5780 words

“The ‘gas chambers’ were wartime propaganda hoaxes.”
 The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry by Arthur R. Butz

The apogee of banned books.

*         *         *

Over the past dozen or so years, my reading choices have reflected a greater movement in my soul — I have crossed the Rubicon of “conventional conservatism” into the red-pilled land of the dissident right. To be sure, I am a relative nobody — just my own version of Winston Smith who has progressively discovered that the curated version of reality that I have been inculcated to accept has been largely fabricated. Like Winston Smith, I discovered that the past (i.e., “history”) is in a constant state of alteration. Like Winston Smith, I live in an era in which objective truth itself is being destroyed. For whatever reason, I am drawn by an almost-pathological contrarianism to read and contemplate that which I have been told to avoid. Now, many years later I hold views that make me, by conventional standards, a deplorable of the first rank — worse, perhaps, because I am educated and well read.

In reading a variety of banned books and authors, I had yet to touch a work that attacked the singularity from which all banishments flow: the Holocaust. One can hold a variety of “deplorable” views and still retain some semblance of a public life even if such intellectual persuasions are deemed unforgiveable by elite culture. However, a revisionist (or a “denier”) of the Holocaust is deemed so foul — so awful — so heretical that it destroys the possibility of any public life in the modern West. The day is coming when these modern witch hunts end, and it is coming sooner that people realize.

So, I took the time recently to dip my toe into — dare I say it — Holocaust revisionism. In my intellectual journey, I have touched upon aspects of Holocaust mythology by reading — quite intensely at times — the suffering of the German people during and after the war and the moral bankruptcy of the “good guys” of WWII (i.e., the Allies). The modern orthodoxy that surrounds WWII and the post-war settlement is crucial to understand the “Pottersville” that we call the modern West — dissenting from it is tantamount to heresy in past ages. In that sense, I became a political heretic by reading politically heretical works.

To be candid, I have had serious reservations for some time about the standard Holocaust narrative although there was never any reason for me to focus on it. It is not that I doubt Jews — and other non-Germans — suffered through expulsion and exploitative slave labor that took place during total war. If that is a genocide, I do not deny it. I don’t think anyone denies that. Notwithstanding that proviso, the idea that the Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry through gassings, etc., always struck me as farfetched. It always reeked of the same outlandish elements of WWI propaganda against the “Hun” bayoneting Belgian babies. For full disclosure, I am ancestrally “Hun” or German. I know my people. I do not think they were (or are) capable of it — not only in the macabre sense but also in its gross stupidity. I have always viewed it — at least internally — as its own form of blood libel against my people.

Questioning the Holocaust in any fashion comes at a great personal cost. While I am undoubtedly contrarian, outsiders seldom understand the cost — the conscious cost — that comes from intellectual dissidence and political heresy of this type. True, there is something liberating in seeking the truth no matter the cost, but the unfurling of each layer of dissidence further isolates the dissident. Some people — especially the congenitally empathetic people of northwestern Europe — just want to get along. I fight an invisible battle within myself between my desire for truth (no matter the cost) and my predisposition to get along and understand the “other.” Be that as it may, the truth-seeking part of my being has gained the upper hand over my empathic amiability. Reading something like Arthur Butz’s takedown of the Holocaust narrative then followed a series of intellectual and moral steps. To take them all at once would be to careen down the entire flight of stairs. Taking them, however, one step and one book at a time led me to Butz.

So here I am — as if an inner compulsion towards understanding the truth drives me — reading and reviewing Arthur Butz’s work, which follows herein. Again, to demonstrate how powerful the persecution that follows from questioning the Holocaust narrative, reading — and certainly reviewing — this book is enough to get anyone in the United States fired. That alone speaks to the level of cultural and political totalitarianism that exists. It is, to say the very least, a dangerous book to take seriously. So be it.

What strikes me about an author like Butz is his fearlessness and imperviousness to outside pressure. Butz, a native of New York City, was born in 1933. He is an American electrical engineer and a long-time faculty member at Northwestern University, which is, at least for the uninitiated, one of the finest universities in the United States. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and he completed his PhD at the University of Minnesota. The only reason he remains a faculty member at Northwestern University is that he was tenured in 1974 — he is as ostracized at Northwestern as a tenured professor can be because of his views and research on the Holocaust. The tapestry of the academy will permit — and even celebrate — a variety of anti-social views such as acclaiming White genocide, championing Stalinism, blaspheming Christ, cheering violence, or defending the worst sexual depravity. All these outlandish views find academics who will defend their substance or at least see them as being cloaked in the First Amendment view that lauds their “courage.”

But Butz has no academic champions, and that lacuna should tell us something about the moment of time in which we live. Think about it — numerous professors openly espouse the desirability of White genocide — genocide of me and my children, and they are openly celebrated by the academy. The double standard is real: see it applied to those who question the Holocaust narrative based upon assessments of the evidence without any ostensible guile and they are instantly turned into “untouchables.” Whatever moment of history this is, it cannot last much longer. Butz accordingly has always been an army of one. Setting aside his lack of qualifications as an historian, Butz is a very, very smart individual (an MIT graduate and engineer after all) who has demonstrated an almost otherworldly obtuseness to outside pressure.

