Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Month: October, 2015

Jews and Non-Jews

“Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divided all of you from us.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 12)

“You may even have Jews in your midst who did not learn their way of life from us, and did not inherit it from a Jewish forebear. We may have authentic gentiles in our midst: these single protests are of no account; they are extreme and irrelevant variations.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 21).

“I do not believe that the primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 23).

“You have your way of life, we ours. In your system of life we are essentially without ‘honor.’ In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you must forever appear godless.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 34).

“According to Jewish belief, the Jewish People constitutes a species of their its own…i.e., a special, separate act of Creation by the Almighty. ‘The thought of creating the Jewish People preceded every other thought’ of the Almighty when creating the Universe according to the teaching of Rabbi Samuel bar Isaac.” (Bereshith Rabba 1,5)

“When Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 111).

“Judaism, which was destroyed politically (as a result of the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.), went forth into the great world. It adapted its possessions to its wanderings. I once compared it to an army going to war, a ‘movable State.’

Jews were compelled to smuggle their goods across from frontier to frontier; so they chose abstract wares, easy to stubble; and this gave them ability, despite ghettos and restrictions, to enter everywhere; and so it is that the Hebrew people have penetrated everywhere.

The argument is that Judaism, by penetrating among the Gentiles (IN CHRISTIANS GUISE or otherwise), has gradually undermined the remnants of paganism. Such penetration has not been without deliberate Jewish conniving in the shape of assistance bestowed in a thousand ways, devices and disguises. It has been affected in great measure by crypto-Jews, who have permeated Christianity and spoken through the mouth of Christianity.

By these devices of their Jewish blood; and owing to an instance for ‘requital,’ they have gradually induced Christianity to accept what was left in it of pagan elements as their own; and it is they who, in principle (even though they are called by great Gentile names), of Democracy, of Socialism, and of Communism. All this achievement…has come about chiefly through unknown anonymous Jews, Jews in secret, either crypto-Jews who mingled among the Gentiles and nurtured great thinkers from among them; or, through the influence of Jews, who, in the great crises of liberty and freedom, have stood behind the scenes; or through Jewish teachers and scholars from the time of the Middle Ages.

It was disciples of Jewish teachers who headed the Protestant movements. These dogs, these haters of the Jews have a keen nose. In truth, Jewish influence in Germany is powerful. It is impossible to ignore it. Marx was a Jew. His manner of thought was Jewish. His keenness of intellect was Jewish; and one of his forebears was a most distinguished rabbi endowed with a powerful mind. The newspapers, under Jewish control, obviously served as an auxiliary in all movements in favor of freedom. Not in vain have Jews been drawn toward journalism. In their hands it became a weapon highly fitted to meet their needs…

The Gentiles have at last realized this secret, that Judaism has gradually penetrated them like a drug. The Gentile nature is in revolt, and is trying to organize the final battle. Christianity is trying to organize its last war against Judaism. And there is no doubt that this warfare…is being waged specifically against Democracy, against Socialism. This is another world wide warfare again against the forces of Judaism. I venture to think that Socialism in its highest form is the fruit of the Jewish spirit, and the fruit of the world outlook of the prophets. It is they who were the first Socialists.

War is now being waged against us {but unknown to most of Christianity. Because God’s People refuse to accept knowledge and recognize the enemy}, against Judaism, not in our own land, but in the great outer world where we are scattered. They would ‘smoke us out’ of all the cracks and crannies where we have hidden. They would exterminate us like bacilli, and be rid of us.” (N.H. Bialik, in an address delivered at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, May 11, 1933, which appeared in Lines of Communication, Palestine, July, 1933)

“The Western mind is incapable of thinking religiously.” (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, a Jew, p. 185).

“The Universal Israelite Alliance…addresses itself to every type of worship. It wishes to penetrate all religions, as it has found access to all countries…Let all men of enlightenment, without distinction of sec, find a means of union in the Universal Israelite Association, whose aims are so noble, so broad, and so highly civilizing…To reach out a friendly hand to all who, although born in a different worship from ours, offer us the hand of fellowship, acknowledging that all religions which are based on morality and acknowledge God ought to be friendly towards one another: thus to destroy the barriers separating what is destined one day to be united, that is the grand supreme object of our Alliance…I summon to our Association our brethren of every form of worship. Let them come to us…Our grand mission is to put the Jewish population in touch with the authorities in every country…to make our voices heard in the cabinets of ministers and in the ears of princes, whatever be the religion that is despised, persecuted, or attacked.” (Archives Israelites Universelle, tom. xxv, pp. 511-520 (1861). Quoted in Rev. S.J. Deschamps, Les Sociétés Secrètes et la Société, p. 24).

“For fifty years I have been a resolute partisan of assimilation of the Jews, and have believed in it. Today I confess my error. The American melting-pot will never produce the fusion of one Jew. Fifty years ago we were near to assimilating ourselves to the Americans. But since then two millions of our brother (or three) have arrived from the East, keeping their ancient traditions, bringing with them their old ideal. This army has submerged us. It is the hand of God. The Jew must differentiate himself from his neighbor; he must know it; he must be conscious of it; he must be proud of it.” (The Jewish Chronicle, April 28, 1911, M. Schindler, an American Rabbi).

“We are hostile to strangers, guests in all countries, and at the same time we find ourselves at home in all countries when we are masters there.” (Isaac Blumchen, Le Droit de la Race Supérieure).

“I do not intend,” declares Herzl, “to provoke a softening of opinion in our favor. It would be idle, and would lack dignity. I am content to ask the Jews if, in the countries where we are numerous, it is true that the position of advocates, doctors, engineers, professors, and employees of all kinds, belonging to our race (people), is becoming more and more intolerable.” (Le Droit de la Race Supérieure, Isaac Blumehen).

“[The Jews] fill in proportion, thanks to their insistence, more posts than the other communities, Catholic and Protestant. Their disastrous influence makes itself felt above all in affairs which have most weight in the fortune of the country; there is no enterprise in which the Jews have not their large share, no public loan which they do not monopolize, no disaster which they have not prepared and by which they do not profit. It is therefore, ill-considered to complain, as they always do, they who have all the favors and who make all the profits!” (Les Juifs (1847), Cerfberr de Medelsheim; also quoted by Gougenot des Mousseaux in Le Juif, (1869).

“More than ever the study of the Jewish problem is a pressing reality, but…the Jewish question is also more than ever ‘taboo’; one must not speak of it, still less study it. At most the right to deny its existence is recognized. Those even who should be most interested in finding a solution pretend to solve the problem by abstention or silence which is considered both a sane method and a high humanitarian idea…Judaism in its origins and expansions presents an ensemble of sentiments, notions, and ideas which are the source of veritable systems, religious, political and social; one has the right to discuss and contest these systems.” (Le Problème Juic, (1921), Georges Batault).

“The dispersion of the Jews has rendered them a cosmopolitan people. They are the only cosmopolitan people, and in this capacity must act, and are acting, as a solvent of national and racial differences. The great Ideal of Judaism is not that Jews shall be allowed to flock together one day in some hole-and-corner fashion, for, if not tribal, at any rate separatist objects; but that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations, a great Judaism, in fact, all the separate races and religions shall disappear…The new Constitution of the [Jewish] Board of Deputies marks an epoch in the history of that important institution…The real importance of the new Constitution is…that it provides a machinery for enabling the Jews of England to work together when the occasion requires, that in short it organizes the Jews of the whole Empire, and renders their aggregate force available in cases of emergency.” (Jewish World, February 9 and 16, 1883).

“…We aspire to corrupt in order to attain to govern…We have corrupted too much…I begin to fear that we will not be able to stem the torrent we have let loose. There are insatiable passions of which I did not guess, unknown appetites, savage hatreds which ferment around and under us…It has been very easy to pervert; will it also always be easy to muzzle the perverts?…I am disturbed, for I am getting old, I have lost my illusions, I do not wish, poor and deluded of everything to assist as a theatrical supernumerary in the triumph which I have created and which would repudiate me by confiscating my fortune and taking off my head. We have gone too much to the extreme in many things. We have taken from the people all the gods of heaven and earth which had their homage. We have torn from them their religious faith, their faith in monarchy, their honesty and their family virtues, and we hear in the distance their sinister roarings. We tremble, for the monster may devour us…The world is cinched on the declivity of democracy, and for some time for me democracy has meant demagogy.

“It is true that there is a distinct ‘Jewish idea’ in business and professional life which has eaten away the traditional principles of honor on which Anglo-Saxon life was erected. Every Jew knows that, every non-Jew knows it…It is true that beneath all the network of trivializing influences in literature, art, politics, economics, fashion, and sports, is Jewish influence controlled by Jewish groups. Their Orientalism has served as a subtle poison to dry up the sound serum of Anglo-Saxon morality on which this country thrived in its formative years.” (The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, Vol. IV, pp. 224-225).

