Interview with a Holocaust Denier

Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of Hoover Hog interviews.




In Lucifer's Lexicon, L.A. Rollins defines a "Holocaust revisionist"as "one who denies that he is a denier."  I'm sure "Mike Smith" — aka "Denier," aka "Bud" — would concur. As the elusive videographer behind the most provocative  underground documentaries to emerge on the web in recent years, Denier (as we'll agree  to call him), has little patience for cloudy euphemisms. He just calls it as he sees it. And in his taboo-flouting web trilogy — consisting of  OneThird of the Holocaust, Nazi Shrunken Heads, and most recently, Buchenwald: A Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil — he calls it a lie.

As Denier's unexpected John Malkovich monotone narrates over volumes of intriguing exhibits in steadily focused fact-stacking explication of his heretical thesis, intrepid viewers may find themselves clamoring for a careful refutation. Surely The Skeptics Society or the gang at Popular Mechanics can be relied on to provide a point-by-point reality check, as our entrusted skeptics did when the 9-11 Truth Squad went viral with their pyrotechnic fantasies — no?

Well, no. At least not to date. Oh, you'll find some snarkily pitched counter-arguments percolating amid the obligatory ad hominem attacks over at Holocaust Controversies, but the guardians of historical orthodoxy have been largely content to ignore Denier and his quirky little home movies. The fact that most of his videos have been banned from YouTube and Google Video just makes it easier. The fact that his ads — ads soliciting rebuttals — were turned down by the UC Berkeley student newspaper. Just makes it easier. Free speech is easy when it's chained to the margins. That's the American way. 

But you already know the drill. When someone voices doubt about what all good people recognize as the greatest moral catastrophe of the past century, the refrains of suspicion are tightly scripted. Denier is to be cast as an anti-Semite who probably harbors some perverse nostalgia for Hitler's sadly misunderstood regime. Never mind that he regards Der Führer as a stunted power-mad militaristic thug, and says as much, repeatedly, in his movies. Never mind all those anti-war palliatives layered throughout his project — the calls for "good vibes" and good will and harmony among people everywhere. You can shuck off the pacifist shtick as a long-rehearsed denialist ruse. Because you know better. Don't you?

And if you get stuck on the curious fact that the Bad Man is also an avowed atheist who equally denies the historical existence of Jesus Christ, well, just take a deep breath. Tell yourself such kinks in the profile are but clever face-saving PR distractions. Like those embedded nods to Philip K. Dick and Chomsky. Like the AdBusters-branded riffs on corporate capitalism. You see how it adds up to insidious hipster-baiting mind poison? You see through all of it. Don't you, and very good. The man is seduced by Kevin MacDonald, after all. And we are assured that Kevin MacDonald is wrong about all of it. Dangerously wrong. Because Steven Pinker said so.

"Discredited," as they say. Just keep saying it. You can save yourself a lot of time and trouble that way. Soon, you'll be safely back on track.

But for the time being, if you're feeling adventurous, why not take a peek at what the YouTube brass doesn't want you to see? Why not lend a cautious ear to a man who has come to deny what you have always believed with such peculiar certainty? There's really no danger that you'll learn anything new, is there? If nothing else, it should make for easy sport. Perhaps you can set the record straight, just for fun. Michael Shermer may thank you. Should be good for a laugh, or a sigh. There's no good reason to trust anyone.




THE HOOVER HOG: People who express doubts about various aspects of the standard history
of the Holocaust usually refer to themselves as "revisionists" and
consider the term "Holocaust denier" to be a smear. But you have
embraced the "D" word, stating that you believe the Holocaust to be a
"giant myth." Why have you adopted this arguably confrontational
approach? And perhaps more importantly, what specifically do you mean
when you state that you "deny" the Holocaust?

DENIER: I like the term "denier." The term "revisionist" comes off as a bad
euphemism. It is deniers trying to express the sentiment that they
believe Jews suffered during WWII but just weren't systematically
exterminated. But to the public, it comes off as a bad euphemism. The
movie Mr. Death had multiple euphemistic levels, because Fred
Leuchter made execution equipment and euphemistically described what he
did, and he was also a revisionist!

For me, the term "denier" has parallels to gay people taking the word
"queer" for their own self-definition. Turning a derogatory term around
for their own power.

I'm sure some people will be amused (or confused) by the idea of applying identity politics to Holocaust denial. But just to clarify, your view is that systematic extermination is the
defining element of what has come to be known as the Holocaust?


Are you saying that without genocidal intent, the events that took place no longer
signify anything that might be considered historically unique, or
uniquely atrocious?

I don't mean that, but at the same time I'm drawing a blank on how to
clarify. The Nazis tried to kick the Jews out of Europe. They put them
in labor camps.

What do you make of the "functionalist" view, notably of Christopher
Browning who deemphasizes the role of gas chambers and argues that the
Holocaust was largely carried out by German police reserve units who
massacred deportees in the course of carrying out orders. Do such
claims fall under the scrutiny of Holocaust denial as well? And do you
think the emergence of a functionalist/intentionalist dialectic is
(perhaps covertly) influenced by the arguments of Holocaust deniers or revisionists?

Nothing comes to mind on this one.

In your video documentary, One Third of the Holocaust, you focus on
Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, collectively known as the Reinhard
death camps. And your latest documentary is devoted to Buchenwald. Why
did you choose to focus on these camps, rather than on Auschwitz, which
seems to be more synonymous with the Holocaust, at least in the public

I could have started on Auschwitz, but I saw a lot of focus already on
that camp. Plus I knew that if I chose Auschwitz, then people would
bring up Treblinka, and if I chose Treblinka, then people would bring
up Auschwitz. Which is what happened in the YouTube dialogs before my
videos were removed by YouTube staff.

Why were your videos removed from YouTube?

Because they remove holocaust denial content even though in their "Terms
of Service" and "Community Guidelines" they don't say they do.

At one point, episode 1 of "One Third" got removed, and I appealed, and
I won. So it got put back up, only to get removed 8 months later. I
appealed again and no one responded.

I put "One Third" up on Google video and it was removed also.

Jesus, I've seen uncensored GG Allin videos on YouTube. You must be a dangerous
man. Of course, it will be argued that YouTube and Google are private companies and can exercise
discretion over these things, even if we disagree about their
guidelines. But in other Western democracies, the situation for
Holocaust skeptics is more serious. Germar Rudolf is currently behind bars in
Germany, along with Ernst Zundel (who was previously imprisoned in
Canada for distributing pamphlets). Do you think such cases have been fairly reported by Western media? And do you foresee similar penalties ever
being imposed in the United States?

I don't think Germar Rudolf's imprisonment was even reported. He was
really trying to stay out of prison and the authorities in the USA
nabbed him and deported him to Germany. Just days later, David Irving
voluntarily goes to Austria and gets arrested, which I hate to say,
overshadowed any possibility of Rudolf's imprisonment becoming a media

I think it's outrageous these people are in prison, and
I frequently thought of Germar Rudolf while working on my videos.
Thinking to myself, "they're keeping Rudolf from doing any holocaust
denial art, but I'm free, and I'm making some."

When I was a kid, I remember being terrified by the TV miniseries,
Holocaust. Later, I read the usual assigned books by Elie Wiesel and
Anne Frank. I watched
Night and Fog. And I believed all of it, as I
suspect most people do. I didn't know there was such a thing as
Holocaust revisionism or Holocaust denial until I saw a TV Movie of
the Week on the subject (I think it starred Raquel Welch) in the late
80s. I remember thinking that there was something very odd about how
the subject was presented, and I became curious.

How did you come to doubt what everyone believes? Surely you weren't born a denier.

I saw that holocaust miniseries too. And it affected me.

I'm not exactly sure how I became a denier. Seeing a 1992 issue of TV
with the two words "Fake News" on the front cover and an article
on the "Babies Pulled off Life Support" hoax affected me. I never read
TV Guide, but there it was on the counter of the convenience store
mentioning how hoaxes are used to promote war. That affected me, and
yet I wouldn't become a denier until years later.

Seeing how the media in the Bay Area in the late 90's presented, in an
emotional way, a position to support the war against Yugoslavia affected me. I saw the propaganda element.

Seeing New York Times front page articles in the late 90's about Iraq
and that "no fly zone" and realizing that there was a force trying to
convince the masses to go to war and provoke the Iraqis, affected me.

