Fifty years ago, the noblest man born in America was bid farewell with Nazi salutes. Last year, the Roman salute was even condemned by the panel of racialist speakers who, within a few yards, watched Richard Spencer toast after Trump’s triumph. This year the white nationalists have gone further after Charlottesville: they claim in unison that all swastikas must be banned because they give bad optics.
Did the nationalists betray themselves? Rather, the people in general are incredibly more brainwashed than the day they said goodbye to Rockwell. In addition, American nationalists are more cowardly than Ursula Haverbeck, the 88-year-old German woman who has just been sentenced to jail for daring to say anything other than the accepted history of the holocaust.
The day Rockwell was murdered I was a child. Then there were no documentaries on the ‘holocaust’ in the media. Within my life span I have witnessed the holocaust industry grow exponentially to authentically pious levels.
The feminized tactics of today’s racists, to hide the swastikas, must be replaced by the manly tactic of telling the truth about what happened in World War II. But who in the forums of white nationalism constantly talks about the Hellstorm Holocaust committed on the Germans, even from 1945 to 1947? Or does a German old lady have more balls than today’s Americans?
30 replies on “Where are your balls?”
Ursula Haverbeck knows the facts behind the myth of the Holocaust back and forth and she can recite them out loud, even though she knows she’s not supposed to speak about it or question it. That takes balls all right. But who in the WN knows the facts behind the myth and can recite them backward and forwards like Ursula Haverbeck?
I’m glad you produced your own article about her, C.T. She deserves at least some positive attention from us who understand the meaning of her words and her stance. And you’re right: the propaganda has grown exponentially till it has become a religion, Holocaustianity. President Trump piously if pathetically referenced it recently in his speech about Israel.
I say “eunuchs” when I refer to WNsts because neither in the US nor in Europe you may lose your job or go to jail by telling the truth about the Hellstorm Holocaust.
But this is something that even Carolyn and Hadding ignore[see below]: a larger subject of the so-called Jewish holocaust, insofar as the numbers of victims concerned.Regarding what you said in the other thread, reading your recommended books is not enough (did you miss what I said there about researching both sides?) Ideal for me to make my mind would be to invite Irving and Weber to debate with Yeager and Scott in several podcasts, like a trial where you got to listen both: lawyer and prosecutor.
Only then I could make my mind.
For the moment I see no reason to change my views about what I wrote in 2014 in the post that I renamed today as “Strong meat”.
Why would you think I would miss what you wrote about researching both sides? You wrote openly that you didn’t have enough time to do full research on the Holocaust so you chose Weber and Irving as your sources of reliable information, the course of least resistance, a pragmatic choice, but not exactly a choice with a lot of intellectual integrity. While you didn’t, at the time, make a good choice, in my opinion, it’s perfectly understandable how you came to make that choice. It’s very difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat and the squeakiest wheels get the grease, in general, and you’re also working with constraints around English and Spanish. But the most popular get the attention. Smaller, less financially supported sources of information do get overlooked.
Like you, I too have done a lot of dabbling in pseudoscience. You’re not the only one. Having my own story about getting sabotaged for years and losing a lot of money in an enterprise that seemed intellectual but which enlisted group-think and arguments from authority, I learned a very valuable lesson about how many con artists are out there and how there’s truly a sucker born every minute. I learned, like you, that you have to look at both sides rather comprehensively as well as discern how to tell a good argument from a poor one. You have to read or hear what the opposite side has to say. That’s just intellectual integrity in action; it’s called playing Devil’s Advocate.
Someone, however, who insists on “believing” in inferior information while making excuses about not having enough time to discern what is true from false is not strong or taking a stance with integrity; that someone is just stubborn and pragmatic.
It would be great to have Weber, Irving, Yeager and Scott all at one table to discuss matters, but that is just a dream. Yeager and Scott ignore nothing about the Holocaust and do acknowlege how difficult it is for Europeans to address the Holocaust. You’re quite mistaken in your assertion. Maybe you mistake these two individuals for their followers or commenters who often are quite clueless and blame Europeans for not speaking out when they really don’t know any limitation on free speech because they’re ignorant children of America.