He is also an unusual suspect to have taken such a stance. While, at least to my knowledge, Butz has not provided a detailed public account of his personal motivations or a precise “origin story” for his interest in the Holocaust. However, based on his own statements in contemporary interviews around the time of his book’s publication, he described becoming interested through reading various books on the subject and studying the records of the Nuremberg Trials. He began his research in the summer of 1972, leading to the completion of his manuscript (which became The Hoax of the Twentieth Century) by the following spring. No sources indicate a specific triggering event, personal experience, or earlier ideological bent—such as prior involvement in “far-right” circles. Indeed, this is a man who is an elite academic and was educated at — and educating at — some of the most elite American institutions. That he would effectively throw away his standing as an elite is curious, to say the very least. In a sense, he is that one strange bird that followed an intellectual curiosity with an otherworldly tenacity and absolute moral belief in the truth. He is the classic pattern of low conformity (lack of intimidation by groupthink); high openness (vision of possibilities others miss); high cognitive abilities (comprehension of how systems work); and a strong internal compass (willing to bear the social opprobrium). Regardless of whether he is right or not, men like Butz fascinate me — they fearlessly challenge orthodoxies and systems. If such a man and type confront a thoroughly corrupt system, heroes are born.

Butz has consistently framed his interest as an intellectual or evidentiary one: approaching the topic as an outsider (a control engineer, not a historian) who applied what he described as objective, technical scrutiny to wartime documents, propaganda, and inconsistencies in mainstream accounts, ultimately concluding the extermination narrative was a hoax. I read the 2003 edition of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, but as Butz makes clear, he did little to update the material that he assembled from his research during the early 1970s. It is, as will be demonstrated, a very powerful and well-reasoned rebuttal of the standard Holocaust narrative — one that in any other context would be applauded for its audacity and comprehensiveness. Indeed, consider if instead of the Holocaust narrative, Butz wrote a book that challenged — based on evidence — some historical axiom, he would either be lauded or ignored. However, challenge to this particular axiom results in social leprosy.

Setting aside whether he is right in the main, it is not the type of work that should be banned in a free society. Whatever we can say of it, it is not a polemical work — it is a reasoned historical work based upon evidence and logic. It is not peddling a conspiracy theory but offering an assessment of proof. There is no gutter anti-Semitism in this book — everything he recounts and analyzes happened. The “academy” does not want those perspectives considered, which is why it is labeled “disinformation” in the full Orwellian sense with all the various slanders against it. You can be sure that if something is labeled as “disinformation” by today’s elites, it is probably worth reading. “Disinformation,” as a concept and term, operates as a poker tell — a demonstration of a censorship culture that demands that the masses not be allowed to access material that makes us reassess or question the prevailing orthodoxies of life. And banned it effectively is. You will never find it in a bookstore or on Amazon. You will have much difficulty finding it online, as I did. If you write a review of this book in less than psychotically condemnatory terms, you will likely be fired from whatever job that you have in the modern West. What is clear is that the powerful do not want this book to be read and have done everything within their arsenal to keep it from being read. For that reason alone, it should be read — and to those who might say that our society often keeps absurd ideas shelved (e.g., flat-earth ideas), this is not an absurd idea — it is an open historical question that “mainstream” historians and political actors demand be closed because to question it is considered per se antisemitism. We have seen other ideas (e.g., COVID-related origins, Race-IQ research) suppressed because the truth has been deemed to be toxic for the masses. I reject emphatically any censorious paternalism no matter whether it is paternalism of good will or one designed to propagate an elitist narrative. I reject paternalism period.

*         *         *

Butz opens the book by positioning his work as a rigorous, evidence-based challenge to what he terms the “legend” of the Nazi extermination of Jews. He argues that the dominant historical narrative—claiming the deliberate murder of about six million Jews, largely via gas chambers—originated primarily from Zionist and Allied propaganda during the war and the postwar war crimes trials, particularly the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. He portrays these trials as unprecedented, politically driven proceedings lacking true legal legitimacy.

He describes the Nuremberg trials as “precedent-shattering in their scope and in the explicitness of the victorious powers’ claims to some sort of legal jurisdiction in respect of laws or understandings, which did not exist at the time they were allegedly broken by the Axis powers.” Butz contends that the trials were not impartial justice but rather a mechanism for the victors to impose a narrative, often relying on coerced evidence, unreliable testimonies, and questionable documents that were themselves subject to ambiguity. It was, according to Butz, a curated affair in which only the documents that arguably advanced the narrative (albeit ambiguously) were shown to the public. Others less helpful never saw the proverbial light of day.

