Denying Holocaust Denial

On April 8, it was announced that Canada would soon be joining an illustrious club: the enlightened nations of the world that have elected to ban so-called Holocaust denial.  Depending on how one interprets the law, there are currently 18 nations that either explicitly ban “Holocaust denial” (including Germany, Austria, France, Israel, Italy, Poland, Hungary, and Russia) or generically ban “denial of genocide” (Switzerland and Lichtenstein).  Canada would then be the nineteenth nation in this honor roll of obsequiousness.

Canada’s action comes not long after the UN General Assembly approved a related resolution, A/76/L.30, on 22 January 2022, “condemning” such denial.  (The resolution was passed “by consensus,” meaning that no actual affirmative votes were cast.  Evidently no country had the courage to demand a rollcall vote.)

The text of Canada’s bill is apparently unavailable—it seems that it will be buried in a larger spending bill—but the UN resolution has some interesting remarks.  It first defines the Holocaust as an event “which resulted in the murder of nearly 6 million Jews, 1.5 million of whom were children.”  This is notable because it codifies in international law the infamous ‘6 million’ figure—a number which is doomed to eventual collapse, given the dearth of evidence.  Also, I know of no source for the “1.5 million children,” but a lack of substantiation has never stopped our intrepid authorities in the past, and it surely won’t here.

The resolution goes on to describe what it means by Holocaust denial:

Holocaust denial refers to discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during the Second World War. …  Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust did not take place, and may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation, and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people.

As usual, such wording is a combination of ambiguity and meaninglessness.  First, no revisionist claims that the Holocaust “did not take place”—if by this we are to understand that no one, no Jews, actually died.  No revisionist calls into doubt that mass shootings of Jews occurred, nor that many Jews suffered from starvation and “torture.”  They do, however, specifically challenge the idea that homicidal gas chambers were used to murder masses of people, and they do question the actual intentionality of Hitler and other leading National Socialists to literally kill the Jews.

This requires a bit of elaboration.  On the first point, Zyklon-B (cyanide) chambers as instruments of mass murder face a large number of major technical problems, including (a) infeasibility of rapid, mass gassing; (b) personal danger to the alleged gassers; (c) inability to remove gas and Zyklon pellets after gassing; (d) inability to remove gas-soaked corpses; and (e) inability to dispose of masses of corpses in any reasonable time.  Worse still are the so-called “diesel exhaust” gas chambers, which are alleged to have killed some 2 million Jews—twice the number of the infamous Zyklon chambers.  (If this is news to you, you need to do some research.)  These chambers allegedly relied on captured Russian diesel engines to produce fatal carbon monoxide gas.  However, (a) diesels actually produce very little CO, far too little to kill masses of people in any reasonable time; (b) diesel engines cannot pump exhaust gas into sealed, “air-tight” rooms; and (c) the corpses at those alleged camps showed no sign of CO poisoning—namely, a pink or bright-red coloration of the skin.  If the traditional advocates of the Holocaust were serious about defending their view, they would start by addressing these obvious questions.  Instead, they ignore them, and retreat to legal remedies.

On the question of intentionality, the actual words of Hitler, Goebbels, and others matter.  They often spoke of the Vernichtung (‘destruction’) or Ausrottung (‘rooting-out’) of Jews, but these terms do not require the mass-killing of the people in question.  We know this because, first, the Germans used these very terms for years, decades, in public, long before anyone claims that a “Holocaust” had begun; clearly, they meant little more than ending Jewish dominance in society and driving most Jews out of the nation.  Secondly, the Germans consistently used other language that explicitly called for deportation, evacuation, and mass removal of Jews—ethnic cleansing perhaps, but not mass murder.  Thirdly, we have innumerable examples of other Western leaders, from Bush to Obama to Trump, who have similarly spoken publicly of “destroying” or “annihilating” their enemies (usually Arabs or Muslims) without implying mass murder.  Tough talk has always played well for politicians, and the Germans were no different.

The UN resolution continues with some specifics on the definition of denial:

[D]istortion and/or denial of the Holocaust refers, inter alia, to:

(a) Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany,

(b) Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources,

(c) Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide,

(d) Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event,

(e) Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic groups.

Four of these points—“excuse or minimize impact,” “blame the Jews,” “cast the Holocaust in positive light,” and “attempts to blur responsibility”—are all but irrelevant to serious revisionism.  Serious revisionists, including Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jurgen Graf, among others, virtually never discuss such things.  They focus on far more pragmatic matters: the infeasibility of the mass gassing schemes, the lack of corpses or other physical evidence, the absence of photographic or documentary evidence showing mass murder, and the many logical inconsistencies of witnesses and survivors.  But our fine Holocaust traditionalists never raise these troublesome issues, because they know that they have no reply.

Of the five points, only (b), “gross minimization of the number of victims,” is relevant—in other words, the questioning of the “6 million.”  But what counts as “gross minimization”?  Does ‘5 million’ count?  If so, noted (and deceased) orthodox researcher Raul Hilberg would be quickly tarred with the “anti-Semite” label; the fact that he hasn’t suggests otherwise.  What about ‘4 million’?  If so, then early researcher Gerald Reitlinger is in for trouble; he long advocated around 4.2 million Jewish deaths.  Does ‘3 million’ count?  Or ‘2 million’?  Or will we “know it when we see it”?  For the record, serious revisionists today estimate that around 500,000 Jews died in total at the hands of the Nazis—most of these due to typhus contracted in the various camps, many in assorted shootings at the Eastern front, and virtually none in “homicidal gas chambers.”

So what, exactly, does the UN want from the world?  As we read in the text, the UN

  1. Rejects and condemns without any reservation any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part;

  2. Urges all Member States to reject without any reservation any denial or distortion of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end;

  3. Commends those Member States which have actively engaged in preserving those sites that served as Nazi death camps, concentration camps, forced labour camps, killing sites and prisons during the Holocaust…

  4. Urges Member States to develop educational programmes that will inculcate future generations with the lessons of the Holocaust in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide…

  5. Urges Member States and social media companies [!] to take active measures to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial or distortion by means of information and communications technologies, and to facilitate reporting of such content;

  6. Requests the United Nations outreach programme on the Holocaust as well as all relevant United Nations specialized agencies to continue to develop and implement programmes aimed at countering Holocaust denial and distortion…

Of course, if we wish to designate the loss of some 500,000 Jews as a “holocaust,” then we are welcome to do so.  But we had best get our facts and arguments straight.  To resort to legal prohibitions is tantamount to admitting defeat.

None of these points were lost on a Jewish Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby.  He was motivated to write a short op-ed entitled “It’s a mistake to ban Holocaust denial” (24 April).  He quotes Canada’s public safety minister, Marco Mendicino: “There is no place for antisemitism and Holocaust denial in Canada.”  Despite agreeing with this view, and despite “despising” Holocaust deniers, Jacoby opposes the pending law.  And he explains why—though not before displaying an embarrassing ignorance and an appalling shallowness.

He first informs us that Holocaust “deniers” (never defined) are “contemptible antisemites and brazen liars,” overflowing with “Jew-hatred” and seeking to “rehabilitate the reputation of Hitler.”  They attempt to refute “the most comprehensively documented crime in history” by insisting that it “never occurred.”  Such people deserve “all the obloquy and contempt” that one can muster, he says.  To call such claims unjustified and unwarranted is an understatement of the first order; the reliance here on ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of an impending vapidity of argumentation.