You wrote, “. . . neither in the US nor in Europe you may lose your job or go to jail by telling the truth about the Hellstorm Holocaust. ”
You may lose your job in Europe and in Canada as well for addressing the Hellstorm Holocaust, but you won’t lose your job or go to jail in the U.S. In the U.S. you may get your face punched in or maced.
Exactly what is your beef with Carolyn Yeager’s stance against Mark Weber and David Irving as adequate historians? Spell it out. Don’t spray innuendoes.
What makes you think that you’d get in trouble when saying that the Allied forces killed 60 million (which touches the subject of the Hellstorm Holocaust) and quote Solzhenitsyn to support your claim?
You say that I side ‘inferior information’ but in fact I have not read Weber or Irving on the ‘holocuaust’. I have read nobody. My position is reasonable. If I were a millionaire I would invite the four to speak out their differences in a safe context in a long process, like in a courtroom, so that the ‘jury’ could make their minds (including me).
The other way I would have to purchase all the books of your list, digest them and then interview Irving and Weber about specific revisionist claims, asking them why they, who once supported your position, changed their minds.
But I have no time for such enterprise. I am finishing my latest book and it will continue to suck all my time.
I was mistaken and thus I crossed over this sentence above. Carolyn has emailed me and she’s pretty well acquainted with the nefarious crimes committed on the Germans.
Unfortunately that is not the focus of revisionists—a pity, because even in Europe you might start revising WW2 history simply by quoting the historians who expose the real Holocaust of that war: the genocide and extermination plan by the Allied forces perpetrated on the German population even after 1945.
The revisionists – and most nationalists – focus way too much on the defense of Hitler & NS to ever get the chance to mount an attack on the Jews. They should read what Goebbels said about this matter in “Der Jude” (1935). Irving was basically destroyed because he was forced to buckle down and defend himself and the aforementioned parties from his attackers. It should be pointed out that there are already myriads of Hitler defenders and and a general increasing awareness of the Jewish question. A section of nationalists needs to take on a different approach if they want to build on this momentum.
It should be realized that the moralists have already admitted to the weakness of their stance when they resort to their toxic, irrational, baseless attacks. They are beyond reason at this point. They simply cannot be fought with positive means. We are to build up a counter-poison, counter-fanaticism. If the moralists are perpetuating the Holocaust myth, we should in turn appeal to the Holodomor and the Dresden Holocaust, and with a stronger counterforce.
Recall that when Jesus (whether this event happened or not, there is an important point I want to make using this example) stood before the tribunal of inquisitors, he remained silent for the most part. As it currently stands, the distorted narrative has him spouting typical Jewish-Christian nonsense (if not symbolic) in his reply. But Jesus, if he were an Aryan, would have probably said his “Woes of the Pharisees” during this event.
Haverbeck? She’s a mere woman. according to Mystery Meat Midget Anglin, White women are all fat whores, and intellectually inferior. Is she fat? That’s the ONLY think that matters to WN homos.
The simple fact of the matter is that Hitler and Himmler determined to slaughter Jewish civilians en mass and did so. Of course the Jews ‘propagandize’ the situation for mass appeal. By ignoring the primary fact of the slaughter and quibbling over numbers and circumstances we ignore the substantive moral question of the justification of the slaughter.
Hitler understood that the Jewish mindset was determined to wipe out the European peoples through a slow process of miscegenation. Now that plan is actively being enforced as one of its authors, Kalergi, planned and predicted.
John Toland’s biography of Hitler makes it plain that Hitler was so insistent on the extermination of the Jews that it was a major impediment to Germany’s survival in WW2.