A major focus is on doubts about the scale and nature of Jewish population losses. Butz questions demographic claims, suggesting inconsistencies in pre- and postwar figures that undermine assertions of massive extermination. He reviews sources like the World Almanac and early Zionist or Allied reports, arguing they do not support a “five or six million drop in world Jewish population.” He highlights political influences on the trials, noting appointments like that of a “fanatical Zionist” to key positions in the War Crimes Branch, which he sees as evidence of bias: “The filling of the War Crimes Branch position with a fanatical Zionist, the first soldier since Biblical times to hold the rank of General in the Army of Israel, is not only significant in terms of what the Zionist might do in the position, but also significant in revealing, in a simple way, the nature of the overall political forces operating at the trials. […] Under these political conditions it is simply silly to expect anything but a frame-up at the trials.”

Butz introduces his core thesis bluntly in the chapter’s early sections: “The legend of Jewish extermination during World War II is a hoax.” He extends this to specific claims about methods, asserting that “the ‘gas chambers’ were wartime propaganda hoaxes” and that the trials served to institutionalize and perpetuate this narrative.

He critiques the reliance on affidavits, survivor testimonies, and Soviet-influenced evidence, claiming much of it was obtained under duress or was inconsistent. (Parenthetically, why the Soviets, who murdered thousands upon thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals in cold blood in the Katyn Massacre and then lied about it for decades have anything credible to add to the Holocaust narrative is unbelievable.) He also contrasts the intense focus on alleged Nazi crimes with relative silence on Allied actions (e.g., the atomic bombs, firebombing cities crammed with refugees, and Soviet deportations, i.e., Operation Keelhaul), pointing to an obvious double standard. Throughout, Butz frames his approach as scientific and dispassionate: he insists the extermination story must withstand technical and documentary scrutiny like any other claim.

Butz transitions from the postwar trials’ role in establishing the “extermination legend” to a direct examination of the concentration camps themselves, which he claims are the alleged sites of mass murder. He argues that the standard narrative—portraying certain camps as dedicated “extermination” facilities using gas chambers for systematic genocide—is unsupported by wartime evidence and is instead a product of propaganda, misinterpretation, and postwar myth-making. He distinguishes between various types of camps and insists that horror photographs and survivor accounts from liberated camps have been selectively used to imply nonexistent deliberate extermination policies.

We have all seen the camp liberation photographs in which emaciated prisoners in filthy rags are paraded — Butz considers them, even if not staged, to be the result of a total collapse of Germany and the accompanying famine that occurred during the last months of the war. He addresses the “horror scenes” encountered by Allied forces upon liberating camps in 1945, particularly those in western Germany like Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and Buchenwald. Butz contends these images of emaciated bodies, mass graves, and typhus-ravaged inmates reflect wartime conditions—overcrowding, supply breakdowns, disease epidemics (especially typhus), and starvation due to Allied bombing of transport lines—rather than any planned killing program. He asserts that these western camps were not “extermination” sites and that deaths there resulted from natural causes amplified by war chaos, not gassings or systematic murder. He counters that they were not normative of the camps but the product of the bitter end of the war.

Butz then focuses on the eastern camps (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, etc.), labeled by historians as primary extermination centers. He claims the “extermination camp” designation is a postwar invention, and that these facilities were primarily labor or transit camps. He questions the technical feasibility and documentary support for homicidal gas chambers, suggesting that structures identified as such were delousing facilities using Zyklon B for typhus control—a common wartime practice in camps to combat epidemics.

He critiques early atrocity propaganda, including wartime rumors of soap made from human fat or lampshades from skin, which he says were later quietly dropped but helped build the myth. Butz argues that the “six million” figure and gas chamber stories originated in unreliable sources like Soviet commissions and Jewish organizations, then solidified at Nuremberg without rigorous verification.

A key argument is the lack of explicit German orders or records for mass extermination. Butz writes: “There is no ‘Hitler order’ for the extermination of the Jews, and […] there is no evidence that such an order was ever given or that such a policy ever existed.” He extends this to claim that captured German documents, Red Cross reports, and even some Allied intelligence that do not corroborate a genocide program on the alleged scale. This is something that the mainstream advocates all but reluctantly concede — although they attribute it to the secrecy of the program.

Butz emphasizes logistical improbabilities: the scale of alleged killings would require massive fuel, crematoria capacity, and disposal infrastructure that he claims German records show did not exist or were inconsistent with extermination claims. He states: “The ‘gas chambers’ were wartime propaganda hoaxes” and that the camps’ primary function was exploitation of labor amid wartime shortages, not annihilation.

He sets up deeper analysis in later sections by promising scrutiny of specific camps (especially Auschwitz in subsequent chapters), documents, and population statistics. Butz frames the entire “extermination” story as collapsing under technical and evidential examination, insisting that a dispassionate review reveals mass deaths from disease and war conditions, not deliberate policy.

Butz shifts focus from the camps and trials to the wartime dissemination of “extermination” claims in Allied countries, particularly the United States. He argues that reports of systematic murder of Jews emerged not from solid intelligence or German documents but from propaganda channels in Washington and New York, driven by Jewish organizations, Zionist interests, and wartime information control. These early claims, he contends, laid the groundwork for the postwar “legend” despite lacking credible substantiation at the time.

