Friday, July 20, 2012

Nick Kollerstrom and Kevin Barrett

The Holocaust as a Political Dogma


  1. Jim was great as usual but that Richie interviewer guy should learn how to express himself on radio and not talk from his throat. He should learn to speak up and project his voice and stop mumbling. He sounded as if he was talking through a brick wall. Also that burbling Irish accent didn't help matters. A good exchange ruined by an incoherent "interviewer" with his incomprehensible and unnecessary asides. He should learn to ask the questions and then shut the fuck up and let Jim speak.

    Jim sounded great from the beginning and there was NO need to cut him off and restart three times!!

  2. Good strong words from Nick Kollerstrom. There's no point hedging around the bush, the Orthodox Jewish Version of the holo is a crock of shit with nothing, nothing to support it.

    John Friend wrote … ‘I would like Kevin to provide some sources proving the Nazis killed disabled children and were supremacist, war-mongering extremists, as he claims in this interview, particularly in hour 2.’

    So would I. But you should know about Kevin Barrett that he isn’t always honest about race and nation issues and related historical events. Even were he aware these myths are untrue, he might still promote them if he deemed it useful politically. I say this from sad experience.

    Kevin Barrett believes and has stated that the standard politicized history put out by Hollywood and social scientists in that it identifies an eternal villain, the European White world, and an eternal victim, the non-European, non-White world, is ‘useful’ to the anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinian and related Islamic causes.

    This conventional narrative and the biases it has engendered can be exploited by the Islamic world according to Kevin Barrett.

    I tried pointing out that this conventional narrative is historically flawed and objectively racist, that to deploy it as a weapon in a cultural struggle is wrong on moral grounds, but he wasn’t moved by those concerns.

    I also suggested that his strategy is doomed to failure because Jews control the discourse and hold the trump card with the holo. Muslims are never gonna usurp the Jews as parasite-like controllers of European or American consciences as long as Jews control history and the media, but he wants to at least try.

    I was willing to tolerate these morally questionable choices of his, and it wasn’t until I discovered that Kevin Barrett is willing to outright lie about some matters that I stopped dealing with him.

    For example, he continues to assert that Ashkenazi Jews are a people of European origin even after being apprised on multiple occasions, by myself and others, of the heavy preponderance of genetic studies confirming a middle-eastern origin for that group, with Ashkenazi Jews more closely related to Palestinian Arabs than to any other non-Jewish group. He is so committed to exploiting inflamed prejudices against yet another ‘White’ population colonising and subjugating yet another non-White group, that he is willing to lie and say the Ashkenazim are White.

    A second glaring example is his refusal to modify his discussion of Zionist history after being alerted, again multiple times, to scholarly works documenting that Zionism originated not within the Jewish colonies of Europe but among Baghdadi Jewish colonies in the far-east. He again prefers to exploit the conventional anti-White narrative and talk about the Zionism being ‘just one more European settler movement,’ and the truth, that Zionism originated among Iraqi Jews in India, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Burma and other places east of Istanbul just isn’t fit for that purpose, so Kevin Barrett lies about it.

  3. The biggest thing to be afraid of is being arrested for saying something against the party line, ie holocaust debate in Germany. I've been interested in this only because Zundel was run out of Canada for questioning or denying. Like any kid, learning something is forbidden makes it interesting. 9/11, Aurora tell us that ALL history, especially recent, needs to be revisited and possibly revised. Thanks Jim for tackling thorny issues.

  4. Some things to consider:
    1. Theodor Herzl's book calling for a Jewish State. Ottoman Palestine was considered but problems were foreseen with gradual migration.
    2. Post WWI - Jewish settlement was encourage in The British Mandate of Palestine. This was unpopular.
    3. After WWII settlement in Palestine becomes more appealing.

  5. I dunno: all hell on earth is about to break with the 2012 Olympics and the world and it's truth tellers play on as if .... they or we will have the luxury of post anal-ysis. Seven years since 7/7/7 was enough forwarning yet only a handful of unknown individuals were calling attention in good time. This is going to be the Real Holocaust a complete genocidal depopulation era; the rest were just practice ritual runs.

