Wars for Israel – National-Socialist Worldview

Why Zionists who Know the Situation are Afraid to Attack Iran

Hadding — Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:49:00 +0000

E. Michael Jones makes a lot of sense, not in every subject, but certainly when he talks about U.S. foreign relations.

It is puzzling, how much publicly available information Zionist warmongering seems to ignore. For example, how could they not have known that the elimination of Saddam Hussein would facilitate a great expansion of Iranian influence in the region? This should have been a no-brainer. Yet like a deindividuated, unthinking mob, Zionists were determined that Saddam had to go!

The highly competent leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, stated last summer, long before the senseless killing of Qassem Soleimani, that an attack on Iran would provoke a retaliation against Israel. He said that Hezbollah’s missiles could take the Zionist Entity back to the Stone Age, and he said that the Jewish State would definitely suffer a retaliation if Iran were attacked. Perhaps Nasrallah did not make it clear enough that the retaliation would include tens of thousands of missiles from Hezbollah.

It was only after E. Michael Jones stated that any retaliation for the murder of General Soleimani should be against the State of Israel rather than against America —

“Israel is the cause of this mess; Israel should be held responsible for what happened.” (Press TV, 5 January 2020)

— that Nasrallah’s position seemed to be remembered and taken seriously.

Who did the 9-11 attacks?

Hadding — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:30:00 +0000

This poster issued by the FBI, although revised in November 2001, does not say that Osama bin Laden was wanted in connection to the 9-11 attacks. It only specifically mentions the African Embassy Bombings from 1998. Why? Because, despite all the hoopla to the contrary, evidence for OBL’s involvement in the 9-11 attacks was lacking.

Furthermore, the director of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Agency at the time of the 9-11 attacks, August Hanning, said that his agency could find no connection to “al-Qaeda terrorism.”

Jason Burke, a journalist for the Manchester Guardian, went even farther and declared, in the third hour of Adam Curtis’ documentary, The Power of Nightmares, that no such organization as al-Qaeda even existed, but that it was invented in order to allow charging Osama bin Laden under the USA’s RICO statute. There are also scholars who have been saying that no such organization as al-Qaeda existed.

The Holocaustian Propaganda Campaign Against Bashar al-Assad — audio

Hadding — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:33:00 +0000

This is a presentation of an article written for CODOH and originally published on 30 June 2017. It can be viewed here.

Important Points

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has been heavily involved in agitation for war against the government of Bashar al-Assad. In this activity the USHMM acts in effect as a propaganda-agency for the State of Israel, which has an interest in overthrowing the secular government of Syria, as a continuation of the agenda of “régime change” advocated by Neoconservative Jews in the 1990s, begun with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and continued with the so-called Arab Spring in 2011.

An early advocate that the government of the United States should take hostile measures against the government of Syria was Peace-Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, at a ceremony of the USHMM in 2012.

President Obama eventually issued his “red line” ultimatum, which was the kind of action, likely to lead to war, that Elie Wiesel had advocated in the Washington Post of 8 June 2012.

From 2012 to 2017 huge quantities of inconclusive evidence were amassed to lend specious credibility to accusations that Bashar al-Assad was a monster who gassed his own people. This supposed evidence consisted of thousands of photographs of unidentified dead people, and horror-stories told by people hostile to President Assad. A moderately skeptical person could recognize that this so-called evidence did not really prove wrongdoing by Assad’s government. The USHMM however was heavily involved in promoting this so-called evidence, which happens to be the same kind of evidence used to generate spurious belief in the Holocaust.

Russia Today on 30 October 2014 explicitly accused the USHMM of using the Holocaust to drum up a war against the Syrian government.

In early 2017, a group of 90 rabbis, citing the now deceased Elie Wiesel as their moral inspiration, sent a letter to President Trump advocating airstrikes against Syrian airbases. This was subsequently advocated by Hillary Clinton and finally executed by President Trump.

Subsequently, there was a ceremony held by the USHMM in the Capitol, where the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, amid a flood of moralizing rhetoric about so-called lessons of the Holocaust, praised President Trump for his missile-attack on Syria.

The Profit-Motive as a Cover for Jewish Subversion

Hadding — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:23:00 +0000

Recently it was revealed by Project Veritas, in a (covertly recorded) conversation with CNN’s supervising producer John Bonifield, that CNN has been perpetuating for most of a year now the story of Russian meddling in the American presidential election knowing full well that there was no evidence for it. It was done at the insistence of the CEO of CNN, (((Jeffrey Zucker))).

