Professor Robert Faurisson demonstrates that the pattern of deaths at Dachau concentration-camp, where there happens to be a thorough record of all deaths, is completely inconsistent with the Holocaust narrative. 

Probably the most important point here is that appearances can be misleading, and moreover that appearances can be used to create very misleading propaganda. One should not therefore allow oneself to be manipulated into reacting with rash emotionality to scenes like those in the concentration-camps in 1945, because in that case the cause of the situation was not what one gratuitously supposes, and because the Germans had in fact tried to prevent such a situation from developing.

A point that Faurisson does not emphasize is that the way that the Allies waged war against Germany, above all the demand for “unconditional surrender,” meant that Germany must be in total collapse before the war could end. Rampant typhus in Germany at the end of the war, and especially in the crowded concentration-camps, was a ramification of this demand.

Professor Faurisson’s statement near the end of this presentation from 1992, that he did not believe that there was a “Jewish conspiracy” to lie, deserves an asterisk, because when I met him at his home in August 2000 he said something that on its face might seem at variance from what he had said publicly 8 years earlier. About the lie of the Holocaust, he said:

“It is not a British lie; it is not a Communist lie: it is a big Jewish lie.”

One can reconcile these statements by emphasizing the word conspiracy. It means that Jews did not have a meeting as portrayed in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion where they decided in an organized manner to tell this lie. Rather, it is a story that began perhaps as a rumor*, which Jews in general have taken up and repeated because it suited their disposition and their purposes. The Holocaust, and the willful credulity of Jews toward this story, is best understood perhaps as a religious movement, where there is a wish to believe, and facts and logic do not count for much. (See my article noting that the Holocaust now is regarded as part of the Jewish identity in the same sense as Biblical mythology.) Unquestionably there are Jews at the top of today’s Holocaust hierarchy who understand that they are obfuscating problems in the story, and perpetuating it through dishonesty (as happens in some other religions), but they did not create the story; rather, they inherited it, and they do not have to conspire (in the sense of secret, organized planning).

In my exchange with Professor Faurisson, the question of who was responsible for the lie of the Holocaust came up because he was talking (or really, I should say, complaining) about David Irving, and when I mentioned Irving’s claim that British psychological warfare had invented the gas-chamber story, that was the professor’s reaction. 

When you look at the documents on Irving’s own blog, you discover that the story came from Jews. Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, chairman of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, opined in an internal memo of 27 August 1943 that the British government should not be promoting a story for which there was no evidence, and which was likely false because it resembled lies told during the First World War:

“I think we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence.

“These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of the employment of human corpses during the last (1914-18) war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.”(quoted by S. Ward, Independent, 22 August 1993)

An official named Richard Allen commented:

“It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.” (Ibid.)

If you listen only to David Irving, you might get the impression that Cavendish-Bentinck had invented the gas-chamber story, when in fact it was a report that his bureau had received, originating mainly from Jewish sources, about which Cavendish-Bentinck was skeptical and uncomfortable. Even Wikipedia’s article about Cavendish-Bentinck says this.
______________________
* The Jewish psychologist Leon Festinger, in his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, cites the development of a similar rumor among Japanese held in U.S. concentration camps during the Second World War. The explanation for such a rumor, according to Festinger, is that when people expect to be treated cruelly but receive kind treatment instead, their imagination tends to make up the difference: they assume that what appears to be kindness is a trick. Thus a perfectly innocent shower-room becomes a gas-chamber to the fearful imagination. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2020/05/20/dr-robert-faurisson-talks-about-dachau/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/10/22/after-a-lifetime-of-defying-jewish-bigots-robert-faurisson-dead-of-a-heart-attack-at-age-89/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/10/22/after-a-lifetime-of-defying-jewish-bigots-robert-faurisson-dead-of-a-heart-attack-at-age-89/#respond Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:29:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/10/22/after-a-lifetime-of-defying-jewish-bigots-robert-faurisson-dead-of-a-heart-attack-at-age-89/

The video below, by Vincent Reynouard, shows what was happening in Faurisson’s life the day before he died. The computer-pronunciation of Faurisson’s name in the video below is not quite right. It is FOE-ris-son.

]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/10/22/after-a-lifetime-of-defying-jewish-bigots-robert-faurisson-dead-of-a-heart-attack-at-age-89/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/03/16/its-mengele-day/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/03/16/its-mengele-day/#respond Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:57:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/03/16/its-mengele-day/

Today is the day to celebrate kind German physicians, and Germans recklessly defamed.

Dr. Joseph Mengele was born on 16 March 1911.

Other than Adolf Hitler, Josef Mengele may be the only figure from National-Socialist Germany targeted for demonization with an entire major motion-picture while he was still alive and at large. The Boys from Brazil in 1978, based on Ira Levin’s 1976 novel, portrays a “Josef Mengele” that is pure, crude caricature.

Just think of it. You are living in deliberate obscurity in South America, trying to avoid trouble, while a character that is supposed to be you, bearing your real name, is portrayed through the absurd histrionics of Gregory Peck as a vintage 1943 Hollywood-style “Nazi” sadist and diehard Hitler-loyalist who is also the ruthless kingpin of a vast and well funded (and entirely fictitious) criminal conspiracy to take over the world.