  6. Great show. Two points. The smoking gun [?] of holorevisionism is the Cavendish-Bentinck [Lord Portland] memo. He was head of the Brit Psychological Warfare Executive and in the memo he writes something like 'we've gotten a lot out of these fake gas chamber stories, but shouldn't we distance ourselves from them as they will be exposed eventually and we shall be discredited. [Source: David Irving's video entitled something like "A British Historian Examines..."

    Hollywood, particularly Spielberg, has been shovelling the manure about this for a long time. if you haven't seen this documentary, it is well worth the hour.

  7. re Nazi supremacist ideology: there's plenty of evidence of this. Hitler's Mein Kampf; Goebbels' The ABC of Fascism; and in the Nazi Party paper, Volkische Beobachter, many Nazi theoreticians, most notably the editor, Alfred Rosenberg, wrote plenty on the topic.

    And those are just a few.

    re killing disabled children: There was a well-publicized euthanasia program where the mentally ill [I don't know about other 'disabled'] were put to death in the name of alleviating their suffering. A film was made by the propaganda ministry with Goebbels doing the narration.

    If Hitler didn't start WW2 who did? There is no question that the first aggression was committed by the Nazis.

  8. Dave Fryett, my online access is limited to public library sessions of 30 minutes so possibly there's much more credible stuff out there that I haven't seen, but when I googled 'nazi euthanasia' the first link was to the Wikipedia page on 'Aktion T4,' the Allies' term for what they allege was the Third Reich's program of widespread involuntary euthanasia of the sick and mentally ill.

    On that page it's very clear that this alleged program is deeply entwined with the alleged holo: it was 'proven' to have existed at the Nuremberg Trials; 'the euthanasia programme represents an evolution in policy toward the later Holocaust of the Jews of Europe'; 'Action T4 might have been initiated with a sort of trial balloon'; 'at one of the institutions, a special department was set up for "minor Jewish-Aryan half-breeds"'; 'At Posen (occupied Poznan), hundreds of patients were killed by means of carbon monoxide gas in an improvised gas chamber developed by Dr Albert Widmann, chief chemist of the German Criminal Police (Kripo). In December 1939, the SS head, Heinrich Himmler, witnessed one of these gassings, ensuring that this invention would later be put to much wider uses'; 'all Jewish patients were removed from institutions and were killed during 1940'; ' Franz Stangl, who was in prison in Düsseldorf after having been convicted of co-responsibility for killing 900,000 people as commandant of the Sobibor and Treblinka extermination camps in Poland ... gave ... a detailed account of the operations of the T4 programme ... they were gassed with carbon monoxide (this ruse was later used on a much larger scale at the extermination camps).'

    To people who have looked into the associated claims about the holo, all this looks suspiciously similar to known B.S.

    When Clare Kuehn on this blog once raised the spectre of this alleged program to murder all sick people, I asked about how that fits with the acknowledged facts about Anne Frank, not only was she deathly ill, but she was also Jewish, if the Nazis really were engaged in a program to kill all Jews and all sick people, why the hell did they waste precious resources trying to save the life of this girl in a hospital?

  9. I think I know what's happening here. It was useful to Jews to dehumanise the Nazis by portraying them not just as a group in conflict with Jews, but as a group hell bent on attacking all kinds of undeserving innocents. There's evidence for this in the disgraceful mythmaking of Saint Simon Wiesenthal:

    [quoting zioncrimefactory quoting orthodox holo propagandist Deborah Lipstadt]

    Included in Alex’s absurd 20,000,000 death figure most likely is the alleged “5,000,000 non-Jews” that the hoaxers claim also died at the hands of the Nazis. To debunk this assertion I will simply quote from one of the most prominent Holocaust™ hucksters out there — the ultra-Zionist Jewess Deborah Lipstadt:

    “Why is Segev so forgiving of Simon Wiesenthal’s many lapses? Perhaps we can arrive at an answer by considering Wiesenthal’s most egregious distortion of the historical record and Segev’s response to it. In the 1970s, Wiesenthal began to refer to “eleven million victims” of the Holocaust, six million Jews and five million non-Jews, but the latter number had no basis in historical reality.