Being in an academic setting and seeing some things reminiscent of what
Kevin MacDonald describes in Culture of Critique about his time as a
college grad student, effected me. Like MacDonald, I also saw a
discourse cultivating a supposed moral high ground and yet I was noticing
that there was something else really going on beneath that, that was
helping people advance.

These are defining aspects that come to mind, and yet I didn't become a denier till years after they happened.

But was there a particular book or article or event that caused you to question
received opinion regarding the Holocaust/genocide story? Or did it
simply follow from seeing these contemporary examples of war propaganda playing out?

9-11 sent me in the direction of holocaust denial. When 9-11 happened I
believed it was a response to unfair US foreign policy in the Mideast.
Particularly toward the Palestinians. And in those Bin Laden videos
released shortly after 9-11, Bin Laden said as much. Bin Laden
mentioned Jenin. So I thought "wow, the media is spinning this in a
totally different direction." The "they hate our freedom" direction.
All this put me on the path to holocaust denial.

Bradley Smith routinely refers to Nazi gas chambers as the original
WMDs. Did it surprise you that the US didn't fabricate evidence of
Iraqi WMDs in Iraq? Or is that sort of thing too hard to pull off in the
contemporary media environment?

It's a great question. If the holocaust is a fraud, then why couldn't
the US plant some WMD evidence in Iraq? I don't know the answer. But
maybe it's that Bush is not Eisenhower. And I mean that in a good way,
not in a bad way.

I suspect that your reference to Kevin MacDonald will be a show-stopper
for some readers. A major part of MacDonald's thesis in
The Culture of
is that ethno-genetic forces have influenced academic and
popular discourse in ways that tend to promote Jewish interests, often
to the detriment of other religious and ethnic group interests. This
point comes up a few times in your Buchenwald documentary and is humorously made in a segment of
Nazi Shrunken Heads. But
MacDonald's work has been harshly criticized by evolutionary
psychologists such as Steven Pinker (who we might as well note, is
Jewish) and by others who see his theory as an academically polished
and pseudoscientific expression of anti-Semitism. Do you think
MacDonald has gotten a bad rap?

I think MacDonald has gotten a bad rap. Culture of Critique is an amazing book. You read passages, and it's just so true.

Of course, all of this brings up the most common criticism of dissident
Holocaust history, which is that it is inherently anti-Semitic. How do
you respond to this charge? And should it matter?

Well. I advocate kindness toward all Jewish people. I'd be against
selective laws against Jews as much as the ACLU would be. Kevin
MacDonald talks about Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy, but probably
every group has evolutionary strategies. The Germans fought the Romans
for such a long period of time, long ago: 2,000 years ago, and maybe
that gives them some inherent militarism. The holocaust myth as Jewish
group evolutionary strategy might even be a response to German

At the same time, part of me wants to get away from the idea that Jews
use the holocaust to their advantage. The Auschwitz part of the
holocaust myth, for instance is so wrapped up in paranoia over
delousing, that there's a case to be made that the entire Auschwitz
death story came out of paranoia of delousing.

Can you explain what you mean by this — about "paranoia of delousing"?

The entire holocaust myth is one giant mix up with delousing. I mention
in my recent Buchenwald movie where there's a line that says "a
tiny bacteria inside the poop of a louse, is key to understanding the
world's biggest lie." Because the typhus bacteria is in lice poop, and
that's how it's transferred to people. Eventually it kills both the
louse and the human.

Back to Kevin MacDonald. I think it's possible to realize he's right
and not be anti-semitic. Think of Alex Haley writing Roots in the
1970's. He probably took writing breaks to have a barbecue with his
white neighbors. I just made that scenario up, but maybe it happened.
It's the kind of thing we're talking about. Research in a scholarly
community, and good vibes within that regardless of what conclusions
your research comes up with.

Well, I've seen Independence Day, and I don't think I'm paranoid to
discern a "Jewish savior" subtext in re-runs of
Taxi. But damn if I'm
not cautious about who I say this stuff around. I'm all for good vibes
and civil debate, but there seems to be a uniquely prohibitive aura
around this issue (Kevin MacDonald being a mere footnote). My wife is
"sorta Jewish" and when I have dinner with the Jewish half of her
family, I am VERY careful to avoid certain controversial topics, and
when such topics come up, I tend to nod politely, or abscond from the
discussion. I chalk it up to decorum, but the truth is my heart
races. It feels like fear.

So I'm curious. What has your experience been in explaining your
controversial views to friends, colleagues and family who may harbor the ingrained
prejudices about Holocaust denial. Is it all good vibes? Or does it get
ugly? Or is this something you pursue privately — in the basement, as
they say?

This is an interesting question, but I can't respond to it.

Beyond the subject you've chosen, I have a hard time pinning down your
documentaries. On the one hand, they're structured as straightforward
investigative pieces. All these close-ups of passages from books and
articles juxtaposed against public access newsreel footage. Charts and
graphs and methodical dot-connecting. Yet I find your approach oddly
captivating, and at times disarmingly funny. As a documentarian, you
seem to have developed a unique style and sensibility. Do you see
yourself as working within a tradition as a "filmmaker"? And more
generally, how do you approach your work from a creative standpoint?

The phrase "Form Follows Function" comes to mind. Is that Richardson? I don't think it's Frank Lloyd Wright. Anyway,
breaking the holocaust myth is so important, from an anti-war
perspective. That's an idea I put forth in my Buchenwald movie where I
show Ron Paul in an exchange with John McCain. And also where I show
Darth Vader in an exchange with Obi Wan Kenobi, LOL.

It could be this is what the form for this function looks like.

You mentioned Errol Morris's film, Mr. Death, about Fred Leuchter. Any thoughts on Morris's work?

Mr. Death
is about holocaust denial, and the only way that movie could
make it into every video store in the country is to have the proponent
(Leuchter) portrayed as a freak. In the 1500's, there was probably some
corollary with Atheism. Some book which discussed atheism, but where it was allowed
because it was a freak or a Bad Man who was an atheist.

That's an interesting point. Do you think that Mr. Death can be viewed
as an esoteric defense of Leuchter — and of Holocaust denial, even if
that wasn't Morris's intention? I read that when an early cut was
shown, audiences responded with sympathy toward the Bad Man, and that
the film was subsequently re-edited to include the critical segments
featuring Robert Jan van Pelt, which really do seem tacked on.

Yes, my video "One Third" mentions that. A preliminary screening of Mr.
at Harvard University had some students believing Leuchter's
theory, so he re-edited the movie.

I almost find it hard to believe some students sided with Leuchter,
because I know how hard it is to convince someone the holocaust is a
hoax. It's almost impossible.

If the evidence converges the way you say, then why do you think
intelligent people seldom reach the conclusion that seems obvious to
you? Why should it be "almost impossible" to convince someone? That
sounds more like the kind of impasse one finds in a religious dispute.

This sort of is a religious dispute. The holocaust replaced
Christianity as the definer of evil. The Good Samaritan becomes the
Righteous Gentile. It's nearly impossible to convince really smart
people that the holocaust is a myth. Yet these really smart people know
little about the holocaust. They usually don't know it supposedly
happened largely in the East.

Speaking of really smart people, some intelligent friends assure me that Holocaust denial has about
as much intellectual value as Intelligent Design theory or "9-11 Truth"
conspiracy mongering. Holocaust skepticism is also popularly associated
with those who argue that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. What's the difference?

The holocaust really is a hoax and the other things you mentioned
really are untrue conspiracy theories, including 9-11. I think 9-11
happened just like the media says it did. At the same time there are
conspiracies out there which no one talks about. Like Idi Amin as
mentioned in my "Nazi Shrunken Heads" video.

I guess the only documentary that might bear obvious comparison to your
work is the 1992 Auschwitz expose',
David Cole Interviews
Dr.Franciszek Piper
. Any thoughts on Cole's work, and on his
"recantation" under Irv Rubin's death threat?

I like the David Cole video. I think it's good. Cole was onto this way before me.

Cole's recantation to Irv Rubin is once again a Middle Ages comparison.
I mean, just the word "recantation." Middle Ages comparisons are always
coming up with holocaust denial.

The folks over at Holocaust Controversies have chided you repeatedly
for dodging tough questions, for failing to link to their blog, and for
ducking their challenges to debate. What say you? Do they present
arguments and evidence that threaten the credibility of your views? Are
you chicken?