Absurd Jewish Hollywood.

To emphasize the sinister character of the chief conspirator, the “Nazi-hunter” played by Laurence Olivier cites as alleged historical fact that you “ … killed 2 ½ million people, experimented on children, Jewish and non-Jewish, using twins mostly, injecting blue dyes into their eyes to make them acceptable Aryans, amputating limbs and organs from thousands, operating without anaesthetics….”

The average movie-viewer of course will fail to ask whether there is even a shred of physical evidence for any such accusation against you. (There is not.) The average viewer will assume that if it is being cited as history, even in a largely fictitious story, it is probably true.

Meanwhile, in your efforts to avoid attracting attention, you have had to relocate from Germany to Argentina to Paraguay to Brazil, have stopped using your real name, and have even given up your life’s work of practicing medicine (the university that issued your M.D. and Ph.D. having revoked them in 1964) to live in poverty working as a farmhand.

So who is the persecutor and who is the persecuted in this scenario? To answer this question it helps to examine what is known about Mengele’s life and background.

Background and Character

Josef Mengele (1911-1979) was the oldest of three brothers. Their father built the largest farm-machinery manufacturing company in Germany, Karl Mengele & Sons of Guenzburg, Bavaria. Upon Karl Mengele’s death in 1959 the company had more than 2000 employees worldwide.

The Mengele family was conservative. Karl Mengele had fought in the First World War and was at various times a member of the Stahlhelm, the Bund der Frontsoldaten, and the conservative nationalist party, the DNVP. German Wikipedia says: “He is described as conservative, but is not considered an anti-Semite.”

In 1932 Karl Mengele made his factories available for campaign appearances by Adolf Hitler, but this was in conformity with the requirements of the Harzburg Front, an alliance between the NSDAP, Deutschnationale Volkspartei, and Stahlhelm. Karl Mengele joined the NSDAP only in May 1933, after Hitler had come to power.

Josef Mengele in 1924 joined a Pan-German youth-group, der Grossdeutsche Jugendbund, and in the period 1927-1930 was Ältestenführer of the Guenzburg chapter. The GDJB was not National-Socialist but “revolutionary conservative” in outlook.

The family-background and upbringing of Dr. Josef Mengele is thus considered to be not so much National-Socialist as Catholic conservative, with political leanings toward the DNVP rather than the NSDAP.

This is unlike the “Mengele” portrayed in The Boys from Brazil, who is supposed to have been an early supporter of Adolf Hitler.

It is true that in 1937 Josef Mengele was an assistant to the famous physical anthropologist Otmar von Verschuer at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (now renamed the Max Planck Institute) but there was nothing disreputable about race-based anthropology at the time; only the propaganda of the Second World War, and the echoes thereof, have made it disreputable. The perfect respectability of this kind of work at that time is evident in the fact (widely publicized by Jewish author Edwin Black) that it received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

When war came and his country needed him, Josef Mengele volunteered for the Waffen-SS, and served as a medical officer in the SS Panzer-Division “Wiking.”

Robert Jay Lifton, a Jewish psychiatrist who wrote The Nazi Doctors, observed about Mengele that there were “no apparent signs of aberrant behavior prior to the Nazis and Auschwitz.” (NY Times Magazine, 21 July 1985)

After being wounded on the Eastern Front Mengele was reassigned from May 1943 to January 1945 as the camp physician in Auschwitz, where Jewish physicians worked under his supervision. It is in this setting that monstrous accusations have been made against Mengele.

Robert Jay Lifton admits that there is no consistency between the Josef Mengele that is known outside of Auschwitz and the monster that he was made out to be. More than that, Lifton comes close to admitting that the portrayal of Mengele by supposed witnesses at Auschwitz is so terrible that it cannot be real:

For Mengele has long been the focus of what could be called a cult of demonic personality. He has been seen as the embodiment of absolute evil, a doctor pledged to heal who kills instead. But this demonization made him something of a deity, a nonhuman or even superhuman force, and served as a barrier to any explanation of his behavior.

Rather than admit that this demonization might be a distortion, however, Lifton takes his cue from fellow Jew Hannah Arendt, by trying to explain how a man (like Eichmann or Mengele) who is to all appearances modest and mild and not a monster might nonetheless have done monstrous things. To support this position, Lifton hypothesizes that there were in effect two Mengeles:

She is surely correct in her claim that an ordinary person is capable of extreme evil. But over the course of committing evil acts, an ordinary person becomes something different. In a process I call ”doubling,” a new self takes shape that adapts to the evil environment, and the evil acts become part of that self.

Given the Jewish imperative of maintaining the accusations against Mengele contrary to all evidence of what kind of man Mengele was, psychiatrist Lifton invents the “doubling” hypothesis. Indirectly Lifton thereby admits that it is unlikely that the Mengele known outside of Auschwitz did what the “Mengele” of Holocaust literature is supposed to have done. 

Accusations

For the monster that Holocaust-propaganda eventually made him out to be, Josef Mengele was the focus of surprisingly little attention in the years immediately following the Second World War.

There was this. In 1948, International Universities Press, a publisher mainly of Freudian literature, published Jewish gynecologist Gisella Perl’s I was a Doctor in Auschwitz. This seems to be by far the earliest publication (in English) of any accusation against Mengele. 

