This is a really good interview for those with an open mind.

"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire

[www.youtube.com]
Ursula Haverbeck: The Panorama Interview, with English Subtitles
49:00 Minute Video

KZ Kladderadatsch
Published on May 14, 2015
In 2015, Ursula Haverbeck made history in a defiant interview in which she threw down the gauntlet to the biggest taboo of our times. Revisionism . . . on German TV! A seismic event.

Interviewer: Robert Bongen.

ROBERT FAURISSON: Pioneering French revisionist. ZYKLON B: Cyanide-based pesticide developed to allow safe fumigation of buildings, it releases its cyanide content too slowly to work as described by "eyewitnesses" to alleged gassings. ... GERMAR RUDOLF: German chemist and major revisionist, showed that the masonry of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers shows no traces of cyanide residues consistent with gassing claims. ... MARTIN BROSZAT: Former director of Institute for Contemporary History, admitted in a published letter in 1960 that there were no gas chambers in any camp in Germany or Austria. ...

There's more in the immediate section above, but I was not able to post it, so go to the video for more info.

JR’s Notes:

0:10 MM
You once created a sensation with the statement: "The Holocaust is the biggest and most persistent lie in history." What do you mean by that?

Well, naturally I said that somewhat in the style of Faurisson, of Robert Faurisson, who was one of the first to look for these alleged gas chambers — in the concentration camps — and found none. And I mean it in this sense today: there is, I believe, no lie that has operated more persistently and transformatively and indeed not only in Germany but practically worldwide as this Holocaust. I would have to search a long time to find something equivalent.

Because it didn't happen, you believe.

Yes, well. If it couldn't have worked with Zyklon B the way it is described, if there were no gas chambers as many people meanwhile have said, then the question must be answered: Where, then, were the six million killed? For five years I have asked this question systematically, with friends, and received no answer, not one. Then I wrote to the Justice Minister: "This is the situation. Could we now please have a public debate between both sides, pro and con?" No answer.

So then I wrote to him: "Since you have no answer to that for me all that remains is to draw the natural inference and admit the conclusion: There was no Holocaust." And in that case it really is the biggest lie ever. I mean, there are legal experts who say that the whole post-war political system will fall apart if THAT is questioned. That's why it's so vehemently defended, quite logically.

All that is, naturally, for . . . for — "

. . . the normal citizen today a slap in the face."

— Exactly. — Yes. Everyone has learned it that way: the Holocaust happened, it happened with six million deaths . . . Could you explain once more, in a few sentences as it were, why the Holocaust, for you, is a — is the biggest lie in history?

Because it's the most persistent, because it has had the most impact. And when one can't get a straight answer even from the Central Council of Jews in Germany — and I've written to them at least four times on this account — as to where the Jews were killed, then that's one answer right there [to your question].

And the second answer is that when one needs a law that sets the Holocaust in stone and threatens punishment if anyone investigates it openly, well, there you have the next problem, no? For the truth needs no laws. In other words, that — It's clear from that that something's not right. And when one considers all that has been built upon it, and when the legal experts say that the whole post-war political system would fall apart if it were to be questioned, then really it is rather clear that it is the biggest — the biggest lie — since one gets no answers. And "Auschwitz" cannot stand.

Seventy years after — after the Holocaust — naturally you might now just say you want to live your last years in peace. What keeps you going?

Well, just these same contradictions that weigh down people's lives. And — I must add this as well — it is the members of my generation who suffered so terribly. Everything that is said about atrocities is only ever said with respect to others. What is never mentioned, however — there are no big memorials — is that fifteen million Germans from the lost eastern provinces, myself among them, were driven from their homes. That's equivalent to the entire population of Scandinavia. Try to imagine, that was it — a notice would appear on the door: "You must vacate the house by tomorrow at such-and-such o'clock, keys are to be left in the door, you may take with you no more than 20 kg each." And then they came. And as a result two-and-a-half to three million people truly brutally murdered: raped to death, crushed beneath tanks, and so on. And even Konrad Adenauer said in his first Bernauer speech in 1949, shortly after the founding of the Federal Republic: "We have many problems, but the biggest problem is the —" he says fourteen million, he claims to know that from the Americans — "the fourteen million German expellees, of whom six million have never arrived. They are dead and gone."

Remarkably, he says six million. Today actually we know that it is probably three-and-a-half or two-and-a-half — it's never been possible to determine exactly how many didn't arrive, but perhaps Adenauer was right after all and we simply don't know. It's all a muddle. ( — But one cannot . . . ) But in any case, the number of victims at Dresden was not 25,000, as is claimed today. That would mean that Dresden was practically empty, right?

Now there you have a lie so big it can't be topped either. The authorities in Dresden itself told me, after reunification — I had asked what was said in Dresden about the number of the dead — "About 235,000 — as far as we can determine. But there could be many more still lying under the rubble." And then fifteen years later, when I heard that a new group of historians was working on the problem, I asked again at the very same institute and they told me "Well, right now we have 35,000 but it will probably come to 25,000."

So you see, there are all sorts of lies from all sorts of sides, only the other side's are weightier. And then, of course, above all else this practically forced me into it: if we want a future that is humane and sustainable then we can't get there with lies. For then we need a solid foundation — among the different peoples too — and that solid foundation can only be the truth. And that's the reason why this question must be re-examined. And the crazy part is, the more you ask questions and try to get some ground beneath your feet the bigger the questions become. And what do the courts do?

They have tried to hide their ignorance, as I really must call it, behind the word "self-evident." And that is connected with this Paragraph 130 [of the German Criminal Code] "Racial Incitation" which was formulated and presented to the Bundestag as a bill in 1994. And the Bundestag Deputies said no, that won't do, that's irreconcilable with Article 5 [of the German Constitution] "Freedom of Expression" "Freedom of Research." And then the whole lot got such a working over that on the second or third reading — I can't exactly recall now, there's something you can research — they passed the paragraph by a majority.

And this paragraph, which in its language is already an absurdity — it says, namely, that "a punishment of up to five years in prison or a fine will be assessed on anyone" — and then comes a reference to international law — "who approves of, denies or minimizes the crimes committed by National Socialism in a manner that is apt to disturb the public peace."

So first of all it says crimes committed by National Socialism. It can't just be said, or believed or claimed, it has to be an established fact. But in the meantime this "fact" is much disputed, and so already that can be eliminated.

Next comes "approve of." The greatest crime ever committed by humanity — which is what the Holocaust would be — could hardly be "approved of" by anyone if it were unequivocal. It's the same, for that matter, even if it’s just a single serious traffic accident or a single murder: the majority of people will cry "severest penalty!" Right? People are always calling for the severest penalty, they don't approve of these things.

So that's all very unclear. And then, I was once in the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig on account of the Collegium institute, and the discussion turned to the word "deny." And the judge admitted, the presiding judge — there were five in all — "Indeed, we must in fact prove that you're convinced the Holocaust happened. For 'to deny' something means — " (I had said this myself earlier) "to claim something against one's better knowledge.

The word 'deny' depends on the word 'lie.'"

So if you accuse me of having denied something then you must prove against me — the judge was quite right — that I actually believe it. And yet they do the exact opposite in their indictments. And so that falls apart. And as for "minimize," he said, "It's really not entirely clear that that should be punishable." Good.

Moreover, it's not the case that any denial or any minimization entails a punishment, but rather only — [aside, unclear] if it is apt to — if it's done in a manner that is apt to disturb the public peace. And here the Federal Constitutional Court says, quite correctly — in 2009, in the famous Wunsiedel Decision — That is an assumption. Who's to say if it is "apt" or not? How do they know that some statement somewhere is "apt" to do so? The "public peace." What after all is the public peace? That is all mere assumption. If that is the sole point on the basis of which a statement is liable to punishment, and it is only an assumption, then, says the Federal Constitutional Court, the whole thing is legally untenable.