The correct public tactic is a direct ‘assault’ on the sentimental concept of the ‘equality of mankind’ by asserting distinctions that separate us. This needs to be supplemented with the criticism of labor-intensive capitalism and democracy as the social means to destroy autochthonous peoples.
A beginning would be the anthropological separation of ‘negroids’ from standard Homo Sapiens as a distinct bi-pedal. Further investigation of ‘humans’ should also show how differences in character are racially genetic, as in I have stated before in Lobacewski’s exceptional work “Political Ponerology” that explains the Psychopathological gene is as much as 3% in the Ashkenazi/Sephardic gene pool.
Don’t try to defend against the ‘holocaust’! Assert the moral necessity in war of destroying a culture and people inherently antithetical to Europeans. How much worse would we be if those millions had survived to further threaten us?
Matthew Crawford, it’s one thing to realize your enemy must be destroyed but it’s quite another to make false assertions like Hitler and Himmler “determined” to slaughter the Jews or John Toland, an anti-Hitler historian said Hitler was insistent on destroying the Jews. There was no order given to do any of that. You’re reporting hearsay.
Thank you, Joey Virgo.
Toland’s biographt is a joke. He is one of the servile PC historians mocked by R. H. S. Stolfi in his book: Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny. As Stolfi correctly points out, most historians are cowards. They wouldn’t DARE write a Hitler biography without worshiping at the alter of supposed jewish victimization, or without painting hitler as a morally disfigured demon of some sort. I don’t take any of them or their work seriously.
The corruption of Weber and the downfall of the Institute for Historical Review is out there for those who want to look. Irving has been socially martyred on behalf of the truth until he conceded some ground simply to have some kind of peace. But no factual reasons have been flushed out. He would not answer Yeager or Scott because he has no answer. Like Weber, his reversals stand alone without a solid connection to evidence or subject to examination. That should tell you all you need to know. While I don’t agree with all of Yeager’s views on our current problems or how to go forward, she is an impeccable revisionist resource.
When I was a kid I believed the jewocaust story, and I still thought Hitler was cool. I’m disappointed that it isn’t true, Just as I’m disgusted by Hitler’s Dunkirk decision and some of the other decisions to restrain his generals on honorific grounds. Later, I spent years looking into WW2 because I have a personnel connection to it. My great Aunt suffered through the war as part of a loyal nazi family. They fled to South America to avoid the persecution taking place and made their way up to America to join cousins here. She did not speak much about the war, unfortunately. She was constrained by the fact that everyone around her, including her own family, had been brainwashed. She instead spoke about preceding years of the Wiemar Republic. She spoke of eating the family cats, and then eating the family dog, and then boiling grass from the lawn and having that for dinner. Once she spoke about the holocaust. She said to me: “If we killed so many jews, then why were there MORE of them around after the war.” Indeed, the official population figures in Europe DO NOT show any kind of dip in population that would allow a seven figure genocide. It’s literally impossible. Until someone explains this away, I’m not listening to their genocide claims. Period. As Edgar J. Steele said “In all of Europe, there were 2.8 million Jews in 1933. After the War, 3.6 million Jews applied for Holocaust reparations. Tragically, the other six million were lost.” More importantly to me, my great Aunt is not lying. I fervently wish she were alive today, so I could hold her hands in mine and tell her that I know, so I could tell her that others know. Instead, all I’m left with is guilt for dismissing her honest first-hand observations in favor of jew propaganda. What did she suffer as a young girl in Germany when the Reich fell? It causes me almost physical pain to think of it.
So I won’t tolerate giving any ground to these rat-faced kikes, not for one moment. I won’t let them claim one spoonful of sympathy they don’t deserve. The Polish proverb is true: “The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.” If I had any say, I would make every sickening lie these jews have ever told into a reality. It would have been entirely justified if it were true, and it’s going to be entirely justified in the future.
Justin:
I am not familiar with revisionist literature. But I wonder if you would object that Irving speculated IIRC that perhaps 1 and 1/2 million kikes died as result of malnutrition, disease or deportations. Would you consider that ‘holocaust enough’ (the kikes would certainly do)? I am not saying that Irving is right, just trying to know how many died.
