Counter-Currents
3,146 words
Monika Schaefer
Monika Schaefer
Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust
The Barnes Review, 2022
This is a book that probably needs no introduction; but as it is scheduled to be released in a German-language translation by publishing house Der Schelm in the fall/winter of 2024, I thought it was appropriate to write a review. (Der Schelm, by the way, has also published German versions of most of Savitri Devi’s books, complete with photographs of the persons and places she wrote about.)
First off, may I rant a bit about the fact that nobody appears to know or care about commas anymore? It’s “Sorry, Mom”, Ms. Schaefer! It always drives me nuts. Correct use of language is important, and I tell you this as someone who makes plenty of mistakes in English. And before anyone says it: Honestly, truly, “Language evolves”—an obvious tautology—is the very worst, most facile defense of both slang and poor language skills. It’s like asking “Animal life evolves, right, so why worry about the deleterious effects of chemical and radioactive mutigens [sic] in the environment?” Courtesy of Caitlín R. Kiernan, whatever you might think of her/him/it.
Monika Schaefer, or Schäfer, as the family name was originally spelled and will appear as such on the cover of the German translation, is the daughter of German immigrants to Canada. On June 17, 2016, she put out a video with the same title as her book. In it, she apologized to her now dead mother for having believed in the Holocaust narrative and as a result holding her parents and in extension her German heritage responsible. Two days later, she also put out a German-language version of that video. Within days, viewers had uploaded subtitled versions in Spanish, French and Russian. There were, from a legal point of view, two problems with those videos: Monika Schaefer explicitly stated that “these things did not happen”, and she filmed and uploaded the video in Germany, from the home of her brother Alfred (he is named as “producer” in the credits) who had re-migrated to the family’s country of origin and was already quite vocal about questionable narratives like those surrounding 9/11. Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in Germany, and as such, Monika and Alfred Schaefer had just broken the law. (Although, as Monika Schaefer points out later in the book, the law never actually specifies this. It is implied but never defined in any way.)
For now, she was able to return to her hometown of Jasper. On July 25, 2016, she penned a letter to “close family”, as she calls it in her book; most likely her other siblings. The full text of the letter is reprinted in the book, as are many other exchanges by letter and e-mail as well as newspaper articles over the course of the unfolding story. By that point, the video had gone viral, and media outlets had already published “hit pieces”. Monika Schaefer wrote the letter to explain her reasons for making the video, but also to warn her family of the inevitable fallout and as a kind of – well, life insurance is the wrong word, but to make it clear that she was not suicidal in case something unfortunate were to happen to her. I also suspect that she wanted to alert those family members who were not yet aware of the video’s existence. Monika Schaefer has a strong missionary streak, as will become clear in later chapters.
Practically overnight, she had become an unperson in her town. Her attempts to publish an explanatory letter in the local newspaper and her sending it to now former friends were met with predictable results.
Monika Schaefer then describes her parents’ backgrounds, her own childhood and growing activism for environmental issues in her teenage years, which eventually led to her joining Canada’s Green Party at its inception and even becoming a candidate for her riding, i.e. electoral district.
Things changed in 2011 when her brother Alfred began to send e-mails about some inconvenient facts about 9/11. It was the first step in Monika Schaefer’s “red-pilling” or wisening-up, and in the classic behavior of enthusiastic new converts she set out to spread the word. Her most prominent victim was Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada, and I’m not being facetious here. Monika Schaefer herself states that she “tried to educate” May, that she “continued to send her materials, both in person and by registered mail.”
This is where I have to insert my thoughts on this kind of approach. I can’t seem to find it (am I blind? hallucinating? misremembering?) but not so long ago there was an essay here on C-C regarding the very thing: How do we best get people on board, via the “soft” or the “hard” approach? I am definitely an advocate for the former option, for the simple reason that the hard approach never worked on me. You hit people over the head with all those “materials”, you talk about the Holohoax and the WEF and Bill Gates and the JQ, and all you achieve is turning them off. Because it sounds plain crazy.
I have this one reader of my blog that I have corresponded with over the years. She isn’t a bad sort, but she, like Monika Schaefer, has no sense of proportion. From 2020 on, to this very day, all she ever talks and writes about is COVID. I embed a video about some other topic that just mentions COVID in passing, and that is all she hears. She sent me links and files and more links and more texts with exclamation marks five times a week. I asked her repeatedly to remove me from her mailing list, which she ignored. Finally, I told her very bluntly to leave me alone with her Corona spam. Predictably, she then felt insulted by my rudeness, never reflecting on her own behavior. Because she was on a mission, you see.
This is partly what I saw unfolding in Monika Schaefer’s story. She goes into the Paul Estrin affair during the 2014 Gaza War (remember that one?), mentioning Estrin’s “article full of distortions and falsehoods” that he published on the GPC’s website. As a result, Schaefer wrote a letter to Elizabeth May, “demanding”, as she puts it, “his resignation”. Well, she did much more than demand Estrin’s resignation. Her letter, which is reprinted in full in the book, goes all out with “cult-like jargon”, as Jim Goad once called it. Estrin, the Zionist shill who will destroy the Green Party from within. Infiltration. The Zionist end-game. New World Order. They have taken control of most of our major institutions. They control the secret societies. We need to free ourselves from the shackles of Zionism. The Talmud teachings.
Look, objectively speaking, it’s true, but this is no way to address anyone who is not yet red-pilled. Small wonder that the Green Party refused Monika Schaefer’s reapplication for candidacy in her district. In 2015, Schaefer left the GPC.
Monika Schaefer then returns to the aftermath of her video, her ostracism by the community of Jasper, letters by acquaintances, friends, family, by strangers, letters to the newspapers, e-mails, social media comments. It is ugly, with the occasional glimpse of light.
In December 2017, she traveled to Germany, to spend Christmas with her family members there. During that time, she learned that the trial of Sylvia Stolz was to take place on January 3, 2018, and Monika Schaefer, calling Stolz her hero, decided to attend. During a recess, Schaefer was approached by “a tall and slender blonde woman” and subsequently arrested. Luckily, Sylvia Stolz’s lawyer was around and immediately offered his services.
We then get introduced to prison life in Germany, which I found really interesting. I have overheard regular “customers” – petty criminals, probably drug-related for the most part – on the train and subway several times, and I’ve always learned something new. (Did you know that “insurance fraud” is code for sexual offense?) Monika Schaefer’s depiction is humorous but also very telling: none of her initial cellmates were Germans. There is more:
Prisoners are treated like dirt when they first arrive. Many of the wardens degrade, demean, humiliate, and dehumanize the prisoners. They show who is boss and who wields the keys and the power. Fine. That is how it is. But I felt I was receiving an extra dose of this treatment, as I was the “neo-Nazi” on the block.
Maybe, maybe not. But this seems to be timeless behavior. For example, since it relates to the topic, these kinds of descriptions are exactly what we get from former concentration camp inmates – and no, I’m less talking about Jews and more about Catholics. It needs to be remembered that the latter formed a large part of the prisoners; Dachau, for example, was known as the “priests’ camp” because all imprisoned Catholic priests were literally concentrated there.
Prison authorities have all kinds of rules, but they do not bother to explain these rules. If we do not follow these unknown rules, they humiliate us down into the gutter. Oh, how the wardens could bark. They were our overlords, and we were the low scum of the Earth, as they shouted and roared at the slightest infraction of one of their thousand rules.
These were early days. I quickly learned the ropes, what to do, how to behave, where to be and when, how to hold your metal platter for the food trolley as it was rolled to your cell door, which way to present your dirty laundry for the laundry exchange, on and on and on. Barks and shouts were easily elicited, just for blinking the wrong way. I truly felt I had landed in a nuthouse.
I quickly learned that trying to discuss anything with logic or reason, or to ask why something was the way it was in prison, was like asking a mad dog why he was barking.
Monika Schaefer beat the system with politeness, showing respect but also demanding it. Over time, the wardens began to treat her better. Her positive outlook on life certainly helped.
An interesting revelation is that, despite the inevitable racial tensions, prison authorities deliberately made black and white inmates share a cell because,
When they put all Blacks [sic] together in cells, they would have really bad brawls, almost killing each other. They broke things, made a big mess, and the place would end up completely trashed and filthy. It had not worked out, so they put Blacks with Whites [sic] so it would be calmer and cleaner. The light went on for me: We were basically their babysitters.
Things get downright bizarre at the trial that finally takes place almost half a year after Monika Schaefer’s arrest. Now, we only have her account, not how things looked from the other side. There were times when I sympathized with the judges, especially faced with Alfred Schaefer’s behavior, which was bizarre in its own right. Of course, if you suspect the verdict is already in, no matter what you say, you might as well go wild. I’d be more about dignity and optics, but that’s certainly a matter of personal taste. However, as a consequence of his behavior, Alfred Schaefer was arrested and put into prison during the trial; he had been allowed to stay at his home up to that point.
