Wrong Planet.

[IlluSionS667]

The following is an article that I wrote some time ago, which should explain the Jewish-German conflict between 1933-1945 and the actual course of events. As you'll notice, I refered to myself as a national-socialist back when I wrote the article. Currently I'm more inclined to refer to myself as a conservative revolutionary, although my views still resemble those of national-socialist Germany. My views are not identical to those of national-socialist Germany, however, and the label mational-socialism carries far more negative conotations than the term conservative revolutionary. Hence my reluctancy to label myself as national-socialist these days.

Below, you find an article I wrote a few years ago on the issue of the 'holocaust' and the question what really happened to the jews. Due to the extra knowledge I've gained since, I had to rewrite some sections and made minor adaptations to others. Most of the article stays in its orriginal form, though.

The article is not very professional, but sufficient for its purpose. The article itself does little effort to prove what happened, but only to give a more clear idea of what did really happen, different from what the 'holocaust enforcers' would like you to believe, and to answer the questions most sceptics have. If you're looking for some evidence for my claims, I suggest you check out the sources provided in the bottom of the article.

The NSDAP and the jews

I've been raised among liberals. Most of my social interaction occurs among programmers and intellectuals. I respect people regardless of race, sexuality, religion or political views. I however believe that certain concepts that appear to be the foundations of modern society (multi-culturalism, christianity, judaism, materialism, consumerism, egotism, free abortion, free divorce, ...) are a great danger to the future of all civilisations and mankind in general. It would require a 100 page essay to fully explain every aspect of it, for which I have no time, but I can assure you that none of these views are based on bias. National socialism rejects every single one of these concepts, and provides an alternative spiritual and political philosophy, clearly influenced by Nietsche, Blavatsky, Kierkegaard, Von Liszt, Heidegger, Darwin, Kant, Haushofer and other great thinkers. National socialism has to be regarded as a reaction to materialism, with most obvious roots lying in darwinism, romanticism and Germanic pagantry. Though both skinheads and anti-fascists use the term 'nazi' to refer to white supremacism, it is definitely an incorrect view of a wonderful and positive ideology. Anti-semitism or white supremacism have never been elements of national socialism. They were merely derivative concepts, based on certain concepts I do not fully agree with, but that were generally accepted by early 20th century science. They were an anti-reaction to the power of ancient alien-capitalist jews, and the oppression of the Germanic spirit, which alone requires a lengthy essay to fully explain. I'm not a an anti-semite or a white supermacist, but I do refer to myself as national socialist.

I still have huge amount of respect for Hitler. I'm a revisionist, and I have stumbled on a lot of evidence to conclude that Hitler never ordered the jews to be exterminated. I do not believe in murdering 'all who's different', which is what most people think national socialism is about. It has never been about that. The wonderful ideology of national socialism has been distorted by many. The NSDAP has been vilified to an extreme degree, in an Orwellian fashion.
I also don't 'worship' or follow Hitler, by the way. I merely recognize 90% of my own views in the views of the NSDAP and I like to honor him for being the first to do something politically with those views.

Today, national socialists and revisionists (who do not necessarily have something to do with each other) are the most misunderstood and prosecuted people. One could say we're the new jews.

Remember that written history always depends on who writes it :

"Only the winners decide what were war crimes." (Gary Wills)
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
"We shall go down in history as the greatest statesmen of all time, or as the greatest criminals." (Josef Goebbels)
"There are two histories : official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events" (Honoré de Balzac)
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwell)
"The victor will never be asked if he tolds the truth." (Adolf Hitler)
"Truth does not fear investigation." (David Lane)
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell)

Compare Cuban and Sovjet history books with an American one. Even European and American history books speak very differently on certain subjects. History telling is always colored. That's because those who won the war usually decide how the face of the enemy should be described. As their influence is different in different countries, history books are different in different countries. Wartime propaganda sometimes remains alive, while the truth fades away. I wonder how European history books would have looked like, had Hitler won the war.....

Auschwitz was an prison camp, but not an extermination camp. I have been to both Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II and noticed several inconsistencies with those claims. Have they shown you the Auschwitz swimming pool and sport facilities? Have they shown you the Auschwitz theatre? Have they mentioned the frequent visits of the red cross inspection teams? Have they told you about the camp incentive system? .....


I've seen this swimming pool at Auschwitz with my own eyes. It was located right near inmates barracks without any fence in between and could therefore not have been used by SS guards, like some claim.