The explanation for this behavior — which seems not to be widely questioned — is that it was done for ratings. In other words, the false story of Russian manipulation of the U.S. presidential election was perpetuated month after month because it was profitable.

But the fact that Bonifield offered “ratings” as an explanation for Zucker’s insistence that CNN harp ad nauseam on the Russian conspiracy story does not necessarily mean that this was in fact Zucker’s motive. It is not a very convincing explanation.

First, if profit was a motive, it clearly was not the only motive for CNN to perpetuate the Russian conspiracy story.

The general hostility of mass-media toward Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and the general hostility of Jews, underlying the hostility of mass-media, are well known. Rabbi Eric H. Yoffe wrote in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz last year that Jews were “panicking” and “terrified” at the prospect of a Trump presidency, and that 90% of Jews in the United States would be voting against Trump (E. Yoffe, Ha’aretz, 22 July 2016). There was and still is an agenda to stop Donald Trump and the civic nationalist agenda that he represents.

There is also a conspicuous Zionist hostility toward Russia that has been evident since September 2013, when Vladimir Putin, through diplomatic efforts, deflated the planned overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria. Immediately an anti-Putin vendetta became apparent. It was only five months later that the elected president of the Ukraine, friendly to Putin and pro-Russian, was overthrown and replaced with an anti-Russian government. The granting of diplomatic recognition to Cuba and the deal with Iran were done hastily as attempts to pry away more of Russia’s allies, and the price of fuel, on which the Russian economy depends, was driven down to unanticipated lows. Meanwhile a new Cold War, or even a potential hot war, was generated with talk of Putin’s being another Hitler.

So, let us not pretend that this incessant drumbeat of anti-Russian and anti-Trump propaganda was motivated only by ratings and profit.

Furthermore, if CNN had wanted to invent stories for profit, they should not have obsessed over this one story to the point of running it into the ground. Tabloids that specialize in sensational stories always manage to find or invent a variety of new ones every week. If CNN was inventing the Russian conspiracy story, they could easily invent a variety of other stories to generate even greater interest.

In fact, CNN had put so much time into the Russian conspiracy story that CNN’s own editor-at-large Chris Cillizza observed that the public was getting tired of hearing about it (C. Cillizza, CNN, 22 May 2017).

Ratings and profit was not the reason why CNN put so much time into the Russian conspiracy story. They did it because there is a Jewish vendetta against both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, and CNN happens to be controlled by Jews. Jeffrey Zucker is a Jew.

The profit-motive has been invoked again and again as a cover-story for Jewish machinations.

A good example of this is the so-called War on Terror. The cover story promoted for people who object to all these foreign wars is that oil-companies, or companies that profit from war, had wanted these wars because they expected to profit from them.

But the USA did not get any oil from the invasion of Iraq. Donald Trump complained about this when he was campaigning for president. After going to all that trouble, why didn’t we take the oil? he asked. Ultimately it has become clear that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil.

As for companies that profit from war, there is no reason for their sakes that all those wars have to be against enemies of the State of Israel — but for some reason that’s how it almost always happens.

The overwhelming power of the Zionist motive in U.S. foreign policy has been widely recognized at least as long ago as Professor John Mearsheimer’s (U. Chicago) and Professor Stephen Walt’s (Harvard) book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which appeared in 2007.

In December 2016, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi commented about the Israel Lobby:

Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions. [P. Giraldi, The Unz Review, 6 December 2016]

How do the media cover the Israel Lobby’s actions? Zionist wars, for those who object, are explained as capitalist wars, and when the mainstream media’s Zionist lies are uncovered, they are explained as capitalist lies.

There are no Jews and no Jewish motive behind any of this, you see? It’s just the effect of competition in the capitalist system.

That’s what they want us to believe.

Cowards and professional talking heads, with their moistened finger forever in the breeze, will of course happily parrot such falsehoods — if it allows them to avoid the discomfort of blaming Jews.

But our people need to know the real causes of events. They need to know who is pushing these things.

When you hear people parroting this nonsense about the profit-motive being the cause of foreign wars and the cause of lies that serve a Zionist agenda, call them out. Do not let them continue to obscure the Jewish motive behind these events.

Fake Intelligence Supports Zionist Warmongering

Hadding — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:44:00 +0000

Professor Theodore A. Postol, M.I.T.