In the publicity about Mengele following The Boys from Brazil, Perl received attention again:

“Dr. Mengele told me that it was my duty to report every pregnant woman to him,” Dr. Perl said. “He said that they would go to another camp for better nutrition, even for milk. So women began to run directly to him, telling him, ‘I am pregnant.’ I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz.”

SHE INTERRUPTED the pregnancies, she said, “in the night, on a dirty floor using only my dirty hands.” “Hundreds of times I had premature deliveries,” she said. “No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered.” [Nadine Brozan interviews Gisella Perl, NY Times, 16 November 1982]

Perl does not say how she knew that the pregnant women and their infants were all being killed. The rumor, however, fits the pattern described in Leon Festinger‘s 1957 tome A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: the theory is that rumors of secret horrible deeds are invented and eagerly believed as a way of explaining away why somebody that one expects to be hostile offers kindness instead. According to Festinger’s theory, nasty stories about Mengele would have been caused by his being too nice.

If Perl is giving an accurate account of her own actions, then she is a monster herself, having used a rumor as a justification for some huge number of infanticides.

L.A. Rollins (reviewing another book that relies on Perl as a source, for the Journal of Historical Review) notes that Perl’s book includes unbelievable details, like the following:

Then, one day, Dr. Mengele came to the hospital and gave a new order. From now on Jewish women could have their children. They were not going to be killed because of their pregnancy. The children, of course, had to be taken to the crematory by me, personally, but the women would be allowed to live. I was jubilant…. I had 292 expectant mothers in my ward when Dr. Mengele changed his mind. He came roaring into the hospital, whip and revolver in hand, and had all 292 women loaded on a single truck and tossed, alive, into the flames of the crematory. [Gisella Perl, I Was a Doctor in Auschwitz, 1948: pp. 163-164]

“Whip and revolver in hand”! That is quite a bedside manner, and certainly a remarkable approach to avoiding panic, which would have to be a concern for anyone working in a concentration camp. Rollins comments:

I’m sure that tossing 292 women, alive, “into the flames of the crematory” was a helluva lot easier said than done. And Gisella Perl did not say that she saw this improbable deed done.

She also cannot seem to make up her mind whether the supposed killing of pregnant Jewish women was overt or secret. In the interview for the New York Times in the 1980s it was a secret that she discovered, whereas the “Mengele” in her book made no attempt to avoid frightening anybody.

Perl’s accusations seem not to have had much influence when her book first appeared. 1948 was the beginning of the Cold War, so that efforts to perpetuate anti-German propaganda at this time were out of step with the prevailing mood in the United States.

Mengele was not initially wanted as a war-criminal. The first time that Mengele’s name appeared in the New York Times was 19 June 1960, during the show-trial of Adolf Eichmann.

It was also in 1960 that the English translation of Miklos Nyiszli’s ostensible memoir, Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account, appeared, claiming that the author had been Mengele’s assistant. The book contained many defamatory details about Mengele and about the Sonderkommando, but even mainstream historians today admit that Nyiszli’s book lacks credibility, especially because his physical description of Krema II, where he claimed that he’d had an office, was significantly inaccurate.

On 3 July 1960 an Argentine judge ordered Mengele’s arrest, following a request for extradition to West Germany, but Mengele had already left Argentina. In this period Mengele was being accused, in addition to deciding who would be gassed (in a camp where it is now known that no gassings occurred), of administering lethal injections of gasoline, phenol, and air as supposed experiments.

German Wikipedia says:

Mengele rückte erst während der frühen 1960er Jahre im Zuge der Ermittlungen zu den Auschwitzprozessen ins engere Blickfeld der Strafverfolger. Zuvor hatte er bereits einige Jahre unter seinem echten Namen ungestört in Argentinien gelebt.

Mengele first entered the narrower focus of criminal prosecutors in the early 1960s in the course of the testimonies for the Auschwitz Trials [in Frankfurt]. Previously he had already lived under his own name several years in Argentina without being disturbed.

The prime mover of those Frankfurt Auschwitz trials was the Jewish attorney-general of Hesse, Fritz Bauer. 

Interest in Mengele subsided again, and was not put into high gear until the mid-1970s, in the period following the resignation of Richard Nixon, when the Jewish cultural revolution in the United States had triumphed. The renewed effort to demonize Mengele started with William Goldman’s Marathon Man in 1974, featuring a villain that was supposed to resemble Mengele vaguely, followed by Ira Levin‘s The Boys From Brazil, which outrageously uses Mengele’s name.

There are signs of a tendency from the mid-1970s until 1985, with the extraordinary demonological status that was given to Mengele through novels and movies in that period, to exaggerate the man’s importance retroactively. By exaggerating the past attention given to Mengele as a supposed monster, the present fixation could be made to seem less absurd.

Jack Anderson’s column of 20 December 1977 claims that a nickname for Mengele, “Angel of Extermination,” is recorded in the Diary of a Young Girl that has been attributed to Anne Frank. The name Mengele however does not turn up in a search of the PDF of the “definitive edition” of the diary, and the only “angel” in the book is Anne Frank’s grandma. One would not expect any reference to Mengele in that diary anyway, since it is supposed to be a record of life in the “secret annex,” ending with the family’s removal to internment camps. The claim that Anne Frank’s diary refers to Mengele is therefore obvious misinformation from Jack Anderson (although repeated on 11 February 1985 by UPI’s senior editor Arnold Sawislak).