The gas chambers of Auschwitz I were in reality nothing but air raid shelters when the Russians arrived, as historian and director of the Auschitz museum Franciszek Piper has admitted in an interview. After the war, the Russians had broken out all the wall and put some holes in the ceiling. This would suffice to convince the visitors that these were gas chambers. However, it is still clearly visible that walls were taken out, and research did point out that the holes were constructed later. Piper did claim, however, that these changes were done to recreate the state of the structure to how it was BEFORE it became an air raid shelter. But there is no evidence that it ever was a gas chamber, nor were there mentionable Zyklon B traces, unlike in the delycing chambers, which no one claims to have ever been used to murdering people.

Do you really trust the Stalinist regime? They were known for staging fake trials. They made several claims for execution methods, for instance electrocution chambers. The gas chambers is one of the few claims that actually remained during the Nuremberg trial. Let's also think of Katyn, which was a mass murder committed by Russians but blamed on the Germans.


Above, you see pictures from a Russian brochure on the Katyn massacre. It blamed these dead on the Germans, but it would later be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians were responsible. Today, no serious historian doubts this well-known fact.

In important piece of evidence for the 'gas chambers' at the Nurember Trials was the 'confession' of Rudolf Höss (camp commander of Auschwitz). Nevertheless, Höss was obviously tortured and his testimony was filled with inconcistencies.

Worthy to mention is the documentary "Truth behind the gates of Auschwitz" that is made by a young man who's atheist by religion, but Jew by race and education. It is completely filmed behind the gates of Auschwitz. If you use bittorrent, you can surely find it online some place. This movie tries to take an objective view on what really happened during the so-called 'holocaust', especially in Auschwitz. The concept of the movie is to find out the real nature of the so-called 'gas chambers' and to examen 'evidence' for the usage of these 'gas chambers' in Auschwitz. The whole movie is made in a very logical and deductive method. It doesn't enforce any conclusions on you, which is one of the strengths of this movie. As the movie is made by a person called David Cole who is atheist by religion, but jew by birth and education, it also adds to the strength of this movie. This is because the only logical conclusions one can make from this movie are undeniably revisionistic. Revisionists have always been accused for being biased by their ideological views and therefor alone being unreliable. As someone of jewish descendence who can impossibly be a revisionist for ideological reasons, David Cole therefor is much more credible.
Because this video was very controversial, especially in ancient alien circles, David Cole was victimised in a very large degree after this movie came out. After serious threats by the JDL, he finally decided to publicly retract his revisionist view. Anyone who's familiar with WW2 history knows that this is only in favor of the revisionist version. But don't let any believed get enforce onto you. Judge for yourself. The quality of the movie could be better, but the quality of the information is very high. For more info on the retraction of David Cole, go to this site (written by a critic of revisionism) or this site (written by a supporter of revisionism). For more info on revisionism, go to this site.

Also recommendable it this pro-holocaust website on Buchenwald.

Important details it mentions :

" Non political prisoners were sent to the concentration camps in the early days for a six month period and if they learned the value of work they were released". ( so perhaps the phrase "arbeit macht frei" should be taken literally after all )

"Here the prisoners could buy cigarettes or personal items with the camps money that they earned by working, or with money they received from relatives outside the camp." (so they had their own incentive system too)

"Prisoners who arrrived at Buckenwald had to live in this camp temporarily as health measure, in an effort to stop epidemics!"

"There was a soccer field,..soccer was the main sport, but the prisoners also played handball, volleyball, rounders and even basketball.... There were several teams organized and they played against each other for championships...the only thing lacking in Buchenwald was a swimming pool like the one in Auschwitz."

Also very interesting is the fact that Auschwitz had it's own art museum ! ( source 1 , source 2 - Please note that neither of these two sources are Holocaust revisionist sources).

The Jewish world population before the outbreak of the 2nd World War:

According to
“The National Council of Churches”, USA, 1930……….…………………….15 000 000
“Jewish Encyclopedia”, USA, 1933…………………………………………………….15 600 000
“World Almanac”, publ.:American Jewish Committee, USA, 1939…15 600 000

The Jewish world population after the 2nd World War:

According to
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1945…15 192 089
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1946…15 753 638
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1947…15 698 259
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1948…15 500 000
“The New York Times”, USA, different entries 1948 (!)....………………15 700 000-18 600 000
“World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1950…11 500 000
“The National Council of Churches”, USA, ……… …1951 ………………....15 500 000
Strangely enough in the year 1950 (exactly at the time of the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was to meet with Nahum Goldmann, the president of the Jewish World Congress, in concern with the so-called reparation payments to the freshly arisen state Israel), a round number of 4 000 000 Jews disappeared from the statistics the US-based ‘American Jewish Committee’.