Yes, I remember the "chicken challenge" when Holocaust Controversies
displayed a chicken on their main page along with a counter of the days
that I STILL hadn't linked to them.

I've never linked to anybody. I don't even link to CODOH.

I think people should watch my videos, and then read their rebuttals, and make their own decision.

I tried to solicit rebuttals to my chapters at UC Berkeley and Harvard
University, but they wouldn't let me place a newspaper ad asking for

I read all the Holocaust Controversies rebuttals. Occasionally I find
a good point. Often I find a "straw man argument." It's important to
know what a straw man argument is. It took me awhile to grasp the
concept. I'll give an example: Muehlenkamp wrote in his Stroop Report
rebuttal essay that I believe that the famous holocaust photo of the
Jewish boy with his hands up, is staged, and then he writes all the
reasons why that notion is absurd. I don't think the photo is staged
though. I think it's at Hotel Polski. The Stroop Report forger cobbled
photos from various places. Muehlenkamp presented my supposed position,
and then knocked it down (like a straw man.) I find a lot of that at Holocaust Controversies, and like my writing right here, it's tedious to
point it out. A rebuttal to a rebuttal tends to make confusing and
non-gripping writing.

In your Buchenwald documentary, you make frequent reference to the role
of Allied Psychological Warfare operations in postwar de-Nazification
efforts. I'm guessing that most people are not aware that such 
operations even existed. Can you briefly discuss the role of "Sykewar"
and why it is relevant to the revisionist/denialist critique?

Eisenhower had his very own Psyche Warfare unit, called PWD-SHAEF.
During WWII there were lots of different psyche warfare departments,
but this was the big one.

The OSS was the American equivalent to the KGB and the Gestapo, but it
answered to Roosevelt. Psyche Warfare, in contrast, answered directly
to Eisenhower. This is relevant because PWD-SHAEF, short circuited the
American government system, by hatching a psyche warfare operation at
Buchenwald, and then using it to fool members of congress and the
American people. It's a piece of the holocaust myth, and the reason
Eisenhower became president and, in the larger scheme of the myth, the
reason the country of Israel was created.

Who was CD Jackson?

He's the guy down the hall when Roman Polanski was filming Rosemary's
in the early 1960's, because the Dakota Apartments is where that
film was shot and it's where CD Jackson lived.

He's a guy who made the remarkable career advancement of running his
family's New York marble importing company, to suddenly becoming
assistant to Henry Luce, owner of Time/Life.

Beyond that, you'll have to watch the movie.

In Buchenwald: A Dumb-Dumb Portrayal of Evil, Eisenhower emerges as a
central villain — a figure who colluded with psychological warfare
operatives to control mass media reports of Allied atrocities and to
promote a deceptive account of Nazi war crimes in order to advance
self-aggrandizing political goals. Of course, this will seem preposterous and offensive to Americans
who grew up believing that Eisenhower was great war hero and President.
Why are they wrong?

Well, there should have been a little bit of a "heads up" regarding
Eisenhower, when Gary Powers' spy plane was shot down by the Soviet
Union and Eisenhower went on national TV and said we don't fly spy
planes over the Soviet Union, only to have the Soviets shortly after
produce Gary Powers.

Things weren't what they seemed in the 1950s, which is a central tenet of Philip K. Dick's book Time Out of Joint.

The American public was being manipulated by a media/government elite, and Eisenhower was central to it.

You've speculated that Senator Joe McCarthy may have been wise to
Eisenhower's propaganda campaign and that he was possibly "poised to
uncover the holocaust myth." This is a novel thesis, to say the least.
Is it a loose thread, or something you are pursuing?

I got that impression from reading The Chairman by Kai Bird,
even though Bird, not being a denier, wasn't putting that across. When
Bird mentioned that Ed Murrow brought McCarthy down, and I knew Ed Murrow
from a radio address from Buchenwald and his connection to Paley, I was
like "huh?!?" You read in Bird, how Murrow puts footage on national TV
of McCarthy picking his nose. Stuff like that. And in Bird's book you find where Lucius Clay, the first governor of
West Germany, asks Eisenhower if there's a way to get McCarthy to stop

It's also odd that so many key people die when they do. McCarthy dies
at 49, just years after the McCarthy hearings. Patton dies in a car
wreck just after the war. Roosevelt dies the very day Eisenhower's
psyche warfare unit begins it's holocaust myth push. Then there's
Kennedy. I don't believe they're all conspiracy secret assassinations.
But I wonder if maybe one of them is, though I don't know which one.

But doesn't that sort of speculation edge on conspiracy-mongering? Do you worry that your research may lead you to see connections where none exist? It's a natural human tendency, according to psychologists. Apophenia, I think.

You have to know when to stop. It's disappointing to me that so many revisionists are 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

I'm not sure if it began with Jean-Claude Pressac's work, but in recent
years a number of books have been published that purport to refute or
debunk Holocaust denial. I'm thinking of works by Lipstadt, Vidal
Naquet, van Pelt, Shermer & Grobman, and Zimmerman, although I'm
sure there are others. Do you keep up with the work of such critics,
and do you find any of them to have value?

I don't think in these works you'd find a lot on Treblinka, Sobibor,
Belzec, and Buchenwald because they are probably largely
on Auschwitz. I haven't read them nor have they come up in Google
searches on topics I've looked up.

I tried to solicit scholars to debunk my videos, but I wasn't allowed
to place newspaper ads. "One Third of the Holocaust" has been out for
years, and Lipstadt pretends it doesn't exist.

I was allowed to place an ad in the University of Minnesota student
paper asking for rebuttals to Nazi Shrunken Heads, but got no takers.

Why weren't you allowed to take out newspaper ads?

You can see the ads I tried to place on my website.

The UC Berkeley student newspaper originally took my $1,000 and
accepted the ad, then they went back on that. They started making up
all these new rules once I came along. Like that for over 150 dollars, a person
had to pay with a personal check and supply ID. No one else had to do
that! Then I got Bradley Smith involved and he said he'd pay with a
personal check. Then we bent over backwards to be obliging to their requests, like they wanted us to
change the ad to say say that anyone could write a rebuttal, not just
professors. So we added "open to everyone" to the ad. After no less
than 60 emails going back and forth, and them giving us the run around,
they finally completely balked and wouldn't place the ad. The money was
refunded. So much for the university that started the "Free Speech

OK. Let's assume you're right — at least in the broad strokes — about all
of it. The Holocaust is a massive whopper, and life goes on. What I
wonder is: is there a point at which the news breaks? Does the academic
consensus come around at some point, vindicating the work of these
outlaw historians who have been firebombed and pummeled and
incarcerated and intimidated and defamed and censored? Or is the taboo
against questioning the canonical Holocaust story too deeply entrenched
— like the Christian Gospels?

It could happen like the way Christianity broke: taking hundreds of years in a long convoluted path.

Or it could happen but with a head-spinning media spin. With some guy
we've never heard of, being the "head of the revisionists." In other
words, the media-created head of the revisionists who comes out of
nowhere. And it could be spun as some incredible disservice that's
happened to the Jews. And that spin would be partly correct.

I'll keep that second scenario on file. Just
out of curiosity, do you have an opinion about the historical existence
of Jesus? I know it's a matter of contention in some circles.

I'm atheist. I don't think Jesus even existed historically. There's
definitely a connection between atheism and holocaust denial.

One revisionist text that I find interesting is The Gas Chamber of
Sherlock Holmes
, by Samuel Crowell. Crowell uses intertextual literary
analysis to argue that the gas chamber stories arose out of a kind of
social panic over the use of poison gas — a panic that grew out of the
First World War and that finds expression in numerous contemporaneous
literary works and news reports. The argument is essentially that the
Holocaust narrative — or at least the core element of genocide via gas
chambers — may have found root in an atmosphere of mass delusion that
would later be exploited by Allied victors, then historicized by
credulous scholars and journalists. But where Crowell focuses mainly on
social psychology and the cultural reification of mass hysteria (his
monograph has been aptly compared to Elaine Showalter's
your work seems more concerned with Chomsky-brand media manipulation
and top-down machinations. Politically-driven collusion among
high-ranking power-brokers, like Ike and his psy-ops agents.