Theodore A. Postol, a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written a devastating critique of the Trump Administration’s intelligence-report (dated 11 April 2017) on the recent gassing-incident in Syria (4 April 2017) for which Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, is being blamed. Postol notes discrepancies in the report that exclude the possibility that Assad‘s government did it.

The accusation is that a military aircraft belonging to Assad’s government dropped sarin-gas near Khan Sheikhoun, killing civilians. Part of the evidence for this is supposed to be a spent sarin-container lying in a bomb-crater.

Professor Postol notes that the container — assuming that this really was the source of the gas, as claimed in the report — is “a section of 122mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets” that was rigged as an improvised chemical munition. The way the tube is contorted indicates that it was ruptured with an explosive device placed over one end of it, so that it was “crushed by a powerful downward explosive force.”

This is how Postol thinks that a sarin-dispersal device might have been improvised to produce the configuration that resulted.

Postol concludes that this “points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft.”

Since the area is controlled by al-Nusra Front, a faction hostile to President Assad, the fact that the sarin-container was not dropped from an aircraft means that al-Nusra Front was involved in the commission of this crime.

Al-Nusra Front, incidentally, receives assistance from the State of Israel, according to UN observers. The idea of staging a false-flag atrocity at this time could have come from the State of Israel. The Israeli intelligence-agency, Mossad, is notorious for false-flag incidents, such as the Lavon Affair and the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and others.

As the cause of the misinformation fed to President Trump, Postol blames what he calls the “politicization” of U.S. intelligence:

I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

By politicization, in this instance, Postol obviously means Zionist infiltration of American intelligence-services. This is not the first time that misinformation from an American intelligence-agency was used to provoke violence against an enemy of the State of Israel.

In regard to the alleged gassing-incident at Ghouta in 2013, which is now cited as a precedent and a proof that Assad does indeed gas his own citizens, Postol tells us:

At that time (August 30, 2013) the Obama White House also issued an intelligence report containing obvious inaccuracies. For example, that report stated without equivocation that the sarin carrying artillery rocket used in Damascus had been fired from Syrian government controlled areas. As it turned out, the particular munition used in that attack could not go further than roughly 2 km, very far short of any boundary controlled by the Syrian government at that time. The White House report at that time also contained other critical and important errors that might properly be described as amateurish. For example, the report claimed that the locations of the launch and impact of points of the artillery rockets were observed by US satellites. This claim was absolutely false and any competent intelligence analyst would have known that. The rockets could be seen from the Space-Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) but the satellite could absolutely not see the impact locations because the impact locations were not accompanied by explosions. These errors were clear indicators that the White House intelligence report had in part been fabricated and had not been vetted by competent intelligence experts.

[…]

President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was “not a slamdunk.”*

The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected?

The same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!

Thus, rumor and widespread belief notwithstanding, there has never been even one confirmed instance of the use of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad.

Misinformation from intelligence-agencies also contributed to the warmongering against Saddam Hussein. Here is a particular example of it that I described for the American Dissident Voices broadcast of 26 April 2003. I refer to the accusation that Saddam Hussein attempted to bomb-assassinate former president George Herbert Walker Bush, an accusation often repeated in the period before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

During a visit by former president George H. W. Bush to Kuwait in April 1993, an undetonated explosive device was discovered. It was viewed as part of an attempt to assassinate the former president.

The explosive substance from the device was submitted to the FBI’s crime-lab to determine its origin. Specifically, the question was whether the substance resembled the plastique known to be possessed by the Iraqi government.

Frederic Whitehurst

The FBI’s chemical analyst Frederic Whitehurst found that it did not resemble the plastique known to be possessed by the Iraqis.

Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher Ronay, however, submitted a report that gave an impression contrary to Whitehurst’s finding. The result was that President Bill Clinton launched a retaliatory missile-strike against Iraq.

Whitehurst filed a complaint against Ronay. The Justice Department’s Inspector General summarized the case as follows:

Whitehurst alleges that he compared the explosive material in the main charge of the Bush device to explosive materials in known Iraqi devices and told Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher Ronay that the explosives were different. Whitehurst claims that Ronay purposely misinterpreted these results in order to link the explosive material to Iraqi agents. Whitehurst further asserts that very possibly his results were changed to support the retaliatory missile strike by the United States. (USDOJ/OIG Special Report The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April,1997) Section D: The Bush Assassination Attempt.)