Still, Jacoby opposes anti-denial laws on two grounds.  First, such laws run afoul of the spirit of the First Amendment (free speech and press).  More broadly, he rightly notes that “it’s dangerous to empower the state to punish ideas.”  Indeed, “any government that can criminalize Holocaust denial this week can criminalize other opinions next week.”  Left unspoken, though, is a key point:  How is it that in Canada, a 1% minority of Canadian Jews are able to push through a law that specifically benefits them?  One would think that, in Canada, a 1% Jewish minority would have, say, half the clout of the 2% minority of American Jews.  But clearly not.  Canadian Jews are about to prevail yet again.

Jacoby’s second reason for opposing such laws is that, as I noted above, they amount to “intellectual surrender.”  He quotes Holocaust scion Deborah Lipstadt to the effect that such laws imply that one is unable to construct a rational argument in defense of the traditional view.  And this, in fact, is true.  Just look at any traditionalist account of the Holocaust, even by the most learned academician.  Look at any commentary on Holocaust denial.  None will address the basic issues that I cited above.  None will mention a single recent revisionist book, or a single active researcher, such as Rudolf, Mattogno, or Graf.  None will examine or refute a single relevant revisionist argument.  None will provide a breakdown, by cause, of the infamous “6 million” deaths.  These are telling facts.

For his part, Jacoby obviously has no answer.  All he can do is make flat and baseless assertions: “never was a genocide more meticulously recorded by its perpetrators … or more comprehensively described by scholars and survivors”; “an immense ocean of evidence attests to the horror of the Holocaust.”  Unwisely, he attempts to use General Eisenhower’s “visual evidence … of starvation, cruelty, and bestiality” to defend his point.  But this fails; as he likely is unaware, Eisenhower’s 550-page postwar memoir, Crusade in Europe (1948), has not a single reference to any Holocaust, gas chambers, or Auschwitz.  A single paragraph in the book (p. 439) states only that the Jews “had been beaten, starved, and tortured.”  One finds absolutely no mention of mass murder, extermination, gassing, crematoria, or the like.  Eisenhower is hardly a good witness for the defense.  (For what it’s worth, neither Churchill’s nor De Gaulle’s postwar memoirs had any mention of Auschwitz, gas chambers, or extermination either.  Ike was no anomaly.)

But does all this really matter?  What’s the big deal about the Holocaust? some may say.  In fact, it is hugely important.  The Holocaust is the lynchpin of Jewish power.  It is the raison d’etre of the state of Israel.  It is the number one guilt-tool used against Whites everywhere.  And it is the embodiment of Jewish narcissism.  When that story crumbles, the whole Judeocratic edifice may well fall, too.  We should never underestimate the power of Holocaust revisionism; the Jews certainly don’t.

A final thought: I’m happy to hear that Jeff Jacoby believes in free speech.  It’s too bad that he doesn’t have equally strong feelings about openness and honesty, about the many problems with the Holocaust story, and about a global Jewish Lobby that is able to pass laws, ban books, and impose a cancel culture on anyone that it doesn’t like.  Now, that would be an op-ed worth reading.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these are available at  See also his personal website

67 replies
  1. John D. Alder
    John D. Alder says:

    It’s pathetic to see jews forcing their pity party on the world and outlawing any expressions of doubt about the ho hum six million jews. It’s also sad to see Christians lining up to 💋 kiss the jews posteriors as if the myth of the six million was Christian dogma.

  2. Soren K
    Soren K says:

    It turns out that the real “Holocaust deniers” are the leading Jewish American organizations.

    But the holocaust in this case is the genocide committed by Turkey against Christian Armenians from 1915 to 1923.

    For example, the following three paragraphs are from the article “Showdown Set in ‘Genocide’ Debate” by Rebecca Spence (The Jewish Daily Forward, September 2, 2006):

    Every year on April 24, the day that Armenians commemorate the killings, a resolution calling for the use of the controversial term is proposed in Congress and then beaten back. Some Jewish groups claim credit for ensuring that such a resolution never passes.

    Jewish advocacy groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, B’nai Brith and American Jewish Committee “have been working with the Turks on this issue” for more than 15 years, said Yola Habif Johnston, director for foundations and community outreach at Jinsa.

    “The Jewish lobby has quite actively supported Turkey in their efforts to prevent the so-called Armenian genocide resolution from passing,” she said.

  3. LGH
    LGH says:

    It is all to crush the White man, and to allow him no means of raising an argument against his defeat, nor against those responsible for it. Every person engaged in promotion of holocaust propaganda, and removal of the legal right to refute it, is engaged in their own program of genocide against the rest of us. If they are White, guilty of treason at the least.
    In the immortal words of George Floyd “I can’t breathe”.

  4. Karl Haemers
    Karl Haemers says:

    Another theater of the absurd in Canada. Whether they can continue to push “education” enough that any children actually care is in doubt. I remember a poll a few years ago that showed some huge percentage of children could not name a single camp, and almost as large a number hardly cared at all about the holocaust. Why dwell on something that (didn’t) happen 80 years ago? Some of the kids–in increasing numbers–do care however, and they explore revisionist viewpoints and make joke memes on Chan, Telegram and elsewhere.
    Large swaths of the world never bought the holohoax to begin with, such as Japan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Eastern Europe, S America, Africa, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East… The US and Canada are the most brain-washed, and so the most urgent to liberate from the mythology. Yet holocaust promotion in the US did not begin until 1967, according to Jewish professor and author Normal Finkelstein. May it end just as abruptly, the sooner the better.
    I remember reading about a handful of “holocaust deniers” who attended a state hearing in Oregon when Oregon was proposing increasing holocaust education in public school. They presented their case in public comment period for questioning the holocaust and omitting the curriculum, and it made a front page headline in the state newspaper the Oregonian. All news is good news, and I was glad to see it.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      I read Unz’s essay a few years ago. It was called simply ‘Holocaust Denial’, in quotes. It is a summary of some major revisionist works, such as Butz’s Hoax of the 20th Century, and of course Germar Rudolf and others. Here was Unz’s conclusion: “The official holocaust narrative is substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so.”
      I have studied more on the topic than Unz, and we could simplify this significantly: “The official holocaust narrative is almost entirely lies.” They are lies of war propaganda and anti-German atrocity stories. The World Jewish Congress came into existence in 1942 in order to spin up and distribute war propaganda against Germany. It worked closely with the OSS at the time, and MI5. Human skin lampshades and kosher soap were two of their brilliant fantasy atrocities.
      It’s astonishing what people will believe.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Thanks Karl. Well said.
        It’s my growing belief that Ron Unz functions as a gate-keeper. He’s a very successful, and ambitious, Jew who would like to come to be known/accepted as “an authority” on the Holocaust, and on National Socialism, Hitler, the Third Reich and WW2. More and more, people in white European gathering sites like this one (and on UR too) have pushed aside their previous “go-to” experts to hold up Ron Unz as the one to read instead! The same was done for David Cole, who has since turned on the revisionists who he was once friends with in a nasty way. Cole became better known than anyone else … in large part because he was a Jew. In looking at his history from today’s perspective, it’s not hard to suspect he was never completely sincere.

        With Unz, if you read his articles closely, they’re not as impressive as they appear on first reading. He takes on the easy stuff … that really cannot be defended forever anyway. So is he just trying to soften the blow when it inevitably comes by putting Jews in a better light?
        Is Anthony Aaron a Jew?

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” It’s astonishing what people will believe.”

        It is even more astonishing what people are willing to do in acquiescence to authority .

        Social psychologist Milgram began a world renown historic experiment in 1961 and completed it in 1963 when it was first publicized . Unfortunately and perhaps unwittingly , it became an open invitation for psychopaths or sociopaths to attain political power and positions of authority .

        This quote is from the Wiki article ___

        Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

        The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, [ … ] .

        I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist.

        Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and,

        with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims,

        authority won more often than not.