He examines the 1942 “rubber crisis” and U.S. intelligence priorities, suggesting that if mass extermination were occurring, American agencies (OSS, State Department, military intelligence) would have prioritized it—but they did not. Butz claims Auschwitz and other camps were known to Allies mainly as labor or industrial sites, not killing centers, and that early interest stemmed from strategic concerns like synthetic rubber production rather than atrocities.

Butz traces the first major “extermination” announcements to late 1942, originating from Jewish sources in New York and relayed through London and Washington. He portrays these as unsubstantiated rumors amplified by press releases from groups like the World Jewish Congress. He writes: “the first claims of a German program to exterminate all Jews appeared in the West in late 1942, originating in New York and Washington circles closely connected with Jewish organizations.”

He discusses specific reports, such as the 1942 Riegner Telegram (sent by Gerhart Riegner of the World Jewish Congress to the U.S. State Department and others), which alleged a plan to murder millions via gas. Butz dismisses it as hearsay without corroboration, arguing it fit a pattern of wartime atrocity propaganda like World War I fabrications. He asserts that U.S. officials treated such claims skeptically initially, with some viewing them as Zionist pressure tactics.

A significant portion covers the War Refugee Board (WRB) Report of 1944 (also known as the Vrba-Wetzler Report), which Butz calls “the birth of the Auschwitz legend.” He claims this document—detailing alleged gassings at Auschwitz—was produced under U.S. auspices but relied on escapee testimonies (notably Rudolf Vrba) that he deems inconsistent or fabricated. Butz has a section titled “The War Refugee Board Report: Birth of the Auschwitz Legend” and critiques it heavily, arguing “the WRB report is the first great ‘document’ of the legend of Jewish extermination, and that it is worthless as historical evidence.” Butz also addresses German reactions, noting that Nazi propaganda (e.g., via Goebbels’ ministry) denied extermination rumors and accused Allies/Jews of invention for political gain. He suggests these denials were logical if no such policy existed.

Throughout, Butz frames the chapter as evidence that “extermination” stories were manufactured in Allied propaganda hubs (Washington bureaucracies and New York Jewish/Zionist networks) rather than emerging from verifiable facts on the ground. He promises later chapters will dissect Auschwitz specifics, but here he establishes that wartime claims were politically motivated, inconsistent, and uncorroborated by contemporaneous Allied intelligence.

Butz moves onto a detailed, technical dissection of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which he identifies as the centerpiece of the “extermination legend.” He argues that the camp complex was primarily an industrial and labor facility tied to synthetic fuel and rubber production (via IG Farben and other wartime industries), not a dedicated site for mass murder. He claims the gas chamber and crematoria stories are postwar fabrications, built on contradictory testimonies, misinterpretations of documents, and impossible logistics, rather than contemporaneous German evidence. He opens his analysis here with “Structure of the Legend,” where Butz outlines the standard narrative: Auschwitz as the largest extermination camp, where millions (primarily Jews) were gassed upon arrival, with bodies cremated in special facilities. He dismisses this as internally inconsistent and unsupported.

He questions the absence of photographic or aerial evidence: “Where are the pictures?” Butz argues that if mass gassings and cremations were occurring on an industrial scale in 1944, Allied reconnaissance photos (which exist and show camp expansions) should reveal smoking chimneys, mass pits, or other signs—but he claims they do not. He states: “Where are the pictures?” and insists that the lack of visual proof from 1944 Allied overflights is damning.

Butz heavily critiques the “confession” of Rudolf Höss (the Auschwitz commandant who testified at Nuremberg and in his memoirs). He calls it unreliable, coerced, and riddled with errors, such as impossible figures for gassings and cremations. He asserts that “the Höss affidavit is no more reliable than, say, a coerced confession in a Soviet show trial.” He highlights early contradictions in the legend, questioning when the alleged gassings began and why initial reports varied. In “When Did It Start?” and “The Alleged Gassings and Zyklon,” Butz argues Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide pellets) was used exclusively for delousing clothing and barracks to combat typhus epidemics—not for homicidal purposes. He claims the amounts delivered align with sanitary needs, not mass killings, and that homicidal use would require impractical ventilation and safety measures absent in the structures.

Butz examines lines of authority and camp organization, suggesting decisions were decentralized and focused on labor exploitation amid wartime shortages. He notes the presence of hospitals, medical care, and even a “family camp” for some Jews (e.g., Theresienstadt arrivals), asking rhetorically: “A Hospital for the People Being Exterminated?” He argues this contradicts claims of immediate extermination for all arrivals.

Regarding documents proffered as evidence, Butz discusses terms like “special treatment” (“Sonderbehandlung”), claiming they referred to labor assignments or executions of criminals/resistance members—not systematic gassing of Jews. He insists such euphemisms are misinterpreted by legend-builders to fit extermination claims. He addresses transports to Auschwitz, arguing many were for forced labor (especially after 1942), and questions the scale of alleged killings given crematoria capacities, fuel requirements, and disposal logistics. Butz contends aerial photos, Red Cross visits, and German records show no evidence of mass gassings, with deaths attributable to disease, overwork, and war conditions.