The New York Times’ columnist Ralph Blumenthal wrote in 1985 that Mengele was incriminated with medical atrocities by the forced confession that was attributed to Rudolf Hoess in 1947 while in Polish Communist custody (R. Blumenthal, NY Times, 13 May 1985). In fact, the online searchable PDF of Hoess’ forced confession does not show the name Mengele even once.

The whole subject of Josef Mengele has been permeated with recklessness and exaggeration.

The real Mengele, 1970s.

The Boys from Brazil in 1978 had portrayed “Mengele” as still living in Paraguay with an extraordinarily opulent lifestyle. In November 1984 Brooklyn DA (later Congresswoman) Elizabeth Holtzman traveled to Paraguay with an entourage including the future General Counsel of the World Jewish Congress, Menachem Rosensaft, in search of Josef Mengele. The government of Paraguay informed these Jews that Mengele had come to Paraguay in 1959 but was no longer in the country. (NY Times, 23 November 1984)

In reality Josef Mengele had finished his life in humble circumstances, and had been dead since 1979, when he suffered a stroke and drowned while swimming at the beach.

All this fuss over a man who had been dead for several years left some people looking very foolish. Ralph Blumenthal wrote in the New York Times in 1985:

The worldwide interest in the Mengele case has produced a flood of misinformation and possibly deliberate disinformation that has clouded the search with bogus sightings and photographs – including, apparently, even the pictures on widely circulated wanted posters. [R. Blumenthal, NY Times, 13 May 1985]

Looking particularly foolish in 1985 was Simon Wiesenthal. More than two years after Mengele’s death, the great Nazi-hunter claimed that he was “closing in on Mengele.”

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal says he is closing in on Josef Mengele, former chief doctor at the Auschwitz concentration camp, and expects to capture him within several weeks. […] The Nazi-hunter said Mengele was in a Central American country but would not identify it. [AP 21 January 1982]

Totally wrong, and this was not an isolated instance. The character representing Wiesenthal (“Ezra Lieberman” played by Laurence Olivier) in The Boys from Brazil is said to be a bungler who, in the case of Mengele, finally happens to get it right, but Wiesenthal does not get it right. Ralph Blumenthal’s obituary of Wiesenthal in the New York Times implies that Wiesenthal was not just a bungler but a conman:

Over the years, Mr. Wiesenthal publicized a host of detailed and spurious “sightings” of Mengele in Paraguay, Egypt, Spain and a tiny Greek island, Kythnos. Benjamin Varon, former Israeli ambassador to Paraguay, publicly suggested that Mr. Wiesenthal might have been embellishing to coax funds from contributors. His comments, in a Jewish magazine, Midstream, in 1983, provoked a rebuke from Mr. Wiesenthal’s supporters, who accused him of “profaning” Mr. Wiesenthal’s “sacred mission.” [R. Blumenthal, NY Times, 21 September 1993].

The real Mengele’s last residence.

The revelation of the reality about Josef Mengele created one of those moments when it was impossible not to admit that the “Holocaust” included some exaggerations if not outright lies.

On 2 July 1985, Jeffrey Hart, a newspaper-columnist who is also a professional historian, went into damage-control mode. Hart recognized that the claim that a trained medical doctor had tried to turn brown eyes blue by injecting dye into them was unlikely, but he did not want to call the people who had been saying this liars.

But, as a professional historian, I would urge some caution about many of the anecdotes that are being routinely accepted as fact. They may be true. He may, for example, have tried in his “experiments” to have attempted to inject blue dye into brown eyes in order to make them more “Aryan.” My own historical hunch is that much of this kind of thing is mythology, concocted as a kind of metaphor to express the almost supernatural horror of the man Mengele actually was. Mengele was a monster of theory.

[…]

It is probably more comfortable to think of him as a thug or as an ordinary sadomasochist. As a Richard Speck in Nazi uniform. I do not think so. I doubt the story that he killed a woman by crushing her throat with his boot. I tend to believe the account that when he gave a child an experimental injection he said, “Hold still, my child. It will be all right.” [J. Hart, King Features Syndicate, 2 July 1985]

So, according to Jeffrey Hart, the “witnesses” who make these amazing claims about Mengele are probably lying, but somehow still telling the truth, because those absurd stories, Hart would have us believe, are metaphors for some essential truth about Mengele that could not be expressed in words. This is the logic of someone for whom simply saying that the witnesses lied is not an option. But at the same time he is admitting that they most likely did lie.

In that context, Hart affirms his belief in the gas-chamber story:

There is no doubt that as top physician at Auschwitz he signaled tens of thousands of people to a horrible death in the gas chambers.

The worst of the accusations against Mengele is not that he carried out absurd pseudo-medical experiments, but that he was responsible for indicating who at Auschwitz would be gassed. The number typically attributed to him is 300-400 thousand.

