Sunday, March 17, 2024

Politics of Slave Labor

The Fate of the Jews Deported from Hungary and the Lodz Ghetto in 1944

 

 

Source: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/politics-of-slave-labor/

 

by Carlo Mattogno

 

 DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF AND EPUB FORMAT.

 

The deportation of more than 400,000 Jews from Hungary to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp from mid-May to early July 1944 is said to have been the pinnacle of this camp’s extermination frenzy. It was allegedly followed in August 1944 by the extermination of more than 70,000 Jews deported from the Łódź Ghetto.

 

For the present book, the author has gathered from vast archival resources all the evidence available on both events. In painstaking research, the author proves almost on a person-by-person level what the fate was of many of the Jews deported from Hungary or the Łódź Ghetto.

 

In the case of the Jews deported from Hungary, it can be demonstrated that those among them who were deemed fit for forced-labor deployment – some 30% of all deported Jews – were indeed sent to forced-labor assignments throughout territories still under German control at that point in time. For the Łódź Ghetto, available documentation shows that almost all of these Jews were merely relocated, together with their production equipment. The challenge was to move them out of harm’s way of the invading Red Army.

 

Little documental or reliable anecdotal evidence exists about the fate of those Jews deported from Hungary who were classified as unfit for labor. This concerned mainly children together with their primary caregivers (usually their mothers) as well as the elderly and frail. Testimonies of third-party observers mainly from inside the Auschwitz Camp indicate that these Jews were slaughtered in the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

 

The claimed magnitude of this slaughter, with ten thousand and more victims every day, is said to have exceeded the Auschwitz crematoria’s capacity. Therefore, the majority of these victims were presumably burned on huge outdoor pyres. However, air photos taken by several reconnaissance missions of Allied air forces refute these claims, showing an entirely peaceful Auschwitz Camp during that time span. Hence, the available evidence points at brutal politics of slave labor rather than mass-murderous genocide.

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Was Adolf Hitler of Jewish or Rothschild Origin?

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/was-adolf-hitler-of-jewish-or-rothschild-origin/

 

by Karl Radl

 

I have long encountered claims made by a wide variety of individuals that Adolf Hitler – the leader of the Third Reich from 1933 to 1945 – was of jewish and more specifically of Rothschild origin. These claims – usually to do with Hitler’s life before he joined the DAP – are almost entirely based on hearsay and gossip combined with the need to invent reasons why Hitler was so good an orator (he ‘must’ have been a black magician: hence the ‘Occult Reich’ literature), why Hitler was keen to clamp down on some sexual and reproductive activity (he ‘must’ have been a homosexual or sexually aroused by scat: hence the psychoanalytic interpretations of Hitler), why Hitler invaded Poland (he ‘must’ have been bent on world conquest: hence the ‘Hitler as a warmonger’ literature) and why Hitler hated the jews and supposedly killed six million of them in the ‘Holocaust’ (he ‘must’ have been of jewish origin: hence the ‘Hitler was a jew’ literature).

 

All of the above claims are quite false, but yet people often believe at least one of them – if not several at once – in part because they feel the intellectual need to ‘explain’ Hitler as some sort of deviant who they couldn’t possibly be like, because they are ‘normal’ and he wasn’t. The sensible position that Hitler was a normal human being – although in fairness that is underselling Hitler quite substantially given that he was obviously rather intelligent, a gifted artist and one of the best orators the world has ever known – is in sense revolutionary because it asks the question of many people in terms of their own perceptions as to whether they could commit acts regarded by current social norms as the very summit of evil.

 

This is much the same reason that other highly-talented National Socialists – like Dr. Joseph Goebbels – have been frequently been subject to the same process: although in Goebbels’ case it is alleged that he was a cynic, didn’t believe in a word he said, a closet communist, an accomplished liar and generally manipulated all and sundry persons to his advantage. To believe that Hitler and Goebbels were normal people like you or me is heresy in a very real sense for a lot of people in much the same way that communists were not often viewed as people during the ‘Red Scare’ epochs of the 1920s and 1950s but rather as a subversive ‘other’.

 

Let us move beyond the claims of those who wish to simply vilify Hitler or proclaim that he was an agent of the Rothschilds in a gigantic Zionist conspiracy to look at whether this thesis is in any way justifiable.

 

There are two elements to the claim that Hitler was of jewish or Rothschild origin.

 

The first is the historic claim that his paternal grandmother (Maria Anne Schicklgruber) was actually impregnated while in service (i.e., employed as a live-in maid) to a jewish man of Rothschild descent surnamed Frankenberger in Graz. There are non-specific claims in relation to Hitler having a jewish father that were made during and after Hitler’s ascent to power in 1933: however as these have no names or detail behind them we can safely dismiss them as being smears by opponents. (1)

 

The second is of far more recent vintage and originates from a Belgian journalist Jean-Paul Mulders and a customs official Marc Vermeeren (2) (the latter has incorrectly been labelled a ‘historian’ by a later article in an apparent attempt to give him some semblance of authority) (3) claim to have ‘genetic proof’ that Hitler was of partial jewish/North African origin.

