, his chief counsel, appointed to the Board of Directors of the ADL. The Senator further had a meeting with the ADL, arranged by his friend, George Sokolsky. The meeting has been variously described by the participants but did not result in any modus vivendi between McCarthy and the ADL, which continued to oppose his methods. There were several incidents in McCarthy’s career which bordered on anti-Semitism without ever crossing the line into it. The first was the uproar over the appointment of Hungarian born Jewess Anna Rosenberg to Assistant Secretary of State for Manpower in November 1940. Allegations arose that Mrs. Rosenberg had been a Communist Party member in the 1930’s. The allegations were made by a former communist, Ralph de Sola, who claimed to have attended John Reed Club meetings with Mrs. Rosenberg. The charges were dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, although it has since come to light that in December 8, 1942 an article by Anna Rosenberg, described as “Regional Director, War Manpower Commission” appeared in the Communist “New Masses” magazine, with a drawing of Mrs. Rosenberg’s face. Aviva Weingarten concludes that McCarthy went after Rosenberg, not because she was Jewish, but because she had been appointed by Secretary of State, George Catlett Marshall, who McCarthy held responsible for the fall of China to the communists.

    Another issue which brought McCarthy dangerously close to the forbidden issue of Jews and communism was the investigation of the Army Signal Corps installation at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in October 1953. The Army and the FBI had already been independently conducting their investigations and had identified 42 security risks, 39 of them Jewish. The ADL conducted its own investigation and asserted that the problem was “anti-Semitism”. One particularly acrimonious episode arising from the Fort Monmouth investigations was the issue of who promoted the security risk, the dentist Irving Peress, to major. It was in this incident that the issue of preferential treatment for David Schine came up. The Army claimed that the “persecution” of Peress was retaliation for the failure to obtain preferential treatment for Schine. McCarthy became extremely belligerent over the issue in the televised Army-McCarthy hearings and this became one of the major precipitating factors in his downfall.

    Although Aviva Weingarten’s study is well documented, there are some interesting omissions in her account. She makes no mention of the role McCarthy played in uncovering the abuses of the Malmedy Trial in Germany after the war, where McCarthy vigorously condemned the black hoods and other torture methods used against the Germans by Jewish interrogators in American uniforms. Perhaps this involvement explains why the Jewish controlled American media were ready to pounce on McCarthy when he made his famous Wheeling, West Virginia speech about communists in the State Department. Nor does she mention his very close friendship with James Forrestal, the thoroughly anti-Zionist Secretary of Defense. Perhaps these omissions would undermine her thesis that McCarthy was only anti-communist, not anti-Zionist. She does admit that McCarthy’s investigation of Anna Rosenberg involved McCarthy with known anti-Semites, like Benjamin Freedman, Gerald L.K. Smith and others. Aviva Weingarten also has to admit that Jews were disproportionately involved in the American Communist Party, although she maintains the standard apologetic defense that the majority of America’s Jews were anti-communist. (A very dubious proposition, as anyone who has studied the subject knows.)

    Joseph McCarthy, as “Jewish Organisations” shows, tried very hard to distance himself from any accusations of anti-Semitism. It did not work. No matter how many overtures he made to Jewish organizations, no matter how many anti-communist Jews he employed or praised, the body of organized Jewry remained against him, then and until the present day. Even the confirmation of so many of his charges has not changed this hostility. (Indeed, the confirmation of the charges against so many identifiably guilty culprits has probably increased the hostility.) There is a profoundly important message in all this. There can be no compromise with Jewry. Present day authors, like professors Walt and Mearsheimer, who imagine that they can insulate themselves from the wrath of Jewry by making nice distinctions between “good, loyal Jews” and bad Zionist Jews deceive themselves. It cannot be done. It did not work in the case of Joseph McCarthy; it will not work for them. Senator McCarthy had the opportunity to convert his anti-communist crusade into an anti-Jewish crusade. That was precisely what the Jewish organizations feared. But McCarthy decided to play safe. By deluding himself that compromise with the real enemy was possible, he lost the opportunity to rebel against the real target. America has been paying the price ever since.

  44. John Thames


    There is an old saying that things must get worse before they get better. This is a saying well worth considering in the context of Zionism in Palestine. The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is, of course, abominable. But it is also an anti-Semites dream. The more outrageously the Zionists behave, the more the anti-Semitic cause gathers strength. The Jewish commissars of Soviet Russia provoked Nazism; sooner or later the Zionist bulldozers of Israeli Nazism shall provoke a similar reaction. It is already building. The wholesale butchery of Gaza produced universal loathing and retching. When the inevitable attack on Iran takes place, the reaction will be even worse.

    The Jews are getting themselves into big trouble. The wiser ones sense the danger. They know they can no longer hide behind the Holocaust – and even the truth on that is getting out. They know that if they go on supporting the state of Israel and its criminal behavior, the state of Israel will become the rope that hangs them. They know it but they are not yet ready to renounce the Jewish state. Like cattle, they low uneasily. They know the anti-Semites are arguing that they are all in it together. They know that when the state of Israel blows up in their face, that the anti-Semites will scream that Diaspora Jewry has been supporting, financing, lying for and covering up for the state of Israel from day one. They can hear, even now, the argument that the crimes of the state of Israel and the crimes of American Jews are one and the same. They know that the equation of principal and accessory shall be levied at them. They know it and they know the charges are true.

    People shall resist bitter logic until bitter facts leave them no choice. With world economic collapse approaching and Israel preparing to blow the Middle East apart, the stage is set. That which has been unthinkable since the end of the Second World War and the Auschwitz hoax is now not merely thinkable but inevitable. The day of reckoning of the Jewish people worldwide shall come – and the price in blood shall far exceed the mythical six million.

  45. John Thames

    Cat got your tongue, acid head?

    • Look Nazi, you are starting to violate the comments rules. Please read the comments rules before posting further comments. And acidhead, which is what I am, is one word.



    • In answer to your question, I often do not respond to the Nazis on here. I don’t necessarily respond to any commenters. That’s part of the comments policy you never read.

  46. whodareswings

    John Thames,

    Your essays are why I subscribe to Ziopedia. I think they’re the best thing there, very clear no nonsense stuff that usually sends me searching for more info on the people and events you write about so expertly and with a soupcon of hauteur.

    You must know, of course, that Ernst Junger, the German WWI bestselling novelist and Nazi assistant charge d’affairs in Paris during the WWII occupation was an acidhead. The only think he liked better was butterflies so go easy on Comrade Robert Lindsay. He’s promised not to kill us when the revolution comes.

    Can you tell me something about Louis Marshalko, the anti-Communist Polish Catholic journalist who wrote The World Conquerors? I can’t find anything on him, or any other books by him. He was at Nuremburg and described it as a Jewish cocktail party and black market on a hastily built movie set. Marcuse was there in an American uniform with a high rank he hadn’t earned.

    • Thx.

      Couple of things.

      Please capitalize “comrade.”

      Acidhead is one word. Ask Tim Leary’s ghost if you’re not sure.

      John Thames (Voltaire) is an excellent writer, I agree.

  47. John Thames

    To WhoDaresSwings:

    Sorry. I have no information whatever on Marschalko. I can find nothing on the net. It would be interesting to find out more.

    To Mr. Lindsay:

    What is your comments policy? Who cares, anyway?

    • You’re a smart guy, Bill Guru. Look up at the top of the page. The comments policy is relevant because violators get first one warning, and then, if they continue to violate, they get banned. For suggestions on how to comport yourself, see my good friend whodareswings’ posts.



  48. John Thames

    Here is one in defense of sexism by a capitalist, a racist and a sexist.


    Rarely in history has a doctrine caused as much social strife as feminism. It has taken what was once a stable, harmonious social structure and turned it into chaos. It is therefore necessary to examine feminist philosophy in detail to understand its premises, to comprehend the false assumptions upon which those premises are based and to comprehend why the doctrine, when practiced, always leads to disaster.


    Feminism purports to be against sex discrimination. Feminism forgets that women are the cause of sex discrimination. All sex discrimination ultimately arises from one cause-the fact that women bear children but men do not. That is the reason men go down with the ship while women and children climb on the lifeboats. It is also the reason that men, not women, fight and die in wars, that men work to support women rather than vice-versa and a thousand and one other distinctions between the sexes. If, then, women are the cause of sex discrimination, how can sex equality be achieved? That is the subject of the next section of “Feminism Refuted”.


    All societies throughout history have given men preference over women in the labor market. Why? The answer is: to equalize the woman’s power of sex and reproduction. In simple terms the idea is to give men all the jobs to equalize all the babies for women. This establishes a balance of power between the sexes. The woman needs the man to earn a paycheck to support the family; the man needs the woman to bear the child he cannot bear himself. When the woman is acting as her own provider the equation is altered in favor of the woman. He still needs her baby box; she no longer needs his paycheck. From this elementary fact flows all the problems which have been created by feminism.


