Thursday, 27 November 2014


I was as free as a bird when I was teaching in the seventies, but not since I went to France in 1975!  France-Israel is the less free nation in the entire world!  No academic freedom not even at the Old and New Sorbonne where I shortly "studied"!
Without  freedom truth is useless!  Without truth there can never be any justice in the world!  And without Justice (a divine concept) there can never be any moral way of life for entire nations and not even for individuals! BAFS
    Published on 20 Jul 2014
    **"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."**

    Carlo Mattogno

    Carlo Mattogno, a specialist in text analysis and critique, is Italy's, if not the world's, foremost revisionist Holocaust scholar. Born in 1951 in Orvieto, Italy, he now lives with his family in a suburb of Rome. In his youth he carried out advanced linguistic studies in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Starting in the 1980s, Mattogno visited many former concentration camps (Auschwitz-Birkenau, Stutthof, Dachau, Gusen, Mauthausen, Gross-Rosen, Buchenwald, Lublin-Majdanek, Płaszów, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibór, Ghetto of Terezin), and conducted thorough reseach in numerous archives mainly in central and eastern Europe. Particularly fruitfull were his visits to several Moscow archives in the 1990s which hold a vast documentation on Auschwitz as captured by the Red Army toward the end of WWII. This documentation has been the basis of Mattogno's sizeable number of special studies on the former Auschwitz camp.

    Even orthodox Holocaust scholars, who usually shy away from quoting revisionist publications like the devil avoids holy water, consider some of Mattogno's research valuable. For instance, the German offical Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute of Contemporary History) in Munich quotes Mattogno's book on the Central Construction Office in one of its tomes (N. Frei et al., Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz 1940-1945). The German historian Ernst Nolte was impressed by Mattogno's work, due to which he conceded that, with respect to "their mastery of the source material and especially in their critique of the sources," the revisionist studies on the topic "probably surpass those of the established historians in Germany" (Streitpunkte, Frankfurt/Berlin 1993, p. 304). And Jean-Claude Pressac, once the orthodox historian's hero for his attempts at refuting revisionists, characterized Carlo Mattogno as "the best revisionist researcher" ("Entretien avec Jean-Claude Pressac," in: Valérie Igounet, Histoire du négationnisme en France, Paris 2000, p. 642).

    In spite of – or maybe due to – his impressive list of scholarly works on the topic, Mattogno remains largly ignored by the mainstream, though, which may also be a result of his writings not beeing accessible online in an orderly way, as Carlo Mattogno does not have a homepage. Hence, you would never find out about his work if, for example, you took the "information" published by sites like Wikipedia at face value, whose English page on Mattogno, while being vituperative, is completely silent about his comprehensive work. (The Italian section is much more detailed.)

    Some of Carlo's work is listed on, while many of his Italian writings can be found on the page listed below, which is a site operated by one of Mattogno's fans (so strictly speaking it is not Carlo's home page). It also has a contact form where you can get in touch.
    Visit the author's homepage at

    Holocaust Handbooks by Carlo Mattogno

    The American Jewish Year Book says there were 3,310,722 Jews under German rule in 1941, but the Holocaustists and Shoahists like French President François Hollande claim they exterminated SIX MILLION!  
     Les Einsatzgruppen (1) : Hitler et la "guerre juive"
    Reynouard Vincent

    Without Prejudice UCC 1-308

    9/11/01 The Great American Psy-Opera (No Planes Proof)

    <a href="/channel/UCGZ1MGet09tuHplR3tmdzPw" class=" yt-uix-sessionlink     spf-link  g-hovercard" data-name="" data-ytid="UCGZ1MGet09tuHplR3tmdzPw" data-sessionlink="ei=5-l5VNXrMoKMcsbdgagE">The Massive Truth</a>

    Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust

    Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust

    by Jim Fetzer

    Academic Freedom Conference logoAn unprecedented conference entitled, “Academic Freedom: Are there Limits to Inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, was held at the University of Illinois UC, Illini Union, Room 314A, from 9 AM-6 PM/CT on 26 April 2014.
    The idea for this conference originated with Stephen Francis, who also organized The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference, which was held at the Urbana Free Library on 22 September 2013, featuring as speakers Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer and Wayne Madsen. See “The Complete Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference” on Veterans Today.
    Stephen Francis
    Stephen Francis
    While there have been many conferences on JFK and 9/11, including the Holocaust in this one was adopting an original approach to a subject that has typically been regarded as “taboo”.
    Registration was held from 9 AM-10 AM/CT, with Kevin Barrett presenting the first lecture from 10 AM-11:00 AM/CT, followed by David W. Robinson from 11 AM to Noon/CT. The lunch break from Noon-1 PM/CT was followed by a presentation by Nicholas Kollerstrom from 1-2 PM/CT. Since Nick resides in London, he joined us via Skype. Stephen Francis then spoke from 2-3 PM/CT, followed by Winfield Abbe from 3-4 PM/CT. Jim Fetzer was the final speaker from 4-5 PM/CT, with a informal discussion and questions and debate from 5-6 PM/CT.
    Three of the speakers–Barrett, Kollerstrom, and Fetzer–have had experience as faculty with complex and controversial issues, while three of us–Robinson, Abbe and Francis–have long been involved with academic freedom issues in relation to both faculty and the public. By focusing on three “hot” topics, JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust, their presentations aim at sharpening public understanding of what should be expected of colleges and university. In particular, they addressed the question, “Are there limits to what faculty can research?”, and “Are there limits to what they can teach?”, where these speakers appear to be especially well-positioned to address these extremely important but themselves sensitive subjects.


    Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.

    BarrettDr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. In the early 1990s, Barrett received master’s degrees in both English literature and French from San Francisco State University. He received a Ph.D. in African languages and literature with a minor in folklore from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2004.
    He has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. He is co-editor of 9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out (2007) and the author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and of Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). Among his recent articles is “Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger”.
    Facts, Insults and Academic Freedom
    Click here: Kevin Barrett, “Facts, Insults and Academic Freedom”
    Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. He ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. His web sites include VeteransToday/Barrett, TruthJihad, TruthJihadRadio and MUJCA (Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth).

    Kevin Barrett on the 9-11-2001 Attack

    <a href="/channel/UCUsHdEFhi8GdHWrbw-R6mHA" class=" yt-uix-sessionlink     spf-link  g-hovercard" data-name="" data-ytid="UCUsHdEFhi8GdHWrbw-R6mHA" data-sessionlink="ei=D_94VJLvLNOT0QX_14HwBg">Iconostar</a>

    Kevin Barrett

    Kevin Barrett has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, WI. His first book was A Guide to Mysterious San Francisco: Dr. Weirde's Weirde Tours. He became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading and research convinced him that 9/11 was an "inside job." He is the editor of 9/11 and the American Empire v. 2: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out. More about Kevin will be found in Truth Jihad itself and on his website, His latest writing is chronicled there, at  his blog, and on our News page. He coordinates Muslims for 9/11 Truth and is a co-founder of He has been roundly attacked by right-wing hatchet jobs for discussing 9/11 in college courses; his robust defense brought him notoriety and led to this book.  Wikipedia; Kevin's response to Wikipedia lies and suggested edits.
    Kevin Barrett. author of Truth Jihad, now has two new radio shows!
    Fair and Balanced with Kevin Barrett airs every Tuesday, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon - 1 p.m. Eastern) at Pacifica affiliate  Previously broadcast shows are archived here free.
    Truth Jihad Radio airs every Saturday, 3-5 p.m. Pacific (6-8 pm Eastern) at the exciting new (post-) patriot network American Freedom Radio.  Previously broadcast shows are archived here free. Radiodujour's Archive of some of Kevin's best shows.
    Kevin's radio page and schedule blog. Calendar of Kevin's Public Lectures on 9/11: In html format, pdf format or Word format. As of August 2007.

    David W. Robinson, Ed.D.

    David W. RobinsonDavid W. Robinson, Ed.D., received a B.A. from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, went on to an M.A. in Teaching (Social Studies) from Lewis and Clark College, and an Ed.D. in Educational Foundations and Leadership from George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. He has taught courses in history, the humanities, and the social sciences at both the undergraduate and graduate level, as well as graduate courses in higher educational teaching, course design, assessment, and administration. Additionally, he has served as Department Chair, Program Chair, Vice President of Information Technology, and Vice President of Academic Affairs at several colleges. This has made him well acquainted with the practical and complex issues of academic freedom in action.
    Currently, he serves as an adjunct professor on three different university faculties, teaching graduate courses in education, information technology and e-commerce, and doctoral course work in educational foundations and leadership. His scholarly writing includes books and articles on the history of higher education, specializing in academic industrialization in America, as well as Protestantism’s role in the history of universities and schools.
    David Robinson
    As a long-time student of American history, David has a strong interest in academic freedom, liberty of conscience, open access to historical evidence, and the implications of America’s loss of free inquiry in national discourse. It is his conviction that our current national-security state civilization is the main by-product of the loss of the checking-and-balancing power of reasoned dialogue in academic life. David is looking forward to further exploration of these themes at the conference.

    Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D.

    NicholasNicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., has two history of science degrees, one from Cambridge 1968, plus a PhD from London, 1995. He was an honorary member of staff of UCL for 11 years. He co-organized the Belgrano Inquiry in 1986, publishing The Unnecessary War (1998) as its proceedings and co-edited The Case Against War (Spokesman, 2004) comprising the CND legal arguments against the Iraq war).
    In 2008 he received widespread publicity and ethical damnation for his interest in studies of the residual cyanide levels found in walls of the WWII labor-camps. Articles about the violations of his academic freedom have appeared elsewhere, including “ISIS trips, stumbles and falls” and “The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career”.
    Nicholas Kollerstrom
    His recent book, Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) is the most comprehensive account of the 2005 London bombings. It supports the conclusion that this was a “false flag” attack.

    Stephen Francis

    me_1Stephen Francis was born and raised in Fresno, CA, and volunteered for the draft in 1969. At the time, he was a conventional youth who supported the main stream’s political views. These opinions dramatically reversed after entering the service; and he was jailed for various antiwar activities, including disobeying direct orders to get on a bus during antiwar protests at Fort Ord, CA.
    Due to stockade overcrowding, he was released and spent the next one-and-a-half-years as a fugitive in Canada, eventually receiving an Other-than-Honorable Discharge, of which he remains proud to this day. He returned to college when he was 34 years old, earning an AA degree in Business Administration at Parkland College in Champaign, IL, and a BA in Sociology from the University of Illinois UC. He spent the next 12 years or so employed by a number of different companies, including a multi-national, mid-level accounting-consulting firm as a network administrator/accounting-software specialist.
    Stephen was able to semi-retire in 2000 because of successful investments during the stock-market boom of the late nineties. For over thirty years, he was also a semi-professional musician playing the electric-violin and keyboards. He has since reinitiated his efforts as an antiwar activist out of concern for world events surrounding the invasion of Iraq. From 2002 to the present, he has continued pursuing his activist efforts, including editing, in the hope that he might make an ever-so-slight positive impact on the future course of civilization.

    Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D.

    Winfield AbbeWinfield Abbe received an A.B. degree in physics from the University of California Berkeley, M.S. in physics from California State University at Los Angeles and Ph.D. in physics from the University of California Riverside. His main areas of research are low temperature solid state physics and theoretical elementary particle physics.
    He has also spent some time working on the long standing problem of Fermat’s Last Theorem which was recently solved, but the esoteric solution is known and understood by only a handful of people in the world. Dr. Abbe was a faculty member at the University of Georgia, Athens and an Institute of Science and Technology Fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
    During his career in academe, he has observed gross abuses senior faculty have administered to junior and the deterioration of the practice of academic freedom, including at the University of Georgia, which he looks forward to addressing at the conference. He was recently interviewed by Jim Fetzer on “The Real Deal” on such issues.

    James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

    Fetzer-SFA former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
    Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. Among his recent articles is “Anti-anti-Semitism and the Search for Historical Truth”.

    The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010). Since his 2006 retirement, he has devoted himself to dealing with the most complex and controversial events of recent history on “The Real Deal” and in his articles on Veterans Today.
    Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

    Short URL:


    The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science

    The Holocaust Narrative: Politics Trumps Science

     by Jim Fetzer

    “The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps”—Nicholas Kollerstrom

    Breaking the Spell (front cover)
    For more on the book, click BREAKING THE SPELL

    The author of this refreshing scientific study of the Holocaust, Nicholas Kollerstrom, may be the most honorable man whom I have ever had the pleasure to know.
    In response to PM David Cameron’s denunciation of 7/7 and 9/11 skeptics as on a par with ISIS, he went to Scotland Yard with a copy of Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) and turned himself in.
    Scotland Yard declined the honor, but this act–which symbolically castrated the PM’s outrageous stance–was a striking illustration of his ability to tackle a problem by going right at it.
    A distinguished historian of science with multiple degrees, including from Cambridge, he has published on 9/11 and especially 7/7, about which he appears to be the world’s leading expert.
    When his attention turned to research on the use of Zykon B as a delousing agent in the labor camps run by the Germans during World War II, however, he was treated as an outcast.
    He lost his position at University College London, which he had held for 15 years, where university officials did not bother to extend the opportunity of a rebuttal before they sacked him.
    He and I both spoke at the recent conference, “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, where this book reports the results of the research for which he was banned. The book, a stunning historic expose, has just appeared. I endorse it with my highest recommendation.

    The Holocaust – Myth and Reality

    The situation is completely absurd. No subject generates responses as extreme and irrational as what has come to be known as “the Holocaust”. Unlike any other event in human history, including even the most sacred religious beliefs, for anyone to question, dispute or deny its occurrence qualifies as “a hate crime,” where Holocaust denial is even a prosecutable offense in certain jurisdictions. Unlike any other, this crime involves the expression of forbidden thoughts about a subject that has become taboo.
    The underlying desideratum is whether history is supposed to be accurate and true or, as Voltaire has put it, be merely “a pack of lies the living play upon the dead”. Just so we know what we are talking about: In its broadest outlines, “the Holocaust” can be defined by means of its three 236 references before Nurembergprimary elements, which I shall designate here as hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3):
    (h1) that Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews and succeeded by putting around 6,000,000 to death;
    (h2) that many of those deaths were brought about by the use of cyanide gas in chambers for that purpose; and,
    (h3) that the chemical agent that brought about those deaths was Zykon B, to which the victims were subjected.
    The science of the Holocaust does not leave any room for doubt about (h2) and (h3), since laws of biochemistry and of materials science—laws which cannot be violated and cannot be changed—entail that the bodies of those who are put to death using cyanide turn pink, while the walls of chambers used for that purpose would turn blue. But none of the bodies from those camps has been reported to have been pink; and examination of the “gas chambers” has determined that none of them turned blue. Which means that (h2) and (h3) are not simply false but have been scientifically refuted.

    Holocaust science “cut and dried”

    As Nicholas Kollerstrom documents in this astonishing and brilliant book, the science of the Holocaust is this “cut and dried”. To the extent to which the Holocaust narrative depends on (h2) and (h3), therefore, it cannot be sustained. The questions that remain about (h1) are a bit more complex but appear to be equally contrived. There are more than 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews who are either in acute distress or about to be assailed in the newspapers of the world prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal— the first of which appeared in 1890. The number seems to have no basis in fact but to have theological origins—from a disputed passage in Leviticus—as to how many Jews must perish before they can return to “The Promised Land”.
    Recently released records (ICRC)To the extent to which the number of Jews who died in the camps can be objectively determined, the most reliable numbers appear to come from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which visited the camps and kept meticulous records of the identities of those who died and their cause of death. Not one is reported to have been put to death in gas chambers, and the total it reported in 1993 for all of the camps was 296,081 combined. Even rounding up to an even 600,000 victims—gypsies, Jews and the mentally and physically infirm—the empirical evidence thus contradicts the contention that 6,000,000 Jews were put to death and thereby falsifies hypothesis (h1).
    Counting deaths attributed to the Holocaust—apart from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross—turns out to be an exercise in “fuzzy math”, because none of them add up. As Faurisson observed during an interview on 13 December 2006, the Yad Vashem database was built up by “simple unverified declarations emanating from unverified sources and processed in such a way that one and the same person can be recorded as having died several times, even, it seems, as many as ten times”.[1] And even the most complete archives are not collated to make total numbers accessible but only individual cases—which appears an obvious measure to preserve the untestability of (h1), the hypothesis that 6,000,000 Jews had perished.

    Holocaust story falsified

    So, insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained. The question that therefore arises is how the Nuremberg Tribunal—widely cited as a paragon of intellectual integrity and of the application of moral principles to historical events—could possibly have produced such a highly misleading account of crucial events at the conclusion of World War II. The answer to this, I believe, has been provided by Robert Faurisson in his paper “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,” who explains the daunting task confronting the Allies to conceal or justify war crimes that they had committed in winning the war.[2]
    Effects of Allied Bombing
    The Allies’ systematic and massive destruction of German cities not only brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians but also interdicted the railroad lines that would have re-supplied those camps, which were located near major industrial plants and whose inmates were providing labor to run them. It would have been poor business practice to exterminate the work force, but the large number of deaths from starvation because the Third Reich could not re-supply them provided an opportunity to deflect responsibility from the Allies onto Germany, which the Allies seized. A Hollywood director was brought in and shot 80,000 feet of film at the camps, where 6,000 feet (7.5% of the total) was used to shift the blame for those deaths onto Nazi Germany, which was an easy sell, all things considered.
    As Kollerstrom explains, Zyklon B was used at the labor camps, not as a method of extermination but for the sake of maintaining hygiene among the inmates. Typhus and dysentery were omnipresent problems, where Zyklon B was applied in copious quantities—but as a disinfestant, not as an agent for bringing about the deaths of millions of inmates. And in response to the color pink-and-blue findings, an alternative explanation has been given that they were killed using diesel exhaust fumes, but unlike carbon monoxide, diesel exhaust fumes bring about nausea and severe headaches but usually do not bring about death by asphyxiation.

    Classified British documents

    Among the most valuable contributions of this study derives from Nick’s use of classified records acquired by British authorities, who were skeptical of claims that mass gassings were being carried out and had reports in hand of the use of Zyklon for the purpose of delousing the inmates, where infestations had become alarming. Many tons of Zyklon were consumed at Auschwitz-Birkenau from the summer of 1942 on, as Kollerstrom reports, which is easy to confirm because it soaked into the walls of the disinfestation chambers and is still there. His essays on the subject—“The Walls of Auschwitz”, “Leuchter Twenty Years On” and “The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Illusion”[3]—would become the cause of his removal from a post-doctoral post he had held for 15 years!
    Piles of bodiesAs a professional philosopher of science, I appreciate Nick’s references to Sir Karl Popper, who advocated the method of falsificationism, whereby the truth of theories in science and in history can be tested by attempts to falsify them. When they resist our best efforts to refute them, then we have good reason to believe they might be true. But equally applicable here are the reflections of Imre Lakatos, who discussed research programs with hard cores of claims,[4] such as Newton’s laws of motion or, in the case we are considering, the above-mentioned hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3). When the defenders of these hypotheses are confronted by the risk of refutation, they can appeal to auxiliary hypotheses in an attempt to deflect the refuting data and thereby preserve their theory.
    A stellar example arises in the context of the attempt to explain away why the number of those who died as substantiated by the meticulous records of the Red Cross supports the inference that less than 10% of the 6,000,000 claimed actually died from all causes—and none from death in gas chambers. To cope with that finding, the claim has been made that the records are incomplete because large numbers of Jews were taken directly to the gas chambers and never registered—not even by name. Not only are contentions of this kind unfalsifiable, untestable and hence unscientific, but they reflect the degenerating character of the Holocaust paradigm, which has spawned no new data or research that could possibly overcome the mountain of evidence against it.