But this is precisely the claim about Auschwitz that, since 1985, has been most conclusively disproven, thanks to Fred Leuchter, who has demonstrated that the supposed gas-chambers at Auschwitz are structurally unsuited for that purpose, thanks to Walter Lüftl the former chairman of the Austrian Chamber of Engineers, whose Lüftl Report points out that the properties of Zyklon-B as a fumigant make it unsuitable for use as described in the so-called eyewitness accounts, and to Germar Rudolf, who has checked the quantities of cyanide-residue in the putative gas-chambers. Above all, thanks to Professor Robert Faurisson, who had the idea of commissioning experts to examine the gas-chambers, and to Ernst Zündel, who recognized the merit of Faurisson’s idea and put it into action.

Tweet

This is a slightly longer version of the interview posted on Youtube, with some changes that I wanted.

Transcript

JIM: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

Hadding, again, welcome to the program.

HADDING: Well, hello!

JIM: First of all, the only, really, thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say, is because my brother Joe, he was very much involved with listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

HADDING: Oh yeah, The International Jew Study Hour.

JIM: Right, right! So, maybe you could tell us a little bit— I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you? So, what would you consider yourself?

HADDING: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying. This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to Holocaust Revisionism through other things.

JIM: Yup.

HADDING: My origin has a lot to do with it. My parents were about a generation older than [the parents of] other people my age. I was born in the 1960s. My parents were born in the 1920s. And my mother was raised by her grandparents, who were born not very long after the War Between the States. So, I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I had learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true, that this was exaggeration, and that the slaves generally were treated very well, and that the war was not about slavery. Right?

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionism. And I grew up with that.

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

HADDING: I have been a teacher.

JIM: Okay. 

HADDING: Not presently.

JIM: Okay. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So, what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

HADDING: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust Revisionism, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. 

But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the Jews. Right?

I grew up with this idea that the Jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the poor, innocent Jews were victimized by some mass-psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the Jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the Jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

I had actually dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King, from my perspective, was insane! [Jim laughing] This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew firsthand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a Jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time that he identified as Jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City Jews and the fact that Jews were very prevalent in mass-media and had no shame about using their positions in mass-media to promote specifically Jewish interests. And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and —  well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about Jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the Platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in an imperfect form in the others. So, Larry King was sort of the concentrated Jew, and I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of Jews!

JIM: Did you ever call in to the show?

HADDING: I did a couple of times.

JIM: And what happened?

HADDING: Uh, it was a long time ago (pauses to think). I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

JIM: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to Jews. And he’s such a wackjob anyway, that guy!

HADDING: The thing about Larry King is, he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

JIM: Really?

HADDING: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t get the shameless promotion of Jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

JIM: Did he ever talk about the Holocaust or anything like that?

HADDING: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there, and Eli Wiesel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until– I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. Alright? Before I started to question the Holocaust, I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books that I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. 

And R. D. Laing’s message was that — his message is really, he really goes too far, but there’s still something there that’s valuable, which is: when somebody is labeled as crazy, you should really try to understand what’s going on with them, and try to understand their perspective, and they may not really be crazy. They might actually have their own side of the story, and these people around them may just not want to hear their side of the story. You should try to understand this person that’s been labeled, right? 

Now, the most obvious person that would need to be given this indulgence, to try to understand what’s really going on with him because he’s been so labeled and demonized, obviously, Adolf Hitler and the National-Socialists.

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National-Socialists might have their own story, that what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right? So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the Jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with Jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed that the Holocaust must have had at least some truth in it.

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to shortwave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strom, but once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

And I was certainly already open to the— I knew from listening to Larry King that Jews had a lot to do with these problems, that Jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989 that had Adolf Hitler on the cover. It was the one-hundredth-birthday issue of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue.”

I had heard and read before then about the Zündel Trials. I heard Ernst Zündel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine. I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody had reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but– It seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know: who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there? He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed it, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema I in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Kremas. And this convinced me!

JIM: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

HADDING: I didn’t do very much with Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and invocation of the Holocaust played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed to have gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein to the legend, which I knew to be false by that point, about Adolf Hitler.

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Halabjah, and there was nobody in the town, but then some Kurdish rebels went into Halabjah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Halabjah. What happened after the Iranians went into Halabjah and saw the dead Kurds, is they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what had happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

And, If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical; it’s: “The Iranians say.” The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw a hundred or so bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Halabjah. 

But what happened was, after Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower, Jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September 1, 1988.* There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times, in which William Safire mentioned that this cyanide gas which had been used to kill the Kurds at Halabjah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

So we had this war in 1991. I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis, and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded. And, also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine, a fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

JIM: I’d like to see that picture.

HADDING: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, Life magazine, Auschwitz. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of a sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend that people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was no such wall.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: So anyway, this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for 15 years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really, the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda, because — this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works — most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear. So what people will do, is, they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe, and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called reification. Where you have a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there, that’s called reification. It literally means: making the thing, thing-making.

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge-gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! Obviously, this was a crazy man, a man who might very well have been involved in the 9–11 attacks! You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9–11 attacks, because that would that would require checking evidence, and most people will never do that. But it fit; if people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/-11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. 

And this is something that has to be addressed also in regard to the Holocaust.

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, is, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, What kinds of people were these that are accused of doing these things? and, What is the character of the people making the accusations? That’s extremely important!