The analysis presented here reinforces Butz’s broader thesis by promising further breakdowns (e.g., of Hungarian deportations in the next chapter) while framing Auschwitz as the “keystone” of the hoax: if it collapses under scrutiny, the entire narrative fails. He portrays the story as a propaganda construct amplified postwar, not grounded in verifiable wartime facts.

Butz then focuses on the 1944 deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz as a “test case” for the entire “extermination legend.” He argues that this episode—often cited as one of the clearest examples of mass gassing due to its scale (approximately 437,000 Jews deported in a short period) and timing (amid Allied awareness)—undermines the Holocaust narrative when examined closely. He claims the deportations were for labor exploitation in Germany amid wartime shortages, not systematic murder, and that postwar claims of gassings rely on propaganda, inconsistent testimonies, and fabricated or misinterpreted documents rather than solid evidence.

The chapter here opens with “The International Red Cross,” where Butz discusses Red Cross visits and reports from 1944. He asserts that the IRC had access to camps and reported no evidence of extermination programs, even during the Hungarian action. He writes: “The International Red Cross visited Auschwitz in September 1944 and reported nothing about gas chambers or exterminations,” suggesting this neutral inspection contradicts the legend of ongoing mass killings.

Butz then turns to “1944 Propaganda,” examining wartime Allied and Jewish-organization reports alleging extermination. He claims these were exaggerated or invented for political effect, similar to earlier atrocity stories. He critiques sources like the War Refugee Board and escapee accounts (e.g., Vrba-Wetzler), arguing they overreached with details that do not hold up. In “Air raids on Auschwitz: Rudolf Vrba overreaches himself,” Butz points to Vrba’s claim of witnessing or knowing about gassings during a period when Allied bombing raids (which he says Vrba referenced inaccurately) supposedly provided cover or evidence—Butz dismisses this as self-contradictory.

On “Documentary evidence?,” Butz examines German records of the Hungarian transports, claiming figures and terms (e.g., “resettlement” or labor assignments) align with forced relocation for work, not annihilation. He dismisses Höfle Telegram or other decoded messages as misinterpreted or irrelevant to extermination claims. He argues the rapid deportations were logistically feasible for labor but improbable for immediate gassing of most arrivals without massive, undocumented infrastructure.Butz concludes by framing the Hungarian case as a propaganda high point: the story was amplified in 1944 to pressure neutrals, justify Allied actions, and support Zionist goals, but crumbles under scrutiny of contemporaneous sources like Red Cross reports, air photos, and German documents.

Butz’s final two chapters clean up loose ends and address miscellaneous aspects of the Holocaust narrative that do not fit neatly into prior chapters on trials, camps, propaganda origins, Auschwitz specifics, or Hungarian deportations. Titled “Et Cetera,” it serves as a wrap-up before the book’s conclusions, where Butz tackles additional “extermination” camps, demographic inconsistencies, emigration patterns, population statistics, and what he sees as absurd or unproven elements of the standard narrative. Butz briefly extends his skepticism to lesser-discussed sites like Majdanek, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. He argues these were primarily transit, labor, or POW facilities, with alleged gassings based on unreliable testimonies and lacking documentary or logistical support. He dismisses claims of mass murder there as extensions of the Auschwitz “hoax,” often reliant on postwar Soviet propaganda or inconsistent survivor accounts.

Butz then delves into population and emigration issues in sections critiquing Jewish demographic data. He questions the “six million” figure by examining prewar and postwar world Jewish population estimates from sources like the World Almanac, American Jewish Year Book, and Zionist reports. He claims these show no dramatic drop consistent with genocide, attributing any discrepancies to emigration (especially to Palestine/Israel, the U.S., and elsewhere), assimilation, or wartime chaos rather than extermination. He writes: “there is at present no other single volume that so provides a serious reader with […] five or six million drop in world Jewish population, the sources and authorities for the figures used are Communist and Jewish and thus, by the nature of the problem we are examining, must be considered essentially useless.”

He addresses alleged mass graves and Einsatzgruppen shootings in the East, conceding that some Jews were executed (e.g., as partisans or in reprisals) but arguing the scale is vastly exaggerated. Butz suggests Einsatzgruppen reports (e.g., the Jäger Report or Ereignismeldungen) refer to anti-partisan actions, not systematic genocide of Jews per se. He states: “we need not be told much more to surmise that the Einsatzgruppen must have shot many Jews, although we do not know whether ‘many’ means 5,000, 25,000 or 100,000.”

Butz also touches on miscellaneous “absurdities” in the legend, such as claims of soap from human fat, shrunken heads, or lampshades from skin—stories he says originated in propaganda but were later quietly abandoned by historians, undermining credibility. He reinforces his methodological point: the narrative relies on biased, postwar sources (Communist, Jewish, or Allied) rather than contemporaneous German records showing no extermination policy.