Franklin Ryckaert is now discussing the figures at Carolyn’s. Since I’m ignorant on the subject, I don’t believe any of them. I suspend judgement.
In the email that Carolyn sent me today, she apparently was willing to debate Mark Weber. We do need bona fide discussions on this topic. The trouble I see is that both sides—and I don’t have in mind Yeager or Weber—resort to hysterics if you fail to swallow their claims with credulity. Dispassionate discussion on this topic even among pro-whites is difficult to witness.
At The Occidental Observer both sides discussed a few years ago. But IMHO both Hadding Scott and his opponent Greg Johnson were like weak lawyer vs. prosecutor while trying to support their claims.
We need more enlightened, pro-white debaters on the issue of the jewish ‘holocaust’. My tactic is simply to focus on what is not hotly debated: the Allied Holocaust perpetrated on Germans even after the war was over.
Bingo. That’s the message of my “Strong meat” earlier today.
I would be very skeptical about a seven figure death count…but the death count isn’t the crux of the holocaust debate. The question is whether or not there was an industrialized liquidation of jews. It is not whether or not jews died from disease or starvation or generalized harsh treatment. And it’s clear there was no such system of genocide in place and no such orders given. That would be easy to uncover. I don’t care if Hitler, Himmler or anyone else believed jews should be exterminated, the fact is they never got around to it if they did believe that. There was no systematic extermination, and that’s what the holocaust is. The only systematic extermination was perpetrated against the Germans as you so often point out.
Sometimes, lies are undone in a very common sense way. Consider that the outcome of the war could be seen for months before the end. Consider that no fresh batches of jews were delivered into the camps for a long time. So if months and months go by with no new jews showing up, why are there ANY jews left to be liberated out of these camps. Why were they not exterminated in any single camp run by Nazis. I just ate dinner and I could kill a thousand people before bed time if their lives were under my control. The very simple fact that there are jews left to be liberated proves no one was trying to exterminate them.
I’m not in favor of giving these kikes any ground. Concede NOTHING to them. The holocaust should be rebuked vehemently. Bring up the holomodor and Hellstorm if you like, but never give them their precious holocaust.
I am not giving their precious holocaust, just asking questions how many died as a result of 3rd Reich treatment. I do think that numbers matter. But even so malnutrition and disease can be blamed on the Allies (they ganged up on Germany, which could not feed them).
Just curious: which is the best revisionist book you would recommend?
Adolf Hitler et al did NOT slaughter kikes I wish he HAD. He should have ovened every kike on Earth.
C.T.
Honestly, the only books I have read are “Did Six Million Really Die?: The Truth At Last” and “Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality”. I recommend them both. But most information is available online. For me, the International Red Cross work was very important, good summary here: (link)
Yeager’s site is an excellent source. So is Justice 4 Germans (link) which focuses a lot on the Allied atrocities committed against the Germans and debunks a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense about Hitler as well.
Eric Hunt’s films are very powerful and should be watched. Famously, Hunt has now flip-flopped. But many have noticed that his “reasons” for changing his mind are very shallow or outright stupid. In effect, he wants his supporters to know he has not really changed his mind. It’s of critical importance to know that the best revisionist are socially destroyed and then coerced to flip-flop. You can listen to the jew David Cole talk about how he had a price put on his head and had to negotiate what to do in order to go on with his life. He agreed to flip-flop and not touch revisionism again and he could then go on with his career unmolested. Something similar clearly happened with Eric Hunt, and likely Irving and Weber too. The best revisionists will be targeted. If they can be blackmailed, threatened or bought off ($$$ is the speculation with Irving) that’s a critical victory for the jews.
(P.S. I can not reply directly to your comments because the comment button is not available. Maybe it’s just a problem on my end, though…)
> “$$$ is the speculation with Irving”
This is the sort of thing that turns me off when dealing with revisionists.