Is the difference between your and Crowell's approach one of
method and emphasis? Is his study of socio-cultural semiotics consonant
with the arguments you advance in your videos? Or do you think his
literary analysis fails to confront the more nefarious role of military
propaganda and psychological warfare?

I think that the theory I put forth and Crowell's theory are just two
"surfaces of truth" — a term I remember reading in Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida.

I really liked Crowell's book. It's a paranoia-based theory. And my
Buchenwald video has a paranoia aspect when I mention Philip K. Dick.

It's as you said: Eisenhower and his Psyche Warfare team capitalized on
paranoia. But when you know about people like CD Jackson, and their
connections to the Council of Foreign Relations, as described by Kai
Bird, then it's capitalism capitalizing.

Can you explain what you mean by the phrase: "capitalism capitalizing"? It sounds like something out of Baudrillard.

Well, in Kai Bird's book, The Chairman, he describes these New York
captains of banking, media, and industry as being members of the
Council on Foreign Relations. And what that organization did was try to
influence foreign policy to promote U.S business. C.D Jackson, John
McCloy, Henry Luce, William Paley I believe, were all in it. And they
capitalized on the paranoia, on the confusion with death from typhus,
to help put forth the holocaust myth. That's capitalism capitalizing. Paley of CBS, working in Psyche Warfare. Jackson at Life, working in in
Psyche Warfare, both CFR members. It's capitalism capitalizing.

To the general public, Holocaust denial is almost exclusively
associated, in political terms, with the far right. But your video
project is laced with references to the Palestinian cause. You allude
at various points to Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul and Phillip K. Dick, and
here you've just thrown out a nod to Barthes. At times you seem to
buttress your conclusions with critical and arguably sinister
interpretation of capitalism (the "invisible brain"; "capitalism
capitalizing"), and you conclude your Buchenwald series with a
humorously framed indictment of militarism and what I take to be a
sincere call for peace, love, and understanding. Can you describe your
political point of view? And do you think that Holocaust denial implies
or precludes any political worldview or ideology?

I think right now holocaust denial is like atheism at some point in the
Middle Ages. At that time an atheist position would have seemed like
the opposite of a moralist view, and maybe for some pirate types, it
really was.

Even feminism in the early 70's meant one thing and means another now.

Holocaust denial might go through some identity changes too. The idea of what it means to believe in something.

You've completed two feature length Holocaust denial movies and have
been blacklisted by YouTube. What's next? Any future projects to plug?

No, no future projects in store.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks for the questions. I really liked the exchange.


Comments are open.

Memento mori.

22 thoughts on “Interview with a Holocaust Denier

  1. I might have already mentioned this, but while reading Michael Burleigh’s Sacred Causes I recalled that were supposed to be about 6 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust and wondered whether anyone had expressed skepticism about that number. As DenierBud noted, Auschwitz receives most attention leaving other areas with unturned stones. Also, while not actually expressing skepticism, Mencius Moldbug dredges up a conservative British account of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians whose author seemed to feel they had it coming:
    I like the bit about the uncertainty of assassinations. It’s in line with an understanding of probability that most conspiracy theorists don’t have. Maybe McCarthy killed FDR? Either way I’ll drink to Joe’s memory.
    Too bad his videos get removed from Youtube and GoogleVideo. Both services work well enough for me, but when I try to access stuff from his site it generally freezes up partway through. I blame Ubuntu.
    I look forward to subsequent interviews, as well as the arrival of Myth and that box of books you’ve mentioned.

  2. TGGP,
    I’m sending the books with The Myth. Should be here any day. Honestly.
    Too bad about the videos. If the Ubunto gods change their tune, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

  3. Do you mean to say Myth has already arrived? I wasn’t sure whether to put the big announcement/ad/demand for readers to order a copy at my own blog.

  4. I just watched the Shrunken Heads video. I’ve got some niggling points. He claims (or very unsubtly insinuates) that the West was spreading lies about Idi Amin. However, his one media story explicitly refers to the freezer myth as “apocryphal” and appends “according to this story” before the mention of him lecturing his dead enemies on their mistakes.
    Perhaps I’ve read too much reductionist, Dawkins-style “ultra-darwinism” but I don’t think much of “group evolutionary strategies”. He points to Jewish overrepresentation (35% compared to 2%) in the media as an example of a group-directed strategy, but nobody expresses amazement that the illiterate are underrepresented. Ashkenazi Jews reportedly have IQs a full standard deviation above that of gentile whites (especially verbal IQ), and there are groups much larger than Jews whose average is well below that in the United States. It doesn’t require a group strategy to explain the overrepresentation of Jews. They are also very overrepresented at universities, but affirmative action policies penalize them in favor of other groups.

  5. to Chip Smith:
    The blacks have lower IQ than whites and are much more represented everywhere. don’t come up with the “jews have power because they’re superior” theory, please.

  6. Chad,
    First, I think your comment is directed to TGGP, not me. Regardless, I’d like to see data showing that “the blacks” are “more represented everywhere.” Notwithstanding higher education (where AA is a factor), and many professional sports (where other abilities are in play), my understanding is that, if anything, IQ scores slightly overpredict real world achievement for blacks. I wrote about this in the third part of my series on The Bell Curve, in my discussion of test bias:
    Anyway, I think MacDonald’s argument is more significantly about the flavor of Jewish influence than it is about numbers as such (and I don’t think the CoC thesis has been proven). There’s no question that Ashkenazi Jews, on average, have higher IQs than other groups.

    Is it possible that factual information is extant in Moscow, on the liberation of Auschwitz, in January 45 by the Red Army: such as the number of inmates freed, age and sex, their religion, their race and nationality, statements by survivors; importantly, the physical lay-out of the camps(plans, photographs,maps etc.)? And is there any subsequent post liberation documents that suggest that certain parts the original information, as being doctored in subtle ways, such as the construction of post 1944 buildings, to give an air of authenticity to the prevailing orthodoxy. Is their any evidence from British Bletchley Park: in the form of decrypted/interpreted messages, between the Camps and Berlin; on train movements, means of execution and numbers of deaths, and body disposal etc.? It just seems bizarre as it is baffling, to say the least; why the NAZIS would want to take any inmates on a westward trek, rather than murder everyone of the prisoners. After all, the Camp personnel had nothing more to lose.

  8. Denier,
    Did you ever invite rebuttals using ads placed in the UCSB Daily Nexus?
    The UCSB Daily Nexus recently defended its placement of flagrant anti-Muslim ads by David Horowitz as a “free speech” issue.
    You might have better success there or, at least, expose more hypocrisy.

  9. Regardimg Joe McCarthy: I’ve never come across anything to indicate he was going to expose “the Holocaust Myth” when he died. However, as Richard Rovere discussed in his anti-McCarthy book, before McCarthy discovered the Communist menace, he had shown some interest in the accusations that US interrogators in the Malmedy?dachau trials had tortured or tricked German defendants ino confessing.
    As for claim that the Nazis killed six million Gentiles too, I’ve heard that a couple of times lately, but I don’t know the origin of it or if anyone has actually tried to substantiate it. People used to sometimes parrot the late Simon Wiesenthal’s claim that the Nazis killed six million Jews and five million others. Someone who did express skepticism about the five millon Gentiles was Elie Wiesel in a “Penthouse” interview. As I recall it, Wiesel accused Wiesenthal of pulling the number out of thin air, which might be true, for all I know.

  10. Paul Maleski: There are some documents at the Auchwitz Museum, including some, such as the death record books (incomplete) that were returned from Russia several years ago. But according to the official Holocaust conpiracy theory, the camp death records do not include many Jews who, so the official story goes, were gassed shortly after arrival at Auschwitz.
    Supposedly, as part of their coverup, the Nazis didn’t register those Jews as prisoners, they were not assigned numbers or tattooed, and no records, including death records, were kept for them.
    I don’t know if there are any documents available to corroborate it, but several years ago, the Auschwitz Museum director, Franciszek Piper, admitted on camera to Jewish revisionist David Cole that the gas chamber in the crematorium of Auschwitz I (not to be confused with Birkenau) was “reconstructed” after the war.
    The Soviets did take statements from some Auschwitz survivors after the liberation, but some of the things some of those survivors said were consistent with the possibly exaggerated claims that the Soviets and Polish Communists made until the late 80s but are not consistent with the “revisionist” version of Auschwitz now given by the non-Communists running the Auschwitz Museum now. For example, some survivors claimed to know that 4 million people had died at Auschwitz, because they had worked in the registrar’s office or record office and had seen the records before they were destroyed. (Yes, the accusers of the Nazis have given different and contradictory stories about how the Nazis covered up their crimes at Auschwitz.) But now the Auschwitz Museum says 1.1-1.6 million people died at Auschwitz.
    A published source of many documents about the crematoria of Auschwitz and Birkenau, which allegedly contained the homicidal gas chambers, is Jean-Claude Pressac’s book, “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers” (if I remember correctly). It’s a huge book and may be very expensive to purchase, if you are able to purchase it.