    The family is the basic building block of society. When it crumbles, society crumbles. What, then, is the family? It is a unit of two parents, one male and one female, raising children together. The family is distinguishable from nature where there are no families but only females with their broods of children. In the lower orders of mammals males have no role in the family; they are inseminators, nothing more. Feminism aims at a regression to this state of affairs. The family exists for one reason: because of the male role of provider. Feminism, by making the husband/provider optional rather than necessary, invariably tears down the two- parent family. It can have no other effect. Some will argue that the problem is anti-male bias in the divorce courts rather than economic independence for women. Granted that eliminating anti-male discrimination in family law courts would be a step in the right direction, it would not solve the problem. For the female would still retain the option of getting pregnant without getting married, relying on her own earning power. That is an option which women are increasingly exercising with the progress of feminism.


    One of the most disastrous consequences of feminism has been the lowering of the birth rate. In all the white, industrial countries the birth rate is now at or below replacement level. This portends disastrous consequences, particularly in lands which are being overwhelmed by Third World invasions. In the 1950’s when women were in the home and the job market was reserved for men, the birth rate per white woman was 3.9 children per couple. The plummeting of the birth rate has paralleled the entry of women into the job market. The condition is cause and effect. Not merely has feminism lowered the birth rate quantitatively; it has lowered the birth rate qualitatively. Intelligent women are bearing fewer children as they pursue careers; less intelligent women, subsidized by dysgenic social policies, are bearing more children.


    Male unemployment, unlike female unemployment, imposes tremendous costs on society. An unemployed male is a likely source of crime and social disruption. An unemployed female, by contrast, can raise children and serve as a stabilizing force in society. If one looks at slums and ghettos, they consist largely of welfare mothers and unemployed males who turn to crime and drugs. Feminism, by putting women in charge of the job market as well as sex and reproduction, aims to displace males into precisely this status.


    All male businesses function as cohesive, disruption free operations. They function solely with one objective-to run as efficiently as possible. Feminist intrusion into the labor market creates all kinds of unnecessary problems. One of the biggest is maternity leave. With women taking as long as six months paid leave to make children on the company’s time, businesses are faced with enormous disruption of office efficiency. Male employees have to do double duty and enormous tensions and resentments develop. Women also want “time off” to deal with child-care problems. This may be understandable from their standpoint but not from the standpoint of office efficiency. Female employees, being sex objects, cause enormous legal problems for employers. They are always filing lawsuits because someone offended their feelings or patted their rear. All these problems are avoided by excluding them from the labor market.


    Day care societies, such as Sweden, are experiencing major problems with dumping children into state nurseries while their mothers trot off to work. Not merely are an increasing number of women expressing a desire to be home with their children signs of neurosis are appearing in the children not raised by their biological parents. They are committing suicide at an ever-increasing rate and demonstrating all kinds of psychological maladjustments which were not present pre-feminism. The same pattern is showing up in other countries. One of the most disastrous consequences of feminism has been the rise of the fatherless child. It is well established in penology that 80% of all male criminals were raised by single mothers. The economic independence of women promoted by feminism, plus “Mother First” divorce court, is the main cause of fatherless families and their social ills.


    Most people are totally unaware of the true origins of feminism. It revived after the end of the Second World War under the sponsorship of the American Communist Party. Party periodicals of the 1940’s and 1950’s were always pushing the line that women should liberate themselves from the capitalist tyrrany of the home and enter the work force. The Party condemned male comrades for not taking women seriously and making sex jokes offensive to female comrades (“Sexual harassment”, anyone?) Daddy was shown changing the diapers. The founding mother of feminism, Betty Friedan, was a life long Jewish communist and devotee of Joseph Stalin, a fact which was covered up when her book, “The Feminine Mystique”, was published in 1963. Jewesses have always been in the forefront of the feminist movement. This is only logical, as communism has always been a front for Jews. Feminism poses as a front for “equality” for women but in fact feminism aims to make war on the white male and displace him as the leader of the society which he created.


    The solution to feminism is to restore the concept of “family wage”. Family wage means paying a man enough money to support a family, so that his wife can stay home and raise the children. Family wage was, de facto, the social structure of the United States before the rise of feminism. It is still the correct system.

  49. John Thames


    Like Holocaust Denial, the Protocols of Zion are outside the parameters of polite society. It is easy to see why. If either is true, then there exists a centuries old conspiracy to enslave mankind. The Protocols are supposedly a forgery by the Czarist secret police; Holocaust Denial is supposedly a fringe movement of Hitler apologists and lunatics. What no one wishes to do is to submit either the Protocols or Holocaust Denial to rational examination. The moment that is done, the more obvious it becomes that both Holocaust Denial and the Protocols fit the facts. More than that, the truth of the one reinforces the truth of the other. That suggests a common ethnic origin behind the conspiracy.

    The Protocols of Zion are supposedly a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s nineteenth century book “Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”. Undoubtedly there are point-by-point equivalences. But all that really begs the question. The Protocols did not describe the world as it existed when they first appeared in the early twentieth century (around 1905 to 1920). But they very much do describe the world as it has subsequently developed in the succeeding century. Why? The predictive validity is the point crying out for explanation. The Protocols became a rallying point for the British press in the aftermath of the First World War. They seemed to confirm the terrible reality of the Jewish-Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The activity of the world’s Jews at the Paris Peace Conference where Jewish delegations from the Old and New World’s congregated and demanded “minorities treaties” testified to the reality of co-coordinated Jewish international power in the real world. It was the British Empire itself which sponsored a Jewish “national home” in Palestine-allegedly as the result of a “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into World War One. The “Morning Post” and the “London Times” hammered on these themes constantly in the years 1919-1923. Today, anyone can see that Jews and Israel First organizations provide the majority of the political campaign financing of the two political parties. Anyone can see the extreme Jewish control of the media. The Cam West media monopoly of the Asper family in Canada, the Samuel Newhouse chain of newspapers in America, the purchase of both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune by the Polish-Jewish real estate developer Samuel Zell, it all speaks for itself. Anyone can see that Israel First advisors surround both George Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama. The identity of the neo-cons who got the U.S. into the disastrous Iraq war is known; so is the identity of the Israeli Rahm Emmanuel who is Barack Obama’s wirepuller. Anyone can look at these self-evident facts and compare them with the Protocols. Do not the Protocols speak of Jews controlling the press, dictating both sides of every debate and serving as the advisors and controllers of the politicians? Cannot everyone see that this is precisely what is taking place in the real world? The Protocols speak of no-win wars to tear down national sovereignty and promote international organization. Has anyone forgotten the partition of Europe at the end of World War Two? (Rather like the partition of a small Arab country in Palestine at the end of the First World War?) Does anyone remember N.A.T.O., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or S.E.A.T.O., the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization? Did not Korea and Vietnam follow the pattern of no-win wars and never ending international conferences? The Protocols speak of international organizations under Jewish auspices. What were the original League of Nations and the successor United Nations if not precisely this? When the United Nations passed its famous “Zionism is a form of racism” resolution in the mid-1920’s, a certain power stepped in and forced the repeal of the resolution. Was it the same power which sponsored the minorities treaties and the mandate over Palestine in the 1920’s? The Protocols speak of creating emergencies to control the masses. Does this not accurately describe the staged 09/11 incident and the bogus “War on Terror”? Does it not describe the previous emergency of the Great Depression and the emergency measures of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Jew Deal”? The Protocols recommend a centralization of power in the chief executive and the suspension of constitutional procedures. Does this not sound like the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts? The Protocols particularly recommend treating the exposure of subversion as more reprehensible than the subversion itself. Does this not sound exactly like the technique that was used to destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy?

    If there were an international conspiracy such as the Protocols describe, that conspiracy would need a cover story, a holy lie behind which it could hide its power. That lie would make the imperial power morally unimpeachable and unchallengeable. It might constitute a historical myth making any objective examination of the ruling powers history or behavior beyond the parameters of socially acceptable discourse. The lie, were it questioned and exposed, might even need legal protection making it a crime to write or speak critically on the subject. The lie, were it exposed, might serve as a sort of Pandora’s Box to all the other lies hiding behind it. The lie might be so “ethnic specific” that its exposure would leave no doubt as to the identity of the international conspirators. Is there such a lie at work in the world today? Yes there is. It is the lie of the Nazi “gas chambers” and the supposedly murdered six million Jews. This lie has as much evidence against it as the Protocols have evidence in their favor. The Jews claim that the Nazi “gassing” program is the most thoroughly documented extermination of all time. But all the evidence rests on a kangaroo court at Nuremberg run by the Jews behind the scenes. No one knew anything about the supposed extermination at the time it was taking place, a fact which is more than suspicious. Key German records of the alleged killing camps were carted off to the Soviet Union and not presented to the kangaroo Nuremberg court. Those records tell a story entirely different than the story told at the trial. The records show that the Auschwitz camp where millions of Jews were supposedly “gassed” was a major industrial production center for the German war effort. The records show that the Jews and others interned in the camps were used as labor for the German war effort. The records further show that a total of 140,000 internees died in the Auschwitz camp over its operation, of whom 70,000 were Jews. The main cause of death was typhus and heart attacks caused by typhus. The records show no evidence of an extermination program whatever. In fact, the records show that the camp was shut down in the summer of 1942 because of a gigantic typhus epidemic. The crematory ovens were built in the spring and summer of 1943 to dispose sanitarily of the diseased bodies. The actual disposal rate of the crematory ovens was consistent with the deaths from disease, not with the millions of claimed deaths. The German secret police chief, Heinrich Himmler, issued an order that the death rate in the German labor camps be “reduced at all costs”, an order that is inconsistent with any extermination program. Adolf Hitler was recorded by a German Ministry of the Interior official as stating that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem delayed until “the end of the war”, a position which is utterly irreconcilable with any claim that he was simultaneously exterminating the Jews. The Germans had a special investigating branch of their judiciary under Judge Konrad Morgen to root out abuses of prisoners in the camps. Numerous camp commandants were tried and convicted for these abuses. In the famous Auschwitz camp, the Germans provided hospitals, libraries, theatres and brothels, among other amenities, for the Jews they were supposedly exterminating. The supposed “gas chambers” were nothing but morgues for storing bodies before they could be burned. Those morgues show none of the design characteristics of real gas chambers. They have no means of heating, distributing or ventilating gas. They are hardly airtight. Some of them are built underground, hardly a design advantage. The morgues are rather small and could never have held the claimed number of victims, all of whom would have died of suffocation without any need of “gassing”. The chambers of the morgues show no traces of Prussian Blue hydrogen cyanide residue. The delousing chambers where the Germans were disinfecting the clothing of the prisoners are covered with Zyklon B stain. And that was the real use of the Zyklon B, which was used profusely throughout the camps-to disinfect clothing and barracks to prevent epidemics. Several forensic reports of the so-called “gas chambers” have been performed. The first was by Fred Leuchter, an American designer of prison execution equipment. Subsequent investigations have been performed by the Viennese engineer, Walter Luftl, and the German chemist, Germar Rudolf. All the investigations have confirmed both the test results and the conclusions- there were no execution “gas chambers” at Auschwitz or any other German camp.