The finding of the Office of the Inspector General does not dispute that Ronay misrepresented Whitehurst’s finding: it claims only that there was insufficient evidence that Ronay did it “purposely.”

Could the misrepresentation of the crime-lab’s findings, leading to a missile-strike against Iraq, really have been the result of mere carelessness? When an institution exhibits a pattern of misrepresentation in accord with a particular bias, it is not credible to regard particular instances of such misrepresentation as accidental. Whitehurst’s perception of Ronay’s conscious bias was very likely correct — except that the bias was not limited to him.

* * *

President Donald Trump, like several presidents before him, has been misled with misinformation fed to him by Zionist-infiltrated intelligence-agencies. Furthermore, he has not helped himself by selecting advisors and officials who are established supporters of that agenda.

Donald Trump has caught on to “fake news.” Now he needs to learn about fake intelligence and fake conventional wisdom, and recognize what its general purport is likely to be. He also needs to bring new people into his administration, consistent with the positions that got him elected, who do not subscribe to that fake conventional wisdom.

If President Trump does not recognize the problem of Zionist infiltration and deception, it is likely that he will continue to be misled until he finds himself leading his country into precisely the kinds of foreign misadventures that he has in the past condemned.
________________
*Time of 29 August 2013 and the Associated Press of 30 August 2013 reported that the expression “not a slamdunk” was used by U.S. intelligence–officials to describe the accusation that Assad was responsible for the gassing-deaths at Ghouta.

Jewish Talkshow-Host Blames Jewish State for Troubles in Syria

Hadding — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:02:00 +0000

On 6 April 2017 Michael Savage (né Weiner), a radio personality heard across the United States, gave an anti-war broadcast that began by observing, on the one-hundredth anniversary of the United States’ entry into the First World War, that Woodrow Wilson had been reelected in 1916 on the premise that he had kept the United States out of the European war and would continue to do so — but then was coaxed into war in spite of his original intentions, with disastrous results.

Obviously, this is a parable for what is happening with Trump.

He points out correctly that we really do not know who in Syria used sarin. He invokes “common sense” as an argument against assuming that Assad was responsible for the sarin-deaths. He states repeatedly that it makes no sense to blame Assad for the gassing.

Savage offers answers to two distinct but, in practice, intertwined questions. The two questions are, who wants war with Russia? and, who wants to destroy Syria?

Savage initially blames “the generals” and “the military-industrial complex” for wanting war. Then he blames “the progressives” and “the liberals.” He gets closer to the truth when he mentions “the Neocon ventriloquists in the media,” since Neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. He mentions Jeff Zucker and Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer at one time was an employee of AIPAC.

Who wants war with Russia? George Soros and the left, he says.

Savage points out that the ex-chief rabbi of Israel has compared the sarin-gassings to the Holocaust as a way of agitating for war. To answer the question of who wants Syria destroyed, Savage finally declares at the end of his first hour: “Israel benefits the most if Assad is gone.”

The constituencies for war against Russia and war against Syria are both Jewish.

He links the change in Trump’s policy to the reduction of conservative Catholic Steve Bannon’s status within the administration. “It seems to me that the liberals and the Neocons are prevailing, and they both have Trump’s ears.”

* * *

Michael Savage has not always criticized his fellow Jews’ warmongering. In 2003 he was such a noteworthy warmonger that he was rewarded with a prime-time show on MSNBC, replacing Phil Donahue, after it was decided that MSNBC would line up with the rest of the news-media in supporting the war against Iraq. At some point, perhaps after witnessing the overthrow and brutal murder of Muammar Qadhafi, Michael Savage became a critic of Neoconservative warmongering, and has linked it to Israeli interests. He has been doing that at least since 2013.

The broadcast of 6 April 2017, however, marks a new level of frankness and clarity for Savage, in terms of declaring the responsibility of the Jewish State. He implies that he has held back in the past.

“But there is another element, and you know I am reluctant to say it, because of the fear I have, in saying what I am going to say to you, but I guess I’m past the point of holding back almost anything,” he says.

Let us hope that the so-called Alt Right will not be less clear and less bold than this Jewish talkshow-host in declaring that Jewish interests motivate these wars. Our people need to know this, so that they will recognize the pattern of lying and know what not to believe.

Hadding Interviewed By Jim Rizoli, Valentine’s Day 2017

Hadding — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:46:00 +0000

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.