“…the original mixed ancestry of the Jews and their subsequent history of intermixture with every people among whom they have lived and continue to live…” (Ashley Montagu, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, (1974) , p. 375).

“The word ‘ghetto’ is synonymous with the Jews: ‘ghetto, section of a city in which Jews lived. In the early Middle Ages their segregation in separate streets or localities was voluntary…The reason generally given for compulsory ghettos was that the faith of Christians would be weakened by the presence of Jews. Within the ghetto the inhabitants were usually autonomous, with their own courts of law and their own culture.” (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed., (1950), p. 772).

“London became after Waterloo the money market and the clearing house of the world …Every new economic enterprise of the British state appealed to the Jewish genius for commerce and especially for negotiation in its most abstract form – finance…The two things dovetailed one into the other and fitted exactly, and all subsidiary activities fitted in as well. The Jewish news agencies of the nineteenth century favored England in all her policy, political as well as commercial; they opposed those of her rivals and especially of her enemies. The Jewish knowledge of the East was at the service of England (Opium Wars, Indian Conquest). His international penetration of the European governments was also at her service, so was his secret information…The Jew might almost be called a British agent upon the Continent of Europe and still more in the Near and Far East…He was admitted to every institution in the State, a prominent member of his nation became chief officer of the English executive, and, an influence more subtle and penetrating, marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the stain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the tradition those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed the admixture.” (Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, pp. 222-223)

“There are two life-forces in the world I know: Jewish and gentile (non-Jewish), ours and yours…I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York, 1924, pp. 19, 23).

“…don’t kill the farmer, he’s too valuable to us.” (Jewish Motto).

“We Jews regard our race as superior to all humanity, and look forward, not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them.” (Goldwin Smith, Jewish Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, October, 1981)

“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.” (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

“But it has paid us even though we have sacrificed many of our own people. Each victim on our side is worth a thousand Goyim.” (Statement reported in a French Newspaper in 1773 after a meeting in the Rothschild home).

In an article by the Jew Victor Berger, one of the national leaders of the Socialist Party, wrote, in the Social Democratic Herald: “There can be no doubt that the Negroes and Mulattos constitute a lower race.”

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said Blacks: “…were people who ought to be eradicated and swept from the earth.” (Karl Marx, by Nathaniel Weyl).

“Jews may adopt the customs and language of the countries where they live; but they will never become part of the native population.” (The Jewish Courier, January 17, 1924).

“We are neither German, English or French. We are Jews and your Christian mentality is not ours.” (Max Nordrow, a German Zionist Leader, in The Jewish World)

“The chief difficulty in writing about the Jewish Question is the super-sensitiveness of Jews and non-Jews concerning the whole matter. There is a vague feeling that even to openly use the word ‘Jew,’ or expose it nakedly to print is somehow improper. Polite evasions like ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Semite,’ both of which are subject to the criticism of inaccuracy, are timidly essayed, and people pick their way gingerly as if the whole subject were forbidden, until some courageous Jewish thinker comes straight out with the old old word ‘Jew,’ and then the constraint is relieved and the air cleared…A Jew is a Jew and as long as he remains within his perfectly unassailable traditions, he will remain a Jew. And he will always have the right to feel that to be a Jew, is to belong to a superior race. No one knows better than the Jew how widespread the notion that Jewish methods of business are all unscrupulous. No existing Gentile system of government is ever anything but distasteful to him. The Jew is against the Gentile scheme of things.

He is, when he gives his tendencies full sway, a Republican as against the monarchy, a Socialist as against the republic, and a Bolshevik as against Socialism. Democracy is all right for the rest of the world, but the Jew wherever he is found forms an aristocracy of one sort or another.” (Henry Ford, Dearborn Independent)

“We are interested in just the opposite…in the diminution, the killing out of the Goyim.” (Reportedly spoken by a Jewish speaker in the Rothschild home in 1773)

“We intend to remake the Gentiles — what the Communists are doing in Russia.” (Rabbi Lewish Brown in How Odd of God, New York, 1924)

“Let us recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member. Organize, organize, until every Jew must stand up and be counted with us, or prove himself wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people.” (Louis B. Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1916-1939)

“I would willingly disenfranchise every Zionist. I would almost be tempted to proscribe the Zionist organizations as illegal and against the national interests…I have always recognized the unpopularity, much greater than some people think of my community. We [Jews] have obtained a far greater share of this country’s [England] goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach, on the whole, maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships, and intolerable in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us.” (Jewish-American Ambassador to India, Edwin Montague, The Zionist Connection, p. 737)

“You cannot be English Jews. We are a race, and only as a race can we perpetuate. Our mentality is of Edomitish character, and differs from that of an Englishman. Enough subterfuges! Let us assert openly that we are International Jews.” (From the manifesto of the “World Jewish Federation,” January 1, 1935, through its spokesperson, Gerald Soman).

“No one pretends that a Japanese or Indian child is English because it was born in England. The same applies to Jews.” (Jewish World, London September 22, 1915)

“A Jew remains a Jew. Assimilalation is impossible, because a Jew cannot change his national character. Whatever he does, he is a Jew and remains a Jew. The majority has discovered this fact, but too late. Jews and Gentiles discover that there is no issue. Both believed there was an issue. There is none.” (The Jews, Ludwig Lewisohn, in his book “Israel,” 1926)

“When some Jews say that they consider themselves as a religious sect, like Roman Catholics or Protestants, they do not analyze correctly their own attitude and sentiments…Even if a Jew is baptized or, that which is not necessarily the same thing, sincerely converted to Christianity, it is rare if he is not still regarded as a Jew; his blood, his temperament and his spiritual particularities remain unchanged.” (The Jew and the Nation, Ad. Lewis, the Zionist Association of West London; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 187)

“An energetic, lively and extremely haughty people, considering itself superior to all other nations, the Jewish race wished to be a Power. It had an instinctive taste for domination, since, by its origin, by its religion, by its quality of a chosen people which it had always attributed to itself [since the Babylonian Captivity], it believed itself placed above all others. To exercise this sort of authority the Jews had not a choice of means, gold gave them a power which all political and religious laws refuse them, and it was the only power which they could hope for. By holding this gold they became the masters of their masters, they dominated them and this was the only way of finding an outlet for their energy and their activity…The emancipated Jews entered into the nations as strangers…They entered into modern societies not as guests but as conquerors. They had been like a fenced-in herd. Suddenly the barriers fell and they rushed into the field which was opened to them. But they were not warriors…They made the only conquest for which they were armed, that economic conquest for which they had been preparing themselves for so many years…The Jew is the living testimony to the disappearance of the state which had as its basis theological principles, a State which anti-Semitic Christians dream of reconstructing. The day when a Jew occupied an administrative post the Christian State was in danger: that is true and the anti-smites who say that the Jew has destroyed the idea of the state could more justly say that the entry of Jews into society has symbolized the destruction of the state, that is to say the Christian State.” (Bernard Lazare, L’Antisémitisme, pp. 223, 361; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 221-222)

“The most important and pregnant tenet of modern Jewish belief is that the Ger {goy – goyim}, or stranger, in fact all those who do not belong to their religion, are brute beasts, having no more rights than the fauna of the field.” (Sir Richard Burton, The Jew, The Gypsy and El Islam, p. 73)

“Jew and Gentile are two worlds, between you Gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf…There are two life forces in the world Jewish and Gentile…I do not believe that this primal difference between Gentile and Jew is reconcilable…The difference between us is abysmal…You might say: ‘Well, let us exist side by side and tolerate each other. We will not attack your morality, nor you ours.’ But the misfortune is that the two are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. No man can accept both, or, accepting either, do otherwise than despise the other.” (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, pages 2, 19, 23, 30 and 95)

“The Jewish people, Rabbi Judah Halevy (the famous medieval poet and philosopher) explains in his ‘Kuzari,’ constitutes a separate entity, a species unique in Creation, differing from nations in the same manner as man differs from the beast or the beast from the plant…although Jews are physically similar to all other men, yet they are endowed [sic] with a ‘second soul’ that renders them a separate species.” (Zimmer, Uriel, Torah- Judaism and the State of Israel, Congregation Kehillath Yaakov, Inc., NY, 5732 (1972), p. 12)

Actually it seems to serve their twisted purpose! The basis of this belief is All non Jews are subhuman and are to be exploited (milked or beeved). When these folks get Irate and try to fight back they naturally see the enemy as being all “Jews” and not merely their Corrupt leaders.. Thus these leaders would use IaHUeH’s people as a shield to further their wicked ends. When attacked, the people tend to stick closer together.. According to what they are told to believe for a non-jew to confront a Jew is like Blasphemy… this makes it harder to Isolate the very Serious problem! It turns into a vicious cycle of destruction. And has caused the unnecessary Suffering and Death to Millions upon Millions of People…all for the benefit of a few.