    … Wiesenthal’s contrived death toll, with its neat almost-symmetry, has become a widely accepted “fact.” Jimmy Carter’s Executive Order, which was the basis for the establishment of the US Holocaust Museum, referred to the “eleven million victims of the Holocaust.” I have been to many Yom Hashoah observances-including those sponsored by synagogues and Jewish communities-where eleven candles were lit. When I tell the organizers that they are engaged in historical revisionism, their reactions range from skepticism to outrage. Strangers have taken me to task in angry letters for focusing “only” on Jewish deaths and ignoring the five million others. When I explain that this number is simply inaccurate, in fact made up, they become even more convinced of my ethnocentrism and inability to feel the pain of anyone but my own people.

    When Israeli historians Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman challenged Wiesenthal on this point, he admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million because it was almost, but not quite, as large as six million. When Elie Wiesel asked Wiesenthal who these supposed five million victims were, Wiesenthal exploded and accused him of suffering from “Judeocentrism.”” (Lipstadt, Deborah E. Simon Wiesenthal and the Ethics of History. Jewish Review of Books)

    So there you have it straight from the horse’s mouth. It turns out that the alleged “5,000,000 non-Jewish” victims of the

    Nazis were conjured out of thin air by the pathological liar, Simon “Nazi hunter” Wiesenthal, as a marketing ploy to stimulate non-Jewish interest in his bizarre gas chamber cult. A pure fiction! [endquote]

    That quote is from a very readable and fundamentally sound article on the Nazi's Are Coming To Get Us / Holo / Eugenics mythmaking of Alex Jones by John Friend's associate zioncrimefactory, here:

    Highly recommended as a starting point for research into these topics because it includes many links to real historical research.

  10. Dave Fryett, 'If Hitler didn't start WW2 who did? There is no question that the first aggression was committed by the Nazis.'

    Acts of aggression along with various acts of subversion including economic boycotts, were a common feature of relations between the different European states and peoples in the years leading up to 'WWII'. The conventional claim that Germany started WWII by invading Poland ignores that fact and others:

    The Germans invaded Poland only, they did not declare war on Britain and France, Britain and France declared war on Germany (otherwise we might be talking about the Four Week German / Polish war of 1939; the Germans and Soviets had signed a pact to partition Poland between themselves and the Soviets also invaded Poland but Britain and France did not decide to go to war with the Soviet Union -- it was Germany they WANTED to destroy.

    Blaming Germany for 'starting' WWII when they were actually the nation against whom that major globe-straddling war was declared (and not out of any concern for Poland but out of anti-German animus) is something close to terrible.

  11. Nick, 30 minutes? You must be a quick typist.

    Too much to cover, so just a few points:

    re euthanasia: It seems that we are largely in agreement. I don't know or care much about the program, just pointing out that Goebbels made a film about it.

    re the five million gentile victims: The conventional figures are that slightly over ten million died in the camps, with 5.7 being Jewish (with the latter figured being invariably roundede up to six). This is also the findings of the IMT at Nueremburg. I am not endorsing these numbers, but it is simply inaccurate to say that (former Gestapo informant) Wiesenthal made them up.

    re WW2: Nick, your view of the reasons and causes of that war and mine are fundamentally different. I view these events from a class perspective. I don't blame 'Germany' for starting the war, BUT THE FIRST MILITARY ACTIONS OF THE WAR WERE TAKEN BY GERMANY. that is a fact. They invaded Austria one day before a plebiscite was to be held, Sudetenland, Poland etc.

    The first mistake, imho, people make is in ignoring the class aspects of WW2. WW1 was not a good one for capitalism. Russia had gone communist. So did Hungary briefly. And parts of Germany were under anti-capitalist control. There was dual power in Italy and Austria [the real reason for Hitler's invasion]. There was an Anarchist revolution in Spain, and an immense worker's revolt in France in which tens of millions participated and which toppled the government. [When Petain acquiesced to Nazi demands and helped create the Vichy government he said that if France had not surrendered to Germany it would have another Paris Commune of 1871 on its hands. HE SAID THAT PUBLICLY at a banquet.]

    The Nazis were supported by capital from all countries, including Jewish capital. In America Ford, Rockeller, the du Ponts [Jewish] and many others gave material support to the Nazis before during, and after the war. Standard Oil supplied Hitler with petroleum for his armed forces.

    The Nazis were created out of whole cloth to destroy socialism in Europe and topple the USSR. For three long years, the western "Allies" stayed out of the war and allowed hitler to outlaw all non-Fascisdt political parties across Europe, imprison and exterminate socialists, labor leaders, and all other groups inimical to the interests of capital. And then Hitler was allowed, while the western Alliies "planned" an invasion in the west, to take his best shot at destroing the USSR. D Day didn't occur until after the Nazis were defeated at Stalingrad.

    WW2 was not a war against Germany, but a war by the bourgeoisie against the working class.

    May I recommend R. Palme Dutt's Fascism and the Social Revolution; John Spritzler's The People as Enemy; Guido Preparata's Conjuring Hitler; all of these have slightly different interpretations but are rooted in the reality of class struggle such as it existed when the Nazis and Fascism were invented.

    There is also a brief video by Michael Parenti entitled The Real Causes of WW2. It is available online [or was]. It is well worth the time.

    1. WWII was a Jewish capitalist/Jewish communist war against National Socialist Germany, plain and simple. I highly recommend William White's "The Centuries of Revolution: Democracy, Communism, Zionism" which explores this subject in great detail.

      "The Nazis were supported by capital from all countries, including Jewish capital."

      This is false. 100% false. Here is a brilliant debunking of these ridiculous claims made by Dave Fryett:

      "The Nazis were created out of whole cloth to destroy socialism in Europe and topple the USSR."

      Again, 100% false. The Nazis were National SOCIALISTS, and were not created "out of whole cloth". The NSDAP struggled for literally years to build their movement and political party, with men like Hitler (and many others) dedicating their entire lives to their mission. They were pro-German, pro-worker, pro-farmer, pro-business and pro-family. They were against the destructive and subversive forces of Jewish plutocratic capitalism and Jewish communism - which is why the Jew controlled Allies ganged up on Hitler and destroyed his country and people in WWII.

  12. here is a video in which David Irving describes the Cavendish-Bentinckt memo.

  13. A brief note: For the longest time i was unable to comment at sites which were hosted by Blogspot. Recently a friend suggested I try another browser, and that switching to Chrome worked for him. Eureeka!

  14. re Nazi supremacist ideology: I'm reading Mein Kampf right now, and have read some of Goebbels' essays, speeches, etc. From what I can tell, the Nazi racial ideology was more pro-German, pro-Aryan than anti-other races. Sure, Hitler, Goebbels, and others did feel that German culture, ingenuity, productivity, organizational ability, etc was superior to other races, I will concede that. But, I from my investigations (which are still on-going), I have found no evidence that they are the supremacist monsters we're led to believe.

    Leon Degrelle of the Waffen SS, who knew Hitler and other NSDAP leaders, summed things up quite nicely when he said:

    “German-racialism has been deliberately distorted. It never was anti-”other -race” racialism. It was a pro-German racialism. I was concerned with making the German race strong and healthy in every way. Hitler was not interested in having millions of degenerates, if it was his power not to have them. Today one finds rampant alcohol and drug addiction everywhere. Hitler cared that the German families be healthy, cared that they raise healthy children for the renewal of a healthy nation. German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves.”

  15. Dave Fryett writes:
    "If Hitler didn't start WW2 who did? There is no question that the first aggression was committed by the Nazis."