Now, since 9–11, and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9–11, there’s a lot less trust of Jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9–11 that there was a lot of dishonesty. I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if he believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust Jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust Jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust Jews, he’s open to the possibility that the Holocaust could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed. If you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining that, oh yes, the Nazis, they were these horrible people, you’re not going to be very convincing.

JIM: That was a big thing for you, to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too. And I do I do believe you, what you say there about the psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved in that, that a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean? I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name? Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

HADDING: Oh yeah.

JIM: So I mean, she was saying– 

HADDING: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the Holocaust. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a Jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, she belongs to the tribe, and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

HADDING: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind, because in one section of the book he talks about Japanese interned in the United States. And he points out that many of these Japanese really were not loyal to the United States, and they had a bad conscience. And because they had a bad conscience they were ready to believe that terrible things were being done to them. They were inclined to believe that terrible things were being done to them in the camps, because they had a bad conscience. And since there wasn’t any overt sign of anything cruel being done to them, they imagined that terrible things must be happening secretly. To try to make everything consistent with how they felt, they imagined that Japanese were being secretly killed in these American internment camps. It’s irresistible to make the analogy to Jews hearing rumors in Auschwitz or someplace like that. If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were Communists, and had bad intentions, and had been locked up in this camp, but were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seemed justified, they would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumor that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumor that the Jews had.

JIM: Now let me ask you this, about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it went on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

HADDING: Yeah, it was 50-something chapters.

JIM: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

HADDING: It was about a year, I guess.

JIM: Yeah, the reason I know about that, is, my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it, and it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. 

You know, right now I’m listening to The Myth of German Villainy. Are you familiar with that book?

HADDING: No. Who wrote that?

JIM: Oh, my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to read that book, because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like, how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it. So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as an mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

HADDING: She’s not doing very much these days. She just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

JIM: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then Okay, all right

HADDING: “jan27.org”

JIM: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

HADDING: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

JIM: Oh, Okay, yeah. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

What do you think about– Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting their views now, like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

HADDING: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if he’s really “high ranking.” He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent because he makes videos….

JIM: Right. 

HADDING: Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings. 

JIM: Right. 

HADDING: So, I don’t have a lot to say about Eric Hunt, but I did have an exchange with him a few weeks ago, and … apparently he had an argument … with David Cole, and apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole, and he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those Jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead” [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

JIM: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the Holo-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

HADDING: To prove it didn’t happen!

JIM: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the Jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they weren’t killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the Jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

HADDING: That’s right.

JIM: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, poof! and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of Jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

HADDING: Well, I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

JIM: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR material, you know, the old stuff, and, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Weber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

HADDING: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed, and prominent, and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich book came out: David Irving wants his career back. So that is why David Irving is espousing this Semi-Revisionism the continues the demonization of … Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. He constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming Jews behind his back. This is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And he’s really just gone back to that. 

Mark Weber has a different motive. I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust Revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

In the case of David Cole, he got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel, and the Holocaust industry, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer [in] The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, “because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, they can count, you know!” They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992 — David Cole as a Holocaust Revisionist.

There was this period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that Revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books would be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: But during that time David Cole got involved, and he endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a Jewish face on what others had already discovered.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

HADDING: Carto?

JIM: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

HADDING: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR….

JIM: Yes, she was part, …

HADDING: … in the 1990s, and Carto had embezzled it and …

JIM: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result was, he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out of it.

HADDING: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against “the Zionist-Jewish power.”

JIM: Right.

HADDING: He’s apparently happy to talks about the Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the Holocaust.

JIM: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

HADDING: Who knows?

JIM: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. See, because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the Revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

HADDING: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

JIM: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And … we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

HADDING: Well, I don’t think– I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber. Alright? Mark Weber — I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account — Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they were in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

JIM: Right.

HADDING: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a —  just look at him! — he does not convey strength.

JIM: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Leuchter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too. But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Leuchter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

HADDING: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

JIM: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

HADDING: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

JIM: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

HADDING: Irv.

JIM: Okay, okay. Irv Rubin, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now. So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the Jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

HADDING: Well Irv Rubin has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Rubin is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the inference that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust as such. That’s never what he wanted to do. Like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: That’s my thesis about David Cole.

JIM: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the Holocaust museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause here, and doing videos and research for the pro-Holocaust people.

HADDING: As Stein?

JIM: Yeah as Stein.

HADDING: OK.

JIM: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not going to really worry about it.

So … do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

HADDING: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National-Socialist-Worldview.blogspot.com .

JIM: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

HADDING: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

JIM: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

HADDING: Germar Rudolf!

JIM: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

HADDING: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but The Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on The Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

JIM: Right, right. Who runs The Occidental Observer?

HADDING: That’s Kevin MacDonald. 

JIM: Oh yeah, okay, so he probably wouldn’t like, well, you probably don’t put much Holocaust stuff on that anyway.

HADDING:You wouldn’t be allowed, I wouldn’t be allowed to– I mean, even when they were publishing my stuff, you couldn’t– MacDonald is, seems to be afraid of that subject. So–

JIM: Well, you have to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

HADDING: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

JIM: Oh, is that what it is? Okay, well I can understand that. So, okay, that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the Holocaust Handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time, just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you’re a good writer. You have a nice style and insight, I would say, about things, and I think that’s important that people see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

HADDING: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

JIM: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

HADDING: I think, we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing, that’s what I keep doing.