What's a Vernichtungslager then?

There was never any such thing as a camp officially called "Vernichtungslager".

The official designation of the Auschwitz main camp was "Konzentrationslager Auschwitz", or "KL-Auschwitz".

The official designation of Birkenau was "Kriegsgefangenenlager Birkenau", or KGL-Birkenau.

The official designation of Majdanek was originally KGL-Lublin, then changed to KL-Lublin.

The official designation of Belzec was "Sonderlager der Waffen-SS Belzec".

I have not been able to find the official German designations of Sobibor and Chelmno.

German concentration camps were officially divided into three groups, according to the severity of the treatment of the prisoners, Group 1 being the most leninet, and Group 3 being the most severe.

Only one camp was in Group 3; that was Mauthausen (Austria).

Auschwitz main camp was in Group 1 and Birkenau in Group 2. Thus, Mauthausen was officially considered a more severe camp than Birkenau.
The term "Vernichtungslager" was never used by the Germans themselves. It is a translation of the Polish term "oboz zaglady", which the Polish underground hyperbolically applied to German concentration camps to which captured Polish resistance fighters were sent.

There is not the slightest proof that any program of mass extermination was carried out in these camps at all: all the allegations made in this regard are based solely on unreliable 'eyewitness' testimony. On the basis of the few available documents and a great deal of other evidence, it may be deduced that Treblinka and Sobibor were transit camps, via which some Jews were sent east - into the occupied Soviet zones - while others were sent, in transit, via these camps, to a variety of work camps. It is highly probable that Belzec was a transit camp as well. Auschwitz-Birkenau was definitely a work camp. Of Chelmno, we know next to nothing.


The gate of Auschwitz reads Arbeit Macht Frei (trans: labour sets free). German national-socialists believed that physical labor would cleanse both body and soul of degeneracy and weakness. German national-socialists believed that physical labor could turn people into better people. Many people were released from such work camps when they were believed to be cured. We must therefore take the slogan above literally.

How about the Endlösung? Did that not exist either?

He never planned to exterminate an entire race. only wanted the jews out of his empire, because they were considered harmful for the National Socialist ideals and the German people in general. This is because their ways of life and their sense of morality were too different from what was required in the country. The Germans despised the jewish people, because they believed the Jewish values were destructive for the Aryan morale, and they believed that wealthy Jews behaved like leeches on the German economy. It would take a few more pages to fully explain this, however I can say with certainty that he did have sufficient reasons to believe this. He did however generalize too much. Certainly, it was not an entire race that was 'evil'. Certainly, it was only a part of the Jewish population that was racist towards non-Jews and exploited the German people. Certainly, there were some very sweet, nice, gently jews. This is where science comes in. Back in those days, scientists strongly believed there was a link between genetics and sociological behavior. Today many people still believe this, though social conditions probably play a much more important role than genetics. Back then however, genetics was considered the cause of sociological behavior. And this lead to the generalisation that not just SOME Jews were evil, but ALL Jews.

From the beginning of the National Socialist regime in Germany, there were concentration camps such as those in Dachau and Buchenwalt. They were meant as preventive prisons for political oponents the national socialists considered to be a danger for the Reich. The national socialists had a strong dislike for the jewish people, but their policy against the jews did not go any further than the boycot of jews and anti-jewish propaganda. Their policy todays the jews was about migration.

Their ways to get the jews out of the country were simple, but genius. In 1933, they started to decrease the right of the Jewish people. Jewish people could not obtain certain jobs, go to certain public places, etc. (Please note, however, that this happened only after a worldwide Jewish call to boycot Germany) At the same time, the party established migration programs with ancient alien organisations that helped set up funds to ease migration, such as the Haavara Agreement. Many jews already migrated because of these measures.


Infamous headlines on the Jewish boycot of Germany



Document on the Haavara agreement in Hebrew

Jew Herschel Grynszpan went to the German embassy in Paris on November 7, intending to assassinate the German Ambassador to France. He had heard that his family was deported from Germany and he was filled with rage about this. Upon discovering that the Ambassador was not in the embassy, he settled for a lesser official, Third Secretary Ernst vom Rath. Rath, was critically wounded and died two days later, on November 9.

As a reaction to these events, the large anti-Jewish riot emerged in German cities. This event would later be known as 'Kristallnacht' (Crystal night = night of the broken glass). A lot of jewish property got destroyed in a night of organised vandalism, including many windows (hence the name). Jews who tried to defend their property, often got beaten by the vandals. Nearly 30000 supposebly dangerous jews were arrested and thrown in the camps. Most of those would later be set free, though.