    This is patently absurd for numerous reasons. First off, the impetus for WWII was established with the Versailles Treaty following WWI, a completely unjust, corrupt treaty that robbed Germany of much of her land, most of her money, and all of her dignity. Once Hitler came to power, international Jewry declared war on Germany. It wasn't Hitler that declared war on the Jews, the Jews declared war on Hitler. Again, the Jews have completely flipped the script on this one (as always).

    In fact, Jewish supremacists were openly calling for the elimination and destruction of the German race in a "final solution" to the German problem - again, the Jews have completely flipped the script through their propaganda and control of education.

    Prior to WWII really getting kicked off, Poland and other Eastern European countries that had large German populations (Czechoslovakia for example) were brutally attacking and terrorizing German civilians under their control. The Polish government, which was not at all popular with the Polish people, was ruthlessly and violently suppressing and attacking Germans that were living on their (newly created by the Versailles Treaty) territory. Germany "invaded" after issuing numerous ultimatums to the Polish government in order to protect her people from violent attack at the hands of the Polish government and military. The French and British used this as an excuse to declare war on Germany. Funny thing - the Soviets invaded Poland with Germany, and yet the French and British didn't declare war on the USSR, now did they?

    So to say that Hitler started WWII is completely baseless and factually incorrect. However, it will get you a highly paid university post or editorial job with a major newspaper.

  16. Dave Fryett, you’re begging the question with your claim that the Third Reich started the war, where it's assumed that only German military operations may be taken as the start of the war.

    Why is the Anschluss significant but not this or that British action in Ireland? Only because the people who controlled Britain eventually decided that the British should intervene militarily in middle Europe. Reason , surely, to think of ‘the war’ as having been ‘started’ by the British and allies?

    If the Axis powers had won the war, perhaps we’d date ‘the war’ from the moment of British declaration of war against Germany, or the World Jewish Council’s declaration of war in 1933 (both of which seem rather more reasonable candidates for the start of the 'world' war between the Allies and the Axis powers)?

    A class analysis of the war might have some interest but this was not a war between social classes. It was a war against normal Europe as represented by a free and German Germany and a free and Italian Italy.

    Where conspindustry writers get all exercised over the fact that some American bankers invested in Germany it’s generally just a way to introduce the Nazi meme, ensuring that the people who are indoctrinated by the alternative media get the same fundamental message as the people indoctrinated by the mainstream media. Why the heck shouldn’t bankers and industrialists have invested in Germany? The only unique thing in this respect about the Third Reich is that they managed to subordinate bankers and industrialists to the greater good of society.

    Where'dya get those IMT numbers?

  17. "[A.J.P.]Taylor had written numerous books relating to German history, and his attitude had led to his being regarded as vigorously anti-German, if not literally a consistent Germanophobe. Admittedly in this same mood, he began a thorough study of the causes of the second World War from the sources, with the definite anticipation that he would emerge with an overwhelming indictment of Hitler as solely responsible for the causes and onset of that calamitous conflict. What other outcome could be expected when one was dealing with the allegedly most evil, bellicose, aggressive and unreasonable leader in all German history?

    Taylor is, however, an honest historian and his study of the documents led him to the conclusion that Hitler was not even primarily responsible for 1939. Far from planning world conquest, Hitler did not even desire a war with
    Poland, much less any general European war. The war was, rather, the outcome of blunders on all sides, committed by all the nations involved, and the greatest of all these blunders took place before Hitler came to power in 1933. This was the Versailles Treaty of 1919 and the failure of the victorious Allies and the League of Nations to revise this nefarious document gradually and peacefully in the fifteen years preceding the Hitler era.

    So far as the long-term responsibility for the second World War is concerned, my general conclusions agree entirely with those of Professor Taylor. When it comes to the critical months between September 1938, and
    September 1939, however, it is my carefully considered judgment that the primary responsibility was that of Poland and Great Britain. For the Polish-German War, the responsibility was that of Poland, Britain and Germany in this order of so-called guilt. For the onset of a European War, which later grew into a world war with the entry of the Soviet Union, Japan and the United States, the responsibility was primarily, indeed almost exclusively, that of Lord Halifax and Great Britain."--David L. Hoggan, The Forced War - When Peaceful Revision Failed (1961)*

    The real culprit was international Jewry, hell-bent on the destruction of National Socialist Germany.