    Many other revisionist scholars have investigated the multiple absurdities of survivor testimonies and the endlessly conflicting accounts. Among these scholars are Professor Robert Faurrison, Carlo Mattogno, Gerd Honsik, Jurgen Graf, Enrique Aynat Eknes, Germar Rudolf and many others. The survivor testimonies always suffer from three defects:

    (1) They are internally inconsistent;

    (2) They are inconsistent with each other;

    (3) They are inconsistent with the physical facts.

    There are other glaring problems with the extermination story. The Jews in many western European countries were not even deported (not exterminated) until very late in the war. Many of the deportations did not even begin until 1944, after the allies had landed at Normandy. In Russia one-half to two-thirds of the Jews had been deported by the heavily Jewish communist regime ahead of the German advance. That is why most of the Jews supposedly exterminated by the Germans were in fact hiding east of the Ural Mountains during the war. After the war, these Jews poured into the commissariats of the Iron Curtain countries in Eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and East Germany were top heavy with very much alive Jewish commissars. A huge exodus of Jews poured out of Russia on their way to invade Arab Palestine. Still more went to America and South America disguised as citizens of the countries of their origin. (Poles, Czechs, etc.) Today, there exist tremendous numbers of “survivors” who logically should not exist, collecting never ending reparations. These survivors all insist that the extermination of the Jews was real, even as one survivor story after another is shown to be a fraud.

    The Holocaust tale does not mean that large numbers of Jews did not die in World War Two. The true death total was probably between one to two million. That is a lot of deaths but nowhere near the number of German soldiers and civilians who died during and after the war. The significance of the Holocaust Hoax is now clear. It is the obverse side of the Protocols of Zion coin. The design of the Protocols was proved to be true in the earlier part of this essay. Their platform has been fulfilled. The Holocaust Hoax is the proof that the design behind the Protocols is Judaic. It is the warning to the masses: “Don’t look here!” The ban on inquiry into the Protocols is the same as the ban on inquiry into the Holocaust. The reason is precisely the same. The Protocols are the shoe that fits; the Holocaust is the lie that cannot be sustained. The one leads inevitably to the other. They are the hand and the glove with the perfect fit.

  50. John Thames


    Mark Levene’s “Jews, War and the New Europe” is a masterful study of the diplomacy of Lucien Wolf in the World War One and post-World War One era. The study is really a study of several related themes, using Wolf as the focus. Those themes are the belief of the Foreign Office that Jewish Zionism could be used as a counterweight to Jewish Bolshevism which was threatening to take Russia out of the war on the Entente side, the opposition of the assimilated Jews to the implied dual loyalty of Zionism, the conflicting but co-ordinated efforts at Paris to ensure Jewish minority rights in Eastern Europe and “fantasies” about Jewish international power that these activities implied. Lucien Wolf was obviously chosen as the key figure for the study because he was the one man who personified the struggle against the Zionists, who vehemently denied publicly the Jewish-Bolshevik charge (while privately admitting it) and who ultimately were responsible for the final shape of the minorities treaties as they eventually emerged.

    Lucien Wolfe was the son of a Jewish revolutionary of the 1848 upheaval in Bohemia (like Supreme Justice Louis Brandeis) and spent most of his pre-politics career as a journalist for leading publications. It was his journalism which led him into politics. As a member of the Conjoint Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association, Wolf was forever trying to influence the Foreign Office and its die-hard anti-semites with their unshakeable faith in an international Jewish conspiracy. Lucien Wolf’s chief opponent in his struggle was the Zionist from Russia, Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann, as Levene notes, was always trying to sway British officialdom with the idea that the only antidote to Jewish Marxism in Russia was to lure them with the promise of a Jewish state in Palestine. Wolf correctly noted that this maneuver was unlikely to work (in the event it did not) but somewhat less than honestly tried to deny that the Jewish-Bolshevik charge was in any sense legitimate. A particularly revealing quotation from his private papers reveals this. Responding to the Russian Jews Baron Gunzberg and Maxim Vinaver, who wanted to write a manifesto dissociating Russian Jews with bolshevism, Wolf replied:

    “If we were to publish a Manifesto in the sense proposed we should only provoke a counter manifesto from Jews in favour of Bolshevism or any rate some form of revolutionary socialism. We should then have it on permanent record that there was a strong tendency in this direction in the Jewish community. Hitherto we have been able, to some extent, to obscure this fact.”

    (Wolf, Paris Diary, 26 June 1919, fo. 408.)

    Here we have an amazing admission of what anti-semites have long charged –that Jews were deeply involved in communism and that organized Jewry throughout the world has long labored to conceal this fact – a cover up that continues to this day. Mark Levene comments as follows:

    “…as Wolf himself astutely noted, to bring the issue into the open would have been to allow ‘all the unhappy facts about Jewish participation in Bolshevism to be raked over afresh and exaggerated.’ Since before the Bolshevik seizure of power in November 1917, right-wing papers in Britain, including the “Morning Post” and “The Times”, had been eager to note the prominence of Jews in leading Bolshevik positions in Russia and in the abortive revolutions in Central Europe at the end of the war. The message was clear; the attack on “Western civilization’ was Jewish-led, and synonymous with Jews generally…Assuming that Jews were Bolsheviks and Bolsheviks Jews, the conspiracy theory must have seemed quite logical to those already mentally predisposed in that direction.” (p.246.)

    As has been noted by many authors, Lucien Wolf was the man most responsible for the “minorities treaties” at Paris. It should be noted at outset that the victorious Entente powers were not all that enthusiastic about the concept. They were preparing to dismember defeated Germany and Austria-Hungary and to place millions of Germans, Austrians and Hungarians under the control of foreign nationalities. To support minority rights as a concept then, might well provide a tool for resurgent German irredentism. (As indeed it did, under Adolf Hitler.) Why, then, did the Entente go along with “minority rights”? Basically, to please the very Jews that the English had wooed so assiduously because of the prevalent belief in Jewish power to influence world events. That there was indeed, a basis for this belief is supplied by Mr. Levine himself. He writes:

    “The conspicuousness in Paris of Jews in positions of seemingly great authority and influence lent credence to this belief. In the Italian delegation there was Baron Sonnino, in the French, Louis Klotz, the minister of finance; in the British, Edwin Montagu. The interpreter to the Big Four was another Jew, Professor Paul Mantoux. At the top of the list, however, were the American Jews. It will be remembered how during the war, the British considered the Zionist sympathies of leading Jewish Americans such as Judge Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Epstein to be of such considerable importance as to merit the formulation of a pro-Zionist declaration… Now in Paris there were not only Wolf’s American opposite numbers, Marshall, Mack and Cyrus Adler, but also Jews actually in the American delegation – including Henry Morgenthau, the financier, and Oscar Strauss, the chairman of the US Commission ‘for the Enforcement of Peace’. It was surely no accident that many of the new states seeking recognition, notably weaker ones, like Lithuania and the Ukraine, sought to maximize their appeal and accessibility to these people and hence to the conference itself by including Jews in their own delegations ranks. It explains moreover, suggests Shmuel Ettinger, why they went to such lengths to give constitutional and administrative expression to the Jewish national councils which had developed spontaneously within their boundaries.” (pp.238-239)

    Wolf was confronted with many adversaries at Paris. One of the most formidable was the Committee of Jewish Delegations, the purely Zionist organization claiming to represent all the Jews of Eastern Europe. These Zionists were adamant that a Jewish “international nation” existed and clamored for its admission to the League of Nations. Thus, in the Paris sessions of April 5 and 6, 1919 Levene writes:

    “Rabbi Thon of Cracow, Menachem Ussishkin, Leo Motzkin, and others were all uncompromising in their demands, by which together amounted to a national Jewish parliament elected by the Jewish communities of each state, representation of each in a World Jewish Congress, and admission of the Jewish nation to the League of Nations.” (p.223.)