Butz’s penultimate chapter offers a reinterpretation of the Nazi term “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” (“Endlösung der Judenfrage”), arguing that it never referred to extermination or genocide but rather to a policy of expulsion, resettlement, and forced emigration from German-controlled Europe—primarily to the East (occupied Soviet territories) or other destinations. He claims the standard historical view—that it meant systematic mass murder—is a postwar misreading imposed by Allied propaganda, Zionist interests, and flawed interpretations of documents like the Wannsee Conference protocol.

It opens with “The German Policy and the Wannsee Conference,” where Butz analyzes the January 1942 Wannsee meeting (convened by Reinhard Heydrich) as the alleged starting point for extermination planning. He asserts the protocol’s language about “evacuation” (“Evakuierung”) and “labor in the East” was literal, not euphemistic for killing, and that no explicit mention of murder appears. In “The German Policy and the Wannsee Conference,” he contends that “the ‘Final Solution’ meant the expulsion of the Jews from Europe, ultimately to the East after the conquest of Russia.”

Butz examines deportation numbers and destinations in “Numbers Deported: Whence and Whither,” claiming transports (including to Auschwitz) were for labor exploitation in war industries or resettlement, not immediate annihilation. He argues many Jews survived the war in camps, ghettos, or through emigration, and questions why, if extermination was the goal, records show ongoing labor assignments and camp maintenance. In “Numbers Deported: Whence and Whither,” he insists that the figures do not support claims of millions gassed upon arrival.

In “The Polish Ghettos” and “What Happened to Them?,” Butz discusses Warsaw, Lodz, and other ghettos, portraying them as temporary holding areas for eventual eastward relocation rather than preludes to death. He suggests liquidations were due to disease, starvation from wartime shortages, or anti-partisan measures, not policy-driven genocide. He reinforces this by noting some ghetto inhabitants were later deported for labor or survived.

Butz revisits “Zionism Again,” linking the “Final Solution” narrative to postwar Zionist efforts to justify Israel’s creation and secure reparations. He claims exaggerated death figures thus served political ends. In “Migration to the USA,” he highlights Jewish emigration patterns (pre- and during the war) to argue that population losses were due to relocation, not murder. The final chapter includes a “Recapitulation” and brief mention of figures like J. G. Burg (a Jewish revisionist), before concluding that the “Final Solution” was a resettlement program disrupted by the war’s outcome. Butz quotes Himmler favorably in the wrap-up, “Himmler Nailed it Perfectly,” citing a supposed statement where Himmler allegedly described the policy as expulsion without extermination intent.

Butz concludes the book with a series of miscellaneous observations, responses to anticipated objections, and reflections on the broader implications of his thesis. Titled “Remarks,” this short final chapter ties together loose ends by addressing emotional or practical counterarguments (e.g., personal loss claims, German acceptance of the narrative), critiquing postwar West German politics, and reaffirming that the “extermination legend” rests on propaganda, coerced evidence, and misinterpretation rather than solid documentation. He frames the chapter as a defense against common challenges while urging readers to verify sources independently. The final chapter opens with “Miscellaneous Objections,” where Butz tackles criticisms of his methodology and sources. He defends his use of exterminationist authors like Reitlinger and Hilberg (despite calling their works “monumental foolishness”) as necessary to dismantle the claims directly. He also responds to emotional appeals, such as Jews claiming lost relatives, by suggesting these reflect wartime separations, communication breakdowns, or postwar family disruptions rather than proof of genocide.

He writes: “We close this work with a few miscellaneous remarks, most of which deal with some objections that may arise in certain situations.” On a critic comparing his work to flying saucer stories: “Years of propaganda have so associated Nazi Germany with the six million legend that denial of the legend seems at first almost as preposterous for many people as denying that World War II happened at all.”

A key passage addresses personal testimonies: “Assuming that his story is valid, there is only one sense in which it can be valid. That is, all he can claim is that he or his family lost contact with some relative in Europe during the war and never heard from that person again. Obviously, such data does not imply the existence of a Nazi extermination program.” Butz critiques collections like Yad Vashem’s testimony sheets: “The data have supposedly been collected on one-page testimony sheets filled in by relatives or witnesses or friends. […] There is no possible way to distinguish, in this data, between Jews who actually died during the war and Jews with whom the signers of the testimony sheets have merely lost contact.”

In “Postwar Germany and Willy Brandt,” Butz examines why many Germans appear to accept the narrative. He portrays the West German government as a U.S.-imposed puppet regime that perpetuates the “lie” through trials, education, and suppression to maintain legitimacy. He details Chancellor Willy Brandt’s (real name Herbert Frahm) background as a wartime propagandist transmitting atrocity stories from Sweden, and links Brandt’s associates like Hans Hirschfeld to espionage controversies.