  18. John Friend said:

    "re killing disabled children: these and countless other atrocities attributed to Hitler and the Germans in WWII are quite literally psychological projections of crimes which the Jew controlled Allies - the US, UK, & USSR primarily - committed, but have been blamed on and attributed to the Nazis in WWII through propaganda"

    Agreed. Same as the scurrilous lies told about the Iraqi soldiers in 1991 who "took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."*



  19. I haven't listened to this yet but just a glance at these letters confirms my fears about where this was leading when I asked Fetzer why he was entertaining the subject of Holocaust revisionism. Quite simply it can only serve to further marginalize him among serious parapolitical researchers...

  20. Here is an important video to help us unmuddy the waters.

    The Jewish Hoax - Michael Hoffman

    This 1954 article by Benjamin Friedman is also helpful...

  21. Dave Rubinstein ..., serious parapolitical researchers would be open to critically examining the court history of all major events. Usually that's the hallmark of 'serious parapolitical research' -- how come the holo needs special protection?

  22. "This tactic was used by the Allies - extensively. Here is one piece of evidence:

    On February 29, 1944 the British Ministry of Information sent the following note to the higher British clergy and to the BBC:


    I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:

    It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

    But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

    We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.

    We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country.

    We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them - and ourselves - from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.

    Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of "Corpse Factory." the Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."

    Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

    Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

    I am, sir, Your obedient servant
    H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary

    There was even a postscript, as follows:

    The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to the communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons. (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, John Wiley and Sons, NY. page 209-210)

    This is quite an astounding document. This letter is ample evidence that during World War II, the Allies used atrocity propaganda against Hitler Germany to distract their own people from the atrocities being committed primarily but not exclusively by the Red Army - their "comrades"! - in the invasion of Europe as Hitler's war drew to an end.

    Note, though, that there was nothing in this letter that talked of gassing people" (1)



  23. Hi Nick,

    I appreciate the discussion.

    "that only German military operations may be taken as the start of the war. ..."

    A bit of casuistry here maybe? If war doesn't mean military operations then I don't know what it means. One might argue that they were forced into military action (one might, but I won't) but mere saber rattling doesn't constitute war. The question is who initiated the violence, and we know the answer.

    "Why is the Anschluss significant but not this or that British action in Ireland?"

    Two points: Austria was invaded by Germany, and we now know with the robust tacit approval of France and GB, to prevent a socialist government from coming to power and the break up of that empire into ethnic nation-states as was promised by Wilson and his 14 Points but never delivered. Workers', Soldiers', and Sailors' councils ("soviets", to use the Russian word for council) were and had been in control of factories and mines etc. Capitalism had ceased to exist within greater Austria's major cities (those were the days!) and Hitler went in (or, perhaps better put, was sent in) to rescue its ruling class, which he did. Austrian capital happily surrendered, as French capital would shortly do, to the Germans to save themselves from the workingt class who controlled Vienna, Prague, Buda and Pest, Bratislava etc.

    While there was a soviet declared in Limerick some years earlier, the British involvement in Ireland cannot be compared to the desperate German attempt to prevent the election of the following day, which everybody knew would mean the end of capitalism and self determination for all the member states of the Austrian empire. Anschluss was just the cover story.

    And if you are suggesting that Hitler was acting out of concern for British oppression in Ireland, then may I respectfully suggest you do a little more homework on the Third Reich.

    re "If the Axis powers had won the war..." No, it wouldn't. The war begins with the German Army crossing its borders and invading its neighbors.