The aftermath of Kristallnacht.

Around that time, the National Socialist government wanted to unite Austria and Germany because both were befriended nations inhabited by Germany. Austria signed an agreement with Germany that would unite both countries into one Greater Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The reactions of the Austrian population and a later poll would indicated that this had the support of the Austrian population.

Sudetenland was an area that belonged to Germany prior to the Treaty of Versailled but that was handed over to Czechoslovakia. Ethnic Germans were not treated properly and Hitler demanded this territory was handed back to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, Italy, and Germany held a conference in Munich on September 29-30, 1938. In what became known as the Munich Pact, they agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge that this would be the end of the annexations. Shortly afterwards, however, Hacha would ask Germany to help fight off the communist rebels that had plunged Czechoslovakia into chaos. Consequently, the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia became a German protectorate and Hitler sent in troops to restore other. Slovakia became an independent state, closely allied with Germany.

There were also various German territories that had been absorbed by the Polish state. The Polish government seriously neglected the rights of the ethnic Germans living in those territories and they refused to allow Germany to build a highway that could connect East-Prussia with the rest of the German territories. Hitler had been discussing these issues for a very long time, but in 1939 Poland suddently ceased all negotiations unilaterally. Hitler threatened to attack Poland if it would not continue the negotiations, but Poland also ignored that. England had been making promises to Poland and Poland felt confident enough not to agree.

6 days before the day Hitler had planned to invade Poland, England and France signed an Agreement of Mutual Assistance. This would be used as an excuse by England and France to attack Germany. They had been jealous of Germany's economic rise for quite some time and they feared that Germany would soon dominate all of Europe economically and politically. Therefore they wanted to destroy the German national-socialist government.

At this moment, Germany became an isolated country and the German migration policy seized to function any more. Its internal security was at risk because of the severely increased foreign hostility. Meanwhile, chief ancient alien Weizmann declared his support to the British government in the war effort in name of all Jews. Hitler considered this a Jewish declaration of war and decided to put all jews in camps or ghettoes, for being member of an enemy nation and therefore a significant secutiry threat. Please note that Roosevelt did the same with Japanese-Americans.


American concentration camp for Japanese-Americans.

Of course, the concentration camps would have extra cheap labor forces that could help support the war effort. But migration and internation with the purpose of control and (slave) labor was all they really had planned and executed. As the Germans swept through Poland, S.S. leader Heydrich asked the local Jewish populace to form Jewish Councils as a liaison between the national-socialist government and the Jews. The council of Jewish elders was responsible for organizing the orderly deportation to the camps, for detailing the number and occupations of the Jews in the ghettos, for distributing food and medical supplies.

Any claim they the camps existed for the purpose of extermination is completely ungrounded. Even the infamous Wannsee conference documents always mention internation and migration, and never extermination. Of course, the allied nations explained this as being code language, later on. The infamous Einsatzgruppen did execute a lot of jews, but also a lot of non-jews. The reason for this had nothing to do with race or religion though, but all with these people being (accused of being) resistance forces. This probably did cost the lives of many innocent people. This may seem cruel, but this is common practice during war. I wonder how many innocent people were killed by the Russians and Americans during the war, in an effort to kill those resisting them. Hell, the Americans and English even purposely bombed civilian cities to the ground (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Nijmegen, ...).


A city in ruins : the aftermath of the Dresden bombing.

Still, many people died in these camps and ghettoes. The allied governments wanted us to believe that the camps all were a part of a huge plan to jewish extermination (in stead of emigration) The fact is that most people died out of famine or disease (mostly typhus).


Children liberated from Auschwitz. We're supposed to believe that everyone who couldn't work was killed on arrival, but this would contradict the very survival of these children.

And then there were the so-called death marches, which were nothing else than evacuations from the camps, when the Russians were coming to close. If there ever was the intent to murder all jews, why not just kill them then? But no, they let camp inmates walk for miles and miles in an effort to evac the camps. Some were killed, if they couldn't keep up. This is also normal practice in a time of war. Many people survived this though.

Also was it not official policy to give the jews inefficient supplies of food with the purpose of their starvation. Proof of these can be found in the follwing documents :

The extremely high mortality rates in the camps naturally influenced the economic efficiency of the camps in a highly negative way. On December 28, 1942, Concentration Camp Inspector Richard Glücks sent the following instructions in a circular letter to the commandants of 19 concentration camps:

"The first camp doctors must strive with all means available to them to ensure that the mortality figures in the individual camps are to be considerably reduced. [...] The camp doctors must supervise the nourishment of the inmates more than in the past, and submit suggestions for improvement in conformity with the administrations. Such measures must exist, not merely on paper, but must rather be regularly controlled by the camp doctors. [...] The Reichsführer SS has ordered that the mortality must be reduced at all costs."