JIM: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody’s, even the revisionists’ views are! I know common sense! You know what I mean? I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen, I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let you know that, Okay?

HADDING: Thank you very much.

JIM: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us too, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

HADDING: All right. Well, thank you very much.

JIM: Alright. Bye now! 
_________________________
* I tried to track down the article by Safire that I mentioned here and it seems to be on the 9th rather than on the 1st of September, and that first article about Halabjah by Safire, as I found it online, does not mention Hitler or Auschwitz. Safire did later (e.g. on 24 August 1990) defend the comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Professor Stephen C. Pelletiere also has noted, as I noted in 2003, that there was very little attention to what happened at Halabjah on 16 March 1988 until early September. So, the gist of what I say here is correct, although what I said about that particular article in the New York Times, including the date, was a little off. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/03/15/hadding-interviewed-by-jim-rizoli-valentines-day-2017/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/01/23/semi-revisionism-is-dead-a-response-to-david-coles-denial-is-dead/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/01/23/semi-revisionism-is-dead-a-response-to-david-coles-denial-is-dead/#respond Mon, 23 Jan 2017 04:10:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/01/23/semi-revisionism-is-dead-a-response-to-david-coles-denial-is-dead/

Tweet

Jewish Semi-Revisionist David Cole

Semi-Revisionism is a term coined by Professor Robert Faurisson to designate the position of the three men who previously represented Holocaust Revisionism but later retreated to the position of endorsing any Holocaust accusation not specifically addressed by the Leuchter Report. In other words, they give the benefit of the doubt to the Holocaust Faith on every question where an absolute disproof was impossible, in spite of all indications that this indulgence is undeserved.

The trailer for the upcoming film Denial, about David Irving’s failed libel-suit in 2000 against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, purposefully misrepresents David Irving’s position on the Holocaust, and specifically what he said to Deborah Lipstadt on 11 November 1994. 

On that occasion, Professor Lipstadt told an audience that there was a blueprint of a gas-chamber that showed holes in the roof for introducing Zyklon-B pellets. In fact there is no such thing. David Irving stood up and issued the following challenge:

“I have here a thousand dollars for you if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them.” (D. Irving, A Radical’s Diary, 11 November 1994)

That is what Mr. Irving recorded himself as saying in his Radical’s Diary, and there are also two video-recordings of the exchange, one of them made by Emory University.

The trailer for Denial, however, represents David Irving as saying:

“… I’ve got a thousand dollars to give anyone who can show me a document that proves the Holocaust.”

That is very different from what David Irving actually said. David Irving knew that there was no blueprint of an Auschwitz gas-chamber as Lipstadt had claimed, because Robert Faurisson had acquired and published the blueprints for the alleged gas-chambers in 1976: the rooms supposed to be gas-chambers are clearly marked in the blueprints as mortuaries. Irving challenged Lipstadt only on that specific point. The film however has him daring her — or anyone — to prove the entire Holocaust. 

The obvious purpose of this misrepresentation is to facilitate labeling David Irving as the quintessential Holocaust Revisionist, or “Denier,” which he really never was. David Irving (unlike the much more rigorous and courageous Robert Faurisson) never took the position that there was no Holocaust.

He firmly believes all that he says and nobody present in the courtroom would have dared to question it, not even the president of the tribunal.

In the course of explaining what led him to undertake his researches, he confesses his shame about the German victims at the end of the war and says (in English), “… I have to be a gentleman.” He passes from French to English a few times and from French to German whenever it seems necessary for imparting more precision to his argument, without ever omitting to translate word for word into the language of Molière. Regarding the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, he will say: “This trial is a disgrace!”

Read more on CODOH. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2016/03/21/robert-faurisson-in-court-17-march-2016/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2012/04/13/mark-weber-plagiarist/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2012/04/13/mark-weber-plagiarist/#respond Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:08:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2012/04/13/mark-weber-plagiarist/

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

 – Adolf Hitler 

I pointed out to Weber the inadequacy of his response, and I sent him approximately the text that you see here, informing him that lacking any adequate response I would make it public, but he has had nothing further to say. In fact, with the podcast that appeared on Voice of Reason immediately after I sent my initial complaint, after Weber’s response, and after I explained that the response was inadequate, Weber is practically thumbing his nose at me.

Originally the title of my declaration about this matter was going to be something less direct than “Mark Weber: Plagiarist,” but as things are, I see no reason to cut any slack.

I really wanted to avoid open conflict in this matter, but I am far from being the first to state publicly a complaint against Mark Weber. See, for example, Professor Robert Faurisson’s polemic from 2009, “Mark Weber must resign from the Institute for Historical Review.” Dr. Faurisson accuses Weber, among other faults, of “faint-heartedness”: Weber has tried to be less controversial at the expense of truth and accuracy; he has been unnecessarily equivocal; he has even backed away from forthright refutation of the Holocaust-lie. That faint-heartedness, as Professor Faurisson calls it, would also explain why Weber does not wish to give recognition to National-Socialist Worldview or its author, even though it is clear that he has derived some facts and ideas from here.