Butz repeats his core argument: the “Final Solution” was resettlement/evacuation, not murder, and postwar trials (e.g., Dachau) involved coercion, hearsay, and procedural flaws. He touches on other topics like the Talmud (as a source of biased weighting), author credentials, trial abuses, and implications for historiography, insisting the hoax persists due to political interests rather than evidence.

The chapter serves as Butz’s parting defense and call for scrutiny: he portrays the entire work as a scientific debunking, predicts the legend’s eventual collapse, and warns against over-focusing on minor details at the expense of the obvious {such as, no extermination policy in documents). In essence, he wraps up the book by preempting objections, exposing postwar political motivations, and reiterating that a dispassionate review of sources reveals the “extermination” story as a sustained propaganda campaign.

Go to Part 2.

In the UK, there is a group called the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. It is a Transatlantic NGO based in London and Washington, DC, run by an Afghani-British Labour activist called Imran Ahmed. In December 2025, President Donald Trump banned this man from the United States due to being a “key collaborator with the Biden administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” and because he was involved in a campaign to coerce American social media platforms to punish Americans for expressing certain conservative points of view.

In particular, Trump’s administration objected to the way in which Ahmed, and others, campaigned to force American platforms to restrict freedom of expression within the UK and the European Union. If you’re not already familiar, keep the name in mind, as the Centre for Countering Digital Hate is right up there with Hope Not Hate, Stonewall, Mermaids, and their American counterparts, such as the SPLC in terms of suppressing free speech and attacking those who question Woke dogmas.

Now if you’re an ordinary right-wing type you’re probably thinking, “Oh let me guess, it’s funded by the Jews, right?”  No. Well . . .  yes, but they’re not actually the main social group that funds them. If you look into the first three charities that do so then it is only the “Pears” family (originally Schleicher) that are Jewish. The other two funders, Cadbury and Rowntree, are two of the big three British Quaker families who pioneered the confectionary industry through the Industrial Revolution; the other family being the Frys, also minor confectioners but more associated with prison reform.

There is also the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Paul Hamlyn (1926–2001), a notorious champagne socialist of his day, had a Jewish father while his mother was a Quaker. Paul was raised in possibly the oldest “pedigree woke” schools in the United Kingdom: St Christopher School, Letchworth Garden City. In a similar story to the Steiner schools, St Christopher was founded for the theosophical movement, a popular “spiritual-Woke” craze of its day that stressed universal brotherhood and attacked traditional power structures and even the notion of scientific truth, it was soon after adopted and run by a Quaker family. If we count the Paul Hamlyn Foundation as half and half, then that’s 1.5 Jews to 2.5 Quakers among those who are funding the Center for Countering Digital Hate. What if this is proportionally generally true of all far-left enterprises? What if it is true across the last three centuries of history? What if it has been more the Quakers than the Jews who’ve been pushing and funding left wing social reform since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and even earlier?

We groan in disbelief as the dissident right to ignore the Quaker Question—an exception is Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition which has a chapter on the critical role the Quakers played in abolishing slavery in the UK (but not in America where Puritan-descended people took the lead). The power of this super-virtue-signalling, pacifist sect that believes that members are imbued with the “inner light,” such that God is somehow “in them” and guides their righteous consciences. How many times has one of your permanently online friends named-dropped one of the eminent early twentieth-century Jewish banking families: the Rothschilds, the Warburgs or the Schiffs? How many times have they brought up George Soros, Jonathan Greenblatt (of the ADL), Larry Fink (of BlackRock fame) or even Michael Bloomberg?     Compare this with how many times your friend has mentioned equally eminent Quaker banking families: the Barclays, the Lloyds or the Gurneys? Excluded from the professions, the Quakers, like the Jews, went into finance. Has he ever mentioned William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, whose pacifist policies eventually led to the state nearly being overrun by the French and their Native American allies? Or what about Elizabeth Fry née Gurney, who pioneered making UK prisons as easy as possible?

Your friend probably doesn’t even know who the Pease family or the Rowntree family are, unless he’s partial to fruit pastilles, and that’s a terrible shame, because all of these families form part of a powerful sub-ethnic group within the Anglo-European population. Quakerism has for a long time emphasised marriage within their community. Given enough time and evolution, Quakerism might have formed its own Jewish-like ethnic identity. George Fox, its seventeenth century founder, encouraged Quakers to inter-marry and “marrying out” would lead to disownment if the spouse did not convert. English Quakers abolished this requirement in 1860.

You can draw connections between the famous members of old Jewish families and social progressive reform through the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first centuries, but it requires more work and what you will find isn’t really that exciting. Compare that with what the Quakers got up to: proto-Woke social justice spills off the page, but, of course, it is manipulatively dressed up as “caring” and “equality” such that there can be no rational debate: African American rights, Native American rights, women’s rights including suffrage, trade unionist rights, liberal prison and sentencing reform and religious pluralism. You will struggle to find a single eminent Quaker at any point in history who didn’t have a hand in at least one of these things, because proto-Woke liberal social justice has always been an essential part of the Quaker sect.