    Wolf opposed these demands as too extreme and as tending to support the charges of the anti-semites. Lucien Wolf had also to contend with certain of the delegates of the American Jewish Congress, who tended to side with the eastern Zionists. These conflicts came to a heads in the Polish minority treaty debate. Wolf, working with the Englishman, James Headly-Morham, was able to work out a compromise whereby the Jews would be able to observe their Saturday Sabbath but trading on Christian Sunday would be prohibited. Yiddish, as a language of instruction would be allowed in the primary schools but in the secondary schools Polish would remain the language of instruction. Wolf failed in some respects, however. The minorities treaties would guarantee the rights of Jews already citizens in Poland but would not apply to Jews who had fled, who had been expelled or were refugees from the war. Moreover, there was no mechanism for enforcement by the League, a problem that would preoccupy Wolf for years afterward.

    Lucien Wolf had for years been an opponent of Zionism. He had for a brief time flirted with the idea as a measure of expediency during the war but remained one of its most bitter opponents when the debate over Lord Balfour’s declaration was in progress in the summer of 1917. Indeed, he had been responsible for the publication of a letter in May 1917 in the “London Times” laying out the Jewish objections to Zionism, a letter which led to severe repercussions within Jewish ranks and the consequent dissolution of the Conjoint Committee of the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association. Wolf led the battle against the Zionists but largely prevailed with his agenda over the minorities treaties.

    Mark Levene is at great pains to pretend that the immense power that Jews were exerting at the Paris Peace Conference was the product of a unique combination of historical circumstances allied to “fantasies” of Jewish influence in the world. This whitewash ignores provable facts. Although it is extraneous to the thesis of his volume it is a known fact that “powerless” Jews English and German Jews got the British Empire to attack the Dutch of South Africa to gain access to the gold and diamonds of that country. By 1947 “powerless” Zionist Jewry was ramming through partition of Palestine resolutions in the General Assembly of the United Nations by staging strong-arm tactics. Today, “powerless” Jews are bogging the United States down in a pointless war in Iraq for Israel’s sole benefit. It should be obvious, then, that the power exercised by Jewry at the time of the First World War was not based solely on particular circumstances, as Mark Levene pretends, but was part of a continuum of power that was already evolving and that has evolved considerably since. “War, Jews and the New Europe: The Diplomacy of Lucien Wolf, 1914-1919” is a highly researched volume written with a definite apologetic slant. The reader may or may not accept the slant but the information contained within its pages shall allow him to formulate his own conclusions.

    “War, Jews and the New Europe
    The Diplomacy of Lucien Wolf
    Mark Levene

    Published for the
    Littman Library
    Oxford University Press

  51. Here is one in defense of sexism by a capitalist, a racist and a sexist.

    Indeed, Bill, isn’t it interesting how often those three things, capitalism, racism, and sexism, are found in the same individuals and in such abundance in the same societies? How do you explain such a coincidence anyway?

    It’s also very interesting that fascists, who are almost always racists, always seem to hate women too. Incredible coincidences.

  52. John Thames


    Joe Biden, the Democrat from Delaware and running mate of Barack Obama, proclaims to the world: “I am a Zionist”. Indeed. Just like every other AIPAC bought and paid for politician in Congress. If Joe were slightly more erudite he could recite: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land… (Arthur James Balfour, Paris, August 11, 1919)

    Of course Joe Biden is a Zionist. He is a Zionist just like Lord Alfred Milner, Lord Robert Cecil, Arthur James Balfour, Leo Amery, Herbert Samuel and dozens of others who swooned at the idea of a recreated temple in Arab Palestine. To be a Zionist is to be noble, progressive and lavishly funded come election time. Joe Biden knows nothing about the history of Zionism and could care less. Arabs do not have much political influence in Delaware and there is no America-Palestine-Public Affairs Committee to supply the devoutly Zionist Mr. Biden with crib notes on grave historical problems. Zionism is good for the American Empire, just as it was good for the British Empire. Both the Arabs and the Jews shall prosper under Zionism in Palestine, because Senator Lieberman has just handed Senator Biden a musty old White Paper from 1922 saying so. We must not sneer too greatly at Senator Biden and his learned ignorance. He is, after all, merely another Winston Churchill type. His job is to recite the approved lines, to graciously accept his daughter’s marrying into the tribe and to serve in the Knesset while sitting in the Senate. Prostitutes do not study State Department documents and historical texts; they dance their lips to the pulling of strings. Joe Biden will always be a Zionist, for Joe Biden never won an election by telling the truth about Arab Palestine. Joe Biden is a Richard Meinertzhagen, a William Ormsby-Gore and a Wyndham-Deedes all rolled into one. He is quite right that one need not be Jewish to be a Zionist. Joe Biden’s Palestinian state shall always lie somewhere to the west of a line running from Aleppo in the north to Homs, Hama and Damascus in the south-and John Shucksburgh of the Senator’s Colonial Office shall always be ready to explain which vilayet was, or was not, included in those somewhat loosely defined borders. Sir Henry McMahon has taught the Senator from Delaware well-and should be well satisfied with the “mental reservations” his protégé has developed on all subjects dear to his constituency.

  53. John Thames

    The answer is very simple, Robert. Capitalism, sexism and racism are the products of clear thinking minds – unlike socialism, feminism and racial equality, which are diseases of the political left. Has it ever occured to you that there is a great similarity between the chosen people and the chosen sex?

    • It is the opposite. The mindset of the capitalist is probably malignant from the start. Further, he is opposed to equality by nature. Since he is opposed to equality, he gravitates to anti-equality philosophies such as racism and sexism. It’s a rare racist who is pro-equality. Most White racists don’t support socialism period, even when no Whites are involved.

      The reasoning is simple – the White racist, by his nature, opposes equality in any set of humans. Due to his White Supremacy, he assumes that he will be a natural elite in any society. Due to his male supremacy, he assumes the same.

      Truth is that all civilized societies are somewhat socialist. Racial equality is simply a moral proposition. If one is moral, one supports it. Any decent human supports feminism, not radical feminism. Equal rights for females is a no brainer supporter by most females and many males across the planet. Once again, a no brainer.

    • I have not met a single White racialist (fancy name for racist) yet who is not some sort of supremacist. They’re all supremacists. That’s what drives it.

    • Actually, I have been conducting this investigation with an open mind. Maybe there are some White racialists who are not supremacists? Not really, if by racialists one means White nationalists. I’ve been searching and searching. I’m always looking. They just don’t exist. Every now and then I think I find one, then I realize that I’m wrong again.

      I’ve also never met a single White nationalist who doesn’t hate most, if not all, non-Whites. A few don’t mind Amerindians or Hispanics. A larger group actually likes NE Asians. A few others may like SE Asians.

      The one thing driving almost all WN’s and White racialists for that matter is a very strong hatred for Blacks. This is the one thing that ties them all together, the single uniting factor.

    • but it’s true that racialism requires at least a mild dislike of the racially unlike.

      I guess that’s my problem with it right there, then.

      You also hit the nail right on the head, though. Good one.

    • The Japanese and Koreans, yes. The East Indians? No way. For one thing, there really is no Indian race. They are just this incredible mishmash. They’re not so much ethnocentric as into their caste.

      If one understands that the racially unlike imperil his racial existence, dislike is understandable

      I think you hit it on the head once again.

      But they dominate the ranks of racialism so I’m forced to put up with them.

      Of course they do. And I have noticed that other ethnic nationalists are quite similar. Hispanic nationalists, Chinese nationalists, Black nationalists, Turkish nationalists, Jewish nationalists, Greek nationalists, Russian nationalists, Arab nationalists, Persian nationalists, Hindu nationalists, Vietnamese nationalists, they’re all pretty much alike. That freaked me out, but I guess it all makes sense. All ethnic nationalism is the same, only the group differs.

      I don’t think you realize how much we on the Left hate that stuff, though. That’s like the worst poison on Earth to us. The problem with that attitude is that we react by saying there is no such thing as race, let’s open the borders and let the world flood in, let’s discriminate against Whites, and all sorts of internationalist insanity.

    • You’re right, they hate tolerance. And they’re furious at me for slamming racism. Hell, I wish these guys would come right out and say they were racists. They are racists, so what the Hell, admit it and fucking take pride in it. LOTS of people are racists, and there’s lots worse things to be…I’m just not into hating people on an individual basis due to their race.

      But I assure you that I have a pretty low opinion of a lot of these ghetto Blacks and even barrio Hispanics around here. But it’s not due to their race. It’s due to their general fucked-upedness. I can’t see hating all Blacks or all Hispanics. That is so messed up. I happen to like quite a few of both groups, and I hate lots of them too.