    "A class analysis of the war might have some interest but this was not a war between social classes..." This is precisely where we disagree. We have the Fuehrerbriefe, which were the correspondence among the German bourgeoisie after WW1 in which they are clearly terrified of a socialist takeover. Here they discuss inventing Fascism and bringing forth a suitable leader to take charge. They discuss in some detail just what the platform will be etc. And then came Hitler and the Nazis with their support.

    In Austria we have Otto Bauer's writing in which clearly states that the ruling class was in a hurry to get somebody to invade and save them. We have lots of evidence for this.

    In France we have Petain's shocking admission that the bourgeoisie sabotaged the French war effort because, just as in 1871, THEY WANTED TO SURRENDER to save themselves as a class.

    This is the tip of the iceberg. Even mainstream distorians like ian Kershaw now admit WW1 was undertaken in part to stem the tide of socialism in Europe. And there's lots more.

    "Why the heck shouldn’t bankers and industrialists have invested in Germany? " Indeed they should have, they needed to. Hitler destroyed the socialist movement across Europe. The first internees of the camps were commies, anarchists, labor leaders etc.

    "The only unique thing in this respect about the Third Reich is that they managed to subordinate bankers and industrialists to the greater good of society."

    This is precisely the point: THEY DID NO SUCH THING. That was the marketing angle developed in the Fuehrerbriefe. there was no way in hell any pro-capitalist party was going to get elected. So the Nazies called themselves socialists and put out a hard anti-plutocratic line. They offered an entirely specious distinction between Jewish and gentile capital--and even that was bullshit. It was all a con, a ruse.

  24. Part two.

    First, the left wing of the Nazi Party, the hardline anti-capitalists, were murdered on Hitler's orders during the event known as the Night of the Long Knives. Hitler had his right-hand man, Ernst Rohm, very likely a former lover of Hitler's, shot in his prison cell. The Strasser brothers survived but had to live in exile.

    More importantly, HITLER DID NOTHING TO CAPITAL! He did not seize their property. He nationalized nothing I know of. Major firms like I G Farben ran much of the German state including the camps. Hitler took the state budget out of the reichsbank and put it in a private bank owned by the Rothschilds [read Hitler's Beneficiaries, can't remember author's name].

    Once in power Hitler outlawed all political parties and labor unions. He also eliminated elections, worker's councils etc.

    Hitler wasn't the enemy of capitalism. His two major contributors were Jewish bankers [Rothschild and Dresdner, Hitler's Finance Minister, Hjalmar Schacht, was VP of the Dresdner Bank. Hess, his number two man after he murdered his boyfriend Rohm, was in business with the Rothschilds. Hess' family owned an import/export business located in Egypt where he grew up. Much of Rothschild diamonds and other loot from Africa was fenced by Hess.] His other main contributors were the the Herrenklub [a who's who of Reichwehr]and the Thule Society, a club for the German elite.

    Hitler didn't subordinate capital, HE WAS THEIR MAN.

    I got the IMT numbers from the transcripts. For some reason they are color-coded. The information you are looking for is in the blue series.

  25. Dave Fryett,

    # ‘A bit of casuistry here maybe? If war doesn't mean military operations then I don't know what it means.’

    -- The question is why only GERMAN military actions are allowed to be the initiating violence that (quote) *Started* (quote) *THE War*? As I say, you’re begging the question.

    # ‘More importantly, HITLER DID NOTHING TO CAPITAL! He did not seize their property. He nationalized nothing I know of.’

    -- Good. If he had done so I would not describe such acts as ‘subordinating bankers and industrialists to the greater good of society,’ I would call that wrecking the economic sector of society.

    But in the Third Reich the financial framework was reformed and the private debt-money system replaced with a state issue of currency model; foreign banks and enterprises were squeezed and German banks and businesses favoured; environmental regulations were put in place to ensure that resource exploiters paid for the costs of their actions and that land, water and air were protected from pollution; workers were guaranteed holidays and living wages; young married couples were subsidised to have children; educational opportunities and home ownership were extended; all citizens were guaranteed health care; family farms were defended against take-over by large agricultural combines, and so on.