 

The first of these positions that Hitler’s father Alois Schicklgruber (4) was the product of a sexual indiscretion between a maid and her jewish master Frankenberger, while the former was in his employ in Graz derives almost singly from the memoirs of Hans Frank. (5)

 

In his memoirs Frank firstly claims that Hitler had no jewish ancestors, (6) but then changes his mind later reciting the Frankenberger story. (7) Further Frank claims – and we are not usually told this by proponents of the Frankenberger hypothesis – that Hitler told him that he knew about this story and that his grandfather and grandmother were actually conning the jew involved out of money. (8) Frank however – as Kershaw informs us – was in a psychologically troubled state when he wrote these lines (as he was facing execution) and his memoirs are filled with made-up information and inaccuracies. (9)

 

That Frank was simply inventing the Frankenberger claim can be shown easily enough by pointing out there is no confirmatory evidence for it and some significant problems with it.

 

In the first instance of course there is the fact that Frank contradicts himself on the subject of Hitler’s alleged jewish ancestry, in the second because Patrick Hitler in his 1938-1939 ‘revelations’ about alleged jewish ancestry did not locate that ancestry in Graz let alone the supposed fact that the ancestry was specifically of Rothschild origin, (10) in the third there is no evidence that Maria ever went to Graz, (11) and fourthly there is no record in the Graz archives of any family named Frankenberger being resident there in the 1830s when Alois was born. (12)

 

The possibility of it being a mistaken spelling has also been investigated as Kershaw relates; there is only one family (the Frankreiters) and one individual (Leopold Frankreiter) in that family that Maria could have had a relationship with. However there are two qualifiers on that Leopold Frankreiter was an ordinary butcher (as opposed to the wealthy jewish financier depicted by the Frankenberger legend), employed no maid we know of and the Frankreiter family wasn’t of jewish origin. (13)

 

The coup de grace to the whole charade of the ‘jewish Hitler’ claims is delivered when we understand the Gestapo themselves undertook a series of different secret investigations into Hitler’s ancestry and found nothing to contradict the official NSDAP position (that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Georg Hiedler) on the matter. (14)

 

Clearly Frank isn’t the best source of information in relation to Hitler’s origins then is he?

 

The reason the story has gained so much currency is in part that one of the major sources for biographical information about Hitler – a jewish anti-Nazi journalist named Konrad Heiden – mentioned the claims in his 1944 biography of Hitler ‘Der Fuhrer’, but didn’t supply any actual information to back them up. (15)

 

We need to remember that one of the major angles for propagandistic attack on the racial doctrines of National Socialism was accusing National Socialist race theory of being the product of intellectual cranks and that Nationalist Socialist leaders weren’t themselves of pure Aryan ancestry even under their own standards.

 

Good examples of just this kind of vicious attack can be found in wartime propaganda works such as the wartime best-seller ‘People under Hitler’ where it is claimed that Japanese and Sioux Indians were officially proclaimed to be members of the Aryan race (16).

 

If we understand that the ‘jewish Hitler’ claim is born from anti-Nazi gossip in the 1920s (the reader should ask themselves which of the major leaders of the NSDAP wasn’t called a jew in an attempt to discredit them) (17) and then picked up to be used as wartime ‘black propaganda’ by the Allies and Soviets (then being carried over into the peacetime conceptions of the subject) – much as the rumours about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s alleged jewish origins were picked by Goebbels and his propagandists (most notably Johann von Leers) – then it is not hard to see that the ‘jewish Hitler’ claims are an unfortunate historical by-product of political invective which have been picked up by pro-jewish authors in an attempt both to discredit Hitler on the far right and also provide a Freudian type explanation of his dislike of jews (i.e., it wasn’t due to jewish behaviour but was ipso facto irrational).

 

The second argument – as advanced by Mulders and Vermeeren – is also dubious in the extreme. Our intrepid duo – who remind me more of Thompson and Thompson than Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson – claim that they tracked down 39 of Hitler’s living relatives using genetics. (18) The only actual relative they actually name is Alexander Stuart-Houston – Hitler’s grand-nephew – who they admit to having taken DNA from for testing without knowledge or consent. (19) That we don’t know who the rest of the ‘Hitler relatives’ they have allegedly taken genetic material from are throws a problematic light on their conclusions such as they are.

 

We simply don’t have any idea who these people are or what – or even if – they have any indirect familial relationship to Hitler. Ironically we also only have Mulders’ word for it is Stuart-Houston’s DNA that he took from a discarded serviette. After all one wonders how Mulders specifically acquired said serviette and how on earth we can be sure that the genetic material is actually Stuart-Houston’s? Since we don’t know who the other donors are either it makes the whole ‘study’ a somewhat hilarious farce from the get-go because the genetic material has not been kept free of potential – and even probable – contamination (thus is completely inadmissible). (20)

 

This is in spite of all the usual weasel words from our two budding forensics boffins that they had ‘taken all possible care’ to keep the samples ‘free of contamination’. This is, of course, clearly nonsense given what we are told about the only identified contributor (and an unknowing one at that) of genetic material to their ‘study’.