  11. Pluralism in action: Give the propaganda platform to the goyim.
    I am no fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, (Saborjhian). Believe me! But after 70 years or so: Is it not about time, for a mature, non emotional, pan European TV debate, on the subject of the alleged jewish Holocaust in Europe? Otherwise, many decent minded people, could be driven to the inescapable conclusion, that the powers-that-be in the Western media, do not want to discuss the subject, at any cost, in the first place. If so: Just what has the liberal Western media got to hide!

  12. The deafening silence of the jew!
    Time is not on history’s side. It is imperative, that any surviving Soviet Political Commissars/ Red Army Soldiers etc. who liberated the Polish Death Camps; be interviewed under oath, as to what horrors they witnessed personally and what they may have been instructed, under duress post facto; to say to the powers-that-be. And if they were told to tell fantastical lies: Who ordered them to do so?

    Rational arguments are usually of limited effectiveness in overturning worldviews. Worldviews are produced by immersion in prevailing attitudes. That immersion consists of such things as movies, popular magazines, newspaper editorials, books, fiction, the scholarly orthodoxy of the time and the ideas of the man in the street which are the product of all these things. To overcome all these things through point-for-point refutation is an almost insuperable task. Replacing a worldview with a new one requires a defining event. The defining event of mid-twentieth century America was the Second World War. That defining event overturned traditional American attitudes on a great many subjects. The defining event of the twentieth century, if it occurs, shall be the exposure of the hoax of the Nazi “gas chambers”. When a blind man recovers his sight he is, quite literally, living in a new world. Things he could previously only imagine become real before his eyes. So shall it be if the truth about Nazi “gas chambers” ever comes out. The hoax of the “six million” is, in a very real sense, the “Mother of All Lies”. Expose this lie and the paternity of all that happens in the modern world comes into question. If the Jews have swindled the world with this story what other lies have they fostered upon the world? Is it a lie that Adolf Hitler was out to conquer the world? Is it a lie that the Jews had little or nothing to do with communism? Is it a lie that Israel is a “democracy” threatened by Arab tyrrany? Is it a lie that the United States is morally obligated to run about the world destroying incipient Hitlers?
    But those are only the most immediate questions and they relate only to the Second World War and its principal actors. Does the hoax of the “six million” mean that there actually is an international Jewish conspiracy at work? Do the infamous Protocols of Zion merit another look? Should the hidden history of Zionism and the cover up on the ethnic origins of Soviet communism be re-analyzed as part of a pattern of international intrigue of which the mythical “gas chambers” are the tip of the hidden iceberg? What does the cover up of the findings of revisionist researchers tell us of the corruption of the universities as outlined in the Protocols? How extensive is Jewish commercial and political power that anyone who dares to publicly discuss this hoax lives in fear of social ostracism and career destruction? For how many centuries has coordinated Jewish power been building behind the scenes that in mid-twentieth century it has been able to perpetrate a hoax of such dimensions? Was Adolf Hitler really a madman or was he a farsighted seer locked in deadly combat with a power far greater than even he imagined?
    It is not necessary to attempt the answers to these questions here. It is only necessary to raise the questions to show that if the Nazi “gas chamber” hoax becomes public knowledge then the world literally spins on its axis.