It was not George W. Bush, and it was not Dick Cheney: it was Zionist Jews who wanted the invasion of Iraq

Hadding — Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:34:00 +0000

The question of who wanted the invasion of Iraq continues to be highly relevant because, among other reasons, it is the same “Neoconservative” Jews who absolutely prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump and thus form the core of the “Never Trump” movement, because Hillary Clinton will go along with their war-agenda (having already done so as Secretary of State, with the deplorable overthrow of Muammar Qadhafi and intended overthrow of Bashar al-Assad) whereas Trump talks about negotiating and putting American interests first, and also wants peaceful relations with Russia.

Beyond that, it is simply not possible to have a realistic grasp of U.S. politics while neglecting — as is the usual custom — the role of Jews and Jewish interests.

Ugly Zionist & Key Warmonger Paul Wolfowitz

Review of PBS Frontline’s The War Behind Closed Doors

Hadding Scott

Originally Published on The Occidental Observer,

8 November 2015

While I was in the midst of trying to publicize the Jewish origin and the folly of invading Iraq in early 2003 as an occasional writer of scripts for American Dissident Voices, PBS Frontline presented a rather helpful documentary called The War Behind Closed Doors, written by Michael Kirk, and coproduced by Michael Kirk and Jim Gilmore.

The introduction to The War Behind Closed Doors is quite promising, with Frontline’s narrator stating: “Over two decades, they had served three presidents, and argued for one big idea, that the United States must project its power and influence throughout the world. This is the story of how they set out to change American foreign policy in the days immediately after the tragedy of September 11th.” Then, to be more specific about what that means, the intro includes a clip of former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack saying: “And it does seem very clear that this group seized upon the events of September 11th to resurrect their policy of trying to go after Saddam Hussein and a regime-change in Iraq.” This was a documentary that would clarify who was responsible for the drive for war against Iraq: Neoconservatives — which meant that that the war was not fundamentally about oil.

The documentary describes the path to invasion of Iraq (which seemed imminent but had not yet occurred when the program aired on 20 February 2003) as a struggle between Neoconservatives (also calling themselves “Neo-Reaganites” or “hawks”) led by Paul Wolfowitz, and “pragmatists” or “realists” ostensibly led by Colin Powell. The Neoconservative position was that Saddam Hussein’s government must be destroyed, while the pragmatists, without disputing the Neoconservatives’ provocative claims about Saddam Hussein, advocated containment as the appropriate response.

Brent Scowcroft (a pragmatist who had been an advisor to George H.W. Bush) is shown explaining to an interviewer that George H.W. Bush had deliberately left Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, contrary to what the Neoconservatives had wanted, because it was desirable to preserve a balance of power between Iraq and Iran, and because overthrowing Saddam Hussein might lead to various negative consequences.

The interviewer, and some other Jewish commentators in the documentary — Kenneth Pollack and Richard Perle — speak as if the goal of the 1991 war had been to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but Scowcroft is adamant that it was not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: I thought we had two interests. One was to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but the other really was to get Saddam out—
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No.
LOWELL BERGMAN: — of power.
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, it wasn’t.
LOWELL BERGMAN: Well, either covertly or overtly.
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. No, it wasn’t. That was never — you can’t find that anywhere as an objective, either in the U.N. mandate for what we did or in our declarations, that our goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. [PBS Frontline transcript]

The widespread belief that the goal of the 1991 war had been to eliminate Saddam Hussein was supported by the hyperbolic propaganda that had been used. The comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler started in the mass-media. In late 1990 President Bush joined the trend by comparing Saddam Hussein (unfavorably) to Hitler, because of the supposed brutality of the Iraqi troops in Kuwait (AP, 2 November 1990). There was a tendency to see everything in terms of this Hitler comparison, from “He gassed his own people!” to supposedly unprovoked invasions of neighboring states. Given that President George H.W. Bush had engaged in and never repudiated that kind of crazed propaganda, the first Bush Administration would necessarily be seen as having failed to fulfill a moral imperative when, ultimately, they did the practical thing by leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

In fact, George H. W. Bush did call for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and then refrained from supporting such an effort, as the Neocons have charged. This can be seen either as disingenuous war-rhetoric or as vacillation between the influences of the pragmatists (Scowcroft) and the Neoconservatives (Wolfowitz), or as a combination of the two.

Immediately after the 1991 war, Paul Wolfowitz (as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy) authored a set of military guidelines that would justify preventive war — in other words, war against a state that had not attacked and was not threatening to attack, but might attack someday if not attacked first.