Well, C.T., I find your writing and your argument here incoherent, particularly your first paragraph, which is illiterate as English and incomprehensible. Sorry for saying that, but I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about or insinuating.
That you haven’t read Weber or Irving makes your stance even weaker than before. You said you had differences in your viewpoint on the Holocaust from Yeager and Scott. You don’t have any difference that I can see. You have nothing.
Even if you were a millionaire, you’d never get those four individuals altogether in a room, particularly David Irving. You have no idea what his personality is.
You’re getting your knickers in a twist about my recommendations. Many of the books can either be found online or in libraries. I also wasn’t necessarily targeting you, but trying to widen the choices, particularly for Americans who come to your website and can afford to provide you with a donation of fifty dollars or however much. I’m not rich either. Do you have problems with going to a library, too, in addition to financial constraints?
Again, your repeated argument is that you’re busy — again, but you seem to want to argue about things about which you have little knowledge and you don’t want to spell out just what your beef with Yeager and Scott is either.
Perhaps I can attribute this whole discussion to the temperamentalism of the Spanish spirit?
I can bow out of commenting in the future here as easy as pie and just be an observer. There’s no need for me to write and then find my words only inspire upset and spluttering in incomprehensible English and without good reason. Life is too unhappy as it is, and, you’ve got more words to compose. So be it.
Temperamentalism certainly, but visitors can judge if it comes from my Spanish spirit or from somebody else…
I have seen and read enough to seriously doubt the holocaust narrative, but not having researched it like a historian, I have no right to deny it I guess. So, knowing what I know, even if Hitler had personally bitten of the head of every single victim they claim, and then shoved them into some magical oven, I would still support him.
Of course we must still support him. Did you read my quotation of the Swede in “Strong meat”?
I have now. Thank you. I only meant to say that, even if all revisionism should turn out to be false – it will not of course – I would still be a Hitlerite. But back to your swede, he is right of course Nordicism is the way to go, WN is shallow and not aware of its race in the positive sense, only in the negative sense, as in hating the other. I still sympathize with the neo-nazis though, they are the fighting men, we need intellectuals and fighters. Fight for the philosophy, and let the philosopers educate the fighters. 488.
Greetings, raaf1
When reading your message “Fight for the philosophy, and let the philosophers educate the fighters”, I’ve realized that’s just what I mean and want to express in that discussion with Mr. Tort on degenerate WN music: link
Greetings Musik ist Tot,
Thank you for the link, both the music and the discussion were entertaining at least and inspiring to say the least. I have been a silent reader as well for a long time, simply because I am no intellectual, and felt I could not discuss at the level of this site. I always felt I was more the “Bierkeller” type of guy, and the DS was a perfect platform for me. I enjoy classical music most of the time, folk music is a good second, but I have to admit that I am very much into black metal and several of its off-shoots as well. So I do qualify as a degenerate…..Maybe you could answer a question that has bothered me, and that is why the NS regarded Bela Bartok as entartet?! I fully understand why rock-music would be considered entartet, but Bartok? I just don’t get it. Cheers!
@ raaf1
> “even if all revisionism should turn out to be…”
Did you watch the David Irving video I embedded yesterday in this site?
I will.
Regarding holocaust, nazi flag and “balls”, what is your opinion on this, Cesar:
https://gab.ai/weev/posts/11879592
Here’s a screenshot of the whole context in case it does not show up in a link:
http://i.imgur.com/n4O06hK.png
What I have found most persuasive is just pointing out to the video showing old papers—that the Jewish presses were crying wolf (the 6 million figure) even before their ‘shoah’ started in 1942.
Normies just cannot refute these images which make them doubtful for the 1st time in their lives.
I wanted to polemicize the statement that “the truth does not matter”, only winning. What is your opinion?
Truth matters, that’s why I am not sure if revisionists are as right as they believe.