    Excluding falsifying data

    Another method for immunizing a hypothesis from refutation is by the exclusion of falsifying data.[5] The defenders of hypotheses (h1)-(h3) have committed a mind-boggling example of fallacious science, which further manifests their commitment to a degenerating research program. When the Auschwitz museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls—due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds—but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them.[6] 
    They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation—that Zyklon B was only used for delousing—which would have remedied their lack of comprehension.[7] As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.[8]
    That Nicholas Kollerstrom was booted from his post at University College, London—and without any hearing or opportunity to present his defense, where the truth of his observations, one might have thought, would have made a difference—is one of a large number of indications that Origin of the myth of the 6,000,000even our best academic institutions and societies are not capable of dealing objectively with the history of World War II. Indeed, it struck me like a bolt of lightning out of the blue when, during a talk by Gilad Atzmon in Madison, Wisconsin, about Jewish identity politics, I realized that the Holocaust mythology benefits Zionism and the government of Israel by playing, in the promotion of its political agenda, upon a Western sense of guilt for the death of 6,000,000 Jews during World War II.
    The claim that someone is “anti-Semitic” or a “Holocaust denier” is taken to be the most severe form of ethical damnation possible in this time and age. But distinctions must be drawn between criticism of the acts and policies of the Israeli government and discounting the worth or value of human beings on the basis of their ethnic origins or religious orientation. Condemning the Israeli government for its vicious and unwarranted onslaught of the people of Gaza, for example, is not “anti-Semitic”. And if exposing the Holocaust narrative as political propaganda makes one a “Holocaust denier,” all of us who put truth before politics ought to wear that label as a badge of honor.

    The ISIS fiasco

    As an illustration of the depths of depravity of those who would uphold the myth, consider that, as an historian of science, Kollerstrom was invited to contribute three entries—including that on Sir Isaac Newton, which is the most important—to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (2007), which has more than 1550 entries by some 400 authors from 40 countries. Yet Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, a reviewer for Isis, the journal of America’s History of Science Society, recommended that the book be sent back to the publisher and BEAcoverpulped because Kollerstrom had been involved in research on the Holocaust! This was such an outrage that I wrote to the editorial board of Isis, which allowed a Letter to the Editor to appear.
    Something is terribly wrong, when the world’s leading society on the history of science does no more to correct a grotesque abuse by one of its reviewers on a book that involved so many contributors and an enormous investment in time and money, where the moral issues are so blatant and obvious. It is ironic that the Nuremberg Tribunal would declare “collective punishment” a war crime. The Allies were responsible for the collective punishment of German civilians by their systematic bombing of German cities. Isis has committed a comparable intellectual crime by tolerating collective punishment of 400 scholars for the purported offenses of one. By acquiescing to its reviewer’s abuse, Isis has committed the fallacy of guilt by association and has displayed an appalling lack of journalistic ethics.
    Nick Kollerstrom is the only party here who has displayed a commitment to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. His defense is very simple: the hypotheses on which the Holocaust narrative has been based are provably false and not even scientifically possible. I have written about this in my articlesThe War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career,”[9] ISIS trips, stumbles and falls,”[10] and discussed it during my presentation at the 2014 conference Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust,” at which Nick and I both spoke.[11] 
    But far better than reviewing them, read this brilliant study by the world’s leading iconoclast, Nick Kollerstrom, my dear friend, whom I admire beyond words as a splendid example of what historians should be doing in their professional work by getting history straight—lest Voltaire’s admonition continue to apply—including about the atrocities of World War II. There were real atrocities committed by all sides, just not the ones about which we have been told.


    [1] “Interview with Professor Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,”, December 13, 2006.
    [2] Ibid., February 3, 2012.
    [3] See Nick’s online papers at
    [4] Imre Lakatos, Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970.
    [5] Sir Karl Popper systematically investigated the diverse methods of immunizing theories in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co., London 1968, pp. 82-97.
    [6] Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Łabędź, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Vol. XXX (1994) pp. 17-27 (
    [7] They quoted but ignored a book which had exposed their fallacious approach (Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993; Engl.: G. Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010).
    [8] See Germar Rudolf, “Polish Pseudo-Scientists,” in: G. Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 45-67.
    [9] Veterans Today, February 4, 2012;
    [10] On my blog at, June 13, 2011.
    [11] April 26, 2014; for details see
    James H. FetzerJim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality. McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

    Short URL:

    Breaking the Spell—The Holocaust: Myth and Reality.
    Click for larger image.
    Subscribers to The Barnes Review receive a 10% discount on all book and video purchases placed over the phone. Call us toll-free at 1-877-773-9077 (or ++1-951-587-6936 from abroad) to place your order charged to your Visa, Master, AmEx or Discover Card. If shopping online, please leave a note in the box "Special Instructions or Comments About Your Order" on checkout page 2 (Delivery Information), and we will give you a 10% credit for your next purchase with us. (For security reasons we do not store any information about our subscribers on our server, so this discount service cannot be calculated automatically.)No subscriber yet?
    Click here to subscribe.

    Breaking the Spell—The Holocaust: Myth and Reality.

    Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom
    In 1941, British Intelligence analysts cracked the German "Enigma" code. This undermined the German war effort—but also threw new light on day-by-day events in the Nazi concentration camp system.
    Between January 1942 and January 1943, encrypted radio communications between those camps and the Berlin headquarters were intercepted and decrypted. Oddly enough, historians have largely ignored the information furnished in these intercepts relating to "arrivals," "departures," recorded deaths and other events at these camps.
    The only reasonable explanation for this embarrassing omission is that the intercepted data seriously contradicts, even refutes, the orthodox "Holocaust" narrative. The revealed information does not expose a program of mass murder and racial genocide.
    Quite the opposite: it reveals that the Germans were determined, desperate even, to reduce the death rate in their work camps, which was caused by catastrophic typhus epidemics.
    Were the British here hoodwinked by the Nazis, as some historians to this day try to claim-or is the truth both simpler and more shocking? In 1988 and 1991 forensic studies threw light on the question of whether or not the claimed gas chambers at Auschwitz had served as slaughter houses for hundreds of thousands of people.
    Both studies had concluded that the only facilities where Zyklon B gas had been used were hygienic rather than homicidal, killing bugs rather than Jews. Needless to say that these iconoclastic studies were ignored or in some countries even outlawed, and that their authors were ostracized and even imprisoned.
    Dr. Kollerstrom, a science historian, has taken these studies, which are in obvious, stark contrast to the widely accepted narrative, as a starting point for his own endeavour into the land of taboo.
    After he had published a brief paper summarizing what he thought the data forced him to conclude, he was thrown out of his College where he had been a member of staff for eleven years. In his new book "Breaking the Spell," Dr. Kollerstrom shows that "witness statements" supporting the human gas chamber narrative clearly clash with the available scientific data.
    He juxtaposes the commonly accepted ideas about a Nazi extermination policy toward the Jews with a wide array of mostly unchallenged, but usually unmentioned evidence pointing in a quite different direction:
    Zyklon B is a buzz word for the claimed Nazi mass murder, but all non-anecdotal evidence proves that this chemical was merely used as a pesticide in order to improve the inmates' health and reduce, not increase, camp mortality.
    - The Auschwitz camp authorities kept meticulous records of who died in the camp and why. A statistical analysis of the data does not match the kind of data to be expected, if the widespread view of what transpired in that camp were true.
    - The UK's intelligence decrypts prove that the German camp authorities were desperately trying to save their inmates' lives.
    - Zyklon B applied in delousing chambers formed chemical compounds detectable to this day. No such compounds can be found, but ought to be expected, in the claimed homicidal gas chambers.
    - "Six Million Jews threatened or killed": read 167 quotes from newspapers with that "news" spanning from 1900 to 1945, with a peak after World War ONE! Yes, one, not two!
    - A British archaeological team looked for traces of the claimed 800,000 victims of the Treblinka camp-and came back empty-handed.
    Dr. Kollerstrom concludes that the history of the Nazi "Holocaust" has been written by the victors with ulterior motives and that this history is distorted, exaggerated and largely wrong.
    He asserts that this history is, in truth, a great lie that distorts our common perceived reality and misdirects human history to this very day.

    With a foreword by Prof. em. Dr. James H. Fetzer.
    Softcover, illustrated, bibliography, 6” x 9”, 262 pages.
    Is The Holocaust A New 'Religion'
    w/10 Commandments?
    Jerusalem -- According to the Israeli philosophy professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz (photo), the 'Holocaust' is a new religion. Leibowitz' countrymen Shraga Elam, Gilad Atzmon, Yoshua Shalev and others have further developed this concept, reasoning like this: Most Jews today are either atheists or shun the religion of Judaism. Therefore, the Jewish people had to adopt belief in the 'Holocaust' as their new religion. They have spread this religion all over the world. 'Holocaust' museums are the new houses of worship and are present in most major cities. The new religion has its commandments, its decrees, its prophets, its high priests, its circle of saints, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It knows neither mercy, nor forgiveness, nor clemency but only the duty of vengeance. If you question the 'Holocaust Religion', you will go to prison.
    The 'Ten Commandments' of this 'Holocaust Religion' may be enunciated as follows:
    1.           Remember what Amalek (the Non-Jews) has done to thee.
    2.           Thou shalt never compare THE HOLOCAUST with any other Genocide.
    3.           Thou shalt never compare the Nazi crimes with those of Israel.
    4.           Thou shalt never doubt the number of 6 million Jewish victims.
    5.           Thou shalt never doubt that the majority of them died in gas chambers.
    6.           Thou shalt not doubt the central role of SATAN Hitler in the extermination of the Jews.
    7.           Thou shalt never doubt the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish state.
    8.           Thou shalt not criticize the leading Jewish organizations and the Israeli government.
    9.           Thou must never criticize Jewish organizations and the Zionist leadership for abandoning the European Jewry in the Nazi era
    10.       Thou shalt take these commandments literally and never shew mercy to them that doubt!
    LEIBOWITZ, YESHAYAHU (1903­1994)
    Gilad Atzmon: I am - too - a Holocaust Survivor (2009-10-27)
    The Holocaust as a new catholic dogma:


    The Killing of Reason: How the Dreadful Few Rape Europe and America

    …by Jonas E. Alexis

    Nicholas Kristof
    Nicholas Kristof
    People who do not have a serious argument are sometimes funny. On many occasions, those people would deliberately insert a silly argument into an issue and argue against that argument. In logic, this is commonly known as straw man and it is demonstrably fallacious.
    I was somewhat stunned when ideologue Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times did exactly that with respect to illegal immigration. I was stunned precisely because no one was brave enough to douse him with a bucket water. Why?
    Because one needn’t be a genius to figure out that the man feasts on double standard. As a faithful member of the Dreadful Few, he seems to have no other choice.
    In his desperate and Zionist zeal to evade the illegal immigration issue, Kristof has recently written,
    “A BOOK, ‘The Christian Examiner,’ warns that ‘ill-clad and destitute” immigrants are “repulsive to our habits and our tastes.’
    “A former mayor of New York City cautions that they bring disease, ‘wretchedness and want’ to America. And Harper’s Weekly despairs that these immigrants are ‘steeped in ignorance’ and account for a disproportionate share of criminals.”[1]
    He moves on to declare,
    “Immigration has hugely enriched our country. For starters, unless you are a full-blooded American Indian, we have you.
    “Nations, like carpets, benefit from multiple kinds of threads, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, was right: ‘It is a good rule of thumb to ask of a country: Are people trying to get into it or out of it?’
    “Look, people aren’t legal or illegal, behaviors are. If an investment banker is convicted of insider trading, he doesn’t become an illegal. So let’s refer not to ‘illegal immigrants’ but to ‘undocumented immigrants.’”[2]
    Why doesn’t this man apply the same logic to Israel or any other country on the planet? Why does this dumb argument only work in the United States and nowhere else? How about South Korea, where this writer currently resides?
    Israel in particular has strict immigration laws, yet in America, the Dreadful Few paved the way for illegal immigration laws. Historian Hugh Davis Graham said:
    “Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform.
    “To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative [Emmanuel] Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York.
    immigration“Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.”[3]
    It must be pointed out that the illegal immigration movement is largely Jewish in its political and ideological orientation.[4] Last year, the Jewish Daily Forward announced that “Eric Cantor, top GOP Jew, changes tune on immigration.”[5]
    The illegal immigration movement has a long history of support from many Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders,[6] going back to the 1920s, when many Jewish organizations fought tooth and nail to change the immigration policy in the United States (such as the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe).[7]
    Historian Hugh Davis Graham maintains that in the 1920s, some of the pressure employed by those organizations was “ineffective,” but they never gave up. Jewish governor Herbert Lehman picked up those themes in the 1940s, and after World War II, “Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform.”[8]
    The methodology was quite strategic. When many Jews left the Soviet Union and much of Europe and moved to the United States, there was a fear among them that there could be a revival of anti-Semitism in America.
    At the same time, many in America were well aware of Jewish revolutionary activity and, in the process, used caution when hiring Jewish professors and intellectuals.
    For example, Ronald Radosh tells us in his memoir that many Jews like himself were sent from New York to Wisconsin to take over the universities and turn them into revolutionary cells. Jewish psychologist Joseph Jastrow seemed to have done just that when he turned the academic ambiance of the University of Wisconsin into an essentially Talmudic disputation. Jewish scholar Andrew R. Heinze entitles this chapter in America “Jewish psychological evangelism.”[9]
    Since Jews have always been a minority group, they made alliances in order to combat what they perceived to be as anti-Semitism.[10]
    In the process of time, many Jewish organizations and ideologues began to adopt “multiculturalism” as a way to promote a far more harmful agenda. In a widely televised program in Sweden, Jewish ideologue Barbara Lerner Spectre made this stunning declaration:
    Europe will not survive without “multiculturalism”? How did it thrive for more than a thousand years without the help of Spectre? And isn’t Spectre implicitly saying here that she and other Jewish ideologues are responsible for anti-Jewish reactions?
    Hasn’t “multiculturalism” been responsible for sexual rape in places like Australia, New Zealand, Belgium and even Sweden itself?[11] Didn’t we receive the memo about mass sexual abuse in Rotherham and other cities and towns in Britain?
    Didn’t “multiculturalism” contribute to sexual atrocities such as gang rape and torture of at least 1,400 children in places like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Doncaster?[12]
    Didn’t Home Secretary Theresa May declare that this sexual assault on children—most specifically “poor and vulnerable white girls”—happened because no one wants to “rock the multicultural boat”?[13] Weren’t the victims themselves “raped, beaten and doused in petrol if they threatened to tell”?[14] As philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, the best way to refute all those reports is to
    “sweep it under the carpet, find ways of accusing the victims or their parents or the surrounding culture of institutionalised racism, and attending to more urgent matters such as the housing needs of recent immigrants, or the traffic offences committed by those racist middle classes.”[15]
    What is so sad is that “In some cases, parents who tried to rescue their children from abusers were themselves arrested. Police officers even dismissed the rape of children by saying that sex had been consensual.”[16]
    Rochdale, Greater Manchester, had a group of British Pakistanis known as the “Rochdale sex trafficking gang” that kidnapped and raped young British girls. This was called “an uncomfortable issue”[17] largely because the police were scared of being called racists for investigating the situation.
    Two journalists for the British newspaper the Guardian noted, “Political correctness and fear of appearing racist had trumped child protection.”[18] But some of the perpetrators were eventually found guilty.[19]
    News reporters were more than happy or willing to quickly blame Islam or “Muslims” for the sexual rape. But I sincerely doubt that those men were following the teachings of their traditional values. Didn’t Iranians for example burn down a movie theater in Iran because they saw that Hollywood in America was literally sexualizing the country? Didn’t the Supreme Leader in Iran explicitly resent how the CIA was literally changing the Iranian culture through sex?
    Those “Muslim” rapists indeed are abetting the Zionist cause, but again, who is really behind the political sexualization? Shouldn’t Spectre take some blame?
    Now listen to the International Business Times:
    Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, with the UN reporting 69 rape cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, according to author and advocate of power feminism Naomi Wolf on opinion website Project Syndicate.
    In 2010, Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences – about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants – of any force in Europe.
    “According to rape crisis advocates in Sweden, one-third of Swedish women have been sexually assaulted by the time they leave their teens. According to a study published in 2003, and other later studies through 2009, Sweden has the highest sexual assault rate in Europe, and among the lowest conviction rates…
    “A 2010 Amnesty report said: ‘In Sweden, according to official crime statistics, the number of reported rapes has quadrupled during the past 20 years. In 2008, there were just over 4,000 rapes of people over 15, the great majority of them girls and women.’”[20]
    In short, Spectre, as member of the Dreadful Few, knows pretty well how to create chaos. She knows that “multiculturalism” only exists in the minds of the Dreadful Few and does not exist anywhere else. She also knows that “multiculturalism” can be used as a weapon in the ideological war.  Kristof is just continuing that tradition.

    Evils-Of-ZionismThis issue came into sharper focus in 2010 when Arizona passed a law against illegal immigration. An article published in Haaretz reported then that that Israel was fighting tooth and nail against illegal immigration.
    Yet the same article detailed how many rabbis in America were fighting against the Arizona law that opposed illegal immigration. In a letter sent to Governor Jan Brewer, a group of reform rabbis declare:
    “This inhumane and retrogressive bill threatens the rights of all Arizona residents by making the failure to carry identification into a crime and leaving the entire population vulnerable to police questioning.
    “Granting local police the power to determine what constitutes suspicious legal status is an affront to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants.
    “The bill places law enforcement in an untenable situation, while having an adverse impact on the state’s economy. We do not question your intention to protect people from racial profiling.
    “However, we know from our own historical experience, that this is a slippery slope, to say the least…
    “This bill moves us in the wrong direction, violating the principles of justice on which our nation was founded. We should, instead, focus our energy on comprehensive reform of our immigration system.”[21]
    The Jewish groups that attacked the illegal immigration law included the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.[22]
    Jewish groups went so far as to say that the law “mandates racial profiling.”[23] Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, changed the whole issue into being about race in order to gain the support of the masses.
    “Allowing an individual’s accent or skin color to precipitate an investigation into his or her legal status is an anathema to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants.”[24]
    Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center was of the same opinion:
    “This law makes no sense—it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias.”[25]
    Nothing could be further from the truth. How is the law on par with racial profiling when it is only asking whether a person is legal or illegal? Does it state anywhere in the law that a person’s “color” is to be of concern? Why does America suddenly become a “racist” nation when it only asks for reasonable laws and the application of those laws?
    Benjamin Netanyahu declared in 2011 that illegal immigration is a “national calamity in all fields—the economy, the state security” in Israel.[26] Every single country in the world applies immigration laws and enforces them. But the Dreadful Few want a Talmudic standard in America.