    Like Holocaust Denial, the Protocols of Zion are outside the parameters of polite society. It is easy to see why. If either is true, then there exists a centuries old conspiracy to enslave mankind. The Protocols are supposedly a forgery by the Czarist secret police; Holocaust Denial is supposedly a fringe movement of Hitler apologists and lunatics. What no one wishes to do is to submit either the Protocols or Holocaust Denial to rational examination. The moment that is done, the more obvious it becomes that both Holocaust Denial and the Protocols fit the facts. More than that, the truth of the one reinforces the truth of the other. That suggests a common ethnic origin behind the conspiracy.
    The Protocols of Zion are supposedly a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s nineteenth century book “Dialogues Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”. Undoubtedly there are point-by-point equivalences. But all that really begs the question. The Protocols did not describe the world as it existed when they first appeared in the early twentieth century (around 1905 to 1920). But they very much do describe the world as it has subsequently developed in the succeeding century. Why? The predictive validity is the point crying out for explanation. The Protocols became a rallying point for the British press in the aftermath of the First World War. They seemed to confirm the terrible reality of the Jewish-Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The activity of the world’s Jews at the Paris Peace Conference where Jewish delegations from the Old and New World’s congregated and demanded “minorities treaties” testified to the reality of co-coordinated Jewish international power in the real world. It was the British Empire itself which sponsored a Jewish “national home” in Palestine-allegedly as the result of a “contract with Jewry” to get the United States into World War One. The “Morning Post” and the “London Times” hammered on these themes constantly in the years 1919-1923. Today, anyone can see that Jews and Israel First organizations provide the majority of the political campaign financing of the two political parties. Anyone can see the extreme Jewish control of the media. The Cam West media monopoly of the Asper family in Canada, the Samuel Newhouse chain of newspapers in America, the purchase of both the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune by the Polish-Jewish real estate developer Samuel Zell, it all speaks for itself. Anyone can see that Israel First advisors surround both George Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama. The identity of the neo-cons who got the U.S. into the disastrous Iraq war is known; so is the identity of the Israeli Rahm Emmanuel who is Barack Obama’s wirepuller. Anyone can look at these self-evident facts and compare them with the Protocols. Do not the Protocols speak of Jews controlling the press, dictating both sides of every debate and serving as the advisors and controllers of the politicians? Cannot everyone see that this is precisely what is taking place in the real world? The Protocols speak of no-win wars to tear down national sovereignty and promote international organization. Has anyone forgotten the partition of Europe at the end of World War Two? (Rather like the partition of a small Arab country in Palestine at the end of the First World War?) Does anyone remember N.A.T.O., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or S.E.A.T.O., the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization? Did not Korea and Vietnam follow the pattern of no-win wars and never ending international conferences? The Protocols speak of international organizations under Jewish auspices. What were the original League of Nations and the successor United Nations if not precisely this? When the United Nations passed its famous “Zionism is a form of racism” resolution in the mid-1920’s, a certain power stepped in and forced the repeal of the resolution. Was it the same power which sponsored the minorities treaties and the mandate over Palestine in the 1920’s? The Protocols speak of creating emergencies to control the masses. Does this not accurately describe the staged 09/11 incident and the bogus “War on Terror”? Does it not describe the previous emergency of the Great Depression and the emergency measures of Franklin Roosevelt’s “Jew Deal”? The Protocols recommend a centralization of power in the chief executive and the suspension of constitutional procedures. Does this not sound like the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Acts? The Protocols particularly recommend treating the exposure of subversion as more reprehensible than the subversion itself. Does this not sound exactly like the technique that was used to destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy?
    If there were an international conspiracy such as the Protocols describe, that conspiracy would need a cover story, a holy lie behind which it could hide its power. That lie would make the imperial power morally unimpeachable and unchallengeable. It might constitute a historical myth making any objective examination of the ruling powers history or behavior beyond the parameters of socially acceptable discourse. The lie, were it questioned and exposed, might even need legal protection making it a crime to write or speak critically on the subject. The lie, were it exposed, might serve as a sort of Pandora’s Box to all the other lies hiding behind it. The lie might be so “ethnic specific” that its exposure would leave no doubt as to the identity of the international conspirators. Is there such a lie at work in the world today? Yes there is. It is the lie of the Nazi “gas chambers” and the supposedly murdered six million Jews. This lie has as much evidence against it as the Protocols have evidence in their favor. The Jews claim that the Nazi “gassing” program is the most thoroughly documented extermination of all time. But all the evidence rests on a kangaroo court at Nuremberg run by the Jews behind the scenes. No one knew anything about the supposed extermination at the time it was taking place, a fact which is more than suspicious. Key German records of the alleged killing camps were carted off to the Soviet Union and not presented to the kangaroo Nuremberg court. Those records tell a story entirely different than the story told at the trial. The records show that the Auschwitz camp where millions of Jews were supposedly “gassed” was a major industrial production center for the German war effort. The records show that the Jews and others interned in the camps were used as labor for the German war effort. The records further show that a total of 140,000 internees died in the Auschwitz camp over its operation, of whom 70,000 were Jews. The main cause of death was typhus and heart attacks caused by typhus. The records show no evidence of an extermination program whatever. In fact, the records show that the camp was shut down in the summer of 1942 because of a gigantic typhus epidemic. The crematory ovens were built in the spring and summer of 1943 to dispose sanitarily of the diseased bodies. The actual disposal rate of the crematory ovens was consistent with the deaths from disease, not with the millions of claimed deaths. The German secret police chief, Heinrich Himmler, issued an order that the death rate in the German labor camps be “reduced at all costs”, an order that is inconsistent with any extermination program. Adolf Hitler was recorded by a German Ministry of the Interior official as stating that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem delayed until “the end of the war”, a position which is utterly irreconcilable with any claim that he was simultaneously exterminating the Jews. The Germans had a special investigating branch of their judiciary under Judge Konrad Morgen to root out abuses of prisoners in the camps. Numerous camp commandants were tried and convicted for these abuses. In the famous Auschwitz camp, the Germans provided hospitals, libraries, theatres and brothels, among other amenities, for the Jews they were supposedly exterminating. The supposed “gas chambers” were nothing but morgues for storing bodies before they could be burned. Those morgues show none of the design characteristics of real gas chambers. They have no means of heating, distributing or ventilating gas. They are hardly airtight. Some of them are built underground, hardly a design advantage. The morgues are rather small and could never have held the claimed number of victims, all of whom would have died of suffocation without any need of “gassing”. The chambers of the morgues show no traces of Prussian Blue hydrogen cyanide residue. The delousing chambers where the Germans were disinfecting the clothing of the prisoners are covered with Zyklon B stain. And that was the real use of the Zyklon B, which was used profusely throughout the camps-to disinfect clothing and barracks to prevent epidemics. Several forensic reports of the so-called “gas chambers” have been performed. The first was by Fred Leuchter, an American designer of prison execution equipment. Subsequent investigations have been performed by the Viennese engineer, Walter Luftl, and the German chemist, Germar Rudolf. All the investigations have confirmed both the test results and the conclusions- there were no execution “gas chambers” at Auschwitz or any other German camp.
    Many other revisionist scholars have investigated the multiple absurdities of survivor testimonies and the endlessly conflicting accounts. Among these scholars are Professor Robert Faurrison, Carlo Mattogno, Gerd Honsik, Jurgen Graf, Enrique Aynat Eknes, Germar Rudolf and many others. The survivor testimonies always suffer from three defects:
    (1) They are internally inconsistent;
    (2) They are inconsistent with each other;
    (3) They are inconsistent with the physical facts.
    There are other glaring problems with the extermination story. The Jews in many western European countries were not even deported (not exterminated) until very late in the war. Many of the deportations did not even begin until 1944, after the allies had landed at Normandy. In Russia one-half to two-thirds of the Jews had been deported by the heavily Jewish communist regime ahead of the German advance. That is why most of the Jews supposedly exterminated by the Germans were in fact hiding east of the Ural Mountains during the war. After the war, these Jews poured into the commissariats of the Iron Curtain countries in Eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and East Germany were top heavy with very much alive Jewish commissars. A huge exodus of Jews poured out of Russia on their way to invade Arab Palestine. Still more went to America and South America disguised as citizens of the countries of their origin. (Poles, Czechs, etc.) Today, there exist tremendous numbers of “survivors” who logically should not exist, collecting never ending reparations. These survivors all insist that the extermination of the Jews was real, even as one survivor story after another is shown to be a fraud.
    The Holocaust tale does not mean that large numbers of Jews did not die in World War Two. The true death total was probably between one to two million. That is a lot of deaths but nowhere near the number of German soldiers and civilians who died during and after the war. The significance of the Holocaust Hoax is now clear. It is the obverse side of the Protocols of Zion coin. The design of the Protocols was proved to be true in the earlier part of this essay. Their platform has been fulfilled. The Holocaust Hoax is the proof that the design behind the Protocols is Judaic. It is the warning to the masses: “Don’t look here!” The ban on inquiry into the Protocols is the same as the ban on inquiry into the Holocaust. The reason is precisely the same. The Protocols are the shoe that fits; the Holocaust is the lie that cannot be sustained. The one leads inevitably to the other. They are the hand and the glove with the perfect fit.

    There is a joke that those who can do nothing useful in life become university professors. While the joke may be an exaggeration it does have a substantial basis in fact. One of the best ways to demonstrate that academics cannot function in the real world is to review their first foray into politics – the great Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Academics like Margaret MacMillan, author of “Paris: 1919”, have always been infatuated with the “war to end all wars”. It is easy to see why. The peace conference was the first foray of the professors out of the Ivory Tower into the real world of politics. Drunk with the prospect of remaking the world with another starry-eyed former professor, Woodrow Wilson, they traveled to Paris to usher in a new age. How miserably they failed we shall shortly see.
    Wilson surrounded himself with fellow eggheads on his trip to remake the world. Three of his chief advisors were Professors Archibald Carrey Coolidge of Harvard University, Charles Seymour of Yale University and James T. Shotwell of Columbia University. In addition, Wilson was assisted by a study group called the “Inquiry”, headed by the Jew Sidney Mezes, who prepared many of the famous “Fourteen Points” later credited to Wilson. When these wise and learned men reached Paris they set about redrawing the map of Europe and dismembering the Ottoman Empire. They did a masterful job. It was the advisor to Woodrow Wilson, David Hunter Miller of the “Inquiry” and his assistant Manley O. Hudson, who developed the internal waterways and customs regulations for post-war Europe. Miller was a flaming Zionist who had objected to a “Report On Zionism” prepared for the “Inquiry” by Oscar Campbell, mainly because it revealed too much truth about the coming dispossession of the Palestine Arabs. Archibald Coolidge was stationed in Vienna where he helped in the disastrous dismemberment of Austria-Hungary and kept a watchful eye Bela Kun and his Jewish-Bolshevik regime in Hungary. Professor Kern of Stanford University was also deeply involved in the decision to dismember and mutilate Hungary in favor of Rumania. Professor George Louis Beer helped determine the spoils given to Japan in the Far East as a consequence of the war. The decision to grant a “mandate” to Great Britain over Palestine was deeply influenced by Harvard Law Professor and the Alan Dershowitz of his time, Felix frankfurter. It was Frankfurter who wrote the draft of the mandate which was later ratified by the League of Nations. And this brings up another point. The learned professors did not act alone at Paris. They worked in combination with a very powerful ethnic influence which also proliferated at the Peace Conference. These were the “Delegations of Jews” which traveled to Paris from all points on the globe to ally their aims with the goals of the Anglo-American victors.
    The Jews at the Paris Peace Conference is one of the great untold stories of twentieth century history. The Jews had prepared for the Peace Conference long before the war actually ended and even before the outcome of the war was determined. In 1915-1916 several preliminary conferences were held in Manhattan to gather and reconcile the differing Jewish factions who would travel to Paris in 1919 as the representatives of the American Jewish Congress. These factions included the Zionist, the Democratic Socialist or Bundist, the Conservative and the Financial Capitalist. Ten delegates were elected, among whom were Louis Marshall of the American Jewish Committee, Judge Julian Mack of Philadelphia, Jacob De Haas, Morris Vinchevsky of the Jewish Socialist federation, Chaim Zhitlovsky, Joseph Barondess, Colonel Cutler and others.. They all went to Paris – and joined forces with the Jewish delegations from Europe and the representatives of the Anglo-Jewish Association and the Conjoint Committee from England. These Jewish delegations all wanted “minorities treaties” to protect Jewish ethnic and “state-within-the-state” ambitions in Central and Eastern Europe. Poland was a particular concern. The Jews worked hand-in-glove with English and American officials in achieving their aims. Thus, the English Foreign Office official, James-Headley-Morham, worked with Lucien Wolf of the English Conjoint Committee and Simon Dubnow, the Russian-Jewish historian, in drafting the minorities treaties eventually imposed on all the countries of Eastern Europe as part of the peace settlement. The Jews were also pressing the British hard for maximalist demands in Palestine. In this, they were not entirely successful. The Zionists did not get the headwaters of the Litani River in Lebanon, as desired. Transjordan, east of the river, was partitioned off in 1921-1922 and placed outside of Zionist control. But the Zionists did get the mandate, and that “solemn international obligation” to a national home in somebody else’s land, the Arabs be damned.
    Most people believe that the League of Nations” was the concoction of Woodrow Wilson. But, as Nahum Sokolow expressed it in the New York Times the League of Nations was “an old Jewish idea”. Israel Zangwill seconded the sentiment, referring to the League of Nations as an “essentially Jewish aspiration”. Jewish dreams of world government were not considered an impediment to Jewish nationalism in Palestine, then or now. As the Jews were laying the foundations for the dispossession of the Arabs of Palestine in Paris, the learned professors were collaborating with the British in carving up the Ottoman Empire. As the English were creating artificial entities like mandatory Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, Professor William Westermann was serving as head of the western division of Near Eastern Affairs. Unrelated populations were merged together in fake nation-states of no historical continuity. Thus, Iraq consisted of Kurds, Shiites and a Sunni king imported from Hejaz because he had kicked out of Syria by the French in 1920. Transjordan was carved out of Palestine; Palestine was wrested from its rightful Arab inhabitants and delivered by legal artifice to Turkic-Mongolian interlopers from the Black and Caspian Sea areas. Arab independence and sovereignty, as promised to the Sheriff Hussein in October 1915, had been denied.
    When one reviews the sorry record of the “learned professors”, the allied statesmen and their Jewish partners in crime at Paris 1919, it is easy to see why Margaret MacMillan ecstatically regards the birth of the peace conference as the birth of a new world. Miss MacMillan is, after all, the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George, the wartime Prime Minister who made that famous “contract with Jewry” to bring the United States into the Great War. “Learned professors” helped redraw the map of Europe in 1919. In the process they destroyed the German, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires which had preserved order and stabilized Europe and Asia for centuries. In their place they helped to create a patchwork of artificial states which satisfied no one, which magnetized Adolf Hitler and irredentist millions and which have destabilized the Near East to this day. That was the first foray of the Ivory Tower in the real world. The Treaty of Versailles was signed by the victors in the Palace of Mirrors in Versailles. But it should have been copyrighted at Harvard, Yale and Columbia universities.