    This combination of benefits - and they are enormously beneficial to ordinary people - does not obtain in any single country on the planet today. Far from being a special case of failure or criminality in regard to these issues, the Third Reich, like Kaddafi’s Libya, was a shining example of the kind of government most ordinary people would love to have serving them!

    # ‘His two major contributors were Jewish bankers’ … ‘Ernst Rohm, very likely a former lover of Hitler's’

    -- I think you are way too credulous.

    # ‘I got the IMT numbers from the transcripts. For some reason they are color-coded. The information you are looking for is in the blue series.’

    -- I could only find Thomas Dodd’s comments and Hoss’s testimony both from during the trials, and both of which seem to contradict the eventual conclusion you say was reached. Regardless, I don’t say other people might not have made up similar numbers or numbers in a similar fashion (quite the opposite, since I’m pointing out the possibility that ‘Aktion T4’ may be one such example), I only say that academic propagandists have written about a prominent popular propagandist simply making up the five million figure of non-Jewish victims expressly to broaden the emotional appeal of the holo myth:

    “When Israeli historians Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman challenged Wiesenthal on this point, he admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million because it was almost, but not quite, as large as six million.”

    Clearly it is reasonable to consider whether the equally implausible, unproven and deeply intertwined stories about mass killings of the sick were not also inspired by a desire to manipulate public opinion.

  26. # ‘Fuehrerbriefe’ … ‘Otto Bauer’ … ‘Ian Kershaw’ etc.

    -- Widespread and valid concern about Communists or extreme economic Socialists taking control of government does not mean that men with class concerns created Hitler, the Nazis or the war for class ends.

    # ‘there was no way in hell any pro-capitalist party was going to get elected. So the Nazies called themselves socialists and put out a hard anti-plutocratic line’

    -- NATIONAL Socialism meant just that, a coming together and behind the national idea of all the members of the society. The name implied and was understood to mean that the nation as an organic union mattered, AND PRECISLEY NOT one’s individual or class interests.

    # ‘They offered an entirely specious distinction between Jewish and gentile capital--and even that was bullshit. It was all a con, a ruse’

    -- I think the rise in living standards and German industrial capacity, the rapid development of scientific and technical understanding, the elimination of personal and national debt, and the transformation of cultural forms during the 1930s gives lie to this view. If German and Jewish control of the money supply and capital amount to the same thing then outcomes would have been identical. But the Nazis turned around Germany’s economy after they re-Germanised banking, just like the Argentineans and the Malaysians in the early 1990s and the Icelanders today.

    That’s why there are wars or endless war propaganda against any state that doesn’t have a Rothschild-linked private central bank. In this respect perhaps it is reasonable to talk about WWII being a class war - of the Big Jewish Bankers against the European peoples as such who were seeking to free themselves from Big Jewish control as such.

    The Empire exists precisely to prevent any enquiry into whether what you say is true and Jewish control of circulating capital does not tend toward pathological ends for host societies as antisemites have always contended. Like with the holo, Jews just don’t want their claims tested, while the antisemites, who do appear to have all the evidence on their side, favour scientific enquiry of the holo myths and social science experiments in living (- sovereign nation states as they used to be called -)for economic questions.

  27. wrt that last comment, I think this is worth reading:

    Secession from Slavery to Free Scientific Society

    by James Bowery

    Secession is necessary to free society. Free society starts with mutual consent. Mutual consent implies the option not to consent. "Freedom From" compliments "Freedom To".

    Secession is necessary to true social science: We can best discover causal laws by testing theories with controlled experiments. This is true of all science. Controlled experiments require separate experimental groups, treated according to different theories and comparing the measured results with predictions. In practice, human ecologies can form separate experimental groups only by upholding geographic boundaries that prevent cross-contamination between treatments – cross-contamination with its resulting confusion and confounding of results. We can argue how best to achieve this in practice, but the principle of giving experimental evidence priority over any amount of argument, debate, deliberation, peer review or judicial proceeding stands as more self-evident than anything in the Declaration of Independence.