        The extreme willingness of adults
        to go to almost any lengths
        on the command of an authority
        constitutes the chief finding of the study and
        the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

        Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process.

        Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality,

        relatively few people
        have the resources needed
        to resist authority.


        For comprehensive details see the Wikipedia article “Milgram experiment”.

        Most by far Westernworld systematic obedience training historicly begins in the churches which along with schools and other civic organizations failed , to this day after almost fifty years of an opportune period of time since that 1974 public revelation , to provide the humanity in their corresponding jurisdictions with

        “the resources [ or training ] needed to resist
        [ corrupt ] authority” ;

        where resisting corrupt authority is the same difference as resisting inordinate obedience to it .

        Moreover , any resistance training to remedy inordinate obedience to corrupt authority or corrupt political power would entail a de facto constraint on the execution of authority or the exercise of political power . In other words , it would entail a de facto surrender of authority or surrender of political power that would be ipso facto rejected by any Westernworld collective leadership person or group based on a Jewish collective model which is prevalent in the West and which assumes that collective leadership has absolute supremacy over any and all members so that inordinate obedience ( that is , obedience to corrupt authority ) cannot legally exist and incur liabilities for a member .

        Clearly , most by far Westernworld individuals would not normally have the capacity to resist inordinate authority ( which is commensurate with inordinate political power ) unless they had been trained for it as complementary opposition to their obedience training .

        In particular as a consequence of the lack of complementary training for resistance to inordinate obedience , anyone here in the USA normally would not have any recourse ( for possibly avoiding severe liabilities incurred as a result of actions in obedience to lawful authorities ) other than paying , with money they most likely do not have , a high price for lawyers .

        The world’s first political truism that was revealed and proclaimed about one hundred years ago , by the renown British historian Lord Acton , is poignantly relevant to this matter ___

        ” Power corrupts ;
        and absolute Power corrupts absolutely .”

        Obviously and in addition to traditional systemic maldistributions of authority or power even after more than a hundred years since that Acton truism was made known to the world public , established religious/financial/political powers-that-be have not demonstrated any especial interest for assuring that peoples under their jurisdiction are sufficiently trained to identify corrupt authority and how to properly avoid inordinate obedience to it without having to resort to burdensome legal remedies of unaffordable costly lawyers .

        Why is Western civilization collapsing ?

        Perhaps one major cause among several others would be many centuries of excessive accumulation of both minor and severe uncompensated injuries , of millions of people , due to legal immunities from liabilities resulting from obedience to corrupt and hazardous authority .

        In particular , a major cause would likely be that teachers , preachers , and politicians normally do not willingly surrender their authorities nor do they normally willingly surrender their political powers in order to accommodate resistance to inordinate obedience , by their subjects , to corrupt authority or power that sooner or later inevitably results in abuses of power ;
        which manifest as destructions ( of “Life , Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness” ) in the form of physical injuries to health up to and including loss of life ; manifest as various kinds of financial injuries such as loss of income up to and including loss of livelihood , and other financial losses ; as psychological injuries that require medical treatments ; and manifest as social injuries such as the loss of goodwill status as an investable asset .

        Teachers , preachers , and politicians routinely concoct excuses to retain or expand their authorities or powers which employ the frequently pernicious meme of “for the greater good” which more often than not at least tacitly holds a person or class of persons liable for any costs that may accrue pursuant to the agenda for retaining or expanding the authorities or empowerments of any pertinent teachers , preachers , or politicians .

        Another historic example of the hazards involved with more or less blind obedience to NWO powers-that-be is the unjustified and vast economic disruptions and destructions along with their subsequent injuries , as previously noted , resulting from worldwide acquiescence to unrestrained authoritative governmental mandates of the COVID-19
        pandemic/scamdemic/plandemic .

        • Anne C
          Anne C says:

          Moneytalks, I have to correct you on the Milgram experiments. I once believed they were legitimate too, but I’ve since learned otherwise.

          The conclusions Stanley Milgram drew from his experiments have been put into serious question by science historian Gina Perry of the University of Melbourne (and three colleagues from the University of Alberta).

          In looking at unpublished data from Milgram’s experiments, Perry discovered many of the subjects in his experiment thought the experiment was a hoax – they didn’t believe they were actually administering real shocks to someone.

          “Our analysis shows that people who believed the learner was in pain were two and a half more times likely to defy the experimenter and refuse to give further shocks. We found that contrary to Milgram’s claims, the majority of subjects in the obedience experiments were defiant, and a significant reason for their refusal to continue was to spare the man pain.”

          Perry’s scholarly article can be accessed here:

          A more reader-friendly article on the same subject is posted here:

          It’s interesting to note that, according to Wikipedia, Stanely Milgram was born in New York City in 1933 to Jewish parents.

          From Wikipedia: “[Milgram’s] Bar Mitzvah speech was on the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that the events of World War II would have on Jewish people around the world. He said, upon becoming a man under Jewish law: ‘As I … find happiness in joining the ranks of Israel, the knowledge of the tragic suffering of my fellow Jews … makes this … an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of my people—which now becomes mine. … I shall try to understand my people and do my best to share the responsibilities which history has placed upon all of us.’”

          The Wikipedia page on Milgram also states: “Milgram was influenced by the events of the Holocaust, especially the trial of Adolf Eichmann, in developing the experiment. … Milgram gained notoreity [sic] for his Obedience experiment conducted in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University in 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. The experiment found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of subjects would fully obey the instructions, albeit reluctantly.”

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            Thanks for the update on the Milgram experiment . The Wiki article also has links to critiques of it .

            Regardless , Milgram’s conclusion was empirically supported by the astonishingly egregious obedience of the worldwide numerous sheeple herds to COVID-19 governmentally decreed irrational remedies ( of enormous scientific , legal , ethical , religious , and political controversy ) that unjustifiably destroyed huge amounts of economic activities/businesses that were irrelevant to any proven medical remedy or even any commensurate authentic scientific proof of a “pandemic” in regard to the great difficulty in assessing the disinfo/malinfo/misinfo of governmental propaganda statistics or lack thereof .

        • Anne C
          Anne C says:

          Moneytalks, regarding what you said, “Milgram’s conclusion was empirically supported by the astonishingly egregious obedience of the worldwide numerous sheeple herds to COVID-19 governmentally decreed irrational remedies”…

          I can definitely agree with you there!

  5. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    A number of things about the ‘denial laws’ disturb me.

    First, why isn’t the murder of 20 million Christians under Stalin, or the 100 million Chinese under Mao not entitled to the same or more ‘remembrance’ than the alleged 6 million?

    Secondly, I studied this allegation off and on for 30 years, starting in 10th grade in high school. It started off – as part of a term paper – with an interview I conducted with two Jews and a Pole (one of the Jews and the Pole were actually interned in Auschwitz) and it was their testimony which was totally contrary to the allegation that prompted my further research. In a nutshell, forensic science does not lie, and math does not lie. But, people can and do lie.

    As a retired accountant I resent being told I am not allowed to count.

    Thirdly, there is something quite unsettling about these peoples’ obsession with the number six. Six million, the US Sixth Fleet protection of our ‘ally’ in the Middle East, the Six-pointed star, the fact that FDR’s Jewish advisors implored him to, if at all possible, schedule D-Day on the Sixth hour of the Sixth day of the Sixth month, and so on. Regardless of one’s religious background (or lack thereof). one cannot help but ponder that Bible passage in the Book of Revelation that ‘one cannot buy or sell without the Mark of the Beast, the number of which is 666’.