It seems that the only effective Solution must come from the “Jewish” people themselves.. but they still aren’t listening.. because they are told that whenever someone even so much as mentions “Multi-national Banker” that it is because that person is an anti-semite and wants to Murder all “Jews” everywhere! I wonder how many millions of dollars have been spent by the ADL to keep people from talking bad about these “Multi-National (Power hungry, moneygrabbing, slimball, Lying, Thieving, Murderous, Sons of Belial) Bankers”!!!

ADRIEN ARCAND, Canadian political leader in New York Speech, October 30, 1937:There is nothing else in Communism – a Jewish conspiracy to grab the whole world in their clutches; and no intelligent man in the world can find anything else, except the Jews, who rightly call it for themselves a “paradise on earth.”

Jews are eager to bring Communism, because they know what it is and what it means. It is because Communism has not been fought for what it really is – a Jewish scheme invented by Jews – that it has progressed against all opposition to it. We have fought the smoke-screen presented by Jewish dialecticians and publicists, refusing to fight the inventor, profiteer and string-puller. Because Christians and Gentiles have come to fear the Jews, fear the truth, and they are paralyzed by the paradoxical slogans shouted by the Jews.”

The fact that what are commonly spoken of as rights are often really privileges is demonstrated in the case of the Jews. They resent bitterly their exclusion from certain hotels, resorts and other places of gathering, and make determined efforts to horn in. But the moment any considerable number of them horns in, the attractions of the place diminish, and the more pushful Jews turn to one where they are still nicht gewuenscht …(“not wanted.”) “I am one of the few Goyim who have ever actually tackled the TALMUD. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other GOYIM. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation. It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish…”

“The Jewish theory that the GOYIM envy the superior ability of the Jews is not borne out by the facts. Most GOYIM, in fact, deny that the Jew is superior, and point in evidence to his failure to take the first prizes: he has to be content with the seconds. No Jewish composer has ever come within miles of Bach, Beethoven and Brahms; no Jew has ever challenged the top-flight painters of the world, and no Jewish scientist has equaled Newton, Darwin, Pasteur or Mendel. In the latter bracket such apparent exception as Ehrlich, Freud and Einstein are only apparent. Ehrlich, in fact, contributed less to biochemical fact than to biochemical theory, and most of his theory was dubious. Freud was nine-tenths quack, and there is sound reason for believing that even Einstein will not hold up: in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosomatic bumps of Gall and Spurzheim. But whether this inferiority of the Jew is real or only a delusion, it must be manifest that it is generally accepted. The GOY does not, in fact, believe that the Jew is better than the non-Jew; the most he will admit is that the Jew is smarter at achieving worldly success. But this he ascribes to sharp practices, not to superior ability.” (Minority Report: H. L. Mencken’s Notebooks)

Churchill foresaw and condoned massacres of Sudeten Germans


Winston Churchill

“[Germany must keep] not a single plane, no navy, their war industry must be absolutely broken up. A lot of blood will flow after the war. Many Germans will be killed in your [Edvard Beneš] country [Czechoslovakia] as well—it cannot be helped and I agree with it. After a few months we’ll say “that’s enough”, and we shall start on the work of peace: try the guilty men who stayed alive.”

– Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, April 3, 1943, over lunch with Edvard Beneš and Jan Masaryk.

Zbynék Zeman, Antonín Klimek, The Life of Edvard Beneš, 1884-1948: Czechoslovakia in Peace and War, New York: Oxford Uni. Press, 1997, p. 185.

The Czechoslovakian diplomat Edward Taborsky quoted what Beneš stated after lunch with Churchill:

“[the British prime minister approved] in principle the transfer of population as

the only possible solution of minority problems in Central Europe after the war.”

Edward Taborsky, President Edvard Beneš: Between East and West, 1938-1948, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1981, p. 125.

Zionist Terrorism in Norway

The Zionist influence on the recent terrorist attack in Norway and and how Jewish extremists have both led efforts to destroy the West and and now are trying take control of the anti-immigration movement to lead it to failure.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 4











Feminism: The Great Destroyer

An Interview of Dr. William L. Pierce

By Kevin Alfred Strom

KAS: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the “sexism” rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled — in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the “sexism” in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

WLP: Oh, it’s certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There’s a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill’s complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women’s welfare. But what were Anita Hill’s complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part — at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn’t talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office — but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas’s behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It’s a so-called “multicultural” society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

KAS: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn’t significant?

WLP: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate’s approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you’ll get a nasty glare; call one of them “my dear” or refer to her as a “girl” and you’ll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn’t want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I’ll go further and say that I really don’t approve of drunkenness under any circumstances — although I believe it’s only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn’t a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

KAS: That’s really irrational isn’t it? It doesn’t make sense to ignore human nature like that.

WLP: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion – so-called “affirmative action” — isn’t a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America’s breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

KAS: You just referred to feminism as “a destructive aberration” and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

WLP: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn’t a problem. But when a society begins to decay — when the men lose their self-confidence — then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

KAS: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

WLP: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it’s a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it’s a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it’s a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman’s primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it’s a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It’s Politically Correct.

And while we’re at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

KAS: OK. So that’s what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America’s decline?

WLP: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It’s not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It’s based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we’re all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There’s no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I’m not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I’m not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there’ll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won’t have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m not so optimistic as to believe that I’ll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there’s a very good chance we’re going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It’s not simply a matter of our deciding that we don’t like Mother Nature’s plan because it’s not fashionable any longer, and so we’ll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can’t change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there’s hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

It’s true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more “sensitive.” But it doesn’t work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she’s soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she’s watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who’ll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she’s headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She’ll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can’t afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. I’ve always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it’s wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

KAS: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women’s rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

WLP: Well, of course, I’m not in favor of taking anything away from women. I’d like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature’s way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn’t the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it’s no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I’d like for our society to be changed so that it’s possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it’s possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what’s expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there’s no need to take away anybody’s rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society — a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people — so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn’t begin undermining the health of the whole society.

KAS: But what about the people who control the media now — what about the legislators — who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

WLP: We’ll do whatever is necessary. Now we’re helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people’s attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who’ve jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, someday, for their irresponsibility.

KAS: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

WLP: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once.

Germany Has Paid Out More Than $61.8 Billion in Third Reich Reparations

No End in Sight

By Mark Weber

Published: 1999-02-15

Since 1951 Germany has paid more than 102 billion marks, about $61.8 billion at 1998 exchange rates, in federal government reparation payments to Israel and Third Reich victims. In addition, Germans have paid out billions in private and other public funds, including about 75 million marks ($49 million) by German firms in compensation to wartime forced laborers, the Welt am Sonntag newspaper reported recently. These figures are based on calculations by the German Finance Ministry, the influential paper said.

Of the total, Germany has paid out 78.4 billion marks ($47 billion) on the basis of the 1965 Federal Restitution Law (BEG) to persons, especially Jews, who had been persecuted during the Third Reich era on the basis of race, religion, origin or ideology.

While most of those who were alive during the Second World War are now dead, in recent years Germany was still paying out some 1.25 billion marks (about $75 million) to 106,000 pensioners in Israel, the United States and other countries on the basis of the 1965 Restitution Law.

A substantial portion of Germany’s reparations payments have been to the “Jewish Claims Conference” for Jews who had persecuted by the Third Reich. Recipients include former forced laborers and concentration camp internees, as well as individuals deprived of rights or property under the Nazis. Based in New York City, the Jewish Claims Conference (JCC) has operated for decades as a kind of supra-national governmental agency for Jews around the world.

Between 1992 and July 1998, the German federal government paid out 1.1 billion marks (about $647 million) to the JCC. During the first half of 1998, it made available 378 million marks (about $222 million) to the JCC in special one-time restitution payments for Jews who had persecuted by the Third Reich, according to a German government report issued on September 29, 1998. The JCC distributed up to 5,000 marks each to individual claimants.

In recent years Germany has paid out nearly 1.8 billion marks on the basis of special bilateral agreements concluded in 1991 and 1993 with Poland and three successor states of the former Soviet Union – the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus (White Russia) – even though in 1953 Poland and the Soviet Union each renounced any further reparations payments from Germany.

Because there’s no sign that German reparations payments will stop anytime soon, the Welt am Sonntag wonders if they might be “bottomless.” In coming years, Finance Ministry specialists estimate, Germany will pay out an additional 24 billion marks (about $14.4 billion at a recent exchange rate) in Third Reich reparations.

(Sources: J. Kummer, “Wird die Wiedergutmachung ein Fass ohne Boden?” Welt am Sonntag, Oct. 4, 1998, p. 54; Reuters’ dispatch, Bonn, Oct. 3, 1998; The Week in Germany, published by the German Information Center in New York, Oct. 2, 1998; Focus on “German Restitution for National Socialist Crimes,” May 1995 special report by the German Information Center; “Milliardenloch Wiedergutmachung,” D. National-Zeitung [Munich], Nov. 20, 1998, p. 7. See also: “West Germany’s Holocaust Payoff to Israel and World Jewry,” in the Summer 1988 Journal, pp. 243-250.)

In a U.S. Death Camp – 1945

by Werner Wilhelm Laska

Published: 1990-07-01


I was born August 31, 1924 in Berlin. When the National Socialists came to power, I was eight years old.

From 1930 until 1940 I attended school in Berlin. I did not join the Hitler Youth, but suffered no disadvantages because of that. At age twelve I became an altar boy at a Catholic church in Berlin. In fall 1942, I was drafted, like virtually all German men born in 1924, into the German Wehrmacht. After 10 weeks of training I was transferred to Infanterie-Lehr-Brigade 900, which had just been assigned to Russia. From December 1942 until April 1943, we fought the Red Army in southern Russia. After that we were regrouped and christened “Panzergrenadiers.” Our next action was in northern Italy and in Yugoslavia. At the beginning of 1944 my unit and others were assembled in France in order to form the new “Panzer-Lehr-Division.” On March 15, 1944 we went to Hungary to foil a coup d’état. In May 1944 we moved to France, near Chartres, awaiting the Allied invasion. We were in action from the beginning of the invasion of June 6, first against the British, from July 1944 against the Americans. I myself always fought in the front-line. With great luck I suffered only two injuries, to the knee and to the head, but approximately eighty percent of my comrades were killed or wounded. The remnants of the Panzer-Lehr-Division fell back fighting to Lorraine, where we rested, then fought again, in the Battle of the Bulge. We passed Bastogne and reached St Hubert, but then we ran out of gasoline and ammunition. The Allies’ total air supremacy was for us deadly and terrible. Again we had to retreat, after suffering very heavy losses. The Allies pushed us back just across the Rhine River. Unfortunately, the Americans were able to seize the bridge at Remagen and form a bridgehead on the other side of the Rhine.

My unit then consisted of a sergeant and about 40 men, from four or five different companies of our “Panzergrenadier-Lehr-Regiment 901.” The situation was already chaotic. Our 40 men were completely cut off from company, battalion, and regimental headquarters. Our next action was against the Remagen bridgehead. Since we were all experienced soldiers, we worked according to the following plan: in the morning – we always stayed in the next village from the American camp – we destroyed the first American tank when their armor began to move. We still possessed a 7.5 cm gun on an armored car. Then the Americans would stop, and we would retreat. The Americans would call in artillery and aircraft to bombard the point from which we had fired on the lead tank, but we would no longer be there. We played this game for a while. But the Ruhr Pocket became smaller and smaller; our regimental staff retreated from the north and we from the south. Smoke and fire were in the air everywhere.

We soon knew that our time had come! The roads were packed, and the Allied fighter planes were strafing everybody non-stop! They made no distinction between soldiers and civilians. Anything that moved was fair game.

On April 12, 1945 our unit decided to give up, not to die in the last minute. There were about 30 or 35 of us. On that day, in late afternoon, we arrived at a house, standing isolated near a creek. We parked our five vehicles, and then went down into the collar of that home. Some bottles of “hard stuff” went with us, so that we could welcome the Americans in a friendly mood.

I myself did not go down to the cellar; I stayed outside to have a look around. I wanted to be alone. My entire time in military service passed before me; the final step remained to be taken. I remembered all the things that had happened, the good and the bad, on and off duty. We had met nice people, and above all, nice girls. In Hungary, in Italy, in Croatia and in France I had served Mass in Catholic churches, an altar boy in German uniform. Of course, my belt and my pistol had to stay in the sacristy during the Mass. In those days, the Mass was said in Latin. The native priests were always delighted.

I was interrupted in my reveries by shooting and explosions near the house and the creek, in which I took shelter under a small bridge. After that I heard tracked vehicles rolling over the bridge. Then silence. My only weapon was my pistol, but we had decided to surrender. When it was completely dark I approached the house, where the others had been in the cellar. But I must admit that I had not much hope of finding them still there. The vehicles did not allow me a clear view. I heard a voice, but I could not recognize the language. It was unlikely that these soldiers were my comrades. I climbed up through the garden and approached the voice. I heard something like “Anthony world, Anthony world,” so by now I knew: “Americans”! I approached the soldier from the back and got around him. Suddenly he discovered me and was very much alarmed, rather than frightened, because I didn’t have a weapon in my hand. Seeing my pistol on the belt, he said to me: “Pistol, pistol.” I took it off my belt and gave it to him and noticed that he was relieved. He told me then to wait in the garden, while he went into the house to inform his company commander. After a short while he came back and ordered me to enter the house, then follow him. We went upstairs into a room where what looked to be a company staff was assembled. All the men had short haircuts – much shorter than in the German Army – and looked like farm boys. They asked me only whether I belonged to the same unit they had found in the house.

Another soldier led me into a little closet in which I had to pass the night. I could not sleep at first because of the new situation and my feelings; later I fell asleep anyway. The next morning the same fellow woke me up and directed me downstairs to wait in front of the house for a truck.

The American guards who arrived with the truck were nasty and cruel from the start. I was forced in with kicks and punches to my back. Other German soldiers were already on board. After a drive of an hour or two we arrived at an open field on which many German servicemen were already assembled, in rank and file. As we got off the truck, a large group of Americans awaited us. They received us with shouts and yells, such as: “You Hitler, you Nazi, etc….” We got beaten, kicked and pushed; one of those gangsters brutally tore my watch from my wrist. Each of these bandits already possessed ten or twenty watches, rings and other things. The beating continued until I reached the line where my comrades stood. Most of our water-bottles (canteens), rucksacks etc. were cut off, and even overcoats had to be left on the ground. More and more prisoners arrived, including even boys and old men. After a few hours, big trailer-trucks – usually used for transporting cattle – lined up for loading with human cattle.

We had to run the gauntlet to get into the trucks; we were beaten and kicked. Then they jammed us in so tightly that they couldn’t even close the hatches. We couldn’t even breathe. The soldiers drove the vehicles at high speed over the roads and through villages and towns; behind each trailer-truck always followed a jeep with a mounted machine gun.

In late afternoon we stopped in an open field again, and were unloaded in the same manner, with beating and kicking. We had to line up at attention just like recruits in basic training. Quickly, the Americans fenced us in with rolls of barbed wire, so there was no space to sit or to lie down that night. We even had to do our necessities in the standing position. Since we received no water or foodstuffs, our thirst and hunger became acute and urgent. Some men still had tea in their canteens, but there was hardly enough for everyone.

Next day the procedure began as on the day before; running the gauntlet into the cattle-trailers, then transport to the next open field. No drinking and no eating, but always fenced in – there is an American song: “… Don’t fence me in …” – as well as the childish behavior of most of the Americans: Punishing the Nazis! After the first night, when we were loaded again, some of us stayed on that field, either dead or so weak and sick that they could not move any more.We had been approaching the Rhine River, as we noticed but we had still one night to pass in the manner related. It was terrible! All this could not have been a coincidence. It must have been a plan, because, as we later learned, there was nearly the same treatment in all camps run by American units. During the war we heard about the “Morgenthau-Plan” and the “Kaufman-Plan,” and exactly that seemed to have been happening to us in those moments: the extermination of an entire people!

The next afternoon we crossed a bridge and were unloaded at an almost completed camp near Andernach (a small town on the Rhine River). There were already barbed wire fences around the enclosure. Within it were cages for several thousand people. We were driven into the cages and left alone. Water pipes were installed in each cage to pump water from the Rhine into the camp. We had to wait many hours before we could drink it The problem now was the lack of cups or containers among all but a few. We almost fought for the first drink, which really stank from the chlorine which had been added. After the first drink our hunger became enormous. The little grass in the cages was eaten immediately away by the human cattle.

I was with two comrades of my former company; we decided to stay together. Our possessions were one overcoat and one tent-cloth. In order to prepare for that first night, we had to scrape out a hole in the ground, in the earth, to get some cover against the wind. Against the rain we had none.

The weather in April/May/June/July 1945 was pretty bad: hot days, plenty of rain, and even snow and frosty nights. There at Andernach we had more space than on the three previous nights, but only enough to lie down on.

We did not sleep much that night, but discussed our future and the chances of survival under those circumstances.

Nobody can imagine how human beings can live in open air, on a field with little space, bad water and hunger rations for days, weeks and months. Concentration camps had, at least, barracks with heating, with beds, with blankets, with washrooms, with toilets, with warm meals, with bread, etc…

The men in the cages were divided into thousands, then into hundreds, and finally into tens for better distribution of rations. In one corner of each cage the inmates had to shovel a ditch as a toilet for all the men in the cage; of course, in standing or crouching position in open air. A layer of disinfectants had to be added every day. Facilities for washing were non-existent. Passing the nights was a great problem for each of us. None could sleep all night through – the longest one could do so uninterrupted was three or four hours. Every night 30 or 40 per cent of the inmates were walking around at any given time. The ground had been frozen and wet; we three comrades had only a tent-cloth and an overcoat for lying on and for cover. Sometimes in our hole there would be a few inches of rain water, in which we had to lie throughout the night. All three of us had to lie on one side; turning over on to the other side had to be done in unison. The position in the middle was the best, so every three days each of us got it once.

On the second day in Andernach, we received our first food ration. After hours of desperate waiting, each of us at last received a spoonful of raw beans, a spoonful of sugar, a spoonful of raw wheat, a spoonful of milk powder and sometimes – not every day – a spoonful of corned beef. If somebody “organized” a few boxes he could perhaps cook or warm up some of these raw foodstuffs. But for these empty boxes one was almost murdered. Of course, all the raw beans and wheat-corns were counted on distribution, as was everything else, too. In such situations a human being can easily become animal-like. Everybody was waiting the whole day long for the moment of the ration distribution. Then the battle for each tiny corn began; it must have been the organism’s survival instinct. One’s only interest was in food and water; how low can human nature sink?

After two or three weeks in Andernach, a large part of the inmates was transferred to the two camps of Sinzig/Remagen, north of the camp at Andernach. We were packed in box-cars and transported along the Rhine by train. The final capacity of Sinzig was about 180,000 prisoners, that of Remagen approximately 120,000. Both camps were almost adjacent, and were called “The Golden Mile.”

Sinzig was 4 kilometers long and 800 meters wide, with two rows of thirteen cages each, and in the middle a passageway; the cages were approximately 300 by 300 meters. All four sides of every cage had two barbed-wire fences, almost 3 meters high; in between those two fences ran a barbed-wire roll. Watch-towers with mounted machine guns were posted at all four corners. The Rhine River was just 100 yards away. Each cage held 7,000 people.

The “open-air” situation was exactly the same as in Andernach; likewise the water distribution, the toilets, the holes in the ground and the food-rations. Inside, all inmates had to keep 3 meters from the fences. Several prisoners who had come too close to the fences were shot; the guard did not shoot only once, they shot ten or twelve times – so those who infringed the 3-meter line invariably died.

My two comrades and I were put in cage 17, on the Rhine side; when we first entered, there was still grass and some clover on the ground but only for minutes – the hunger was too enormous!

After that, there was mud and only mud all around! We had to scratch a new hole as a bed for the three of us.

Every morning a truck passed by the cages to pick up the dead from the previous night, those who were either shot within or on the fences, or dead from hunger or typhoid, dysentery and other sicknesses. Of every ten attempting to escape, eight were shot and two got through. The youngest inmates were 13 or 14 years old, the oldest around 80. Sometimes the Americans picked up everybody whom they could find in the streets. Our impression of the Americans was that of gangsters, even worse than the Nazis had described them in their propaganda. We knew that the treatment of the American prisoners in Germany during the war had been excellent, unless they tried to escape. We did not occupy America, we did no harm to the Americans; why this hatred and this revenge? To play the savior for the suffering peoples in Europe would have been worthy. If only America had done the same before the last war, and also after 1945 throughout the world. Torturing defenseless children, women and men has nothing to do with glory!

One should not forget that the Germans treated the Jewish American prisoners in the German camps exactly as the other Americans.

The month of May in 1945 was rainy and cold, snow fell on at least two days. Sleeping in our holes became a horror for all of us. We got weaker and weaker, our bodies consisted almost of skin and bones.

At the main gate there was one cage with girls and women who were suffering even more than we did. These were females who had been in the Wehrmacht in the administrative or medical services. Everybody in the camp was trembling and shivering that May 1945. The youngsters, of whom a few thousand were in the the camp, had to walk the central alley (4 km long) and back every day with several bricks in their hands, just for the sport of the Americans. Many of those kids collapsed and could not stand up anymore.

On several days we saw injured prisoners who had been chased out of military hospitals and put in our camp. A ghostlike parade of men with crutches, empty sleeves, blind eyes marched the alley. We first thought these must be phantoms, but they were no spooks! One could also find in Sinzig former KZ-inmates, anti-Nazis, deserters, et al.

Occasionally, American soldiers came to the fences and traded cigarettes and C-rations for jewelry and watches – only a few of us possessed such things – and some conversations took place. When the Germans asked them why such treatment was administered, the answer was always because of the concentration camps – no mention of gassing at that time. Our men argued that the situation in the concentration camps and the one in our camp could not be compared, because one day in Sinzig was the equivalent of twenty days in a concentration camp. They had barracks, beds, wash-rooms, toilets, heating, hospitals, warm meals etc., etc. As our punishment for the killing of Jews we had none of these facilities, the Americans told us. Therefore, they treated us like cattle or beasts. Many deaths in our camp resulted from the collapse of our holes dug for shelter, as well as from typhoid, from dysentery, from hunger, from approaching the fences, from attempts to escape, etc.

Our day’s work waiting a few hours in a line for water in the morning; waiting many hours for the food-ration in the afternoon. In general, waiting for death.

Those who had not hated Americans before now changed their minds completely.

After three or four weeks we received our first ration of bread. But one loaf of bread for 40 men; several days later we got two raw potatoes.

Outside the camp the Americans were burning food which they could not eat themselves.

The attempts to escape and the shooting by the fences increased the longer we were in the camp; the desperate situation must have been the reason. In the middle of June 1945 the Americans began to release some prisoners. People who lived in the Rhineland could get discharged. At the end of June 1945, our cage 17 and the opposite one, 16, became the last in the entire camp, as cage 19 was emptied.

We speculated that the Americans must release everybody soon, or all of us would die in the next one or two months; there was no other alternative!

In the first days of July – after being in this hell for over 80 days – I got a fever and fell very ill. All others in the cages who had displayed those symptoms died shortly afterwards. My fever must have reached over 40°C (104°F); I had to refuse the daily ration because I couldn’t eat anything. I knew that my chances of surviving in the camp were nil: there was no hospital. I had survived all the battles and combat in the war with two small injuries, but now my hour had come! I then decided not to die slowly within two or three days, but instead to die quickly, on or at the fence. The chances of getting through were 2 in 10. I let two of my comrades know that they should see next morning whether I had been shot or whether I had been lucky. Giving them the address of my parents, in order to notify them in the first case, I made ready to escape or to die a quick death that night. After 84 days under these conditions, death might be a relief.

After sunset I loitered near the fence of the former cage 19, at a place where the barbed wire seemed to be a little looser than at other points. Along the whole length of the fence there marched four single American sentries, each with about 70 meters to guard. Beside the four guards a jeep – with headlights and a mounted machine gun – drove back and forth along the entire length. At both ends of the fence were the watchtowers, also with machine guns. At that moment there were many bullets in store for me. At a point shortly after midnight, when the guards and the crew of the jeep had just been relieved, one guard passed me, just as the jeep came from the other side and blinded, for a moment, the next guard coming up. Now I went, or better, tore through the first fence, then jumped over the concertina wire and through the second fence – my fever forgotten, and bleeding all over mybody from the barbed wire. I left most of my uniform on the wire, but at the moment I felt nothing. Yet I was awaiting any second the hits in my body, then the sounds of the gunfire. Behind the fence I crept meter by meter, across the path of the jeep, still awaiting the shots. Suddenly I fell in a hole. It must have been 20 or 30 meters past the guard-line. By now, I could not move; I just lay in that hole shaking. I could hear the guards and the jeep going back and forth. My uniform was in rags and shreds, my hands, my chest, my legs, my back and my chin were bleeding. There were shots, but from other cages. After an hour I was able to creep out of my hole. I reached the other end of the cage, about 300 meters away. It took me about two hours to negotiate the different fences and escape the camp.

I had to cross railway tracks and a main road to reach the hills. I climbed on all fours, and had to rest again for four hours. A woman found me and told that there was an isolated farm in which escaped prisoners could always find first-aid. I finally reached this farm and found experts who knew how to treat men like me. There were seven or eight other fellows there, all escaped from Sinzig or Remagen. We were put up with blankets in the stable. As my first nourishment I got tea, then oatmeal gruel, and after several days, bread, milk and some meat. After 3 or 4 weeks I could leave my saviors with gratitude.

I learned during that time that a few days after my flight the French had taken over the camps and transported all the prisoners to France for slave-labor.

After approximately six weeks of freedom, the French caught me in a village and sent me to France to work in coal mines and other nasty places, where my ordeal continued. In 1948 I escaped to Spain, where I was again imprisoned in the famous concentration camp “Nanclares del la Oca” and returned to France.

On January 7, 1950 the French discharged me to Germany. Shortly afterwards I immigrated to Canada, where I lived until 1960.

The Bolsheviks Of Russia


Most of the top Bolshevik officials in communist Russia from 1917-onward were Jewish by race/ethnicity. The few non-Jewish officials in the list below are specifically noted as being not Jewish. [Note on name spellings: Russian names are spelled differently depending upon the source, e.g., Yoffe is also spelled Ioffe and sometimes Joffe; Grigory is sometimes Grigori or even Grigorii].

It should be noted that most of the Bolshevik leaders who were not Jewish nonetheless had Jewish wives, e.g. Bukharin, Rykov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kirov, Dzherzhinsky, Lunacharsky. As such, the Jewish taproot that ran through Soviet government from 1917-onward is larger than many people realize. Also, the term ‘Bolshevik’ is used rather loosely here.

  1. Vladimir I. Lenin [1870-1924]: first Premier of the USSR; Marxist theoretician; a lawyer; founder of the Bolsheviks [1903]; supreme dictator of early Bolshevik regime; founder of the Comintern; author of the Marxist handbook “State and Revolution”; Lenin was one-quarter Jewish, and is rumored to have been married to a crypto-Jew, however, evidence of that seems lacking.
  2. Joseph Stalin [1879-1953]: an early Bolshevik; supreme dictator of Soviet Union from 1927-1953. After V. Lenin’s death, and prior to 1927, the Bolshevik regime was run by a triumvirate composed of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin. Stalin was the editor of the Bolshevik newspaper, Pravda [“Truth”]. Stalin was married to a Jewess, i.e. his third marriage, which apparently wasn’t officially formalized. Stalin was not a vigorous supporter of forcing Communism upon other countries — unlike Trotsky — a feature which likely prevented a Soviet assault upon various Western countries. [Not Jewish].
  3. Leon Trotsky [t/n Bronstein] [1879-1940]: Trotsky was a Menshevik; was Commissar of Foreign Affairs; supreme commander of the Soviet Red Army; member of Politburo; he rebelled against Stalin and his supporters and was murdered by Stalin for that reason. Trotsky strongly advocated the idea of global — not simply local — Marxist revolution.
  4. Lazar M. Kaganovich [1893-1991]: a prime director of mass-murder for Stalin; held a series of vocations, including commissar of transport, heavy industry and the fuel industry; a Politburo member; he was Stalin’s brother-in-law and also his chief advisor; many execution orders bore Kaganovich’s signature [1], evidence that he had the power to order the deaths of civilians [2]. During the 1930s, he was in charge of the deportations of “enemies of the state” to Siberia; was nicknamed the “Wolf of the Kremlin” because of his penchant for violence. He was considered by many to be the most powerful and important man under Stalin. Died of old age in Moscow.
  5. Grigory Zinoviev [aka Apfelbaum; aka Radomyslsky] [1883-1936]: great pal of Lenin; member of the Central Committee; chairman of the Comintern; member of Politburo; executive of secret police; first president of the Third International; A. Lunacharsky called him “one of the principal counsellors of our Central Committee and [he] belongs unquestionably to the four or five men who constitute the political brain of the Party.”
  6. Grigori Y. Sokolnikov [1888-1939]:a Bolshevik; friend of Trotsky; Commissar of Finance; a diplomat; member of the “Left Opposition”; Soviet ambassador to England; creator of the “chervonetz,” the first stable Soviet currency; was part of “Russian” delegation that signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty in 1918; member of the Central Committee and Politburo.
  7. Moisei Uritsky [1873-1918]: Uritsky was a Menshevik; chief of the Petrograd Cheka, in which capacity he ordered many people who opposed Communism to be executed as “counter-revolutionaries”; Commissar for Internal Affairs in the Northern Region; the commissar of the Constituent Assembly; member of the Central Committee; a member of the “Revolutionary Military Center.”
  8. Felix Dzherzhinsky [1877-1926]: a Pole; a high-strung fanatic; founder/director of the Cheka [All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage], which was later renamed the State Political Directorate [GPU], which later became the OGPU and then the NKVD [Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs]; member, Central Committee; Commissar of Transport. [Not Jewish but philosemitic and married to a Jew].
  9. Maxim Litvinov [aka Wallakh] [1876-1951]: Soviet foreign minister/diplomat/ambassador; in 1933, he persuaded the United States to recognize the Communist Soviet government as “legit” — thanks, in part, to America’s president F. D. Roosevelt being part-Jewish; first chairman, State Committee on the Anthem [official musical anthems].
  10. Lavrenti Beria [1899-1953]: member of the Cheka; later became head of the Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs [NKVD] in Georgia, then later the NKVD proper. Beria had large numbers of prisoners executed [3]; was involved in the Atomic Bomb project in the USSR; [Beria was roughly 1/4 Jewish from his mother’s ancestry].
  11. Yakov [Jacob] Sverdlov [aka Solomon] [1885-1919]: member, “Revolutionary Military Center”; member, Central Committee; close buddy of Lenin; aided Lenin with Lenin’s political theories; Sverdlov ordered the massacre of the Czar’s family in 1918. Sverdlov succeeded Kamenev and became the second Jewish president of the so-called “Soviet Republic.”
  12. Sergei M. Kirov [1886-1934]; early Bolshevik; member of the Politburo; Secretary of the Central Committee; Communist Party boss in Leningrad. Stalin used Kirov’s murder in 1934 to justify the party purges and treason trials of the late 1930s. [Apparently not Jewish but married to a Jew].
  13. Nikolai V. Krylenko [1885-1938]: an early Bolshevik; member of editorial board of Pravda; member of the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet; famous chess player; member of the Communist Party Central Committee; a military commissar; as President of the Supreme Tribunal he prosecuted most political trials in the 1920s; in 1931, Stalin appointed Krylenko Commissar of Justice; he was involved in the convictions of many Communist Party members during the Great Purges. [Not Jewish].
  14. Karl Radek [aka Sobelsohn] [1885-1939]; early revolutionary; old confidante of Lenin; member of the Central Committee; an “international” Communist activist; a key player in the creation of the Comintern; a writer for the Soviet government newspaper Izvestia; participated in the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations with Germany; he also was active in Germany, working with Jewish-German Communist Rosa Luxemburg.
  15. Viacheslav I. Molotov [1890-1986]: early Bolshevik; helped found Pravda newspaper; head of the Ukrainian Communist Party; member of the Politburo; Commissar for Foreign Affairs; headed a Politburo commission to “eliminate the kulaks as a class.” [Apparently not Jewish but philosemitic; his wife was Jewish, named Zhemchuzina].
  16. Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko [1884-1939]: a former Menshevik; Chief of Political Administration of the Red Army; an unofficial ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Poland; Commissar for Military Affairs in Petrograd; Commissar of War; led the Red Army invasion of the Ukraine; led the attack on the Winter Palace; editor of the Menshevik “Nashe Slovo” newspaper.
  17. Yakov [Jacob] Yurovsky [y/b/d unknown]: head of Ekaterinburg Cheka; “Commissar of Justice” for Ural Regional Soviet; the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murders of Czar Nicholas II and his family in 1918. The murder of mild-mannered Nicholas was carried out almost completely by Jews, including Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, in addition to Yurovsky.
  18. Grigory Sergo Ordzhonikidze [1886-1937]; member of the Politburo; Commissar for Heavy Industry; helped solidify Bolshevik power in Armenia and Georgia; Chairman of the Caucasus Central Committee of the Communist Party; First Secretary of the Transcaucasian Communist Party Committee; Chairman of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party; became Stalin’s top economic official. [Apparently not Jewish].
  19. Genrikh [Henry] Yagoda [1891-1938]; a Polish Jew; former Cheka member; an officer in SMERSH, the Ninth Division of the OGPU, its liquidation arm; People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs; chief of the NKVD; also in charge of gulag forced-labor camps. Developing fast-acting poisons was a Yagoda hobby; he created a laboratory for that purpose.
  20. Lev Kamenev [aka Rosenfeld] [1883-1936]; member of the Central Committee; Chairman of the Moscow Soviet; member of Politburo; author of Marxist handbook “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” 1920; was elected first President of new Bolshevik government, aka “Soviet Republic” [Lenin was Premier]; was married to Trotsky’s sister.
  21. Anatoly V. Lunacharsky [1875-1933]; an early Marxist; Commissar for Education and Enlightenment; League of Nations ambassador; key player in persuading Russian workers to support the Bolshevik Revolution; was an author – wrote the “Revolutionary Silhouettes” of top Bolshevik pals; [Apparently not Jewish but married to a Jew].
  22. Fedor [Theodore] Dan [1871-1947]: was a Menshevik; was a member of the editorial board of the Menshevik journal “Iskra”; was author of the book “The Origins of Bolshevism” [1943], where he claimed that Bolshevism had been chosen by history to be “the carrier of socialism”; but he was actually an opponent of most Bolshevik ideas; he was sent into exile in 1921 after being arrested; he was married to Menshevik leader Julius Martov’s sister.
  23. Nikolai Bukharin [1888-1938]: Lenin’s chief Marxist theorist; general secretary/chairman of the Comintern; member of the Politburo; member, Central Committee; he was editor of Pravda and also Izvestia, a political newspaper; led, with Rykov, the “Right Opposition” to defend the NEP [New Economic Policy]; [Apparently not Jewish yet married to a Jew].
  24. Nikolai Yezhov [1895-1939]: early Bolshevik; served in various capacities in the Cheka, GPU, and OGPU; was military commissar in various Red Army units; was G. Yagoda’s deputy; People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs; head of NKVD; was deputy People’s Commissar of Agriculture for the USSR.
  25. Mikhail I. Kalinin [1875-1946]; early Bolshevik; cofounder of the newspaper Pravda; nominal, “puppet” president of Soviet Union until 1946; replaced Sverdlov as Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party; Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR.
  26. Isaac Steinberg [y/b/d unknown]; Commissar of Justice. Later brought Jewish-flavored radicalism to Australia.
  27. Alexei Rykov [1881-1938]; Premier of Soviet Union until 1930; member of Lenin’s Politburo; Commissar of the Interior; Chairman of the Supreme Council of National Economy; Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars; led the “Right Opposition” with Bukharin to defend the NEP [New Economic Policy]. [not Jewish, but married to a Jew].
  28. Matvei D. Berman [y/b/d unknown]: chief of gulag system and Deputy Commissar of the NKVD; brother of Boris.
  29. Naftaly Frenkel [y/b/d unknown]: a director of the gulag prison camp system; Turkish-born; was works chief/chief overseer of the one-hundred-and-forty-mile-long Belomor [White Sea-Baltic] canal project in Russia, a canal linking the White Sea and the Baltic, built from 1931–34; it was created entirely with slave labor; 60,000 workers died building the canal, the project having a mortality rate of roughly 10%.
  30. Adolph Yoffe [aka Ioffe] [1883-1927]: Commissar of Foreign Affairs; ex-Menshevik; close friend of Trotsky’s; helped publish the Pravda newspaper; delegate at the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations; member of the State General Planning Commission; was later Soviet ambassador to China, Japan and Austria.
  31. Lev Inzhir [y/b/d/ unknown]: chief accountant for the gulag prison system.
  32. Boris Berman [ -1938]: served as the Byelorussian NKVD’s Commissar until 1938; brother of Matvei.
  33. K. V. Pauker [y/b/d unknown]: head of the Operations Department of the NKVD.
  34. Aleksandr Orlov [aka L. Feldbin] [1898-1970]: member of the Cheka; advisor to Spanish Communists in Spain; commander, Soviet Red Army; later worked at the Law School of the University of Michigan in America [!].
  35. Ilya Ehrenburg [1891-1967]: Soviet propaganda minister during WWII; delegate for Moscow in the Supreme Soviet; Communist writer; organizing member of JAC [Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee]; worked for Izvestia newspaper; performed research regarding Spain for the NKVD; author of book “The Ninth Wave,” and winner of two Stalin Prizes.
  36. Yemelyan Yaroslavsky [t/n M. I. Gubelman]; [birth/death dates unknown]; head of the Central Control Commission; apparently was in charge of stopping the Christian religion in Russia.
  37. Pavel [aka Paul] Axelrod [1850-1928]; co-founded Russia’s first socialist party with Georgii Plekhanov.
  38. A. B. Khalatov [ ]; Commissar of publishing, head of food allocations in the Soviet Union.
  39. Yona Yakir [ -1937]; Soviet military general; a commander in Kiev; purged by Stalin.
  40. A. A. Slutsky [ ]; boss of Boris Berman [see above].
  41. Semyon [aka S.G.] Firin [ ]; a commander at the White Sea-Baltic canal project.
  42. Jacob [aka Yakov] Rappoport [ ]; a Latvian Jew; deputy commander at the White Sea-Baltic canal project.
  43. V. Volodarsky [t/n M. M. Goldstein] [1891-1918] ; a Bolshevik; press commissar in Petrograd; Ukranian; lived in America for some time; assassinated.
  44. G. D. Sachs [1882- ]; a Bolshevik; a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee which directed the Bolshevik takeover of Russia.
  45. Dziga Vertov [t/n Denis or Dennis Kaufman] [1896- ]; involved in Soviet propaganda programs involving film/movies.
  46. Mikhail Koltsov [ ]; a top Communist journalist in Russia.
  47. Jaan Anvelt [1884 – 1937]; head of the Estonia government controlled by Moscow.
  48. Martyn Latsis [ ]; top Cheka official; author of an early book about the Cheka.
  49. I. A. Teodorovich [ ]; Commissar of Provisions.
  50. Simon [aka Simeon] Dimanstein [ ]; Commissar of Nationalities; author.
  51. Jacob Fuerstenberg [aka “Ganetzsky”] [t/n Jakub Hanecki] [1879-1937]; Polish; a top aide to Lenin and a key player in Lenin’s rise to power.
  52. Alexander Israel Helphand [aka “Parvus”] [1867-1924]; helped Trotsky develop the theory of “permanent revolution.”
  53. David Riazanov [aka Goldenbach] [1870-1938]; responsible for Soviet government publication of Karl Marx’s literary works.
  54. Mikhail Milshtein [ ] a military officer; deputy director of Soviet military intelligence during WWII.
  55. Gregory Gershuni [1870-1908]; an early revolutionary in Russia; was involved in the assassinations of Russian political leaders.
  56. Polina S. Zhemchuzhina [1884 -1970]; wife of Molotov; Deputy Commissar of the Food Industry; Commissar of the Fish Industry.
  57. Nikolai N. Sukhanov [aka Nikolai Gimmer] [1882-1940]; an economist; a member of the Contact Committee; an author.
  58. I. P. Meshkovsky [aka I. P. Goldenberg] [ ]; a member of the Central Committee.
  59. David A. Dragunsky [1910-1992]; a Colonel-General in the Soviet army.
  60. Ivan D. Chernyakhovsky [1906-1945]; Soviet military general.

[1] Kaganovich’s signature as appearing on execution orders/lists: the book “The Black Book of Communism,” Harvard University Press, USA, 1999, page 189, hardcover.

[2] about Kaganovich’s crimes: Here

[3] Beria instigating the mass executions of the Katyn massacre: book “The Black Book of Communism,” page 368-369, hardcover.

Sources for the above document include, but are not limited to: the book “Red October,” by Robert V. Daniels, Scribners, 1967; the book “The Harvest of Sorrow,” by Robert Conquest, Oxford University Press, 1986; the book “The Black Book of Communism,” by Stephane Courtois et al, Harvard University Press, 1999; plus web searches and public library research.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 3











Interview: Jürgen Graf


By Jürgen Graf

Published: 2008-01-02

In January, I was fortunate to be able to conduct the following interview with leading Swiss revisionist researcher, author and scholar Jürgen Graf. Graf is the author of countless articles and has authored the devastating analysis of Raul Hilberg“s work, The Giant with Feet of Clay. He has also co-authored with Carlo Mattogno several of the most important analyses of various concentration camps including: Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study, and Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy. Jürgen Graf was born in Switzerland in 1951. He studied Scandinavian, English and Roman languages at the University of Basel where he was awarded the degree of Magister. For four years he taught German at the Chinese Culture University in Taipai, Taiwan. He has researched and authored various revisionist works since 1991. In 1998, he was, on account of his revisionist books and related writings on the Holocaust, sentenced to 15 months imprisonment without probation at Baden, Switzerland, on the ridiculous charge of “racial discrimination.” Since 2002, Graf has been in exile. Most recently, Graf has been living in Russia with his wife Olga, a historian from Minsk.

Q: What have you been working on recently?

Graf: Unfortunately the circumstances do not allow me to carry out any research. Since 2002, I have only published about ten articles, most of which appeared in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung. As you know, there will be no more issues of this fine journal, but I can always write in Sans Concessions, a journal edited by French revisionist Vincent Reynouard, who recently published my attack on Guillaume Faye (“The new Jewish question” or the end of Guillaume Faye) and will also publish my article about the number of victims of the Majdanek Concentration Camp, which is at present being translated into English.