      One more thing though. Even when there’s Blacks and Hispanics who deserve hating, lowlifes, ghetto people, just scumbags, I’ve found that if I even think bad thoughts about them, that they pick up on this, and guess what? They tend to act even worse! So what I do a lot of times is even if I think they’re scumbags, I just get myself out of that thought pattern and work myself into thinking their ok, or even wonderful.

      I mostly do that just to get along with em. And even scumbags are humans. A lot of times I look at em and think, “Damn you’re low,” and they look all hurt. I’m such a wuss that that really bothers me. I feel guilty for hurting their feelings.

      When I talk about anti-racism, I’m not saying don’t hate people. You can hate people if they act like scumbags. I don’t mind. But don’t just hate people only based on their race, assuming they are otherwise likeable. That’s almost evil to me.

      I think White racists need to STFU about anti-White racism though. What? Only their kind is ok? Screw that man. If they get to be White racists, everyone else gets to be racist right back at em. Fair’s fair.

      Yeah, Dienekes is a nationalist. He’s a hardcore Greek nationalist, he’s sort of a Med nationalist (Med equivalent of a Nordicist) and quite honestly, he’s a bit of a White racist too. It’s clear that he does not like Blacks at all. It’s just bizarre the way these guys totally freak out at the notion that they might have 3-5% Black blood in em. They’ve got the fucking Freudian mother of all complexes about it.

      Nationalists, to me, just act like retards. It’s that simple. And I don’t dig acting like a retard.

      A Yugoslav nationalism would have been cool. Those wars were so retarded. I even supported the Kosovars, but as soon as they got in, they turned into just as bad of nationalists as the scumbags they were fighting.

      You’ve coined a phrase “defensive nationalism.” I like that. Maybe “patriot?” Al of the good about nationalism without any of the dumbfuckery.

      I don’t begrudge Indians for saying only Indians can become citizens. I think a lot of states have rules like that, actually. The Japs and Koreans want the future to look Japanese and Korean, respectively. I deny that this is racist. You can make your immigration policy any way you want to. Immigration is like my front door. I don’t have to let anyone in here.

  54. John Thames

    Read my devastating comments on the big lie of “sex discrimination” against women.

  55. John Thames

    Here is a very hard to find but excellent book refuting every basic premise of feminism. I reccomend it highly. See first review by MCP, which is also very good.

  56. John Thames


    You reason from false premises to a false conclusion.

    Equality is a fantasy; inequality is a fact of life. The racial egalitarian wishes to believe that all humans have an inalienable right to a certain status in society; the fact that nature guarantees no such status is completely lost on him. In other words, the socialist wishes to deny reality in favor of wish fulfillment.

    When you find the time to read my postings, you will discover that your characterization of feminism as a doctrine upholding “equal rights” for both men and women is simply wrong Feminism advocates no such thing and never did. What feminism really aims at is superiority over men. I will not elaborate all the abundant evidence for this claim; you can read the links I have already posted to get the information. I will reccomend an old book to your attention. It is “The Fraud Of Feminism” by the British Marxist E. Belford Bax, published around 1910, available on line. I reccomend the book, not because I endorse Bax’s Marxism but because on this particular subject he is very insightful. You should also read Correa Moylan Walsh’s old classic, “Feminism”, published around 1917.

    There was tremendous opposition by women themselves to giving women the vote. Some of the arguments presented in favor of giving women the vote were purely racist by today’s standards. Thus, white supremacist suffragettes would argue that the votes of white women, added to the votes of white men, would counterbalance the votes of blacks and ghetto bolsheviks from New York. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a flaming white supremacist and would have nothing to do with Frederick Douglas when she was living in New York. These feminists were also adamantly opposed to abortion and predicted that giving women the vote would close down the abortion clinics. (Cloudy crystal ball on that one.) Two political scientists named Lott and Kennedy have correlated an immense increase in government spending in all states where women were given the vote. This is because women regard citizens as “children of the state” who must be taken care of. I am sure you will regard this as a good reason why women should be given the vote; I draw precisely the opposite conclusion.

    Ancient Rome also had quite a feminist movement on its way down; naturally these Roman feminists never wanted to fight and die in the legions that created the empire. Women, historically, have been very good at starting wars and fighting them with the opposite sex’s blood, which should clue you in to the kind of “equality” they really want.

    You no doubt think I am an arch reactionary; you are completely correct. But my arguments are not based on ignorance. I know far more about many subjects than those who criticize me. Out of touch with the times I certainly am; reasoning in defiance of the facts I am not.

    • We believe in relative equality, not absolute equality. Further, if Blacks are genetically inferior as you state, then it is not their fault that they fuck up, and the state needs to equalize things vis a vis Blacks. If Whites really are genetically superior as you state, they succeed through no effort of their own, and they do not deserve their excess wealth.

      Socialism works very well in many places. Many social democracies are very egalitarian places. The Arab World is socialist. The most civilized places in Latin America, Cuba, Costa Rica and Chile, are the most socialist. Socialism has brought enormous gains to China. Even Eastern Europe in still socialist. In fact, all of Europe is socialist.

      The “natural order of things” does not work. For a fact: it engenders, in our modern era, inevitable and unstoppable revolutionary forces, some of which are armed with weaponry.

      Radical feminism wants superiority over men. Sensible feminism only wants equal rights. As a Supremacist, you are psychologically ill. Hence, you project constantly. It is not you who is Supremacist and wishes to subject others, it is your enemies.

  57. John Thames


    You have a problem thinking clearly. Every statement you make is in defiance of both the facts and logic. Since you are offended by the reality of inequality, you wish to enforce equality by state diktat. It cannot be done. Neither is there anything moral in trying to bring the fit down to the level of the unfit. That merely destroys anything good.

    As to your statement that “socialism works very well”, the evidence is conclusive that it doesn’t. Socialist countries like China and India were stagnating cesspools of backwardness and poverty until they began to adopt market economics. Europe, which has been socialized for decades is dying out. The state has made everyone so comfortable that European whites are now dying out because of insufficient birth rates. One of the big reasons people used to have large families was to have someone to take care of them when they grew old. With cradle to grave social security, people now rely on bankrupt socialist governments to take care of them. It is the kiss of death, Robert.

    I am constantly accused of having psychological problems by my opponents. It is the charge routinely leveled against the intellectually competent in an age that has lost its reason. Domination of one group by another is the reality of the world. Equality does not exist and cannot exist in the real world, just as an internal combustion engine cannot run on H2O. If you look at the way things really work (as opposed to the way you want them to work), you will see that the only effecet of “equality” is to replace the priveleges of the old ruling class eith the priveleges of the new ruling class. The mythical equality remains as elusive as ever.

    Your statement that feminism seeks equality with men, not supremacy, is counterfactual and false. Does feminism support men take all divorce court, automatic custody for fathers, massive child support and alimony payable to men only, exemption of men from military service, men first onto the lifeboats when the Titanic sinks, etc.
    ? Come now, Robert, you are fantasizing. Feminism seeks only equality with men in the job market, without equal divorce court expenses to go with it. Get a grip on reality, Robert.

    The problem here is that your values and mine are completely different. That being the case, the bridge cannot be crossed. I will not convince you; you will not convince me. There the matter must rest. But your readers can judge for themselves which of us is evaluating the facts from correct premises.

  58. sandra

    ‘But your readers can judge for themselves which of us is evaluating the facts from correct premises.’
    Allow me.

    ‘Europe, which has been socialized for decades is dying out. ‘
    France, one of the more defiantly socialistic (or at least, non-Anglosaxon) countries , is doing pretty well in the financial crisis. The UK, which in recent decades has been all-out free market, is in very bad shape.

    And as everyone knows, multiracial socialist Cuba has a far better health system than the US.

  59. sandra

    I mean ‘… than the US.’

  60. whodareswings

    This thread started out about the stupidity of holocaust denial. I picked up a paperback potboiler about a decade ago entitled WANTED! The Search for Nazis in America by Howard Blum. I’d already happened on Eugen Kogon and Tadeusz Borowski’s books of graphic concentration depravity years before and believed every word in them.

    Blume’s chapter on the deportation case against Romanian Archbishop Valarian Trifa (the OSI’s first big media success story) led me down the rabbit hole of revisionism. It also introduced me to the sublime writings of E. M. Cioran and Mircea Eliade, two giants of 20th century philosophy who are now getting a drubbing from the PC Left for their youthful flirtation with autochthonism (Romanian Orthodox Christian anti-Bolshevik nationalism).

    I got so swept up in the study of interbellic Romania that I went at my own expense to find a document purportedly found in the Securitate archives proving the grisly story about hundreds of Jews being marched into a Bucharest abattoir in l941 on their hands and knees and slaughtered Kosher style and their bodies left hanging on meat hooks by marauding Iron Guards. IRCC the Nizkor site features a version of this tale in which a six-year old girl was found vivisected and rubber stamped “Suitable for human consumption.”

    In pursuit of the paper trail to prove it, I ended up in a creepy old deserted synagogue in a creepy part of Bucharest talking to a creepy old Jewish woman who claims to have found the documents that prove this atrocity. Guess what? I got lured into a creepy bait and switch game and returned home empty handed. So, until someone shows me the government report I went looking for (and not more Ilya Ehrenburg inspired footnote footsie from creepy old precision placed OSS/CIA enabled ex-Commie academic exiles writing about Romania in the West) I ain’t going along with creepy old Romanian Nobel Laureate Eli Wiesel’s Oprah and Obama approved Shoahbiz shenanigans

  61. John Thames

    Sandra is most amusing.