Indeed, jurist Heribert Prantl has gone so far as to write in the Süddeutschen Zeitung that the Holocaust, this Paragraph 130, thus becomes no more than an empty shell that is no longer legally applicable. And yet it still has not been struck down in the Bundestag. But that's just what an absurdity this law is: one sees clearly how the Deputies disagreed and were at odds with themselves, and thus wound up making this monstrous verbal formulation in which everything's back to front and nothing make sense.

10:11 MM
And afterwards they could take, for example, someone like Germar Rudolf, a chemist, who made a study of a chemical substance and whose results didn't sit well with the political world, and put him in jail for three and a half years. And Horst Mahler for twelve. Right? On the basis of such a law. And that must inwardly outrage any decent person and awake real doubt in a so-called nation of laws that allows such a thing. That really is something that, naturally, spurred me to action for I want a nation of laws, I don't want a nation of un-laws, I don't want a nation that constantly talks of law and justice and so on — of "freedom of expression" as in France again right now — and does the opposite.

That is the situation that really upsets me the most, that it was my own generation that suffered so terribly and no one talks about that. Everyone only talks about the six million Jews. No school child knows how many of the German expellees died, they don't even know that Breslau was a German city. That is unbearable.

So you go about openly claiming that Holocaust never happened.

Yes, naturally, just so. And I also say — and I put this on the Internet as well — that that doesn't mean, however, that a single revisionist has ever claimed that there were no concentration camps. Of course there were concentration camps, and bad things happened in them. And there even were four concentration camp commandants who were prosecuted by an SS court-martial because they, in violation of the regulations in the Commandants' Orders, did not deal with prisoners appropriately but rather struck them or even shot some, and so on. And that was strictly forbidden and two of them were executed. But here's the kicker: I don't know that from the Jews who are always accusing us, I know that from the revisionists — they're the ones who discovered that such cases occurred and that the SS in fact took the strictest measures against them.

So none of us would ever say that nothing happened there. Of course things happened. In times of war, the negative qualities in people are always aroused and encouraged and to that extent . . . But that has nothing to do with the notion that a unique, unparalleled, enormous crime was committed by the Germans. One must see this in context.

So, if I understand you correctly, the concentration camps did exist but a program of mass extermination, in the sense we understand it today, did not. Well then, what happened in the camps?

Auschwitz was quite simply a huge industrial complex and they performed very valuable work there for the armaments industry.

So the prisoners who were there were rightly there?

That's another thing Prof. Nolte has established. If one goes by the Hague Conventions on Land War, then every state, in the event of war, has the right to intern enemy nationals residing in its territory because the danger exists that they may commit espionage. Everyone did it. For example, one of my uncles was in India at the time but the English were there and so he was interned there. My mother's brother was in America and he was interned there. Everyone did it. And um, the Russians did it too, of course. One mustn't forget that.

Against that background, then, what you're saying is that what happened in Auschwitz was right.

Right? Well, "right" is rather . . . It was legally unassailable, let's put it that way. As to whether I find it "right" that people were . . . But then, my own high school class was also mobilized for the armaments industry and we too had to work on armaments. For example, I painted munitions crates and the like.

So it wasn't just them — we were all mobilized, especially during the last year. Nor was that a special case. We all had very little to eat and hardly anything to wear, and above all no shoes. Or none that fit: young people's feet are always growing and we'd have to cut the fronts off.

I'd like to turn now to the Garrison and Commandant Orders.

Yes, these are truly paradigm-changing, even for me when I first read them. For these details — for example these dealing with nutrition. They're not in here, they're in the Special Orders. They actually recommended what we had to painstakingly learn in our senior Home Ec cooking class: not to overcook vegetables but rather to cook half until they are just soft and to just steam the other half as quickly as possible because then the vitamins are preserved better. And then they told them they must go out and gather wild herbs and the like and put them raw on top, in place of parsley as it were. And that they were to make a hearty, thick soup — not a thin broth, but a thick soup. And if the cook didn't, then he was to be removed and another cook put in his place. That was the sort of thing they were concerned with — in the middle of the war! It's really most remarkable.

What conclusion do you draw from these Garrison and Commandant Orders?

I draw the conclusion, that here we have the ultimate, perhaps most outstanding proof that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp but rather a work camp in which all of the workers interned there were indispensable for the armaments industry. That's what is said quite clearly, isn't it.

So there was no mass extermination at Auschwitz?

No, one cannot want to have armaments workers and exterminate them at the same time that makes no sense, it's a self-contradiction. And it makes even less sense when one asks them later, "Would you like to stay and be liberated or would you like to come with us to the Reich?" and they say, "No, we'd rather go with our murderers." It's schizophrenic.

What did you think when you read that for the first time?

Frankly I was rather amazed that it was all so clearly laid out here. — Until then I had . . .

— What is so clearly laid out?

That it was a work camp. Which is just what the veterans had always said. And everyone jumped all over them. And yet they were right, that's the really painful part.

Is there anything about the gas chambers?

No, nothing at all. And they can't be inferred from Reich orders either.

How do you explain the fact that the gas chambers are not mentioned?

Because there weren't any, naturally. One cannot mention something that doesn't exist. Why do you want to cling to the gas chambers when you can read what is written here? Above all, I find it presumptuous of people living today who think they know better than those who actually lived then. And the people who were there, all the old defendants said: "We never saw anything like that." But we know better what it was like there! We know better what it was like in the Third Reich than those who lived through it. That's the great failing, the lack of self-critique in those talking today. That's what is so astounding here and what . . .

In other words, you conclude from the fact that no gas chambers are mentioned that at the camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau there weren't any.

No, you you just have to remember what I said earlier. That goes along with the fact that one simply couldn't have done it with Zyklon B. It wouldn't work. I mean, we live in a scientific age! We have to listen to the experts. And when the chemist Germar Rudolf says it wouldn't work and every chemical dictionary says so too, and when Fred Leuchter, the sole living expert in gas chambers — for there still are states in America that use them to execute people — takes a look at what is claimed and says, "That's completely absurd. One can execute a single individual in a hermetically sealed, highly complex technical structure, in such-and-such amount of time . . . " then the whole thing falls apart. And I am not ready to just take the lawyers at their word that they know better. And I don't just take others at their word either. But then that's why they didn't promote this book. They didn't promote it!

What are the points that most persuaded you?

All right, 7 February 1944: "Prisoner Transports."

— OK.

I find this quite astonishing, shall I read it out here? I can just sum it up. It is ordered that the camp doctor must first examine all prisoners before they go into the transport. Then how the transport wagons are to be procured. If it's cold, each car must be thickly strewn with straw and there must be a stove inside, and above all else — our people would have loved to have had that — there must be boiled water or tea available inside. And also stated explicitly: to take along sufficient food — the transports could be delayed by bombing attacks — in order that no one should starve. Our people went for seven days without getting anything to eat.

So yes, that's quite striking. And it's also quite striking here . . . where it is again related how the sick are to be handled. Indeed there was . . . The Red Cross — I believe it was the Red Cross — also inspected Auschwitz and they found a very modern clinic there. And the sick were looked after very carefully in order that they become healthy again as quickly as possible. And also about the special diet — there was a special diet though naturally they had to provide it only within this infirmary. And that the condition of clothing must be continuously monitored, especially shoes.

20:08 MM
That makes sense. And then, hard-working prisoners could even earn special privileges — they even received bonuses for extra piecework — or their industriousness could be so rewarded that they be given early release. There's that too. It's all in here.

Do you believe it also happened?

I would assume so. Whether it still happened in the last . . . What year is it here? 1944 . . . in February. Whether that was still possible at the end of 1944, I doubt, but . . .

In the footnotes there's a comment on this point that "No prisoner ever obtained freedom on account of industriousness. Despite repeated directives from the SS Economic and Administrative Office, the goal of interning and punishing concentration camp prisoners retained priority over the efficiency of labor deployment." — Does that not contradict . . . ?

— Yes, but where . . . Where did the commentator in question get that from? It reminds one of the Foreword, which also completely dodges the issue. So I would immediately ask, where do you know that from then? If the order says one thing, how can you, a person living today, simply claim the opposite? You'll have to prove that to me, please. We are too trusting. We'll believe anything people say today. If someone says "I experienced such and such," then I can't simply claim the opposite, I have to prove it.

Anyway, you know the lot — Otto Uthgennant and Enrico Marco and whatever they're called, all the people who have lied about us. Initially they got — they had to observe a two-hour midday break and have an evening break at four or five o'clock. And during the break, the deployment leader had to make sure that they did not receive any additional assignments. Because, first of all, one gets more out of one's food when one rests afterwards and secondly, because only then is one capable of working. This sleep-break directive really surprised me, I must confess.

What do you conclude from it?

That they wanted to have good workers. Curiously, it even says somewhere that there were very good watchmakers among the Jews who were then to be sent on to special locations. I never knew that the Jews were especially good watchmakers.

So one's always finding something here that's odd — or astounding. "Foot-inspection for prisoners in every subcamp." Hmm? "Foot-inspection to be held 3 times [weekly] among the prisoners to check on foot injuries and cleanliness of prisoners." You see they placed — on account of this terrible typhus epidemic they placed, they had to place, enormous value on hygiene. And as a result this had to be respected. And hair had to be shorn not only among the prisoners but among the SS men as well. Because that's where the lice usually would get established. And they still weren't at all past this typhus epidemic. And I have also — Was it in here? Somewhere, anyway, I've read that the lice were brought into the camp from outside: the prisoners themselves had no lice. Naturally I can't verify that, I can only take it as is.

So, in addition to everything up to this point, it really is quite remarkable what it says here under the title "Mistreatment of Prisoners": "On this occasion, I once more expressly draw attention to the standing order that no SS man may lay a hand on a prisoner. In this fifth year of the war every emphasis must be placed on maintaining the working strength of the prisoners. Should a prisoner violate regulations then a report should be made."

So they weren't allowed to do it themselves. And that's why I said earlier and I point out again that strict punishments were carried out for any SS men who didn't follow such orders. — One can thus . . .

— What conclusion you draw from that? Against the background [of claims] that at Auschwitz-Birkenau people were mistreated and ultimately killed?

Presumably it's the same as what the English and Americans did as they entered Germany and distributed propaganda leaflets to "inform" their soldiers of the terrible atrocities that the Germans supposedly committed because the soldiers were so appalled by the destruction of German cities. And to make it comprehensible to them that this was justified they distributed these leaflets claiming the most awful atrocities which they hadn't, however, "discovered" among the Germans — they made them up. Sefton Delmer himself said that, right? And here it's just the same: everything has been twisted and turned into its opposite.

And sadly one must also say that a great deal, for example, of what German POWs went through on the Rheinwiesen or in the gulags in Russia, they accused us of, to distract from their own — And the Russians themselves said so. It was them, that Bolshevism-infected army, that actually encouraged its soldiers to rape women. On our side that stood under penalty of death. We had two very good friends, one my husband's and one my father's, who discovered that a man in their unit had raped a Pole or a Russian. And they had to hand them over to a military court martial even though they needed every man they had for the war, knowing full well that they would be executed. And that weighed upon them for their whole lives. But that's just how strict it was.

Why do these Garrison Orders, in your eyes, have supreme, independent credibility?

Because they are originals. And because they're also consistent with the Reich Orders decoded by Enigma. It's no anomaly. Each side complements the other. And they are complementary as well with the stories of those who lived through it all. And to that extent they are the final confirmation that was missing.

If they are such paradigm-changing documents, why haven't they been talked about?

You can answer for that yourself. Because it wasn't desirable.

To whom?

Them. The people who brought the whole business about.

Why publish it then?

Because one feels — That's just it, I said this earlier. Wherever you go, you find this sort and that sort. And that goes as well for these institutes. Martin Broszat, for example, when he said that there were no gassings in Germany itself — authentic, from the Institute for Contemporary History — after they'd been saying for more than a decade that there were gassings everywhere. And that's just how it is: one tries to pass off the negative things one has done onto the other, defeated side and history is always written by the victors. And so they had this material, and they thought, "We must publish this, as the Institute for Contemporary History we cannot just lock it away." But it simply wasn't discussed. And so for ten years it remained in obscurity.

Could it be that the responsible officials who wrote these orders consciously left out the aspect of the extermination of prisoners, or internees, in order to leave no evidence for the future, as it were?

That would be completely unrealistic, in the middle of war. The question is completely unrealistic. In the middle of a war in which one is fighting for one's very survival, and one's trying to reach the labor quotas that are being demanded of one, they wouldn't have had five minutes for such a thing. It's simply unimaginable. Everyone still believed in victory. It was only very late in the war that people started to doubt.

The book has been published for some time now . . .

It was published in 2000, but only came to the attention of a few historians in 2013. Before that, it was dead.

Why?

Because people had decided . . .

So really Norbert Frei, as editor, should have said that history has to be rewritten here or at least, the history of the Holocaust.

So you say: he should have said that. But you know that Germans are all afraid. Back then, there still weren't — To be fair to him, I would even say there hadn't yet been all those trials, there weren't yet so many facts that had come to light, so many contradictions, in 2000 as today. To that extent, fear of the consequences for one's career and one's fate really was much more pressing then than it is today. Today one can say more, because meanwhile more contradictions have become evident. That still wasn't possible then.

So I would grant Frei that much, that he — that they all, all five of them here — might have said, "But we'll keep quiet about that. We won't discuss it. We have to do it because we're historians and the Institute for Contemporary History has such things as its mission, but . . . we won't try to publicize it." And none of them spoke about it.

Have you ever spoken with Professor Frei, as editor . . . ?

No, I don't know him. I've mostly dealt with Nolte.

— Not about the Garrison and Commandant Orders?

— No.

Why not?

It never really occurred to me to.

— Yeah but . . .

— I simply don't know the man. I've spoken with Walter Post and Stefan Scheil and Ernst Nolte.

But if you take this as evidence, as the last piece of the puzzle, for the non-existence of the Holocaust might you not have asked why . . .

Why did he do it? Maybe you should ask him.

. . . why he published it, and whether his interpretation is the same as yours?

If he has courage then it will be. If he doesn't have courage he'll try to avoid it, like in the Introduction. That's quite clear.

What does the Introduction say?

30:01 MM
In the Introduction they attempt, desperately — but it really is quite desperate and quite obvious that it's false — to find something somewhere showing that someone was gassed — I'm not sure they say "gassed," but murdered, anyway. Some big number. But it doesn't hold water, what they say in the Introduction. One can refute it quite quickly.

What do you think: would he acknowledge that, on the basis of the Garrison and Commandant Orders, one can call into question the Holocaust in the form it's known in today?

I couldn't say, I don't know him. I don't know how courageous the man is. I couldn't say.

But might he not say that the orders have to be seen in context, they relate to individual areas in the concentration camp, that there were parts of the camp that are fairly described by precisely those aspects which you have just mentioned, but . . . ?

Yes, but the whole place was a giant armaments complex, there were all sorts of armaments firms there. There was a film once on television about a woman who worked there as a secretary. And naturally she too said, "I never saw anything of the sort. I had to manage the list for the bordello and things like that." Those who were there always said something quite different and now we're trying to reconcile that with what we've been taught for 50 years in school. That is our problem, and naturally it is very hard. Above all, one must then say, "My teachers and parents lied to me." That is bitter.

What does that mean then for history if the extermination of the Jews was essentially, as we learned in school, a part of the ideology of National Socialism?

What does that mean for history if the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews didn't happen?

Well, I think there have now been quite enough investigations of that. It was not a matter of extermination, it was a matter of removal from Germany. And that indeed on the basis of the experience of two world wars. Hitler knew quite well that, already in the nineteenth century, it had been decided to destroy Germany. And we knew about the declarations of Morgenthau and Nizer and whatever they were all called. So that meant, ultimately, that Hitler wanted Germany freed from this Jewish influence. But they also said, "I'll decide who's a Jew."

So if a Jew had converted to Christianity, or if they . . . for example, the many popular and respected pediatricians, and even in the military — Erhard Milch was a half-Jew. Right? And yet he remained in the military.

So "extermination" does not fit, "resettlement" fits. But the Zionists themselves wanted that. And to that extent they even collaborated on it. The Zionists wanted to have a state . . . In 1897 was the big Jewish Congress where Herzl presented the plan and on that account they collaborated on it. They had the same goal: one side wanted their own state — and above all they wanted the German Jews since they were the cleverest, the bankers . . . though Herzl said they didn't want the really rich bankers . . . but the real technicians, engineers and so on — "We'll take those!" And Hitler wanted to be rid of them, so it all went together quite well. But that doesn't mean exterminating them.

If, as you say, the mass extermination did not happened as claimed then did these crimes not happen as well?

Didn't I say that four camp commandants had to appear before an SS court? Inevitably there were some crimes, but that wasn't the goal.

But then that means Hitler was not the greatest criminal in history.

It should be apparent by now that that's not right.

Hitler wasn't a criminal?

Now it's Putin who is the greatest criminal.

But Hitler was not a criminal back then?

When it comes to pinning such a label on anyone, I would be very cautious.

All right, but if you say the mass extermination — ?

There is no order for extermination! But of course Hitler isn't accused of just that. He's supposed to have done many other things, and certainly did do many other things. But as to calling a person a criminal, that goes against my nature because I know that in every person there is a spark of the divine and it needs to be addressed as well. And if I pin a label on someone and say, "You are a criminal!" then the divine in him can only be smothered, so I would never do that. I wouldn't say it of any person.

But must the figure of Hitler be seen in a new light as a result?

Well, more than anything, I can say something to that. The view of Hitler that we currently have is already in complete contradiction with the view that historians like Joachim Fest or Werner Maser and so on presented in their big biographies back in the seventies or sixties — sixties. Fest says, "Hitler was, for ten years, the center of movement for the world." That's not exactly negative. And if you read Lloyd George and the English writers who came to Germany, in some cases in secret, in order to determine what was really happening here in the 1930s . . . they spoke in astonishingly positive terms about Hitler. And they published it too: Hans Grimm, for example. And just as he is presented today, the further one gets away from that time the more negative everything becomes for the Germans. And do you know why? Because they're afraid that a change may come again and that the lies will be exposed. That's the only reason. Why are they even now pulling Anne Frank from the drawer, even though it's now been proven in every possible case to be a fake?

So you say Hitler was not a criminal?

I just told you, I would not say of anyone, "He is a criminal." A man has the most various possibilities to develop personally. And when I read the statements from that time, then it’s clear he was of great significance for world history. And that brings me to the fourth level of historical understanding: Why do such men appear in history? Hitler always spoke of Providence to which he felt responsible, as it were. And he felt himself to be called to his task. And one could never call that criminal. Didn't you learn anything else in school about bad things Hitler did — just the Jews?

Well, yeah, that he killed a lot of other people.

One hears, one learns.

And that he was more or less responsible for the greatest —

That he started the war. Yes, they teach that to children too.

But that isn't so?

No, of course not. But really that is rather obvious. We won't have to wait so long as we did for Clark and his Sleepwalkers to prove that the Germans are not repsonsible for the First World War. They will discover even sooner that they're not responsible for the Second either. That won't take nearly so long. Many people already — Even, what's his name? Haffner. The Second World War, he said, began at Versailles. Versailles is the cause of WW II then, not Hitler.

In every person there are changes. Hitler did many positive things, which many significant people recognized — read the biographies by Fest and Maser — and a great many things are foisted on him that he did not do. — But he was a man . . .

— For example the Holocaust.

Yes. A man with his highs and lows and so on. And my husband always said — he'd met Hitler in person, and he was always being urged, "Write a book about Hitler!" — and he always said, "That's such a complex personality and there's so much — " the most in all literature, the person about whom there are the most biographies, etc. — "I must first read all that . . . I leave that to future generations in a hundred years. For now, we will always only be able to say something false."

And I would say the same. When you call the Holocaust into question seventy years afterwards, is that not a slap in the face to the relatives of victims, and above all to survivors?

I find the real slap in people's faces are those individuals who have written books — which are flogged in our schools — and told about their sufferings in a concentration camp without ever having been in one. And it seems that even goes for Elie Wiesel, who's still working on touching up his autobiography.

— But were you ever in a concentration camp?

— I'm sorry?

— Were you ever in a concentration camp?

— Of course not. No. I was still too young. I was seventeen.

— But then you say, of course . . .

— No, look for a moment.

. . . the concentration camps, in the generally recognized form, did not exist.

I say that the concentration camps existed and that terrible things happened. In any case, it's always something about Auschwitz, it is the symbol. But it was a work camp . . . It was a work camp and the Commandant Orders confirm that. And there weren't six million people killed; the reduction on the memorial tablets at Auschwitz confirms that. And above all that is confirmed by my own unsuccessful efforts to get to the bottom of it. Really, I asked everyone. Not a single one of them could tell me where the six million were killed. And in that case, one must show a little courage and say that it's a lie. Or one must indeed say there and there. One or the other. But that is a task for others, not me; I can only point out what the questions are.

At the same time, it just so happens it will soon be 70th anniversary of the war . . .

It's going to be talked about everywhere.

. . . and naturally it's a big topic, and there are many survivors who have made it their task to remember the Holocaust, to say, as it were, "Don't forget the evil that happened here." But when you say that the Holocaust, in its recognized form, did not in fact occur, is that not a slap in the face for these people?

40:08 MM
No. The slap in the face is this: it is seventy years not only since the end of the war, not only since the liberation of Auschwitz, but also since the expulsion of 15 million Germans from their ancestral homeland with the murder — proven murder — of 2.5 million of them, and probably many more. That is never mentioned, not a word. That is something I might actually call a slap in the face. I might ask the question, Why not this? Why only that?

These pictures of piles of bodies in Auschwitz and in Bergen-Belsen . . .

In Auschwitz there couldn't have been any since the prisoners were evacuated, the majority, and the rest they left behind to be liberated. And when you see pictures of them they look quite normal.

But then where do they come from, these pictures?

Don't you know about the piles of bodies in our ruined cities? From Hamburg, from Pforzheim from Hildesheim, from Dresden . . .

And they were brought into the camps?

No need to bring them in. One makes the piles of bodies, takes some pictures, and . . . They can piece it together with pictures, there's no great art to it. One young man managed to be everywhere. In Dresden, and there and there. It was always the same young man. We know all that, you just have to read!

The piles of bodies at Bergen-Belsen certainly were real, but why did they occur? They have nothing to do with the camp system, or rather they do, but only in the sense that all access routes had been destroyed by bombing and that they thus could no longer get any food or medicine. The director of the camp went in desperation to the local farmers but they all had hardly anything to eat themselves. After all, this was 1945, in May. And then the English came and made huge quantities of sardines available to them. I know that because a good friend of ours had a brother-in-law who was there and told us. And the starving prisoners couldn't tolerate such food, and they all got dysentery and so on. And when someone lay down to die, there they lay, since no one was left to bury them. But one can't call that something of the Germans' doing. That has nothing to do with it.

You know, this kind of mendacity, we never could have imagined it, me included. It is enormously difficult for me to imagine that anyone could ever lie the way they've lied to us. But they have lied to us like that. And when one thinks today —

You mean that the completely emaciated people, the pictures of emaciated people . . .

There are other reasons!

. . . the piles of bodies in Dachau, in Buchenwald, in Theresienstadt, in Auschwitz, where did they come from?

I just told you where they come from. Besides, at the end of the war we were all starved; my mother weighed only ninety pounds! We were all emaciated.

— You mean to say the . . .

— And the bombs!

. . . the terrible condition of these poor people was not the result, as it were, of what the Germans had established in the camps?

They were not the result, or at any rate not the goal. But they were the result of the war. Think about it: when you no longer have the least scrap of transport infrastructure, when everything is broken . . . the bridges were broken, you couldn't drive at all, you could still get about by bicycle, but otherwise . . . then the prisoners could no longer be supplied. Of course not.

But all the same, you must admit that is still the result of how the Germans acted toward them in the camps.

No. It is a result of how the enemies of Germany acted by completely bombing Germany to pieces. People today cannot imagine it.

Do you believe that you could convince the majority of Germans that the Holocaust, in its recognized form, did not occur, that it never happened?

Even now, I already have the impression that the majority of thinking Germans have experienced so many contradictions that they, at the very least, doubt it strongly. And perhaps even more so, a great many tradespeople and the like, precisely because they're people with their feet on the ground, also say, "That simply can't be right." I take their word.

What can't be right?

The gas chambers and so on, all those technical things that tradespeople understand better than we do. And they say that simply can't be right. And then, in the war — we old folks all lived through the war and we know what short supply everything was in — and when you think how many men would have been needed to run it all, it makes no sense.

So that's that, but as to whether everyone will come around . . . I'm afraid so. And it will be very uncomfortable for people.

Why, in your opinion, is it important to pass down to the next generation doubt about the historicity of the Holocaust?

Because otherwise they'll suffer under it uselessly for all eternity. And they do, they're told they have to. This guilt complex is so deeply rooted — and above all then there are the demands too: give more submarines, give more this, do more that, and so on. All of that is founded upon "we and our past . . ." No doubt you've heard that yourself many times. And above all the worst of it is, the Jews themselves don't want it. They make it a reproach to us now that we do as much. Read the open letter by . . . What was his name now? — Meir Margalit, written after Chancellor Merkel's visit to Israel and her speech to the Knesset, which he himself heard. At that rate we have to despair of ourselves all the more. They make it a reproach to us now that we do that. We must, and — No, I can't imagine that thinking people will go along with that for much longer.

What events do you organize in order to spread this idea . . .

I don't organize anything.

. . . where do you appear, how do try to pass this on to young people?

I don't do anything at all from my side. I get asked questions, on every possible subject, not just that.

And who comes then, what sort of people are they?

All sorts of people, old and young mixed, but lots of young people. The young, however, mostly want to hear about what you asked about earlier, the Third Reich. That interests them the most.

Are they for the most part National Party members then, or . . .

I don't think so. No, no, I wouldn't say that. The NPD is not highly regarded by the young. Or I have that impression, anyway. Though perhaps the fault for that lies . . . well, I can't generalize. But in any case, with regard to the young people who invite me to speak I would say, no. They're mainly not NPD. They're quite critical of it. But they do want to be German! That's what it is. And even just to be German today is "fascist." That is the problem. It probably has to be — thought I haven't yet finished sorting out what I think about this . . . Why did these events — why did this conflict, Jews and Germans, become so stark, and why this hate of the Jews, why did it have to happen? It's still completely unclear to me. But perhaps I'll manage someday.

— The hate of the Jews for the Germans?

— Yes. I have never read, from any other people, such hate-filled expressions about another people as from the Jews. — Why . . .

— More than the hate of the Germans toward Jews?

That's much later, the hate of the Germans. The Jews were much earlier. And it's . . . all you have to do is read the Talmud. I have all twelve volumes there in the authorized, most recent translation and edition, 2002. I bought them with Horst Mahler because we wanted to verify the commonly circulated statements from the Talmud. Are they accurate? (Especially compared with an authorized edition.) And I couldn't read more than three pages, it made me feel ill. That's how revolting it is, all the stuff in it about sexuality and so on, about how you can do it with a three-year-old child, and and and . . . You know, it's all just so alien to us. I don't even want to think about it.

As a last question I'd like to ask you, since you just mentioned Horst Mahler . . . The things that you say and that you believe — namely, that the Holocaust in particular did not happen, as you say — saying this, naturally, could land you in prison.

Well then, that's just a risk I have to take if people think that's best. That's their opinion. That's, that's . . . look, I'm old. I've had a long life, a good life, as I've told you. That's just the price that one must pay. I always think of Schiller, Wallenstein's Camp: "Rise up, my comrades, to horse! to horse!" And it ends, "And if you will not stake your lives, You'll never win life as your prize." Very simple. That's what your motto must be. And you must also be prepared — And Nehru, by the way, said that to the Kurds too: if a people is ready to pay the price for freedom, then no one can make them unfree. It just depends on the price one is ready to pay. 48:54 MM

Peace and Love.......John





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2015 09:36PM by John Rose.

John, what do you think about this crop circle that appeared Aug 8, 2015:

Corporate bases on Mars and Nazi infiltration of US Secret Space Program

Quote

Even more disturbing are his revelations about a secret Nazi Space Program that became operational during the Second World War despite the defeat of the Axis powers. The Nazis, according to Corey, escaped to secret bases in South America and Antarctica, where they established an alliance with a group of extraterrestrials called the Draco Reptilians. The Nazis were then able to successfully defeat a punitive military expedition by Admiral Byrd called Operation Highjump in 1947. Corey says that after a demonstration of Nazi technological superiority during the 1952 Washington UFO Flyover, both the Truman and Eisenhower administration negotiated agreements with the Nazi breakaway civilization. The Nazis then proceeded to infiltrate the U.S. national security system in ways that have undermined the independence and integrity of various US and international space programs, both civilian and military. Slave labor was a major practice in Nazi World War 2 industries, it appears that this continues with organizations that the Nazi breakaway civilization has infiltrated such as ICC operations on Mars.

I've been following some of the news coming out on GaiamTv's "Cosmic Disclosure" with David Wilcock and Corey Goode. While stuff like the above may sound like fear porn, it is actually good news, that stuff like this that has been going on in secrecy is about to be disclosed on a major level. Part of the disclosure comes out of the work by whistle blower Edward Snowden, and now Corey Goode is a whistle blower exposing the secret space program. Also what is becoming evident is that the power elite of the world are starting to fall apart, and we are starting to see massive changes.

25 Signs That The Global Elite’s Ship Is About To Sink

<<<John, what do you think about this crop circle that appeared Aug 8, 2015:>>>

Hey Prana,

I really have not done any research into crop circles...what do you think?

<<<I've been following some of the news coming out on GaiamTv's "Cosmic Disclosure" with David Wilcock and Corey Goode. While stuff like the above may sound like fear porn, it is actually good news, that stuff like this that has been going on in secrecy is about to be disclosed on a major level. Part of the disclosure comes out of the work by whistle blower Edward Snowden, and now Corey Goode is a whistle blower exposing the secret space program. Also what is becoming evident is that the power elite of the world are starting to fall apart, and we are starting to see massive changes.

25 Signs That The Global Elite’s Ship Is About To Sink>>>

WOW!!! That's a GREAT article...thanks for passing it on!!!

There have always been beta bunker buddies in fortified tin foil palaces waiting for Godot to rapture them. Always will be.

Also what is becoming evident is that the power elite of the world are starting to fall apart, and we are starting to see massive changes.

25 Signs That The Global Elite’s Ship Is About To Sink

Ive have been high on this feeling for months now Prana All one has to do is look whats Up Rock on people

More on the global elite's ship that is about to sink: 25 Signs (Plus 14 More) That The Global Elite’s Ship Is About To Sink

By the way, at the Cancer COntrol society convention this month, Lorraine Day spoke. The new part of her story that I had not known before is that she had parkinson's disease before she developed cancer. She had very bad hand tremors. When she did the natural healing, the parkinson's also was cured.
[drday.com]

She will be 80 this year and she seemed healthy and solid with good brain function.

I decided to revisit her website, since it's been a long time and I found this:

[www.goodnewsaboutgod.com]

When you scroll down to the bottom of the page, she talks about the holocaust "hoax" and about the definition of a jew, etc.

[www.goodnewsaboutgod.com]

This page is riddled with Jewish articles.

Much of what John Rose has said is on her website.

She said something really exaggerated, which seems really unfair for such a touchy subject:
"On almost every corner, in every city in America, a “Holocaust” museum is rising, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Propaganda about the “Holocaust” is filling the school textbooks and indoctrinating the minds of our children."

I was a bit shocked that she would appear racist on her website, yet she gives this sort of disclaimer:

CONCLUSION: There is NO SUCH THING as an “ethnic” Jew! Jewishness is a Culture - - NOT an ethnicity. And the Jewish Culture is the Culture of the Talmud, the writings of the Pharisees who were taken captive from Palestine to Babylon when Jerusalem was destroyed. In 70 A.D. (See “Talmud” below.)

Are ALL Jews alike? Not at all. There are many people who consider themselves “Jewish” who are wonderful, honest people. On the other hand, there are some “Jews” who believe they are better than other ethnic groups, just as some whites, Asians, and others may believe they are superior. This, of course, is wrong, no matter what group one belongs to.

But the ruling elite of International Jewry, the Zionist Jews, have a diabolic agenda - - total control of the whole World by force, for their own greed and desire for power.

Included in this elite group of Zionist Jews are the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers, Henry Kissinger, most, if not all the royal families of Europe, the Wall Street Bankers, media baron, Rupert Murdoch, Seagram’s whiskey heir, Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress, the Neo-cons, and many others, men who have NO allegiance to ANYONE or ANYTHING except themselves and Zionism! They constantly propagandize the rank and file Jews of the world with the lie that every non-Jew is their enemy, terrorizing them into a cohesive group.

Yet, the top-level Zionist Jews would sacrifice the rank and file “Jew” in an instant if it serves their own selfish purpose of total domination of the World! (See Zionism, below.}

I have gone through Lorraine Day's site and I am shocked by the number of articles and videos about Jews, the holocaust and hitler on her site.

She was a surgeon and she is supposed to care about everyone. I tried to figure out how she justifies all that and I found this:

[www.rense.com]

located on her site:
[www.goodnewsaboutgod.com]

The Secret Holocaust
The real holocaust was a Christian Holocaust by
Jews of sixty-six million, mostly Christians.
By Eustace Mullins

Her information is very more extensive and organized than what John Rose has presented.

There is one thing about Lorraine Day that has always bothered me and that is her shrill tone of voice, with a hint that she is always right and she has to constantly correct others. Well, I see there was some truth in my feeling, because that is what she does on her website.

I did learn something new under the section "the Black Race" that explains how the British once sold irish people as slaves. I wish I saw some inspiring and hopeful articles under that section. I already spoke my mind about this under the confederate flag thread. If she is so into conspiracies and who controls whom, why doesn't she show more understanding and compassion.

Everyone will make up their own mind.

I think I own all of her old tapes on health. SHe is a good speaker. I like her natural healing philosophy except about herbs and meditation.

When I was at the Cancer Control Society convention, I saw a swarm of people surround her to talk to her. Many races were present. She kindly talked to everyone. She gave an encouraging speech to the crowd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2015 01:14AM by Tai.

Holocaust deniers often mimic the forms and practices of scholars in order to deceive the public about the nature of their views. They generally footnote their writings by citing the publications of other Holocaust deniers and hold pseudo-scholarly conventions.

Holocaust denial on the Internet is especially a problem because of the ease and speed with which such misinformation can be disseminated. In the United States, where the First Amendment to the Constitution ensures freedom of speech, it is not against the law to deny the Holocaust or to propagate Nazi and antisemitic hate speech. European countries such as Germany and France have criminalized denial of the Holocaust and have banned Nazi and neo-Nazi publications. The Internet is now the chief source of Holocaust denial and the chief means of recruiting for Holocaust denial organizations.

Further Reading

Hey riverhousebill,

Since you have been spewing this nonsense for so long, I no longer see you as an ignorant fool as I am convinced beyond any doubt that you are an Internet Shill because no one could be as obtuse as you have to be with all of the overwhelming evidence and, most importantly, you have repeatedly used ad hominim attacks to avoid the issue, which comes right out of the HASBARA playbook!!!

The Jewish Holocaust is a made up LIE that is easily Proven to be a LIE to cover up the Real German Holocaust - watch Hellstorm to see the REAL Holocaust...

[www.youtube.com]
Hellstorm - The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany (Documentary w/ Subtitles)
1:30:20 Minute Video

Since YouTube is owned and controlled by the Powers that Be, the Video above will probably be deleted, just like previous links have been deleted or will say that "This video is not available in your country," so if this happens to this Video, Google "Hellstorm - The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany" and someone else will keep the TRUTH alive!!!

Riverhouse shill? Like a fly on a brown shirt. Johny boy Im not even Jewish, Greek and Irish 50 50. Ignorant? like most of us yes. 8th grade ed then off to the streets and harbors of Nyc. If I were skooled more I might agree with U. I have many jewish friends I have many palistine friends, I am not a friend of Isreal, ( deported in 93 for protest in that country without permit. But I like jews, I like real peoples I love palistine peoples I love all peoples no matter what national, I just dont see as you that the jews are the problem. I see the problem as people with no tolernce not willing to co exist with non arayans. Im a member of the Constalation party that evokes the brillance of all everyone a bright star Coexist, Tolerance. Your views are what they are, confused hatred of a people. Im here Riverhouse shill like a fly on a brown shirt. I hope someday you can heal. Enough hatred in this world, Enough critics, Enough detroyers, What the world needs now are HEALERS peace to You John



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2015 03:12AM by riverhousebill.

<<<I see the problem as people with no tolernce not willing to co exist with non arayans.>>>

Once again, you’ve got it ass backwards. It’s the Elite Jews that have No tolearnce and are Not Willing to co exist with non-Jews aka Goyim.

* * * in German and English

Sephardic leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
Sephardischer Führer Yosef: Nichtjuden existieren nur, um den Juden zu dienen
Source: Quelle: [www.jta.org]

October 18, 2010 18. Oktober 2010

JERUSALEM (JTA [JEWISH TELEGRAPH AGENCY]) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews. JERUSALEM (JTA [Jüdische Nachrichtenagentur]) — Der Führer der sephardischen Juden, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, sagte in seiner samstäglichen (Sabbat) Predigt, daß „Nichtjuden existieren, um den Juden zu dienen.”

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat. “Die Gojim wurden dazu geboren, um uns zu dienen. Sie erfüllen keinen anderen Zweck auf dieser Welt, als dem Volk Israel zu dienen,” sagte er während einer öffentlichen Diskussion, in der es darum ging, welche Arbeiten einem Nichtjuden erlaubt sind, sie am Shabbat zu verrichten.”

Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [a Turkish pasha]and eat,” he said to some laughter. “Wozu werden die Nichtjuden gebraucht? Sie werden arbeiten, sie werden pflügen und sie werden ernten. Wir werden ihnen wie ein Effendi zusehen und essen,” sage er unter dem Gelächter der Anwesenden.

Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews. Yosef, der geistige Führer der Shas-Partei [Koalitionsparter der Regierung Netanyahu] und ehemalige Chef-Rabbiner der Sepharden in Israel sagte auch, daß die Leben der Nichtjuden geschützt sind, um die Juden vor finanziellen Verlusten zu schützen.

“With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90. “Mit den Nichtjuden ist es wie mit jeder anderen Person auch. Sie müssen letztlich sterben. Aber Gott schenkt ihnen Langlebigkeit. Warum? Stellt euch vor, Jemandes Esel stirbt, er würde dadurch Geld verlieren. Der Esel ist schließlich sein Diener. Das ist der Grund, warum er [der Nichtjude] ein langes Leben hat, um für den Juden gut zu
arbeiten,” sagte der Rabbiner, der kürzlich 90 wurde.

An audio recording of some of the rabbi’s remarks was broadcast on Israel’s Channel 10.Ein Audiomitschnitt einiger der Bemerkungen des Rabbiners wurde über Israel‘s [Radio] Kanal 10 verbreitet.

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday. Das Amerikanische Jüdische Komitee [AJC] verurteilte die Bemerkungen des Rabbiners in einer am Montag veröffentlichten Erklärung.

“Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “Rabbi Yosef‘s Bemerkungen — suggerieren fürchterlich, das die jüdische Heilige Schrift behauptet, daß Nichtjuden existieren, um den Juden zu dienen — sind abscheulich und ein Verstoß gegen die menschliche Würde und menschliche Gleichheit,” sagte AJC-Direktor David Harris.

“Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition.” “Das Judentum brachte der Welt zuerst bei, daß alle Individuen als göttliche Abbildung geschaffen sind, was half, die Basis unserer moralischen Ordnung zu formen. Ein Rabbiner sollte Erster sein, diese Grundlagenlehre unserer Tradition zu reflektieren, nicht Letzter.”

* * *

By the way, being Jewish has nothing to do with being an Internet Shill!

What makes you a Shill is your continual use of Name Calling - brown shirt - brown shirt - brown shirt - Nazi - Nazi - Nazi - Name Calling - Name Calling - Name Calling!!!

Fadi Kiblawi, ( [palestinechronicle.com] ), The Palestine Chronicle, Oct. 23, 2003. Quote: "The Hasbara Handbook prescribes fascinating instructions on attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs ‘in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote’ their cause. In a section entitled ‘Name Calling,’ Israel's Jewish Agency writes, ‘Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea."

[www.biblebelievers.org.au]
Their only defense against the facts is to cry out "antisemitic," "Skinhead" or "Nazi," whereas the majority of those who question the Holocaust are ordinary citizens...though you would never know it from the media.
[www.biblebelievers.org.au]

Once again, rhb, you NEVER address any of the issues and all you do is cry out "antisemitic" or "Skinhead" or "Nazi" or “Brown Shirt”!!!

You NEVER read anything I post and one of the most interesting things I've come upon recently is the Video I posted at the the top of this thread with Ursula Haverbeck. Take special note of the Garrison and Commandant Orders, especially the special diet, as this is, indeed, a paradigm shift for all of us with an open mind.

One of the other things that I recently came upon was that General Patton was murdered because he was sharing what he had learned while he was the military governor of Germany. After he got to know both sides he concluded that both the Jews and the Russians were filthy, disgusting savages and that we not only fought against the WRONG people, but in his own words, "We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages."

In his diary to his wife, Patton wrote:

"Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. It’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans." And on September 2: "What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole."

So rhb, if you are NOT a Shill, then you are a Useful Idiot, but since you NEVER address any of the issues and all you do is cry out "antisemitic" or "Skinhead" or "Nazi" or “Brown Shirt”, my money is that you are Shill!

Holocaust deniers want to debate the very existence of the Holocaust as a historical event. They want above all to be seen as legitimate scholars arguing a historical point. They crave attention, a public platform to air what they refer to as “the other side of the issue.” Because legitimate scholars do not doubt that the Holocaust happened, such assertions play no role in historical debates. Although deniers insist that the idea of the Holocaust as myth is a reasonable topic of debate, it is clear, in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence that the Holocaust happened, that the debate the deniers proffer is more about antisemitism and hate politics than it is about history.

Spades a spade and rose your a brown shirt What it is bruv

On the shill note, dont flatter yourself rose, millions spewing hatred in this world. If its shilling it would be directed at activist who may make change and thats certanly not you. You suffer from Frontal Lobe disease swelling of lobe and cold heart



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2015 02:59AM by riverhousebill.

<<<Spades a spade and rose your a brown shirt What it is bruv>>>

What makes you a Shill is your continual use of Name Calling - brown shirt - brown shirt - brown shirt - Nazi - Nazi - Nazi - Name Calling - Name Calling - Name Calling!!!

Fadi Kiblawi, ( [palestinechronicle.com] ), The Palestine Chronicle, Oct. 23, 2003. Quote: "The Hasbara Handbook prescribes fascinating instructions on attacking the messenger and avoiding the message at all costs ‘in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote’ their cause. In a section entitled ‘Name Calling,’ Israel's Jewish Agency writes, ‘Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea."

[www.biblebelievers.org.au]
Their only defense against the facts is to cry out "antisemitic," "Skinhead" or "Nazi," whereas the majority of those who question the Holocaust are ordinary citizens...though you would never know it from the media.
[www.biblebelievers.org.au]

Once again, rhb, you NEVER address any of the issues and all you do is cry out "antisemitic" or "Skinhead" or "Nazi" or “Brown Shirt”!!!

SAME OLD SONG & DANCE...

Very simple -
A google search for Holocaust brings up 16,700,000 results,
whereas Holocaust denial" (without quotes) has 657,000 results.
And Holocaust revisionism ( no quotes) only has 120,000

A person could do their own research on the Holocaust
and learn that deniers are actualy spreading lies, not
spreading a new Version of history.

The vast quantites of information available for the Holocaust relates
to another reason not to be overly worried about denial
on the internet.

Quote

New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best.

[www.npr.org]


The Holocaust deniers are like the ostrich burying his head in the sand to ignore the reality around him.



It is not true.

I do not want to believe it.

I want to remain ignorant.

The debate on "Cooked food is evil" was an another example, the facts like the Okinawan living a long life on a diet of mostly cooked sweet potatoes did not change anything in the mind of the denier.

So we are wasting our time trying to argue with John Rose.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 08:32AM by RawPracticalist.

So we are wasting our time trying to argue with John Rose.


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine


Often Quoting The Imperail Grand Wizard of the KU KLUX KLAN, Adolf Hitler Worship

I think I get the Mind set! How about you? Want to argue with that? @#$%& Pointless! Like Paine said



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 09:50AM by riverhousebill.

John's obsession with the Holocaust makes no sense whatsoever.

To my mind, someone as pure and cleaned out as John supposedly is would be obsessed with creating the conditions of Paradise on Earth for all, so these atrocities never happen again, and Jennifer can finally melt down her guns.

Yet, he seems to be addicted to the past and can't move forward towards the tipping point he claims WE need to get to, kinda hypocritical.

Look at those walls of text he posts, if he were obsessed with Permaculture Food Forest Creation or the book The Lovewisdom Message on Paradise Building, all that wasted energy would be moving U.S. to the tipping point that much faster, but in reality John is an ANCHOR preventing U.S. from moving forward!!!

rp wrote,
<<<So we are wasting our time trying to argue with John Rose.>>>

NO, I am wasting my time trying to help you guys see the significance that this LIE has to do with how we are currently being CONTROLLED.

NONE of you guys that are arguing with me have adequately looked at all of the EVIDENCE that clearly PROVES that the Holocaust NEVER happened and it is you guys who are burying your heads in the sand - NOT me!

nunuters wrote,
<<<John's obsession with the Holocaust makes no sense whatsoever.>>>

It only doesn't make sense if you don't have enough Pieces to the Puzzle and/or you are Incapable of Connecting the Dots and in your case, you clearly don't have enough Pieces and you've PROVEN over and over that you are NOT Capable of Connecting the Dots!

The History of the Holocaust is a History of our Slavery thorough the Control of Money and if we don't have access to History, History will repeat itself.

Why is this so hard for you to figure out?

“He who controls the past [history] controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past [history].” -George Orwell"

It's hard to believe that anyone could be this obtuse, but since they don't teach critical thinking skills in school, I really shouldn't be that surprised that so many people are Incapable of Connecting the Dots.

For example, your obsession with Premacultural has a Major Flaw in it and it looks like you will NEVER figure it out. Since I'm sure you have NO clue as to what I'm referring to, I'll give you a hint to your delusion and it has to do with the movie Field of Dreams where he says, IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.

Obviously, you don't understand Supply & Demand. You give the same lame excuse as many others do who have NOT thought any of this out by saying we can't feed the world right now on a Raw Food Diet and Raw Food can't be our Ideal Diet because it's Not growing everywhere.

Once again, you do NOT understand Supply & Demand - you don’t start at the Supply End - you start at the Demand End - you create the Demand, then the Supply follows.

Once again, you're NOT thinking any of this out.

DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE THE FOOD AND THEY WILL EAT IT?

Everyone of my Videos is all about the Demand side of the Equation and getting rid of the #1 Obstacle that's keeping our Message from reaching the Masses and that has to do with how the Rulers of the World use Money as their Absolute Tool of Control.

DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THAT IF THE WORLD DEMANDS RAW FOOD, WE CAN'T SUPPLY IT?

Yes, it ultimately comes back to Premacultural, but that is NOT where we start - WE HAVE TO CREATE THE DEMAND FIRST! We could give away Fruits and Vegetables and we would still NOT reach the Tipping Point.

My God, don't any of you guys ever contemplate on anything?

“The greatest obstacle to living reform in the earth today, the greatest foe of dietary reform is not ignorance, of which there is much, but the desire of those who profit from the present evil practices and the means of carrying them on, to continue to reap rich financial harvests from pandering to the many harmful practices of the present conventional way of life. We are in serious need of economic and agricultural revolutions. Basic changes are required before we can hope to give every one the materials for a better and healthier life and before we can hope to reach them with the information that they need in order to make use of those materials. So long as our channels of public information and our educational system are in the hands of the, at present, economic royalists, so long as they conceive it to be their duty to serve the special interests of these private owners of the earth, rather than to serve the interests of the people as a whole, the truth about health, disease and healing will make slow progress in reaching the people.” -Herbert Shelton, "Superior Nutrition" p. 9

Why did T. C. Fry change his Health Publication - The Wellness Messenger to his Globalists-Illuminati Publication - The Freedom Networker?

The reason Fry changed his focus from Health to Freedom is because anyone who spends their life as I have and Shelton and Fry soon realizes the ROLE these Private Owners of the Earth Play in the grand scheme of things.

It boggles my mind that people can find out about Raw Food and they understand how far off our Medical System is and they can't extrapolate that to everything else.

John despite all the insults, I HAVE thought long and hard about all this. One of the reasons I am NOMADIC, is because I don't believe in Private Land Ownership, and to set an example I LIVE on shared land with other NOMADS. Yet even a "homeowner" is guilty of the fallacy.

Keep in mind that the parks I frequent ARE Privately Owned, yet at a campground there is a sense of SHARED SPACE rather than PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. It's the same with the boating community...

The only thing missing here is the FOOD PRODUCTION part of the equation. Of course most RVers around me have no desire for Permaculture Paradise construction, rather they BBQ all day long and drink cheap beer, but I guess that's where you come in.

The main problem I see, is that the demand will NEVERbe there so long as the mechanics of "civilization" that take them down or don't allow them to LIVE close to NATURE are denied by "jobs", schooling, bills and the threat of homelessness.

I guess my point is that it's not all about FOOD in the least, LIFEstyle is at least if not MORE important. The enslaving external conditions that prevent humans from NATURE IMMERSION need to change probably BEFORE diet is even discussed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 04:12PM by NuNativs.

When I first got online in 1999 and read the Alternative News Websites - WhatReallyHappened, Rense, RumorMillNews, BlackListedNews, etc., and read articles about how the Holocaust never happened, I was shocked that some people believed such, but I thought well, maybe it didn't happen. I was more open-minded.

Then shortly after when I read that it's AGAINST THE LAW IN SOME COUNTRIES TO BE A DISBELIEVER IN THE HOLOCAUST! that was a million times more unbelievable and outrageous to me. That a government can make a law and make it a crime to believe or disbelieve something! I became more skeptical of government and the 'official story'.

<<<The main problem I see, is that the demand will NEVERbe there so long as the mechanics of "civilization" that take them down or don't allow them to LIVE close to NATURE are denied by "jobs", schooling, bills and the threat of homelessness.>>>

Bill Bright!

Btw, "the demand will NEVERbe there so long as the mechanics of "civilization" ... are denied by "jobs", schooling, bills and the threat of homelessness" does NOT make any sense relative to Demand!

The Demand is NOT there simply because of Ignorance - people don't know what they're missing, hence, a Solid Food Vacation ala Bill Bright!

Jennifer wrote,
“…it's AGAINST THE LAW IN SOME COUNTRIES TO BE A DISBELIEVER IN THE HOLOCAUST! that was a million times more unbelievable and outrageous to me. That a government can make a law and make it a crime to believe or disbelieve something! I became more skeptical of government and the 'official story'.”

EXACTLY!!!

That is a HUGE Red Flag in my book and if it’s NOT a Red Flag in your book, you are too naïve for your own good.

UNARGUABLE PHENOMENON

Slipping out of the game (the dogmas of humanity) is necessary in order to move out of a limiting reality and on to a more expanded view of ourselves and how we relate to the universe. If we look away from dogmas and toward unarguable phenomenon, we will find guidance.

Dogmas like capitalism, socialism, Hitler & the Holocaust, Catholicism, Protestantism etc., and even humanism, seem to ruin out lives. Unarguable phenomenon like the Sun/Light "rising" in the east and "setting" in the west ARE THE REASON WE ARE ALIVE! Maybe we should give a little more consideration to these than to our dogmas.

No one argues with, votes about, or forbids the rising and setting of the Sun/Light. All races, sexes, animals and plants simply accept aspects of it without argument - IT IS A TRUTH! The Sun/Light shines the same for all life forms without judgment, prejudice or corruption; ALL of which exist in our dogmas.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 06:10PM by NuNativs.

The Real HISTORY of Hitler and the Holocaust is the HISTORY of USURY and the HISTORY of USURY is the HISTORY of SLAVERY.

“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” -John Adams

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1802

"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743 - 1812)

“REMEMBER MY CHILDREN, THAT ALL THE EARTH MUST BELONG TO US JEWS, AND THAT THE GENTILES, BEING MERE EXCREMENTS OF ANIMALS, MUST POSSESS NOTHING.” -Mayer Amschel Rothschild on his deathbed, 1812.

Not all Jews are Zionists - Not all Zionists are Jews.

NEO NAZI SPIN! on quote


"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." -Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743 - 1812)

DEAD 26 years when he made that quote awesome John got the oven lit yet?


The actual quote which is attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild is:
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!
A number of sources claim that this statement was made in 1838 (which would have been a difficult feat as he would have been dead for 26 years by then). Wikiquote claims that there is no way to verify by whom, when or why it was made. It notes:
No primary source for this is known and the earliest attribution to him known is 1935 (Money Creators, Gertrude M. Coogan). Before that, "Let us control the money of a nation, and we care not who makes its laws" was said to be a "maxim" of the House of Rothschilds, or, even more vaguely, of the "money lenders of the Old World".
It is adapted from another well known quote:
Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 01:52AM by riverhousebill.