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.


[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.


[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821).

Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).

If the “Goebbels diaries” are fake, then there is little evidence to support the claim that Goebbels was the instigator of anti-Jewish violence on Kristallnacht. In that case everything else about Goebbels’ behavior, and Hitler’s behavior toward him, makes a lot more sense.

_________________________________

This comment did not get past moderation on Guy White’s blog. I leave it up to you to figure out why.

Mr. Guy White:

It would be nice if you at least knew something about “Holocaust Denial” (the term used by the enemies of historical revisionism as pertains to the Jews’ Holocaust Myth) before attacking it. You are attacking a strawman of your own creation.

You say: “The belief is based on wildly unreasonable statements like “all Jews are liars” and “all Jews are conspiring against us”. Without these two beliefs, Holocaust denial is impossible.”

You could not be more wrong. I have never heard any revisionist argument based on the premise that all Jews are either liars or conspirators. There are some lying conspirators among the Jews, but most of them are simply believing what they have been told, which our people unfortunately also do.

We saw something very similar in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, with a handful of politically motivated liars convincing most of the country that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass-destruction, and a number of other inflammatory lies (genocide of the Kurds, assassination attempt on Bush Senior, intention to invade Saudi Arabia in 1991) that I was able to disprove with the resources of a public library and the internet. You will find however that even today people who had the greatest emotional investment in the anti-Saddam hysteria will still claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs even though Bush himself has said that there weren’t any, because sources like Newsmax have given these true believers the excuses that they needed to go on believing. The Holocaust story is very much like that.

“The question is why is it that hundreds of thousands of Jews are telling us the same story….”

There are very few Jews, indeed very few people of any ethnicity, that claim to know anything about gassings. I have yet to hear of such a witness whose story didn’t include impossible or ridiculous details, like crematorium-smoke that changed color according to the nationality of the Jew being cremated. As a matter of fact, any Jew that claims to have seen smoke coming out of a crematorium stack on a regular basis – which a number of them do claim, probably because they heard it from Elie Wiesel – is a liar: crematoria do not emit smoke. This is not a matter of calling hundreds of thousands of Jews liars: it is a matter of recognizing the power that liars can have in an atmosphere of group-think.

“As with all events, different people have slightly different description of events, but the Holocaust narrative is substantially similar, to use a legal term.”

The story has changed greatly since 1945. In 1945 Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald were claimed to be sites of gassing, and witnesses at Nuremberg testified to that effect. In 1945 it was alleged that Jews had been made into soap and human-skin lampshades. Some people still repeat these stories because no great publicity was ever given to the fact that historians had discarded them.

“We are told that Jews are all conspiring to build fake gas chambers, to tell fake stories, to get fake tattoos with fake Auschwitz numbers.”

It isn’t a matter of building fake gas-chambers. It’s a matter of calling something a gas-chamber that is not.

There was however a hole jack-hammered into the roof of Krema I after the war by the Communist government of Poland to make the structure consistent with stories that Zyklon-B pellets were dropped in through such a hole. No similar holes exist in the roofs of the collapsed Kremas; hence Professor Faurisson’s dictum, “No holes, no Holocaust.”

“Imagine if you met a Zulu who was constantly railing about the Xhosa all being liars, who all conspire to make up lies, who are engaged in a secret genocide of Zulus, and when you asked him for proof, the Zulu would tell you that it’s impossible to find this information because Xhosa have such a stronghold on power and such amazing (universal) discipline that there isn’t the slightest leak.”

The Holocaust itself is a conspiracy theory of that kind. The theory is that the Germans rounded up millions of Jews, transported them hundreds of miles, and finally used the unprecedented and to this day unrepeated technique of mass-gassing to dispatch them (even though shooting them near their habitations would have been much simpler and much less expensive) without leaving any kind of document trail, except some documents that are interpreted by the believers in this conspiracy theory as using “code words.”

Most of the 4 million or so alleged to have been gassed are supposed to have been killed with diesel exhaust, which, although it can be sooty and unpleasant, is not really toxic, unlike gasoline exhaust. The more frequently discussed murder-agent, Zyklon-B, is a fumigant that takes several hours to out-gas, and is hence utterly unsuitable for the legendary gassing of a new group every 30 minutes (Walter Lueftl’s observation).

“I will criticize the Jews for real acts as much as the next guy, but it has to be real acts such as support for immigration, not lunacy that you just invented and for which you have no proof. (“All European Jews went to Russia” … even though no Russian is aware of this and no records – government documents, photographs, etc – showing mass movement of millions exist.)”

Who says that all Jews went to Russia? The thesis of Walter Sanning’s The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry is that Jews in Soviet-occupied eastern Poland were largely evacuated eastward before the German attack in 1941, because the Soviets had been planning their own attack and they knew that the area was going to be a war-zone. Menachem Begin was one of those Jews evacuated.

“You are an embarrassment. I don’t want to be in the same movement with you for the same reason I would not want you or any other psycho to be in my house.”

I am sorry to be ostensibly in the same movement with somebody that doesn’t find out what a position is before he attacks it. I am in the truth movement first and foremost.

Hadding Scott