Recall that in 1981 the State of Israel had been condemned by the UN Security Council for “preventive war” in its attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor, with the Reagan Administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, also voting to condemn. The President of the Security Council, Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, explained:

The reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention are as unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It is inadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attack has taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many years served as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it left it to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, was definitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations.[Security Council Official Records, S/PV.2288 19 June 1981]

Wolfowitz was now advocating that the government of the United States adopt the uninhibited belligerence of the State of Israel, using military strikes to maintain hegemony against merely suspected (or perhaps imagined) threats.

Information about the Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to the news media by people within the administration who opposed it, and it became a source of embarrassment. Dick Cheney was ordered to rewrite Wolfowitz’s guidelines in a way that eliminated the option of unilateral preventive war.

Neoconservative William Kristol however commends the Wolfowitz Doctrine, declaring that Wolfowitz was “ahead of his time.” The narrator explains: “One day there would be a more receptive president, and another opportunity.”

That more receptive president was not Bill Clinton.

The narrator implies that George W. Bush was chosen as the likely successor to Bill Clinton as early as 1998, and that a group of “foreign-policy wisemen” including Wolfowitz on one hand and Colin Powell on the other, attempted to groom him for that position.

This period, when the struggle for the mind of George W. Bush occurred, shows most clearly that invading Iraq was not the idea of George W. Bush. William Kristol states that Bush was not immediately supportive of the Neoconservatives’ aggressive foreign policy: “I wouldn’t say that if you read Wolfowitz’s defense policy guidelines from 1992 and read most of Bush’s campaign speeches and his statements in the debates, you would say, ‘Hey, Bush has really adopted Wolfowitz’s worldview.’”

Thus the pragmatists initially prevailed over the Neoconservatives, so that George W. Bush, in the period before the election, was advocating a reduced role for American military forces in the world. The narrator says that Bush’s foreign policy during the first few months of his administration was “stalled between the two competing forces” — stalled between the Neocons and the pragmatists.

Kristol indicates that this continued until the 9-11 attacks: “I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”

A pivotal moment, following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, came when Bush delivered a speech that evening that included the line: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

The War Behind Closed Doors treats this as a highly important utterance. Obviously it is important, since rumors that some government harbors or supports terrorists are easy to generate, and were in fact generated. The narrator says: “The hawks welcomed the president’s phrase, ‘those who harbor’ terrorism.” Richard Perle is quoted praising the speech.

David Frum, Bush’s Canadian-born Jewish speechwriter, also praises the speech:

Within 48 hours, he had made the two key decisions that have defined the war on terror. First, this is a war, not a crime. And second, this war is not going to be limited to just the authors of the 9/11 attack but to anyone who assisted them and helped them and made their work possible, including states. And that is a dramatic, dramatic event. And that defines everything.

What Frontline fails to mention is that it was Frum who insisted on that crucial line in Bush’s speech. One week before PBS Frontline aired its documentary, The Nation magazine had already revealed that detail:

It was not, alas, “a war speech.” It did, though, contain the line about making “no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” And Frum cannot resist informing us he had been the one to insert that thought into every draft of the speech. [David Corn, “Who’s in Charge?” The Nation, 13 February 2003]

This casts a very interesting light on another comment from Frum about the speech: “When he laid down those principles, I don’t know whether he foresaw all of their implications, how far they would take him. I don’t know if he understood fully and foresaw fully the true radicalism of what he had just said.”

Who was really making the big decisions for which Frum liked to give Bush so much credit? Frum had put words into Bush’s mouth and then said that he was not sure that Bush had understood the implications. The picture that we get, by adding just a bit of information that Frontline had omitted, is that George W. Bush was pushed into belligerent posturing by his Jewish advisors.

The pragmatists continued to push the idea of going after terrorists rather than governments; Powell for example spoke of “persuading” governments that might be harboring terrorists. But the fact that the President had already talked about going after governments had created an expectation that was difficult to oppose.

Meanwhile the false notion that Iraq was unfinished business was revived. (Obviously such an evil man must be doing evil things.) The notion that Iraq was somehow a “state sponsor of terrorism” (having been taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism by the Reagan Administration in 1982, but reinstated amid the war-propaganda of 1990) was bandied about.