    Has she noticed that in virtually all European countries the white birth rate is well below replacement level? Most of the births in Europe are coming from Arabs and Turks who have no interest in maintaining European civilization. China and India have booming economies based on precisely the market economies to which enlightened Sandra objects. Cuba? Come now, Sandra. Cuba’s economy has been a backward flop ever since Castro took over from Batista.

    Sandra’s characterization of Britain and America’s economies betrays an abysmal misunderstanding of the meaning of words. Classical capitalism was based on the gold standard, limited taxation, capital accumulation and sound money. America’s economy has been running on uncontrolled government spending, inflated, depreciating currency and capital consumption for decades. Instead of putting the blame for the problems where it really belongs, socialist Sandra wants more socialism to cure the failures of socialism. How typical of a female “mind”.

    WhoDaresSwing is right on the money about Holocaust fables not holding up. Again and again, when one looks for the evidence behind the claims, the evidence is not there. He has found another example. I know of many others. There was the recent “Romulus and Remus” of the gas chambers fable in the Polish forest that turned out to be a hoax, there was Mr. Wilkomirski’s well-known fraud and then there is Mr. Elie Wiesel, who constantly escapes from different camps simultaneously. The survivor accounts are ridden with so many inconsistencies, internal contradictions and statements in violation of known facts established by the camp records that nothing they say can be accepted without independent verification.

    The basic problem with Holocaust Denial is that people do not want to deal with the unpleasant implications of the fact. It is ridiculously simple to establish that the Jews of Europe were not exterminated during WW2. But to accept that the story is a hoax, one must face the fact that there is a very sinister international force in the world, capable of deception on a global scale. That frightens people – as well it should. Unfortunately, it also causes them to shut off their minds. Thus, the problem revisionists face is not factual; it is psychological.

    I thank WhoDaresSwing for his flattering comments on my essays. I try my best. Maybe I even succeed in clarifying things for some readers. If so, my efforts are their own reward.

  62. John Thames


    The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925 is an informative study of Catholic opposition to Zionist plans to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The Vatican’s opposition was two-fold: to the creation of the Zionist state itself and concern for the holy sites of Christendom if they were seen to fall into the hands of infidel Jews. The latter problem was to have been decided by an international commission as stipulated at the San Remo conference in 1920. However, the international commission never came into existence for a variety of reasons. Rivalry between the various Catholic countries of Europe, particularly Italy and France, problems of conflicting authority between the proposed commission and the British Mandate authorities, Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox disputes and a host of other problems made it impossible to agree on such a commission. Ultimately the problem of protecting the holy shrines of Christianity devolved upon the British High Commissioner for Palestine.

    By far the most interesting section of the book deals with the Vatican’s profound opposition to Zionism as an ideology. The Church’s position on the incipient Zionist theft of the Holy Land was first stated by the Vatican Secretary of State, Rafael Cardinal Merry de Val, in his interview with Herzl on January 22, 1904.

    “The Cardinal: I do not quite see how we can take any initiative in this matter. As long as the Jews deny the divinity of
    Christ, we certainly cannot make a declaration in their favor. Not that we have any ill will toward them. On the contrary,
    The Church has always protected them. To us they are the indispensable witnesses to the phenomenon of God’s term
    On earth. But they deny the divine nature of Christ. How then can we, without abandoning our own highest principles,
    Agree to their being given possession of the Holy Land again?” (Emphasis added)

    The Vatican position remained essentially the same until Nahum Sokolow’s audience with Pope Benedict XV on May 4, 1917. Although Sokolow spoke nebulously, (as was then the habit) of a Jewish “national home”, not a Jewish national state, the Pope closed the interview with ambiguous words which the Zionists took as a stamp of approval of their political ambitions. “We shall be good neighbors.” It is probable that the Pope was thinking of the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty which originally envisaged Palestine divided into several regions, the central one of which was to be internationalized and in which the Vatican would surely have some influence. According to one Zionist author:

    “The Pope’s assurances of good neighborliness to Sokolow must therefore be read not in the spiritual but the
    geographical context.”

    In any event it soon became apparent that virtually every Catholic prelate in Palestine or with any knowledge of the developing situation was vehemently anti-Zionist. Filipo Cardinal Giustini who visited Palestine in October 1919 held views very similar to those of the Custos Frederic Diotallevi who:

    “…is clearly opposed to Zionism, and stress that the Christians are of one mind with the Moslems in this deep hos-
    tility, and are even now prepared to slaughter the Jews. In his opinion, Zionism is only a pretext for establishing
    Jewish rule at the gates of Europe, for the absolute benefit of the Jews, who are already all-powerful in the old
    Continent (Europe) and the new (America).” (Emphasis added)

    Like the Italian Cardinal Giustini the French Cardinal Dubois also saw great evil in Zionism:

    “The Jewish home the British wish to found is a dangerous step and is full of threats for the future.”
    (Emphasis added)

    Dubois warned of a civil war and the dangers of Pan-Islamism. The French Catholic newspaper La Croix was very prophetic on the danger facing the Arabs. Writes Minerbi:

    “According to this paper, non-Jewish natives of the Holy Land would be no more than strangers, more or less tolerated
    at first, but afterward oppressed, tortured and robbed with each new wave of Jewish immigration.”
    (Emphasis added)

    The Englishman Francis Cardinal Bourne visited Palestine between December 1918 and March 1919. He echoed the views of his compatriots. In January 1919 he sent a revealing telegram to the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary (Lloyd George and Balfour):

    “The Zionists here claim that the Jews are to have the domination of the Holy Land under a British protectorate. In
    Other words, they are going to force their rule on an unwilling population of whom they form only 10%.
    (Emphasis added)

    When I first visited it (the Holy Land) in 1919, the situation was distinctly menacing. There was a tendency on the part of
    Certain immigrant Jews to claim and assert domination in no way in harmony with the Balfour Declaration. This nat-
    urally aroused a fierce resistance on the part of the indigenous native Arab population, both Moslem and Christian.

    Men of every class come to see me with a loud and emphatic protest against Mr. Balfour’s promises and against the projects.
    of the Zionists…These projects went far beyond the mere establishment of a home for nationless Jews…”
    (Emphasis added)

    A claim repeated over and over again in the Catholic commentaries of the time is the charge that the Zionists and the Communists were one and the same. For instance, Cardinal Gasparri, the Vatican Secretary of State in December 1918 told the Belgian representative to the Holy See:

    “There is talk of a Jewish state. I do not believe that the big Jewish bankers of England and of the United States will be
    so unaware of the opinions of many of their faith as to support this plan. Do we not see the Jews at the head of the
    revolutionary movements in Russia and Poland?” (Emphasis added)

    Nor were such opinions those of the Vatican alone. Such views were also very common in the foreign offices of all European countries. An English diplomat for example, wrote:

    “This is only the sorrowful beginning of our troubles in Palestine, once we are with the mandate, and I share the Pope’s
    anxiety regarding the most extreme intentions of the Zionists. He must be thinking of something more vague and frightening
    than merely earthly aspirations.; he forsees a spiritual campaign against Christianity. Is the anti-Christ not a Jew according
    to Roman tradition? Judaism, under the cover of Bolshevism, already destroyed the Orthodox Church, could Bolshevism
    not do the same to Rome?” (Emphasis added)

    It is important to realize that all of these observers were writing in the same period as the appearance of the mysterious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which were receiving massive publicity in the English newspapers of the time. In assessing the controversy Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Vatican, commented as follows. Although questioning the authenticity of the book the paper concluded that the plan the book described was real and that the Jewish Bolshevik leaders in Russia were actually carrying out the plan. This analysis was essentially the same as that of Henry Ford and other commentators on the Protocols. The Vatican position on the dangers and probable development of Zionism was very percipient and has been abundantly confirmed by subsequent events. An excellent summary of the essential case against Zionism was attributed to Cardinal Gasparri.

    (1) The Zionists are not religious and are even anti-religious, and therefore Zionism cannot be regarded as the fulfillment of prophecy. Zionism has no connection with the promised return of the Jews to the Holy Land.

    (2) Zionist immigration will sweep the Christians out of Palestine and destroy its Christian character.

    (3) The possibility that a Jewish government might be formed was intolerable.