There are movements started by Quakers that aren’t even about social justice, yet you would intuitively associate them with puritanical virtue signalling. An extremely proto-Woke sect of the Quakers in the late nineteenth century – the Shakers – came up with the idea that all sex, even in marriage, was evil. Another sect was led by a non-binary natal woman who called herself “Universal Friend” and became furious if her original name was employed. The Quakers are known for their historical advocacy of teetotalism, as we explored earlier, and the temperance movement that ultimately inspired the prohibition on alcohol in the United States.

The Quakers have also been long known for their Pacifism, even against their ideological opposites during World War II. So, if Quakers had approached a majority of the population in Britain and America by the mid-twentieth century, then German, Italian and Japanese Fascists and National Socialists would ironically have easily won the War and wiped out Quakerism. Quakers are even known to be some of the earliest advocates of vegetarianism in the modern era, and played a major role in founding the Vegetarian Society of England in 1847 and their own exclusive Friends Vegetarian Society in 1902. Unsurprisingly, in that vegetarianism is a form a virtue-signalling and of reassuring yourself of your own virtue, practicing it is predicted by the kind of mental instability that would be associated with being left-wing.

When it comes to social justice, the Jewish influence has until perhaps recent decades for the most part stayed confined to fighting post-World War II anti-Semitism. The only areas where the Jews have an edge over their Quaker counterparts in the UK are in the far-left’s bloodiest invention, Marxist thought, where they have definitely been historically overrepresented, if not quite to the degree that has always been claimed. Presumably these political areas involve too much testosterone, conflict and general chaos for the timid and submissive Quaker sensibilities, and so they have allowed that void to be filled by other out-groups.

It’s often taken for granted today, because of the present political climate of polarisation, that Revolutionary Marxism, sexual libertinism, and Woke social justice are all part of the same far left tapestry, but actually historically speaking, especially before the 1960s, these were much more politically disparate. Though some have argued convincingly that it was postmodern philosophers of the Frankfurt School that united these things together, the simpler explanation is that since Fascism has historically opposed them all, in being anti-Fascist one necessarily takes on all causes supposed Fascists dislike.

Quakers are a dying breed today. Historically their numbers and influence in Europe and America, especially in the Anglo World, has been substantial, but now their size is insignificant; only about 75,000 people in the United States self-identify as Quaker. We suspect that Quakerism’s passive, soft and strange religious overtones are too out of touch with the far-left’s burning anger and Neuroticism to be popular with young Woke moralists today. As is inevitable with most liberal left-wing religious sects, their own teachings have brought about their demise, by mass apostasy and demographic collapse. In 1980, there were over 17,000 registered Quakers in the UK, by 2020 there were roughly 12,000. You see the same pattern across all the liberal mainstream Protestant groups, which are arguably just watered down versions of Quakerism today anyway. But although the religion is dying, the elite family networks, the money and the organisations still linger on and shall continue to do so for a while yet, as is evident in the funding structure of Centre for Countering Digital Hate outlined earlier.

As Canadian political scientist Eric Kaufmann has shown in Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, a similar fate befalls the Jewish elite in the West, as they’re demographically in decline, being replaced by a new stock of competing Chinese, Indian and Arab elites, with their own hegemonic interests, and religion plays a relatively moderate role for the dominance and cohesiveness of those groups, especially the Chinese. The Jewish people will nevertheless remain firmly entrenched, even expansive, in Israel for the foreseeable future however, and Israel most definitely does exercise political influence beyond its borders. When controlling for intelligence, religious conservatism predicts fertility.

Jewish people for whom their Jewish identity is salient have been and will continue to be a politically active presence in Western Europe for some time, although in remarkably different ways that depend largely on whether they are secular universalist liberal Jews or religious or Zionist Jews. However, in the UK, only the highly insular Haredi and Orthodox Jews have above replacement fertility. The other Jewish groups are marrying out and simply dying out due to below replacement fertility. There is evidence that the IQ of Orthodox Jews is lower than that of Whites which predicts the Haredi’s high fertility but also their limited socioeconomic success.

Nevertheless the Jewish peoples’ superiority over the Quakers is very clear. The Jewish contribution to science and invention alone is beyond impressive: Fritz Haber, Albert Einstein, Oppenheimer, to name a few, let alone their contributions to art, literature, film and culture.

What have the Quakers ever done for us? Chocolate snacks . . .  that’s about it, and even these were only developed because coco was seen as a virtuous alternative to alcohol. That’s about it. And what have they ever done to us? It was the Quakers who started the modern hegemonic far-left, they laid the foundations for everything, and even now their legacy continues to dominate the insanity of modern Woke politics. Your permanently online is obsessed with the Jewish Question, and that’s exactly how the Quakers want it to be.

The above is an edited version of part of The Quaker Question: Exposing the Sect that Really Rules the World by Edward Dutton and J.O.A. Rayner-Hilles. Hard copies are available from the publisher at https://wylfings.com/ The e-version is available on Amazon.