Dick Cheney is a favorite target for leftist critics of the War on Terror, and for the John Birch Society, who want a scapegoat that allows them to avoid saying anything critical of Jews. Very often, Cheney is represented as a key “Neocon.” In fact Cheney had worked with the Neoconservatives at various times since the days of “Team B” during the Ford Administration. But William Kristol described Cheney’s position at the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency thus: “Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.” In other words, Cheney was not initially committed to the Neoconservative position on Iraq.

George W. Bush adopted the doctrine of preventive war that had been advocated by “the brains” of the Neoconservative outfit, Paul Wolfowitz. From this, given 15 years of demonization-propaganda against Saddam Hussein and a little nudging from Jews like David Frum who were positioned to influence George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq followed.

At the time when The War Behind Closed Doors aired, the Neoconservatives were getting their way and enjoying practically unanimous support for their project, and perhaps it was overconfidence that motivated William Kristol to claim for his Neoconservative movement such unequivocal responsibility for the imminent war. There was always obfuscation about who had agitated for war, with many habitually blaming the oil industry or other economic interests, because such explanations fit their leftist theory about how the world works. It was extremely useful that PBS Frontline documented that it was in fact Neoconservatives who spent more than a decade agitating for that war, and also, if it did not explain exactly who these Neoconservatives were, at least gave some indications about who they were not.

There are however some negative aspects to The War Behind Closed Doors, the worst of them being the propaganda spouted by Jewish television-host Ted Koppel’s Jewish son-in- law, Kenneth Pollack, who also happened to be a former CIA analyst, a sometime member of the National Security Council and various think-tanks, and author of a pro-war book, The Threatening Storm, that was especially influential with Democrats (since Pollack had served in the Clinton administration). Although supposedly giving an expert outsider’s perspective on the Neoconservatives’ agitation for war, and seeming to criticize the Neoconservatives in some ways, the most important part of what Pollack said really supported the Neoconservatives’ project.

I suspected that Pollack was Jewish when I first saw the program in 2003 because of the general thrust of what he was saying, but it is now confirmed. (Pollack was also indicted for spying on behalf of Israel, but the indictment was dropped under less than convincing circumstances.)

In the section of PBS Frontline’s The War Behind Closed Doors about Bill Clinton, Pollack promotes the idea that Saddam Hussein really was developing WMDs behind the backs of the UN’s weapons-inspectors, and tries to portray the clashes in the 1990s between Iraqi officials and the UN’s inspectors as the expression of some kind of psychological strategy on Saddam Hussein’s part for undermining “containment.” Frontline should have pointed out that there was no direct evidence for any ongoing WMD-program. It was all speculation, based, as Pollack says, on the fact that the Iraqis gave the inspectors trouble. But the friction between inspectors and Iraqi authorities was easily explained with the fact that the inspection-team, infiltrated by agents of the CIA, appeared to have been used to try to orchestrate a coup:

But one of the problems is, is that you have a situation, in June of 1996, where the United States is fomenting a coup against Saddam Hussein, a coup based upon Special Republican Guard units. At the same time, you have an UNSCOM inspection, UNSCOM 150, which is in Iraq, creating a confrontation by inspecting Special Republican Guard sites. [Scott Ritter, PBS Frontline: Spying on Saddam, 27 April 1999]

These known facts should have been brought to bear on Pollack’s statements.
The Newsweek of 24 February 2003, four days after this documentary aired, quoted Saddam Hussein’s son, General Hussein Kamel, as telling an interrogator in 1995: “All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear — were destroyed.” Pollack, with his positions in government as a supposed expert on Iraq, should have known about this.

It is the major fault of The War Behind Closed Doors that it allows Pollack’s claims in support of the WMD accusation to go undisputed. Pollack admitted after the invasion that he had been wrong: “I made a mistake based on faulty intelligence” (New York Times Magazine, 24 October 2004), but it is worse than being wrong: he was either a liar or incompetent. The failure to challenge Pollack’s statements is a crucial omission in PBS Frontline’s presentation, because the proposition that Saddam Hussein had been 100% successful in circumventing weapons-inspections was essential to the argument for war. Add the claim that weapons-inspections were not working (and probably could not work) to the premise that Saddam Hussein is “another Hitler,” and it becomes self-evident that one must go to war.

The Neoconservatives Behind Closed Doors

Hadding — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:30:00 +0000

A new article posted on The Occidental Observer.

How Republicans can help Netanyahu

Hadding — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:16:00 +0000

Published by Carolyn Yeager.