These instructions had concrete results: within eight months the mortality in the concentration camps fell by almost 80%

On October 26, 1943, SS-Obergruppenführer and Leader of the of the SS-WVHA Oswald Pohl sent all concentration camp commandants a circular letter in which he remarked:

"Within the framework of the armaments production the concentration camps have become [...] a factor of decisive military significance. We have created incomparable armaments factories where nothing existed before.

In earlier years, within the framework of the then applicable educational tasks it could be a matter of indifference whether an inmate performed useful work or not. Now, however, the working power of the inmates is of significance and all measures of the commander, leaders of the V Service and doctors must apply themselves to the maintaining the health and efficiency of the inmates. Not from reasons of sentimentality, but rather because we need them, with their arms and legs, because they must contribute to the achievement of a great victory by the German people, therefore we must be attentive to the well-being of the inmates.

I set the following objective: No more than a maximum of 10% of all inmates may be unable to work as a result of disease. This objective must be reached in a common task of all responsible officials. The following are necessary for this purpose:

- Correct and adequate food.
- Correct and adequate clothing.
- The utilization of all natural remedies.
- Avoidance of all effort not immediately necessary for the performance of needed work.
- Premiums for efficiency. [...]
I will bear personal responsibility for the supervision of the measures repeatedly described in the present letter."

The widespread idea that limitless arbitrary cruelty prevailed in the National Socialist concentration camps and that sadistic mistreatment was a common occurrence is simply not confirmed by surviving German wartime documentation. We are aware that regulations may exist only on paper, and we do not doubt that acts of cruelty often occurred in the camps. But that such acts in no way reflected official policy is clearly obvious from the regulations for the camp administration. In Auschwitz, every SS man had to sign a declaration reading word for word as follows:

"I am aware that only the Führer possesses life and death decision-making powers over enemies of the State. I am not permitted to injure or kill any enemy of the State (inmate). Any killing of an inmate in a concentration camp requires the personal approval of the Reichsführer SS. I am aware that I will be severely called to account for any violation of this regulation."

Kazimierz Smolen, former Director of the Auschwitz-Museum, wrote an article on the punishment system at Auschwitz based on German documents, in which the various punishments provided for by the regulation are listed in order of severity:

- Warning with threat of punishment
- Additional work
- Temporary transfer to a punishment
- company
- Arrest
- Severe arrest with withdrawal of food
- Arrest in solitary confinement
- Beating (25 blows).

Prior to execution of the beating punishment an examination by a physician was required. Death sentences required approval by the RSHA prior to execution.

Severe steps were occasionally taken against SS men guilty of committing crimes against inmates: two camp commandants - Karl Koch of Buchenwald and Hermann Florstedt of Majdanek - and one physician of Bushenwald - Dr. Waldemar Hoven - were executed by the National Socialists themselves for this matter.

In the month of May 1945 (after the liberation), there were 2,226 Dachau inmates who died in the typhus epidemic which was still raging. There were 196 more deaths in June 1945. The epidemic was finally brought under control by the Americans with the use of DDT to kill the lice and typhus vaccine to stop the spread of the disease. The Germans did not have DDT or vaccine to prevent typhus.

Except for jews and gypsies (who were also considered a threat to the state, because of their ways of life and morality), the German state did not racially discriminate people. Though pureblood German people were envied and held in a higher regard, foreigners and even Slavs or half-jews (who denounced Judaism) were treated equally. Some half-jews even took important positions in the German chain of command.

'll give you some sources to read, both internet and book sources. I tried to limit my list of book sources mostly to books that can also be found online. Of course there are dozens more. Some are very well scientifically backed, unlike most works that tell the official version. Not all revisionist material is of high quality of course, but in average their proof is pretty solid.

websites :
- ihr.org
- vho.org
- Holocaust Historiography project

books :
- Holocaust Affirmers (Alexander Baron)
- The Hoax Of The 20th Century (Arthur Butz)
- The Rumor of Auschwitz (Robert Faurisson)
- The Giant With Feet Of Clay : Raul Hilber and his standard work on the "holocaust" (Jürgen Graf)
- Holocaust or Hoax? (Jürgen Graf)
- The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One (Don Heddesheimer)
- The Myth of the Six Million (David Hoggan)
- Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (Carlo Mattogno)
- Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Carlo Mattogno)
- Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
- Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
- Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
- The Drama of the European Jews (Paul Rassinier)
- The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (Henri Roques)
- Dissecting the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf)
- The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Germar Rudolf)
- The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (Paul Rassinier)
- The origins of the Second World War (AJP Taylor)