    • Mark Gobell
      Mark Gobell says:

      @Tim Folke

      The kabbalistic 6 alludes to vav, thus …


      The Jewish Telegraphic Agency – JTA
      The Joy Of Six
      By Rabbi Zev Brenner May 16, 2017 3:01 pm

      The Jubilee year returns Jews to their land. “You shall return (tashuvu), every man to his possession, every man to his family” [Leviticus 25:10]. The Zohar notes that “tashuvu” is written defectively, missing the letter vav, hinting at our return and the reclaiming of sovereignty over the Land of Israel.

    • JimB
      JimB says:

      Good observations, Mr. Folke. And the “As a retired accountant I resent being told I am not allowed to count” line shows a masterful understanding of the situation.

    • JimB
      JimB says:

      * As a side-note to my first reply: Have you also noticed that the passage you referred to in Revelation implores the wise to COUNT the “number of the Beast”? Oh, but math is racist and anti-Semitic…

    • Tsigantes
      Tsigantes says:

      Thanks for this comment:
      “First, why isn’t the murder of 20 million Christians under Stalin, or the 100 million Chinese under Mao not entitled to the same or more ‘remembrance’ than the alleged 6 million?”

      This is how most Europeans think about it. Almost all of Europe was destroyed in WW2 with tens of millions dead. Even if one wholly believes the post 1950s Holocaust story it remains just the jewish part of a much larger context of death and destruction.

      • Karl Haemers
        Karl Haemers says:

        60-70M is the official range, I’m told. Little is said about the 1M German prisoners of war who died after the war in Eisenhower’s death camps in occupied Germany. Almost nothing is said about the 2-3M Germans who died in their Trail of Tears march out of communities they had lived in for generations, back into the heart of decimated Germany.

        In this context, who gives a good goddamn about 6M Jews. But each of their deaths equates to a 1000 gentiles, since they are the Chosen People.

        In 1947 the ICRC declared that the number of people who died in German prisons during the war and for 2 years afterward was 271,301. Not nearly all of them were Jews.

        • John Alder
          John Alder says:

          I wish the holocaust had happened because it could not have happened to a more deserving bunch. How long can they keep this going? The difference beween a cow and the holocaust? You can’t milk a cow for 75 years.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          What you’re forgetting, Karl, is that the Jews/Israel never stop celebrating/mentioning the loss of their “6M” members and how they were lost.
          In contrast, the Germans forbid remembrance of their millions of lost members. If Germans behaved as Jews do, things would be very, very different.
          It’s a crying shame and a disgrace. In spite of everything, Germans should stand up against it. Some do.

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      To expand a bit on the insightful points you made Tim.
      Most historians have the numbers well past 20 million. 5 million up until Lenin’s death (Jewish on his Mother’s side) and well over 50 million after Stalin died. Richard Pipes, Solzhenitsyn, Sever Plocker, Donald Rayfield, Paul Kengor, Leonid Shapiro, have the numbers all much higher than 20 million.

      I’ve never believed the 6 million number. The whole thing is absurd. Think about it this way. If the slaughter of over 50 million native Russian Christians was not carried out predominantly by Jews, and I would argue that it was, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Karl Radek, Lev Kamenev, all founding members of the Soviet Central Committee, and all Jews, and also the predominance of the murderous Jews in the Cheka. Then Lazar Kaganovich, a Jew who carried out the Holodomor genocide in Ukraine between 1932, and 33, under Stalin; over 8 million slaughtered, tortured, froze to death, starved to death. Then those who ran the Gulags, Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frankel, both Jews of course. If the Bolsheviks weren’t predominantly Jewish, and many Jews claim they were not, or that Jews were not responsible for the atrocities that continued well into the 60’s in Russia, then why isn’t Stalin the epitome of evil? Why not Mao who was btw, guided by three Bolshevik Jews, Jakob Rosenfeld, Sidney Rittenberg, and Grigory Gershwin? What about Pol Pot? The Armenian Genocide? Why is it always the white guy from Germany? Who, after four years of taking control of Germany, made it one of the greatest economic successes in history. How did ‘he,’ become the epitome of all things evil I wonder…? What about Ghengis Khan?

      To me it’s all such a sad fraud. And the Jews are laughing at us while they are depositing their reparation checks in their banks.

    • anonym
      anonym says:

      The “sacredness” of the 6 million number may come from the idea that the Jews had to be cleansed of the “Mixed Multitude” (“erev rav”) – decendants of non-Jews who accompanied Moses and his 600 000 Jews into Sinai. The term “Mixed Multitude” was an extremely sensitive subject among Jews, and was used as the ultimate insult (see the book “The Mixed Multitude” by Pawel Maciejko).

      As described in Isaiah must the Jews be purified in fire, before they are allowed to enter into the Kingdom of God (on earth) – hence the firery themes in survivor testimonies, especially “Night” by Wiesel, “A Year In Treblinka” by Wiernik and “Treblinka: A Survivors Mermory by Rajchman (with burning geisers of blood).

      The 6 million number seems to be connected, via gematria, to the Mixed Multitude. The only ones ever dumb enough to say this openly is the chabad rabbis, who see the Holocaust as a life saving operation on the Jewish body. (See the article “God as Surgeon” in Haaretz.)

      As described by Mark Gobell below, is the number also connected to 1948, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem. IOW the Holocaust is the sacred fire in which the Jews were cleansed from the Mixed Multitude, and permitted to return to the Promised Land.
      Trying to understand these people is a bit like trying to understand the mind of Jeffrey Dahmer…

  6. Mark Gobell
    Mark Gobell says:

    For the record, serious revisionists today estimate that around 500,000 Jews died in total at the hands of the Nazis—most of these due to typhus contracted in the various camps, many in assorted shootings at the Eastern front, and virtually none in “homicidal gas chambers.”

    ‘virtually none in “homicidal gas chambers.”’?

    That means, according to Thomas Dalton, serious revisionists today estimate today that some Jews were murdered in in “homicidal gas chambers.”

    I would be interested to see your sources ti support this claim Mr Dalton.

    • Happy to help
      Happy to help says:

      The T4 program used gassings against the disabled etc. Maybe some of those victims were Jews?

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Dalton also wrote this clumsy and incorrect paragraph:

      “First, **no revisionist** claims that the Holocaust “did not take place”—if by this we are to understand that no one, no Jews, actually died. **No revisionist** calls into doubt that mass shootings of Jews occurred, nor that many Jews suffered from starvation and “torture.” **They do**, however, specifically challenge the idea that homicidal gas chambers were used to murder masses of people, and they do question the actual intentionality of Hitler and other leading National Socialists to literally kill the Jews.”

      It is never acceptable to say “No revisionist” says such and such, or “All revisionists” say something. Especially when he only mentions 3 revisionists by name! Revisionists run the entire gamut of positions. It appears he’s trying to simplify and sanitize to the point of over-simplifying and being just plain wrong.

  7. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    This is a VERY disappointing article. It must have taken Thomas Dalton all of one afternoon to put it together, from start to finish. Mainly a rerun of previously published information plus copy-pasting from the UN RESOLUTION. A resolution is not a law and carries no weight of law. It’s considered at most a statement of intention or agreement; at the least it’s meaningless. Thus the “consensus” procedure used to pass it.

    The FIRST UN Resolution “Rejecting any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”, was passed in the same way in 2005. It was written and introduced by the Israeli delegation, as is this one. You can read more about it at the bottom of this page:

    Clearly, the much more important story is the FIRST-TIME attempt by Canada to outlaw holocaust denial and antisemitism, which we don’t get much about except a link. There is quite a bit to say about it though, since it’s happening on our northern border so analysis would be welcome. It seems that it’s being accepted by the Canadians as “to be expected” and par for the course. Nothing surprising, IOW. So now everyone will just wait for it to come to the US, and that will sew up the entire West for Jewish speech control.

    Guess I will have to write about it myself. Look for it.

