by Alexander Baron

This is a challenge to all genuine skeptics who, unlike Michael Shermer, are prepared to confront Holocaust Revisionism with both an open mind and objectivity.

A brief introduction is necessary; I have been a Holocaust skeptic for a shade over thirty years, and a dedicated Revisionist since the 1990s. I have published two full length books on the so-called Holocaust, both of which can be downloaded free. (1)  I have also published a number of pamphlets and articles from a pro-Revisionist perspective. (2)

Eleven years ago I published a critique of Michael Shermer’s methodology, to which he did not deign to respond, or if he did, I didn’t hear about it. In my critique I alluded to the testimony of the Polish Jewess Sophia Litwinska regarding the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz. This short dissertation is concerned both with her testimony and the evidence of another Jewess, Regina Bialek. It is my belief that any honest skeptic who confronts the testimony of these two vitally important witnesses will of necessity develop serious doubts about the existence of both the alleged Nazi extermination programme, and the veracity of all the claims made by other witnesses concerning the use of homicidal gas chambers to exterminate people en masse in any of the alleged Nazi extermination camps.

As confirmed skeptics I ask you to respond only with rational, clearly thought out, and logical arguments. Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority or to emotion, hysteria, innuedo, name calling, righteous indignation, shaming language, smears with guilt by association, or simple ridicule, do not constitute rational argument, and are no substitute for it.

If you are able to refute the arguments I advance here, I await your response. If however you are not able to refute them, then common decency not to mention your professed commitment to historical and scientific truth demand that you acknowledge both that I am right, and that Shermer is wrong.

At the four links immediately below you will find four PDF files; these contain two documents. I had intended to combine them into one, but the smaller sizes make them easier to load, and you will if you wish be able to view two or more pages simultaneously easily with this layout.

WO 235/13, page 169
WO 235/13, page 172
WO 235/14, page 108
WO 235/14, page 109

READ MORE...

The Telegraph journalist Benedict Brogan posted a plea today for assistance to New Zealand and New Zealanders in this unhappy time.  He wrote of the need to “show that the historic bonds of family and kinship mean something”, and there aren’t many occasions these days on which such fine and loyal sentiments are heard in the British press.

It is fitting that the tragedy in Christchurch is met with words like that, and I thought it might be apposite to pick some more of them, as they appeared in the thread to Brogan’s piece.  Blood, it seems, is thicker than liquifacted soil.

cobblers
11 hours ago
Recommended by 199 people

So it will take two days for us to get any help there. So what?
The devastation I saw on the TV this morning will take a damned sight longer than two days to clear up. If we can send millions in aid to Pakistan, then surely to God we can help the Kiwis.

mightymonk
11 hours ago
Recommended by 117 people

New Zealand are our brothers and we should have moved out to help them straight away.

I think our country needs to do more to maintain the relationship with the commonwealth to be honest.

olcrom
9 hours ago
Recommended by 55 people

alexind. We are all members of the most powerful force on earth. The English speaking people,New Zealand’s disasters are our disasters, we stand shoulder to shoulder,united by language.This has been proved in the in the hell of two world wars.

amicus
9 hours ago
Recommended by 130 people
I will never think of our kith and kin from New Zealand, Canada, and Australia as being foreigners and I shall never think of Europeans as being anything else.

READ MORE...

My thanks to MR guest blogger Last Celt for the link to a PDF version of Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, and also to the English transcript of a video interview with Raspail, posted a few days ago at GalliaWatch.

It opens with this:

In truth The Camp of the Saints is a parable, written in 1972, published in 1973 about a million people from the Third World. They’re weak, they’re unarmed, women and children, they’re poor, and they come in search of paradise. But, there’s a million of them, they land on the Riviera, and behind them there are other flotillas with more millions ready to land according to whether or not France’s response is positive or negative. The problem of The Camp of the Saints is very simple - there is unity of time, place, and action. Everything happens in twenty-four hours. What happens is they have a shipwreck, a million of them, unarmed, weak, they inspire sympathy, pity. But a million… and if the response is positive, there are a million more waiting. What do we do? That’s the question posed by The Camp of the Saints.

... and is worth reading in full.

In the normal course of a day or two’s amicable difference of opinion on two Telegraph threads, I was accused of being a Nazi racial supremacist.  Well, you know, as one is.  But what are the areas in which European Man is demonstrably superior to the other races?  I mean important and influential areas, of course, not sporting prowess in strength events or swimming, both of which I’ve seen offered up over the years and both of which lead to precisely nothing.

Six possibles occur to me: creativity, individuality, enquiry, adventurousness, altruism/empathy, and the capacity for moral abstraction.  These definitely seem to me to capture something of the European essence, and I find it moving and inspiring.  It is often said by radical right thinkers of the continental tradition that men must yearn for the mythic.  Are there not visions of nobility and greatness enough in the truth of what we are?  And if so, is there not also more political utility in this day and age in the acknowledgement of it?

Further to Lurker’s suggestion, I am opening this thread as a permanent resource for MR readers to use when they are active on an MSM or blog thread, and think others might be interested in weighing in.  It would be useful for a little context to accompany the URL, and the odd report of scalps taken would also be very welcome.

In due course, the link to the thread will be placed on the side-bar under “Of note”.

So ... here goes.

Yesterday, in a brief debate with the star of Tory Euroscepticism Daniel Hannan - it had to be brief because he has no time to waste on the BNP, apparently - I was informed that:

I’ve already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?

That was on the subject of whether his own English people (actually, he’s half-Irish) have the same right to life as any other people, and this was on the subject of whether they have, in addition, the same right to land:

Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.

And this creature, in all his anti-English civicism and fatuous libertarianism, is supposed to be an Old Marlburian and an Oxford grad, and high-grade political material.

His problem, of course, is that there is a certain depth and gravity to the argument we bring to the MSM threads which no one, and certainly not he, can match, and with which many are completely unfamiliar.  We talk about existence and genocide, natural rights and interests, power and coercion, political corruption and deception.  We shock.  We break taboos.  We challenge complacency, received wisdom, the habitual way of doing things.  When we go on the threads we do so as revolutionaries.  We are there to change everything.  We are there to fight, and we fight to win.  This is where we validate not just our politics but our racial selves: where we can be useful and contribute to the cause.  This is where we can demonstrate that we are not what our enemies say we are, that the enemy’s ideological position is easily destroyed, and that the path we have taken is true and right for others to follow.  For did we not also benefit from others who have performed this same small service?

It is important, then.  It is important that we do the job well.  So I thought I would pull together some of the rules of thread warfare as I understand them.  Again.  As ever, your own thoughts and experiences of what works in which media would be appreciated.

READ MORE...

by Last Celt

Earlier this week, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, the CSU, said it was “obvious that immigrants from different cultures like Turkey and Arab countries, all in all, find it harder” to integrate.

“Multikulti’ is dead,” Mr Seehofer said.

Earlier this month the chancellor held talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which the two leaders pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany’s estimated 2.5 million-strong Turkish community.

BBC. October, 2010

Multiculturalism is pronounced dead! However, notice the call for integration; it’s too early to celebrate.

Similarly, last Saturday the British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the multicult a failure. But look at this comment of Cameron’s:

On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

READ MORE...

This, the opening speech of Geert Wilders to the Dutch court trying him right now, is three days old now.  But it is interesting:

Of course, the Dutch problem with immigration of Moslems is on a different scale to our experience in England, and the focus upon it is bound to be greater.  But it is difficult to see from Wilders’ plaints against Islam then against the Dutch and EU elites whether he knows who he is really fighting in that courtroom.  What is the point of attacking Islam except as part of the attack on the elites?  Rather strange.

Thanks to Bill for the link.