    The Vatican position was further outlined on June 23, 1921 in an analysis by C. Crispolti in Osservatore Romano. Per Sergio Minerbi’s summation:

    In 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was issued, France and Italy were not concerned with the future of Palestine. The Latins
    did not then understand the danger that one enemy of Christianity would be replaced by another, more real and greater than the
    traditional enemy: Judaism. The British government, which was controlled by the Jewish international, altered the term ‘national home’
    and consented to establish a Jewish national center…Crispolti went on to say that a minority should not rule over the majority
    and that the riots (the riots of 1920 and 1921) should be seen against this background…The Latin nations must insist on revisions
    in the draft submitted by Britain, for otherwise the Holy Land would be lost to Christians, and an attempt would be made, with the
    Great Powers consent, to erase two thousand years of (Christian) history and to place a new and heavier burden on the land of Jesus.”
    (Emphasis added)

    As many observers have noted the arguments of the Catholic Church paralleled in many respects the arguments of the Palestinian Arabs (a significant number of whom were Christians, both Greek Orthodox and Catholic). This was a simple recognition of the justice of the situation, not any residual preference for the Ottoman Turks transferred to the Palestinians. The Vatican saw no reason why an Arab population of many centuries standing should be dispossessed to please a swarm of Christ killers with pronounced pro-communist sympathies. The papal position also received a respectful hearing in the London Times whose chief proprietor was Lord Northcliffe. The partiality of the Times to anti-Zionism was bitterly noted by Baron Alfredo Porcelli, a renegade Catholic who supported Zionism. In a letter to Chaim Weizmann, Porcelli warned:

    “Beware of the Times, and other Northcliffe papers. They have sent a special ‘commissioner’ (one of their own staff) to Palestine, and
    are publishing a series of articles on ‘The truth about Palestine’…You will find that Zionism will fare badly at his hands – for Rome has a finger in that pie, as in all Northcliffe papers.” (Emphasis added)

    The Vatican did not, of course, succeed in its opposition to Zionism. But until very recently the Vatican refused to either recognize the Zionist state or to establish diplomatic relations with it. This principled position, maintained for approximately nine decades, contrasts very favorably with the craven surrender in 1948 by a U.S. president who, by his own admission, had to answer to far more Zionist Jews for his re-election prospects than he did to dispossessed Arabs in a far off little land.

    The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925
    By Sergio Minerbi, Oxford University Press, Inc.

  63. John Thames

    Kindly note the constant flow of 17-18 million through the gulag camps . Bump off one bunch, send another bunch through to be bumped off. Then calculate the deaths of incalculable numbers who died shortly after release because they were human wrecks. Stalin improved life expectancy did he? I don’t think so.

    Recalculate your numbers.

    • Johnson is a liar. He’s worse than you are. 1.2 million died in the gulags under Stalin. Of those, only 300,000 were political prisoners. The rest were just common criminals. The life expectancy figures under Stalin are well known and have been validated by the US Congress. He set a world record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time! Something you Rightists could never dream of doing, because you care about money, not life. And your Nazi cult you love so much was nothing but a Death Cult. In contrast, Communism is a Life Cult. It’s all about Life! The greatest gift known to man.

      Joseph Stalin is one of the greatest humanitarians that mankind has ever seen.

  64. John Thames

    You must be the only imbecile on the face of the planet who can possibly believe that Joseph Stalin was the greatest humanitarian who ever lived. If you ever apply for entrance to a lunatic asylum, you will also be the only one denied admittance because of your stark, raving insanity. Congratulations. You are truly one of a kind.

  65. John Thames

    I do not have much regard for Solzhenitsyn. He was a famine denier, just like you. I never said 110 million killed in the USSR. I did point out that the Soviet gulag statistics were cooked – and pointed out the evidentiary problems you overlooked.

    I also read, in your previous threads, your nonsensical “explanations” of the purge trials, your pretense that Stalin was an innocent, unoffending victim of a wicked Nazi “sneak attack”, your outrageous claim that communism improved the standard of living of the Russians and all the rest of the bilge that flows from your upside-down think, diseased leftist “mind”.

    In case no one ever told you, this same BS was everywhere in the 1930’s. Kindly get Eugene Lyons “The Red Decade” and “Muggeridge’s “Wimter In Moscow” and read same. Also, the industry of the USSR that you praise so highly was actually built by Ford Motor Company and the other western capitalists you despise. Your beloved communists had to import the technology and the capital from the west, because their voodoo communist economics couldn’t do the job. Or did know one ever tell you?

  66. John Thames


    The history of Arab Palestine was turned upside down by a Zionist pseudo-historian named Joan Peters. Miss Peters absurdly claimed that the Arabs moved into the land they had already inhabited for centuries to take advantage of the enormous prosperity the Jews were supposedly creating. It was total nonsense, of course. Now the upside down think tribe claims that gas chambers lack any hydrogen cyanide residue because:

    (1) It takes less hydrogen cyanide to kill humans than insects;

    (2) Hydrogen cyanide supposedly does not adhere to gas chamber walls the same way it adheres to other surfaces;

    (3) The Germans washed it all away with water before it could stick.

    Like Joan Peters who simply ignored all the Zionist settlers to Palestine who testified to the land already being settled by Arabs, the Joan Peters of the “gas chambers” simply ignore al the facts that do not fit their fantasies. They ignore the facts that the “gas chambers” were nothing more than morgues for storing dead, diseased bodies before they are burned. They ignore that the rooms of the “gas chambers” could never have held the claimed numbers of bodies. They ignore the lack of proper sealing, ventilation and heating. They ignore the camp records which document the use of Zyklon B for delousing purposes. They ignore the disposal capacity of the crematoria, consistent with a natural death rate but inconsistent with a mass extermination program. These charlatans cannot explain the total absence of any German orders for an extermination, the absence of six million bodies or the fact that nobody in the actual camp itself noticed the extermination that was supposedly taking place. That includes the underground intelligence groups operating out of the camps, the free Polish labor that was employed in the camps and the Polish farmers surrounding the camp who had clear visibility into the camps through the wire fence surrounding them.

    Nor can these quacks explain the huge numbers of Jews still alive after the war. They are silent on the huge numbers of Jews who retreated into the interior of the Soviet Union ahead of the German advance, of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who left Germany before the war or were transferred to Palestine. They ignore the communist satrapies of Eastern Europe which were top heavy with Jewish commissars, 1945-1950. They ignore all the Jews who migrated to the Americas disguised as Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, etc. They cannot explain the huge numbers of Jews who collect reparations for this extermination when they should have all been killed long ago. Still less can they explain the huge Jewish presence at the Nuremberg Trial where all the bogus evidence “proving” the extermination was put together. They offer no comment on the fact that 2400 out of 3000 personnel at the trials were Jewish. They are silent on the fact that it was the Jewish organizations in New York who sold the Allied powers on the idea of the trial. They have nothing to say on the fact that the German defendants were hung in the middle of the high Jewish holidays in October 1946. They ignore that all the German records showing what was really going on at the camps were seized by the Soviets and withheld from the “trial”. They say nothing about the torture of the defendants and the innumerable forgeries that were offered in evidence. They ignore the criticisms that respectable jurists around the world offered of the Nuremberg kangaroo court. They ignore that all the testimonies that they regard as irrefutable proof of an extermination program were offered under the aegis of a bogus tribunal where normal rules of evidence were not followed and where no prosecution witness has ever been prosecuted for perjury.

    They ignore all this while they shriek that:

    (1) Millions of human beings were killed by minute quantities of insecticide;

    (2) Hydrogen cyanide residue would not be found in the chambers where millions of human beings were supposedly “gassed”;

    (3) The Germans washed it all away with water.

    “From Time Immemorial” had nothing on these quacks. Their apologia should be entitled “From Gas Chambers Immemorial”.

  67. Ger

    John Thames is like some bad parody of an internet conspiracy theorist. Hates women too. Must have been rejected one time too many – maybe because he was rambling on and on about “the so-called holocaust”.

  68. John Thames

    I see we are back to the usual ploy of accusing the profoundly learned of having psychological problems. Actually, I get a lot of offers from women, some of which I accept, some I reject.

    The real problem here is that:

    (1) I know what I am talking about:

    (2) I can think correctly.

    That puts me two up on my critics. And no, I don’t hate womem; I hate brainwashed feminists.

  69. John Thames

    To AccidentalDissent:

    Thanks for the correction.

  70. John Thames


    Jews, as we all know, are the most reasonable and enlightened of people. They tell us so all the time. That is why it is necessary to pay close attention to the behavior of our newly created character based on ancient antecedents called “Enlightened Rabbi”. Enlightened Rabbi is ferociously attacking the blockbuster new movie, “West Bank Story”. Listen to the Rabbi rave.

    “This movie is mischlinge miscegenation propaganda! How dare you suggest that an Orthodox Jewish Jet marry a Palestinian Shark? It is outrageous! Why, if this nonsense spreads, it will destroy the racial purity of the Jewish people forever. Just ask Jonathan Pollard. Since when did the world conquering Aryans ever practice this racial equality crap they preach to God’s Chosen People? And this crap about “hatred”? As a Yeshiva student, you know that the Talmud enjoins Jews to hate non-Jews. Palestinian Sharks are animals in human form. Instead of marrying them, you should be bulldozing their homes, like Officer Schmuckne and Lieutenant Shrank! Have you read what that hypocritical capitalist press in Anglo-America has been saying about this film? They have been praising it to the skies, saying how it shall cure Jews of their centuries old Ghetto Nazism. Why, they are even claiming that it will promote the peace process by making Jews and Palestinians indistinguishable! What is the matter with you? ‘West Bank Story’ should be banned as Zionist propaganda. It is just as bad as Holocaust Denial.”

  71. John Thames


    As all students of the subject know, the Jews are lying about their hoax of six million of their number supposedly killed in non-existent “gas chambers”. We pose the following question. Who created?

    (1) The Civil Rights;

    (2) The Feminist;

    (3) The Racial Equality;

    (4) The Socialist;

    (5) The Communist

    And other movements that have so transformed the American landscape? Answer: The same Jews who created the “gas chamber” hoax. Is not the source of the subversion clear?

  72. John Thames


    Polish director Wadja has made a film of the famous murder of 22,000 Polish officers by the Soviet NKVD. The method of execution was to blindfold the prisoners before lining them up before a ditch, removing the blindfold and shooting them in the back of the skull. Wadja has been praised for his bravery in making the film but actually he was rather coy. The executioners are uniformly portrayed as Russians in Soviet garb. Since it is a known fact that the Soviet secret police, the dread NKVD, were two-thirds Jewish in those years, the uniformly Russian faces of the executioners appear to represent a massive distortion of the facts. Remember that the murdered were Poles; forget that the killers were Jews. Is this equal justice?

    The bodies of the murdered Poles have been found, perfectly preserved in the clay in which they had been buried. The bodies of the six million “gassed” Jews have disappeared forever, magically cremated into missing ashes. The Katyn Kike Paradigm is very instructive. It shows the difference between a real mass murder and a propaganda legend. It also shows that although it is now intellectually respectable to condemn the crimes of communism, the Jews behind communism must be written out of the history textbooks forever.

    • The NKVD certainly was NOT 2/3 Jewish in 1940. Probably no more than 6% Jewish in that year. The Jewish era in the NKVD was over by 1936 for sure.

      Get your facts straight, Nazi.

  73. John Thames

    Mr. Lindsay:

    You’re the one who needs to get his facts straight. I never have that problem.

    The historical mythology is that Stalin purged the Jews in 1938-1939. As Yuri Slezkine shows in “The Jewish Century”, the percentage of Jews in the liquidations of those years was less than the percentages of other nationalities liquidated. The real anti-Jewish purges came in the last years of Stalin’s life, 1950-1953. I’ve read the book, you haven’t. The Communist secret police in Poland after the war were 75% Jewish.

    For someone who believes that the purge trials of the 1930’s really were valid tribunals, that poor, innocent Uncle Joe was the victim of a Nazi sneak attack, etc. , you really should not be accusing anyone of not getting facts straight. One other thing, acid head. If you mixed a little high grade Zyklon B with your next trip, it might help restore your sanity.

    • As Yuri Slezkine shows in “The Jewish Century”, the percentage of Jews in the liquidations of those years was less than the percentages of other nationalities liquidated.

      Right, but by 1936, Jews were down to 6% of the NKVD. The Jewish years of the NKVD were only about 1932-1936 or so, maybe 4 years max.

      The Communist secret police in Poland after the war were 75% Jewish.

      For a short while, then they ran them all out and it was all Gentiles in the Secret Police. Stalin put Jews in because he did not trust Poles.

      that poor, innocent Uncle Joe was the victim of a Nazi sneak attack

      Indeed, this is what mainstream historians agree. The only folks who disagree are Nazis like you.

      For someone who believes that the purge trials of the 1930’s really were valid tribunals

      Some were, most were not. There was a plot that went all the way up near Stalin. Trotskyites working with Nazis. They cut a deal whereby after the Nazis invaded, the Trots would give them Ukraine and Belarus if the Nazis let the Trots run the rest of the USSR.

      Regarding Trots, never was an icepick put to better use!

      One more thing, acidhead is one word. I thought I told you that already.

  74. John Thames


    The Israeli lobby and its apologists have come up with a catchy public relations slogan: “Anti-Zionism id Anti-Semitism”. This is priceless. Anti-Semitism and its inevitability – is the founding premise and guiding principle of Zionism. The original Zionists of Theodore Herzl’s time sought alliances with the anti-Semites of their day – because they could be used to promote Zionism. Yet now these Zionists say that: “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism”. Was there ever a more contemptuous example of preying upon the ignorance of the public?

    Did not Chaim Weizmann, the eminence grise behind the Balfour Declaration, state tat “whenever the number of Jews in any society exceeds the saturation point, that society reacts against them? Did he not further state that “this is a universal law of history and cannot be confused with anti-Semitism in the ordinary and vulgar sense?” Did not Jacob Klatzkin, the Zionist and editor of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, state that the anti-Semites were right and that Jews were an alien force in gentile life? Did not Herzl himself state that Zionism could only achieve its aims through collaboration with gentile governments who wished to be rid of their Jewish populations? Did not Adolf Hitler model his definition of Jewishness on the definition formulated by the German Zionist rabbis, Joaquim Prinz and Leo Baeck? With a background like this and such documented statements to their credit, how can contemporary Zionists now say that “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism”? They can do it for the same reason that they once said that there were no Arabs in Palestine, the same way that they deny Jewish commissars and the same way they affirm fictional “gas chambers”.

    The Jews are a people of the lie. They can tell lies like “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism” because no one will stand up to them. Fear of Jewish political and economic power trumps truth. Woe to he who would impeach them with their own documented statements.

  75. John Thames

    A few small concessions to truth, I see.

    You are wrong about only Nazis believing that the Nazi attack was preventive, as claimed. Quite a few Russian historians are coming to the same conclusion, based on discoveries from their own archives. You learn very slowly. I am much faster on the uptake.

  76. John Thames

    Actually, Jews dominated the Soviet secret police from the very beginning, as under Moishe Uritzky.

  77. Jews&Ukrainians

    RL:”I think it was mostly Latvians if I am not mistaken.”

    Latvians of native Latvian ethnicity, or Latvians of non-native Jewish ancestry?

    “Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case”

    June 15, 2009

    KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) — A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the “Great Famine” committed in the 1930s.

    The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was “a farce” to press the case.

    “All organizers of the Great Famine are dead,” he said.

    Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”

    Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.

    In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”

    Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

  78. Jews&Germans

    “At the time [1919] almost half of all German private banks were Jewish owned, the stock exchange dominated by Jewish stockbrokers, almost half of the nation’s newspapers were Jewish run as were 80 per cent of chain stores.” –

    • Jason Y

      Good article and no doubt that was probably the case. Nonetheless, note the situation nowadays is less extreme, and a lot of the neo-Nazi hatred has become more of a crutch than anything. Most of these neo-Nazis could afford more job training and education, yet lack of self esteem massively plagues them, and they keep blaming non-whites and Jews for all thier problems.

      • EPGAH

        That’s a hilarious double-standard. Nonwhites get their betters to pay for them, whites “could afford more job training and education”.

        As to low self-esteem, have you ever considered white-shaming like yours might be the culprit? PLUS Affirmative Action and this bullshit about “White Privilege”?

        What next? Are you going to say nonwhites DON’T blame whites for all their problems? “We’d be a lot better off if whitey wasn’t holding us back” and so on? Even though they get Affirmative Action, minority-only scholarships, even grants from the taxpayers’ involuntary generosity?
        PLUS they don’t get killed when they riot.

        I would say the Government is doing a lot more to hurt whites to help the minorities than the opposite, wouldn’t you?

  79. Lindsey Black

    Wow, that John Thames guy was a little harsh, but sorry mr. Robert… have you ever heard of David Irving? He may be a racist but is a damn fine independent historian. You like to call yourself liberal… why are you so bothered by this subject anyway? Why not let others revise history as much as they want? If they´re right, they´re right. If they´re wrong, they´re wrong. But why is it that only this subject is soooooo important noone can even question it? Put people in jail for doing research? It´s Galileo all over again. Come on… no way can you call yourself a liberal and think a subject has to be some holy ground on which no one can step.

    • David Irving is a fraud, a liar, a hack and a Nazi.

      The US has no Holocaust Denial laws. Germany does, for historical reasons. I don’t blame them.

      • Lindsey Black

        Great hate-speech!
        Forbidding anyone from speaking their mind is plain Censorship and an assault on personal liberty. There should be no law for controlling what people are or aren´t allowed to say. German people have no free speech. That´s just wrong and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn´t discuss race so much and insist it should be allowed as a normal conversation topic. I really like your blog and respect your ideas, but I can see there´s a major hang-up with some Jewish issues, which, if you were Jewish would be fine and understandable, but since you say you are not… those subjects should not be so important to you and should certainly not get you so worked up about them. You seem very emotionally attached to jewish issues and get nervous when someone argues against them. I´ll leave you alone. But I think it would be best if you stated your love of everything jewish… I don´t know, maybe someome in your family is jewish. Then, people would know where you really stand and they would also understand that you can´t be objectively neutral on jewish issues, which is ok… it is understandably difficult to be neutral if they are part of your ancestry. But don’t go about telling people you´re neutral and then being so angry everytime someone says even the slightest thing about holocaust or other jewish issue.
        Best regards. Enjoyed your blog so far.

  80. Jason Y

    Yeah, what Robert says is exactly right. Holocaust denial has got to be the dumbest crap Iv’e come across.

    • Jason Y

      One of the more distrubing things would have been when the Nazis burned synagogues down with the Jews inside the building. I wonder what kind of excuse these neo-Nazis etc.. will give to claim that didn’t happen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s