     Once again, the Dreadful Few push illegal immigration only in America, not in Israel. Many Palestinians who dare to illegally cross the border to find work in Israel are likely to be treated harshly by the government (in some instances some of those people were sent to research facilities to be used as guinea pigs).[27]
    Jacob Javits
    Jacob Javits
    Even in 2010, Netanyahu does not tolerate Africans who cross his borders illegally and tries to build a specific place for these people, separated from the main Israeli population.[28]
    Avigdor Lieberman, deputy prime minister for strategic threats in 2006,
    “has made it clear that he favors expulsion [of Israeli Arabs], so as to make Israel ‘as much as possible’ a homogeneous Jewish state.”[29]
    In 1991, Yvonne Haddad of Georgetown University wrote that Israel
    “not only bans the return of Palestinian Gentiles to their homelands, but also restricts its Christian and Muslim citizens to specified living areas and limits their access to resources which are monopolized and confiscated by the State (such as education, water, and land).”[30]
    In addition, in 2011, many migrant workers who become pregnant in Israel were required to “leave the country within three months after giving birth or, alternatively, send their children abroad if they wish to retain their work visas.”[31]
    By the summer of 2011, some in Israel were even proposing that African migrants must be sent to Australia.[32]
    Even in January 2012, laws that portray racist and ethnic discrimination in Israel were still vibrant.[33] For example, an Israeli-born college graduate can earn twice as much as an Ethiopian counterpart—studies show that an Ethiopian graduate can work 48 hours per week and earn an average of NIS 47 per hour.
    However, an Israeli graduate can work for 47 hours and earn an average of NIS 85 per hour.[34] That kind of inequality would create a huge uproar in the U.S., and it is hypocritical for Jewish organizations like the ADL to stay silent on the issue. Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Schmuley Boteach write frequently for the Jerusalem Post, yet we hear not a single word from them about this issue. Palestinian Christians face similar discrimination.[35]

    Foxman talks about the “demographic challenge” that Israel is facing. He writes,
    “Even if one takes seriously those who argue that the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank has been exaggerated (and most Israeli demographers disagree with that assessment), the ratio of Jews to Arabs in one-state would be near the 50 percent mark and would make the concept of a Jewish and democratic state, the hallmark of Israel through its history, a practical impossibility.
    “A truly Jewish state can exist, as it does now, only with an overwhelming Jewish majority.”[36]
    How can Foxman in good conscience defend this position while simultaneously denouncing Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower as racist?[37] How can the ADL call Buchanan an “unrepentant bigot”[38] when they are doing the same thing?
    Right after the publication of Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower, the ADL published an article asking MSNBC to dismiss Buchanan,[39] and Buchanan was eventually fired.
    Shortly thereafter, Buchanan had the courage to say that the ideologies that people like Abraham Foxman espouse are un-American.[40]
    Perhaps what pushed the ADL over the edge is the way Buchanan described the death of the WASP era in the Supreme Court. Buchanan cites Harvard Law Jewish professor Noah Feldman bragging about how Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is a sign that the WASP’s rule over the Supreme Court has finally come to an end.[41]

    Abraham Foxman
    Abraham Foxman
    What the ADL considers bigotry is the same thing that has been said over and over by Jewish scholars and in Jewish publications. Buchanan cites Jewish Princeton professor Fred Greenstein saying that in the name of “diversity,” even the guard has been slowing changing.[42]
    But again it is Buchanan who is the bigot. Menachem Z. Rosensaft of The Jewish Week declared that the firing of Buchanan “was long overdue.”[43] Ben Shapiro of Front Page Magazine, a neoconservative publication, also declared that Buchanan is an anti-Semite.[44]
    Ultimately this is where “multiculturalism” and “diversity” have led us. The Dreadful Few promote diversity, but their agenda cannot allow for any conflicting interpretations. In May 2012, Netanyahu declared,
    “The phenomenon of illegal infiltrators from Africa is extremely serious and threatens Israel’s social fabric and national security.
    “If we don’t stop the problem, 60,000 infiltrators are liable to become 600,000, and cause the negation of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”[45]
    Likud MK Miri Regev declared that “the Sundanese are like a cancer in our body.”[46] Though Regev apologized later for this comment, she got to keep her prestigious job.
    Although the ADL is pretty quick to see anti-Semitism all over Europe and America, deporting illegal immigrants in Israel does not concern the organization, even though they fight tooth and nail to support illegal immigrants in the United States.
    This double standard has become so obvious to many Jews that some are beginning to distance themselves from those ideologies. Emily L. Hauser is an Israeli Jew who left Israel and now lives in the United States because she didn’t want to raise her children where they are “being lied to daily by leaders who mouth platitudes about peace, even as their actions do nothing but undermine the possibility of peace.”[47] Hauser made a reference to a 2010 poll revealing that half of Israeli high school students opposed equal rights for Palestinians.[48]

     If you think that the Dreadful Few do not play by Talmudic mores, think again.
    Mearsheimer and Walt
    Mearsheimer and Walt
    “The Israel Democracy Institute reported in May 2003 that 57 percent of Israel’s Jews ‘think that the Arabs should be encouraged to emigrate. A 2004 survey conducted by Haifa University’s Center for the Study of National Security found that the number had increased 63.7 percent.”
    John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard respond,
    “If 40 percent or more of white Americans declared that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians ‘should be encouraged’ to leave the United States, it would surely prompt vehement criticism.”[49]
    A 2007 poll indicated that
    “55 percent of Israeli Jews wanted segregated entertainment facilities, while more than 75 percent said they would not live in the same building as an Israeli Arab.
    “More than half of the respondents said that for a Jewish woman to marry an Arab is equal to national treason, and 50 percent said that they would refuse employment if their immediate supervisor was an Arab.
    “The Israel Democracy Institute reported in May 2003 that 53 percent of Israeli Jews ‘are against full equality for the Arabs,’ while 77 percent…believe that ‘there should be a Jewish majority on crucial political decisions.’”[50]
    At the end of 2010, a number of leading rabbis “initiated a call urging Jews to refrain from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews.”[51] One of the rabbis, Scheinen Yoseph, even declared that “racism originated in the Torah.”[52]
    Rabbi Shmuel Eliahu and other rabbis in Safed, Israel, believed it was a religious issue “forbidding residents to rent apartments to Israeli Arab students from the local community college.”[53]
    To fight this,
    “Several days later, a building that houses Arab students was attacked by a group of young Jews, and an elderly Holocaust survivor renting a room to students received threats.”[54]
    Moreover, “In a city park next to a college building on a recent afternoon, ‘Death to Arabs’ was scrawled on a gatepost.”[55]

    There is a complete contradiction here that cannot be reconciled, and pointing this contradiction out can hardly amount to anti-Semitism. Yet when confronted with this kind of double standard, Abraham Foxman declares,
    “Well, in terms of size and dimension Israel is nowhere near the U.S.”
    Having set the parameters this way, he then goes on to debunk the Arizona law:
    “This law is biased, bigoted and unconstitutional. It’s a hysterical and politically motivated response to a problem that the U.S. ignored for too long, and it’s not the way to deal with it.
    “But this bigoted response might traumatize the country and force it to finally deal with this issue. However, comparisons of Arizona to Hitler and Nazi Germany, made by some good people who are angry, are inappropriate.”[56]

     But the irony is that black rights aren’t a priority in Israel. Journalist Jonathan Cook reports that
    “health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug… known as Depo Provera…
    “Use of the contraceptive by Israeli doctors has risen threefold over the past few years. Figures show that 57 percent of Depo Provera users in Israel are Ethiopian, even though the community accounts for less than two percent of the total population…
    “Ethiopians are reported to face widespread discrimination in jobs, housing and education and it recently emerged that their blood donations were routinely discarded.”[57]
    Schools for Ethiopians are largely segregated,[58] a process that has been going on since 1967.[59] Thomas Friedman of the New York Times writes that fifty-five segregated buses were in operation in Israel in 2009. He also reaffirmed the fact that the Israel Lobby largely dominates foreign policy in America.[60]
    Not a single Jewish organization in America complains about the school bus issue. Yet David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, declares that many of Friedman’s comments with respect to the Israel Lobby “conjures up the ugliest anti-Semitic stereotypes.”[61] The Anti-Defamation League, the most visible Jewish organization in the U.S., does not even have an article on this.
    Have the Dreadful Few provided serious reasons showing that they are really compassionate and care about the well-being of other people? Well, until they can cure the Zionist cancer in Israel, we should never pay attention to them in America.

    [1] Nicholas Kristof, “Immigration Enriches You and Me,” NY Times, November 21, 2014.
    [2] Ibid.
    [3] Graham, Collision Course, 56-57.
    [4] For a recent development, see for example Nathan Guttman, “Jewish Immigration Advocates Push Eric Cantor to Support Broad Reforms,” Jewish Daily Forward, February 21, 2014; Rex Weiner, “Jews Unite Behind Push for Immigration Reform,” Jewish Daily Forward, June 26, 2013; Gideon Aronoff, “Immigration Reform Is Our Jewish Responsibility,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 17, 2011; Morris J. Vogel, “For Jews, a Permanent Stake in the Immigration Debate,” Jewish Daily Forward, October 20, 2010; Nathan Guttman, “Immigration Debate Prompts Growing Jewish-Latino Ties,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 27, 2010.
    [5] “Eric Cantor, Top GOP Jew, Changes Tune on Immigration,” Jewish Daily Forward, February 10, 2013.
    [6] See Kevin McDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Lincoln, NE: 1st Books Library, 2002), chapter 7.
    [7] Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 56-57.
    [8] Ibid., 57.
    [9] For a study on Jastrow’s work, see for example Andrew R. Heinze, Jews and the American Soul: Human Nature in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), chapter 6.
    [10] See for example Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance (New York: Free Press, 2007); Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 2004).
    [11] See for example Natasha Wallace, “Gang Rapist Claims Right to Assault,” Sydney Morning Herald, December 10, 2095; Ludovica Laccino, “Top 5 Countries with the Highest Rates of Rape,” International Business Times, January 29, 2014.
    [12] Helen Pidd, “Failures in Rotherham Led to Sexual Abuse of 1,400 Children,” Guardian, August 27, 2014; Randeep Ramesh, “Rotherham Child Sexual Abuse Scandal Is Tip of Iceberg, Says Police Chief,” Guardian, October 15, 2014.
    [13] Sarfraz Manzoor, “The England That Is Forever Pakistan: Multiculturalism and Rape in Rotherham,” NY Times, September 15, 2014; see also Allison Pearson, “Rotherham: In the Face of Such Evil, Who Is the Racist Now?,” Telegraph, August 27, 2014.
    [14] Martin Evans and Gordon Rayner, “Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation: Victims, Raped, Beaten and Doused in Petrol If They Threatened to Tell,” Telegraph, August 26, 2014.
    [15] Roger Scruton, “Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness,” Forbes, August 30, 2014.
    [16] Martin Evans, “Rotherham sex abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited by Asian gangs while authorities turned a blind eye,” Telegraph, August 26, 2014.
    [17] Nigel Bunyan, “Rochdale Grooming Trial, Asian Grooming Gangs, The Uncomfortable Issue,” Telegraph, May 8, 2012.
    [18] Ella Cockbain and Helen Brayley, “The Truth about ‘Asian Sex Gangs,’” Guardian, May 8, 2012; also Nigel Bunyan, “Rochdale Grooming Trial: Police Knew about Sex Abuse in 2002 but Failed to Act,” Telegraph, May 9, 2012.
    [19] Helen Carter, “Rochdale Gang Found Guilty of Sexually Exploiting Girls,” Guardian, May 8, 2012.
    [20] Ludovica Laccino, “Top 5 Countries with the Highest Rates of Rape,” International Business Times, January 29, 2014.
    [21] Natasha Mozgovaya, “Focus U.SA./Reminders of Israel in the Arizona Immigration Debate,” Haaretz, May 12, 2010.
    [22] Melissa Apter, “New Arizona Law Brings Renewed Attention to Immigration Reform,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 26, 2010.
    [23] Ibid.
    [24] Ibid.
    [25] Ibid.
    [26] “Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu: Illegal Immigration ‘a National Calamity,’” Fox News, December 11, 2011.
    [27] See Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda (New York: HarperCollins,
    [28] See Mark Weiss, “Israel Approves African Migrant Detention Camp,” Irish Times, November 29, 2010.
    [29] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, 90.
    [30] Sizer, Christian Zionism, 210.
    [31] Dana Weiler-Polak, “UN Reports Slams Israel’s Treatment of Pregnant Migrant Workers,” Haaretz, February 13, 2011.
    [32] Lahav Harkov, “Danny Danon: Send African Migrants to Australia,” Jerusalem Post, June 30, 2011.
    [33] Leonard Fein, “Echoes of U.S. Racism in Israel,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 29, 2012; “Ethiopians Rally Against Racism in Israel,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 10, 2012; Merav Michaeli, “In Israel, Some are More Equal than Others,” Haaretz, January 16, 2012; “5,000 Ethiopians Protest Racism in Israel,” Jewish Daily Forward, January 18, 2012.
    [34] Revital Blumenfeld, “Study: Israeli-Born College Graduates Earn Twice as Much as their Ethiopian Counterparts,” Haaretz, January 24, 2012.
    [35] Fida Jiryis, “The Myth of Israel’s Favorable Treatment of Palestinian Christians,”, March 15, 2012; Jason Ditz, “Israeli Officials: 60 Minutes Report on Treatment of Christians a Strategic Threat,”, April 23, 2012.
    [36] Abraham Foxman, “Peter Beinart is Right, But for the Wrong Reasons,” Jerusalem Post, March 20, 2012.
    [40] Patrick J. Buchanan, “Blacklisted, but Not Beaten,” American Conservative, Feb. 16, 2012.
    [41] Noah Feldman, “The Triumphant Decline of the WASP,” NY Times, June 27, 2010.
    [42] Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower, 252-254.
    [43] Menachem Z. Rosensaft, “The Sins of Pat Buchanan,” Jewish Week, Feb. 21, 2012.
    [44] Ben Shapiro, “Pat Buchanan: Anti-Semite,”, March 2, 2012.
    [45] Talila Nesher, “Netanyahu: Israel Could Be Overrun by African Infiltrators,” Haaretz, May 21, 2012.
    [46] “Israeli MK: I Didn’t Mean to Shame Holocaust by Calling African Migrants ‘a Cancer,’” Haaretz, May 27, 2012.
    [47] Emily L. Hauser, “Dear Israel, This Is Why I Left,” Daily Beast, April 6, 2012.
    [48] Or Kashti, “Poll: Half of Israeli High Schoolers Oppose Equal Rights for Arabs,” Haaretz, March 11, 2010.
    [49] Mearsheimer and Walt, Israel Lobby, 90.
    [50] Ibid.
    [51] Chaim Levinson, “Top Rabbis Moved to Forbid Renting Homes to Arabs, Say ‘israel Belongs to Jews,” Haaretz, December 7, 2010.
    [52] Ibid.
    [53] Joel Greenberg, “Allegations of Racism and Questions about an Israel Town’s Character,” Washington Post, November 14, 2010.
    [54] Ibid.
    [55] Ibid.
    [56] Mozgovaya, “Reminders of Israel in the Arizona Immigration Debate,” Haaretz.
    [57] Jonathan Cook, “Israel’s Treatment of Europeans Seen as ‘Racist,’” Middle East Online, February 2, 2010.
    [58] See Or Kashi, “A School of 290 Students, 289 of Them Black,” Haaretz, August 31, 2010.
    [59] See Illan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinian: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), chapter 3.
    [60] Thomas L. Friedman, “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir,” NY Times, December 13, 2011.
    [61] David Harris, “New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman Crossed the Line,” Jerusalem Post, December 19, 2011.
    Short URL:

    The New Issue of TBR


    The Walls of Auschwitz

    A Chemical Study
    Published: 2008-10-10
    Three main chemical investigations have been performed concerning residual cyanide in the walls of alleged ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz: by Leuchter, Rudolf and by Markiewicz. Over the two decades since Leuchter first sampled, debates have raged concerning where the samples were taken from, whether it was really ‘historic’ brickwork, how porous the brickwork was to the cyanide gas, and so forth. And yet, it is here argued that some fairly definite conclusions can be drawn from them. In particular, the Leuchter and Rudolf results are seen to corroborate each other. There is a difficulty with the level of accuracy claimed by Markiewicz.

    I. The Leuchter Report, 1988

    In February 1988, Fred Leuchter came to the Auschwitz crematoria ruins, with his wife and a team,[1] With his fur hat and small hammer, he chiselled out 32 samples from floor, walls and ceiling of the ‘gas chambers,’ and Howard Miller bagged and tagged them. His Report published in April of 1998[2] contained five maps as appendices which indicated where the samples had been taken from, and in addition a film was made of his sampling.[3] The locations are important, because some of the ‘gas chamber’ locations are postwar-reconstructed, and the obtaining of original brickwork was essential for his purpose.
    Leuchter in effect tested the hypothesis, as to whether or not certain large rooms, designated in the Auschwitz design-plans as either morgues or washrooms, had in fact been used for large-scale human cyanide gassing on a daily and lethal basis. As America’s foremost supplier of execution hardware, Leuchter was primarily concerned with whether it would have been feasible to perform such executions using the designated rooms; this however will not concern us here, our concern being solely with the wall samples he took.[4] These were analysed in March 1988 by Alpha Analytical Laboratories Ltd,[5] in ignorance of their source.
    He managed to take one one sample of a ‘Disinfestation Chamber,’ by breaking and entering a locked building: but prowling guards and snowy blizzards prevented further sampling from a second such chamber at camp Majdanek.[6] His swiftly-published ‘Report’ in effect grouped his chemical data into two, that of the sample 32 which he called perhaps unfortunately his ‘control,’ and all the others, as the graph shows. The latter came from five ‘Crematoria’ sites in the Auschwitz complex.

    Duality of the ‘Gas Chamber’ concept in Leuchter’s Report

    The terms that will here be used, that are as far as possible non-judgemental, are AHGCs or alleged human gas chambers for what Leuchter called ‘Crematoria’ and DCs or disinfestation chambers for what in the German design-plans were called ‘gas chambers’ (gaskammers). The latter had been used in Germany since 1924, much as we would nowadays use DDT, for killing the flea that carried the typhus bacillus. They were operated using ‘Zyklon-B’ granules, composed of liquid hydrogen cyanide (boiling-point 27° C) that would evaporate over a couple of hours from its clay substrate. In the German labour-camps, clothing and bedding were repeatedly fumigated in such chambers. Prior to Leuchter’s work, pro – Holocaust books had not acknowledged such chambers, and had rather carried the message of the Nuremberg trials, whereby any use of Zyklon-B was merely presumed to have been for human extermination. After Leuchter, Pressac’s magnum opus reproducing design-plans of Auschwitz-Birkenau located and described the ‘Gaskammer’ or DCs.[7] These were quite a lot smaller than the AHGCs, and designed by the industrial-chemistry firm ‘Degesh.’ Pressac also observed that their walls tended to be blue: they had gradually developed that hue after the War, owing to their saturation with iron-cyanide.
    Fred Leuchter found one thousand-fold difference in residual cyanide levels between these two types of ‘gas chamber’ – that designated in German design-plans as gas chambers, but whose existence was ignored at Nuremberg, and the much larger rooms alleged to have functioned as gas chambers. Together with Pressac’s acknowledgement of the DCs, this meant that future pro-Holocaust books would have to work with a duality: that the very same cans of ‘Zyklon-B’ were used for two extremely different purposes on the same campsite: for taking lives via the extermination procedure, whereby millions died, in the extraordinary manner described at Nuremberg, and also for saving them by combating the typhus epidemic. This did not make a great deal of sense and some noted that one could more readily have not bothered and just let the typhus epidemic do its work.
    Leuchter's analysis of brick samples
    Leuchter's Analysis of Brick and Mortar Samples taken at Auschwitz & Birkenau showing Total Cyanide (From The Leuchter Report) Click for full-size chart
    There was controversy over the extent to which all of Leuchter’s samples had indeed been taken from walls of chambers allegedly exposed to the cyanide, given that much of the ‘gas chambers’ are now acknowledged to be postwar-reconstructed; as likewise there was disagreement over the extent to which exposed walls may have had any cyanide leeched out from them over six decades, a theme we return later on with the work of Mr. Dan Desjardins. The iron-cyanide bonding which takes place once the HCN has entered the brick and mortar of the walls, is permanent: the complex ferric ferrocyanide (Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3), otherwise known as "Iron Berlinate" or "Prussian Blue" is, according to The Merck Index, "... practically insoluble in water."[8] It is used as a pigment in printing inks and artists' colors, and remains stable in water, air, ultraviolet radiation and with the elevated temperatures of summer.
    Following Leuchter’s discovery, some suggested that the DCs had been more heavily used than the AHGCs, after all did not beetles or fleas take longer to kill than humans? And, were not the DCs heated in order to promote the release of the HCN, and would that not give a higher degree of wall-absorption? Others replied that, if half a million people had allegedly been gassed in ‘Krema II’[9] over a two-year or so period then that would have been a rather intensive use, and not easily reconcilable with Alpha Analytical Laboratory’s finding that all seven wall-samples taken therefrom had levels of total cyanide too low to be measurable. Should not all the moisture from the body sweat, plus body heat, have rather promoted HCN absorption?
    Others had a different criticism, that the cyanide gas would have only been adsorbed onto the wall surface, and that the concentrations found would to a large extent merely reflect the extent to which surface material of the wall had been scraped off, while deeper samples would hardly contain any. We leave these questions for now and review the two further chemical investigations, performed in the wake of Leuchter.

    II. The Rudolf Report, 1993

    …fortunately it is precisely the one ‘gas chamber’ in which the largest number of people was allegedly killed by poison gas during the Third Reich which has remained almost entirely intact: morgue 1 of crematorium II.’—Germar Rudolf[10]
    Germar Rudolf found that the Leuchter Report ‘embedded the thorn of doubt in my heart’ while he was a PhD chemist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute. In 1991 he visited Auschwitz and took 24 samples, analyzed by the Fresenius Institute using a comparable procedure.[11] He was later criticized for having used the Max Planck Institute notepaper for having asked them to do this, without explaining where they had been taken from. Both Leuchter and Rudolf used their professional position to request the chemical analysis, and both had their professional existence terminated by that act.
    Although Rudolf’s sample-taking was photographed, he was criticized for not having had enough by way of witnesses checking his sample-taking and how the containers were labeled for his thirty-odd samples. Both Leuchter and Rudolf took their samples without having obtained permission – which assuredly would not have been given, had they asked. The samples were boiled for an hour with hydrochloric acid to drive out the cyanide gas, collected by absorption with caustic potash, then assayed photometrically. The method gave cyanide levels down to 0.1 – 0.2 ppm in the mortar, obtaining measurable values for almost all of his samples, despite which Rudolf remained doubtful over the value and reproducibility of results below several parts per million.[12]
    He sampled extensively both from the inside and outside of the blue-stained DCs at Birkenau, where his grouped results were:
    Table 1: Mean Cyanide DC Birkenau wall-sample values, Germar Rudolf data, 1991[13]
    Delousing room, inside:5830 ± 3700 ppm(n=10)
    Delousing room, outside:3010 ± 3600 ppm(n=5)
    This indicates that the cyanide gas was able to penetrate right through the brick walls, and would not merely have been absorbed onto the surface; and suggests that weathering over half a century has not greatly affected the cyanide concentrations. This data has a central importance, because Leuchter had only managed to take one single sample of delousing chamber wall.[14]

    The ‘Control’ samples of Germar Rudolf

    Rudolf only took three samples from the AHGC walls (from what is called the Krema-II morgue), which was the weakness of his survey. Their wide divergences (7.2, 0.6 and 6.7 ppm) give little idea of this key parameter.[15] He took more samples from ‘controls’ – i.e., rooms where no-one had alleged that systematic cyanide gassing had taken place. His ‘control’ group is here subdivided into samples taken from the mortar between the bricks, and the rest\.
    Table 2: As before, sampling AHGC walls vs ‘controls’
    AHGC walls:4.8 ± 3 ppm(n=3)His samples 1-3 of Table 19
    Controls, plaster:1.1± 1.3 ppm(n=6)His samples 4,5,7,8, 10, 23
    Controls, mortar:0.2± 0.1 ppm(n=3)His samples 6,21,24
    This indicates a significant elevation of residual cyanide in the AHGCs.

    The Ball Report 1993

    It is hard to obtain copies of this Report, or to gain details of where the chemical analysis was performed.[16] J.C. Ball has a degree in geology, and worked as a mineral exploration geologist. Given the intensity of criticism to which anyone publishing in this area is exposed, one should perhaps refrain from criticism on this matter. Its six samples were:
    Table 3: Mean values of the cyanide measurements found by John Ball, 1993
    From a DC:3000 ppm(n=2)
    From AHGC sites:0.5 ± 0.6 ppm(n=4)

    III. The Markiewicz et. al. Polish Study of 1994

    The director of the Auschwitz museum Franciszek Piper approached Dr Jan Markiewicz of the Jan Sehn Institute of Forensic Research at Cracow as to whether they would check over the residual cyanide levels, in the wake of the Leuchter Report. On 20 Feb 1990 Dr. Wojciech Gubala arrived and removed 22 samples, including two control samples. The team then decided that they would like to follow this up with a further study before publishing any results.
    This survey, published in 1994, differed from those of Leuchter and Rudolf in that it only looked at soluble cyanide in the brickwork.[17] Critics objected that it was precisely the soluble component of cyanide which one would not expect to provide a memory of the past, because it would clearly be affected by weathering. Their reason for using such a method was, apparently, that they did not want to get involved in debates over Prussian Blue formation: their approach ‘excludes the possibility of the decomposition of the relatively permanent Prussian blue, whose origin is unclear in many parts of the structures under investigation,’ and therefore ‘The real level of total cyanide compounds could therefore be higher than shown by our analysis.’ The samples were put in 10% sulphuric acid for 24 hours, thereby driving off the cyanide as before, except that cyanide bonded to iron was not liberated by the Polish method – the point of which has not been clear to a lot of people.
    The soluble or non-bonded cyanide thereby measured was only present in low concentrations measured in parts per billion rather than parts per million. How were they able to attain this accuracy in measurement unattainable either by Alpha Analytical laboratories or the Fesenius Institute? The method they referenced for this analysis had been published in 1947, and could one expect this to attain these much higher levels of accuracy? From three ‘gas chambers’ they found:
    Table IV: Polish data. Mean levels of soluble cyanide in Crematoria walls, 1994
    AHGC walls, Krema I:0.07 ± 0.1 ppm(n=7)
    Krema II:0.16 ± 0.2 ppm(n=7)
    Krema III:0.03 ± 0.02 ppm(n=7)
    These samples averaged 90 parts per billion. The Polish group claimed that their method could measure down to 2-3 parts per billion. For their ‘control’ they took eight samples from three different residential blocks, and thereby obtained (or at least published) consistently zero values – i.e., zero parts per billion! How impressive to have discovered this ultra-sensitive method. As ‘holocaust’ chemist Dr Richard Green explained, ‘ The IFFR used a much more sensitive method. Their sensitivity was 3-4µg/kg, i.e., 300 times more sensitive.’[18] If that method published in 1947 had such astounding accuracy, then why did subsequent chemists fail to use it?
    This investigation gave DC wall-concentrations in its Table 4, finding a several-fold elevation in cyanide levels there. Eight values for ‘concentrations of cyanide ions in samples collected in the facilities for the fumigation of prisoners clothes, (Birkenau Bath-House Camp B1-A)’ gave a mean value of 273 ppb, thrice that of the ‘Kremas.’ Their conclusion omitted comment upon this highly significant elevation. This paper has been much cited by pro-Holocaust sources, as refuting the Leuchter Report, by demonstrating that the AHGCs (‘Kremas’) had raised cyanide as compared to ‘controls.’ The paper was entitled, ‘ A study of the cyanide compound contents in the walls of the gas chambers in the former Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps’ It thus used a Nuremberg-type terminology, where ‘gas chamber’ simply meant a place for human extermination. They could hardly have done otherwise, because doubt over ‘the Holocaust’ is a crime in Poland. The DCs were alluded to as ‘Facilities For the Fumigation of Prisoners' Clothes.’
    The Polish team went to a lot of trouble, with some sixty measurements mostly measured thrice, and was the only study which obtained permission to take the samples. It omitted two things in its conclusions: any allusion to the Birkenau DC (‘facilities for the fumigation of prisoners clothes’) where it had found greatly-elevated cyanide levels over the AHGCs; and, the insoluble cyanide that was bound to iron. In regard to both of these it cited the Prussian blue ferric ferrocyanide complex, leaving open the possibility that is had some quite extraneous source and was therefore to be avoided.
    The 1947 method used by Markiewicz et. al. was given by Joseph Epstein and published in a US chemistry journal.[19] It was a procedure whose limit of accuracy was given as 0.2 micrograms per ml. To expel the cyanide from brickwork and then dissolve it into a solution suitable for measuring it, involves an order-of-magnitude dilution at least, so that one would not expect to obtain an accuracy less then one ppm in the brickwork, using this method. Any claim that this decades-old titration and colorimetric method using thiocyanate can find parts per billion has to be spurious.

    IV. Desjardin analyses Leuchter

    Dan Desjardins, after carefully retracing the steps of Leuchter on a 1996 visit to Auschwitz,[20] and watching the film that had been made of Leuchter’s sampling,[21] divided the samples 1-31 into two groups: those which had been exposed and open to the elements over the decades (n=20) , and those which were more protected in sheltered, unexposed locations : ‘Leuchter's samples, numbered 25 through 31, extracted from Crematorium I… taken from a facility which was not destroyed and has remained intact since the end of the war, were not exposed to the elements. The same might be said for samples 4, 5 and 6 taken from Crematorium II. Leuchter removed these samples from a pillar, wall and ceiling which, though accessible, were nevertheless well protected against wind, rain and sun.’[22]
    Less then half (14 out of 35) of Leuchter’s samples had measurable levels of cyanide in them, where measurable means above one part per million. We have here assigned an arbitrary value of 0.5 ppm for those too low to measure, i.e below 1 ppm. This gave:
    Table 5: Desjardins grouping of the Leuchter data as ‘sheltered’ or ‘exposed’ (2007)
    Sheltered(n=10)1.88 ± 2.2 ppm
    Exposed(n=20)1.31 ± 1.56 ppm
    The ‘exposed’ group scored 30% lower than the sheltered group, a result which lacks statistical significance (t=0.8). This data could suggest that one-third of the cyanide had leeched out from the exposed walls, over sixty years; if indeed they had all at one historic period been exposed to hydrogen cyanide.
    Mr Desjardins further subdivided the Leuchter samples into those taken from AHGC walls, and those which were ‘controls’ i.e. taken from barracks, etc. The definition of the ‘control’ concept is critical here, and means brickwork where no one has been concerned to allege that is was part of a room where systematic cyanide gassing took place – whether of humans or of mattresses. Leuchter surmised that the ‘control’ sample had been exposed at some stage to a single fumigation by cyanide gas, by way of cleaning out any lice from cracks etc.
    Table 6: Desjardins groups Leuchter’s data by AHGC versus ‘controls’
    AHGCs(n=19)1.63 ± 2.1 ppm
    Controls(n=9)1.45 ± 1.2 ppm
    This result too lacks statistical significance, i.e. Leuchter’s sample provides no evidence for human ‘gas chambers’ having raised residual cyanide levels above those of ‘controls.’ The data suggests that the AHGCs did not ever function as lethal gas chambers.
    These two sets of data (using Desjardins’ divisions) co-vary somewhat, in that if we increase the ‘exposed’ samples by say 25%, to allow for leeching out of their cyanide over the decades, then the difference between the AHGC and ‘control’ groups disappears altogether. (As Mr Desjardins put it, five times as many of these [AHGC] samples came from locations protected from 40-years’ exposure to wind and rain.’) Mr Desjardins concluded, ‘Fred Leuchter’s broad sample gathering, despite flaws, establishes a reasonable basis for inferring that the presence of cyanide residue is due to benign rather than homicidal purposes.
    What Desjardins meant by ‘flaws’ in Leuchter’s methodology was, he explained, that a not sufficiently constant ratio had been maintained between amount of surface wall or plaster included per sample, and overall volume. This he viewed as producing a variability in the data, but not as discrediting the investigation per se, as one finds claimed in certain quarters.[23]


    1. One might expect that the accuracy of cyanide-ion assay would have increased substantially over the last couple of decades, but this is not the case: any re-analysis of the brickwork would face the same frustrating situation, where differences between AHGCs and controls hover right next to the lowest detectable levels.
    2. The essential questions here reviewed may be best evaluated without arguments over whether or not Prussian blue colouration has formed. The latter involves a slow and complex sequence of reactions. We have here been primarily concerned with total cyanide in the brickwork.
    3. Plaster on the wall-surface may tend to have a higher cyanide level than brick or mortar underneath it, and the ferric-ferrocyanide does decrease as a function of depth. Samples should therefore aim to have a comparable breadth-to-depth ratio.
    4. The notion of a ‘control’ sample has developed from Rudolf’s sampling and also from Mr Desjardins evaluation of the Leuchter sample locations. This permitted an evaluation of whether measurement of authentic AHGC wall were significantly elevated over such. While there was a hint of this from Rudolf’s sampling, and while further investigation might confirm this, overall no statistically significant elevation was evident.
    5. The careful and extensive Polish data was analysed using a 1947 US titration procedure, which gave no indication of reaching the parts per billion accuracy claimed by that study. If Marciewicz et. al. chose to use a method which only analysed 1% or less of the cyanide, viz. the soluble component, for whatever reason, they should first have shown that their method was capable of detecting it. 
    6. Both the Leuchter and Rudolf surveys obtained a three order-of-magnitude differential between the walls of DC and AHGC buildings; the simplest explanation of which is that the former was used on a regular basis for cyanide fumigation while the latter was not.
    7. The Leuchter data showed that there was no great diminution of cyanide levels due to weathering over half a century, and this accords with what is known about the insolubility and permanence of the ferric-ferrocyanide complex. The residual cyanide within those walls may therefore offer the most reliable memory which the human race now has, concerning what happened historically in German ‘gas chambers.’


    Leuchter 1988 Table of Data, Alpha Laboratory measurements plus Desjardin critique (2007)
    Test Sample Location (Leuchter) Total cyanide, ppm Sheltered/Exposed (Desjardins) AHGC/Control (Desjardins)
    1 Crema II, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    2 Crema II, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    3 Crema II, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    4 Crema II, Morg. 1 - Sheltered AHGC
    5a Crema II, Morg. 1 - Sheltered AHGC
    5b Crema II, Morg. 1 - Sheltered AHGC
    6 Crema II, Morg. 1 - Sheltered AHGC
    7 Crema II, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    8a Crema III, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    8b Crema III, Morg. 1 1.9 Exposed AHGC
    9 Crema III, Morg. 1 6.7 Exposed AHGC
    10 Crema III, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    11 Crema III, Morg. 1 - Exposed AHGC
    13 Crema IV - Exposed
    14 Crema IV - Exposed
    15 Crema IV 2.3 Exposed Control
    16 Crema IV 1.4 Exposed Control
    17 Crema IV - Exposed Control
    18 Crema IV - Exposed Control
    19 Crema IV - Exposed Control
    20a Crema IV - Exposed AHGC
    20b Crema IV 1.4 Exposed AHGC
    21 Crema V 4.4 Exposed Control
    22 Crema V 1.7 Exposed Control
    23 Crema V - Exposed Control
    24 Crema V - Exposed AHGC
    25a Crema I, Morgue 3.8 Sheltered AHGC
    25b Crema I, Morgue 1.9 Sheltered AHGC
    26 Crema I, Morgue 1.3 Sheltered AHGC
    27 Crema I, Morgue 1.4 Sheltered AHGC
    28 Crema I, Wash rm 1.3 Sheltered Control
    29 Crema I, Morgue 7.9 Sheltered AHGC
    30a Crema I, Morgue 1.1 Sheltered AHGC
    30b Crema I, Morgue - Sheltered AHGC
    31 Crema I, Morgue - Sheltered AHGC
    32 Disinfestation Rm 1,050


    For details of who went with Leuchter, and helped with the samples, see: Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol: Inside America's Capital Punishment Industry, NY, 1993.
    Fred Leuchter, An Engineering Report On The Alleged Execution Gas Chambers At Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek Poland, Samisdat Publishers, Ltd., 1988 (known as ‘The Leuchter Report’).
    Film of Leuchter sampling "Leuchter in Poland," Samisdat Press, Ltd., Toronto.
    Data-page from Alpha Laboratories:
    Dr. James Roth, Manager and Chief Chemist of Alpha Analytic Laboratories, Ashland, Massachusetts, testified concerning his analysis at the April 1988 trial of Ernst Zundel in Toronto.
    Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gaschambers’ NY 1989.
    An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 12th edition, 1996, p. 683.
    This is sometimes alluded to as “Birkenau Krema I”.
    Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspect of the Gas chambers of Auschwitz, 2003 (1st Edn 1993), p. 146; cf ‘It was decided to transform morgue I of crematorium II into a gas chamber:’ Y. Gutman & M.Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auchwitz Death Camp 1994, pp 183-245 J.-C. Pressac & R.J. van Pelt, ‘The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz’, p. 223.  
    G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell, Press London 1993 (I haven’t seen this). The analytic method is given in DIN 38 405, section D13 (Deutsche Institute fur Normung).
    The Rudolf Report , 8.3.3, Table 19; also Table 3 in ‘Dissecting the Holocaust’ Chapter by GR.
    Dissecting the Holocaust 2003 Table 3 of Rudolf Ch.
    For his difficulties here, see:
    Table 19, p. 254 of The Rudolf Report 2001.
    John Clive Ball, The Ball Report, Ball Resource Services Ltd., Canada 1993; The Rudolf Report, p.268.
    Jan Markiewicz et. Al., Z Zagadnien Sqdowych z. XXX, 1994, 17-27.
    Richard Green 'A study of the Cyanide Compound Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,' in John C. Zimmerman, Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies, U.P.Amer., 2000, pp.259-262.
    Joseph Epstein, ‘Estimation of Microquantities of Cyanide’, Industrial and engineering Chemistry 1947, 19, 272-274.
    D. Desjardins: Kenneth Stern's Critique of The Leuchter Report: A Critical Analysis, March, 1997
    "Leuchter in Poland," ref. 3.
    Desjardins, The Leuchter Report revisited
    The criticism made by chemist Dr James Roth, interviewed in the 1999 film about Leuchter ‘Mr Death,’ was along these lines: the cyanide would penetrate a mere ten microns into a wall, he there averred.

    Additional information about this document

    Author(s) Nicholas Kollerstrom
    Title The Walls of Auschwitz, A Chemical Study
    Sources n/a
    Contributions n/a
    Dates published: 2008-10-10, first posted on CODOH: Oct. 9, 2008, last revision: n/a
    Comments n/a
    Appears In


    Veterans Today



    Occam’s Razor Destroys the Holocaust Industry

    The British Intelligence decrypts over 13 months 1942-3 give daily totals of people entering and leaving the camps. There were messages directly intercepted because the German codes had been broken, without them knowing this.
    Michael Shermer by Jeremy Danger

    Alexis: There seems to be a double standard being played by the Holocaust industry. You have obviously been condemned for saying uncomfortable things about World War II and the “Holocaust.” You write:
    “In today’s Britain, ‘The Holocaust’ is big business, with the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) receiving over two million pounds a year from the government and various other UK Holocaust groups now benefitting from taxpayer money.
    “In 2013, the Beth Shalom Holocaust Educational Centre in Newark in the East Midlands got a million pounds, and the Holocaust Recalled Group in Swansea received 791,000 pounds, while the Lake District Holocaust Project and the Holocaust Survivors Friendship Association in Leeds have both been given around half a million.
    “The HET has managed to get The Holocaust established as a central part of the National Curriculum, so every UK pupil between 11 and 14 has to learn about it: it is now a compulsory subject. Thereby London has become a major centre of Holocaust indoctrination.
    “David Cameron…did not shirk from invoking ‘the Holocaust’ to justify military intervention in Syria (August 2013). Some five million has been pumped into the prestigious Institute of Education’s new Centre for Holocaust Education, with a network of Beacon Schools in Holocaust education set up across the country, offering them London seminars and trips abroad. The Anne Frank Trust currently has eight traveling exhibitions touring the country, government funded.
    “More than half of Britain’s schools now take part in the HET’s ‘Lessons from Auschwitz’ programme, which has sent about 15,000 pupils on their pilgrimage to Auschwitz. The roots of the current boom go back to a 2000 conference in Stockholm when 31 nations agreed to subject their populations to mass compulsory Holocaust teaching—monitored by a body of government academics, bureaucrats and NGOs which call themselves the International Remembrance Alliance.”[1]
    Obviously the Holocaust establishment would go completely ape if they happen to realize that those statements were written by a non-Jew, even though they are factual.[2] But many Jewish historians and scholars have said almost the same thing—and they still hold their academic posts. No one has accused them of anti-Semitism. For example, Jewish Holocaust historian Tim Cole of the University of Bristol begins his book Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler—How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold by saying,
    “‘Shoah [Hebrew for Holocaust] business’ is big business…[In] the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold. $168 million was donated to pay for the building of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on a plot of Federal Land in Washington, DC. Millions of dollars have financed memorial projects throughout the United States, ranging from the installation of Holocaust memorials to the establishing of University chairs in Holocaust studies. Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List netted over $221 million in foreign box offices and even Academy Awards.”[3]
    Cole is also a fellow at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum! When Cole’s book came out, Kirkus magazine quickly reviewed it and praised for labeling the “Holocaust” a “sacrosanct myth.” Kirkus concluded the review by saying, “If the Holocaust has assumed our century’s moral crown, this book dares to challenge the emperor’s clothes.”
    So, Cole is praised and gets tenured for saying the same thing that you are saying. Isn’t that a double standard? If so, wouldn’t you say that people in the Holocaust establishment are not using logic and reason?
    Kollerstrom: Indeed it is shameful the way huge sums of money are being used to promote the teaching of an event which did not even happen. Psychologists need to discuss why people enjoy and seem to revel in all the fictional horror and never-ending river of guilt. O God, what we did to God’s chosen People! How Americans have managed to involve themselves in this and also feel guilty, with big Holo-museums in various capital cities etc., I will never understand. They had nothing to do with it. If Americans want to feel guilty about the Holocaust, I suggest they re-define it as what was done to Native Americans over the centuries. Are they not America’s real holocaust survivors?
    Sure, people in the Holocaust establishment are using their reason – to con as much as they can out of the gullible goyim. I presume the Washington DC Holocaust Museum has got the usual pile of shoes, and also hair. Well excuse me they did have recycling industries in the camps and yes these things were collected. But so what?
    We need to develop correct reasoning on these matters. America has got a big Humanist-sceptic movement that is supposed to promote rationalism and sceptical enquiry. Maybe they should be asked about the Spielberg Schindler’s List which as you say netted over 221 million: what of its images of human bodies burning in big funeral pyres, do they condone the idea of human bodies as being inflammable?
    Every university with a Holo-course needs to be badgered about whether it permits divergent views amongst students on the subject, or will students automatically be failed if they express a revisionist view? Normally this is the one course on any college campus where a plurality of discourse is NOT permitted. If so, students should call for such courses to be closed down as violating the most sacred of American traditions, of free thought and open discourse.
    Alexis: Excellent point. People in the Holocaust establishment certainly cannot wiggle out of Stalin’s extermination and Mao’s great famine, which ended up liquidating at least one hundred million lives. Whatever happened to the descendants of those people? Don’t they deserve some kind of reparation as well? Not even one Holocaust museum in the Western world? It is really hilarious to observe how Jewish legal scholars like Michael J. Bazyler cannot really deal with those issues without being inconsistent and incoherent. That’s one reason why they prefer to avoid the central issue altogether.[4]
    Let’s move on. You write, “Insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained.”[5] You also say that you majored
    “in the History and Philosophy of Science precisely because I believed that we are a science-based civilization, and that therefore controversial aspects of historic science and technology should be critiqued and studied…One day it dawned upon me that there was a chemical angle to ‘the Holocaust,’ because a simple chemical reaction had taken place in walls where cyanide gas had been used in World War II.”[6]
    You add, “Clear, chemical logic drew me into this topic, and that remains the firm ground on which I stand.”[7]
    You have alluded to some evidence earlier. Lay out for us some of the main logical and scientific arguments that convince you that this “Holocaust” system cannot be sustained in any meaningful or rational sense. You argue that if science historians do their job properly, they will inevitably come to the conclusion that the so-called gassing at Auschwitz is scientifically impossible. Provide some evidence here.
    Kollerstrom: You’re quoting Jim Fetzer in the Intro to my book, that ‘Insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and the laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained.’ That is to say, it asks us to believe things which cannot have happened.
    The British Intelligence decrypts for example over 13 months 1942-3 give daily totals of people entering and leaving the camps. There were messages directly intercepted because the German codes had been broken, without them knowing this. These messages break the camp totals down into four groups of prisoners – Poles, Russians, Jews and German (political prisoners). That gives us a basic arithmetic which is fully compatible with other reliable sources, eg the Death-Books of Auschwitz as released by Gorbachov in the 1980s – we’ve put some graphs up showing a breakdown of these stats on our website.
    The point is that these totals are not remotely compatible with the numbers traditionally given. They were not murder camps, period. Over that year of which we have the decrypts, Jewish mortality is not any different from that of the other ethnic groups in the camps. For the record, the Death Books have more Catholics than Jews dying at Auschwitz, so I don’t know why Jews have somehow appropriated that camp as if their ‘suffering’ were somehow unique.
    The Exterminationist types will always argue here, Ah don’t you realize, the Jews were gassed on arrival, and not counted in the records. Their bodies were then quickly incinerated and the ashes thrown into the Vistula. So in that case why would the Germans have bothered to keep records? That sounds a bit like people explaining why there are no German-built human gas chambers to be found in any German labour-camps – why, the wicked Nazis destroyed them all as they retreated. There comes a point where one needs to use Occam’s Razor, and say that if no evidence can be found for the whole thing, ie no physical-material or documentary evidence, then IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
    I’d like to see Holo-study course transferred into science departments, so that a critique of the evidence would be possible. If I may give just one example, we have a figure for Auschwitz of the total amount of coke used in the cremation ovens over a couple of years. Each oven took say a couple of hours to incinerate a body. Loads of these had to be installed once the big typhus epidemics broke out in the summer of 1942. It does sound macabre but the point is the ground was too damp to bury any bodies so they had to be cremated.
    Now the quantity of coke needed per body under these circumstances is a fairly normal science-technology kind of question. It will give you numbers in accord with what we know of the typhus mortality in that camp. It absolutely rules out some huge extra number from a ‘human gassing’ fantasy, it gives a ceiling on mortality in that camp. In my experience Revisionists tend to be guided by material and rational argument and logic, whereas Holo-believers go more by stories, which they have been told.

    Alexis: You mention the skeptic society in America. It seems to me that this whole enterprise is a complete joke. Michael Shermer for example is skeptical about virtually weird, unimportant and irrelevant things such as UFOs and extraterrestrials,[8] but he has never been skeptical about things that really matter. In fact, he was trying to use Holocaust revisionists to boost his Skeptic magazine in the 1990s. David Cole has an entire chapter on this issue in his book. Shermer admits that he even lied about Holocaust revisionists.[9]
    Shermer also admitted that the Holocaust establishment hasn’t really looked at the serious problem of the so-called Holocaust itself in an audio transcript. He called Cole a racist in his magazine and then privately apologized to Cole, saying that it was one of the most deceptive ways to attack Holocaust revisionists. Listen to the interesting conversation and you will be surprised.
    Shermer is the co-author of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, and this book is filled with red herring, straw man, and all kinds of logical errors and historical inaccuracies.[10]
    Shermer has recently written Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye, but again the self-proclaimed “professional skeptic” would never be skeptical about outrageous claims made by apologists of the “Holocaust.” He even believes the now defunct claim that the Nazis used Jewish fat to make soap,[11] a myth that has been abandoned even by people like Deborah Lipstadt!
    Shermer is not a serious scholar on these issues at all. As David Cole quickly found out, Shermer is an opportunist (or clown) chasing after popularity.
    But in a chapter entitled “Skepticism as a Virtue,” he writes in his recent book Skeptic:
    “We must always be on guard against errors in our reasoning. Eternal vigilance is the watch-phrase not just of freedom, but also of thinking. That is the nature of skepticism.”[12]
    I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Shermer also supports a historically malicious book called Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust in which its author, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, perversely argues that ordinary Germans were largely responsible for the so-called Holocaust.
    "Listen. What don't you give me a call when you start taking things a little more seriously? Here's my card."
    “Listen, why don’t you give me a call when you stop taking things seriously? Here’s my card.”
    Goldhagen’s thesis was challenged by Jewish scholar Ruth Bettina Birn in the Cambridge Historical Journal. Goldhagen, instead of responding to the critique in a scholarly manner,
    “enlisted a high-powered London law firm to sue Birn and Cambridge University Press for ‘many serious libels.’ Demanding an apology, a retraction, and a promise from Birn that she not repeat her criticisms, Goldhagen’s lawyers then threatened that ‘the generation of any publicity on your part as a result of this letter would amount to a further aggravation of damages.”[13]
    Goldhagen, by this action, proved himself incapable of dealing with historical scholarship and shows that he was not interested in historical truth but merely in propagating his own ideology. People who are not of the truth will do whatever is necessary to suppress it.
    Shermer was obviously aware that Goldhagen’s thesis was a fraud, for no rational person can maintain some of the statements he makes in Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Finkelstein and Burn responded to Goldhagen’s thesis in a book entitled A Nation on Trial, but instead of dealing with the arguments in that book, Shermer responded by saying that Finkelstein and Burn “responded with an emotionally charged volume…” Those are the only “arguments” Shermer presents against A Nation on Trial. But he and his co-athor Alex Grobman went on to postulate:
    “Whether Goldhagen’s explanation of the Holocaust is right or wrong is not our concern here….As a source Goldhagen is reliable; he plays by the accepted rules of historical scholarship; and he accounts for the observed phenomena while offering a different explanation for them.”[14]
    Even Raul Hilberg, one of Shermer’s most reliable sources, denounced Goldhagen’s thesis as complete nonsense. Hilberg said that Goldhagen’s
    scholarly standard is at the level of 1946… This is the only reason why Goldhagen could obtain a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard. There was nobody on the faculty who could have checked his work.”
    Yehuda Bauer, another Jewish scholar who is part of the Holocaust establishment, said similar things of Goldhagen. But Shermer would not listen at all. And he is now writing books about skepticism?
    In Why People Believing Weird Things, he quotes Karl Sagan approvingly, saying:
    “If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
    “On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the worthless ones.”
    But Shermer again takes all the premises of the Holocaust establishment at face values without even examining them rationally. He writes books saying the so-called Holocaust happened, but privately he admits that there are numerous problems with the Holocaust narrative. It just ain’t right!
    Any comment on any of those points?
    Kollerstrom: The question of what Sceptics are allowed to be skeptical about is and has always been tightly controlled, ever since the movement was set up by Paul Kurtz in 1976. Basically they are here to promote godless atheistic materialism, and call it ‘science’.
    I once tried enquiring to a Euro-Sceptics group, if I’d be able to join and give a paper on what brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, as skeptical about the official story, and was advised in no uncertain terms that it would be outside their remit.
    It’s interesting how you observe, that Michael Shermer edited his Sceptic magazine, but also published a book averring that those who did not accept the orthodox view on the H. topic were ‘denying history.’ One is reminded of the well-known British atheist Richard Dawkins, who is very ‘rationalist’ in terms of scoffing at anyone’s religion, but will totally believe in the H. with, dare I say it, religious fervor. It is an ersatz modern religion.
    Sure, Jewish soap, Jewish lampshades, why not? Forget the analyses that have been done showing that these are pig’s skin and not human flesh.
    I love the way you point out that Shermer witters on about ‘eternal vigilance’ in defence of freedom of thought, but then when a critique is published of the book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which he supports, endeavoring to load yet more guilt onto the Germans, then legal action is taken to suppress it! Yes even Cambridge University Press (my alma mater) is colluding in suppression of dissent! Rational debate has gone out of the window once legal action of this kind is allowed and perpetrated. Germans are not allowed to defend themselves – banned by the constitution the US/UK imposed upon them at the end of WW2 – so kudos to Ruth Bettina Birn for defending them.
    I suggest your words ‘People who are not of the truth…’ is quite important. These are the people of the lie. This is a religion, a religion based upon horror and despair. I hope the human race chooses not to believe it much longer.

     Raul Hilberg's Stunning Admission (censored from PBS)

    David Cole

    [1] Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust—Myth & Reality (Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2014), 22.
    [2] See for example “Holocaust Educational Trust gets £500,00 for Auschwitz visits,” BBC, May 2, 2013; Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000).
    [3] Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler—How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold (New York: Routledge, 2000), 1.
    [4] Michael J. Bazyler, Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts (New York: New York University Press, 2003).
    [5] Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell, 10.
    [6] Ibid., 17.
    [7] Ibid., 20.
    [8] See for example Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997).
    [9] David Cole, Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of Holocaust History” Blows the Lid Off Hollywood’s Secret Right-Wing Underground (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2014).
    [10] I corresponded with him on some of these issues back in 2012, and the interactions are on file.
    [11] Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000 and 2002), 117.
    [12] Michael Shermer, Skeptic: Viewing the World with a Rational Eye (New York: Henry & Holt Company, 2016), 60.
    [13] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000), 65. For a full discussion of Goldhagen’s fabrications, see Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1998).
    [14] Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 253.

    Related Posts:

    Jasper’s Fitzhugh Newspaper Censors Monika Schaefer’s Reply to Editor’s Defamatory & Threatening News Article By Monika Schaefer

    “I have always been a peace activist, and I am still a peace activist. What we have now is a world of war and turmoil, structured by lies and deception. I am standing up for a better world.”
    Monika Schaefer
    From: Monika Schaefer
    Sent: July 19, 2016 11:54 AM
    To: Paul Clarke
    Subject: Censorship of Monika Schaefer at Jasper’s Fitzhugh Newspaper
    Paul Clarke, Editor of The Fitzhugh
    Jasper Alberta
    July 19th, 2016
    Dear Paul,
    Upon careful consideration I have decided that either you publish my whole letter, or not at all. If you cannot publish my entire response to your article of July 14th, 2016 “Video denying holocaust causes uproar”, then I will find other channels to do so. You may have noticed that this story is gathering attention around the world. Your refusal to publish more-than-half of my response to your smear piece will become part of the international story. Word is getting out that Canada is becoming a repressive society, and the Fitzhugh’s unfair censorship encapsulates this repression.
    Here is how my friend and colleague in England sees it:
    “Paul Clarke’s article is exactly 800 words long, including propaganda-spreading photo caption (775 without). The full text of your letter is 680 words. That says it all. He can’t publish an 800-word article that makes youa de facto leper in your hometown of 35 years, and not give you at least equal space to respond as a means to defend yourself and your position. For him to limit you to 253 words is: 1) cowardly and 2) morally reprehensible.”
    I agree with those words 100%.
    Furthermore, the part of my letter you chose to cut provides evidence in support of my position. The part you were proposing to allow (the politically acceptable) is a lead-in to contextualize the evidence. You are demonstrating a technique of journalistic smear. You publish conclusions without allowing the supporting evidence to be presented.
    This is not a game. Serious threats have been made against me. By censoring my response, you are contributing to the conditions that could make Jasper unsafe for me.
    Monika Schaefer
    cc to: Robert Doull, President Aberdeen Publishing
    Linda Bolton, Managing Director Aberdeen Publishing
    Below is my unabridged letter to the editor. Clarke stated he would only run the first five paragraphs:
    18 July 2016 noon Mountain Time
    Paul Clarke’s hit piece on me in the July 14th 2016 edition of The Fitzhugh requires a response. First, what is the story? The Fitzhugh reports that the RCMP is not currently investigating the matter. It is also reported that the Alberta Human Rights Commission neither confirms nor denies receiving a complaint. What is the news?
    It appears that the only real substance to Paul Clarke’s smear is his detailed account of Ken Kuzminski’s antagonism towards my video. On the basis of his political judgement, Kuzminski seeks to criminalize me and evict me from my home. He declared on social media that I am not welcome in Jasper. From my perspective, my peaceful expression of disagreement with official orthodoxy is being met with a publicized incitement to hatred against me. Who is most in danger here?
    I invite my friend Ken to consider the authoritarian implications of his draconian interventions. Do we have freedom of speech in Canada or not? How far does Ken wish to go in criminalizing dissent?
    Ken Kuzminski’s announcement that I am banned from the Jasper Legion, of which he is president, raises the most profound issues. We were always told that Canadian soldiers fought for our freedoms, including freedom of speech and association. Shutting me out of the Legion demeans the values that our veterans supposedly fought to protect.
    Kuzminski contacted the German Embassy. Why? Is he trying to get Canada to follow Germany’s even more repressive police-state censorship on the issue of what actually happened in WW2?
    [The remainder of the letter is the portion that The Fitzhugh refused to print – MS]
    The truth does not fear investigation. Only lies need protection by law.
    I will exercise my freedom of speech here. I insist on some reckoning with facts and evidence.
    After the Toronto “Holocaust trials” of Ernst Zündel in 1985 and 1988, the curators of the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland reduced death statistics from 4 million to 1.5 million. Why did the 6 million number remain unchanged?
    Evidence in those trials brought to light the fraud of the gas chamber story. The French Professor Robert Faurisson was a pioneer in this line of investigation. He has been repeatedly convicted in French courts and physically assaulted for persisting with his scientific inquiry. Faurisson was instrumental in bringing Fred Leuchter, America’s top gas chamber specialist, into the Toronto trials. Leuchter conducted a thorough scientific examination of the facilities at Auschwitz and concluded that there were no homicidal gas chambers.
    Robert Faurisson’s trials and tribulations speak of the high stakes nature of genuine historical inquiry into the evidence of this subject. He has famously summarized, in a 60-word sentence, his conclusion from decades of research on the forbidden subject:
    “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and international Zionism, whose principal victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.”
    Many people, including Jews, died in WW2. Most of the concentration camp deaths occurred in the final months of war because food was not reaching the camps. The Allies carpet-bombed Germany, in particular transportation corridors. Camp inmates died of starvation and disease. The International Red Cross figure for total deaths in all the concentration camps was 271,301. Look it up.
    According to Clarke’s article, Martin Sampson, director of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, claims “it is the most well-documented genocide” and “the truth is the Holocaust was industrialized, state-sponsored murder committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people”. Yet, in the many thousands of government documents and archives that were seized by the Allies after the war, not a single item was found indicating a plan to exterminate the Jews. How could the mass murder of 6 million people take place without a plan?
    I have always been a peace activist, and I am still a peace activist. What we have now is a world of war and turmoil, structured by lies and deception. I am standing up for a better world.
    Monika Schaefer

    Holocaust Handbooks

    Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations


    The New Issue of TBR

    Holocaust Handbooks

    The New Issue of TBR

    Holocaust Handbooks

    The New Issue of TBR

    Holocaust Handbooks

    The New Issue of TBR

    The New Issue of TBR

    Holocaust Handbooks


    Customers who bought this product also purchased...

    Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence
    Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence


    The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can End your Career

    By Jim Fetzer

    As a student of the history and the philosophy of science, I have been dumbfounded to discover that ISIS, a prominent journal in the history of science, has published a review of a book on astronomers that was edited by T. Hockey, THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, by N. M. Swerdlow, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago (ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-8), in which he assails Nicholas Kollerstrom, Ph.D., an historian of science and scholar whom I admire, on the alleged ground of anti-Semitism.
    While Kollerstrom has conducted scientific research on the Holocaust related to the use of zyklon gas to exterminate inmates, it has nothing to do with his contributions to THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, where his entries on John Couch Adams, John Flamsteed and even Issac Newton are completely independent of research related to the Holocaust. The only reason for introducing it at all, therefore, has to have been to fashion an ad hominem attack on Kollerstrom, a gross abuse of Swerdlow’s role as a the author of a review, which ISIS should not have accepted for publication.
    Even if he disagreed with Kollerstrom about the Holocaust, those views ought not have been cited or used to attack him. They had nothing to do with his research on the astronomers whose entries he authored, which included one on Newton, which reflected great confidence by Hockey in Nicholas. It is as if Swerdlow had intended to demonstrate to the world his ruthless dedication to the extermination of any vestiges of (what he considers to be) anti-Semitism. Astonishingly, he not only adopts the extreme measure of discouraging any library from purchasing the encyclopedia but outrageously suggests that the book itself should be pulped!
    So Swerdlow not only commits the ad hominem fallacy by discounting Kollerstrom’s research on astronomers because of his interest in questions about the Holocaust, a point that should have been apparent to ISIS, but he practices an extreme form of guilt by association by condemning the entire contents of this volume on that basis, which means that he compounds one fallacy by committing another—and it is one that, from the perspective of intellectual history, actually appears to be even more egregious as a form of group punishment for the sins of one of its contributors.

    A scholar of astronomy and student of the Holocaust
    Having spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of this kind and having an extensive background as the founding editor of MINDS AND MACHINES, of which I was the sole editor for ten years, and having spent another decade as an associate editor of SYNTHESE, which is devoted to methodology, epistemology and philosophy of science, I was shocked that a journal of the stature of ISIS should have permitted this offense to have occurred, which not only taints Kollerstrom but stains the journal itself.

    The charge of “anti-Semitism”, alas, has often been used to impugn the character of anyone who conducts research on issues that may adversely affect the interests of Israel and its Zionist allies, which I, as the Founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, have repeatedly encountered as a consequence of discoveries that implicate the Mossad as having a role in 9/11. I have published about this myself, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”  While Nick has made no such charge, the evidence supports it.
    Significantly, Kollerstrom has conducted rather extensive research on 7/7, including publishing TERROR ON THE TUBE (revised and expanded, 2011), which exposes the role of government agents or of those acting on its behalf to arrange for the terrorist acts that were attributed to four young Muslim men, who appear to have been used as patsies, when the circumstances of the case—including missing a train that would have brought them to London—made it physically impossible for them to be present.

    TERROR ON THE TUBE, 3rd edition (2011)
    This case has been brilliantly exposed by John Anthony Hill, who is also known as “Muad’Dib”, in his DVD, “7/7 Ripple Effect”, which I recommend to everyone who cares about 7/7. We live in a world, alas, where governments lie more than they speak the truth and spend much of the national treasury promoting initiatives, such as wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that are inimical to the interests of their citizens, squandering enormous resources both financial and personal for the benefit of corporations and their profits.
    Because it is extremely difficult to expose government complicity in atrocities of this kind, I have greatly admired Muad’Dib and Nicholas Kollerstrom for their dedication to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about these events, which has included featuring them both as guests on “The Real Deal”, an internet radio program I host, where those interviews can be found in its archives, and as the authors of or the subjects of blogs at
    Swerdlow’s actions are so unwarranted by any reasonable professional standard that I personally suspect that they were deliberately contrived to punish Nick for research not only on the Holocaust but on 7/7 as well. I therefore volunteered to compose a letter to ISIS, in which I explained why I believed Swerdlow’s assault was completely unjustifiable and deserved to be remedied. Nick and I discussed my letter in some detail, which the journal accepted and published in ISIS 102:1 (2011) as follows:
    Re: ISIS 101:1 (2010), pp. 197-198
    Dear Editor,
    During a recent visit to the UK, I met the scholar, Nicholas Kollerstrom, whom I have previously interviewed on “The Real Deal”, an internet radio program I host, about 7/7, his book, TERROR ON THE TUBE (2009), and aspects of 9/11 and other atrocities.
    He has been a productive author with multiple books, including ASTROCHEMISTRY (1984), THE EUREKA EFFECT (1996), and NEWTON’S FORGOTTEN LUNAR THEORY (2000). For a fine collection of his articles, visit
    Nick is one of the few academicians I know who has the courage, the mentality, and the integrity to assume the role of a public intellectual, not only relative to 7/7 and 9/11 but also by pursuing scientific questions concerning the history of the Holocaust.
    Reading N. M. Swerdlow’s revisew of Thomas Hockey, ed., THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, I was taken aback to find a discussion in ISIS that commits fallacies I spent 35 years teaching freshmen and sophomores to avoid.
    Nearly 30% of this review is devoted to a slashing “ad hominem” attack on Nick Kollerstrom! After cursory remarks about Nick’s entries, Swerdlow makes a variety of allegations that are either false or completely irrelevant to the essays in question.
    Nick, for example, is an historian of astrology, not an astrologer. With N. Campion, he has co-edited GALILEO’S ASTROLOGY (2003), perhaps the definitive work on the subject, which is relevant to his essays but Swerdlow does not deign to acknowledge.
    He also has a (perfectly legitimate) intellectual interest in horoscopes, which he has pursued, as well as in the factual accuracy of the (widely embraced) history of the Holocaust, both of which Swerdlow either exaggerates or grossly distorts.
    Neither these interests of his nor his conclusions that 9/11 and 7/7 were “false flag” ops in which elements of the US and UK governments were complicit, however, has any place in a review of his essays in a collection of biographical studies of astronomers!
    Laws against expressing doubts about the Holocaust, in my view, are simply absurd. If you believe in the Holocaust, as I do, then it should be apparent that serious research will lead to its vindication and, if it does not, we are all entitled to know. Truth is paramount.
    Something that stuns me, moreover, is that, unless Swerdlow has studied 9/11 and 7/7, he cannot possibly know that Nick is wrong! Having done quite extensive study of 9/11 and considerable on 7/7 and it is obvious to me that, on the contrary, about both, Nick is right.
    The very idea that the reviewer should single out Kollerstrom because of his research on matters unrelated to the essays he authored and discourage other scholars and libraries from purchasing the book on that basis “crosses the line”! It smacks of burning books.
    Nick and I discussed the matter and agreed that it would be preferable for me to speak on his behalf, since a letter from him might be interpreted as self-serving. As another scholar who has devoted himself to issues of this kind, I have been glad to address this matter.
    Swerdlow has conducted an unprofessional and unwarranted vendetta for which he owes the profession an apology. We should be standing in support of those few among us who have the strength, integrity and courage to investigate the controversial issues of our time.
    James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
    McKnight Professor Emeritus
    University of Minnesota Duluth
    The editor of ISIS, Bernard Lightman, apparently felt that Swerdlow deserved another opportunity to wield his axe, which he pursued with relish. Swerdlow asserted that he saw no reason to modify his position, suggesting that Nicholas regarded Auschwitz, for example, as a very hospitable environment, where Zyclon-B was used as a disinfectant rather than as a method of extermination. While he has concluded that there were certain amenities at Auschwitz, which he has discussed, without having studied the evidence, how can Swerdlow be so certain that he is right and that Nick, who has actually been studying it, is wrong?

    N. M. Swerdlow, reviewer extraordinaire
    Strikingly, Swerdlow compounds his assault with a counterpart attack on me for research I have done on the death of President John F. Kennedy and for editing a collection of studies on 9/11, which he presents in as unsympathetic a fashion as possible. This attack is even more revealing than his assault on Kollerstrom, since I organized a research group in 1992 consisting of the most highly qualified experts and scholars to investigate the death of JFK, which, I am confident, he himself has never studied.
    These have included a world-authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present when JFK was brought to Parkland Hospital and, two days later, was responsible for the care of his alleged assassin; a legendary photo and film analyst; and another Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and of images of moving objects.
    I have chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the subject, published three books by experts on different aspects of the case, and produced a 4.5 hour documentary about the assassination. I have made hundreds and hundreds of presentations and interviews, including lectures at Cambridge, Harvard and Yale. Indeed, my background with respect to 9/11 is comparable, where I edited the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), organized its first conference in Madison, Wisconsin, and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11”.
    In lieu of reasoned arguments, Swerdlow appeals to popular sentiments by taking for granted that widely-held beliefs must be true and that views at variance with them have to be mistaken. Thus, unless you have actually studied the evidence, it might be difficult to appreciate that there are more than fifteen indications that JFK was set up by the Secret Service, where he appears to have been taken out by the CIA/military/anti-Castro Cubans/local law enforcement, where the FBI covered it up and LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover were principals with financing from Texas oil men. For an overview, see my “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”, which I presented at a national conference featuring Theodore Sorenson as the keynote speaker and was introduced by Judge John Tunheim, who had served as the head of the ARRB.
    Those familiar with the history of the UK, however, might be less surprised than Americans, since Shakespeare would have had little to write about were it not for plots against the kings of England. But there were technical aspects to the cover up, where JFK’s X-rays were altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of his head, another brain was substituted for the original, and the home movies of the assassination were revised to conceal that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure that he was killed. See, for example, studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., John P. Costella, Ph.D., and me archived at
    Others who would like some reassurance about the quality of our work should follow this link to multiple reviews of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and to access the Preface and the Prologue as well as endorsements by Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Michael L. Kurtz, Ph.D., and from PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, among others. Of special importance is the review by George Costello, J.D., THE FEDERAL LAWYER (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: THE FEDERAL BAR NEWS AND JOURNAL) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts.
    Relying upon his correspondence with Bernard Lightman, the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, Nicholas had formed the rather strong impression that he would be given the chance to respond to Swerdlow’s reply to my letter. He therefore drafted a response that ran exactly the same number of words as Swerdlow’s second bite of the apple, which was 470. It was therefore a bitter disappointment when Lightman declined him the opportunity to set the record straight, a nice example of his adding insult to injury.
    On the basis of an article by Nicholas relating to the controversy over the now-obligatory visits to Auschwitz by UK schoolchildren — archived at — Swerdlow claims that Kollerstrom asserts “that Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But while he does report that there were various amenities for the inmates, including a swimming pool and orchestras, he restricts himself to features he has been able to establish rather than the atmosphere. This suggests ISIS should have refereed his review more vigorously. As Nick has remarked to me, the accounts we have from Auschwitz tend to be fairly dire.
    Suppose that Kollerstrom were wrong about his conclusions based upon his research. Does an historian of science deserve to be ostracized for advancing opinions that are at variance with prevailing views? Nick’s article also cites significant differences on the question of how many may have died there. Is that question also ruled out as a subject for historical research? Shouldn’t we discover if popular views are more than political myths? Surely Lightman ought to have published the following letter, which Nick submitted to him, as the final word in this nasty and unprofessional exchange:

    Bernard Lightman, Editor
    Letters to the Editor, Isis WORD COUNT: 470
    Dear Editor,
    There is something deeply ironic about a journal devoted to the history of science publishing an attack upon me for conducting scientific research on one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th C. As Professor Fetzer observed in his letter, what do we have to fear from research on the Holocaust? If it was real, then its reality will be confirmed; and if it was not, then surely we all deserve to know.
    N. M. Swerdlow falsely asserts, ‘[Kollerstrom] defends Nazis and condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident Jew-hating websites’. If true, that would be a hate crime. For the sake of the integrity of ISIS, if he cannot substantiate this allegation, ISIS should demand an apology and retraction. Outrageous distortions not only discredit him as a source but also tarnish your reputation for accuracy and truth as a professional publication.
    While I have authored TERROR ON THE TUBE about the July 7 London bombings, currently in its 3d edition, anyone who reads it will know that I make no such claim as that the event was “the work of ‘international Zionism’”. Swerdlow is advancing criticisms he cannot sustain, which should never have appeared here–defaming both my book and its publisher.
    Swerdlow declares that, “a line has been crossed that should never be crossed”. But how can that apply to scientific research about an historical controversy without begging the question? I have an interest in the several investigations of residual iron-cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz labour-camp buildings, which carry residues of how and where zyklon (granular cyanide) was used sixty years ago. But this is a scientific question that can only be addressed by conducting scientific research.
    In his second attack, Swerdlow also asserts I have “nothing original” to say. But I have actually established the ‘control’ values for the normal background levels of ferro-cyanide found in kitchens, dormitories and such, of the German labour-camps by synthesising the two sets of Leuchter and Rudolf cyanide values on the basis of objective measurements of insoluble iron cyanide.
    Nothing could be less original than using the phrase, “Holocaust denier”, to bash the reputation and standing of those of us who believe controversial events are those we most need to address. He alleges I contend “Auschwitz was a pleasant place for its guests”! But who in the world could believe so insane an idea? Only someone willing to distort research could try to pin this on me.
    Like Fetzer, I am an historical revisionist, who cares about the truth and getting it right, especially concerning monumental events, such as the death of JFK and reality of the Holocaust. But that is precisely what the study of history is all about, where efforts like ours to insure the record is factual rather than fictional deserve praise, not condemnation.
    Nicholas Kollerstrom
    Perhaps most importantly in relation to this decision, Nicholas had written to Bernie Lightman on May 27, 2011, “to request that you ask Swerdlow [quite specifically] which are the ‘strident Jew-hating websites’ which he reckons I link to: I believe this is hate-crime which your Journal has accused me of, as defined by 2010 European Union legislation.” And the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS, replied to his request as follows:

    “I did not tell you that you would be able to reply to Swerdlow’s reply to Professor Fetzer. I told you that the journal’s policy was that there could be one reply to a review (you chose to have Fetzer reply for you) and then that the reviewer was given the opportunity to respond. The matter then comes to a close. That is the policy and I will not deviate from it. Regards, Bernie Lightman”

    Since ISIS has facilitated the publication of what appears to qualify as a hate-crime under European Union legislation, surely ISIS had an obligation that justified going beyond its normal policies. In my opinion, this decision by Bernard Lightman was an astounding affront to every member of the profession, whose ability to respond to allegations that should never have been allowed into print were thus circumvented. Given the new venom injected by Swerdlow in his reply to my letter, even if under ordinary conditions one reply would have been enough, a second was justified here.
    For the sake of comparison, the Editors-in-Chief of SYNTHESE committed a blunder by adding a preface to a special issue of the journal, “Evolution and Its Rivals”, as a consequence of pressure imposed upon them by proponents of Intelligent Design, in which they expressed concerns for “the tone” of one of the contributions. Their act created an academic scandal that was discussed intensely across a broad spectrum of forums, where nearly 500 scholars endorsed a boycott of the journal or called for a formal apology and retraction of their preface, many calling for their resignations.
    Those who may stand in disbelief that a matter so relatively trivial compared to the repeated abuse of an historian of science by a prominent journal that is devoted to the history of science should visit some of the blogs and other venues in which it has been discussed, which range from Brian Leiter’s influential philosophy blog to The New York Times. Since the offense that ISIS facilitated in the first instance was compounded by the second, I am at a loss as to how a professional society could accept these actions without a formal protest. Under these circumstances, I believe that Bernard Lightman ought to resign.
    THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ASTRONOMERS, of course, is a collaborative academic publication from Springer, one of the world’s leading publishers of technical and scientific journals and books, which has an enormous number of contributions from a very large number of contributors, where its Table of Contents is simply staggering.   Swerdlow faults the volume for having a few entries of which he does not approve. But that appears to be highly selective on his part and a very cheap shot.
    These are not issues about which the authors are remotely likely to be unqualified. Swerdlow’s review—even apart from his attack on Nick—appears to be suspect on its face. And how could anyone in their right mind allow Swerdlow’s suggestions that libraries not purchase the volume and that it ought to be pulped to stand without vigorous protest, even if one of the contributors has an interest in research on subjects that some—perhaps even most!—may disapprove? What kind of standard is that? How is that being fair to the contributors, the editors, or the publisher? That is a disgrace.
    There are some 1,550 entries in the encyclopedia, which were authored by 430 scholars, of whom Nick Kollerstrom is only one, under the supervision of an Editor-in-Chief and a team of six associate editors. I would be willing to conjecture that a significant proportion of them may well have vices of their own, such as addictions to alcohol, pornography, adultery, S&M, or who-knows-what other practices of which public disapproval may be widespread. Should those authors be ferreted out and have their entries abolished, too? No, let’s just pulp the whole book!
    I am reminded here of the occasion on which I first became involved in serious research on the assassination of JFK. It was in mid-1993 and I was lying in bed, drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper, when my wife came in and said, “You won’t believe this!”, while turning on the TV. The image appeared of a distinguished man in standing behind a lecture with the logo of the American Medical Association, who was denigrating every serious student of the assassination from Mark Lane and Robert Groden to David Lifton and Charles Crenshaw.
    He was especially caustic in attacking Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, which offers the most comprehensive, accurate, and complete depiction of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 ever presented to the American people through the mass media. The person turned out to be George Lundberg, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the AMA. I was stunned that someone of his stature would appear to be abusing the journal for political purposes and citing interviews with the autopsy pathologists as though they were science. That convinced me that perhaps some of us with special backgrounds and abilities should become involved.
    Swerdlow’s abuse of his position has similarly convinced me that, once again, if those in positions of authority are abusing them for political purposes, some of us who might not otherwise have become involved in questions of this kind also have an obligation to pursue them. The issues involved are as important as they could be for the defense of academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, especially about controversial historical events. If the Holocaust is a reality, as I believe, then responsible research should confirm it; and if it is not, we are all entitled to know.
    Perhaps the ultimate irony concerns the ethics of Swerdlow’s review. The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. But by recommending that the other contributors, the editors, and the press should be punished for the perceived sins of one of the contributors, he is promoting the practice of collective punishment, contrary to the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. It was even condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes. In his zeal to condemn Kollerstrom for pursuing research on the Holocaust, therefore, Swerdlow has gone off of the deep end and committed an intellectual offense that is completely grotesque, which thereby exposes the immoral core of his own position.
    The Egyptian goddess, Isis, after whom the journal is named, was long worshiped as the matron of nature and of magic. She has been described as the friend of slaves and sinners, by some accounts, which makes her name all the more appropriate here. In my opinion, Nicholas Kollerstrom was savaged by N. M. Swerdlow, not for offenses against the history of science, but for transgressing boundaries that are intended to protect sacred myths from refutation. In Swerdlow’s view, Kollerstrom deserved to be pilloried, not for his entries in an encyclopedia about astronomers, but for doing something that is forbidden–conducting scientific research on the Holocaust. And not even the Editor-in-Chief of ISIS has been willing to grant him a fair shake.

    Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

    Will Larry Silverstein ever be brought to justice for 9/11 insurance fraud? by Dr Kevin Barrett

    Larry Silverstein, who made a killing out of insurance payouts after 9/11, is to have his case for MORE payments reviewed in court today by — guess who? By Judge Alvin Hellerstein, his partner in crime.  

    Source: 9/11 could be insurance fraud as “trial” of conspiring duo begins in NY today
    Pictures and captions by Lasha Darkmoon


    The insurance companies are not openly accusing Silverstein of insurance fraud, presumably because doing so would threaten to demolish the 9/11 cover-up and bring down the US and Israeli governments at free-fall speed.
    Is this the world’s worst case of insurance fraud . . . ever?
    That’s what many are saying, as the world’s biggest real-estate swindler and the world’s most corrupt judge meet in a Manhattan courtroom on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. At issue: billions of dollars in loot from the demolition of the World Trade Center complex on September 11th, 2001.
    World Trade Center owner Larry Silverstein – who confessed on national television to “pulling” World Trade Center Building 7 – will appear in the courtroom of Judge Alvin Hellerstein at 500 Pearl St. in New York City. The non-jury trial, which is expected to last three days, will decide whether Silverstein is entitled to recover $3.5 billion from airlines and airport-related companies, in addition to the $4.9 billion he has already received for his “losses” on September 11th.
    The question on everyone’s mind is: Why is Silverstein claiming that airliners destroyed his buildings, when he has already confessed to demolishing at least one of them himself? In the 2002 PBS documentary “America Rebuilds,” Silverstein admitted to complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC-7, a 47-story skyscraper that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.

    Larry-Silverstein-with-quoteHere Silverstein is seen admitting to the controlled demolition of Building 7. So how come he has received billions in insurance payments after openly admitting—by a slip of the tongue obviously—that he knocked down Building 7 with explosives? This is one of the many mysteries about 9/11 which remain unsolved. (LD)

    The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the Rosetta Stone of 9/11. Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that the government’s explanation – that a few small office fires somehow destroyed WTC-7 – is a non-starter. Building 7, these experts say, was obviously taken down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted. (A nationwide ad campaign called “Re-Think 9/11” will remind millions of Americans about Building 7 this September.)
    Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein has already received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone, as well as over $4 billion for the rest of the Trade Center complex. That $861 million for WTC-7 was paid on the basis of Silverstein’s claim that airplanes were somehow responsible for making Building 7, which was not hit by any plane, disappear at free-fall acceleration.
    The insurance companies are not openly accusing Silverstein of insurance fraud, presumably because doing so would threaten to demolish the 9/11 cover-up and bring down the US and Israeli governments at free-fall speed. But they have gone so far as to call Silverstein’s demand for more money “absurd,” a considerable understatement.
    The insurance companies claim that Silverstein’s demands amount to “double recovery.” They say that Silverstein was already paid $4.9 billion – vastly more than the paltry $115 million or so that he and his backers paid for the complex just weeks before it was demolished – so why is he asking for another $3.5 billion? Silverstein’s answer: He needs the money.
    And does he ever. He was originally demanding an extra $11 billion, before Hellerstein capped it at $3.5 billion.
    The insurers have not mentioned the fact that the World Trade Center Towers were condemned for asbestos in early 2001, just months before Silverstein bought them in July, six weeks prior to their demolition. They have not mentioned that Silverstein doubled the insurance coverage when he purchased the Trade Center. They have not mentioned that Silverstein hardballed his insurers to change the coverage to “cash payout.” They have not mentioned that Silverstein engineered his purchase of the Trade Center through fellow Zionist billionaire Lewis Eisenberg, Chair of the Republican National Committee and head of the New York Port Authority.
    As Christopher Bollyn wrote in 2002:
    Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist ‘charity’ organization. Silverstein is a former chairman of the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc. This is an umbrella organization which raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for its network of hundreds of member Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel.
    According to Ha’aretz, Silverstein is a close friend of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. They speak on the phone every weekend.
    The insurance companies have likewise neglected to mention that after doubling his insurance coverage immediately before 9/11, Silverstein re-doubled his winnings after 9/11 by claiming double indemnity. According to Silverstein’s spokesman, “the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate ‘occurrences’ for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies.” The bizarre double-indemnity claim was approved in 2004.
    Additionally, the insurers have failed to mention that on the morning of 9/11, Silverstein and his daughter both failed to show up for their daily breakfast at Windows on the World restaurant atop the North Tower. Both offered flimsy pretexts — Silverstein claiming that he had suddenly remembered a dermatologist’s appointment.
    It seems Lucky Larry had a fortuitous appointment with a dermatologist that morning. Both his son and daughter Lisa, moreover, were due in the building at the time when the “terrorist” attack took place. Fortunately, both were delayed in separate traffic jams. (LD)
    How has Silverstein managed to get away with murder, in the most obvious case of insurance fraud ever?

    Thanks to his partner in crime, Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

    Hellerstein’s courtroom is Ground Zero in the cover-up of the crimes of 9/11. Virtually all 9/11 litigation has been funneled through his courtroom, including Ellen Mariani’s recent lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others.
    Like Silverstein and Eisenberg, Hellerstein is a rabid Zionist with close ties to Israel. The judge’s son and sister both emigrated from the US to orthodox Zionist settlements in the Occupied Territories.
    Investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn writes:
    Hellerstein’s son is an Israeli lawyer who emigrated to Israel in 2001 and whose law firm works for and with the Rothschild-funded Mossad company responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks.
    Bollyn notes that Hellerstein’s son, an Israeli lawyer, represents
    the Mossad-controlled airport security firm named International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) N.V., which is the owner of Huntleigh U.S.A., the passenger screening company that checked the passengers that boarded the aircraft at the key airports on 9-11.
    Additionally, Bollyn writes:
    Both Alvin Hellerstein and his son Joseph worked for the well-known Jewish law firm of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan before moving to the positions they now hold…Stroock, Stroock & Lavan played a key role in the setting up of 9-11…Stroock has a long history of representing the Rothschilds and other high-level Zionists.
    Will New York City 9/11 skeptics protest the Silverstein-Hellerstein trial this Monday through Wednesday?
    Will truth and justice ever triumph . . .
    Hellerstein_close_up_in_hat. . . with this man as judge?
    In order to triumph, truth and justice will have to defeat the world’s wealthiest and most powerful criminal network.
    Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is More articles by Dr. Kevin Barrett

     Veterans Today

    Putin denies Holocaust (HE DIDN'T!!!)

    Russian President "leaves out" 6 million figure, gas chambers, extermination program

    By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

    Putin is a Holocaust-religion-heretic
    Putin is a Holocaust-religion-heretic
    Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have just denied the Holocaust™ .
    The official website has reported:
    Vladimir Putin sent his greetings to all those attending the requiem held to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by the Red Army and International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
    The President said, in particular, in his message:
    “The Holocaust was one of the most tragic and shameful pages in human history. Millions of innocent people fell victim to the Nazis, went through the hell of the death camps and were shot, tortured, and died from hunger and disease. The Red Army put an end to these atrocities and this ruthless barbarity and saved not just the Jewish people but also the other peoples of Europe and the world.”
    By the standards of the custodians of Holocaust™ orthodoxy, that sounds a whole lot like Holocaust Denial™ .
    According to Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, authors of Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, anyone who disputes any one of the following three assertions is a Holocaust Denier™:
    1) That six million Jews were murdered
    2) Mostly in hydrogen cyanide gas chambers
    3) As part of an official Nazi government program aimed at killing all Jews.
    Putin’s message pointedly does not support any of these three contested assertions, which together constitute the holy trinity of a new religion, Holocaustianity.
    The Russian President merely claimed that “millions” (not six million) of “innocent people” (not just Jews) were victimized. He cites victims being “shot” and “tortured” and “dying from hunger and disease” – but any mention of the alleged Zyklon-B gas chambers is conspicuous by its absence.
    Many revisionist historians, including chemistry expert and History of Science Ph.D. Nick Kollerstrom, would undoubtedly agree, at least in broad outline, with Putin’s statement. Dr. Kollerstrom, who was fired without explanation from University College of London after publishing a scholarly article about Zyklon-B residues, acknowledges that large numbers of labor camp inmates suffered and died, but argues that the vast majority succumbed to hunger and disease. According to Kollerstrom, cyanide residues prove that Zyklon-B was used to kill lice, not people, in an effort to fight typhus and save the lives of the labor camp inmates and their guards. In Kollerstrom’s view, the tales of human gas chambers were a sort of urban legend that may have grown out of a wartime British propaganda campaign aimed at demonizing Germans.
    Along with eschewing the holy “six million” figure, and mentioning other causes of death but not gas chambers, President Putin also notably refrained from stating that the Nazis pursued an official program aimed at killing all Jews in the territories they controlled. By the standards of such Holocaust™ enthusiasts as Shermer, Grobman, and Lipstadt, that makes Putin a Holocaust Denier™ thrice over.
    But Putin’s greatest heresy, from the viewpoint of Holocaustianity™ fundamentalists, is his refusal to acknowledge the primacy and ineffability of Jewish suffering. According to the Church of Holocaustianity, which maintains sacred temples disguised as museums all over the world, the monstrous crime of the Holocaust™ is incomparable to all other holocausts and genocides. Additionally, the Holocaustians assert that the suffering of Jewish victims, which has no parallel in human suffering experienced at any other time or place, renders Jewish life especially sacred and necessitates its defense, by fair means or foul, by the Zionist State of Israel.
    Putin’s statement clearly disputes the Holocaustian obsession with exclusively Jewish suffering. By emphasizing the suffering of all “innocent people” and not just Jews, and by insisting that the Red Army saved “not just the Jewish people but also the other peoples of Europe and the world” Putin is committing a damnable heresy against Holocaustianity.
    The Russian President appears to believe that the more than 54 million non-Jewish people who died during World War II, the great majority of them innocent civilians, should also be mourned.
    Will the ADL label Putin anti-Semitic if he shows up for a press conference in a “GOY LIVES COUNT” T-shirt?

    Kevin Barrett

    Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.

    Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.

    Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

    Related Posts:

    The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners and technicians. Notices

    Posted by on 7:50 am, With 753 Reads, Filed under Holocaust, Investigations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    FaceBook Comments

    3 Responses to "Putin denies Holocaust"

    1. Martin Maloney  January 27, 2015 at 8:30 am
      Putin said, “…Millions of innocent people fell victim to the Nazis, went through the hell of the death camps and were shot, tortured, and died from hunger and disease….”
      Yes, Putin did not refer to gas chambers or six million murdered Jews.
      On the other hand, he used the term “death camps.”
    2. caribbeancritic  January 27, 2015 at 8:26 am
      Come on Mr. Barrett, there is no forensic or documentary evidence for the Holocaust, quite the contrary there is ample evidence that these were in fact forced labor camps! Quite simply most of these poor folk who died died from typhus! Putin may have been speaking obtusely but does not deserve this demonetization!
      • R A FEIBEL  January 27, 2015 at 9:03 am
        i don t see that dr.barrett dissed putin in any way.were is it in this article that he does?? if anything he is puttting spin on pres.putins words in a denier way.
    You must be logged in to post a comment Login
    Join Our Daily Newsletter

    Bishop Richard Williamson: Boston Bombing Was Another False Flag

    Martin Hill’s new piece on my interview with Bishop Williamson is getting so many reads that it overwhelmed his website. In the interest of the free flow of information, I’m republishing it here at VT.
    Listen to the archived interview at

    Bishop Richard Williamson: “Boston Bombing Was Another False Flag, Only The People Waking Up Could Possibly Save America.”

    By Martin Hill -

    In an extremely rare and exclusive radio interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Roman Catholic Traditionalist Bishop has opened up about the controversy surrounding his holocaust comments and other issues.
    Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of the Society of St. Pius X, was on the Truth Jihad radio show along with Dr. Nick Kollerstrom on April 22. In the show description, Barrett notes “Dr. Nick Kollerstrom was expelled from his teaching post at University College of London simply for publishing a scholarly article evaluating the chemical evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers during World War II… He is also the author of Terror on the Tube, the best book on the 7/7 London bombings.”
    The interview [show announcement here] begins with Barrett, Kollerstrom and Williamson discussing the trials that resulted from his ‘controversial’ comments regarding the alleged six-million Jews gassed in the holocaust. “Emotional truth is quite a different than historical truth,” Williamson explains. “They are not coming at it from the starting point of evidence. The starting point is quite different. Their starting point is precisely emoton. If you’re not on that emotional wavelength, if you’re not seeking emotion, if you’re not fueling on emotion – if you’re looking for evidence you’re not going to find it with the emotional people, and if they’re looking for emotion they’re not going to find it with the evidence people. We’re in two different ballgames so to speak.” [6:14]
    Kollerstrom speaks on the evolving public perception and knowledge about the events of the holocaust. “Just read the comments and the majority people are skeptical. There’s a terriffic sea changing taking place, and the good Bishops remarks are part of it.” He reads a quote from an interview with Der Spiegal, in which Williamson said “Throughout my life I’ve always sought the truth. That is why I converted to Catholicism and became a priest.” Kollerstrom points out that Williamson refused to recant his views, and that the topic is “becoming a discussable issue now.”
    Barrett asks Williamson if he agrees with some Muslim scholars who contend that The Zionists are the forces of antichrist. “The antichrist is on his way,” Williamson replies, “and I believe that if the Vicar of Christ on Earth, who is the Pope, if the Pope does not stick to truth but follows emotion – which I think is the case here on the basis of the evidence that I’ve seen, a Pope who follows emotion is liable to become an instrument of the antichrist because the media and the enemies of Christ- through the media the enemies of Christ dominate the emotions.” [11:36].
    When examining an historical event, Williamson explains, “feelings must subordinate themselves to reason.” Kollerstrom adds “I think we need calm debate” on the matter. Williamson notes “The holocaust has shaped a whole post war world – and a post war religion has been built on it.”
    Barrett asks if the holocaust religion, instead of embodying traditional religious characteristics such as humility and submission to God, is conversely characterized by “egocentric qualities and personal aggrandizement.”
    Williamson replies similarly to the account he wrote which was published in the Barnes Review The fourth German showtrial against Bishop Richard Williamson (2/13/13), in which he explained “Now not only does what is known as the “Holocaust” serve as the secular religion of the New World Order (Auschwitz replaces Calvary, the gas-chambers replace the Cross of Our Lord, and the Six Million play the part of the Redeemer), but also it seems to me that the post-World War II Germans have difficulty in respecting themselves unless they are beating their breast for the alleged crimes of the Third Reich.”
    “Holocaustianity is being almost designed to replace Christianity,” Williamson explains to Barrett, “and it’s been very cleverly done.”
    Asked if wars and domination is the ultimate goal of the new world order, Williamson explains “the bottom line is deeper, establishing a total world view altering peoples minds; shaping peoples minds, I think is the bottom line; shaping peoples minds in view of a new world order… And one of the fruits is the possibility of attacking whichever nation one wants to attack…”
    “…I think it’s religious, make no mistake, religion is deeper than politics, religion governs politics … What we’re seeing is the end of Christianity. Vatican II was like the end of the Catholic church. Now the Catholic Church will last until the end of the world. Our lord said so, so there’s no doubt about that, but the Catholic Church took a real heavy blow with Vatican II. And the result is the almost complete paralysis of the Catholic Church – and the great vacuum all ready to be filled by Communism, by Globalism, by Holocaustianity – all of these substitutes come in and the substitutes are coordinated and lined up together, to bring on the antichrist – and the total elimination of every last trace of Christ and of Christianity on earth. And the purpose of that is to send every single – immortal soul without exception down to hell… So the dimension is truly religious. And you can’t understand, you can’t understand in-depth today’s politics or today’s political scene. You can never understand it in depth politics, unless you grasp the religious dimension.”
    Kollerstrom says that the untruths of 9/11 and the holocaust project the emotions of hate and fear in the people. Barrett asks Williamson “how quickly did you realize that the official story (of 9/11) wasn’t true?” Williamson replies “I remember writing about 9/11 in October 2001,” and says he mentioned other false flags such as the Maine, Pearl Harbor, etc. Dr. Nick points out a passage Williamson wrote at the time: “Politically, behind the Arab terrorists are most likely the would be architects of the new world order,” particularly Judeo-Masonic elements. Bishop Williamson notes that he first swallowed the lie about it being Arab terrorists, but that “now I absolutely don’t think it was Arab terrorists. I think it was purely agents of the inside job.”
    Williamson continues, “Yes, well I’ve been on the track of the – for religious reasons, purely religious reasons I’ve been on the track of these agents of the antichrist for quite a long time. And because by the grace of God I love the truth. That’s really what it is. And I don’t like being fed lies. I don’t like lies, it’s – there it is. I may have to suffer the consequences, but there it is.”
    Barrett notes “It’s striking to me,” that traditional Catholics such as Williamson and Michael Hoffman “who actually seem to be more closely attuned to reality, empirical and historical reality. That’s quite shocking to me. Any comment on that?”
    Williamson responds “Look- Our Divine Lord is the way the truth and the life, He says. So His servants should darn well be servants of the way, servants of the truth, and servants of the life. Our lord never remotely told a lie, nor did He like liars obviously. And His servants should be the same. And there’s an awful lot of liars flying around today and we are drowning – we are swimming and drowning in a world of lies. And the latest lies are flying around about the Boston killing- you know the Boston explosions. It really seems that that’s another false flag attack. Another inside job. It bears all the hallmarks. Or it bears a number of the hallmarks of an insider job.”
    Barrett asks “Do you think these people are actually intentionally letting us know that they’re inside jobs? Because it seems as if they’re not even trying to cover their tracks very hard.”
    Williamson responds, “Well, I was looking at Alex Jones briefly, I came across it today, somebody sent a reference by email; and he says that they’ve sort of blundered. He’s sort of saying that this time they’ve failed to cover their tracks in the way they usually do. So, I don’t remember all the exact details but he’s really astonished at just what a blunder they’ve made this time. So, and he says they’re now in chaos, they don’t know what to do now to cover up, they’ve had to change their story and so on, and so on, and so on. I don’t know the details but it really bears all the hallmarks of another great lie. And I’m afraid that thanks to the media, the mass of people are gonna swallow it. Actually, God bless the people, they’re getting wise to these false flag attacks, and they’re not liking being lied to! But the people need to wake up. The American people have got to wake up. Otherwise, America is gone. Only the people waking up could possibly save America.”
    To receive Bishop Williamson’s weekly ‘Eleison Comments’ Column via e-mail, visit and subscribe.
    Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, Whittier Daily News,, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Veterans Today,, The Wayne Madsen Report,, Rense,,, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, Jonathan Turley blog, National Motorists Association,, Republic Broadcasting Network, WorldNetDaily, Dr. Kevin Barret’s Truth Jihad radio show, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Redlands Daily Facts, BlackBoxVoting, Strike-The-Root, David Icke, and many others. Archives can be found at and DontWakeMeUp.Org.

    Truth Jihad Radio with Bishop Richard Williamson, Dr. Nick Kollerstrom

    First hour: Conservative Catholic icon Bishop Richard Williamson, who spoke out for 9/11 truth before I did (2002) will join me – along with Ph.D. History of Science chemistry specialist, Dr. Nick Kollerstrom, author of the new article Bishop Williamson Vindicated, then Ousted. Both Bishop Williamson and Dr. Kollerstrom have been viciously and mindlessly persecuted by fanatical adherents of Holocaustianity – the religion that has replaced both Christianity and Judaism and now reigns supreme over the Western world, and has launched a murderous crusade aimed at destroying the last vestiges of monotheism in the Middle East. Holocaustianity even has its own Ten Commandments! (As Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” And to learn what a society holds sacred, simply find out what people are not allowed to question; that is the sacred dogma of their real religion.)
    Bishop Richard Williamson was expelled from the United States in 2002 (by his own Catholic order) for publicly stating that 9/11 was an inside job. Later that year, he was entrapped by a German interviewer into admitting: “I believe up to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber.” Those remarks led to expulsion, reinstatement, re-expulsion, criminal prosecution, acquittal, more prosecution…all for the crime of expressing a considered scholarly opinion about a historical event! Today, you can call yourself a “Christian” and believe any damn thing you want – the local Unitarian minister here in Madison, Wisconsin is an avowed atheist – but if you question Holocaustian-fundamentalist dogma, “expect the Spanish Inquisition.”
    Dr. Nick Kollerstrom was expelled from his teaching post at University College of London simply for publishing a scholarly article evaluating the chemical evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers during World War II. Those who expelled him threw in gratuitous insults, but refused to make even the slightest effort to dispute the facts as laid out in the offending article. Dr. Kollerstrom is also the author of Terror on the Tube, the best book on the 7/7 London bombings.


    The Wilkomirski Affair: How a Holocaust Hoaxer was Rewarded for his Lies

    By Prof. Arthur R. Butz,
    acclaimed author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century 
    This classic article gets a new airing here, updated with pictures, captions and brief commentary by Lasha Darkmoon.
    richly rewarded by the Jews with money and fame—
    even after he had been outed as a hoaxer.
    The story of the impostor “Binjamin Wilkomirski” has been generally well known for almost two years, but new revelations were coming out as late as last fall. I think there are some aspects of it that deserve added stress and contemplation. There is more here than the tale of a con man being nabbed.
    In 1996 a book appeared, authored by Binjamin Wilkomirski, entitled Fragments: Memories of a Childhood 1939-1948. It had been published the previous year, in its original German. In this book the author related that he was born a Jew in Latvia and was separated from his parents at age three, was sent to German concentration camps, to Majdanek, then Auschwitz, where he endured a living hell. Liberated at the end of the war, he was adopted by a Swiss family named Dössekker, from which he took the name Bruno Dössekker.
    His memoirs, which immediately won wide acclaim, were promoted by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and won the National Jewish Book Award for 1996. In France his book won the Prix Mémoirs de la Shoah, and in Britain the Jewish Quarterly literary prize.
    Eventually his tale was supported by a woman named Laura Grabowski, who said she was also a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz and remembered Wilkomirski: “He’s my Binji, that’s all I know” she said.33 She had her own tale of suffering at Auschwitz at the hands of Josef Mengele and other Germans, and the scars to prove it. Wilkomirski and Grabowski went on lecture and concert tours individually and together.
    Raul Hilberg appears to have been an early skeptic. Swiss Jewish journalist Daniel Ganzfried heard rumors that Wilkomirski’s story was not true. He investigated and determined that the Latvian Jew “Binjamin Wilkomirski” was actually a Swiss gentile, born on February 12, 1941, to an unwed Swiss mother named Yvonne Berthe Grosjean, and later adopted by the Dössekker family. He was never incarcerated at Auschwitz. Ganzfried’s expose was published in the Swiss weekly Weltwoche during August and September 1998. Wilkomirski subsequently refused to submit to a DNA comparison with Max Grosjean, Yvonne’s brother.34
    Laura Grabowski was exposed as a fraud in October 1999 by the Christian magazine Cornerstone. Her real name was Laurel Rose Willson, born to Christian parents on August 14, 1941, in Washington state, and of course she was never incarcerated at Auschwitz. She had earlier written books under the name Lauren Stratford, claiming she had suffered ritual satanic abuse, citing the same scars which she later claimed were inflicted by Mengele. (The scars were apparently self-inflicted.) As such she appeared on talk shows such as Oprah to relate her ordeals. When she decided that she would also be Laura Grabowski, she transposed the stories of ritual satanic abuse to the new setting Auschwitz.35
    An important observation is that the downfalls of Dössekker and Willson did not come about because their claimed experiences were determined to be phony. Though Ganzfried and others thought there was something fishy about Wilkomirski’s story in itself, for example, his claim that as a lone Jewish child, four years old, he was able to survive the “Holocaust,” they were nailed on the issue of identity. They are gentiles who were not in a German concentration camp during World War II; they only visited them years later.
    Wiesel-Elie-320x231They are contrasted for example to Elie Wiesel, who cannot be discredited on the basis of identity, since he is a Jew who was actually interned at Auschwitz. Against Wiesel’s concoctions society has yet to develop an effective defense, by listening to revisionists instead of its current leaders.
    Wilkomirski’s Fragments is no more or less plausible, in itself, than Wiesel’s Night. For example, Wiesel admitted in Chapter 5 that, when the Germans evacuated Auschwitz, he had the option of staying at the hospital, with his father registered as a patient, to await the Soviets. He chose rather to join the evacuation, taking his father with him, on a predictably difficult journey to another German concentration camp. That is as implausible as anything in Wilkomirski’s book if one is to believe Wiesel’s tale of the horrors inflicted by the Germans at Auschwitz.
    His story also has the claim, common among the “eye witnesses,” that the crematories at Auschwitz belched fumes from the chimneys (Ch. 3). Crematories do not operate that way, and such flames are not seen on any of the aerial photos of the camp. His claim to have seen piles of children being burned by the Germans at Auschwitz is lifted from the Talmud, with the Romans replaced by the Germans.36 
    I could go on and on about Wiesel’s absurdities, but I won’t. I recommend reading Faurisson’s 1993 leaflet about him.37 My point right now is that Wilkomirski was discredited only on the basis of identity. We can also observe that the Wilkomirski book shows that the filthy imagination that was required to create Elie Wiesel’s Night is not unique to Jews.
    What I now want to focus on is the amazing obstinacy of many people in supporting these two, especially Wilkomirski, long after they had been exposed.
    26776After Ganzfried published his expose “he received several complaints from Jews who said that, even if Mr. Wilkomirski turns out not to be a survivor, Mr. Ganzfried is feeding the fires of those who deny the Holocaust.”
    Deborah Lipstadt (pictured), who used Wilkomirski’s book in her course at Emory University, said that if Wilkomirski is a phony it “might complicate matters somewhat. But [the book] is still powerful” as a novel.38
    —  §  —
    Lipstadt continued to recommend Wilkomirski’s phony book to her students at Emory University without mentioning the fact that the book had been discredited as a hoax.
    I was myself shocked to see this book in the Modern History section of my local library instead of in the Fiction shelves where it belonged. At the very least, the book ought to have carried a library sticker, alerting readers to the fact that the book was a literary hoax. 
    When I pointed this out politely to the Chief Librarian, in front of  a contingent of schoolchildren who happened to be checking out with their books at the time, she ticked me off for making a scene in public. When I persisted with my complaint in a lowered voice, making every attempt to sound supercool, I was threatened with eviction from the library for creating a disturbance and “upsetting the children.”
    When I returned to the library a few months later, I discovered to my annoyance that the book was still there in the WWII History Section.  Not the slightest attempt had been made to play fair with the public and tell them that the book was a literary hoax.
    Seething with indignation, I then did something slightly illegal that would have got me into hot water if I’d been caught. I wrote these words in huge block capitals on the flyleaf of the book with my ballpoint pen: “THIS BOOK IS A FAKE! DON’T BELIEVE ANY OF IT!”
    Before returning the book to the shelves, I was tempted to add this infamous Elie Wiesel quote, but I couldn’t remember the exact words, so I left it out: “Some events do take place but are not true; others are [true], although they never occurred.” [LD]
    —  §  —
    (Prof. Butz continues)
    There was no attempt to rescind Wilkomirski’s National Jewish Book Award.
    Norman Finkelstein has discussed this phenomenon recently, recalling Elie Wiesel’s earlier obstinate loyalty to Jerzy Kosinsky long after his 1965 “basic Holocaust text,” The Painted Bird, was exposed as a fraud. (Kosinsky committed suicide in 1991, perhaps because his fraud had been exposed a few years before by Polish journalist Johanna Siedlecka.)
    Finkelstein noted that Yisrael Gutman, a director of the Yad Vashem center in Jerusalem, has said it isn’t important that the Wilkomirski yarn is a fraud: “Wilkomirski has written a story which he has experienced deeply; that’s for sure… he is not a fake. He is someone who lives this story very deeply in his soul. The pain is authentic.39Another Yad Vashem official who defended the Wilkomirski book when the controversy erupted was Lea Balint.40 Bear in mind that Yad Vashem holds itself to be the central and official repository of “survivor” accounts.
    Willson had her devoted friend and supporter in Jennifer Rosenberg, who ran the Holocaust web site www.holocaust.about.corn as a counterweight to revisionist web sites. Grabowski-Willson befriended Rosenberg and helped her run the site. On her site Rosenberg related that, before she visited Auschwitz, Laura Grabowski gave her a pair of pink sandals to leave at the crematorium in memory of her childhood friend, Anna, who Laura said died there.
    Rosenberg maintained her friendship with Laura for at least five months after Laura was exposed as a fraud, claiming that the imposture was unimportant and not being sure what to do about the posted story of the pink shoes.41
    “Whether I can say this is true or not true, I would have to do my own research” Ms. Rosenberg says, and adds that she is too busy to do so. Of Laura, whom she still considers a friend, she says, “She’s a very sincere and sweet person.”
    “If it isn’t real, and if Anna isn’t real, there are so many young children and babies who went through that… It really was a metaphor for the children. For Laura, it was for Anna. I did it for the children. When I did it I was obviously doing it for Anna, but seeing it there, it was also for all the children, the loss of life, what they should have had, could have had.”
    “I don’t want to be involved in this… My main goal is to educate people on the Holocaust.” Ms. Rosenberg says she expends significant energy deleting messages with links to the sites of Holocaust deniers such as Mr. Irving and otherwise blocking correspondents who undermine the historical record. Postings to the bulletin board are not pre-screened, so sometimes a denier’s comments show up before she can remove them. To keep them away entirely, Ms. Rosenberg says, “I would have to have a 24-hour shift.”
    Laura Grabowski knew that censoring the discussion would amount to more than a full time job (so) she said she volunteered to help Ms. Rosenberg monitor the discussion late at night, since she had insomnia. Ms. Rosenberg taught her how.
    I think Rosenberg’s position is that “to educate people on the Holocaust” consists in suppressing revisionist views, and not being concerned about those views and stories that sound more or less like the usual yarns. Impostors and con-artists such as Wilkomirski and Grabowski are thus not seen as people “who undermine the historical record,” even after exposure. As for the web site, its URL has been changed to On 21 April I took the “Holocaust” link there and used the site’s search function to try to find mention of the pink shoes or Laura Grabowski but I couldn’t. I assume that mention of them has been deleted, and Rosenberg has finally lost her friend.
    The most significant of all these obstinate friends is, I believe, the American Orthopsychiatric Association (the “Ortho”), an organization of psychiatrists who specialize in various forms of abuse and persecution, especially of children. In March 1999, about six months after Ganzfried’s expose, the Ortho announced that at its April 10 meeting it would honor Binjamin Wilkomirski with its Max A. Hayman award “to celebrate work done to increase our understanding of genocide and the Holocaust.”
    Naturally there was great controversy on the appropriateness of this award, both inside and outside the Ortho. Wilkomirski had the support of psychiatry professor Dori Laub, a scholar long associated with Yale’s Holocaust-testimony video archive. Laub argued that the award “re-establishes the priority of human experience and memory” over the written documentation preferred by historians, though the award leaves open the question of the authenticity of Wilkomirski’s account. There is no doubt that Wilkomirski’s work was “being taken seriously among therapists who treat Holocaust survivors,” and in fact Wilkomirski has worked “with Israeli psychiatrist Elitsur Bernstein in developing ‘an interdisciplinary therapy’ to treat such child survivors”; a paper by Wilkomirski and Bernstein was well received at a 1998 Holocaust conference at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana.
    Ortho member Harvey Peskin, identified as “a Holocaust scholar and psychotherapist,” argued that Wilkomirski’s account can be accepted as true because it is “consistent with the memories of other child survivors and with the historical record.”
    Though Peskin conceded that Wilkomirski could be a phony he argued, and I think I am summarizing him right on this, that denunciation or rejection of Wilkomirski could discourage real Holocaust survivors from coming forward, and would be hurtful to them in any case. He wrote “such disparagement of witness gives comfort to a new revisionism that no longer attacks the truth of the Holocaust itself but only individual claims of survival” and Wilkomirski [is] then not only disbelieved, but [his] cause cannot be left standing:… to urge the child survivor’s recovery of forfeited personal identity through raveling a daunting trail of unforfeited Holocaust memory.42
    Wilkomirski accepted the award at the April 10 meeting, to the standing applause of the attendees, the gist of whose reactions being that his memoirs are essentially true.
    Lea Balint of the Yad Vashem, an enthusiastic supporter from the beginning and faithful to the end, e-mailed Wilkomirski that “You deserve this award.”43 I apologize for repeating that Yad Vashem holds itself to be the central and official repository of “survivor” accounts, but the point is important, in view of the crucial role such testimonies play in supporting the legend. This was not the first time Yad Vashem got mud in its eye for publicly backing a phony, as it vouched for the witnesses who in 1987 testified in Israel to John Demjanjuk operating a gas chamber at Treblinka. Demjanjuk was later proved to have not been at Treblinka, and released in l993.44
    Cynthia Ozick, a New York writer who has authored an anti-revisionist Holocaust play, The Shawl, which was not well received by critics,45 reacted to the award by declaring “If Mr. Wilkomirski is indeed a fabricator then to laud him is to take a stand — politically — on the side of those who insist that the Holocaust is a fabrication.”46 There is a partial truth in this. I accept the core of the analysis of the psychiatrists who supported the award, in the sense of agreeing that Wilkomirski’s account does indeed sound a lot like those of the “survivors” who have testified to atrocious German cruelties in the camps, though I would prefer to turn that around: the accounts of those survivors sound a lot like Wilkomirski’s. Because of the Ortho award, you now have that evaluation from a group of professional psychiatrists. Where that leaves the Holocaust peddlers, whose foundation is the accounts of “eye witnesses,” is obvious.

    —  §  —

    That is the first lesson to draw from the Wilkomirski episode that goes beyond a “tale of a con man being nabbed.” The second lesson relates to a question that I raised at the Adelaide conference in 1998. The immediate occasion was some remarks about Deborah Lipstadt that had been made earlier.47
    Earlier today we heard of a concern from their camp that I have heard many times before.
    This time it was expressed by Deborah Lipstadt: the “survivors” are now dying off at such an alarming rate that it will soon be difficult to confound the revisionists.
    Such a view can only be advanced in hysteria, because of what it tacitly admits. No sane person would fear that, because all those alive at the time of the US Civil War are now dead, it will be difficult to confound those who might deny it happened. The defenders of the hoax have quite lost their grip on historical reality, and on what it means for something to happen in real time and real space.
    Lipstadt has many times expressed the view of which I spoke.48 As there have been others, an example being Deborah Dwork, co-author with Van Pelt of a book on the history of Auschwitz and head of the Holocaust studies program at Clark University in Massachusetts.49 A related view was expressed by Berenbaum; his argument, that the Holocaust obviously happened, appeals only to well known events of the 90s. I classify these as related views because they imagine the “Holocaust” as something that exists more substantially in the present rather than the past. The Wilkomirski episode forces my thoughts to return to this point. Does our dispute with the defenders of the entrenched legend arise not over what happened, but over what it means for something to “happen”? Is the dispute metaphysical rather than historical? Or is it neither?
    My question is urgently practical. If I must try to express in comprehensible terms the metaphysical principle suggested by Lipstadt and many of the defenders of Wilkomirski and Grabowski, I would say it is the idea that “happen” means something like “said, with emotion and apparent conviction, to happen,” or perhaps “believed fervently to have happened,” though both of these descriptions necessarily fall short, as I cannot empathize with the mentality involved. This interpretation is reinforced by the religious function played by the “Holocaust,” which many have observed. Religious faith is self-validating, impervious to reason, and regards proposals to scientifically validate its claims as profane in all senses of the word.
    In the recent film about Fred Leuchter, the Jew Van Pelt expresses offense that, by entering the ruins of a crematorium at Auschwitz, Leuchter had transgressed on “the holy of holies.” That expression has a specific historical and liturgical meaning in Judaism as the “Kodesh Kadashim,” being the most sacred chamber housing the Ark of the Covenant in, while the Jews were wandering, the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple, and which only the high priest could enter.50
    It is in that sense that one must interpret Elie Wiesel’s remark “Let the gas chambers remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination.”51 The Temple and the Ark no longer exist; some act as though the ruins at Auschwitz can substitute. In any case, no revisionist would qualify as the high priest.
    That might be considered a neat explanation of our differences with the promoters of the legend, but after some consideration I can’t accept it, at least not in its simplicity. For one thing, it is not simple. That I have given an interpretation in terms of religious myth may only seem to make the matter more familiar, but I think it has really made it more elusive. It is understood, of course, that I am not speaking here of the historical problems; I am only trying to understand our adversaries.
    The complication is that we think of religion as universal and other worldly. Judaism, by contrast, is a tribal religion of this world, in which contention with gentiles is a major ingredient, both in practice and in myth (for example, their “cheerfully reported genocidal wars”, as Wilson puts it52). As Kevin MacDonald writes, Judaism is among other things “a group evolutionary (and) reproductive strategy that facilitates resource competition by Jews with the gentile host society.”53 We have nothing in our religious experiences that begins to resemble those of a Jew in relation to Judaism. I believe that, excluding from consideration some idiots, their idea of what it means for something to happen is about the same as ours, but there is a paucity of evidence for what they want to claim happened. As shown by the Laqueur book, the facts of the past do not support them, and they will avoid Laqueur’s path henceforth. However they do possess the present, politically. That is emphatically expressed in the Berenbaum outburst that opened this paper [“A Holocaust museum is built…”].
    A cold calculation shows that a strong weapon in promoting the legend is bawling “survivors” who will not be challenged because to do so would only increase the hurt to them.54 Kosinsky and Wilkomirski may be frauds but, hey, we don’t want people to develop a habit of reading such writings critically. That concern simmered, not very well hidden, in the defense of the Ortho award to Wilkomirski. People may even start wondering about Elie Wiesel, as did Alfred Kazin, who accused Wiesel, Primo Levi and Jerzy Kosinsky “of ‘making a fortune off the Holocaust’ and inventing atrocities.”55 They may even start wondering about those Auschwitz alleged eye witness testimonies, and the Auschwitz legend doesn’t have much else.
    A variation on the “survivor” is the person who claims to have lost relatives. Usually the right answer to their challenge “What happened to them?” is “I don’t know.” That should end the exchange. In rare cases it may be possible, over time, to nail a liar. The case of Leo Loafer in Dallas comes to mind, but even in that case the nailing could not have been accomplished in a verbal exchange between strangers.56
    In many circumstances it is better to possess the present than the past, but the whole point of history is the past. That is what revisionists talk about.
    Now I will close by rendering my simple opinion on the Wilkomirski controversy: both sides were right, and the revisionists are right as well. To see how this can be possible, consider in analogy the revisionist assessment of a not very hypothetical debate on whether or not Hitler knew of an extermination program, a controversy that David Irving started in 1977 with his Hitler’s War. One side says the evidence shows that Hitler did not know. The other side argues that events on the scale of the “Holocaust” would have to have become known by Hitler. The two sides can’t possibly agree because they are both right and know it. Only the revisionist can explain why there is no contradiction in saying both are right, but only provided it is understood that the revisionist is right.
    If I may return to Laqueur, a similar seeming contradiction arose as a paradox, because the same man held what appeared to him to be two contradictory opinions: mass exterminations at Auschwitz were a “terrible secret,” and mass exterminations at Auschwitz could not have been kept secret. Only the revisionist sees that there is no contradiction. Laqueur is right on both counts, but of course given his preconceptions he was unable to resolve the contradiction and left the subject. Again, the revisionist resolves the seeming contradiction.
    Consider the dispute over the wartime role of Pope Pius XII.
    One side says he did nothing against the “Holocaust.” The other side says he gave as much help as reasonably possible to the Jews. The dispute is illusory. Both sides are right, as is the revisionist, but only the revisionist has the key.
    There was no Holocaust for the Pope to act against.

    “Holocaust? . . . What Holocaust?”

    Holocaust revisionism hovered constantly, usually in the background but there nevertheless, in the Wilkomirski controversy. Both sides were right, and of course the revisionists are right, with the new twist that the accusations hurled by the two sides explicitly accuse the other of helping the revisionists. One side says Wilkomirski is a phony; the other says his account emphatically sounds like those that have been accepted as authentic.
    The dispute is illusory. Both sides are right and so is the revisionist. All accounts comparable to Wilkomirski’s are phony.
    One side says Wilkomirski is an impostor, and defense of him helps the revisionists. The other side says that, even if Wilkomirski is an impostor, rejection of him stains and discourages survivor testimony generally, giving rise “to a new revisionism”; for reasons I have explained that also helps the old revisionism. Both sides are right; the revisionist case is advanced however one reacts to Wilkomirski’s fall after his brief dance in the ghoulish spotlight of Holocaustomania adulation.


    1. The New York Times, Dec. 29, 1999, p. E5. [See also: “Holocaust Survivor Memoir Exposed as Fraud,” The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.-Oct. 1998, pp. 15-16.]
      34. E. Lappin, “The Man With Two Heads,” Granta, no. 66, Summer 1999, pp. 7-65.
      35. See the Christian magazine Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), vol. 28, no. 117 (1999), pp. 12-16, 18. It was posted at Cornerstone Magazine Online ( on Oct. 13, 1999, and reported in the Jewish weekly Forward, Oct. 15, 1999, p. 1.
      36. I discussed the Talmudic features of the Holocaust yarns in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 246f. Wiesel has been immersed in Talmud, as discussed in The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1989, in a review of a PBS – TV interview of Wiesel, and as discussed in the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31, 1995, book review section, pp. 1f.
      37. Robert Faurisson, “A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel,” Oct. 1993
      38. Forward (New York), Sept. 18, 1998, p. 1.
      39. N. Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry,” Index on Censorship (London), April 2000, Issue 2/2000, pp. 120+. See also his recent book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (London and New York: Verso, 2000), esp. pp. 55-58.
      40. Forward, Sept. 18, 1998, p 1.
      41. The quoted material about Rosenberg was in Forward, March 17, 2000, p. 1.
      42. Forward, March 19, 1999, p. 1; April 9, 1999, p. 2; The Nation, April 19, 1999, pp. 34-38. Peskin’s article enticed “Memory and Media,” in Readings: A Journal of Reviews and Commentary in Mental Health (a publication of the Ortho), Dec. 1999, pp. 18-23, is remarkable in attempting to discredit the motives of Wilkomirski’s detractors, and the effects of their actions. This article places him unambiguously in the camp of those who say that Wilkomirski’s real identity is unimportant, because he has contributed greatly to increase awareness where it is needed.
      43. Forward, April 16, 1999, p. 20.
      44. I discuss this at and jkrak.html.
      45. The New York Times, June 16, 1996, sec. 2, p. 6; June 21, 1996, p. C1; July 5, 1997, p. 11. I have not seen this play but I can’t resist passing along some information from the review of June 21, 1996. The revisionist in the play is a certain Garner Globalis who “belongs to a Midwestern think tank that exists to disprove that the Holocaust ever took place.” In one scene Globalis, confronting camp survivor Stella, “kisses the number tattooed on Stella’s arm, promising a sensual erasure of all that number signifies.”
      46. Commentary, June 1999, p. 7.
      47. Adelaide Institute (newsletter, ISSN 1440-9828), no. 82, Nov. 1998, p. 1. Reproduced in The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998 (vol. 17, no. 6), pp. 2f.
      48. She expressed the view in a January 16, 2000, CNN program on the Irving trial. Tom Segev, in an article in the English edition of Ha’aretz, February 4, 2000, reported her belief that when “there will be no more survivors left… the influence of the Holocaust deniers is liable to increase.” The same view was attributed to her in an article by Elli Wohlgelernter in the Jerusalem Post, Sept. 24, 1999, “Friday” section, p. B5; my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century is described as “the turning point” in the development of Holocaust revisionism (“Holocaust denial” to Lipstadt).
      49. Newsday (Long Island), Dec. 6, 1999, p. A13. Dwork’s argument is self-promoting. She thinks that academic programs such as hers must get more support to compensate for gradually disappearing survivors: “the actuarial tables are an extra strong argument for the establishment of serious scholarship in academia.”
      50. Dagobert D. Runes, Concise Dictionary of Judaism  (New York: Philosophical Library, 1966), pp. 65, 114.
      51. Elie Wiesel, All Rivers Run to the Sea. Memoirs (New York: Random House, 1995), p. 74.
      52. E. O. Wilson, Consilience (1998), cited above, p. 6.
      53. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone.: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1994), pp. ix-x. Related books by MacDonald are The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998), and Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998) [Reviewed in the May-June 1998 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 28-27.]
      54. I once used this strategy myself. Among the many lies I told when I was a child, there was one I told a teacher once. I don’t remember the specific circumstances or the teacher but my problem had to do with a failure to do something. My excuse was “death in the family.” I got away with it, as the teacher did not want to risk increasing my hurt. I had probably picked up the tactic from a radio program or movie. I plead that I am sure I used the trick only once, and was ashamed of it. Our enemies use it over and over in promoting their extermination legend. The existence of such protestations of hurt is also used to argue that revisionists should not be heard or published. For example Northwestern University history professor Peter Hayes assumed a gutter posture when he told a meeting of students that “he sympathizes with students who might show up to heckle” me if I were to give a lecture on Holocaust revisionism, since “We’re talking about something that people who live around here have relatives and loved ones involved in.” Daily Northwestern, May 1, 1991, p. 5.
      55. Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31, 1995, book review section, pp. 1f.
      56. Leo Laufer, a Dallas man, read a column in 1977 about my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and wrote a letter to the editor (Dallas Times-Herald, Feb. 10, 1977, p. B3; this newspaper is now defunct). He said he spent two years as an inmate at Auschwitz, and repeated the long discredited yarn that the Germans made soap out of Jews, claiming even that he was still in possession of samples of this soap. He also made a claim that would normally be impossible to discredit. He said he “lost (his) entire family of two brothers, three sisters, (his) father and mother, and aunts and uncles.” Such a claim can carry some weight in public controversy, because of course nobody wants to contradict a stranger about the history of his own family. However that was not the end of the matter. In 1994 Loafer wrote another letter (Dallas Morning News, April 20, 1994, p. 18A). There he described himself as “a Holocaust survivor who lost the entire family – father mother, three brothers, four sisters and not counting hundreds of family members.” His story gained two dead siblings in the interim.
    Part of an address delivered on May 27, 2000 at the 13th IHR Conference in Irvine, California. Reproduced from The Journal of Historical Review, 19/6, November/December 2000.
    Read online Dr. Butz’s classic expose’ of the Holocaust propaganda, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century

    1 comment: