Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Eric hunt’ Category

eric-hunt-debates-fritz-berg-cover

 

[Ryan Dawson of the Anti-NeoCon Report hosts a long (nearly 4 hours) and often heated debate between Eric Hunt and Fritz Berg on what happened to all the “missing” jews during the alleged “Holocaust” of WWII.

Eric Hunt, a producer of revisionist videos, in an unexpected change of conviction has recently revised his own revisionist views and now believes that in fact, jews and others were mass murdered in gas chambers and also shot in large numbers in the East.

Fritz Berg strongly supports the revisionist position that no homicidal gassings occurred what-so-ever and that any shootings of jews in the East were legitimate actions taken against partisans and their supporters — KATANA.]

 

_______________________

 

 

 

[90/231 mins, now complete!]

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________

 

 

____________________

 

 

Here is the full Hunt/ Fritz debate on the Holocaust. This is for ANC members This debate is specifically on the question of transit camps and gas chambers. If there were transit camps, then where are the records of where all these prisoners said to have shipped east ended up? If there were gas chambers…

This content is for VIP Subscriber and VIP Subscriber (yearly) members only.

 

http://www.ancreport.com/podcast/holocaust-debate-eric-hunt-vs-fritz-berg/

 

 

Free download of the mp3 audio file  –

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7NKRD5j08vYWU5vbnVvUlBEODA

 

Questioning “The Holocaust” (Eric Hunt’s website):

Debate with Friedrich Paul Berg (Updated with download link)

 

 

Audio files (split into 4 parts) also available here at archive.org:

 Holocaust Debate – Eric Hunt vs Friedrich Berg – Parts 4 of 4

 

 

ANC Report

 

Holocaust Debate

 

Eric Hunt vs Fredrick Berg

 

 

Published on Feb 26, 2017

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

 

[00:00]

 

 

Ryan: What I thought was going to be a one hour debate, or planned, ended up being about three and a half hours.

OK, this is Ryan Dawson of ANC Report, the Anti Neo-con Report. We’re usually covering the antiwar thing, the anti neo-con material. We often get into “hidden history” and sometimes conspiracy, … Not that wacky Jonestown kind. But today’s topic is one of the more taboo, if not the most taboo topic on the Interwebs, and that’s the “Holocaust“. There’s a lot of exaggerations in both directions about the “Holocaust“. Over exaggerating it, maybe under exaggerating it.

And we have two revisionists on today, one revisionist is Eric Hunt who’s been on the program before. He has recanted some of his views and he will be explaining that. And here to debate him is Fritz Berg, or Friedrich Paul Berg of the website, Nazi Gassings dot com. Also Eric Hunt’s web site, Questioning the Holocaust dot com. And you can see his long, well recanting on that, as well as other information.

So gentleman, I’m going to give you guys the floor. Hopefully I won’t have to jump in too much. I do want to make it clear to everyone that the point of this is to get at the truth where this is never supposed to be something dogmatic and I hope people will refrain from accusations, saying somebody is anti German, or anti-jewish. The idea here is just to get at the truth of the matter, based on the best evidence available.

So Eric, I will start with you, because you were a revisionists who is now revised your revisions and you’re catching some flak for that. So I’ll let you explain your position and then I’ll let Fritz respond.

 

Eric: All right, thanks. First up I’d like to thank Fritz Berg for agreeing to debate. Fritz has never been afraid to defend his views and has debated Roberto Muehlenkamp, who accepts the garssing claims and has repeatedly asked to debate revisionist Fred Leuchter. Surprisingly it’s the revisionists like Leuchter, dodging the debate, not those defending the claims of mass gassing and shooting such as Muehlenkamp. I recommend for listeners to listen to the Berg-Muehlenkamp debates. It is my opinion Mr Muehlenkamp presents entirely logical arguments and overwhelming evidence in favor of mass gassings having occurred. We will likely not be repeating many of the same arguments from those debates here today.

 

Fritz has and is operating in the supposed spirit of the revisionists who claim to desire open debate on the Holocaust and Fritz should be commended. It’s very telling that no other top revisionist scholars, as they claim, has so far agreed to debate me upon publishing my controversial findings in an article titled “The End Of The Line” available to read at: Questioning the holocaust dot com. This exposes the hypocrisy of those claiming they simply desire open debate on the subject. I put forward that this clique of SS mass murder deniers instead want to spread their extreme, indefensible, illogical denialist falsehoods in their safe little echo chambers. I’ve determined the behavior of this community is more consistent with a religious cult like the Jonestown cult you mentioned in your opening, than something claiming to be related to science. And I’m hoping to tell people listening not to drink the Kool-Aid.

 

For those who claim to oppose censorship, both Fritz and I have been banned from the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust forums. I have determined even before coming to this conclusion that [that forum] is paradoxically the most closed forum which claims to debate the “Holocaust“. And I have heard Fritz say the same throughout the years. I want to make it clear I’m not here to totally put down, or insult revisionists. One reason revisionists haven’t been debated more often is, because the “Holocaust Industry”, as Norman Finkelstein calls them, really does engage in many hoaxes. “Mini”, I meant to say, mini hoaxes, small hoaxes, propaganda, exaggeration and willingly spreading falsehoods. The blind believers repeatedly defend indefensible and scientifically impossible eyewitness accounts. Often these accounts are forced upon the American public, especially on naive schoolchildren.

 

eric-hunt-debates-fritz-berg-3178-elie-weisels-flaming-pits

[Image] An illustration of one of Elie Weisel’s sadistic tall tales as described in his mostly fictional book, “Night“.

 

eric-hunt-debates-fritz-berg-elie-wiesels-book-night-cover

 

I’d like to talk briefly about some of the things I’ve done and what I stand behind. Elie Weisel’s fictional tale of walking to the edge of a flaming pit of fire at the entrance of Auschwitz Birkenau, where dump trucks full of babies were dumped alive for no reason other than dramatic effect, during that titular night, is forced upon naive school children.

 

[05:04]

 

These children don’t know the flaming pit never existed, as all eyewitnesses confirm, including Weisel’s own sister. The fire and atrocity invention is just a lame literary device by a Jewish poet to represent entering into the hell of Auschwitz.

 

Realist Report Interview Eric Hunt - 1806 The Last Days Spielberg

 

My exposé on Steven Spielberg’s 1999 Academy Award winning “Holocaust” documentary, “The Last Days” is one for the ages, which I’m very proud of. To investigate in particular that film star survivor, Irene Zisblatt’s false testimony, I did what any skeptical researcher should do. I investigated her claims, bought her book and read it. I found the book to be almost total fiction and saw ways to prove it. I followed the evidence trail to Stanford University to watch her video testimony, recorded for Steven Spielberg’s Survivors of the Showa a Visual History Foundation. In this video testimony Zisblatt seems to invent in real time new fake atrocity stories, one after the other. Zisblatt claims she was selected to become a lampshade, because of her smooth skin! She claims the Nazis tried to change the color of her eyes. Zisblatt claims that Dr Mengele removed her Auschwitz tattoo in excruciating experiments. Despite being on a list of Jews quickly transited through Auschwitz to other labor camps, never given a tattoo. Zisblatt claims to have escaped from inside Auschwitz Birkenau Crematoria III gas chamber. She claims a boy then threw her over an electrified barbed wire fence, naked, onto a train where she escaped. That train would have been at least one hundred feet away from the fence.

 

Realist Report Interview Eric Hunt - 1805 Last Days of the Big Lie

 

Zisblatt’s calling card claim of repeatedly defecating and swallowing diamonds for a year and a half pales in comparison to her other outrageous lies! Steven Spielberg produced other falsehoods in that Oscar winning documentary, including featuring a discredited African American soldier who already falsely claimed to have liberated Dachau in a previous propaganda film, “Liberators”, which was withdrawn from public airing, as a hoax. As a result of sharing Zisblatt’s testimony to the world, rather than have the evidence looked at in a major examination of this outrageous false testimony, shown to children and even the US Congress, I was instead banned from Stanford University libraries!

(more…)

Read Full Post »

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-cover

 

[In yet another interesting interview Jim Rizoli talks with a well-known figure in the Revisionist movement, Hadding Scott. We learn about Hadding’s earlier years and how he first learnt from his mother the old saying, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” Then, we learn how he became aware of some of the character traits of jews from listening to the Larry King radio show. Hadding recounts it was in 1992 that he became finally convinced that the “Holocaust” was a myth after listening to a Dr. Willian Pierce radio show. Further on, the matter of the “revisionists” who have moved away from revisionism, like Irving, Weber, Cole and now Eric Hunt, is discussed   — KATANA.]

 

 

_______________________

 

 

im-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-video

 

YouTube Description

 

 

Jim Rizoli interviews Hadding Scott, Feb 2017, discussing Hadding’s ‘awakening’ concerning revisionism of Iraq and then, of course, WWII.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_553gsl07TQ&feature=youtu.be

 

 

 

Jim Rizoli

 

Interviews

 

Hadding Scott

 

 

 

Published on Jan 17, 2017

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

 

 

[00:00]

 

 

Jim: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

 

So Hadding again, welcome to the program.

 

Hadding: Well, hello!

 

Jim: First of all, the only, really thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say is, because my brother Joe. He was very much involved listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

 

Hadding: Oh yeah, “The International Jew Study Hour”.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3149-hadding-scott-website

 

Jim: Right, right! So, maybe you can tell us a little bit, … I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you. So, what would you consider yourself?

 

Hadding: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying! This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to “Holocaust” revisionism through other things.

 

Jim: Yup.

 

Hadding: My origin has a lot to do with, … My parents were about a generation older than people my age. I just born in the ninety sixties. My parents were born in the nineteen twenties. And my mother was raised by her grandparents who were born not very long aft the War Between the States. So I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true. That this was exaggeration. And that slaves generally, were treated very well. And that the war was not about slavery, right?

 

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionist. And I grew up with that.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3150-lincoln

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

 

Hadding: I have been a teacher.

 

Jim: OK.

 

Hadding: Not presently.

 

Jim: OK. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

 

Hadding: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust revisionist, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the jews. Right?

 

I grew up with this idea that the jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the [???] jews were victimized by some mass psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3155-larry-king

 

[05:01]

 

I used to, actually I dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King from my perspective was insane! [Jim laughing] This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew first hand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time the he identified as jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City jews and the fact that jews were very prevalent in the mass media and had no shame about using their positions in mass media to promote specifically jewish interests. And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and, … Well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3154-cartoon-greedy-jew

 

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in it’s imperfect form and the others. So, Larry King was sort of “concentrated jew”. And I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of jews!

 

Jim: Did you ever call into the show?

 

Hadding: I did a couple of times.

 

Jim: And what happened?

 

Hadding: It was a long time ago, … I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

 

Jim: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to jews. And he’s such a wack job anyway, that guy!

 

Hadding: The thing about Larry King is he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

 

Jim: Really?

 

Hadding: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t, you don’t get the shameless promotion of jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

 

Jim: Did he ever talk about the “Holocaust” or anything like [it]?

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3160-simon-wiesanthal-and-elie-wiesel

 

Hadding: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there and Eli Weasel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until the late nineteen eighties. I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. All right? Before I started to question the Holocaust. I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. And R. D. Laing labeled and demonized, obviously Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3165-r-d-laing-quote

 

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists might have their own story. That what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right? So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed the “Holocaust” must have had at least some truth in it.

 

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to short wave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strong. But once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

 

[10:16]

 

And I was certainly already open to the, … I knew from listening to Larry King that jews had a lot to do with these problems. That jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989. It had Adolf Hitler on the cover, it was the one hundredth birthday of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue”. I had heard and read before that before the Zundel Trial. I heard Ernst Zundel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3167-robert-faurisson-closeup

 

I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody that reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but, it seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there. He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

 

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed him, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema one in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Krema’s [crematoria]. And this convinced me!

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3168-leuchter-reports-book-cover

 

Jim: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

 

Hadding: I didn’t do very much was Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and the invocation of the “Holocaust” played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed of gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians! That Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein legend, which I knew to be false by that point about Adolf Hitler.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3153-hitler-and-time-mag

 

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Fallujah and there was nobody in the town. But then some Kurdish rebels went into Fallujah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Fallujah. What happened aft the Iranians went Fallujah and saw the dead Kurds is that they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

 

[14:48]

 

If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical what the Iranians say. The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw one hundred or so, bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Fallujah. But what happened after, Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower. jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September first, 1988.

 

There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times. In which William Safire mentions that this cyanide gas had been used to kill the Kurds at Fallujah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3171-soldiers-gulf-war-2

 

So we have this war in 1991, but I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story that April Glaspie, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded Iraq. Also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine of the fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

 

Jim: I’d like to see that picture.

 

Hadding: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, “Life magazine Auschwitz”. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up, to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend these people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was there was no such wall.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: Anyway, so this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for fifteen years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda. Because this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works. Most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear. So what people will do, is that they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called “reifications” where you have a few, a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there. That’s called “reification”. It literally means “making the thing”, “thing making”.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3174-saddam-hussein-press-conference

 

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this, is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! All right, this is a crazy man! A man who might very well have been involved in the 9/11 attacks! You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9/11 attacks, because that would that would require checking the evidence and most people will never do that. But it would fit, … If people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. And this is something that has to be addressed is also in regard to the Holocaust.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3175-character-assassination-logo

 

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, “What kinds of people were these that were accused of doing these things?” “What is the character of the people making the accusations?” That’s extremely important!

 

[20:12]

 

Now, since 9/11 and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9/11, there’s a lot less trust of jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9/11 that there was a lot of dishonesty.

 

I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if you believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust jews, he’s open to the possibility that the whole cause could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed if you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining, “Oh yes! The Nazis were these horrible people!” you’re not going to be very convincing.

 

Jim: The big thing for you to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too, … And I do I do believe you, what you say there about this psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved than that. That a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard, it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean? I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name, Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3176-elizabeth-loftus-false-memory-syndrome

 

Hadding: Yeah.

 

Jim: So I mean, she was saying, …

 

Hadding: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

 

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the “Holocaust”. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, the tribes she belongs to, the tribe and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3178-cognitive-dissonace-leon-festinger

 

Hadding: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance”. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3179-cognitive-dissonace-quote

 

It’s irresistible to make the analogy, jews hearing the rumors in Auschwitz, or someplace like that. If they were, … If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were communists and had bad intentions and had been locked up in this camp. But were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seem justified. They would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumors that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumors that the jews had.

 

Jim: Can I ask you this about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it want on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3180-henry-ford

Hadding: Yeah, it was some 50 chapters.

 

Jim: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

 

Hadding: It was about a year, I guess.

 

Jim: Yeah, my brother, … I mean, the reason I know about that, is my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it and, you know, it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. My brother he, … And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. You know, right now I’m listening to “The Myth of German Villainy”. Are you familiar with that book?

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3181-the-myth-of-german-villany-montage

 

Hadding: No. Who wrote that?

 

Jim: Oh my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to, … You have to read that book. Because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3182-benton-l-bradberry

[25:14]

 

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it. So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as a mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

 

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

 

Hadding: She’s not doing very much these days, so she just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3183-carolyn-yeagers-jan27-org

 

Jim: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then OK, all right

 

Hadding: jan27.org

 

Jim: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

 

Hadding: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

 

Jim: Oh, OK. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

 

What do you think about, … Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting! They have [moved??] now. Like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

 

Hadding: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if it’s really “high ranking”. He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent, because he makes videos, …

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: I think mostly, … Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: With Cole, he had an argument, …

 

Jim: Oh! David Cole, yeah, yeah, …

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3184-hadding-scott-article-semi-revisionism-is-dead

 

Hadding: And apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole. And he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

 

Jim: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the “Holocaust”-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

 

Hadding: To prove it didn’t happen!

 

Jim: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they want were killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

 

Hadding: That’s right.

 

Jim: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, “puff” and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

 

[30:12]

 

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

 

Hadding: I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

 

Jim: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR [Institute of Historical Review] material and, you know, the old stuff. And, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Webber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

 

Hadding: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed and prominent and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the “Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich” came out. David Irving wants his career back. So that is why David Irving is espousing this semi-revisionism the continues the demonization of Goring and Goebbels and Himmler, .. But not Goring, but Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. That he constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming jews behind his back.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: But this is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And really he’s just gone back to that. Mark Weber has a different motive, I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

 

In the case of David Cole, … David Cole got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel. The holocaust industry was, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer to The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, “They can count, you know!” They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992. David Cole as a “Holocaust” revisionist.

 

By that time it was the period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books could be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: But during that time David Cole got involved. He endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a jewish face on what others had already discovered.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

 

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

 

Hadding: Carto.

 

Jim: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

 

[35:12]

 

Hadding: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR.

 

Jim: Yes, she was part, …

 

Hadding: ??? And Carto had embezzled it and, …

 

Jim: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result, was he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out.

 

Hadding: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against the Zionist jewish power!

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: He’s apparently happy to talks about Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the “Holocaust”.

 

Jim: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

 

Hadding: Who knows?

 

Jim: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. Because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

 

Hadding: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

 

Jim: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And, you know, we interviewed, we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but, you know, it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

 

Hadding: Well, I don’t think. I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber, all right. Mark Weber, I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account. Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they are in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a, just look at him. He does not convey strength.

 

Jim: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Luechter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too. But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Luechter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3185-fred-leuchter-with-jim-rizoli

 

Hadding: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

 

Jim: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

 

[40:11]

 

Hadding: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

 

Jim: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

 

Hadding: Irv, …

 

Jim: OK, OK. Irv Ruben, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now. So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

 

Hadding: Well Irv Ruben has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Ruben is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the interest that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust, as such. That is never what he wanted to do. He tried, like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

 

Jim: Right.

 

Hadding: That’s my thesis.

 

Jim: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the “Holocaust” museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause, here. And doing videos and research for the pro-holocaust people.

 

Hadding: As Stein?

 

Jim: Yeah as Stein.

 

Hadding: OK.

 

Jim: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not really worry about it.

 

So what, … Do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

 

Hadding: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National hyphen Socialist hyphen Worldview dot blogspot dot com [http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com].

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3186-degrelle-with-hitler

 

Jim: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

 

Hadding: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

 

Jim: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

 

Hadding: Germar Rudolf!

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3187-germar-rudolf-montage

 

Jim: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

 

Hadding: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but the Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on the Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

 

Jim: Right, right. Who runs the Occidental Observer?

 

Hadding: That’s Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald is afraid of, seems to be afraid of, that subject.

 

Jim: Well, you got to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

 

Hadding: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

 

Jim: Oh, is that what it is. OK, well I can understand that. So, well that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the “Holocaust” handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

 

[44:51]

 

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time. Just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you know, you’re a good writer. You know, you have a nice, you know, style and insight. I would say about things and I think that’s important that people, you know, see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

 

Hadding: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

 

Jim: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

 

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

 

Hadding: I think that we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing that is what I keep doing.

 

Jim: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody even the revisionist views are! I know common sense! You know, me I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

 

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let, you know, that, OK!

 

Hadding: Thank you very much.

 

Jim: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us to, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

 

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

 

Hadding: All right. Well, thank you very much.

 

Jim: All right. Bye now!

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3188-request-for-donations

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-3189-voltaire-quote

 

[47:40]

 

END

 

 

============================================

 

 

PDF Notes

 

* Total words = 7,849

* Total Images = 27

* Total pages = 29

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.0 MB):

Jim Rizoli Interviews Hadding Scott 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

jim-rizoli-with-hadding-scott-cover

 

 

Version History

 

Version 3: Mar 14, 2017  — Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 2: Feb 23, 2017  — Added 25 images.

 

Version 1: Feb 20, 2017  — Published post.

Read Full Post »

Red Ice Radio - Germar Rudolf - Part 1 COVER Ver 2

 

 

 

[In this very informative two part audio interview (126 mins — Parts I & II) Henrik Palmgren talks with the well known revisionist Germar Rudolf. We learn of Germar’s reluctant inquiry into the issue of the Third Reich and the taboo subject of the so-called “Holocaust”. As a student of chemistry he ends up examining the chemical evidence, or lack of, for the alleged homicidal gas chambers. This leads him to conclude that it doesn’t exist and that the gas chambers are a product of Allied [jewish] black propaganda. Ultimately, he spent several years in German jails  for daring to deny the existence of the “Holocaust” and where, against all normal legal practice: “The truth is no defense.

 

He and Henrik go on to discuss the perilous demographic decline in birth rates among White countries, that will, if nothing is done, lead to disaster. Both the fraudulent “Holocaust” claims and the denial of White nationalism are interlinked in jewish propaganda, in that any claims for White self-determination are cast as something that leads directly back to the dreaded, “evil Nazis” and the “gas chambers“!— KATANA.]

 

 

 

 

 

Red Ice Radio

 

 

Germar Rudolf

 

Persecution of Revisionists

 

&

 

Demographic Disaster

 

 

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to listen to the audio.

Published on Jul 29, 2016

 

 

 

Red Ice Radio Description

 

 

Germar Rudolf was born in Limburg, Germany. He studied chemistry at Bonn University, where he graduated in 1989 as a Diplom-Chemist, which is comparable to a U.S. PhD degree. From 1990-1993 he prepared a German PhD thesis at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in conjunction with the University of Stuttgart, Germany. Parallel to this and in his spare time, Rudolf prepared an expert report on chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, The Rudolf Report. He is the founder of the small revisionist outlet, Castle Hill Publishers.

 

Mr. Rudolf joins us to share the story of his life’s work as a revisionist researcher and writer and the ostracizing and persecution he has endured for daring to tread into the controversial topic of the German holocaust. Germar talks about the process of awakening that led him to question the “official” version of holocaust history in his mid-20s, when he stumbled upon the notorious Leuchter Report while preparing an expert report on the chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau for the trial of a Holocaust “denier.” We discuss the longstanding and brutal suppression of evidences that refute the cherished narrative of gas chambers used to systematically exterminate 6 million Jews, and we look at the undeniable proof that the powers that be have been using this “miracle weapon” to psychologically trounce German and Western European identity. Then, Germar gives a straightforward definition of “revisionist,” underscoring that in the case of the holocaust, the general issues of persecution and unjust treatment of Jews is not denied. He highlights some of the chemical, structural and biological evidence that points to a starkly contrasting story than what has been painted throughout 70+ years of political propagandizing. Germar also touches on the thought crimes that sent him to prison for 44 months and the blatant lawlessness of court proceedings he’s witnessed, and he gives a rundown of his latest book, Resistance is Obligatory.

 

In the members’ segment, Germar goes deeper into exposing free speech hijacking and human dignity suppression that is at the core of revisionist work. We consider the massive power structure upheaval that would need to occur in order for Western civilization at large to achieve a complete paradigm shift and accept the fact that we have been lied to and manipulated on so many levels concerning WWI/II. Then, we talk about the establishment’s grave fear of the rise of nationalism despite the recent terrorist attacks by hostile foreign invaders in Germany and France, and Germar gives a grim picture of the migration statistics for Europe, which is seeing many of its best and brightest indigenous populations fleeing the monster and taking up residence elsewhere. We discuss the most critical extinction level crisis that is plaguing Europe – the demographic decline of natives resulting from the shrinking birth rate. Germar emphasizes the financial implications of Europeans allowing themselves to be bred out, and we debate whether or not the government’s (dis)incentivizing having larger families is really the issue. We give some thought to the role of the 1960s sexual revolution, the advent of birth control, and the lost sense awareness that we live in a chain of generations that keeps the social order on course. At the end, we weigh up how the crisis the West is spawning many religious zealots and a rising core of radical traditionalist who may or may not be able to rescue the vanishing European civilization.

 

 

 

 

Transcript — Part 1/2

 

 [69:51 min]

 

 

[NOTE: There are a few parts (6) where the audio was unclear and I couldn’t catch what was said. These are indicated by [xxx]. Please leave a note in the comments sections of the blog post if you know any of the missing parts. Thanks.] 

 

 

[00:00]

 

Henrik: Ladies and gentlemen welcome back. This is Red Ice Radio. I’m Henrik. Wherever you are around the world, whether you are friend, or foe and concerned, like me, about the survival of European identity, or not, I do hope that you care about true diversity and want to preserve it. We live in a world today where soulless materialism, empty consumer driven globalism and endless migration is threatening to displace and eradicate the uniqueness and the beauty of the European people. Now Sweden, where I’m from, is being ruined! As I hope you have realized by now, by a pipe dream, by politicians and internationalists who themselves never live in the neighborhoods that they claim we will benefit so greatly from. This contrived “Oneness” that they are enforcing, is actually leading to division, alienation, terrorism, displacement and unspeakable horrors of sexual assaults and violence and rape.

 

It’s time to wake up and realize that this version that they are pushing on us is actually not working. If you are new to the show definitely check out the website Red Ice dot tv. Beyond the radio shows we do live TV shows, we publish news and we have a members website filled with our entire archives. Plus our live show, “Weekend Warrior” that we do almost every Saturday. So sign up, if you like the show, get access to all our material and help us grow.

 

Well today we have a special show for you with a Germar Rudolf. He joins us to share the story of his life’s work as a revisionist researcher and writer, and the ostracizing and persecution he has endured for daring to tread into the controversy topic of the Holocaust. The few times that I’ve not made long disclaimers before shows like this, I’ve lost newcomers and that’s not a very smart move. I simply, usually, urge people to use their mind and to open their mind. We are going to be treading into a forbidden zone where so many of us never go! Ever! Not even truth seekers and those passionate about history. So many comply, like good little Pavlovian dogs, they respond to the conditioning perfectly, to a tee! Without ever asking themselves, why they react the way they do you when we violate this greatest taboo. Even for free speech advocates, they say here, but no further.

 

When speaking about World War Two and related subjects, I always want to give a perfect preface, you know, to entice you and dare you, urge you to follow along in an exercise that many people never do in their entire lives without ever knowing why. You know, in many countries the governments have built a legal perimeter around the subject. It’s a no go zone, a strictly forbidden enforced, “No Go Zone”. And I ask you, why that is? And out of, you know, a thousand plus shows that we have done over ten-year period, we have done maybe seven, or eight radio shows in total dedicated to this sensitive and emotionally charged subject. That’s only, what about, zero point eight percent of all the things that we’ve discussed on this show. Yet this alone grants us to be banned from iTunes and many previous guests to completely turn their back on everything that we do. For simply daring to question a historical event and come to a different conclusion than the globalists are pushing on us.

 

You know, I always encourage newcomers to listen to the other side, the side that they never share with you. And look at some of the research and professionally made videos and other material that we link up as companions to shows like this, to help you along in not only daring to take the plunge, but also to realize that there truly is something fishy here. Something that they are covering up. Something that they don’t want you to know about!

You know, this if nothing else, is a story of free speech and how the government has enforced restrictions on it. Tight restrictions! In fact, restrictions that will land you in jail in certain European countries. And reasonably everyone who’s concerned with social justice, this should be a concern of them, right? Why should people who have a divergent opinion be treated any different? Right? According to their own standards. So, you know, there’s a thousand things I could say. There is a thousand things I could go through and motivate, but ultimately, it is up to you if you have interest at all in history and if you have the brains to understand the weight of this topic and why it’s so important to look at it in greater detail, considering how the survival of the European people is hinged on this subject of the Holocaust and Nazism.

 

 

 

[04:52]

 

So, Germar Rudolf was born in Limburg, Germany. He studied chemistry at Bonn University where he graduated in 1989 as a “Diplome-Chemist” which is comparable to a US Ph D. Degree. From 1990 to 1993 he prepared a German Ph D. Thesis at the Max Planck Institute for solid state research in conjunction with the University of Stuttgart. Parallel to this and in his spare time Rudolph prepared an expert’s report on chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chamber of Auschwitz, “The Rudolf Report”. He is the founder of the revisionist outlet, Castle Hill Publishers. Please stay tuned and please listen to what Germar has to say.

 

Henrik: Welcome to the program, Germar, it’s a pleasure to finally have you with us. I’ve been an admirer of your work for many years. It’s a pleasure for me to have you here on the show.

 

Germar: And it’s a pleasure for me to be on the show.

 

Henrik: Excellent! Now, let’s dive into this here. This is a big topic we’re going to discuss today. It’s a controversial topic, obviously. It’s a topic that many people never really dare to tread into for various reasons, actually. But, I’m curious to here a bit about your background and your interest in this topic, Germar. And why you decided to spend your time and looking into an area which, of course, at this day and age, criminalised in many European countries. Tell us a bit about your background.

 

Germar: Well, I’m a German citizen and I had, in school, I had to deal with the Holocaust three times, because I change schools and then it changed around my topics a little bit. And in order to graduate you had to have a minimum of history. In school, I didn’t have that so I had to take more history classes and the “Holocaust” came up again. So three times I was fed it. Until I was fed up.

 

As a student I wasn’t actually appreciative about that topic, since, as a German, it’s kind of getting you in a bad mood, … It’s very unpleasant for Germans, because we perceived ourselves in the situation, of course, as descendants of the perpetrators and it’s all so bad and dark what happened during the “Holocaust” and during the Second World War, that it kind of drives you away from wanting to hear anything about it. Wanting to do to hear anything about the more recent history that has led up to this.

 

So I was kind of deterred from it initially coming out of school, actually. I didn’t want to have anything to do it with. But, on the other hand, I was always interested in German identity and German history, apart from this topic. So I would go up to the First World War. And then kind of quit! [Henrik laughs] and get over to the Federal Republic* [post WW II]. And all the mess of the Weimar Republic, running up to the Third Reich, I would just keep it at arm’s length.

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-weimar-map

*[Weimar Republic (German: Weimarer Republik) is an unofficial designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. The name derives from the city of Weimar (in the federal state of Thuringia), where its constitutional assembly first took place. The official name of the state was the Deutsches Reich, continuing the name from the pre-1918 German Empire.]

 

And that changed a little bit while I was studying. I was studying at one university chemistry and during my spare time I was reading a lot of history, of politics, philosophy and just a broad range of interests I had, trying to understand things. And that time I was more and more. Also, because I happened to become a member of the student fraternity, there was emphasizing, patriotism and German identity. That I got interested in these questions and I realized, in particular in the environment where students dominate, that national identity issues and patriotism has such negative image, such a negative connotation for intellectuals in Germany, for young intellectual students, that you are immediately an extreme minority as a student, if you insist that having an identity, having a cultural heritage and taking care of it, is something good. You’re isolated! You’re getting even attacked.

 

I mean, I was not a member of any group, or any movement outside of what was considered socially acceptable back then. So, I was still a part of the German Christian Democratic Union, the Germany party what’s currently ruling Germany. I considered myself more, or less mainstream from that point of view, but living it, inside a left-wing environment of students, is what gave me a completely different view. Now, I was attacked back then, some people drew a swastika and put up on the on a blackboard, or some event that my fraternity was doing. So I quickly became aware of that, even insisting on that there is the German identity and that it’s worth preserving, is something that gets you a lot of hostility in Germany. And the reason I figured out is, because of the Third Reich and all the bad things that happened there.

 

[10:10]

 

So I was aware of it, but that didn’t make me tread into this minefield of history. And that changed actually by accident, I would say, I was trying to convince other students that trying to get Germany to reunite, … At that point we’re talking about middle 80s, late 80s, when I was studying Germany was still divided. There were communists in the center of Germany and “democratic” quote, unquote, West Germany. And I insisted on Germany should get reunited and we should get going on that.

 

And I read books on the what’s gone on in the Soviet Union, the weakening, the economic collapse that some were predicting and I was reading these books and said, “It’s time to do something about it” as the mainstream was going the opposite way. Even the conservative party was eying the option of recognising communist East Germany as a separate country, which West Germany had not done so at that point.

Soviet Union collapsed, Germany suddenly got reunited and there was a little patriotic party “The Republicans” they called themselves [xxx]. But now they are completely marginalized. And they were trying to rekindle patriotism, German identity and then a little bit more acceptable right-wing politics, like the “Alternative for Germany”. The new party is doing right now, so twenty years and the same kind of constellation.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: And the same thing happened back then, that happens with them. Now they’re being completely ostracized and persecuted and the media just go on a campaign to destroy the party. So, history repeats itself. When I look at what’s going in Germany now, I say we had the same thing twenty five years ago. I was a member of that party and I had to experience all in that. It was the only party sticking to the constitutional demand of fighting for the reunification of Germany. They were the ones, when it actually happened, they were persecuted and marginalized and ostracized. And that upset me, but I again recognized the mechanism in particular in Germany. Later on I learned it’s not much different in other European countries. How that works is that any identity group, European identity movement, gets destroyed and ostracized by ultimately, “putting out the gas chambers”!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: Anyone saying that, if you want to have your own national way, you want to be proud of yourself, that means that in the long run, down the road you put the others in gas chambers! [Henrik laughing] If you don’t like the Turks in Germany, … I hear, I remember 1989 after the Republicans in Germany had their first electoral victory, in early 89 I think it was, in Berlin, and the leader of the party there was asked by a journalist:

Well what are you going to do with the Turks? Are you going to shove them into gas chambers?

[Henrik gives out a big sigh]

 

And that broke it for me, and I said, “I don’t believe it!” They do it over and over and it’s so blunt and so brutal and so obvious that this gas chamber weapon, this “Holocaust” weapon is used by the media, by anything on the left-wing, by anything standing for globalism, internationalism, multi-culturalism, whatever you call it, to destroy anything that tries to preserve identity, to maintain identity, what have you.

 

But, only in the European context. You know, left-wing trickery in Germany, they are always happy to embrace Amazon Indians, or Tibet Asians, when they are struggling for their national identity.

 

Henrik: Of course!

 

Germar: That’s fashionable, because they are not Whites, they are Europeans. And even when in South Africa, now the shoe’s on the other foot and blacks persecute Whites and kill them, and whatever is going on there. In detail, I know a little bit of what’s going on. But nobody talks about it. It’s a reverse situation as it was under apartheid regime to some degree. But black racism, you can see it here in this country. Everybody talks about racism when there was a shooting. But I wonder, you know, the big elephant in the room is that White racism is not acceptable, or racial identity, or any identity! It doesn’t even have to be based on race, it can be on culture, it can be whatever you want to call it. It’s not acceptable if White folks, European folks start with it, but if a black ghetto group here in the United States makes racist remarks, racist attitude, that is not talked about.

 

Henrik: That’s right.

 

[14:58]

 

Germar: And the same in South Africa. Black racism goes around. I can understand it historically why they would have that attitude because it’s been suppressed for so long. I mean, there’s always a reason why people do things and sometimes it’s understandable reasons, but it’s never a justification.

So, I saw these links and it just took an accidental encounter with credible arguments by credible individuals that made me look into, what I had avoided all these, well the first two decades of my life, two and a half, three decades, to look into the “Holocaust” about the facts, claims about it.

 

Fred Leuchter - 14 - The Leuchter Report booklet

[Image] The Leuchter Report by Fred Leuchter.

 

That was when I accidentally stumbled over the Leuchter Report, a famous, or infamous Leuchter Report, depending how you look at it. So the American expert [Fred Leuchter] for execution technologies, since they have the death penalty here in the US, they have to have some experts who maintain the equipment, with which capital punishment is executed.

 

And the one guy who was doing it back in the late 80s was asked by a defense team up in Canada, over a Canadian-German [Ernst Zundel] who was on trial for quote, unquote, “Holocaust Denial”. He was asked to write an expert report and to testify in court as to whether or not the facilities in two camps, in Auschwitz and Majdaneck camp in Poland, as they exist today and can be understood from blueprints, … Whether these facilities would have been able to commit the mass murder as is claimed by historians, and others. So he did that.

 

The Liberation of the Camps - Map of camps west zone NEW

 

The Liberation of the Camps - Map of camps Soviet zone NEW

 

In 1988 he submitted his report in February that year. And I found out about it a little over a year later by this Swiss political scientist who was writing about the use and abuse of, “Coming to terms with the past in Germany”, which is a big issue in Germany, … Third Reich history has been used and abused in politics to destroy opponents, competitors, to marginalize groups and individuals. We see now again with Alternative for Germany [party] . It flows like a red thread through German history after the Second World War.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Germar: And he has been writing about it, analyzing it and in a new edition of that book that came out in ‘89, he wrote about the Leuchter Report. And I said:

Well, what would happen if somebody comes up and says, ‘Well I made an expert report. I investigated the murder weapon’”.

If somebody did that with the claimed murder weapon for the French Revolution, that is the guillotine. And he comes up:

Well I think the claims about how it is supposed to functioned, how many people were murdered with it and all this. This is wrong. This is the chosen propaganda put out by royalists who were trying to blacken the image of the revolutionaries”.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: And I said:

Well that would be a controversial thesis. Historians would organize conferences, would discuss the arguments and what are either refuted, or would not be able to refute it, would maybe have to adjust their new history books to take into consideration the new evidence”.

 

And there would be pretty much about it.

 

Objectively seen it should be the same here. Time wise it is much closer and we’re talking about more victims. But in theory it’s a historical, it’s a factual question. It’s a question of, … It should be open to scientific investigation. And if an expert comes up with a theory:

No, the gas chambers, as they are claimed, couldn’t have worked“.

 

And what I’ve seen there they were not equipped in a way that would have functioned as claimed. That’s what Leuchter did.

But, of course, nothing like an objective discussion of his thesis ever happened. They just began the marginalisation, ostracism and persecution of him. When I read about this. I didn’t know about the persecution yet. You would have thought that would have probably prevented me from getting into it [laughter].

 

Henrik: You think so?

 

Germar: I don’t know! I mean I know, … I have, … My personality is a little bit of a contrarian in nature, I would say so. If I perceive something to be unjust, persecution to be unjust, appear not warranted, or just plain wrong, I have a tendency to stand up against it and to fight it.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: In general I have a history, you can ask my mother. She said I have an over-developed sense for justice. I recognize it’s a problem, because your concept of justice is very skewed and very subjective and egocentric. But as you mature you get more and more wider perspective and you can objectivize this. But my attitude hasn’t changed about this. If something is unjust I just won’t take it.

 

 

[20:23]

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Germar: And in this regard too, I found out about persecution of revisionists on a scale that I have not considered possible. And it hasn’t deterred me, it has made me more angry and more determined! And the same has happened with my own persecution. A lot of people around me, friends and my first wife too, at some point they have had it and they disassociate and divorce me. Even my first wife. But that’s not what I do. I don’t shrink away from the challenge. I grow with the challenge.

 

So one factor was definitely being, seeing the persecution going on. And there’s no rational discussion. If somebody has an argument it should be listened to, it should be verified or falsified.

 

Henrik: Of course.

 

Germar: You shouldn’t start to call the prosecutor and throw people into prison. And today it’s come to the point where you’re not even allowed to muster a defense in court. Because if you try to in the courtroom to prove that you’re right, … What you did do in the eyes of the court is “denying again” in the courtroom and using the public stage of the courtroom to spread your propaganda!

 

Henrik: Right, right!

 

Germar: And then you get another indictment and another case! Even a lawyer if he just dares to file a motion to introduce evidence, … Just filing the motion can get a lawyer in prison!

 

Henrik: Wow! Really?

 

Germar: And I have two of my lawyers that, … [sighing] You know, I ended up being an expert on Leuchter, writing up an expert report showing up in court on the request of defense lawyers. And the things I had to experience there, how judges violate the law in an attempt to prevent me from testifying was eye-opening! It made me even more angry! To see how the system breaks its own rules, its own laws, too to keep up that taboo and to prevent anyone from speaking up against it or from presenting any factual evidence.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Germar: Mine was purely engineering and chemical in nature and as such nothing, no history and no politics in it at all. It was just forensics. And that’s what every crime should be subjected to.

 

I’ve just had an interview* with Jonas Alexis from Veterans Today. What we dealing with here we’re talking about one of the biggest crimes in the history of mankind as it is claimed. So the mass slaughter all three million plus people in chemical slaughter houses, called gas chambers, and several million more just shot or starved to death, other reasons, other ways they died. So we’re talking about a massive crime! And whether a crime is little, if it’s just one person killed, or raped or injured, or whether it’s six million that have died, it’s still a crime that should be subjected to the same standard of investigation. But it’s completely politicized and any critical investigation that ends up coming to unwanted conclusions gets brutally suppressed! And then the name calling started against me, too.

 

I’ve just heard a remark by someone from the outside, saying, “Well, look at this denier, and anti-semite and racist talking” meaning, talking about me! I’d say I was persecuted and prosecuted for my scholarly writings. For my expert report on Auschwitz and ascertaining chemical issues I was sentenced and eventually spent fourteen months in prison. Not being allowed to present evidence for the fact that my arguments are correct. And later on, …

 

*[http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/18/logic-and-reason-can-and-will-destroy-the-holocaust-establishment/]

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-veterans-today-interview

 

Henrik: Tell the audience when that was, by the way, so we get an idea of the time frame here.

 

Germar: Well, I found out about the Leuchter Report in 1989. In ‘91 I wrote a letter to the editor saying why I’m not convinced, that I’m not convinced that the Leuchter Report is the final word, because there are holes in the arguments and some flawed arguments. That a better job should be done on it. I got contacted, … Can you do that? Can you write an expert report? And I agreed, because I was happy, it was exciting.

 

[25:02]

 

 

That time I was doing my Ph.D in the ivory tower [on a] topic that was kind of boring because it had no application to real life. But this one was so real, it can’t get any more real, more relevant, because obviously nations in the whole world, in the United Nations, are out to suppress any consent in this context. There’s just no other topic where persecution and the will of authorities to suppress any dissent is so massive as in this area.

 

So that was clear evidence for me right there. No matter what you think about any politics of identity and what have you. For the authorities for the powers that be, that is the most important, so I just dig in and that is it. And I decided to do it, because it just made sense. There was nothing more that made more sense to me than going for this topic and trying to thoroughly investigate it.

 

I wrote the report in ‘91, in early ‘92. And it got submitted to various courts. There were seven, eight court cases in the years between ‘91 and ‘94. And I got then, … The current investigation started in ‘93 when my expert report was published, together with a preface and an appendix by the guy who actually published it. And they used that, because it was polemical in nature, it was attacking the historians, politicians and judges for suppressing the debate and for letting people go in prison without giving them a chance to defend themselves. So that was considered polemics and therefore the court that actually sentenced me for that expert report says you can’t claim “scientific freedom”, because of the preface which is not scientific [Henrik laughing] and therefore the whole expert report is unscientific, even though it is a preface that was written by somebody else. I didn’t even know that he had edited it. I found out when they started to distribute it, by as it may.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: I got then, in ‘95, sentenced to fourteen months in prison for that and, … But it was going through the revision procedure and finally the case was settled in ‘96. I was not taken into custody, because they considered it unlikely that I would flee, but I did then, before the final judgment by the higher court was handed down, I left the country. So I didn’t serve those fourteen months. I went to England instead in ‘96 and started a revisionist publishing company. Just, basically turning my passion into a profession!

 

So, what the German authorities tried to do, to stop me from doing, then I was doing it twenty-four seven because, all bridges were burnt and I had nothing else to do. And I dedicated my life, so to say, to that. And it has been that way ever since.

 

Now, eventually things got bad in England. I wasn’t sure, whether actually would extradite me or not. A lawyer I had then would say, “I stand no chance if Germany asks for extradition”. They were doing that in late ‘99. If the authorities catch me in England they would turn me over without further ado, so I decided to leave the country.

 

I went to the United States and eventually applied for political asylum in the United States. Which at the end didn’t go much of anywhere, because the United States has waged two world wars against Germany to get Germany to do what it’s doing now what is such destruction. And they are not going to revert that by giving me, who is Germans and Europeans in general a tool, a scientific historical that can be used politically to stop that self-destruction of the entire European civilization that being going on and on. Any identity movement needs to be able to withstand accusation of racism and intentions of mass murder. Because that’s what basically comes up each time you want to preserve the Swedish identity, the German identity, any European identity against what’s going on, that is been going on for the past decades.

 

Henrik: And that Germar, that proves that this is a weapon really, that it is being used against us. Which makes it one of the most important questions that we need to address and face if we are going to muster up the courage, if you will, to try to prevent what we’re seeing happening today. Would you agree with that?

 

Germar: Yeah! The Germans have the term, “Wunder Waffe”, “Miracle Weapon” and that is Germany had none in the Second World War, but Germany’s enemies, or Europe’s enemies have it now and that is the “Holocaust” propaganda. Which is used to beat down psychologically everyone who resists anything that the powers that be want to implement.

 

[30:07]

 

And people are aware of that this is such a powerful weapon, such a dangerous weapon that most people are terribly afraid of it and try to stay away, far away from it as they can. And I can understand that. If you have the liberty to dodge away, to get out of the way and not face it, and it’s not doing any harm to you then it’s fine to do that.

 

The problem is you cannot avoid it! It is like you are besieged by the enemy. You are in a small castle, so to say, you are surrounded by the enemy, they are all aiming that “miracle weapon” at you and you can’t dodge it! It is destroying the castle, the walls step by step, bit by bit! And you can pipe dream, just looking away sticking your head in the sand, making it go away. Play the infamous three apes. Close your eyes, close your ears, close your mouth and, but that’s not going away!

 

If you want to achieve anything in regards to standing up against the authorities, then you have to face that. And the absolute proof for it is the fact that for the powers that be, particularly in Europe, nothing is more important when it comes to discussing anything than suppressing Holocaust dissent! Because it’s the only topic in the world, in the history of mankind, when it comes to history that has ever been chiseled in stone by penal law in which dissent is mercilessly prosecuted and persecuted!

 

That is the only real unique thing about the Holocaust is the persecution and prosecution of dissidents. There has always been massacres, there has always been genocides, there’s always been, … There are many cases where millions and millions of people died and where high percentages of ethnic groups were killed. Nothing of it, and they were talking about technologies, the “Holocaust” was highly technological, … If you actually look into it in fact it was not! The claims of [it being] highly technological are ridiculous! If you look into what the eye witnesses claim, things are so primitive that you would say if the Germans had really intended to do something like that they would had the technology, a [technologically] leading nation back then, that would have used a different solution to what’s claimed, which is technically impossible at times, but that’s a different issue.

 

So, the really only unique thing about the Holocaust is the persecution of dissidents!

 

And that shows you already that something must be fishy with the whole thing. And that’s the Achilles’ heel of the powers that be, and they know it. And that’s why they persecute anyone so mercilessly, because they know once that breaks through, once the broader amount, a broader percentage of the normal populace finds out about the real arguments of revisionists, how logical, how self-evident they are and how convincing they are, when once enough people lose the fear, because they are angry enough, … A lot of people, when they find out how they have been lied to and cheated about this and when they first see some pretty convincing arguments, they get really angry, …

 

Henrik: Yes!

 

Germar:… And they don’t care anymore about persecution. Now, if you get a critical mass of people, just a certain critical mass that starts a snowball rolling down the hill, then they’d lose control and they know it, and that’s why they are so merciless with the persecution.

 

Henrik: And also let me add, Germar, that, you know, this topic, this issue that is occurring right now with this historical event. This is really the spearhead of free speech right here as well. And all those that are supposedly free speech advocates, as we know, many of them NEVER stand up in defense of people who are subjected to the kind of persecution that you’ve been talking about. In many cases, of course, it’s been very successful of them to paint many of these people who question this historical event as being somehow almost lunatics, right? That the there’s a mental problem with these people, just because of the fact that you dare to question this event! So it’s almost like a preemptive strategy that has been put in place, where you’re not even supposed to get to the point where you look at some of the material of this, right?

 

Germar: Right! That is the effect of seventy years of propaganda, making everyone think everything is so obvious and so well proven, how could anyone be so deluded to doubt any of this. Now, of course, everybody who talks that way has no, not even a basic knowledge about the “Holocaust”, apart from knowing the name of Auschwitz and Zyklon B, maybe. The less people know it, sometimes, I get the impression that the less people know the more dogmatic they are about it!

 

Henrik: That’s right!

 

[35:22]

 

 

Germar: And it is so easy to actually, in a debate with them, to get them to lose footage on the factual basis, because they don’t know what we’re talking about. But they instantly switch over to an ad hominem attack, to accusations, the usual stuff, Nazi extremists, anti-semite, whatever. Nothing to do with the debate, whatsoever. And sometimes it gets ludicrous, because there are some people who have a Jewish heritage who are revisionists and then they start calling those people anti-semites, you know, it gets ridiculous. But even that works for some people, he’s a Jewish anti-semite, how does that work? A self-hating Jew, whatever!

 

Henrik: Right, right.

 

Germar: I found it edifying, I found it encouraging, funny at times. To how easy it is to get the system to panic. I saw that back then, doing my Ph. D at the Max Planck Institute, appearing in front of a court with my chemical research and the system was panicking! The judges were suddenly in the middle of it, without any reason interrupt the proceedings, run out of the courtroom to get instructions on how to handle the situation, because if an expert witness is present in the courtroom, it can by German law, procedural law, … The defendant’s expert witness cannot be denied to testify. If he is indeed an expert, I had a diploma decree in chemistry and I was going for a Ph. D at the Max Planck Institute, that is recognized as sufficient expertise to testify as an expert witness. So, I was an expert witness. I was an expert. I testified on a topic that was pertinent to the case and I was present in the court room. They could not deny me to testify and yet, after getting instructions — that is to say, “cover my ass” phone call to higher up judges, or whatever — the judges came back and broke the law and denied me to [right to] testify!

 

So I’ve seen how they panic. What tricks they pull off their sleeves to pose this illusion, and that shores up the whole system. So, it’s just one little guy who makes the whole system panic and I’ve seen that again and again, you know! If you look how many actively researching and publishing revisionists there are in the world. Italy just introduced a “Holocaust” denial law a couple of weeks ago.

 

Henrik: Oh, really yeah! Because, I looked at a map and I saw that Italy was not on that map of having these laws. So that’s changed now?

 

map-european-countries-with-holocaust-denial-laws-2016

 

Germar: The map is outdated. The map was drawn half a year ago and now just a month ago, I think, it’s relatively fresh, they introduced it. And in Italy you have one person, one person who is publishing revisionism. Just one! So they introduce a law to prevent this one person from doing what he is doing and threatening him with three years in jail! Where there’s always bloggers and people who comment and sympathizers to support the guy, but that’s not the issue. The real danger comes from the people who do the research and bring up the convincing evidence and show up in courtrooms and get the system into trouble. Because they, you know:

Well we have free speech. We are nations under the rule of law and we abide to law and the authorities have to follow the law to”.

 

But if then push comes to shove you experience it yourself. They don’t give a damn about the law! They break it as they need to uphold this whole thing.

 

Henrik: Which would mean that, I mean in that case when you were involved and the judges just changed things on the fly like that, that means that they individually are, … I mean obviously they would be prepped before a case like this, but someone is directing them to make sure that a desired outcome is the end result of something like this. Correct?

 

Germar: Yes! I mean there were precedent cases in Germany. If a judge tried to be accommodating to any kind of defense strategy along that line, the judge can be prosecuted. So the judge is putting his career on the line and even his freedom if he dares to follow the law by allowing evidence, … Now they have changed the law now. Now it is actually that you are not allowed to introduce any evidence as I just earlier mentioned. Back when I was appearing in court, that wasn’t the case, yet. I could still file motions and they couldn’t prosecute. But they have changed that then. Because, actually, of what I was doing back in those years.

 

[40:00]

 

They started prosecuting lawyers and there was no case-law, or written law to prosecute lawyers just for filing a motion to introduce evidence. But, the case-law was then created on two occasions, of two lawyers who had filed motions to introduce me as an expert witness. And at the end of it, such, filing such motions has now been effectively outlawed. So, that’s one of my achievements in this business too.

 

Henrik: Well, very well done! What would you, let’s just give a little bit of time here to the audience that are listening and the newcomer who’s listening and people who, you know, might be at a point where they basically have never looked at any of this material. They might be listening, because they’re intrigued with your story of suppression and active, you know, how the system has been working against you. Just what you’ve been talking about. But, can you describe a little bit of what actually a revisionist is? As opposed to what it is not. I mean, because, usually what happens, as you said, that you get a kind of straw man. They set up a lie, basically of what it is that you represent, when you start going into these topics. But, what would you say really is the case? What are really some of the questions and points that you and others like you are trying to lift forward and highlight?

 

Germar: Well, revisionism is a broad term and we should now limit it maybe to first “Holocaust” revisionism. We should limit it also to those who actually do the research, do the actual publication to get the knowledge together. There are always people who use material that we put out, that have their own agenda and those then get used, at times to blame it back on the revisionist if there’s some racist, or some [xxx] or neo-Nazi, and these people do exist. They come up, use the material to push for their own agenda. That happens to every idea you put out there can be abused by somebody. And that’s where those false claims come to take a neo-Nazi and claim he’s a revisionist. Now if it was the other way, here’s a neo-Nazi and he uses revisionist arguments or abuses them.

 

So, let’s get something straight. What the media tell [us what] revisionists are is a lie! There are very broad terms like, “All revisionists deny that Jews were persecuted.” which we don’t. It’s an undeniable fact that during the Third Reich that Jews were persecuted. They were deprived of their civil rights. They were deported. They were herded into ghettos. They were put into concentration camps and they were put to forced labor in the concentration camps.

 

Yes! There were crematoria where the corpses of those who had died were incinerated. And, there is no doubt that Jews died in great numbers for many reasons in the camps and in the ghettos, for epidemics malnutrition, disease, even mistreatment. And all this is not denied and furthermore there is no denying that other minorities were at times persecuted too. Like gypsies and political dissidents.

 

Now the extent of how many died and who died, for what reasons is then again the topic of discussion. But, the general issue that what happened with all the prosecution going on, that is not denied by revisionists. Furthermore the moral level, we need to get that out of the way. Revisionists don’t say, if you’re really serious, you don’t say that the treatment of the Jews was just. If you put a minority, just because a person belongs to a certain group, you stop persecuting them, mistreating them, that’s not justifiable! Now some people out there might do it and say:

Well, the Jews have done this and that and therefore they, …

 

No, that’s not the way you can argue. If some jew did something and you can’t hold this personal jew responsible, you can hold Jews as a group responsible for something only some of them did. So, do we deny the victims dignity? No! Do we want to wipe out the memory of these victims? No! We want victims to be remembered. Not just Jewish victims, all the victims of violence, of persecution, of wars and atrocities. Do we deny showing compassion to these victims? No! Somebody is a victim, there were a lot of victims for a number of reasons and compassion is always due.

 

[45:00]

 

Do we deny that there was a systematic plan by the National Socialist government, enacted by technological means, in terms of homicidal gas chambers, to kill as many Jews as possible, ending up with a total death toll of six million? That is put into question.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Germar: So, it’s not about all the persecution that happened, about the many victims that died as a consequence of that and all this was unjust and bad. That is not denied. What we’re talking about is only, was there a plan to systematically wipe off the earth the Jews that the Nazis could lay their hands, primarily by means of chemical slaughterhouses, called gas chambers? And is the death toll at the end, six million? These are the questions. And I got into it by, very specifically, asking, in Auschwitz, the places that claim to have been homicidal gas chambers, were they or were they not, … I wasn’t asking about, “Did Auschwitz exist?” That’s ridiculous to ask, you know. Did Hiroshima exist? Did, does Washington exist? No, that’s a stupid question to ask.

 

Fred Leuchter - 26 - Map - Auschwitz Complex

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of Auschwitz I, II and III complex.

 

Of course Auschwitz existed! It was a concentration camp. It had disastrous hygienic conditions, epidemic broke out at some point in the summer and fall of 1942. Hundreds of people, every day, died, because of typhus epidemics. And for, the only person who was responsible there is the leadership of the German Reich who decided to send all these people in the camp that wasn’t prepared to receive them. Now to do that, people for no reasons other than they belong to a group, in a camp and you can’t feed them and you can’t keep them healthy that’s your responsibility.

 

Fred Leuchter - 27 - Auschwitz I Camp Layout - Ver 2

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of Auschwitz I (Main Camp) layout.

 

There’s no doubt about it, but was there actually a gas chamber in that camp that was used to kill up to a million people? The death toll that is accepted by revisionists in Auschwitz lies a little bit of a hundred thousand. Now you have one wartime camp and a hundred thousand people within just three or four years, die in that camp! Can you imagine that?

 

Henrik: Yep, yep.

 

Germar: Bad! Awful! Terrible conditions! Over one hundred thousand people is bad news! But it’s better news than having a million people being slaughtered in a chemical slaughterhouse.

 

Herik: Right.

 

Germar: Just because I say:

Well, this is truth, a hundred twenty thousand died, because of bad conditions that the Germans were responsible for, because they just didn’t handle the situation properly”.

 

That makes me a denier and a bad person and, because I contest that there was a chemical slaughterhouse and I’ve had a zillion enough arguments why they couldn’t have been chemical slaughterhouses to begin with, because the types of epidemics were raging there so badly at the time when those exterminations are said to have happened. Now at that time, for infrastructure reasons, for technological reasons, for a number of reasons the Germans wouldn’t have been able to handle even more dead people than they already had at their hands, because of those epidemics that were raging.

 

Apart from the fact that all the technology, all the forensic evidence, all the documents clearly indicate there was no such thing! It’s just made up. And we have now consistent evidence of systematic torture of people under British and American and Soviet custody after the war, of the former camp, staff members.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Germar: To get, to extract from testimonies, which, by just looking at the testimonies and looking at how it could be technically possible what they claim, doesn’t hold up, hold water, compared to the facts we know. We know already by what they stated and how they stated it that it can’t be true. But knowing now by book published by a British journalist just ten years ago, the British and the American actually applied systematic torture! They got all these people from the former concentration camps, put them in these camps and tortured them by the hundreds, systematically to get those confessions out of them! And that’s what history is based upon.

 

And then you look at the witnesses, of those survivors and you see instead a similar pattern of claims that are just as ludicrous, have nothing to do with the reality and are completely off the wall for the most part of those who have claimed this. It’s proof for, … I mean they are a lot of survivors that in and of itself shows that there was no system in it, because if you have two hundred thousand Auschwitz survivors, which we do have, documentation about. Two hundred thousand, I think half of them, more than half are actually Jews. What kind of a systematic mass murder is it if a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand of them get away and are now sent into the world to testify?

 

[50:06]

 

 

No! But of these two hundred thousand that got out of the camp, maybe five hundred or a thousand got public with stories that are supposed to shore up the gas chamber stories. So, out of two hundred thousand we have just, say two thousand, that’s just one percent. And, in wartime situation, there is extreme emotion and extreme political propaganda. To have one percent and of the survivors lie, exaggerate, make up stories. There’s always one percent of the population that lies, exaggerate. This is normal. But you have the 199,000 that didn’t do it!

 

Henrik: Aha.

 

Germar: And all this is taken together makes it very clear in the case of Auschwitz, and this is a very well documented case, because almost all the documentation about Auschwitz survived. Many other camps, there were destroyed by the Germans before being overrun by the Allies, but not so in Auschwitz, not so in Majdanek. We have the documents there and we can reconstruct almost every nail and every brick that was used in the camp to do this or to do that. Every pencil that was shot from one side of the desk to the other is all recorded and documented and we can reconstruct it day by day we see no such thing! No trace!

 

They had other problems, massive problems of trying to man the armament factories with those workers. But then they had epidemics and the whole thing collapsed, because most of the workers were unable to work, because they died like flies, including the guards. Yes they died.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: They died too because of typhus.

 

Henrik: Yes. Starvation, you had obviously. There were so many things that Germany was struggling with at the time as well. That eventually, specifically towards the end of the war, things just collapsed entirely. And that is where we also got starvation coming into the picture and these kinds of things. But I want to continue to talk more about the evidence that you have, you know, gathered and researched over the years, in the second hour as we continue. But I want to spend about four or five minutes talking a bit about your latest book, so people know, you know, about some of the material that you’re working on and have available for people who want to find out more. It’s called, “Resistance is Obligatory”. Tell us a bit about the book and why you wanted to write this one.

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-1976-resistance-is-obligatory-front-cover

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-1977-resistance-is-obligatory-back-cover

 

Germar: As a matter of fact, when I was put into prison eventually, my entire case in the United States went bad and they deported me to Germany and there the police arrested me at the gangway coming out of the plane and put me in a prison to serve my old 14 months for my expert report. And then the put me on trial for the publications I had done in the meantime. And eventually sentenced me. Now in the situation as I was there, I was not allowed to defend myself in the matter itself. I gave a seven-day lecture in court about:

What is revisionism? Why is revisionism scholarly and scientific and why is the mainstream histography, the mainstream school of Holocaust research, so to say, why they are not scholarly?

 

And:

Why is it important to let scientists do their research freely and what importance does it have for our society?

 

And then also:

Who is violating laws here, is it me who is insisting on free speech, or is the government that tries to suppress something with illicit methods, or outright illegal methods?

 

And then coming up to the point:

What is a citizen to do when they see that the authorities violate the law to suppress civil rights?

 

That they persecute dissidents, peaceful dissidents. And the conclusion was basically with all the theoretical work that has been done in the West during the years of peaceful resistance, you know, you have the most famous representative is Mahatma Gandhi, everybody knows about him and about peaceful resistance. That’s where I also picked up and all these nice theories that the West has developed during the Cold War when there was the peace movement opposing the armament in general, or nuclear weapons in particular. Nuclear energy even in Germany with battles going on in the seventy’s and eighty’s in the country, almost like civil war where the peace movement was confronting the authorities, not very peacefully. And the theories that were developed then about when does a citizen have the right, or even the obligation, the moral obligation to resist authority?

 

[55:06]

 

And they’ve clearly shown in some cases, you know, if it’s about minor laws you’re not allowed to do it, but I mean if it’s about major principles of civil rights, then resistance is obligatory!

 

And that’s why I come to the conclusion. A human is different from any other animal by its critical capacity. The way we go about to distinguish illusion from reality, an animal has impressions from its environment through its senses and, but it can’t do much about it. It just have to live with whatever he body tells it’s supposed to do. We can be critical. We can communicate with others. We can verify, whether something is an illusion, or an actual fact and that scientific approach, that critical approach that is so unique to humans, that makes us humans. That’s the place of all human dignity. It’s not that we can have sex with what we want to, eat with whom we want to, that’s animal world. The human world is different from the animal world, because we can be critical and we can communicate critically. 

 

And if the government goes in and suppresses that very aspect of human life, they are suppressing human dignity, and that’s the very most important thing in the German constitution, human dignity. And the German government is trampling it into dust. Not just free speech, but human dignity. You want to have the right to doubt, that is where every research, every critical thinking begins! I doubt my sensory input and then I want to go about critically to find out what the truth is and if the government denies me to do that, the government denies me my humanity and then I have the obligation to resistance, to the very end!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: So, I told the court that. Here I am, I can do no other like Martin Luther* said, “Do with me what we want” but I resist, period!

 

So, basically that is what the book’s about it. It’s written down, my speech, my seven-day speech and then gives an explanation, documentation about of all the things that I said that I could not deliver in the courtroom. Now, I wrote it, actually, while I was in prison. I tried to publish it. While I was in prison and I got another prosecution because, of course, during my trial I was also defending myself against the accusations, that my writings are stirring up too hostile [?] feelings and that they were inaccurate and whatever. And that part of my defense speech was then used by the prosecution who intercepted my proofs going in and out of prison in preparation of the book. They interpreted that as my attempt to again deny and commit another crime! And they started prosecuting. Well, I had a good lawyer and he managed to get that case shelved and it went away. And I waited with publishing the book until I was out of prison and out of the reach of the German authorities.

 

But there it is, it came out just four years ago in the First Edition. However I’m on the second [edition] now.

 

*[Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German professor of theology, composer, priest, monk and a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation. Luther’s major works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ), both published in 1543.]

 

Henrik: Is that your latest work, I mean, I know you have several, … You are also working, I think with Eric Hunt a bit, video productions and things like this. Give us an overview of some of the things that you have available for people who want to find out more and really get the meat of your work, if you will.

 

Germar: Well, the central place to go if you want to find out about me and my work is my own personal website, which is Germar Rudolf dot com. Rudolf with an “lf” not a “ph”. And I have a section where I introduce my views from very simple texts to more complex texts, which includes some of the things that I’ve published over the years. And, also at the end has a list of all the publication that have come out. Now that’s when you want to approach it from finding out about me. Now if you’re interested in the topic as such, independent of my person, the best place to start is probably a website called Holocaust Handbooks dot com. Where the most up to date revisionist research, and also the most concise introductions into the topic have been posted. They are both available for purchase as Kindle, or as hard copy books, but most of them are actually available for free download. So you don’t have to spend a penny. You go to this website, look what you think you want to have and just download it.

 

[59:58]

 

And we also have documentaries that have come out over the years on that topic. That’s maybe the least committing and most entertaining way of getting your feet wet, so to say, …

 

Henrik: It’s effective, though, I have to say! [laughing] For the newcomer, for them to easily get an overview, because obviously, whether they appreciate, you know, history, or not, this could be academically a pretty hard topic, an emotionally hard topic to get into. But these videos, I think are a very effective tool to get the newcomers eyes open to a world which has been hidden from them.

 

Germar: Right. I think so too. There are a number that, … They all approach the topic from a different angle. We don’t have the one documentary that you should watch there’s a lot out there. If you go to YouTube, but then that’s a dumping ground for all kind of other trash to, so you need to be careful. We tried to really limited it to the stuff that we can vouch for is accurate. And sometimes there’s a video, it’s ten years old and research goes on and not everything is necessarily hundred percent accurate anymore.

 

Henrik: Sure.

 

Germar: But, for instance, we have released a documentary, “Questioning the Holocaust. Why We Believed” which picks up from where most people are, you “believe”. Of course, why wouldn’t you, because everybody says not that you have to, but it is so obvious, because all historians agree, all politicians agree, all media agree. If all the experts agree, how can you as an amateur, or as a complete novice, disagree? That would be insane! If all the experts agree there’s coming a thunderstorm around the corner, why would you disagree? It’s insane. So, we all believe!

 

Now the question is how do you get from that point to a different part in life and this video, “Questioning the Holocaust. Why We Believed” eases you in by not going into the very extremes of the Holocaust, which is Auschwitz, Treblinka, the mass extermination camps as they claim.

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-questioning-the-holocaust

[Image] Questioning “The Holocaust” is a multipart miniseries on “The Holocaust” and “Holocaust Revisionism.

 

Some people doubt millions of Jews were gassed in fake shower rooms and have some convincing evidence to show you!

 

Click here to view Part 1:

Questioning the Holocaust. Why We Believed

 

But into minor issues where it can be easily shown how people get disinformed by media. And I’m saying “disinformed”. I’m not saying lied to, because, rest assured, most journalists have been brainwashed their entire lives until they turn into professional journalists. They had their own beliefs, they have no reason to doubt and there is no other section of the population that thinks they know it all and whose knowledge is actually so superficial, as it is the case with journalists. They have to cover so many topics in such a quick succession, that let’s say the why write about that, that day. They’ll write about that the next minute, they have to write about this and always very concise, very brief. There is no way for them and no point in getting in-depth knowledge, because the time they have to invest to thoroughly research a topic they’re writing about, the topic is gone by the time they’re done. To do their research it takes you a couple of weeks, but news events are a matter of minutes, hours, days at best.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Germar: So journalists live from day-to-day, from minute to minute, and whatever they report is just it is just so superficial. But, taking you from there, we all know Dachau was a bad place, a concentration camp.

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-dachau-showers-never-used-as-gas-chamber

[Image] Notice informing visitors at Dachau that a room, allegedly “disguised” as a shower room was never used as a “gas chamber”.

 

And when the Americans went in there for the corpses and the same happened when they went to Nordhausen* and they found these mass corpses and they recorded it, they had it on film and they showed it right after the war as proof of German atrocities.

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-nordhausen-after-being-bombed

[Image – click to enlarge] Nordhausen and the surrounding city, full of innocent civilians, were bombed by over 500 British Royal Air Force planes in two days. Images of sick prisoners, bombed and shot by British planes, are exploited and twisted as proof of a deliberate, planned German “Holocaust.” Source: http://questioningtheholocaust.com/

 

And Eric Hunt, the documentary maker, goes from there and then shows, with all the documentation and the facts available, that these are distorted manipulated footage. That actually, when we look into the documentation to what really happened, prove something completely different than what the Allies claimed! And what is being repeated has been repeated ever since and is being dished out to this day by the mass media, because the mass media, the journalists don’t know any better!

 

And if there’s one, or two that do know any better they won’t be employed very long, anymore by the media.

 

Henrik: That’s absolutely right, Germar. I want to take a break here now and then continue in the second hour and talk more about your work, or your experiences and also tie this in as you kind of did in the beginning you spoke a bit about what’s happening in Europe right now, but I want to get your take on where Germany and Europe is in all of this, in terms of what’s happening right now. But I wanted to just give out the website here, one more time. It’s Germar Rudolf dot com. Germar RUDOLF dot com. That’s the website. And then you have, Holocaust Handbooks dot com. And we’ll add a few videos to this program page as well that you definitely want to take a look at if you’re a newcomer. If you’ve been, you know, listening this far, give it a chance, you know, hear them out. Give a look at it and see what you think for yourself.

 

[65:07]

 

I think that this will open up a topic for you which is remarkable when you when the pieces of the puzzle begins to fall in place. And as I said before, this really is the spearhead of free speech right now, as well. There are many free speech activists out there, who supposedly enjoy free speech and they they push for it. They claim they’re for it, but they would never touch a topic like this. The point is to try to get them to look at a topic like this, to make them understand that it’s legitimate. These are a very important, it’s important for, as Germar said in the beginning, for identity, for reasons of the fact that it’s being used against us as a weapon, for [against] us. To erode our culture and all of these things that we’re seeing happening in Europe and in America, for that matter too. But we’ll pick this up Germar in the second segment here. Much more to get into, so stay with us everybody, stay with us Germar.

 

We will take a short break and then we will be right back. Thank you so much for listening.

 

Stay tuned for the second hour with Germar Rudolf. A very important and frankly frightening second hour as we discuss the coming demographic winter in Europe, if current trends continue.

 

We begin by talking about the massive power structure upheaval that would need to occur in order for Western civilization at large to achieve a complete paradigm shift and accept the fact that we have been lied to and manipulated on so many levels concerning World War Two and World War One.

 

We talk about the establishment’s great fear of the rise of nationalism despite the recent terrorist attacks by foreign invaders in Germany, France and all around Europe. And Germar gives a grim picture of the migration statistics from Europe. Which is, you know, seeing many of its best and brightest fleeing Europe from the incoming population, the invasion. And they are taking up residence in other parts of the world. We discussed the most critical extinction level crisis that is plaguing Europe right now, the demographic decline that is resulting from the shrinking birth rates.

 

Germar emphasizes the financial implications of Europeans allowing themselves to be bred out like this, and we debate, whether, or not the government is discentivizing, or incentivizing having larger families is sort of really the issue. We talk a bit about the sixties sexual revolution, the advent of birth control and also, of course, materialism itself.

 

Very interesting continuation, definitely don’t miss it if you want to hear more. So the website is the red eyes members dot com. Sign up for a membership if you haven’t already. It’s only six Euros per month. You can try to out for a three month subscription, but we have memberships up to two years available. Support commercial free and independent media! Thank you so much for listening, ladies and gentleman. We’ll be right back with the second hour. Stay tuned, we’ll see on the other side.

 

 

 

[69:51]

 

END OF PART 1/2

 

NOTE: Part 2 is available here:

Red Ice Radio – Germar Rudolf – Persecution of Revisionists & Demographic Disaster – Part 2— TRANSCRIPT

 

======================================

 

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (4.0 MB):

 

red-ice-radio-germar-rudolf-persecution-of-revisionists-demographic-disaster-part-i-transcript-part-1

 

Red Ice Radio - Germar Rudolf - Part 1 COVER Ver 2

 

 

Version History

 

Version 12: May 16, 2017 — Fixed some missing words and typos.

 

Version 11: May 6, 2017 — Added link to Part 2.

 

Version 10: Dec 9, 2016 — Improved formatting.

 

Version 9: Sep 24, 2016 — Added more images. Added PDF of post for download.

 

Version 8: Sep 14, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (now complete). Added 3 images. Total completed = 70 minutes.

 

Version 7: Sep 13, 2016 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 55 minutes.

 

Version 6: Sep 12, 2016 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 45 minutes.

 

Version 5: Sep 10, 2016 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 35 minutes.

 

Version 4: Sep 9, 2016 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 25 minutes.

 

Version 3: Aug 9, 2016 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Total completed = 15 minutes.

 

Version 2: Aug 7, 2016 — Completed first 10 minutes of transcript.

 

Version 1: Aug 2, 2016 — created post.

Read Full Post »

Realist Report Interview Eric Hunt - 1794 COVER

 

 

[Here’s the transcript of an audio interview by John Friend with Eric Hunt about his revisionist video making and his latest video, “Questioning the Holocaust, Why We Believed — Part One” Both Friend and Hunt don’t mince their words about calling out the “Holocaust” for what it is, a gigantic pack of evil lies being foisted upon the world by the only victor, and instigator, of WW II, namely organized jewry  — KATANA.]

 

 

 

The Realist Report

 

Interviews Eric Hunt

 

 

by John Friend

 

 

http://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-eric-hunt/

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the video.

 

Published on May 3, 2016

by John Friend

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined by Eric Hunt, one the top revisionists in the world today. Eric has made numerous documentary films thoroughly debunking the fake “Holocaust” narrative of WWII, one of the greatest deceptions ever foisted upon humanity. In this podcast, Eric and I discuss his latest documentary project Question “The Holocaust,” including the recently released film Questioning “The Holocaust” – Why We Believed. We also address a number of other topics related to the fake “Holocaust” narrative, and how his weaponized version of history has been effectively used against the White Western world.

Subscribe to The Realist Report today, and support independent media!

Did you enjoy this program? Consider donating to The Realist Report to help us continue producing podcasts – $10 goes a long way! Enter your email below and donate now!

_____________________________

 

 

 

Transcript

 

 

[00:00]

 

 

 

Intro: You’re listening to the Realist Report. Here’s your host, John Friend.

 

John Friend: All right folks welcome back to another edition of the Realist Report. This is your host, John Friend. Joining me on the line today is Eric Hunt, one of the top revisionists in the world today. Eric, welcome to the program. How are you today, sir?

 

Eric Hunt: Hi John, I’m great. I’m happy to talk to you again.

 

John Friend: Yes! Excellent! I’m glad you could be here. It’s been a while since we since we last spoke. I’ve had you on the program, it’s probably been a couple, you know, at least two years. So, I guess, just to get started how are things going, how have you been?

 

Eric Hunt: I’ve been well. I’ve been able to do some traveling and sort of research for this video that’s been released. I was able to go to Auschwitz last summer, which was, you know, basically the highlight so far of someone who’s been researching this for, in-depth, for over a decade. So it’s been an interesting time since I’ve last spoken to you.

 

John Friend: Right, yeah and you’ve done a lot, you know, you’ve produced a lot of documentaries dealing with the holocaust. And I think the last time I had you on we talked specifically about the, “Treblinka Archaeology Hoax” which was a documentary you produced. And I guess just get started could you talk about some of your previous documentaries. I know you’ve made, “The Last Days of the Big Lie”. Which was the first documentary that I saw, that you produced, and that’s really a must see for anybody out there that’s interested in the subject. But you’ve also produced, you know, a couple other documentaries. So, could you maybe just sort of, you know, summarize your previous work?

 

Realist Report Interview Eric Hunt - 1804 Treblinka Archaeology Hoax

 

(more…)

Read Full Post »