At any rate, the chief judge clearly appeared to be biased against the defendants. The Schaefers’ lawyers tried to recuse him several times, but “the panel of three judges who were never seen but were tasked with deciding whether or not the trial needed to be restarted” rejected the applications every time. Several members of the public, among them Sylvia Stolz, were arrested during the trial. Something that I learned from Monika Schaefer’s book is that apparently there are no recordings or stenographers’ transcripts during a trial in Germany. I don’t know if that is generally the case; I’ve never looked into it. If it is, I consider it a criminal oversight. How on earth do you prove anything in case of a mistrial? However, in contrast to Monika Schaefer, I do not suspect some sinister plot behind it. “Much later, it occurred to me that perhaps the reason there is no transcript and nor recording of the trial is because the court is an illegitimate court.”
She then goes into the theory that the Federal Republic of Germany is not a legitimate state – a theory that I do not subscribe to, by the way. In the words of Devon Stack: “Not everything is a conspiracy.” If you’ve ever had dealings with the German administration on any level, you know that they sure love their forms but they are not very practical about it. That stuff has to be filed. Who likes to file anything? And modern devilry like, you know, digital recorders? Why, we first have to apply for permission to buy some. It’s tax money, after all. Then we have to find someone who knows how to operate these things. And afterwards, what are we going to do with the recording? Where do we keep it? Nah, better not open that can of worms. There is a reason why the German bureaucracy became a cliché long ago.
Monika Schaefer makes mention of Ernst Zündel’s trial, giving us the (alleged) quote by his judge, “It does not matter whether the holocaust happened or not, its denial is punishable, and that is all that counts in court.” Well, from a legal point of view, this is correct. A judge has to pass judgment according to the law. If the law is faulty, that is the lawmakers’ business. Of course, a judge always has some leeway there. You know, like the one who refused to sentence a Syrian rapist to prison because he claimed not to have known that rape was illegal in Germany. Much could be said about that, but it would have been the perfect opportunity to teach him some good old German wisdom: “Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht” – ignorance does not protect you from punishment. But it’s 2024, and most judges are taught neither wisdom nor anything good, old, and German.
Monika Schaefer then gives a summary of her “Last Word”, which is in essence what her book has been all about up to this point. Sadly, she includes the popular but questionable ”Sefton Delmer” quote to Friedrich Grimm in 1945: “Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war…” A simple search could have told her that a) we have only Grimm’s word that this conversation ever took place, which would not automatically disqualify it, but b) the person he talked to was not Sefton Delmer but an unnamed Frenchman.
The trial ends with Monika Schaefer’s release, having served her time already, and her brother Alfred being sentenced to several years in prison. After a series of warnings, Monika Schaefer hastily left the country and arrived safely back in Canada. Her book concludes with a summary of the things that don’t add up concerning the official Holocaust narrative and a call to whites to be proud of their culture and their people.
Monika Schaefer’s book, I suspect, is addressed not so much to those “in the know” but to her family and friends who have not yet been red-pilled. That is why there so much focus on why neither the 9/11 nor the Holocaust narrative make sense, on what the press reported about Monika Schaefer and what was really going on behind the scenes, on how slanted the justice system is. Not a bad strategy, if she can get them to actually read it.
This review might come across as somewhat critical, but that is not my intention. From what I have seen and heard of Monika Schaefer on the internet, she seems a very likeable, well-spoken and reasonable woman. It’s more the optics I’m concerned with. I won’t go into the “Holocaust – yes or no?” debate, but leave you with two historical quotes by Savitri Devi. I am aware that she changed her view quite a bit later in life. But this is what she wrote at the time:
We do not deny that there were gas chambers in some of the German concentration camps, under the Third Reich. They might have been an unpleasant necessity, and an unaesthetic one; instruments of execution are never pleasant or pretty. Yet, they were a necessity. But first, the people who met their death in them were all sentenced for some serious offence for which that particular penalty was foreseen; they were not “innocent” people, guilty only of being Jews (otherwise there would not have been a Jew left in the whole country in 1945, and goodness knows how many thousands there still were). Second, … an execution in a gas chamber took not more than fifteen or at the most twenty minutes, and sometimes less. And the condemned were unconscious long before that time was over. The information was given me by a comrade who had himself acquired it from repeated personal experience. (Gold in the Furnace)
We can safely assume that said comrade did not come by his repeated personal experience from inside a gas chamber…
And Hans F. talked about the convoys of Jews that he had himself accompanied to the place of fate. And he described the activity of the crematoria, and the ‘great bright-red flames’ that would spring out of the main chimney as new fuel fed the furnace below. [I say it every time the narrative of “flames out of the chimney” comes up: If flames come out of your chimney, there is something terribly wrong. A chimney is meant to draw out the smoke, not to be on fire!] “You would have loved to see those beautiful great red flames!” said he, addressing me.
“Here is at last one who does not need more than half an hour to know me thoroughly,” thought I; “people of the same sort feel one another, I suppose.” And recalling in a flash the thousands of fools that had dared to tell me that I “surely would have ceased being a National Socialist” had I “only seen Auschwitz,” I felt: “Gosh, what a relief to be among one’s own people!” …
“By the way,” said I, “it seems that, in their desire to show tourists how ‘awful’ we were, the Democrats have built gas chambers in former camps in which there were none, and added new ones in such places as Auschwitz… Is it true?”
“It is just like them, anyhow!” laughed Hans F. “But let them do so! It will spare us the trouble – and the expense – of new installations, next time…” [Careful with those wooden doors, Herr F.!]
However, he suddenly became serious, nay sombre. “We burnt Jews (although not as many as we should have),” said he; “but they were dead – all of them, already dead; those who deny this, lie. […]” (Pilgrimage)
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
49 comments
Incidentally, I was thinking today about why a Jew like Unz (who, as always, got rich through business in the money sector) runs a platform on which “even the most controversial opinions are given space to be discussed”. He acts like the great puppeteer in the background. He not only allows a wide range of “opinions” that are ostracized elsewhere and fit into a certain scheme, but also plays off the sometimes incomprehensibly narcissistic commentators against each other, he lets them “compete against each other”, so to speak, in order to create division, controversy and dissonance. He himself seems to personally monitor his “arena” almost around the clock.
Of course, in order for him to appear credible and trustworthy, he has to regularly provide “highly controversial” fodder himself (such as doubts about the Holocaust), but I doubt that he himself believes in everything he writes. What is astonishing, however, is how many people use Unz to publicize their censored contributions without doubting Unz. It’s a kind of “controlled” pressure release through a comment valve in both small and large ways, so that nothing unwelcome to the Jews brews in America. Everyone who is active on the right-wing spectrum will sooner or later, to a greater or lesser extent, or even just around three corners, find themselves at Unz or be linked to there.
Interesting commentary.
I don’t want to get too polemical here about unz.com, since authors from this site are also published there, but I have noticed some weird things, in particular serious inaccuracies and a complete lack of reliable sources in the articles written by the very owner of this site.
And this doesn’t seem to arouse the suspicion of the site’s highly critical readers.
On the contrary, a real veneration for everything written by the ” Master “.It’s all very bizarre.
You don’t need to look that much into it. Regardless of his level of honesty, and I personally don’t see anything to indicate Unz is being malicious, his commitment for providing a space for every dissenting opinion means that you end up getting authors like Steve Sailer and James Thompson right next to the likes of The Saker hosted on unz.com.
Needless to say, this is not a good look for the former and I can see how a naive normie would flippantly dismiss otherwise serious academics through such unfortunate associations. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, for the most part, Unz sindicalizes content from other sources, and you could easily just refer normies to the original. (This wasn’t the case with James Thompson, who was exclusively published on Unz’s site, but this is more of a error in judgment on the part of the author, not the host.)
She should be commended for telling the truth. She is a courageous woman and a martyr.
Agreed.
Also Gerard Menuhin’s book is worth to read. There were English, German and Russian versions in the WorldWeb, maybe, now there are even more.
As a fellow pedant and grammar Nazi, I applaud your rant. I despair a little every time I see advertisements or official statements from large organizations or government agencies bespeckled with grammatical errors. I’d swear they’re increasing in frequency and severity, which I believe to be due to all the “dumb kids” who were failed by our education system – which I, as someone who sits and observes elementary school classrooms 7 hours per week, can say have become all about feelings to the exclusion of rigor – or else failed by their brains which are increasingly “of color”, and who are now moving from the schoolyards out into the real world where they can force me to read their attempts at writing. And as someone who works in an office 60 hours per week, I can say that so much of the passable grammar is thanks only to old folk and programs like Grammarly, which so many of the younger people can’t do without.
Or it might just be me getting old and feeling more like “get off my (grammatical) lawn!”. “I embed a video about some other topic that just mentions COVID in passing, and that is all she hears.” That sounds a bit familiar… *ahem*
…official statements from large organizations or government agencies bespeckled with grammatical errors.
I’m not losing sleep over this, but some grammarians say that “grammatical errors” is incorrect usage, even though we all know perfectly well what is meant. It supposedly should be expressed “errors in grammar”. I am not sure, though I tend to agree that “errors in grammar” somehow sounds better. FWIW.
By the way, I hate the awkward attempts to avoid split infinitives. I’m told they are an invention by none other than William F. Buckley, who purportedly did his thinking and writing in Latin. Split infinitives are OK in my books – in most cases, anyway.
E&OE.
If I may be so bold to do so, I recommend my essay “Descriptivism Defied.”
https://theravenscall.substack.com/p/descriptivism-defied
Among other things, it discusses how descriptivists have used certain red herrings to discredit prescriptivism writ large. Their first trick is to attribute the supposed rule against split infinitives to prescriptivist grammar, and assert from that basis that prescriptivist rules are categorically invalid. The problem is that the supposed rule against split infinitives has not been seriously advocated as a rule in over a century. Sources to back this up include David Foster Wallace, Mark Halpern, and Bryan Garner.
I have no idea about “grammatical errors,” but it sounds fine to me. Any person educated after 1970 will have certain deficiencies because education was contaminated so quickly and so thoroughly in the late 60s.
The problem is that the supposed rule against split infinitives has not been seriously advocated as a rule in over a century.
Maybe that rule has not been advocated for over a century, but as far as I can tell it is dying a mighty slow death. I see “educated” writers all over the place struggling to avoid the split infinitive and coming across as clumsy, affected and silly.
The substack article In Defense of Prescriptivism in the Language Wars was pretty good reading, though I did have to go over it a few times.
I could listen to people discuss grammar matters until the cows come home. Which doesn’t mean I know much on the topic, but it is so much fun to hear both sides.
You see it discussed by escriptivists trying to discredit prescriptivism. It was always a bad rule. If you do not believe me, see Bryan Garner or the late David Foster Wallace.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think beyond optics and getting your facts straight there’s also the problem of mismatched worldviews. When you present an argument, it’s always based on certain premises and usually various assumptions as well. If you pay no heed to the assumptions and beliefs of the audience, you’ll have a hard time getting them across the gap between your basic worldviews to where they can fairly consider what you say, and when you’re making a radical argument that gap becomes a chasm that needs an explicit effort to bridge.
I remember a video of Thomas Sewell being confronted at his home by a police officer who wanted to question him for wrongthink. Thomas immediately began asking how the cop felt about being a “slave” to his “Jewish masters”. It just made him sound crazy. Now, cops tend to be right-wing and perhaps amenable to “far-right” views, but you can’t just start talking about their “Jewish masters” because if such people do exist they are well-hidden and work through intermediaries. The cop may have been upset about mass migration too, but he’s never seen a “Jewish master”! So much groundwork must be laid before you can use a term like that without the listener recoiling…
Exactly. It’s not so much a matter of being right, it’s more about how you “sell” it. It might be a much slower process than just dumping all the information on your unsuspecting audience, but it’s worth the time if done right.
There’s a proverb for Mormon missionaries that applies – “Milk before meat”. That is to say, first talk about nice things like how families are forever, and don’t tell them about the magic underwear until much later!
In fairness to Sewell he wasn’t actually trying to convince the policeman, he was making propaganda for later dissemination on the internet. Rightly or wrongly, and with or without the connivance of intelligence agencies, he has chosen a confrontational Rockwell style approach to his activism.
Propaganda is good, but even I as a fairly red-pilled guy couldn’t help but cringe. I think such propaganda would not be effective at converting anyone, and would likely be counterproductive on that front. At best it seemed to serve as red meat for the guys who are already on his side.
I think he should have appealed to principles still held by the white masses, of freedom of thought and belief – he was being investigated purely for wrongspeak – and fairness, since left-wing radicals and Islamic clerics preaching destruction are not suppressed in that way. He could have talked about mass immigration and asked whether the cop really wants his children to grow up in an alien nation, and why he’s cooperating in an agenda that is clearly leading to the replacement of white Australians (forgive the redundancy). I think such words would appeal to many Australian centrists in a way that the “slave of your Jewish masters” talk would not.
Sewell handled the Jewish angle much more effectively in an interview he did, where he told his story of opposing pro-Muslim-migration organizations, only to find, to his surprise, that all or almost all of them were run by Jews, and that Jewish organizations took a special interest in attacking him whenever he opposed Muslim immigration. That opened his eyes to how mass Muslim migration was guided and supported by Jews. His life story is too much to say to a cop at his door, but he could have quipped “And by the way, did you know that nearly all of these pro-Muslim-migration organizations working for the dispossession of our children are run by Jews and protected by Jewish ‘civil rights’ organizations? I was shocked when I realized that.”
I’m sure you’ve listened to GLR’s speeches. In the one at his alma mater, Brown, he says that when he is in the street he agitates but he promises to refrain from doing so at the University. Sewell looks to attract fit, patriotic but disgruntled men who are prepared to engage in street activism. He then vets them fairly stringently. It’s different to convincing disquieted but comfortable middle class folks to take responsibility for their society’s future. Propaganda is needed at all levels.
I think too little distinction is being made here between the various Jewish groups that matter.
There are basically three groups.
Descendants of Yiddish speaking immigrants from the Pale of Settlement who came to America in the early 20th century. These are the real Jews as most of us imagine them. Already in Eastern Europe they were a very specific oriental people, different religiously, anthropologically and culturally from their Slavic neighbors. In America, these Jews actually remained a separate nation. Of all the descendants of European immigrants in America, only they have maintained a distinct identity, different from other Americans. These Jews are characterized by endogamy and the maintenance of their particular religious and cultural identity. They feel themselves to be Jews first and foremost. This group has been wildly successful in America. Their elite have seized enormous wealth, dominating the entertainment industry and the media.
2. A very diverse array of white people with various degrees of Jewish ancestry. Most of these families came to America from Central and Western Europe during the interwar era. Unlike members of the first group, these Jews are very much mixed with other Whites and are religiously indifferent. They tend to intermarry with gentiles. If they claim Jewish identity they often do it for opportunistic or sentimental reasons. In reality deep down they think of themselves as White Americans. This is not to say that many offensive anti-white liberals don’t come from this group (many Jewish-American liberal academics, activists and journalists do).
3. Israelis – I consider them a separate settler nation not identical with the first two groups. My basic problem with Holocaust denial is the fact that too many Jews simply disappeared during the war. They were specific people with names and addresses. If the Holocaust is fictional, where did those people go? It’s impossible that so many people, for example, moved to Israel and changed their names, were presumed dead, and it wasn’t found out within decades. I stress that the Holocaust industry is very annoying to me, but remember that it arose during the sixties and not right after the war.
It’s true that we often disregard some of the nuances of Jewish populations, and tend to lump them all together. My only concerns about them are Mafia-like characteristics, subversiveness, and bad behavior generally motivated by paranoia and spite. I don’t have any problem with the ones who aren’t up to that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the others are ruining the reputation of their own people. They could fix their chronic public relations problems if they’d just stop doing that.
As for der Holo, there were indeed Jewish casualties during wartime, but The Narrative has been jazzed up considerably, including the numbers and causes of death.
Shortly after the war, there was a series of pogroms in Poland. (That was a surprise when I heard about it – someone other than the Germans was persecuting Jews? Golly, why hadn’t I heard about that on TV?) This convinced many the remaining Jews to move to the British mandate of Palestine, which of course was the future Israel. It’s easy to understand why they wouldn’t want to stay in a bombed-out Communist country where everyone hates them, and besides, the weather sucks. Many of them made the trip illegally, since Britain was trying to limit migration so as not to get the Palestinians upset (which happened anyway, of course). Those who moved did take on Hebrew names, which is still the custom for new arrivals. Some others moved to different parts of the world, and the rest of the survivors ended up behind the Iron Curtain. During all that chaos, a lot of people did get separated from their friends, family, and neighbors, and assumed the worst.
Your scenario could apply to Jews from a shtetl somewhere in the swamps of Lithuania. But in addition to the Eastern Jews, hundreds of thousands of civilized Jews from Central Europe disappeared. In Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, and Italy, Jews were mostly middle class, living in the cities. That is, most of them had some real estate, ranging from a country merchant’s cottage to a factory owner’s villa. After the war, and then again after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Jews in all these countries were able to claim the return of real property that had been confiscated from them or their ancestors by the Nazis. The authorities were quite benevolent towards Jewish restitution seekers, returning property even to distant relatives who could not normally inherit. And yet no one claimed most of these properties. It is hard to imagine that it would not have been worth it for so many Jews to send an attorney from the USA or Israel to apply for the return of thousands of real properties, including Art Nouveau palaces or apartment houses in the city centres.
Again, I don’t dispute that there were Jewish casualties during that time. Of course there were – there was a war going on. What’s mainly in dispute are the total number and the causes of death. I don’t doubt that some casualties were attributable to unjust persecution, which was quite regrettable.
Even so, The Narrative was jazzed up considerably, with lots of spurious lurid details, which was done for political reasons. First, it gave the Zionists a permanent “get out of criticism free” card, which has been devastatingly effective. Second, it promoted a “Good War” narrative, rewriting this part of history as a crusade with comic book morality and patching over some terrible geopolitical mistakes, like saving our Soviet buddies so they could menace the world. The results of the sustained propaganda campaign were to slander an entire nation, which in recent times somehow morphed into slandering the entire White race.
As for postwar restoration of property, I’ve heard that Hungary wasn’t so enthusiastic about that. I figure this was likely so for other Communist countries as well. As for Czechoslovakia, I doubt that many Sudeten Germans got paid compensation for their real estate after they were run out of their homes. Or is their situation different, since they were merely a bunch of Krauts and not the Chosen People?
Of course, the Sudeten Germans and the remaining Czechoslovak Jews were in a completely opposite situation after the war. At the moment of the occupation of Czechoslovakia, all Sudeten Germans were given Reich German citizenship. This did not apply to the Jews, who were subject to the Nuremberg Laws. From the point of view of the Czech exile government in London, the Sudeten Germans became foreigners who could be deported to Germany after the war. The Jews, on the other hand, remained Czechoslovak citizens and were there on the winning side in 1945. Those who were alive also returned to their homes. Only later did many go to Palestine. So it is just strange why the majority would feign death and not return, while another much smaller portion did so. It would also mean that members of these two groups would very often reunite later in Israel (or elsewhere), and this would have to be strongly reflected in various records.
For example if your scenario was true, there would be many cases of questionable marriages: Say, a Jew called Itzik pretended he died in the camp just to fool the Goys and to make Germans feel very guilty. His wife Rifka would be considered a widow and in 1947 she would remarry. In 1957, she is walking down the boulevard in New York with her new husband and suddenly she sees the good old Itzik, who should have been long dead, the victim of evil Nazis, but is in fact very much alive. So now Rifka has a big problem, she wants to prove that her new marriage is not invalid. She’s gonna start running to the courts and lawyers. Or imagine another interwar Jew, Gustl. He was also just faking it because he wanted to make the Goys feel bad about themselves. When Gustl died in Israel in 1985 under a new name, he left an orange farm and a bank account. However, his little sister, the fat Amele, who still lives in Budapest, finds out and wants to inherit. But officially Gustl died in a camp in 1943, so Amele has to deal with it. She writes to the Israeli authorities, sues, proves that Gustl was Gustl and that he was her brother etc.
If the Holocaust were fictional, you’d probably have tens of thousands of individual cases like those described above.
But in reality, you rather have countless individual cases that show that most of the missing Jews were actually killed.
On all territories of the USSR, occupied by Germans, the Jews were persecuted and murdered mostly not by the Germans, but by local residents. The Soviet propaganda has always hidden this fact.
I would also add that in those places in the USSR where Jews had nothing to do with the Bolshevik repressions, there was no anti-Semitism. For example, Özbeks and Tajiks captured by the Germans did not hand over Central Asian (Bukharan) Jews to the German authorities in the camps, passing them off as Tajiks. Bukharan Jews had lived in friendship with Özbeks and Tajiks for thousands of years, were good artisans and merchants, and did not engage in the Bolshevization of Central Asia, which is why Özbeks and Tajiks treated them well and even under sufferings in German POW camps helped them to survive.
Good point. Like I said, I don’t want to get into the whole debate, because it’s endless, but Yad Vashem has 4.8 million names of Jews who died during the Holocaust in one way or another on record. Now, sure, you might say that there are fakes among that number, and indeed some of those stories have come to light. Fine. But even if you generously subtract, say, a million names, you are still left with 3.8 million others. And if we go so far as to assume they are all fake minus the several thousands the Red Cross initially reported, the question becomes: Why didn’t they then fake six million names, to fit the narrative?
So I’m not buying the entire “the Holocaust didn’t happen” story. Is there something fishy about the narrative? Absolutely. Are there big holes in the narrative? Heck, yeah. Has the thing been instrumentalized? We don’t need to discuss that.
My position is that I don’t have a position. For me, it’s not important. Yes, we need to get the word out how flimsy the evidence actually is. (Back when I was red-pilled, that came as an utter shock to me.) The German guilt trip has to end. And that stupid law under which Monika Schaefer was convicted needs to be abolished. After that, I’d be quite happy to leave the discussion to historians and engineers.
Clarissa, you make many good points in your article.
Sorry for the length of these comments, but the Shäfers are not competent historians and engineers so that must be taken with considerable salt. I agree that their optics may not have been the best. But the fact that they are being prosecuted for Thoughtcrime heresy at all speaks volumes ─ and this is especially bad optics for the postwar political theocracy.
It was not a good look either when Chemist and PhD candidate Germar Rudolf was brought in to develop a forensic report on the alleged Nazi gas-chambers for the defense of Generalmajor Otto Ernst Remer (who helped put down the July 1944 bomb plot) by another “Race Hater,” the attorney and Luftwaffe ace Oberst HaJo Herrmann ─ and Rudolf thereby spending years in exile and ultimately doing several years in a Bundestablishment prison fighting foot fungus.
Ultimately, the system brooks no defense for Wrongthink whatsoever other than to say something contrite like “I didn’t mean to say that exactly; of course the Holocaust is the one-true God.”
If a heretic’s legal counsel tries to argue a case on the truth or the facts of the matter, they too will be jailed for Thoughtcrime. That is the way that inquisitions usually work.
The important point is definitely not that the world revolves around the Joos or who suffered more than whom during the war. All people suffer in war, in different measures and for different reasons. To quote David Irving, “the Holocaust is boring.” That is why I don’t generally bother with the Big-H with the exception of its keystone premise: the homicidal gas-chambers.
To put it into the words of the late Holocaust Revisionist and Columbia University-educated engineer Friedrich Paul Berg, who was one of my best friends:
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Either the gassings are true or they are not. What are the implications of that? Discuss.
I did a lot of research for Mr. Berg in the 21st century, although his best work was from the 1980s and ’90s, and it is clear from the Zyklon-B product’s industrial fumigation manuals used in both Germany and the United States, that the Germans understood fumigation technology.
What they didn’t do is build homicidal gaschambers. The Germans never used lethal gas for capital punishment either. Arizona, where I live, is one of the few states that still maintains a working lethal gas-chamber at the state prison ─ all ready to go for executions of sentence in capital cases. A new gas-chamber was built not long ago because of Leftist activists having some success interrupting the supply of medical-grade drugs used for lethal injections (a method that I am not a big fan of). For some reason, there is a lot of fear of being gassed (so much the better) and there are endless comparisons to the Third Reich.
Anyway, you can see in a preserved state, authentic Zyklon-B fumigation cubicles for gassing clothing at the Dachau museum today ─ next to the shower room (later converted into a refrigerated morgue). The gastight doors with peepholes are in compliance with standard wartime DIN building codes for such facilities. When the American liberators arrived at Dachau, in addition to shooting many guards on sight, they went to the new crematoria building, Barracke X, and removed the outside refrigeration compressor for the shower/morgue, and at the open ducting holes on the outside wall, cemented in postal-type mail slots that are claimed to have been wartime “Zyklon-B introduction holes.” Curiously, the museum does not claim that anyone was ever gassed there.
This was all to show “homicidal gas-chambers” to gawking U.S. Congressmen after the war. When pushed, the main evidence for the “Nazi race-murder” claim is the body piles from typhus epidemics at overcrowded camps such as Belsen which had suffered from the German power grid getting permanently knocked out by bombing. This prevented the boiling of drinking water and soup in the modern kitchen, effective quarantine procedures, delousing and laundry services ─ leading to an epidemic in the last months of the war.
Regardless of what groceries one has available, typhus is a wasting disease. You can see people who look like they have been “liberated” from a Nazi concentration camp at any hospice which has terminal patients. Clever cinematographers like the future film directors Alfred Hitchock and (((Billy Wilder))) turned these stark camp liberation newsreels into especially-effective postwar propaganda.
Generals Eisenhower and Bradley in their memoirs vouched for this as the Truth of what the war was really all about ─ the body stink-piles, as I call them. What the Liberators didn’t do is provide any technical details of “homicidal gas-chambers” other than the fact that all German prison camps and the military, etc. used Zyklon-B pesticide, and camps had lots of empty cans and piles of worn-out shoes for recycling just kicking around. The Germans probably could have benefitted from an awful lot more Zyklon-B than they actually had available.
The Americans with their DDT talcum powder at the end of WWII might not have understood the art of fumigation, and therefore went with the Rube Goldberg atrocity exhibits from their imaginations. But the Germans did understand Zyklon-B fumigation. And so did the Americans at one time.
This Zyklon-B fumigation product was made under license in the United States before the war, and the Degesch and DuPont manuals are very instructive if one wants to understand how gas-chambers really worked. You can kill people if you toss the product into an open window or down a ventilation shaft, but that is just Hollywood nonsense and not anything remotely resembling an actual “industrial” process.
This is how (((Leftist))) propagandists envisioned in a New York comic book (LINK) how exactly Nazi gassings were done in late-1944 when the Treblinka and Majdanek camps had been liberated by the Soviets.
I call “Nazi Death Parade,” the Holocaust “Liturgy,” (LINK) because other than some uncertainty about how Zyklon-B is actually introduced into the fictional Nazi homicidal gas-chambers (LINK), all of the elements of the Holo-story are there: round-ups, showers in the guise of delousing, homicidal gassings instead of clothing and baggage fumigation (with either steam or cyanide gas), and then the ghoulish recovery of gold from the corpses’ dental work. Then there is the then-controversial practice of cremation, and lastly, using the cremated ashes for fertilizer. All gone without a trace!
And note how it has all the elements of Marxist propaganda about human commodification, i.e., the Nazis even exploting the “squeal of the pig.” All of the Allies and not just the Communists were deeply involved in the Jewish homicidal gassing atrocity claims, however.
The Soviet journalist (((Vasily Grossman))) actually claimed out of completely whole cloth that three-million had been killed at Treblinka, and 1.5 million were claimed to have been killed at the Majdanek “Murder Factory” (althought mainstream Hoaxsters today have brought this later figure down by almost two orders of magnitude).
Wartime prisons were not holiday camps. My 3rd Great-Grandfather was a Confederate PoW who died of hunger and disease at Smallpox Island on the Mississippi River at the Alton, Illinois Union PoW camp. I am sure that he understood what wartime death of hunger and disease was all about. My Dad has a few of his last letters. The Union PoW camps were just as filthy and diseased as Andersonville in Georgia ─ yet only the defeated Confederate commandant, Henry Wirz was hanged after the war. (In his postwar trial, Captain Wirz refused to trash his superiors, nor Confederate President Jefferson Davis, so the Victors may have gone extra harsh on him over things beyond his control.)
Regarding Zyklon-B and the horrors of bathing, during the typhus epidemic in Mexico circa 1917, the Americans made migrant workers crossing the border delouse (Nooo!) and get their clothes and baggage fumigated at places like El Paso, Texas (LINK). Reconquistas call this exemplary Gringo bigotry, and actually compare it with Genocide to this day. You don’t have to provide any concrete facts for claims if you can just invoke Hitler or the Nazis. Zyklon-B was used. Wasn’t that a Nazi gas?
The term “Genocide” is another fuzzy Orwellian weasel-word that basically means that somebody’s ox got gored. So sad.
The term Holocaust (which actually means whole incineration) was used in many contexts until the Jews co-opted the word for themselves in 1978 after an eponymous NBC television miniseries starring James Woods and Meryl Streep. You almost never find a reference to the word “holocaust” with respect to the Jews in media from before that time. The WWII atrocity propaganda is still evolving.
As Fritz Berg noted in his essays in the Journal of Historical Review, these kinds of government disinfection stations were once common because millions had died of typhus in Russia and the Balkans in the Interwar period. Even whole railroad cars could be gassed with Zyklon-B in giant fumigation barns. Yet no storytellers ever describe this when it comes to gassing the Jews. Very odd.
And such sanitation procedures and equipment were features at places like Ellis Island immigration station in New York harbor, and the Manley Quarantine Station at Sydney, Australia.
Some wartime and disaster plagues are easy to control with modern sanitation measures; the pathogen for typhus fever is spread by lice, and many spotted fever variants are spread by other insect vectors like ticks, fleas, etc. Mosquitoes have probably killed more humans than all other diseases put together.
In wartime especially, immigrants, refugees, and troop movements spread deadly germs at train stations, bomb shelters, and across continents and oceans in troop ships. The Germans in both World Wars were experts in creating the literal Cordon Sanitaire.
However, some diseases like influenza are too contagious to be stopped easily. From 40 to 100 million people died worldwide from the 1918 influenza pandemic. General Ludendorff all but blamed die Grippe for losing his vital Somme offensive in the the Spring of 1918 when British General Haig lamented that “our backs are to the wall!”
If the museum keepers will let you down there, you can find steam autoclaves once used for disinfection in the basement laundry at the Central Sauna at Birkenau today ─ just like the ones at El Paso Bridge or Manley Station.
Communist China today makes gigantic commercial steam autoclaves for treating equipment and some agricultural foodstuffs for use at harbors and transportation hubs worldwide. I’m joking of course, but think how many Undesirables you could steam in autoclaves such as this (LINK). Just like the maw of Moloch (or something like that).
(So far nobody pays me to write atrocity propaganda.)
Smaller autoclaves are used to sterilize surgical equipment in hospitals today. It is not surprising that some of the earliest reports of “industrialized Nazi mass-murder” make reference to steam “gassing” chambers. Zyklon-B, and later microwave irradiation were newer disinfection methods that were also used at Auschwitz for killing bugs and germs. I have a copy of the 1943 SS medical disinfection manual (in German) which broadly explains many of these disinfection methods. It is not nearly as technical as I would like, however.
Notably, in the Forward of the manual, engineer SS-Obersturmführer Kurt Gerstein and one of the inventors of Zyklon-B, Dr. Bruno Tesch (who was hanged by the British in 1946) were praised highly for their efforts in modern military hygiene by the editor, Dr. Walter Doetzer, MD (pdf).
As a mining engineer, Gerstein would have known that diesel engines were operated in active mine shafts in the 1940s precisely because they do NOT generate much deadly carbon monoxide. This is well documented in various academic papers.
Gerstein had also trained in tropical medicine to prepare for a future medical mission as an Evangelical Lutheran, which was interrupted by the war ─ so the SS was lucky to get him as a hygiene expert, and this certainly saved many thousands of lives.
However, like Pastor Niemoller, Gerstein was not a sympathizer of the regime before the war, and he had even been arrested for anti-government activity. But immediately after the war in captivity, for some reason Saint Gerstein (once called a Righteous Gentile by Yad Vashem) made some impressively absurd claims about human gassings with things like diesel engine exhaust and Zyklon-B at places like Belzec and Treblinka (before hanging himself in his French dungeon shortly afterward).
The late French Revisionist, Dr. Henri Roques (whose doctorate was duly revoked) did a fine takedown of the Gerstein Statement, so I won’t spend any time on it. But all Holocaust historians have relied upon Saint Gerstein in the day.
For the Allies in 1945-46, just the fact that insecticide was used in camps was all the proof needed that Jews were gassed in the MILLIONS.
Lastly, I want to touch on the “oh no, where oh where did they go?” canard.
As the electrical engineer and clandestine Holocaust Revisionist at Northwestern University, Prof. Arthur Butz noted in his landmark 1976 work debunking the exterminationist thesis as it was then constructed, “Jews went where Jews are.”
The Jews can’t even agree on what it means to be a “Holocaust Survivor.” In 2003, the Israeli demographer Sergio Della Pergola put the number of living Holocaust Survivors at about one-million. Well, if a million Jewish Holocaust Survivors were still alive in 2003, who did Hitler kill?
Yad Vashem has some “millions and millions” of names, but this is a perfect example of GIGO. Garbage-In/Garbage-Out. If your source data is faulty, it won’t get any better no matter what computer algorithm you use to colorize it.
The way to clean this up is to get real genealogical data for Survivor names and then to eliminate the bogus information and duplicates of the “missing.” So take the names of every known Jewish Survivor and do their basic genealogy for verification.
Every faithful LDS member is supposed to have their genealogy done back to four or five generations; some family lines even go back for centuries. Mine goes back to jolly old England, Scotland and Wales ─ and my ancestors coming to America in the 17th and 18th centuries.
This is exactly what the Mormons do. They believe in doing Temple ordinances for the dead of their ancestors who were never taught the Gospel in this life. But it has to be accurate data, so the LDS church puts great effort into archiving this kind of information. Your name, date and place of birth, death, parents, their information, your siblings, your marriages, descendants, etc., all of it going back generations. And cross-checking the family tree data.
The LDS have a granite vault archive drilled into a canyon near Salt Lake City for storing this data on silver-polyester microfilm in a controlled environment for the ages. I have been there. People went up that same road to the ski resorts for the Olympic games in 2002.
There is data on Jews and pretty much any European ancestry going back as long as such records have been kept. Every little old lady in the LDS church has probably spent hours going through microfilm reels to extract genealogical data to add to these Family History Library records. And the records are open to the public. If you want records of your ancestors, and such is possible to find, they probably have it.
Some Mormons will (somewhat misleadingly) tell you that they have the “Holocaust records and names” in their Genealogical Library. Jews don’t like this. They don’t like it at all.
A generation ago Jews were complaining that the Mormons were clandestinely converting their dead ancestors to the LDS faith. Not Kosher.
Well, first of all, I am not sure how that is even possible unless Jews actually believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, but it doesn’t matter anyway. The only Jews that are baptised for the dead are relatives of Jews who converted to the LDS church and then had their own ancestors’ “LDS temple work” done.
When I was a teenager and still a Christian, I served as a “proxy” in the Idaho Falls temple to be baptised and confirmed for my Dad’s deceased father, who was a (very) lapsed Seventh-Day Adventist. (He was the only one of my four Grandparents who was not actually LDS.) We had to submit real documentation to the LDS temple to allow this, nothing GIGO. Mormons believe that their dead non-LDS ancestors will either accept or reject these “blessings” in the Afterlife.
So Mormons then promised the Jews that they would not convert Jews post-mortem, but this was not happening anyway as was thought. They are still collecting records, however. As Dr. Butz noted almost fifty years ago, Jews do not like to be counted by Gentiles in census rolls. But some Jews that I have known have been quite happy with the family history stuff that they have gotten on their ancestors from the LDS Family History Library.
The truth is that we don’t have a clue how many Jews are really “missing” from World War II. And neither do they. But we could (if we wanted) get some idea from the labor-intensive process of building family trees.
Anyway, whatever happened in the war, Nazi Gassings Never Happened!
No historian can honestly investigate this problem in Germany under Paragraph 130, which criminalizes the critical investigation of the one-true faith for the postwar regime. It is a good example of the Totalitarian Liberalism that George Orwell warned about.
These things are criminalized in other countries as well, like the People’s Republic of Canada, where Monika Shäfer is from. When German expatriate Ernst Zündel was prosecuted by the Canadian regime in Toronto for pubishing a little 1976 pamphlet called Did Six Million Really Die?, his attorneys were able to get many Hoaxster admissions from deposed witnesses into the court transcripts. Dr. Rudolf Vrba, or maybe it was Dr. Raul Hilberg, admitted that a lot of their works on the Holocaust were simply “poetic license.”
In Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence we usually have a jury system with faithfully-recorded court transcripts rather than panels of judges who write the record of the case after the trial in true Orwellian fashion. Nobody else gets a copy of what transpired, just its conclusion.
On the other hand, our jury system is broken because it amounts to randomly selecting citizen-jurors from a bus stop, and cases are dumbed-down accordingly, lest a rogue juror be inclined to exercise his or her legal right to a nullification of the judge’s blathersnatch.
The O.J. Simpson verdict in 1995 was proof that the American jury system is broken, as the Jewish prosecutor, Marcia Clark loaded the jury up with older Black women whom she thought would go hard on a wife-beater. But she was wrong. He was a Soul Brother. The Blacks on the jury acquitted O.J. of butchering two White people with a pocket knife because what they really wanted was to send a political message to the Los Angeles Police Department, who in 1991 had to beat and Taser a rambuctious and fully-intoxicated problem-Negro named Rodney King ─ who was resisting arrest after a high-speed car chase.
The news media (I used to be a Radio and TV Broadcast Engineer and saw many of these raw satellite feeds) had been poisoning the well in the racially-charged Los Angeles area atmosphere for some time. Negroes were strong-arm robbing Korean shops (as they do) and the Koreans were arming themselves (the Horror).
Then somebody actually videotaped the Rodney King arrest/beating which was immediately on the TV news and led to the L.A. Riots in 1992 after a White jury acquitted the police officers of wrongdoing.
Apparently the darkly-complected O.J. jury thought that the LAPD were responsible for slaughtering O.J. Simpson’s White ex-wife and her flirty Jewish waiter friend. I have actually been to the Bundy Drive murder site, just after the Simpson trial concluded.
Anyway, historical matters are decided by good historiography, by intellectual rigor and integrity, and not by censorship.
These matters are also not decided by court cases either. In 2006, I met with the Canadian “White Supreemist” attorney Paul Fromm, who respresented Ernst Zündel in latter years. As Mr. Fromm, like many good Catholics, downed endless glasses of cheap house wine, I was privileged to hear his views on these cases. Court cases are argued in a manner tending to simplify things to thin paradigms that even lawyers, judges, and jurors can understand. That is not at all how real History works, however.
So something complex or historically-nuanced like wartime cremations at camps, turns therefore into cheeky maxims like “No-Holes/No-Holocaust” ─ coined by the late Prof. Robert Faurisson, a literature professor from France, and a great man, but NOT an engineer.
Faurisson was an intrepid scholar who employed a fake engineer (no engineering credentials) named Fred Leuchter who had intimate technical experience with American execution hardware. Together they wrote the Leuchter Report to assist the defense with the 1988 “False News” trial of Zündel in Canada. The Leuchter Report was flawed in many ways, and real engineers like Fritz Berg were furious, but the Revisionist community tended to close ranks on these peer review considerations. This is how Chemist Germar Rudolf was recruited to assist the defense of General Remer with his own Rudolf Report (ca. 1995) and to softly correct the gaffes in the Leuchter Report.
Btw, I will recommend the Critical Edition of the Leuchter Report edited by Germar Rudolf. It includes the four various LR versions and has extensive commentary by someone with actual technical qualifications (i.e., Rudolf). I will state that Mr. Leuchter was a very brave man to go into then-Communist territory to critically investigate camp remains at Auschwitz and take forensic samples. But doubling down that he was a qualified engineer when he was not, was not helpful.
For years there was a virtual blackout behind the Iron Curtain about the WWII camps. For this reason, by the 1960s the story was dropped that there had been homicidal gassings at camps like Dachau in West Germany, and the Holocaust legend was therefore “kept” in the East, which were camps that were harder to investigate critically.
The English historian and WWII expert, David Irving got a year in an Austrian prison full of Negroes in 2005, even though he is not a Holocaust historian and has never written on the Holocaust. However, Irving used to “bait” Jews Online a bit in the day. He once quipped some to the effect that “more people died in Senator Ted Kennedy’s limousine than Jews were gassed in the basement of Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau.” True! This might be in bad taste, but why is it a crime?
When publishing his report to assist General Remer, then exiled in Spain and who had been sentenced for Hate Crime in Germany in absentia, Chemist Germar Rudolf was dismissed from the Max Planck Institute where he was working on his PhD, and after years in exile, he eventually was extradited from the United States in 2005 and served several years in a German prison for chemically testing the ruins of the crematoria morgues at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Fred Leuchter was arrested briefly in Germany at one point as well.
All this in the freest of all the Germanies.
Happily, Germar has returned to the United States where he has nominal First Amendment protections, and he has legal U.S. residency now ─ but he has not so far been able to get his citizenship application through. Mr. Rudolf is still publishing Holo-heresies and staying out of trouble otherwise ─ if he can remember that in the United States you do not just go behind a bush to change your pink speedo bike shorts, not even if it is still dark in the morning and nobody but nosy cops are lurking around. Maybe swimmers do this at European beaches, I don’t know.
🙂
Fascinating. I would encourage you once more, Scott, to start up a substack page. (Here’s HT’s latest posting.) It would be good to read your thoughts focused on these topics and for people to be able to engage with you.
Somewhere in my reading I’ve come across the assertion that Jews have long played havoc with census-taking. They really want no scrutiny. The best explanation I’ve heard, as to where did the Jews go after the War, is they went behind the Iron Curtain and were smuggled into the US.
Anyway, let me close by saying again, Monika Schaefer is a great lady and is to be admired for her sincerity, authenticity, and courage. I look forward to reading her book.
Thanks. I am not sure that I have time to take on more projects. If I did, I would probably write proper articles and maybe book reviews. I wrote a few for the Journal of Historical Review shortly before it was taken down in 2002, although they are hard to find on the new archival interface at the IHR website unless you know what to look for (and the site search engine probably sucks).
My suggestion to Editor Ted O’Keefe was to reduce the Holocaust content of the journal to about five percent of quality stuff. This was a problem because all of the emeritus academic historians who were writing quality stuff like Prof. James J. Martin were dying off and getting good content was harder to find. Less controversial, but still interesting to readers and subscribers, could have been more conventional (not Big-H) historical revisionism ─ and Historiography is an important craft to learn for students with an interest in the Truth ─ plus whatever else that might be more topical for interesting journal filler.
Yes, an academic journal is a thankless money pit; they all are. It is not going to make money. That is why the JHR was shut down. But it was interesting, and so were the annual IHR conferences. Nobody needs another news aggregrator funded by Jews.
The content here at Counter-Currents is excellent and I feel like I am talking to adults in the comments, and many people who probably went to college.
Anyway, I was mentioned by JHR editor Ted O’Keefe in his Whistleblower Letter, which had something to do with the IHR selling their mailing list to the ADL and then either ending the journal or dropping Holocaust Revisionism entirely in order to pick up some Kosher funding (or something like that).
I followed Ted over to Germar Rudolf’s new The Revisionist journal and wrote some decent book reviews until I got hit by a car and Germar was arrested and sent back to the Fatherland in 2005 to do his pennance in prison. With the exeption of the Forum, Germar has since archived all of this stuff at the new iteration of CODOH which recently suffered a devastating cyber attack by a previous webmaster.
A few refugees went over to the RODOH Forum, which has also suffered “attacks” since 2003 and is deliberately run on a shoestring. At one time many PhDs were posting at the RODOH Forum but most of them split off to distance themselves from us Deniers and they became the Holocaust Controversies bloggers ─ or the “controversial bloggers” as Revisionist powerhouse Carlo Mattogno says. Dr. Nick Terry (a Holocaust academic at Exeter in the UK) has recently come back to RODOH when the CODOH forum collapsed.
Anyway, I apologize if I came across as insensitive to the plight of the Shaefers. They have done nothing wrong and I sympathize with Germans, just not their current leaders and “Bundestablishment” as I call it.
However, the enemy will seize on some of the more bombastic arguments in order to discredit Revisionism. Publisher Ernst Zündel was treated horribly by the Bolshevik regimes of Canada and Germany, and this should not be forgotten.
My objection here regarding Holocaust Revisionist fluency would apply to David Irving as well who was an excellent WWII historian ─ but not a Holocaust Historian.
Irving was allowed to tell the wartime German side of things by his Jewish publishers until he assisted with the defense and testified in the second Ernst Zündel Thoughtcrimes trial in Toronto in 1988.
Irving capitalized on his considerable experience as an author and a WWII expert and told the Thoughtcrime tribunal that the Leuchter Report was very interesting and that the subject was in dire need of debate. Irving even reprinted the Leuchter Report and sent copies to Ministers of Parliament to ask for this important debate to be made public.
Well, the hammer of ZOG fell on writer Irving and he has had hard times ever since. Somehow, he rapidly went from a popular non-Academic historian with over forty books to his credit and then became a complete pariah. Jewish theologian (not historian) Prof. Deborah Lipstadt coined a new term, “Holocaust Denier” in 1994 especially for him and people like him. This is when I seriously became interested in academic historiography, although I had subscribed to the Journal of Historical Review since 1980. I had been a Broadcasting Engineer and actually took a BA in History.
Being called a “Holocaust Denier” by Jewish theologian Deborah Lipstadt meant that David Irving’s Jewish publishers had an excuse to boycott him.
Irving attempted to sue Dr. Lipstadt for libel in the UK which was a flawed strategy. I repeat that he is not a Holocaust Historian, but he wasn’t going to get any satisfaction from the English courts over some Jewess calling him an anti-Semite (which is probably true).
The problem here is that Irving deliberately excluded actual Revisionists like Germar Rudolf in his flawed courtroom arguments, although he didn’t do as badly as he could have as his own lawyer in the opinion of attorney Paul Fromm.
In order to come back to establishment favor, Irving started pushing the discredited Revisionist Lite thesis used by David Cole and the usual suspects, but he has backed off ─ I asked Irving about it to his face ─ and he is in poor health now and has probably written his last book.
“Revisionist Lite” draws from the thesis of Israeli spook Yitzhak Arad that the Reinhardt Camps (Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor) were “Pure Extermination Camps.” And so since the homicidal gassings were no longer primarily done at Auschwitz, which was sinking like a battleship, there are still millions of Nazi Gassings elsewhere.
The bottom line is that as long as the enemy is selling the Big-H, it will be crucial for White advocates to address it (credibly) one some level ─ namely the verity of the odious homicidal gaschambers claim, and Thoughtcrimes jurisprudence itself.
Alcoholic Hipster David Cole, who brags about not finishing High School, dating Negresses and cohabitating with Porn actresses ─ and is not a competent historian in any sense ─ backed off Revisionism because he needs Jewish patronage in his lovely Beverly Hills domicile. Cole loves to rub elbows with the rich and famous. Cole has been popularly labelled as “the Jewish Holocaust Revisionist,” and unless he can sucessfully change his identity again, they will never let him return to work at the Hollywood casting couch.
And not only will the Über-Jews not allow Cole to publish even edgy political trivia and his own autobiography anymore, based on what I see him writing at Takimag every week, the creative well has run dry.
And I do strongly agree that Monika Shaefer has the right to stick up for her German heritage ─ as do all White people. We are all under siege!
🙂
Scott: August 14, 2024... Sorry for the length of these comments.
—
3,793 words according to Word Counter. That’s a lot. I couldn’t read it all.
For one who, if I’m not mistaken, has said he is not in the “movement,” you certainly know a lot of relevant “movement” facts and have met a number of revisionist types.
Revisionist historians do valuable work for us racial nationalists who can use their truths, but that does not make all of them racial nationalists since several of the revisionists have married non-Whites.
—
Paul Fromm, who respresented Ernst Zündel in latter years. As Mr. Fromm, like many good Catholics, downed endless glasses of cheap house wine, I was privileged to hear his views on these cases…
—
You were privileged, Scott, and Paul, who is in the movement and has toiled for the interests of our people in the front line for many years, deserves better than that as the foremost free speech advocate in Canada.
It doesn’t bother me or NA at all that Paul is a Christian or that he once drank cheap wine. He represented the National Alliance for years in a protracted fight in Canada where the SPLC, its Jewish collaborators and the corrupt Canadian court stole more than a $quarter million bequest willed to our Alliance by a deceased member. See: “An Honorable Man” at nationalvanguard.org. Paul summed up the case:
“Has a New Brunswick court taken us into Alice in Wonderland and the Court of the Red Queen? — The verdict is ‘guilty’; no need for a trial; now on to the sentence!”
—
Happily, Germar [Rudolf] has returned to the United States where he has nominal First Amendment protections, and he has legal U.S. residency now ─ but he has not so far been able to get his citizenship application through. Mr. Rudolf is still publishing Holo-heresies and staying out of trouble otherwise…
—
Germar has been put through the ringer and imprisoned by the thought police for telling truths about the HoloHoax. He recently was still on the lam, avoiding extradition by JOG back to prison in Germany. With heroic persistence he managed to publish the 634-page, large format work this year, available here: “Holocaust Encyclopedia – Full Color Hardback produce by Germar Rudolf” cosmotheistchurch.org) Several chapters of Germar’s definitive work on the Hoax of the 20th Century can be read online free, like this one: “Holocaust Insights 1: Absurd Tales” at nationalvanguard.org.
That’s an interesting take. If it would be OK, how could I reach you?
Hi Beau ─ I am always available at my e-mail address: [email protected]
It is helpful to put something in the subject line that I can easily notice. I sometimes get a lot of Spam.
🙂
Monika Shaefer’s video went viral for a reason. She punched through a mountain of guilt-imposed censorship to speak from the heart. What she said and how she said it resonated with a lot of people.
Ostensibly, Shaefer was writing a love letter to her late parents. But, she was also, in some way, speaking for them. In this she became the missing voice of at least a couple of generations of Germans. Imagine if hundreds or thousands or millions of people found the courage to do what Monika Schaefer did?
Her simplicity and sincerity showed up how stagey and fake the whole edifice is. It brought it all down to the level of personal preference. Why should anyone be compelled to believe things no one has actually bothered to prove happened?
I’d say playing the violin has served Ms. Shaefer well and that she has an impeccable ear. It makes me want to read her book. It strikes me as having the ring of truth.
“You hit people over the head with all those “materials”, you talk about the Holohoax and the WEF and Bill Gates and the JQ, and all you achieve is turning them off. Because it sounds plain crazy.”
Yes exactly. Unfortunately there are plenty of real nutter ‘conspiracy theorists’ (in the literal non-pejorative sense of the term) who overlap in their ‘beliefs’ (belief rather than researched knowledge is an important distinction) in ‘hoaxes’ – a real turn-off of a word if ever there was one – and what should be more focused incisive inquiries into these topics. Though ultimately the reason it’s difficult to parse the ‘believers’ from the ‘inquirers’ (who also exist amidst all stratum’s of mainstream ‘truth’) among more maligned dissident circles of knowledge is that the anointed orthodoxy will not allow such a distinction lest it ‘legitimize’ inconvenient conversations.
I don’t think any topic should be off limits for discussion and especially history since it belongs to all of us; as Carlyle wrote (in: On History, 1830): “the domain of History is as a Free Emporium, where all these belligerents peaceably meet and furnish themselves; and Sentimentalist and Utilitarian, Sceptic and Theologian, with one voice advise us: Examine History, for it is ‘Philosophy teaching by Experience.'” History as a ‘Free Emporium’ is a concept totally lost today. Instead it’s a domain curated and preened by those who want to own knowledge and have an arbitrary monopoly on truth and the distribution of it. When those institutions corrupt themselves (as they’re want to do especially when any challenge is de-legitimized) and nobody is allowed to check them and if need be take their place in the arena of truth, then we become lost forever in a mire of lies. Forever. Bum luck! Get out!
When truth has to be told it should be done as deftly and softly as possible; “The Truth must dazzle gradually” as Emily Dickenson wrote, “Or every man be blind”:
“Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —”
Kaspar Hauser: August 13, 2024 I was thinking today about why a Jew like Unz… runs a platform on which “even the most controversial opinions are given space to be discussed”. He acts like the great puppeteer in the background…
—
It’s off the topic of Mrs. Schaefer, but “Why the Jew puppeteer, Unz”? is a good question.
Multi-millionaire Ronald Keeva Unz is tolerated by those Whites who don’t mind being his puppets. I don’t go to his site on principle. He is ineligible for National Alliance membership because he is a racial Jew. Our members like it that way. “Ron Unz: Jewish Defector?” at nationalvanguard.org.
The fact that Unz is not just a Jew, but a Jew with a long history of public political activism, justifies a deep skepticism of his motives and intent… Unz implies he didn’t know about or understand Jewing until he read Shahak and MacDonald a decade ago. I don’t buy it. But even if it’s true, why did he not blow the whistle sooner? Has he only now realized that Jewing is wrong and must be stopped? Absolutely not. He’s a cold and calculating fish.
As I was saying to the perceptive Kaspar Hauser, his very writings are highly suspect: if you read them carefully – and despite the fact that they are often full of untruths – they are in a very obvious way 100% anti-White.
Unz’s views on immigration, white people as a group and white activism are not a secret but they are overshadowed by his other material. They are mainstream Jewish views not dissimilar to Tim Wise. He’s happy for whites to be assimilated. I get the impression he will entertain the idea that blacks are not a great fit for civilization, although he’s tried to present some sophistry on IQ being to do with nutrition.
Unz is animated by controversial topics of the past especially if they were endorsed by historically important people, but the politically meaningful ones that determine the future remain intact and untouched.
Still he platforms our material and exposes it to another audience so one can weigh the pros and cons of this. It’s a curious relationship and I’ve often considered it.
What motivates Jews like this may be a defiance of censorship itself for its own sake, and if that also means housing white nationalist and racial ideas so be it. And they come to view this is a better way forward in the long run. I don’t know
You make a lot of good points.
The issue is indeed complex.
I think we need to remain cautious, as other commentators have advised, about Unz and his site, while taking advantage of the positive aspects.
Lady Strange: August 14, 2024 [Unz’s] very writings are highly suspect: if you read them carefully – and despite the fact that they are often full of untruths – they are in a very obvious way 100% anti-White.
—
I’m reminded of something Ben Klassen said 40 years ago, before the advent of the internet: “Why pick through a barrel of rotten fruit [Unz.com] to find a good apple when Nature offers a bounty of fresh fruit for the picking in her orchards. As you say, read carefully, and with a wary eye.
—
I don’t want to get too polemical here about unz.com, since authors from this site are also published there…
—
Is that really reason enough to not criticize an anti-White multi-millionaire Jew who poses as “one of us,” especially on the JQ? Any naive or uninformed White who is new to racial politics can fall for what a racial Jew like Unz presents as “pro-White.”
Anyone can repeat pro-White truths, including a non-White like Unz with the funds to present them credibly, when, like you say — despite the fact they are often full of untruths – they are in a very obvious way 100% anti-White.
Well, not 100%, but is it any wonder that so many who are successful professional prestigenatators, adroit with sleight of hand and hocus-pocus, are kikes? “Keep your eyes on my left hand while my right hand picks your pocket.”
Revisionists are more obsessed with the holocaust than the jews are, it`s like a religion to them. I also think they (the revisionists) overestimate the importance of the holocaust in Europe.
Did it happen? Maybe, maybe not, who the hell cares?! (this should be the correct approach to the holocaust)
I would note that almost all nations on the Earth have in their histories big tragedies. Why should they think about only the tragedy of the Jews and mourne about them instead of their own tragedies and their own victims.
Fredrik: August 14, 202 Revisionists are more obsessed with the holocaust than the jews are, it`s like a religion to them.
—
Really? WikiJews are good for one thing, at least. Searching for ‘Holocaust movies and documentaries’, With tired eyes I counted around 789, going back to 1940: “Category: The Holocaust-related lists – Wikipedia”
That doesn’t count hundreds of Holocaust museums and memorials, or hundreds of best-selling books, mostly written by “survivors,” no doubt.
I couldn’t find a listing for any movies by revisionist historian movies, much less for Holocaust denial movies, but, then, WikiJews and and their coreligionists in Hollywood don’t care about anything like that.
—
I also think they (the revisionists) overestimate the importance of the holocaust in Europe. Did it happen? Maybe, maybe not, who the hell cares?! (this should be the correct approach to the holocaust).
—
I can think of lots of things to care less about that the Jew’s elaborate Hoax of the 20th Century. The definition of holocaust is a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire. The Jew’s sacred holocaust story that cannot be questioned is bullshit, Fredrik. That is a fact!
If you want to learn about a real holocaust, put ‘holocaust’ in the search block at nationalvanguard.org and you’ll come up with the shocking truth in a score of articles, like this one: “Dresden: A Real Holocaust”
I remember my first Holocaust movie: “The Diary of Anne Frank (1959 film) – Wikipedia”. I was in the 6th grade and our class also had to read the strange “non-fiction” book by the same title.
The film was positively received by critics, currently holding a 81% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes.[4] It won three Academy Awards in 1960, including Best Supporting Actress for (((Shelley Winters))). Shelley Winters later donated her Oscar to the Anne Frank Museum. In 2006, it was honored as the eighteenth most inspiring American film on the list AFI’s 100 Years.
Talk about effective propaganda for American movie-going boobs and impressionable American 6th-graders. Whew! The lovely actress Millie Perkins played mule-faced Miss Frank for effect.
The 1982 Holocaust propaganda film Sophie’s Choice played on Turner Classic Movies this weekend. I watched a few minutes before going out to grab some fresh air. Meryl Streep won an Academy Award for her role in that pack of lies.
Something to warm your heart:
Pol Pot is not getting it (odysee.com)
Beau Albrecht: August 17, 2024 Something to warm your heart:
Pol Pot is not getting it (odysee.com)
You just made my day. Thanks, Beau.
Alleged quote: “It does not matter whether the holocaust happened or not, its denial is punishable, and that is all that counts in court.”
That may have been true in Canada 40 years ago, but that’s not how justice is done today. When a murderer appears in court, it’s not enough to give him the legal sentence, he must be taught a lesson and told what a horrible person he is. And when a revisionist appears in court, I think the court is expected to make it clear that it despises revisionism.
But most people see nothing wrong with holocaust revisionism. Even someone who believes in the holocaust should understand why people don’t want to hear that their parents or grandparents were particularly nasty to defenseless Jews. When the entire country and the entire White race, especially White nationalists, are criminalized, there is even more reason to try to debunk the holocaust story. It’s not an attack on Jews, it’s a defense. Even proven criminals are allowed to plead not guilty. And their families are allowed to believe in their innocence.
The reason for banning revisionism could be either that the Jews want to hide the truth or that they want to protect the truth, but what we are really being told is that it offends them to be contradicted or called liars. You can offend everybody, except the Jews.
When Monika Schaefer made her thoughts known, I could relate very well to what she said. I often argued with my German-born parents, and before I heard of Monika Schaefer, I said that I wished my parents were still alive so I could apologize to them. But I would not use the words “believe” or “not believe.” When you’re hit with such propaganda and constant lying every day, year after year, from all sides (media and school), it’s hard for it not to have an effect. I think my position for much of my life was having serious doubts; with recognition, this was propaganda for a purpose.
In high school, in the early 1970s, I had an English teacher (Jewish) that spent several weeks covering Sylvia Plath poems, where she alludes to Jews being made into soap and lampshades, and gassings of Jews, interspersed with other anti-German language. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for that. I felt almost numb, and one day I told my teacher I didn’t believe what he was teaching us. I had doubts about that and many other things we were told, and about ten or fifteen years ago I read it was confirmed decades ago that all historians discounted those stories as phony (lies). I have no doubt “know nothings” like my former teacher have been filling the heads of the entire population of the world now with these lies.
I would very much like some influential Germans, including politicians, to come out for rescinding the censorship laws regarding World War II and the Holohoax. About ten to fifteen years ago, I went from being an extreme skeptic to knowing it’s a lie—actually, many lies. I think it’s quite possible that within ten or twenty years the Germans would recognize the story as a hoax forced on the population while the allies were torturing and killing Germany’s leaders and jailing and threatening others, so that Germany is now led by traitorous weaklings like Olaf Scholz.
I’m sure I’m writing to the wrong audience when I write this, but the US is not Germany’s friend, and Germany (and Europe) needs leaders that will pursue its interests. This would probably still be the case even without the huge Jewish influence in the US.
Finally, I think Ron Unz is doing fantastic work. His articles and talks completely overturn the good guy, bad guy falsehoods of World War II. A lot of his commentary comes from possibly the most important historian of the 20th century, David Irving.
The upshot is that the Germans did not perpetrate a “Holocaust,” and Germany and Hitler did not want the war or initiate it. The holier than thou Americans (FDR) and British (Churchill) did. I would add someone else. Germany’s attack on the USSR was a preemptive strike against the troops they had amassed on the German border in order to attack Germany. Several leading historians now say this, including a Russian (Viktor Suvorov). One only has to think of the circumstances to realize the allies claims are ridiculous. In June 1941, when Germany attacked the USSR, they were at war with Great Britain and France (defeated 1940), and it was clear the US would join in against Germany again. It would make no sense at all to add another world power to the enemies Germany would be fighting.
Another Red Pill to add to your collection:
The Gleiwitz “False Flag” Incident is Pure Fiction | Carolyn Yeager
Mrs. Schaefer’s book, Sorry Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust, is a nice personal accounting by a German daughter, though it may have been written after her mom had passed, considering her age.
It reminded me of my friend Brian Smith’s moving letter to his mom 30 years ago while she was still very much alive and “anti-racist,” mainly due to her misguided Christian beliefs. It is worth a read today: “Dear Mom” at nationalvanguard.org.
Dear Mom, You tell me that what I believe is wrong and that all we need in this country is a religious revival. But let me tell you what I believe in. I believe the destruction of our country is not caused by a lack of Christianity but due to the corruption of the White people who made the country. Let me explain what I mean….
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.