However, I have found the time to write a very large book for the Russian market. It was translated into Russian by historian Anatoli Ivanov and will probably come out in April this year. The title is The New World Order and the Holocaust. Like Germar Rudolf“s Lectures on the Holocaust, the book has the form of a dialogue. A German lecturer, whom I christened Dr. Friedrich Bruckner, is holding a seminar at a Russian institute for the benefit of students who are specializing in German history. About 5% of the contents are taken from Lectures on the Holocaust; it goes without saying that I duly acknowledge this.

Q: Tell us something about your book Holocaust Revisionism. The arguments.

Graf: I wrote this booklet in 1996. If I had to write it today, I would of course add a huge amount of new information, as revisionist research has greatly progressed since 1996. Nevertheless I think that the booklet still is a pretty good introduction to revisionism. – Somebody told me the translation contains one or two glaring errors. I have never seen the printed version.

Q: What is the case the Swiss government has against you?

Graf: In 1998, I went on trial in Baden, Switzerland, for my first four revisionist books plus the brochure About the decline of Swiss freedom. Together with my editor Gerhard Förster, who was so sick at the time of the trial that he had to be brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair, I had been accused of “racial discrimination” on the basis of the “Anti-Racism law” which forbids unspecified crimes such as “denying or minimizing genocide or other crimes against humanity”. This law had been introduced at the behest of Switzerland“s Jewish community. I was sentenced to 15 months in prison without probation and a fine of about 40.000 Swiss francs; Förster got 12 months without probation plus an fine, but he died in September, nine weeks after the trial. Of course, the judge did not make the slightest effort to discuss the arguments exposed in my books. After the Supreme Court had confirmed the verdict, I went into exile on August 15, 2000, my 49th birthday. Should I return now, I would most probably face a new accusation because of the books and articles which I wrote abroad and which are on the Internet, and the fine, which I am of course unable to pay, would be transformed into an additional prison term. Altogether I would presumably go to prison for two to three years. Neither my wife Olga nor myself are willing to accept such a long separation voluntarily.

On my website you can find a long article in the English language which I wrote in Teheran in late 2000 and which contains additional information about my trial. The title of the article is Holocaust Revisionism and its Political Consequences.

Q: Is there any chance that the anti-revisionist laws will be abolished in at least some of the European countries which have adopted them?

Graf: The decision of Spain“s Supreme Court came as a great and pleasant surprise to me, but I am afraid it is an isolated case. In Spain, the Jews are by no means as powerful as in Germany, Austria, France, or Switzerland. Unlike the three first countries, Switzerland has the institution of the “popular initiative”, which means that any party, organization or group can enforce a plebiscite about introducing a new law or abolishing an existing one if it gathers 50.000 signatures within one year. In August 2007, the “Swiss Democrats”, a small right-wing party, launched such an initiative to seek the abolition of the “Anti-Racism Law”, but on their own, they will not possibly be able to gather 100,000 signatures. On the other hand, collecting them will be very easy if Christoph Blocher, the most popular politician of the country, who was recently kicked out of the government, supports the initiative. Although he has criticized the “Anti-Racism Law” and demanded its abolition, I doubt that he will muster the necessary courage to back the initiative. Such a step would constitute a declaration of war against the Jews, and Blocher is the owner of a large company, which the Jews will spare no effort to ruin if the acts against them. – According to an opinion poll in the Zurich weekly Die Weltwoche, a slight majority of the population favors abolishing the law. But in case of a vote, the possibility of fraud is very real.

Q: What do you consider the most important revisionist discoveries of the last years?

Graf: The archeological excavations on the site of the alleged “extermination camp” Belzec (Eastern Poland) and three documents which Mattogno and I found in Russian archives and which prove with absolute certainty that the morgues of the Birkenau crematoria could not possibly have been used as homicidal gas chambers, as the orthodox historians claim.

Ironically, the first of these two discoveries was made possible thanks to the abysmal stupidity of the exterminationists. In 2000, the Holocaust Memorial Museum and a similar Polish organization published a book about the excavations at Belzec (Andrzej Kola, Belzec. The Nazi camp for Jews in the Light of Archeological Sources. Excavations 1997-1999, Warsaw/Washington 2000). Kola pretended to have found material evidence corroborating that Belzec had indeed been an extermination camp. But as Carlo Mattogno brilliantly demonstrates in his book Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research and History (Theses & Dissertation Press, Chicago 2004), the results of the excavations conclusively show that only some thousand people perished at Belzec, while the orthodox historians claim 600.000 victims. The presence of human remains on the site of the camp can easily explained by two factors: In 1941, Belzec had been a very inhumanely ruled labor camp before becoming a transit camp in March 1942, and between March and December 1942, 434.000 Jews were deported to this camp before being transferred either into the occupied Eastern Territories or to labor camps in the Lublin district. (The figure of 434.000 results from a German document, the “Höfle telegram”, which is doubtless authentic but constitutes no evidence of mass murder, as David Irving mendaciously claims.) Unavoidably, a certain number of these 434.000 Jews must have died at Belzec. – Moreover the excavations showed that the two “gas chambers” described by witnesses never existed. By ordering these excavations and foolishly publishing their results, the Holocaust Memorial Museum and its Polish friends have furnished irrefutable evidence that Belzec was not an extermination camp.

The three documents about the Birkenau crematoria were published and commented in Carlo Mattogno“s article „Die Leichenkeller der Krematorien von Birkenau im Lichte der Dokumente“ (Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 3/2003). Their background is a very gloomy one: Birkenau was infested by rats which feasted on the corpses of deceased prisoners (in 1943, the daily mortality at Auschwitz and Birkenau was about 80, the main cause being spotted fever and other diseases). On 20 July 1943, a German physician, SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr. Wirths, wrote a letter to the chief of the Zentralbauleitung (Central Construction Office) of Auschwitz, Karl Bischoff, urging him to set up “Leichenkammern (“corpse chambers”, i. e. provisional morgues) in the camp in order to reduce the number of rats; being the carriers of bubonic plague, these beasts could provoke an outbreak of this dread disease which would have had “unimaginable consequences” (Wirths). On 4 August, Bischoff replied that such “corpse chambers” were not necessary, as the dead bodies would from now on be taken to the crematoria twice a day. This means that the morgues of the crematoria, which allegedly served as gas chambers, could be used at any time for storing corpses prior to cremation and could not possibly be used as gas chambers. – In May 1944, the problem seems to have appeared again, for on the 22th the new chief of the Central Construction Office, Jothann, answering a new letter on the subject, stated that he would order the corpses to be taken to the crematoria every morning. According to the orthodox historians, up to 400.000 Hungarian Jews were gassed at Birkenau between mid-May and early July 1944. If this were true, the morgues would have been used as gas chambers all the time, so how could any corpses have been stored there!

It would really be interesting what Robert Jan van Pelt, Deborah Lipstadt or Michael Berenbaum would answer if confronted with these documents. We can easily understand why these people are mortally afraid of an open debate.

Q: Which revisionist researchers do you consider the most important ones?

Graf: In alphabetical order: Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Wilhelm Stäglich. Due credit must also be given to the pioneer, the great Frenchman Paul Rassinier, even if his books contain many errors (which is normal for any pioneer).

Q: Are new revisionist books still necessary, or is it sufficient to spread the existing ones?

Graf: Spreading the existing books – especially Dissecting the Holocaust and Lectures on the Holocaust – is very important indeed, but the task of revisionist researchers is far from finished. Already in 2002, Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno and myself planned to write a huge documentation about Auschwitz, Auschwitz: The Real History. But Germar is now in jail; Carlo (who would write the bulk of the work) and I have the material, but we lack the necessary resources and have no editor. Otherwise the book could be ready in about 15 to 18 months; if we had a qualified translator (who would of course have to be paid adequately), he or she could translate every chapter as soon as it would be available in German, and the two versions could come out together.

Q: Do you see any chances for a revisionist breakthrough?

Graf: I only see two possible scenarios:

1) A huge economic crises which will lead to the collapse of the Jewish-dominated “democratic” system of the West. If authentic Nationalists come to power in either the USA or some major European countries, the hoax will of course be doomed.

2) A confrontation between the Jewish puppet regime in Washington and Russia which will induce Moscow to deal Washington a deadly blow by publishing documents proving that the “extermination camps” belong to the realm of propaganda. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Russians have such documents.

Q: In the meantime, what can we American revisionists do?

Graf: Continue spreading the truth to those who want to hear it!

This article originally appeared in Smith“s Report No. 147, February 2008