About the "Hakenkreuz":

The "Hakenkreuz" is one of the most ancient religious symbols, perhaps even THE most ancient. It is or has been used by Buddhists (where they call wan or manji), Hindus (where they call it swastika or sauvastika), the Greek (where they called it tetraskelion or gammadion) and the ancient Germanic people (where they called it fylfot). The Native Americans and the Hebrews also used the symbol, but I'm not aware of their name for it. In the late 19th century and the early 20th century is was also used in the US as a good luck symbol.

Some cultures use the clockwise version, some use the counter-clockwise version and others use both. While in most cultures both counter-clockwise and clockwise versions have the same meaning, in some cultures the counter-clockwise version is a negative symbol. The clockwise version used by Hitler's NSDAP however, never was a negative symbol.

Unlike what many people think, Hitler did not turn around the positive counter-clockwise Hindu swastika to make it an evil sign. He used the clockwise Germanic fylfot as an inspiration. It's meaning is very similar to the Oriental 'yin-yang' symbol. It was supposed to mark Germany that was supposed to become a 'land of milk and honey' through the ideals of National Socialism. But while Hitler was re-conquering German territory that had been stolen from Germany in 1918, England and France started a war against Germany, which would lead to the demise of the great empire.

[IlluSionS667]

Can you name any such country where the suicide rates have even been measured with any degree of scientific accuracy? Feel free to provide them, otherwise suicide rate is not useful to your argument at all.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls from 2005 and 2006 show that countries that are more religious tend to have lower suicide rates.

[Al Swearegen]

**** Illusion it is OK you have proved yourself in this battle my friend and as a reward for your rational debate and logical conclusions, please accept the gift of a large tin foil hat****

 

[IlluSionS667]

**** Illusion it is OK you have proved yourself in this battle my friend and as a reward for your rational debate and logical conclusions, please accept the gift of a large tin foil hat****

 

You're always free to provide counterarguments against my statements. Thusfar, any attempt to debunk my viewpoints has been quite pathetic and far from sufficient.

[odeon]

Anyway, the total number of Jews in the world approximated 15,000,000 individuals both before and after the war. There is no room for 6,000,000 dead. While it is true that the number of Jews in continental Europe decreased significantly between 1933 and 1945, most of it was due to migration to countries like the US, the UK, Palestine, Australia or Canada.

I knew you'd try to use this one. The 15,000,000 population estimates from before and after the war (1939 and 1948 estimates, respectively) comprise a common--and deliberate, I presume--misunderstanding from you and your fellow neo-nazis. Here's an explanation from http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml:

44) How do you explain the fact that the World Almanac showed 15,319,359 Jews in the world in 1940 and 15,713,638 in 1949 (based on 1948 figures), if 6 million Jews are supposed to have perished in the Holocaust?

This typical piece of denier chicanery is explained fairly easily. Deniers like to make us think that the 1948 figure is the number of Jews in 1948, but it is not. The 1948 figures (quoted in the 1949 edition) are based on the 1938 - that is pre-war - census. The figures for 1949 are post-war and show a catastrophic drop in the Jewish population, down to 11,266,600. When you factor in the fact that the 1949 edition assessed the 1939 population at 16,643,120, you arrive at a difference of 5,376,520.

Are you saying that transporting people thousand miles away and gassing them to death was more efficient than just shooting them in the head?

I'm saying that trying to kill 6,000,000 Jews with bullets is impractical, inefficient, and costly, especially when there is a war effort going on. Keep in mind that the Nazis had other ethnic minorities to handle, too. Do try reading the many documents detailing why the *final* solution came about.

As for your article, it follows the basic formula in your posts, where you use phrases like "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" or "it has been generally accepted that..." without actually proving anything. Hardly very scientific.

Oh, and speaking of "scientific":

So Rudolf used pseudonyms. That doesn't discredit what he was actually saying.

Yes it does, because it shows that his research methods are intellectually dishonest and therefore cannot be trusted. How else would *you* interpret the fact that he references a Dr Konrad, without letting the reader know that no such person exists? How would you account for his other personae, also referenced without letting the reader know the truth?

[IlluSionS667]

I knew you'd try to use this one. The 15,000,000 population estimates from before and after the war (1939 and 1948 estimates, respectively) comprise a common--and deliberate, I presume--misunderstanding from you and your fellow neo-nazis. Here's an explanation from http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml:

Let's just assume this is true... Please give an explanation where the 6,000,000 figure comes from and how exactly it is calculated. Please explain why the number was not reduced when the official number of dead in Auschwitz was dropped from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000 or less (I have a 1978 Dutch publication on the topic that still mentions the 4,000,000 figure, so it wasn't just a Sovjet claim that was ignored immediately after the war as some sources suggest).

Also check out Holocaust Victims: A Statistical Analysis -- W. Benz and W. N. Sanning - A Comparison

I'm saying that trying to kill 6,000,000 Jews with bullets is impractical, inefficient, and costly, especially when there is a war effort going on. Keep in mind that the Nazis had other ethnic minorities to handle, too.

They had other ethnic minorities to handle?! 

Anyway, please explain why sending people to the other side of Europe and then gassing them is supposed to be more practical, efficient and cheaper than putting them against a wall and shooting them?

Do try reading the many documents detailing why the *final* solution came about.

I have. I happen to be a collector of antiquarian books and I own many publications from the era 1933-1945 from all sides, as well as various publications on the topic printed in the following decades from both official and revisionist point of view.

As for your article, it follows the basic formula in your posts, where you use phrases like "it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" or "it has been generally accepted that..." without actually proving anything. Hardly very scientific.

At the end of the article I linked to various sources that elaborate on these specific issues. The article was only intended to give a basic overview of the course of events as an introduction to Holocaust Revisionism.

So Rudolf used pseudonyms. That doesn't discredit what he was actually saying.

Yes it does, because it shows that his research methods are intellectually dishonest and therefore cannot be trusted. How else would *you* interpret the fact that he references a Dr Konrad, without letting the reader know that no such person exists? How would you account for his other personae, also referenced without letting the reader know the truth?

It is common for scientists to quote their own works, so I don't see the problem here.

Anyway, I noticed that you ignored the majority of my arguments...... Is this the best you can do?!?

[Al Swearegen]

**** Illusion it is OK you have proved yourself in this battle my friend and as a reward for your rational debate and logical conclusions, please accept the gift of a large tin foil hat****

 

You're always free to provide counterarguments against my statements. Thus far, any attempt to debunk my viewpoints has been quite pathetic and far from sufficient.

I am just as free not to. Besides I spent ages making a tin foil hat for you and this is the thanks I get. I honestly think nothing short of a time machine and being goose steeped into the gas chambers (at your "working camps") so you can die of "typhoid" will change your mind. With such conviction why would I bother. That is YOUR Obsession not mine.

Oh and Odeon is giving you more than ample evidence. That you do not wish to believe him or his proof is neither here nor there.

[IlluSionS667]

I honestly think nothing short of a time machine and being goose steeped into the gas chambers (at your "working camps") so you can die of "typhoid" will change your mind. With such conviction why would I bother. That is YOUR Obsession not mine.

I wouldn't call it an obsession. It's just one of my fields of interests. Anyway, there's no doubt in my mind that I've done a hell of a lot more research on this topic and I haven't found the slighrest indication there really was a genocidal program for Jews in the Third Reich.

Oh and Odeon is giving you more than ample evidence.

What evidence? He ignores the majority of my arguments and makes only a few statements that either don't prove anything or that have been debunked decades ago.

[Al Swearegen]

I honestly think nothing short of a time machine and being goose steeped into the gas chambers (at your "working camps") so you can die of "typhoid" will change your mind. With such conviction why would I bother. That is YOUR Obsession not mine.

I wouldn't call it an obsession. It's just one of my fields of interests. Anyway, there's no doubt in my mind that I've done a hell of a lot more research on this topic and I haven't found the slighrest indication there really was a genocidal program for Jews in the Third Reich.

Oh and Odeon is giving you more than ample evidence.

What evidence? He ignores the majority of my arguments and makes only a few statements that either don't prove anything or that have been debunked decades ago.

So you are happy in your beliefs. That is great. I think considering the mental energies you have pored into it, it is really rewarding that you are. It would be horrible after so long and so much research and what not if you saw the sense in what people told you and were left feeling like a crazy person. I think feeling like one of the sole bastions of truth must make you all warm and fuzzy.

[IlluSionS667]

So you are happy in your beliefs. That is great. I think considering the mental energies you have pored into it, it is really rewarding that you are. It would be horrible after so long and so much research and what not if you saw the sense in what people told you and were left feeling like a crazy person. I think feeling like one of the sole bastions of truth must make you all warm and fuzzy.

If only that would be true. If I could choose, I'd rather come to the conclusion that the mainstream view of history is correct and agree with the status quo. It is quite frustrating to come to a conclusion different from the status quo and always having to defend your views in front of ignorant people too lazy or desinterested to do their own research, yet too self-righteous and arrogant to admit they're wrong.

Still, the facts are what they are and the evidence does not support the status quo.

[odeon]

Yes it does, because it shows that his research methods are intellectually dishonest and therefore cannot be trusted. How else would *you* interpret the fact that he references a Dr Konrad, without letting the reader know that no such person exists? How would you account for his other personae, also referenced without letting the reader know the truth?

It is common for scientists to quote their own works, so I don't see the problem here.

It's not common for scientists to pretend that the reference is to some other person's work. I take it you don't work in the academic field? Note that Rudolf didn't voluntarily tell anyone of *any* of his pseudonyms.

Anyway, I noticed that you ignored the majority of my arguments...... Is this the best you can do?!?

You don't deserve a reply at all, to be honest. One should not feed the trolls, nor the kooks.

Your so-called arguments (no, it's simply not enough with "it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt", "the facts are what they are", "the evidence does not support", etc, without some little basis in verifiable facts) have been addressed already, though, by Callaway and by others. The arguments, quotes, drawings, links, etc, provided here and elsewhere address your Holocaust-denier's propaganda in sometimes painful detail, exposing you as the kook you are. You're simply too far into your neo-nazi bullshit to realise it.

Basically, you've been pwned, again and again. Special mentioning goes to Pyraxis with her simple question about the suicide rates in past civilizations.

[Pyraxis]

Can you name any such country where the suicide rates have even been measured with any degree of scientific accuracy? Feel free to provide them, otherwise suicide rate is not useful to your argument at all.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup Polls from 2005 and 2006 show that countries that are more religious tend to have lower suicide rates.

Interesting. So religion and suicide are negatively correlated.

But this study counted any religion. What makes your spirituality any better than any of the others on the planet?

[ozymandias]

There are a number of religion that do not condemn suicide, Islam being one.  And as far as I know, Hinduism, Buddhism, the religion of Japan (Shintoism?) do not either.  Unless I;m missing something! 

[Christopher McCandless]

There are a number of religion that do not condemn suicide, Islam being one.  And as far as I know, Hinduism, Buddhism, the religion of Japan (Shintoism?) do not either.  Unless I;m missing something! 

Most Muslims would regard suicide as an affront to God, except in certain circumstances:

Q. It is said that suicide is forbidden in Islam and that the person who commits suicide is destined to go to hell. Suppose a person is suffering from a severe case of depression, or some other mental disease. Should such a person commit suicide, will he also go to hell?

(Name and address withheld)

A. One thing which people often do is to say that such and such a person will definitely go to heaven or to hell. This is something over which none other than God has any control. So to suggest that such a person goes here or there in the hereafter is an affront to God, because it precipitates His judgment.

There are certain verses of the Qur’an and statements by the Prophet (peace be upon him) which tell us that those who perpetrate certain sins will be punished. But then it is up to God to determine what punishment fits every single case, because God judges us individually, on the basis of His perfect knowledge of our intentions and conditions.

It is true that suicide is strictly forbidden, because it is an affront to God. It is like a person saying to God: “You have given me life and I am taking it away.” This is what is meant by the sacred Hadith in which God is quoted as saying of the one who commits suicide: “My servant has precipitated My will with regard to himself! Therefore, I am forbidding him entry into heaven.” But this Hadith applies to a person in full control of his faculties, suffering no overpowering adversity and having a reasonable life. If such a person commits suicide, then may be God will not allow him in heaven.

A person who commits suicide as a result of a mental disorder like depression or some other severe form of anxiety is not in full control of his senses. We cannot say how God will judge such a person, but we trust to God’s justice, because He does not deal unfairly with anyone. We pray for the person concerned, and request God to forgive him. When a man committed suicide during the Prophet’s lifetime, the Prophet was distressed. He did not perform the janazah prayer for the deceased, but he ordered his companions to do it. When they did, they prayed for the man and requested God’s forgiveness for him. This shows that the Prophet did not exclude the possibility of his being forgiven by God.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islam/Islamic%20subjects/2004%20subjects/June/Committing%20Suicide%20Is%20Strictly%20Forbidden%20in%20Islam,%20Adil%20Salahi.htm

[ozymandias]

Interesting