    The First World War marked the triumph of many alien forces in American life. These included the abandonment of neutrality and non-intervention in foreign affairs, as well as the abandonment of limited government and no income taxes. But of all the disastrous trends in American life set in motion by the diseased idealist, Woodrow Wilson, the most disastrous were the triumph of the twin Jewish ideologies of Communism and Zionism. To understand how these ideologies triumphed at the great Paris Peace Conference following the war, it is first necessary to examine the immense Jewish organizing activity that took place beginning in 1915, three years before the war ended. During this activity, no one then knew who would win the war, how the war would end or who would be represented at the peace conference. But the Jews knew, even then, that they would be represented as an accredited member of that peace conference, even though the Jews of the world were fighting on all sides in the war – and even though there was no “Jewish nation” as such participating in the war as a formal belligerent. The real Jewish nation was on the march – and it intended to benefit from the struggles of the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic worlds.
    The basis of the Jewish organizing is laid out by Jonathan Frankel in his book, “Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism and the Russian Jews: 1862-1917”. From pp.510-511:
    “With the outbreak of World War One and the almost immediate disruption of Jewish life in the Eastern War Zone and in Palestine, the machinery of financial relief was fast assembled. …
    In the winter months of 1914-1915 the call for political unity and specifically for the American Jewish Congress was taken up once again. The immediate catalyst here was the news arriving piecemeal that the Russian army was expelling hundreds of thousands of Jews as potential spies from their homes in the War Zone.
    If united (so the argument went) the Jews of America could perhaps exert enough pressure to force the tsarist regime to halt the indiscriminate waves of destruction. But beyond this, there were those already thinking of the postwar settlement, the presentation of claims and demands to an eventual peace congress. Jewish interests, it was now recalled had been effectively advanced at the Congress of Berlin.”
    The distinguished chairman of the California State UnAmerican Activities Committee, Jack Tenney, writing under the pen name of his long-time secretary, Olivia Marie O’Grady, in “The Bests Of The Apocalypse”, has this to say about the organizing activity of the Jews.
    “The World Jewish Congress is actually the creation of the American Jewish Congress. World War One forever destroyed the fiction that Jews were citizens of the countries of their birth or naturalization. This myth came nearer realization in the United States than anywhere else in the world before 1881, and it might have become a reality had the Khazar Jews stayed in Russia. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, organized in 1914, was unable to distinguish between the Jews serving the Kaiser and Jews serving the allies, indicating the lack of loyalty of the Jews to either side. As the war developed and Allied victory became certain, American Jewry prepared to join with the international Jews of the world for participation as a nation in the inevitable Peace Conference. The impudence of the plan is curious in itself, but not so nearly curious and amazing is the fact that no one appears to have questioned it. Ordinarily a group of American citizens presuming to participate in an international conference where its members were already represented by their duly elected officials, would be preposterous. Yet, this is exactly what American Jewry proposed to do!
    B.G. Richards, N.Syrkin and B. Zuckerman submitted a resolution to an extraordinary Zionist conference held in New York City, to discuss the resolution and Zionist policy with the officers of the American Jewish Committee, a select group of fifty Jews. There was some hesitation on the part of the members of the American Jewish Committee to entrust a convention of such magnitude to the Jewish masses, fearing that the completely un-American Khazar revolutionaries would dominate the meeting to the detriment of Jewish purposes. The National Workmen’s Committee on Jewish Rights joined with the American Jewish Committee in opposing the ‘collaboration of classes in an organization representing the entire Jewish collectivity – thus exemplifying the curious alliance of right and left wing solidarity for common Jewish purposes. The Workmen’s Circle, composed largely of members of the old Jewish Socialist Bund, held out for mass collaboration, and criticized the stand of the National Workmen’s Committee on Jewish Rights and the American Jewish Committee.
    On March 15, 1915, Judge Julian Mack, Louis D. Brandeis and Dr. Stephen S.Wise set up the Jewish Organizational Committee. The man who was destined to become a Justice of the United States Supreme Court was able to declare (September 27, 1915) that the American Jewish Congress was to be “an incident of the organization of the Jewish people – an instrument through which their will may be ascertained, and when ascertained may be carried out”.
    Meanwhile, the Kehillah (Jewish ruling body) of New York City proposed a secret conference for October 24, 1915, and the American Jewish Committee proceeded to make arrangements for it. Brandeis, believing that bold action was the better policy, opposed the meeting. “Secrecy’, he said, ‘will lead necessarily to suppression and misrepresentation of Jewish purposes and deprive us of non-Jewish support. We seek action in the open so that there shall be no misunderstanding either among our own people or among our fellow-citizen, as to our aims and methods.’ The future Justice of the Supreme Court had no hesitancy in distinguishing between ‘our own people’ and the strangers – ‘our fellow citizens’. Likewise, he emulated that other outspoken Jew – Karl Marx – who deplored secrecy when he declared: ‘The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.’
    The preliminary conference of the American Jewish Congress was held in Philadelphia March 26, 1916. Three hundred and sixty-seven delegates, representing more than a million American Jews, participated. Dr. Stephen S. Wise made the ‘keynote’ address – ‘American Israel and Democracy’.
    Although the United States had not yet been involved in World War One, the Jews looked ahead to the ‘Peace Conference’. They called upon ‘the Congress’ to ‘consider the question of securing to Jews free and equal rights, civil, political and religious, in all such lands where these rights were denied to them; that the Congress consider the question of securing to the Jews national rights in all such lands in which national rights were or ought to be recognized’. The Congress went on record for cooperation with the Jews of other lands ‘in furtherance of the Congress program’, thus laying the ground-work for the World Jewish Congress.
    Louis D. Brandeis was named honorary chairman of the organization. A National Executive Committee was elected. Jewish groups of the world were invited to work with the Congress. The American Jewish Committee and the National Workmen’s Committee on Jewish Rights went along with the program. At a meeting held Christmas Day, 1916, representatives of the various groups agreed that the American Jewish Congress would confine itself to the ‘Peace Conference’ and dissolve when its purposes in this connection had been accomplished.”
    Here we have amazing documentary evidence that American Jewry was massively organizing for a post-war settlement in which Jewish interests would be represented at an international conference- separate and apart from their interests as American citizens. By way of analogy, suppose that Irish- Americans had organized an Irish-American Congress to attend the post-war peace conference to demand Irish independence from England. Would this not be regarded by all Americans as an usurpation of the rights of the American government to speak on this issue, including the rights of all Americans, not just Irish ones? As Tenney correctly notes, the only thing more remarkable than this audacious demand is the acquiescence in it by those who should have known better. The true meaning of all this Jewish organization is admirably summed up by Jonathan Frankel in “Prophecy and Politics”.
    “A fundamentally new era in the history of the Jewish socialist movements was in fact reached with the two events of November 1917: the Bolshevik revolution and the Balfour Declaration. The net effect of these two developments was to strengthen enormously the attraction of the two poles between which Jewish socialism was held in balance. Lenin and (to an extent) even Weizmann now became central actors on the world stage. The new Moscow and the promise of a new Jerusalem loomed large over Jewish politics.
    In the Soviet areas, all the Jewish socialist parties (the Bund, the Poale Zion, the Fareynikte) split asunder in the years 1919-1921, with large sections going over to Communism and, in many cases, to the Evsektsiia (the Jewish section of the Communist Party). The non-Communist rump parties were suppressed and their members in part managed to escape the country. A left-wing (Borochovist) Poale-Zion party survived in truncated form (albeit with its own journal) until 1928, when it, too, was closed down.
    As against this, in independent Poland, (as in Lithuania) the established socialist parties remained to play a significant role in Jewish life. But the space in which they could move was drastically narrowed. On one side, they were hemmed in by the Communist camp, which now included a powerful Yiddish-speaking section (a new phenomenon). And, on the other, they faced an enormously strengthened Zionist movement which, under the leadership of Yitzhak Grinbaum, was actively involved in Polish politics and which included a burgeoning camp of pioneer youth (so marginal a factor in 1905). The Poale Zion split into right-wing and left-wing parties, the latter, like the Bund, unsuccessfully seeking entry into the Comintern…
    In Palestine, the veterans of the Second Aliyah, with their constructivist ideology, formed the Histadrut and the Hagana…. It was not until the mid-1920’s…that there emerged a real opposition to the veteran Histadrut leadership – an opposition that found expression partly in the PKP (the Palestine Communist Party) and partly in a resurgence of Borochovist, class-war, theories of Zionism.
    Predictably, the schismatic blade cut a much deeper swath through the Jewish labor movement in the United States. There, it was not the Poale Zion but the Jewish Socialist Federation (with its Bundist background) that split, a large section entering the emergent Communist movement in America. Out-and-out internationalism and class-war doctrine, in its Yiddish speaking form, enjoyed a powerful resurgence there. In the anti-Communist camp, there were moves toward a détente – and even active cooperation – with Zionism.”
    The facts, as documented from unimpeachable reference works, are clear. World War One was the triumph of Communism and Zionism –the Jewish Siamese twins from Czarist Russia. The Communist-Zionist Jews of New York made common cause with Jewish plutocrats on the American Jewish Committee to organize to represent Jewish interests at a future peace conference – even before the winner of the war was known and the identity of the major players at that conference could be determined. It made no difference to them – because the power of international Jewry would be exerted regardless. Jewry came into the open in the years 1915-1919 – and they have remained an open secret ever since.

  17. my grandfather was a british army officer, a doctor in the medical corp. He was with the 1st Army (British) when they liberated Belsen. He wrote a long essay describing exactly what he saw there. I also have xrays he made of his patients in Belsen, taken on German xray film. My great Uncle was a Colonel with the British Army and a famous film maker. He made a film for the British government of what the army found when they reached Auschwitz. I have seen the film, and discussed it with him, as have many people.
    The only way you could deny the holocaust is if you chose to ignore the first hand stories, photos, and films of thousands of people. You have to be really very stupid to start discounting thousands of independent eye witness accounts (from Jews, Germans, and British soldiers) in order to re-write a history that for some reason doesn’t suit your way of seeing the world. This is easier to do if you have never been to Europe, and never met people who have a connection with the Camps. But by that measure it is as easy to deny the Renaissance, or the Black Death simply because you are ignorant and have no personal contact with people involved.
    If you are a Holocaust denier, go to Israel, meet some Camp survivors, and discuss it with them. If you do not engage, then you are just being a coward and a bit of a moron…

    Michael Santomauro says:
    October 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM
    The politics over the Jewish IQ.
    Dear Der weiße Engel:
    You are not up to speed. On the other hand why would you or anyone else be up to speed.
    Kevin MacDonald’s (KMD’s) trilogy was published in the 1990s. In 2001, I asked Prof. Richard Lynn at an American Renaissance Conference, if he agreed with the statement I made in the form of a question. My question was caught on tape and so was the bizarre response. The question (I am doing this from memory, so it may not be exact, but the essence is the same):
    That if you sub-sect the European population by Northern and Western Europeans, just like the data on European Jewish IQ is separated from the Sephardic IQ, would it not be within a 4 point range and therefore it would be in the comparable range? Meaning statistically the same. (It is only when when the spread is 5 or more points do you notice a real difference on the charts.) I also added that the Gentile IQ for all White ethnies was almost a standard deviation higher (12 points) in spatial reasoning, than the Jewish IQ based on his data.
    He answered in agreement with me. Before he could finish his answer, Prof. Rushton rushed to the podium and took over the mike. A perplexed Prof. Lynn stood aside. Then Prof. Rushton made it very clear that there must be something wrong with the data that Lynn compiled that showed a national IQ for Israel of 94. He went on to say that it must be around 110, with no data to back-up his claim. I am not making this up, it is on the DVD that the AR sells-for 2001. Prof. Rushton got the last word for a talk that was meant for Prof. Lynn.
    After Richard Lynn’s talk, Rushton avoided me like the plague even though he promised me from the podium that he would address my question in private. But, why in private? Finally, when I thought I got his attention he started to walk very fast (this is no exaggeration) in the opposite direction of me. Later, when I cornered him he gave me 5 seconds of his time. He told me in private that it was conjecture on his part. That he had no data to support a Jewish IQ in Israel for 110. To this day he still does not. And guess what his latest answer is? That it is anecdotal on his part, and he still stands by his answer.
    Why? I had a strong hunch in 2001 but I kept it to myself. It would be over the years did my hunch convince me that Rushton is pushing for an agenda. He told two acquaintances of mine, two years apart from each other the following summation:
    That the only way we (meaning Europeans) can succeed is to work with the political and economic power that Jews have in the Western Hemisphere –our Salvation is through the Jews. He wants Holocaust Revisionism to die out and wants to put Jews on a pedestal for salvation purposes. This, he believes, is how to save the White race from further shrinkage and to preserve European Civilization.
    You can believe it or not believe it, but I have no reason to make this-up!
    Over the years since 2001, the data has been vacillating over what the Jewish IQ is. Prof. Lynn wrote a paper increasing the Jewish IQ from 103 (when we spoke in 2001) to 107 based on some data showing 105, and then rounded it up to a 1/2 standard deviation by saying it is 107. Then KMD revises his own understanding and he revises his thinking from 115 down a 1/2 standard deviation to 107. Then Prof. Lynn comes out with another new paper with “anecdotal” data (sound familiar?) and arrives to a new number of 110. Then KMD agrees to the new paper by Lynn.
    So in 2010, everyone is agreeing with the soft science of Prof. Rushton that I experienced in 2001.
    Michael santomauro
    PS: The AR crowd at the conference was just as shocked as Prof. Lynn, at the behavior of Prof. Rushton. It never happened in AR history before or since that a speaker would be interfered by a separate speaker when the podium was meant for a sole speaker, in this case Prof. Lynn. And Prof. Rushton was sitting in the audience. Over 250 people were talking amongst themselves about it during the coffee break.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *