Monday, September 20, 2021

World Economic Forum (Jews and Freemasons) Tells U.S. Colleges to ‘Re-Educate the Racists Among Us’ 

Renegade Editor’s Note: This reaches unfathomable levels of absurdity when you know that American universities are already over-the-top anti-White indoctrination centers.

By Ben Zeisloft

The World Economic Forum published an article last week arguing that colleges “re-educate the racists among us” to end “racism on university campuses.”

“Fighting racism demands confrontation at all levels on college campuses by uprooting racist institutional designs inherent in campus-wide admissions systems, recruitment, scholarships, cultures, and histories,” researchers from KAIST-Korea Policy Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution wrote.

The World Economic Forum is an organization that advocates for cooperation among the world’s largest governments and corporations. It is also known for its “The Great Reset” series, a provocation to redesign the global economy following COVID-19 and the lockdown-induced global recession.

[RELATED: Ivy league professors criticize CRT, idea of ‘systemic racism’]

The article calls for using “data-driven methods” to measure racial “climates,” as well as “promoting anti-racist culture and policies” through projects such as Centers for Racial Justice.

Additionally, universities must “support affected minorities at various levels,” which — includes “educating people to eradicate their hate” through mandatory diversity training, according to the researchers.

Aiming to solve underrepresentation among faculty and the student body, the researchers also propose a “diversity barometer” that can “track such progress and hold university leadership accountable” through periodical reviews.

[RELATED: Yale profs suggest methods for screening ‘racism’ in med school admissions]

The World Economic Forum is not the first prominent international organization to weigh in on alleged systemic racism in the United States.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken invited the United Nations to examine American police brutality.

“As the President has repeatedly made clear, great nations such as ours do not hide from our shortcomings; they acknowledge them openly and strive to improve with transparency,” Blinken wrote after the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released a report about global police brutality against people of African descent.

Campus Reform reached out to the World Economic Forum for comment; this article will be updated accordingly.

This article originally appeared on Campus Reform.

Swiss Citizens Revolt, Install Tables Outside in Front of Bars, Restaurants to Ignore Vax Passports


By Matt Agorist

Throughout Europe, despite their heads of state promising otherwise, countries have begun to roll out vaccine passports. Under the tyrannical measures, citizens must present proof of vaccination, usually on a smartphone, before being allowed in places like bars, restaurants or social events. Naturally, this attack on the freedom to travel and socialize has sparked massive backlash by those who do not wish to submit to tyranny.

Last month, when these announcements were made and the passes rolled out in Europe, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in France, Switzerland, and Italy. Many of the protests turned violent as police clashed with the modern freedom fighters.

Other protests, however, did not turn violent and in some instances, police even joined in with the protesters in an ostensible effort to end up on the right side of history.

“Personally, I am not vaccinated, and I won’t be,” said one French protester, according to euronews. “It doesn’t matter what we are forbidden from doing, going to stores, swimming pools, cinemas, it doesn’t matter … Life is priceless. Freedom, that’s precisely it, freedom to not to be vaccinated, and not to give in to the government’s blackmail.”

In Switzerland, beginning on the 13th of September, the COVID-19 certificates became mandatory for all persons over the age of 16, including tourists, who wish to access indoor areas of restaurants, cultural and leisure facilities, and several other events.

“Based on the overall situation, the Federal Council has decided to extend the certificate requirement for persons aged 16 and over. This is to prevent hospitals from being overstretched. It will take two to three weeks for this measure to have an impact on the situation in the hospitals,” the statement of the Swiss Federal Council reads.

Those who refuse to abide by the new vaccine passport rules are subject to police intervention, fines and even seizure of their businesses.

“Establishments and event organizers that do not comply with the certificate requirement may be fined or even closed down. The cantons (Swiss states) are responsible for monitoring compliance,” the Council stated.

While a disturbingly large portion of society is embracing this modern-day Scarlet Letter, an encouraging amount of folks are resisting — and are doing it in the most epic of ways.

A video uploaded by French political activist Anonyme Citoyen, or Anonymous Citizen, shows Swiss citizens installing their own tables, chairs, and blankets in the streets — set up in front of bars and restaurants which require the vaccine passport for entry.

“As in France, the Swiss are setting up free terraces in front of bars and restaurants in Winterthur while the health pass entered into force this week in Switzerland,” Anonyme Citoyen writes, describing the scene.

As stated in the description, this is similar to the protest conducted by the French last month in which citizens set up outdoor dining and events in protest of le pass sanitaire, or the “health pass.”

In Winterthur, however, the protest appears to be much larger and it stretches on for several blocks as family and friends gather to assert their medical freedom.

Winterthur, Switzerland appears to be well informed and is planning yet another protest over the weekend. That protest is aptly named the “Stop censorship and the dictatorship of vaccination demonstration,” and will take place on Sunday.

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

At Dutch COVID protest, men dressed as Nazis make mock arrest of participant wearing yellow star

 (JTA) — Several men dressed like Nazis were seen pretending to arrest a man wearing a yellow star as part of a rally against COVID-19 measures in the Netherlands.

Saturday’s incident in Urk, near Amsterdam, was the latest among the hundreds of rallies worldwide in which protesters have drawn what they regard as parallels between the persecution of Jews by Nazis to rules meant to curb the spread of the virus.

But the protest in Urk was unusual because of its theatrics and the fact that it happened where the Nazis actually rounded up Jews at gunpoint.

The 10 men involved in the incident apologized for their actions in writing in a statement obtained by the “Hart van Nederland” television program.

“We wish to express out sincere apologies,” the statement read, adding that the protest “crossed a line that it should have not crossed.” The protesters said they did not mean to offend Jews.

The young men played out a scene in which SS officers at gunpoint led a man wearing a striped uniform and a yellow star like the one that Nazis made Jews wear during the Holocaust, the NOS broadcaster reported.

The Urk municipality, which is considered one of the most pro-Israeli communities in the Netherlands, condemned the display in a statement.

“This behavior is not only objectionable, but also extremely inappropriate and offensive for many groups in the population,” the statement read.

Urk has flown the Israeli flag on various occasions, including in May to show its solidarity with Israel during its exchange of fire with Hamas.

Muslims and Jews join in Congress to press US government for kosher and halal food relief

WASHINGTON (JTA) — A congressional letter backed by Muslim and Jewish groups is urging the federal government to make kosher and halal meat available to observant Jews and Muslims through an emergency food program.

Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., initiated the letter sent Wednesday to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Forty-eight Democrats have signed the letter, which was obtained exclusively by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“As the United States continues to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, as many as 29 million Americans continue to face food insecurity,” the letter says. “The pandemic has exacerbated this problem and we are deeply concerned about the share of kosher and halal meat
and other protein options available to the many observant individuals and families who utilize” The Emergency Food Assistance Program, or TEFAP.

Other Democrats joining with Meng in asking fellow lawmakers to sign were Reps. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts; Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; and Ted Deutch of Florida. Deutch and Omar coordinating on the same issue is somewhat extraordinary: Deutch, who is Jewish, and Omar, a Muslim, have been sharply at odds on Israel policy.

In addition to Deutch, Jewish signers include Jake Auchnicloss of Massachusetts; Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon; David Cicilline of Rhode Island; Steve Cohen of Tennessee; Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey; Elaine Luria of Virginia; Jerrold Nadler of New York; Jan Schakowsky of Illinois; and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.

The letter comes at the behest of a coalition of Muslim and Jewish groups, including ICNA Relief Muslims for Humanity, the Met Council on Jewish Poverty, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Agudath Israel of America, Masbia Soup Kitchen Network, Jewish Women International and Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies.

Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s vice president for government affairs, said in an interview that distribution of food relief was generally hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic, but food distribution to kosher and halal networks was especially affected.

The Muslim and Jewish groups want Vilsack to “see where improvements could be made into the system, so that TEFAP can really live up to its promise and provide the Americans the kosher and halal food that they require,” Cohen said.

The groups celebrated the opportunity to join forces, said Alexander Rapaport, Masbia’s director.

“It is an uplifting experience to work with our Muslim brothers and sisters on hunger advocacy, and especially when it comes to kosher and halal needs,” Rapaport told JTA.

Washington: Feds Drag Their Feet as Antifa Terrorists Emerge as Top Suspects in Train Derailment 

Militant anti-racists are the lead suspects in a series of catastrophic train derailments in the Pacific Northwest. 

Last November two left-wing activists, Ellen Brennan Reiche and Samantha Frances Brooks, were caught red-handed placing devices intended to jam train signals on the BNSF tracks outside of Bellingham, Washington. 

During the arrest, Reiche and Brooks, who both appear to be white, had anarchist propaganda on them suggesting they are supporters of indigenism, a philosophy that opposes the existence of European descended people in the United States.  

The two women have been convicted or pled guilty recently. While on paper engaging in sabotage of federal rail infrastructure is a serious act of terrorism, federal prosecutors have signaled that they will be suggesting punishments on the low end of sentencing guidelines. 

There have been numerous attempts at derailing trains running on the BNSF tracks in the past year, including a successful potential attack last December, two weeks after Brooks and Reiche were arrested.  

Last week, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released the findings of its investigation into the December 2020 derailment in Whatcom County, not far from where Reiche and Brooks were seen placing shunts to interfere with train signals.  

According to the FRA report, "vandalism" may have been one of the causes for the crash. The incident caused 10 train cars to fly off the tracks and 29,000 gallons of crude oil to leak into the surroundings and engulf the area in flames. All residents within a half a mile radius of the crash were forced to evacuate. 

The FBI claims it is investigating evidence that the crash was caused by human malice, but individuals in the railroad industry have been pushing for senate hearings in the Washington state legislature and are expressing frustration that the Department of Justice is not taking threats to their workers and train cars from left-wing terrorist sources seriously. 

There is no reason to believe the spree of attacks on the BNSF rail line is limited solely to the two arrested women. The Antifa website It's Going Down, which hosts a lot of indigenist and Pacific Northwest relataed content, includes a guide on how to use shunts to derail trains. 

The lack of incentives for arresting left-wing terrorists and Antifa has caused the FBI to ignore or even enable (by only arresting opponents of Antifa) the threat. In the last year, Oregon and Washington, local anarchists have been allowed to shoot people they disagree with, allegedly derail trains, burn down buildings, and even create new countries.

Source: National Justice

Deceptive Linguistic Structures in the Jewish Phrase ‘The Holocaust’

Deceptive Linguistic Structures in the Phrase ‘The Holocaust’

 Robert A. Hall, Jr.

At present, the phrase the Holocaust is almost universally used to refer to various aspects of the situation in which jews “found” themselves under the National Socialist government from 1933 to 1945, in Germany and occupied territories. In this usage, there are several features of linguistic, graphemic, and semantic structures which command the belief of the average hearer in the reality of “the Holocaust” (normally quite outside his or her awareness) and at the same time leave its reference confusingly unclear. These features include the meaning of the definite article (reality), the singular number and capitalization (uniqueness), and the effects (confusion and ambiguity) of the reference of this expression.

  1. The definite article the is often thought of as an “itsy-bit” word, unstressed and of little or no importance in contrast to words which are fully stressed, such as nouns, adjectives, and verbs. Yet the English definite article has a specific meaning and semantic function of its own. It commands a hearer’s or reader’s belief in the reality of what is referred to by the noun it modifies, and sets up a tacit presupposition, for the rest of the discourse, that this reality has been established. Consider the following joke, in which someone says: “If the dog would only catch a rabbit, we could have rabbit-pie for dinner — if we had a dog.” The humor of this utterance consists in the contradiction between what we are led to believe at the outset of the sentence — i.e. that the speaker has a really existing dog — and the information given at the end, namely that he does not have a dog. Another instance which is often cited in this connection involves the first five lines of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem The Pleasure Dome of Kubla Khan: “In Xanadu did Kubla Khan / A stately pleasure dome decree, / Where Alph, the sacred river, ran / through caverns measureless to man / down to a sunless sea.” The most important word in these five lines is the in verse three, because it commands the reader’s belief in the existence of Alph, and hence of the entire situation. [Try substituting for the here, and see how flat the entire passage falls.)[l]

In the case of “the Holocaust;” the use of the definite article has a similar effect. Once we speak of “the Holocaust;” the presupposition is set up that we are referring to a reality, so that further discourse on the topic is perforce committed to acceptance of that reality. How could one even query the existence of whatever is referred to by that phrase? Hence “to deny the reality of the Holocaust” has come to be a stock slogan, used against anyone who questions any aspect of what is alleged concerning the experiences of jews under NAZISM, or even (as I know from from personal experience) to report on what others have said. It is as if one were denying the reality of the sun or the moon or the earth.

  1. The meaning of the singular number of a noun in English is, of course, that only one member of the phenomena referred to exists or is relevant to the situation. In writing, we emphasize the uniqueness of an object or phenomenon by capitalizing the noun, thus giving it somewhat of the status of a proper name. There are for instance, a number of “water-gaps” in the Pennsylvania mountains, but around Stroudsburg one refers to the Delaware Water-Gap simply as the Water-Gap

In the case of the Holocaust, likewise, use of the singular and capitalization of the noun serve to emphasize to any hearer (and even more so, to any reader) its uniqueness. Various commentators such as Michael A. Hoffman and Joseph Sobran, have been in the vanguard in expressing a growing awareness that the jewish experience under the NAZIS was only one of many such — no matter how we define it — that many groups have undergone since ancient times. [2] Yet insistence on the uniqueness of “the Holocaust” has led even to such excesses as refusal to countenance the foundation of a Roman Catholic convent at Auschwitz (Oswiecim), because that place is regarded by some as exclusively sacred to the memory of the specifically jewish victims of “the Holocaust.” [3] For the sake of the argument, let us assume for the moment that a given number of non-jews were martyred there. Why is their suffering considered less important than that of whatever jewish victims there may have been? Why should the non-jews, also, not be commemorated there?

  1. The English word holocaust is a borrowing from Late Latin holocaustum “a burnt offering,” which was borrowed in its turn from Greek holócauston “something wholly bumt.” In addition to these meanings, it has acquired in English the further senses of “complete consumption by fire; complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a great slaughter, a massacre ” [4] It is in this last sense that it has come to be used in the phrase the Holocaust, but it has undergone a further extension not justified by its previous history. Its use now covers a wide range of senses, from referring to the presumed mass-execution of jews in gas chambers or other installations, to denoting the entire experience of all jews in Germany and in territories occupied by German troops, from the accession of the National Socialist party to power in 1933 until the end of the war in 1945. It is thus possible for a person who even questions any given allegation concerning concentration-camps or gas-chambers to be accused of denying that jews underwent any persecution or suffering at all. This type of unacknowledged shifting of meaning is known as semantic wrenching, and the taking over of a term for such special use is often called word-shanghaiing or word-kidnapping. [5]

Unscrupulous discussants have, by using these linguistic features, induced naive, unsuspecting hearers and readers to believe in the reality and uniqueness of what is called the Holocaust, and have at the same time wrenched its meaning and made its reference vague and imprecise. They have thus eliminated objective discussion and replaced it by obfuscation and confusion. In this way, use of the phrase the Holocaust, without further qualification, prejudges the issue. Here, as in so many other instances of propagandistic “Newspeak,” we must be on our guard whenever we hear, read, or use this phrase. We must be fully aware of its various and distorted uses, if we are to realize what is happening linguistically and thus avoid being duped.


  1.  Another instance which is often cited in this connection involves the first five lines of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem The Pleasure Dome of Kubla Khan: “In Xanadu did Kubla Khan / A stately pleasure dome decree, / Where Alph, the sacred river, ran / through caverns measureless to man / down to a sunless sea.” The most important word in these five lines is the in verse three, because it commands the reader’s belief in the existence of Alph, and hence of the entire situation. [Try substituting for the here, and see how flat the entire passage falls.)
  2. Cf., most recently, Michael A. Hoffman III, “Psychology and Epistemology of Holocaust ‘Newspeak’,” JHR Vol. 6, no. 3 (Winter 1985-86), pp. 467-478, and Mark Weber’s observations in “Joseph Sobran and Historical Revisionism,” JHR Vol 7, no 3 (Winter 1986-87), pp. 373-374.
  3. As widely reported in the news-media in late January, 1986, e.g. in the New York Times, January 31, I, p. 4, col 1.
  4. Cf. the Oxford English Dictionary 5.344, s.v. holocaust.
  5. If I am not mistaken, I was the first to use the expressions semantic wrench and word-shanghaiings, in my review of Maurizio Dardano, Il linguaggio dei giornali italiani, in Language 31.211-215 (1975).

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pages 495-497.

The Jewish Holocaust Hoax – Some Commonly Used Lies and Distortions


by Peter Winter

 January 27, 2018

1. The Outrageous Lies and Distortions of the “Kurt Gerstein Statement”

One of the most commonly quoted sources for the “mass gassings” claim is a series of statements made after the jewish war by Kurt Gerstein, a former SS Officer. His statements, now known as “The Gerstein Statement” contain what he claimed were to be eyewitness accounts of mass gassings at camps in Poland.

The holocaust storytellers always omit to explain that there are several different versions of Gerstein’s “statement”—so that should be “Gerstein statements” in the plural. The reason why they try and obscure the fact that there are a number of different Gerstein statements is because they all differ so radically.

The holocaust storytellers also omit to say that Gerstein conveniently “committed suicide” as soon as he had completed his “revised” affidavits—and so never testified in court, nor was ever cross-questioned on his fantastic claims.

Below: Kurt Gerstein—Despite the most fantastic and patently false claims in his “confession,” his statement is still offered as “proof” even though a casual reading shows that they cannot be true.

A selection of some of the more incredible claims in the Gerstein Statements include:

– Gerstein’s first statement said the NAZIS had gassed 40 million people—and did not specify that they were jews. His second statement reduced this figure to 20 million.

– He claimed to have seen, while on a visit to the Treblinka, 8 gas chambers and “whole mountains of clothes and underwear about 35–40 meters high.”

If it is borne in mind that the average height of a house story is 2.66 meters, then an idea is gained of exactly how high 40 meters is—in other words, he claimed that there were heaps of clothes as high as 15-storey buildings. The sheer physical impossibility of such a mountain of clothes proves the statement to be false.

– He claimed to have been present at a gassing near the Polish town of Belzec in August of 1942, describing the “gas chamber” as follows: “The people are stepping on each other’s feet, 700–800 persons to 25 square meters, 45 cubic meters.” This translates to between 28 and 32 persons were crammed into each cubic meter, something which is nearly physically impossible.

This physical impossibility was acknowledged quite early on by the holocaust storytellers, and the author Leon Poliakov in particular, who in his 1951 work Breviary of Hate, contained a version of the Gerstein Statement which changed the area of the gas chambers to 93 square meters, thus cutting down Gerstein’s figures to a much more believable 7.5–8.6 persons per square meter.

– Gerstein claimed that the “gas chambers” he saw generated poison gas through the use of diesel engines. The corpses, he said, of the victims were blue afterward from the gas—but in fact carbon monoxide poisoning turns bodies cherry-red, not blue.

There are many other obvious errors and fabrications in the Gerstein statements (including, for example, a claim that Hitler visited Lublin in August 1943—which definitely never happened), but, in spite of these issues which clearly indicate that the “Gerstein Statements” are either completely fabricated or the work of an insane liar, they were used by almost all the “holocaust experts” in their accounts of the camps.

Acclaimed “expert” and filthy liar Raul Hilberg quoted Gerstein as a major witness no less than six times in his The Destruction of the European Jews, and in 1955, the German government mandated that their schools teach the Gerstein “confessions” to all schoolchildren.

One version of the Gerstein Statements was submitted as evidence to the jewish International Military Tribunal (the main Nuremberg War Crimes Trial) and accepted into evidence—even though the “author” was long since dead and could not testify in person.

2. jewish Scholars and Yad Vashem Forced to Deny “Soap,” “Lampshades” Horror Stories

At the end of the jewish war it was claimed that the Dachau and Bergen-Belsen camps in Germany had operating gas chambers; and that in camps in Poland, jews had been killed in “steam chambers” or had been skinned to make lamp shades, gloves and their body fat made into soap.

All of these horror stories have in the subsequent years been refuted by all serious scholars, including the leading jewish scholar and liar  on the issue, Raul Hilberg.

In a lengthy letter to the Los Angeles Times of May 16, 1981, Professor Deborah Lipstadt, well-known as an official “holocaust historian” and notorious liar said, “The fact is that the NAZIS never used the bodies of jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap.

The jewish soap rumor was prevalent both during and after the war. It may have had its origin in the cadaver factory atrocity story that came out of World War I.

The letters ‘RJF’ probably stood for the name of the factory that produced soap. The soap rumor was thoroughly investigated after the war and proved to be untrue” (Deborah Lipstadt, “Nazi Soap Rumor During World War II,” Los Angeles Times, May 16, 1981).

Below: Zyklon-B and “jewish soap” on display in a synagogue in Europe shortly after the war. Allegations that NAZIS made jews into soap, and even shrunk their heads were commonplace—until jewish scholars and the official israeli holocaust museum Yad Vashem, were forced to formally repudiate them.

3. What was Really Said at the Wannsee Conference in 1942

The holocaust storytellers maintain that a conference was held at a Wannsee villa outside Berlin in January 1942, at which the “final solution” was planned.

The minutes to the Wannsee Conference survived the war in full, and are publicly available at the Wannsee Villa museum and elsewhere.

A reading of the Wannsee Minutes shows the following:

– Nowhere in the meeting’s minutes is genocide discussed, planned, proposed, or even suggested;

– The Wannsee Conference never discussed gas chambers, shootings, or any of the claims made after the war.

– The Wannsee Minutes reported that there were only 4.5 million jews under German control (yet 4.3 million jewish compensation claims have been lodged against the postwar German government);

– The Wannsee Conference was a planning meeting on how Europe’s jews should be deported, via transit camps, to the East; with able-bodied jews being forced to build roads and other labor intensive tasks in those regions;

– The Wannsee Conference also made allowance for specific exceptions to jewish evacuation, such as jewish “German” World War I veterans; all jews over the age of 65; and all jews working in industries vital to the German war effort, to be released from the threat of evacuation, and be allowed to stay in Germany.

There is therefore, no justification for the allegation that the Wannsee Conference was a “master plan for mass murder” and the media, holocaust institutions and reference books which claim this, are simply lying.

Many of the holocaust “experts” actually admit that there is no plan for mass murder in the Wannsee Minutes, and try to explain this “problem” away by stating that “code words” were instead used, such as “Labor assignment in the East” and so on. There is, of course, absolutely no justification for any of these claims.

4. Wannsee “A Silly Story,” says israel’s Leading holocaust Scholar

That the Wannsee Conference never discussed killing jews in any way, has actually been confirmed in public by Yehuda Bauer, professor of holocaust studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Bauer is also the founding editor of the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and a member of the editorial board of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, published by Yad Vashem in 1990.

He is not, therefore, an obscure figure, but a leading and major—in fact, one of the most senior—jews promoting the holocaust fable.

As long ago as 1992, Bauer, speaking at a conference held in London to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Wannsee meeting, told the audience that the claim that Wannsee was a “master plan” to kill jews was nothing but a “silly story.”

Bauer’s remarks were reported in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency of January 23, 1992, and the Canadian Jewish Times of January 30, 1992.

Titled “NaziScheme Not Born at Wannsee, Israeli Holocaust Scholar Claims,” the JTA report continued:

London (JTA)—An israeli holocaust scholar has de-bunked the Wannsee Conference, at which top NAZI officials are said to have gathered at a villa in a Berlin suburb in 1942 to draw the blueprints of the “Final Solution.”

According to Prof. Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Wannsee was a meeting, “but hardly a conference,” and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.” Bauer addressed the opening session of an international conference held here to mark the 50th anniversary of the decision to carry out the “Final Solution.” “But it was not made at Wannsee,” the Czech born scholar said.

“The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the jews was arrived at. Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder,” he said.

Below: A report in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reporting Bauer’s comments about the “silly story” of the Wannsee Conference.

5. What the “Final Solution” Actually Meant: Deportation to the East

The holocaust storytellers have deliberately created the impression that the NAZIS always used “code words” in order to “hide” their activities. The basis of this suggestion is preposterous.

An undertaking to kill upward of 6 million people—the equivalent of the populations of New Zealand, Cyprus, and Luxembourg, all added together—while fighting a major war against the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States, would involve the efforts of huge numbers of people, and not just the small number of soldiers, guards, and administrators claimed.

To argue that a project to kill an entire population of that size could be kept “quiet” by using “code words” would be laughable if it were not taken so seriously by the holocaust storytellers.

So what then, was the true meaning of the Endlösung or “Final Solution?” The answer lies within the famous Wannsee Minutes, and is open for all but the willingly blind to see. In a nutshell, German policy with regard to jews was divided up into two distinct phases:

  1. Before the outbreak of the war, it was their intention to force all the jews to legally emigrate out of Germany. It was to this end that the cooperation with the zionists, as outlined above, was based.
  2. After the outbreak of the war, practical considerations made these plans void. Increased numbers of jews fell under German control, and once it was decided to invade the Soviet Union, the decision was taken to systematically deport as many jews as possible to the Far East, deep into Russia, east of the Ural Mountains.

This then, was the “Final Solution”—the deportation of jews to the Far East. All German policy from then on was geared toward achieving this objective, as will be detailed below.

6. Hitler’s 1939 Reichstag “Threat to the jews” Speech

One of the most common claims of “proof” of the holocaust is a speech given by Adolf Hitler before the German Reichstag in 1939.

This speech is used to camouflage the fact that there are no written orders from Hitler authorizing or instructing jews to be killed—an issue which has long perplexed those who believe the extermination story.

The exact words, delivered by Hitler on January 30, 1939, read as follows:

“If International Financial jewry within and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevisation of earth and thereby the victory of jewry, but the destruction of the jewish race in Europe.” (Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.)

Below: Hitler speaks to the Reichstag, January 30, 1939.

These are fairly strong words, but bearing in mind the declaration of war by world jewry, they are clearly meant to counter the jewish threat to destroy Germany.

Furthermore, the date of the speech, at the beginning of 1939, predates even the most extreme “extermination” claims which allege that the killing of jews only started in 1942.

What did he exactly mean by the “destruction of the jewish Race in Europe?” Did he really mean extermination? The answer to this question was, ironically, provided by Hitler himself.

7. What Hitler Said about the “Extermination” Rumors

In the book Hitler’s Table Talk (Bormann, Martin. ed. Hitler’s Table Talk 1941–1944. trans. Cameron, Norman; Stevens, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1953), which was a collection of round-table discussions between Hitler and his personal entourage, published after the war, he went into details on what he precisely meant:

“From the rostrum of the Reichstag, I prophesied to jewry that, in the event of war’s proving inevitable, the jew would disappear from Europe. That race of criminals has on its conscience the two million dead of the First World War, and now already hundreds and thousands more. Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in the marshy parts of Russia! Who’s worrying about our troops? It’s not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the jews. Terror is a salutary thing” (ibid., p. 87.).

This quote puts Hitler’s speeches into context: in private, he referred explicitly to only resettling the jews in the east and went on to mock stories of the “extermination” of jews, specifically dismissing them as untrue.

8. Himmler’s 1943 Posen Speech and the Meaning of “Ausrotten”

A speech given by SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler at Posen in Poland during October 1943 is also widely claimed to be “evidence” of the holocaust. This speech, which was captured on tape, contains the following comments, transcribed here first in German and then in the English translation:

“Ich meine jetzt die judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdische Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. ‘Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet,’ sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse, ‘ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der juden, Ausrottung, machen wir.’” (“I am thinking now of the evacuation of the jews, the extirpation of the jewish people. It is one of those things that’s easy to say: ‘The jewish people will be extirpated,’ says every Party comrade, ‘that’s quite clear, it’s in our program: elimination of the jews, extirpation; that’s what we’re doing’”)—Speech of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler at Posen, October 4, 1943, Document No. 1919-PS, Nuremberg Trial records.

Below: Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler’s handwritten notes for his speech in Posen, 1943. The notes specifically referred to “jewish evacuation” (judenevakuierung) but in the sound recording of the speech, he used the word “ausrotten.” The context of this word has been distorted to mean “murder” but there are numerous other examples of where this phrase was used with no such meaning, as discussed in the text of this work.

As with Hitler’s Reichstag speech, the meaning of Himmler’s Posen speech turns on the English meaning of the German word “ausrotting.” There is no doubt that in modern German, “ausrotting” or “ausrotten” means murder. But in the German of the time, it did not.

There are a number of examples of other public utterances by Hitler in particular where he used the word “ausrotting” with reference to people—and these cases have never been taken to mean murder.

For example, in August 1936, Hitler dictated a famous memorandum on Germany’s four-year rearmament program, which contains the phrase “if the Bolsheviks succeed in entering Germany, it will lead to the ausrotten of the German people” (Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik 1918–1945, “Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918–1945,” series E, 1933-1937, Vol. V, 2. Goettingen, 1977). This clearly does not mean that if the Bolsheviks invaded Germany it would lead to the murder of all 50 million Germans. What Hitler said in that memorandum was that the entry of the Bolsheviks would lead to the end of Germany as a national state and an end of the German people.

Hitler also used the phrase to the president of Czechoslovakia, Emil Hácha, on March 15, 1939.

Hácha had just signed the document which led to the German occupation of the Sudentenland, and Hitler said to the Czech president that “It is a good thing that you signed because otherwise it would have meant the ausrotten of the Czechoslovakian people.”

It has never been taken to mean that Hitler told Hácha that a failure to sign the document would mean the murder of all 8 million Czechs, merely that Czechoslovakia would cease to exist.

It is therefore, a deliberate misinterpretation on the part of the Holocaust storytellers to automatically take the word “ausrotting” to mean extermination. Himmler’s own handwritten notes of his 1943 Posen speech confirm this as well: although he used the word “ausrotting” in the oral presentation, this part of the speech in his notes was marked as “judenevakuierung,” which translates as “jewish evacuation.”

Despite the holocaust storytellers’ best efforts, therefore, no documentary evidence has ever been produced showing senior NAZI leadership orders for any mass extermination policy.

9. Himmler’s Personal Correspondence Never Mentions “Extermination” Claims

In late 2013, Himmler’s personal correspondence “emerged” from the hands of a private collector in israel.

The announcement that his personal papers had been “found” provoked numerous articles in the media hoping that there would be some sort of “confession” or at least a reference to the “mass extermination” program attributed to the SS—but these hopes were rudely dashed when the letters were shown to contain not a single word about mass-murders or gassing. On the contrary, the personal correspondence of the leader of the SS in fact underlined the NAZI policy of forcing the jews to leave Germany.

10. The Bad Arolsen “International Tracing Service” Archives Provides No Evidence of any Mass Murder Program

The International Tracing Service (ITS), situated in Bad Arolsen, Germany, is an internationally governed center for documentation, information and research on displaced persons, forced labor and the “holocaust,” compiled from records all across Europe, run by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The archive contains about 30 million documents from concentration camps, details of forced labor, and files on displaced persons. Because it contains all the German records, it is regarded as the most significant collection of documents related to all aspects of the NAZI era, holding 25 kilometers of papers which include hand-typed lists of jews, homosexuals, and other groups detained in the camps, files on children born in the NAZI Lebensborn program, and, most importantly, registers of arrivals and departures from concentration camps.

When it was announced in 2007 that the Bad Arolsen archives were to be opened to the public for the first time since the war, mass media reports crowed that this would finally “lift the lid” on the “mass extermination” and “gassing” program.

Once again, just like the Himmler letters, the holocaust storytellers were deeply disappointed. The records, German and otherwise, contained no evidence whatsoever of any mass genocide program.

According to ITC spokeswoman, Kathrin Flor, as quoted in a Reuters interview, “Only natural causes of death are recorded—heart failure or pneumonia. There’s no mention of gassing” (“German Holocaust Archive in Bad Arolsen to Open Fully to Public,” Reuters, 04/03/2013).

Featured Post

I Need Some Help......