    • Anne C
      Anne C says:

      Please post a link to your article when it is written, Carolyn. I look forward to your insights. Thank you.

      • Anne C
        Anne C says:

        Brilliant article, Carolyn. Your analysis of the Jewish web of intrigue behind this shameful legislation is outstanding. I would love to see this article re-posted at TOO.

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      In defense of Thomas Carolyn, he has written a great, scholarly work on the holohoax called; “Debating the Holocaust.” I would also argue that his writing style does not in anyway take away from his scholarship, nor his vast knowledge of subjects that are of great importance to our cause. In fact, I would encourage him to write of these subjects in even more simple ways if possible. I would suggest reading, if you haven’t already his; ‘Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism Through the Ages.’ It is at the same time, highly entertaining, and scholarly.

      We need more of his style of writing. From my own empirical evidence, I highly doubt that the average person would ever read Kevin, Andrew Joyce, or most of the writers here. Then there’s AS, Rayfield, Pipes, the list goes on.

      And please note; I don’t know Thomas. Have no idea who he is. But I know his writing and his works, and we need more of them. It is imperative that we get our knowledge into the hands, minds of the masses, to make them aware that there is another narrative. A more healthier, and truthful narrative.

  8. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    The Germans need to staff their war factories.They did so with forced labor. This was the primary motivation for the “camps” which were financed by German banks.Extermination of the Jews was not the main goal.Why would a regime want to exterminate factory workers supporting their War efforts?

    Regarding “routing out.” Lets take a look at what is happening to the USA under the takeover of government,finance ,academia ,media and even the 2020 election by Jews and Frankfurt /Talmud ideology.

    Super goy Musk has the Jews terrified of losing USA control.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      After the commencement of Barbarossa and its inroads into Ukraine, tens of thousands of them relocated to the Reich voluntarily, as laborers; where they received wages and all benefits to which the locals were entitled.

      An uncle had inherited a 14 unit apartment building, where he and my mother’s sister lived, and co-operated with the authorities’ billeting endeavor to house these newcomers.

      A thirty-some Ukrainian women applied and the only condition he insisted on was that she deport herself as a Christian.

      A week after May 8, he was warranted before a polit-commissar of the Red Army, to answer charges brought by a local ” old-communist “.

      After a while, during which interrogation his Ukrainian tenant acted as the commissar’s interpreter, he was sent home with the interrogator’s remark, that those Germans who had charged him were malicious people !

      My uncle’s building was on Grosse Hamburger Strasse, one block north of Germany’s largest Synagogue, belonging to Eastern Eurpopean jews, on Oranienburgerstrasse, corner Auguststrasse.

      The erstwhile Jewish Hospital was located on August Strasse, but later moved to greater facilties, where, at the end of the war, ca. 800 -1000 jews were ” hiding out “, among their own original staff.

      Said Synagogue, Europe’s second largest, remained untouched during Kristallnacht, though fifteen minutes on foot to Hitler’s Chancellery. It was burnt out, with walls remaining standing, by an Allied air raid in 1943. Hence rebuilt and reconsecrated; and Europe’s largest reception center for Russian Jewry, where on May 9, they habitually celebrate Germany’s defeat in their in-house bars.

      For the unemployed, or excessively obese unemployables [ net photo ], subsidized by the German taxpayer, who augments their absurdly inadequate ruble-denominated, so – called pensions.

  9. Caltrop
    Caltrop says:

    Jewish settler: we killed Jesus and we are proud of it

    Canaan the son of Ham – took by force Shems’ inheritance, [Shem, from whom came the term Semite ] that being the land called Palestine today. Judah married a Canaanite woman and thus except for one pure line beginning with the Tamar/Judah union from whom Christ came, Judah became mixed and degenerate by following Nimrods’ [the grandson of Ham] Babylonian pagan idolatry or Baal worship. The priests of Nimrod the founder of Babylon wore black robes.

    Judah married a Canaanite. Genesis 38:1-2.

    According to the Mishnah, the first written source for halakha, the status of the offspring of mixed marriages was determined matrilineally.

    Christ is a descendant of Shem in the flesh therefore the Jews are anti-Semitic

  10. MPO
    MPO says:

    An important point is often missed in the discussion of holocaust denial or revision and the associated laws that forbid it. That point being that the truth or falsity of the claims on either side are irrelevant to the laws. Rational people tend to focus on the physical evidence surrounding the holocaust or on the lack there of and then imply that the burden of proof is actually on those making the original charge to refute. That’s logical enough alight, but the laws simply make it illegal to challenge the holocaust narrative in and of itself. Even if irrefutable evidence were presented to show that a person charged under these laws was in fact correct, that person would still be found guilty as charged. The same criteria will apply to anti-Semitism laws in general. It’s not that you can’t make false claims about the Jews, you simply won’t be allowed to criticize them as a group period.

    • Guest
      Guest says:

      What you describe, and I agree with you entirely, is Lashon Hara, Talmudic Law, in which NOTHING may be spoken, heard OR thought, even that which is true, if, in so doing, harm may come to the people (i.e., the jews). This is the basis for “politically correct” or “hate” speech laws in the West. We have been living under it for quite some time and in Britain, it was the British Board of Jewish Deputies and several Jewish Home Secretaries who proposed, drafted and established it as law via Parliament and Royal Assent.

      • Raeto West
        Raeto West says:

        Thanks for this. Seems exactly right. (No doubt there’s an analogue in Islam too). Help explain the immense censorship since 0 AD of a huge range of subjects and beliefs and opinions.

  11. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    David Irving (I apologise to any gutless academic who has just pooped his pants but I assume such people do not read TOO) thinks that the figure is 6 million. He is one of the people who believes 6,000,000, I think, and I believe what that great man says.
    The Jew side of my family always detested Eastern Jews until my maternal great father married one, unfortunately.
    Another of my great grandfathers was at the bottom of the Labour Party and was given the job of looking after Lenin, when Lenin was in London, because nobody else wanted the job, by Keir Hardie.
    Like me, Lenin was part Jewish, had Jewish friends and said uncomplimentary things about Jews when they were not around and sometimes when they were around.
    Stalin did not like Jews. Most of the mass murder in Russia was carried out by Jews descended from converts who have always hated Christians and always will.
    The Holocaust is:
    Europeans of the Jewish faith murdered 30?,40?50?60?million Europeans of the Christian faith
    Europeans of the Christian faith murdered 6 million Europeans of the Jewish faith

    • Titus
      Titus says:

      I think i just need to read a couple more of your posts to know your entire genealogy back to Abraham, very tiresome, and your theories, very typical of jewish tricksters.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      That is the David Irving post-prison and post-death threats. The earlier David Irving wrote the introduction to the Leuchter Report, in which he compared the holocaust to the Shroud of Turin: a fake relic to deceive true believers, debunked by forensic analysis. I suggest everyone read Irvin’g introduction in the Leuchter Report.

  12. Raeto West
    Raeto West says:

    Jews have had a very long history of imposing their absurd ideas, mostly by control of money. It’s not surprising they roll on, since it’s worked before. The whole of Christianity is a Jewish fabrication, certainly since it gained power, perhaps for all its life. There are endless stories, tales, names, ideas that everyone recognises, but which have zero evidence for their truth. (‘Truth’ in what should be the modern scientific sense, not the pragmatic Jewish sense). Various claims (immortality, heaven, existence of Jesus, Islam…) are astonishingly old and seem to be widely accepted, though the money underpinning isn’t mentioned. Very new claims (‘COVID’, nukes, Hitler as an independent agent, Stalin hating Jews…) appear to be widely accepted, and if anything the money underpinning may be clearer. There seems no reason to disbelief Jews’ implicit claim, that in future the 6 million fantasy will be assumed true. This sort of thing is what they do. I hope not, but I’m not optimistic.

  13. anonym
    anonym says:

    From one aspect it might be a good thing; if “denial” cases ends up in court, there will be a chance to confront and expose the lying storytellers. During the Zundel trials in the 1980s, several prominent “witnesses” and “experts” were forced to admit uncomfortable facts. Raul Hilberg had to admit that there’s no real evidence for the Holocaust, and Rudolf Vrba had to admit that his books are fiction.

    And a main difference between Jews and the rest of us will come into focus; they claim to be the “People of the (Mosaic) Law” and therefore intinctively know whats holy and unholy. As oppose to Europeans who demand evidence and reason before someone is convicted.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      “Thou shalt not lie.” Jews are breaking their own Mosaic law.
      Except it only applies to other Jews, and the Talmud requires Jews to lie to the goyim.

    • JM
      JM says:

      @Jett Rucker:
      “The Lobby Is Strong. Everywhere.”

      That wouldn’t be an issue if the native European side of the equation countervailed it. Whenever someone speaks up for their own group/against perceived Jewish interests, they are so shamed, that, failing sufficient backing from their own side, they back down and eventually are tamed, usually in the direction of some form of fake universalism.

      This never happens with Jews who do the same. And they are always backed by their fellow Jews and are very rarely seriously challenged on the basis of the motivations behind what what they do.

      One of the critical elements in all this is that people (Jews included) will, as a mass, only follow their own powerful leaders. This is where Jews win, because they constitute a whole organism from their plutocratic rulers to the most humble Jew. We, however have no such organism. We are decapitated and never more than today. Our own ‘leaders’ – economic first and political also – have deserted us and instead apparently look to Jews for leadership. So the dilemma for ‘Whites’ is therefore that it is very difficult and rare to find a focus at the top to follow and get behind.

      This was the main basis of the, sadly unwarranted, but very genuine hysteria against the Trump phenomenon which had a deeply plebeian quality searching after a leader who came from the (somewhere near) top and who could solve the grave problems of the day. In that it had many similarities to the Hitler phenomenon which was/is claimed by these same people. Both involved a very strong plebeian element in search of a good King to act as savior of the nation. The same applies in some measure to Putin.

      Any such moves must be blocked, no matter how misguided. In other words, they know the power of leadership and its denial.

  14. Tsigantes
    Tsigantes says:

    The EU imposed the Holocaust Denial law on the 28 member states without consultation. The majority of EU citizens are not even aware of this law, which indicates that it is not a topic of interest, let alone guilt. Indeed, it really only concerns a few countries – the UK, France, Germany, Poland – which bristle with Holocaust museums & memorials and have large jewish populations. Lichtenstein and Switzerland are not in the EU so they fashioned their own response.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “The EU imposed the Holocaust Denial law on the 28 member states without consultation.”

      False. The EU cannot “impose” such a law on any state. It was the Jewish or Holocaust Lobby, aligned with the Globalist post-war “new order,” that lobbied these European states, and bribed the right people, helped get the ‘right’ people elected, etc. until it softened or swayed public opinion and state legislators sufficiently to get a bill passed.

      EU citizens choose not to pay attention to these laws, but they are certainly aware of them. They just use the excuse that THEY are not holocaust deniers so it doesn’t affect them. “They came for the deniers, but I was not a denier, so …”

      This desire to make some big entity responsible so as to deny individual responsibility has unfortunately become a defining characteristic of the “white” European people. (Commenting here and elsewhere under a screen name is not “taking responsibility” or “doing something.”) That’s a sign we won’t last much longer.

  15. Anne C
    Anne C says:

    “What’s the big deal about the Holocaust? … The Holocaust is the lynchpin of Jewish power. It is the raison d’etre of the state of Israel. It is the number one guilt-tool used against Whites everywhere.”

    I agree with Thomas Dalton on these points, but there is one more thing that I would add. I am about half-way through reading Hitler’s book, “My Struggle/Mein Kampf,” and the more I read, the more I realize how much (((they))) have needed to use the Holocaust narrative in order to absolutely and unequivocally demonize Hitler and, more importantly, his ideas.

    Even though I have known for years that the official Holocaust narrative is a complete hoax, I am still shocked by what I am learning by actually reading a proper translation of Mein Kampf for myself. I challenge anyone who reads the book to deny that Hitler was a genius in the areas of politics and mass psychology. It doesn’t matter whether you like him or not – he understood human nature and the pragmatic side of politics in a way that can only be described as utterly intuitive and incredibly perceptive.

    Hitler’s ideas still apply today. I am becoming convinced that (((they))) would be completely terrified if more people actually read Hitler’s ideas, written in his own words.

    And while Hitler wanted to use his insights to raise up his German people, I am sure that (((they))) have carefully read his work and have applied it to their own ends.

    For anyone interested in a free download of the English translation of My Struggle that was approved by the NSDAP, here is a link:

    • Raeto West
      Raeto West says:

      The Jewish presentation of WW2 of course insists on the strict separation of countries, ignoring the jewish interconnections between them, which include Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. Hitler presented as a self-acting individual is part of the same presentation.
      People who are new to WW2 revisionism naturally first think maybe Hitler was right, after all! Which of course is just a small part of the whole revisionist process. May I recommend my own review of Mein Kampf here
      Written after collecting some copies of English translations, plus on-line copies, from 2013 to 2020. I’ve included a section on significant topics missed out by Hitler, such as the Thirty Years’ War which devastated Europe. Mein Kampf was a careful, jointly-written piece. It’s fascinating to try to work out exactly what was intended, and interesting in its relative uniqueness (compare Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and for that matter Mao, Mussolini, Japanese writers, Franco etc, none of whom had a single work attributed to them). But imho reading Mein Kampf is not enough in itself.

      • Anne C
        Anne C says:

        Thank you, Raeto West, for sharing the link to your own review of Mein Kampf. I will definitely take a look at it – though I first have to finish reading MK, which as you know, is quite lengthy!

        While I will endeavour to read your review with an open mind, I will voice a couple of reservations I already have about your characterization the book and the man.

        I am reading a digital copy of the Stalag edition, but I have a hard copy of Ralph Manheim’s translation as well. When I first started reading the book (and well before I developed any strong opinion on Hitler as an individual) I did a cursory comparison of some of the passages in Chapter One, where AH discusses his home life growing up. There was a striking difference in the tone of the two translations; in the Stalag edition, I hear the voice of a real human being, whereas in the Manheim translation, the narration sounds like it is attempting to construct a personality – one that I recognize as the “Hitler personality” I’ve been presented with all my life through government-sanctioned educational channels, the MSM, and Hollywood.

        To say that “Mein Kampf was a careful, jointly-written piece” may well hold true for the Manheim translation, but it does not square with my reading of the Stalag edition.

        The notion that AH was not a “self-acting individual” also strikes me as a shaky supposition. Whether or not you like his ideas, AH presents them with a conviction that rings with a clarity and integrity I haven’t witnessed elsewhere. He definitely has his own agenda, and he doesn’t suffer fools easily.

        To my mind, Hitler’s singular message about the centrality of responsibility in leadership is something that could only come from a sincere and passionate individual. It’s precisely what is lacking from our current crop of Western political leaders. I have never read a better critique of the failings of parliamentary democracy than what Hitler provides in MK – it is stunning to read in light of the covid hoax, and in the aftermath of the Canadian trucker convoy.

        • Raeto West
          Raeto West says:

          Anne C, thanks for your reply and comments. Remember that Mein Kampf was written in German; English translations suffer from various problems, which is common in many translations, or course. I’m just saying the original was carefully produced.
          The ‘self-acting individual’ idea is part of the entire presentation of Hitler both in Germany and outside. Criticism has been slow coming, but is sharp and clearly worries people who like to imagine Hitler was honest, unlike virtually all other politicians. Let me direct you to hexzane527, who is French (I think) and whose essays I copied onto my site, to be sure where they were & also because they are hard to find. He has a whole set of comments on WW2 all suggesting Hitler was following Jewish policies. (None of this is in David Irving, by the way). Just look and read. Another good writer on the subject is Miles Mathis, also somewhat on my site; see for example his hiller.pdf article. I know, from examining comments, that this issue is one of the most contested by Jews (for obvious enough reasons), along with a few other things, including the ‘Chosen People’ idea, the ‘angry G-d’ idea, and several science frauds.

          • Anne C
            Anne C says:

            Raeto West, thank you for suggesting some alternative views on Hitler. I’m already familiar with some of them – one of the reasons I decided to read Mein Kampf for myself is because I wasn’t satisfied with just reading other people’s opinions about him.

            We live in a world that is awash in information – good, bad and ugly. I am very open to reading people I disagree with, but at the end of the day, I have to use my own judgment to discern what is truthful and what is not.

            Instead piling up reams of arcane research about Hitler, let’s compare what Hitler actually says in Mein Kampf with the way he is conventionally characterized.

            Hitler and the NSDAP are typically portrayed as obliterating the individual and glorifying the State. And yet on page 377 of Mein Kampf we read:

            “The Movement must use every possible means to cultivate respect for the individual personality. It must never forget that all human values are based on personal values, that every ideal and achievement is the fruit of the creative power of One man. …

            Nothing can take the place of the individual, especially if the individual embodies in himself not the mechanical element, but the element of cultural creative ability. …

            The Jew tries to belittle the respect in which nations hold their own great men and women. He stigmatizes this respect as ‘the cult of personality.’ As soon as a nation has so far lost its courage as to submit to this impudent defamation on the part of the Jew, it renounces the most important source of its own inner strength. This inner force cannot arise from a policy of pandering to the masses, but only from the worship of men of genius, with its uplifting and ennobling influence.”

            Three things struck me when I read these words: first, yet one more myth about Hitler had been exploded; secondly, his words still apply today; and thirdly, he understood implicitly what distinguishes “individualist” traditions from “collectivist” traditions.

            A shorter, simpler way of saying it: Hitler gets me. And I am starting to get him.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Fabulous comment, Anne C. Thanks so much for actually reading MK, or ‘MS’ for yourself. One has to be pretty far indoctrinated AGAINST the whole National Socialist regime, or a Jew, to call Hitler’s book “confused”, hateful or poorly written after reading it. It certainly is not!
      That’s why I never hesitate to call him a genius.

      • Anne C
        Anne C says:

        No, Carolyn, it’s me that needs to thank you. I’ve been reading your comments for years, and you are one of a handful of contributors to this site that inspired me to read Mein Kampf in the first place. As you know, it’s one of those rare books that fundamentally changes the way one sees the world – because it dispenses with muddled and fuzzy thinking and brings the issues that matter into sharp focus. It is stunning that a book written almost 100 years ago is still so relevant today.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Well sister, you sure give me a lift … which I don’t get very often, lol. You are clearly a woman of independent mind. It will be interesting when you read Rae West’s “review” — I predict you won’t get very far before giving up. He’s said his favorite go-to ‘authority’ is Miles Mathis (, who sees everything in conspiratorial colors. Have you ever read his site? I was appalled. Hitler, of course, is involved in every kind of betrayal of his country!

          As to the contemporary relevance of MK, I did a series of “summaries/comments on” Vol 1 (later vol 2 which is still unfinished: and wrote this to introduce it:

          “Certain passages came across to me as so pertinent to us today that I was inspired to run a series of posts […] where[in I felt that what Hitler was saying was so very relevant to us today.”

          So that is my main takeaway too!

          • Anne C
            Anne C says:

            Thanks for pointing me to a specific link on your website, Carolyn. I’ve been to your site in the past, but never delved too deeply because I was a bit overwhelmed with where to start! Once I’ve got MK under my belt, so to speak, it will be great to be able to benefit from your tireless research.

  16. Junghans
    Junghans says:

    For those interested in clarity about the ideas of Hitler, has just released a new book called ‘In His Own Words, The Essential Speeches of Adolf Hitler’. Get it while you can!

  17. Floda
    Floda says:

    In mid December 1944 my Mother was 24, six months pregnant with yours truly. She was a Ukrainian, wife of a German Soldier and among about 25 other women, all fleeing West towards Berlin just in front of the advancing Red Army. The women were looking for a dry place to sleep.

    As they passed through one Town they came upon what looked like a huge Military installation with watch Towers and barbed wire. Several Nuns were among the group, two of these ladies approached a guard and were ushered into a building. It was around 4Pm already getting dark and snowing lightly. After several minutes one of the Nuns appeared and beckoned the group to come inside. 

    This was a huge concentration camp in a Town named Auschwitz

    Here is what my Mother told me in 1996, she was 76 and sharp as a tack. Back then her grandchildren, all girls, asked me to chronicle ‘Granny’s’ wartime experiences. I  thought the best way was interviewing her and putting her memories on paper. By now we were living in Australia, she was in Mossvale south of Sydney and I lived in Brisbane but I did business in Canberra. On one of my trips south I sat down with her.

    I asked her what her memories were, say of her first night in Auschwitz: She said the first thing I noticed was that all the SS Men were old, some very old and stooped, perhaps arthritis but they were very polite and were really pleased to have the company of Nuns so close to Christmas.

    I asked her what they ate and where they slept:

    She remembered having evening meals seated at a long table. She recalled having what she thought was pea and ham soup. She remembered sleeping close to what may have been a bakery because of the sweet smell of bread. She was surprised at how friendly the ‘Old Gentlemen’ (Alte Herren) were, but they were told their stay would only be for a few days until the Older Nuns had some rest.  

    I asked her what she remembers of conversations if any, were they (the SS Guards) aware of Germany’s imminent defeat:

    ‘I mostly remember how everyone there wanted simply to be able to go home. The old guards all believed when an agreement was reached, the War would end as did the first World War, with a laying down of arms’.
    I will say that observation staggered me. An Armistice? With a massive red Army only a few miles away and unstoppable?

    I asked her about other people there, inmates, even Jews:

    ‘All I remember is trading a Vienna loaf of bread with a Woman for a fine pair of leather shoes. As for Jews, I can honestly say I do not have any memory of them there, that is not to say there were none. It’s just that I do not remember much about the place.’

    During this discussion so long ago now, my impression was she and her companions had spent perhaps half a week there, she had seen nothing out of the ordinary. It seemed to her she had spent a few relatively comfortable nights in a place everyone wanted to leave.
    I had to ask her one last question, Gas Chambers, millions of victims, did she see or hear anything?

    At this she did something she rarely did, sort of an Eastern European thing. She leaned to one side and pretended to spit on the floor, then launched into an almost angry response, in German. 

    ‘Look, I was there with the others for perhaps three nights. We were treated very well but told very firmly that we must leave and move on. There were some very well educated women among our group, one was a Doctor, another a Chemist. We were not in any way restricted in our movements and if any one of us had seen or even dreamed of millions of people being gassed there we would have known’.

    Back in December 1944 after a few days the Women moved on. I was born in Chorchov (Then Konigshutte) in March 1945 a few kilometres north west. In 2014 at age 94 she passed away in Brisbane.

    I believed her then and do so now.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      Floda, if you wouldn’t mind sharing the fate of your father; if you even know yourself ?

      • Floda
        Floda says:


        When they arrived in Oberschlesien in late 1944 my father and mother decided to part company after their, over a year long trek, (on foot) from the Poltava region of Eastern Ukraine back to the fatherland. He said to her, ‘if we are caught together we will both be shot on the spot’. (He had of course, deserted his post as the Leutnant).

        When they arrived there they found the towns and villages almost deserted. The Russians were indeed coming, my Father helped himself to a functioning Moped from an empty house and rode it down to his bothers home in the Eiffel, near the famous Nurburgring race track in Adenau. This was a huge journey in those days on a vehicle like that and he often spoke of it

        He rode by night much of the way down the Autobahn, sleeping by day in the woods and taking fuel from the many shot up vehicles upon the road.

        He found his brothers house empty as older brother Theo was manning flack guns in Koblenz. Breaking into the house, he donned his brothers uniform as a private soldier (Father had been a leutnant) and set about trying to find a group of Germans like himself, wishing to surrender to ‘die AMIS’, to surrender where they felt they would be treated better.

        This was not easy, every time a group of GI’s saw them, even with their white flags, they ran away. But eventually they managed to get themselves captured.

        This as far as I can tell was about January 1945. He was eventually taken by a French open cattle car railway to a Rheinwiesen camp where he often said he felt in more danger than any other time during the war. He said as the trains passed under a railway bridge, French ‘Teenagers’ would lie in wait with burning logs above to dump on the poor buggers in the cattle cars below.

        IN perhaps late August or September 1945 he was released and walked all the way from the Camp on the Rhine to Halle (an der Saale) near Berlin, to his other Brothers home where he had told my mother she should go after my birth.

        I believe he arrived there emaciated but otherwise well enough in October 1945. We must have lived in Halle for a few years because I actually remember attending a kindergarten there. I know when the talk of splitting Deutschland in two began my father saw to it we were in whatever portion was NOT communist. I know he somehow had hard currency. We finished up in West Germany in Rinteln and der Weser, where I attended school for 3 years until we emigrated to Australia in late 1953.

        • charles frey
          charles frey says:

          The social history of these major upheavals adds so much color and understanding to otherwise merely factual and fictional, impersonal accounts. Thank you for that, and I’m glad you all survived.

          In 1964 I undertook a three week bus tour through Ukraine and points north, was very well received and have the fondest memories.

          I immensely enjoy UKRAINE GOT TALENT on the net, to briefly get my mind off our own, far better planned and instrumentalized full spectrum destruction, but wonder about the performers and audiences daily. Charles.

    • Anne C
      Anne C says:

      That is a truly remarkable story, Floda. Your mother was a fine lady, and you are a wise woman for chronicling what she experienced.

      Thank you so much for sharing your family’s history with us. I will not forget this.

  18. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    01 When my mother and her three children left Berlin for Toronto, in 1951, the German Government allowed us to take $ 65.00 in foreign exchange, i.e. Canadian dollars, with us.

    02 Pursuant to the HAAVARA Agreement, the Germans allowed each adult emigrant to Palestine, at least the Palestininan minimum of 1,000 pounds sterling [ ca. $ US 24,000 today ] , to prove their financial independence, before being allowed off the boat. Germans were entirely foreclosed from purchasing foreign exchange.

    03 Additionally, emigrants were allowed to take their entire households with them, including automobiles.

    04 Their bank accounts were frozen in Germany, but they were encouraged to withdraw from them for purchases from abroad, even to purchase from Germany to establish their own businesses in Palestine.

    05 Somewhat more accommodating than the headline INTERNATIONAL JEWRY DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY, around the same time; ca. two months after Hitler’s election. While Germany was still struggling to get from under the Versailles Treaty multiple chicaneries.

    06 The crash of Rothschild’s Viennese CREDITANSTALT had just brought the ’29 Wall Street Crash to Europe.

    07 Of course Hitler did not have to feed the ca. 800,000 German victims, that, according to a Royal Navy White Paper, had starved to death as a result of their post WW I blockade of the Atlantic ports. Most likely the war-mutilated, the crippled, the aged, women and the helpless, orphaned children.

    08 SCHWEINE, one and all ! Tireless; even today !

  19. Default
    Default says:

    Most working class Canadians of my acquaintance have at least some vestigial suspicion of Jews, but it doesn’t seem to rise above the grassroots level. Even an otherwise decent weblog like Small Dead Animals is a cesspool of mindless shabbos goyim.

  20. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    ” [D]istortion and/or denial of the Holocaust refers, inter alia, to:
    (c) Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide ”

    In France, just saying “the Jews” is often seen by the courts as incitement to racial hatred because it amounts to a collective accusation. Meanwhile, the Jewish accusation against France is the policy of “collaboration” with Germany after the war was lost, and the deportation of 50 000 foreign Jews to Germany. But you are not supposed to say that the Jews were responsible in the first place for making France and Britain declare war on Germany. They say declaring war was a moral imperative just like importing Third-World migrants, but we should not thank the Jews for those highly moral decisions.

    Ireland and Spain stayed out of the war and suffered no casualties. I think 500 000 people were killed in France and 12 million in Germany. No one in France expected that the deported Jews would be turned into soaps and lampshades, but the Jews who launched our countries into WW2 and who now want to prolong the war in Ukraine always knew that war meant mass killings. They also knew that the Jewish-run USSR was a murderous regime.

    I think exposing the Jewish nonsense about WW2 is not as important as the larger aim of telling people about Jewish power, Jewish racial animus, and the Jewish crucial role in all sorts of attacks against White society. But even that is not enough. Jewish power will not automatically start crumbling when everyone learns about it. It’s crucial to tell people about it and I hope at some point there will be a rebellion, but there is no guarantee. Even if you don’t know about the Jews, the race replacement agenda is obvious, and there has been no general rebellion so far. I think what’s needed to facilitate a rebellion is probably political instability.

    About the “holocaust”: The revisionists like to focus on the technical infeasibility of the Jewish stories. They must try to identify the Jewish main claims before the whole thing can be debunked. But the government and the public media won’t even tell us what the official Jewish story is, and what the official evidence is. How many witness accounts do they have? My impression is that the Jews do not really claim to have any evidence. They just have a deep, religious-like conviction that the gas chambers happened and made 6 million victims.

    I’ve heard about some of the technical refutations. For example, if there are no holes in the roof of an Auschwitz building, it means that the Zyklon gas could not have been introduced through those holes. If the walls are the wrong color, it means that Zyklon was not used in that room. But I wonder how many direct witnesses in the first place testified that Zyklon was introduced through holes in the roof. Two or three people? I’m sure the Jewish belief in the gas chamber doesn’t rely on a handful of witness accounts. It’s more like a religious fanatical anti-White belief.

    As proof of the gas chamber story, they will also point to the use of the word “Ausrottung” (=eradication) by Hitler or someone close to him. Or they will indict a 95 year old man who once worked as an accountant in Auschwitz and cannot provide any information at all. This is proof that they have no proof for their “religious” beliefs.

    Jacoby: “never was a genocide more meticulously recorded by its perpetrators”

    Robert Faurisson reported how Raul Hilberg, the great specialist of gas chambers, had finally admitted that there were no records of anything. Hilberg’s words: “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but AN INCREDIBLE MEETING OF MINDS, A CONSENSUS — MIND READING by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Faurisson said that Hilberg’s theory amounted to a belief in telepathy and didn’t make sense. But it makes me think of how Jewish networks conspire in every White country to destroy us. I know it’s not telepathy. They have lots of official organizations. They use code words like diversity and antiracism. They try to force everyone in the Jewish population to fall in step and join the anti-White crusade. But still, it looks as if they had a natural predisposition for that kind of behavior.

Comments are closed.