 

What does this mean?

 

In effect the likely contamination of the sample means that anything Mulders and Vermeeren claim is de facto unreliable because they have no actual proof (i.e., anything linking it to Stuart-Houston) of who the genetic material comes from.

 

This is before we even note that their methodology is clearly faulty given that they could and should – had been they been reputable historians as opposed to a publicity-seeking hack and a customs official – have requested genetic material be extracted from one of Hitler’s teeth that are still in his skull (which has been identified primarily through its fairly unique dentistry) as opposed to trying to claim an ancestor’s genetic origins based on the genetics of his descendants.

 

You might ask why this is such a stupid thing to do and this is really because in order to establish Hitler’s genetic make-up we need his own genetic material if it is available (which it is) and if not then we would need reliable genetic material from all of Hitler’s direct descendants and relatives up to him. The reason we would need this is really very simple: we simply do not know if the claimed father of a person is actually the father historically speaking.

 

Hitler himself is a good case in point in that the two most probable candidates for being his biological grandfather are either his official grandfather (Johann Georg Hiedler) or his grandfather’s brother (Johann von Nepomuk Huetler). There is simply no other serious candidate in the field and of the two Nepomuk seems the most likely given Hiedler’s general rejection of Alois and Nepomuk’s general acceptance of him. (21)

 

We cannot absolutely prove this either way of course, but we can narrow the field by using the historical documentation and thought experiment to eliminate all the other candidates.

 

Simply put: you cannot claim that an ancestor is proven to be something because their descendants are something because you do not know what has happened in terms of sexual activity in-between unless you can establish the genetic line up to the individual concerned (i.e., you need direct not indirect descent), which Mulders and Vermeeren cannot do without Hitler’s actual genetic material because Hitler fathered no children.

 

This means in effect that Mulders and Vermeeren have no genetic case whatsoever to make the claims they do about Hitler’s genetic origins: although they don’t let genetics stand in the way of their broad claims.

 

Thus having rendered both the historical and the genetic argument invalid we can categorically state that there is no actual evidence that Hitler was jewish or Rothschild origin: indeed everything points to him being of Austrian peasant stock much as he himself asserted.

 

Thank you for reading Semitic Controversies. This post is public so feel free to share it.


References

 

(1) Cf. Ron Rosenbaum, 1998, ‘Explaining Hitler: A Search for the Origins of His Evil’, 1st Edition, Random House: New York, pp. 167-178

 

(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213589/Hitlers-secret-family-How-researchers-tracked-39-living-descendants-dictator.html

 

(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html

 

(4) For a particularly useful genealogical chart of Hitler’s ancestors see Alan Bullock, 1954, ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’, 1st Edition, Companion Book Club: London, pp. 22-23

 

(5) Ian Kershaw, 1998, ‘Hitler’, Vol. 1, 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, p. 9; Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 27; 31

 

(6) Kershaw, Op. Cit, p. 8

 

(7) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 11-15

 

(8) Kershaw, Op. Cit., p. 8

 

(9) Ibid., p. 9

 

(10) Ibid., pp. 8-9

 

(11) Ibid., p. 8

 

(12) Ibid.

 

(13) Ibid., pp. 8-9

 

(14) Ibid., p. 9

 

(15) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 130-134

 

(16) Wallace Deuel, 1942, ‘People under Hitler’, 1st Edition, Lindsay Drummond: London, pp. 129-130

 

(17) The most notable examples aside from Hitler were Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg and Reinhard Heydrich. All of which I might add have been categorically declared false by modern historians.

 

(18) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305414/Hitler-descended-Jews-Africans-DNA-tests-reveal.html

 

(19) Ibid.

 

(20) Reading between the lines of the article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213589/Hitlers-secret-family-How-researchers-tracked-39-living-descendants-dictator.html) we should not that Stuart-Houston ‘disposed’ of the napkin in a bin and we haven’t even got a clue as to whether it was his or not let alone what other genetic material would have been added to the mix in said bin.

 

(21) Kershaw, Op. Cit., pp. 6-7; also Charles Bracelen Flood, 1989, ‘Hitler: The Path to Power’, 1st Edition, Houghton Mifflin: Boston, p. 6

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Feminism: The Great Destroyer

An Interview of Dr. William L. Pierce

 

By Kevin Alfred Strom

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Saturday, February 17, 2024

The Real Auschwitz Chronicle: The History of the Auschwitz Camps

 

Source: https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=48

  

by Carlo Mattogno

 

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF AND EPUB FORMAT.

 

The most important historical-documentary source about Auschwitz published so far is Danuta Czech’s Auschwitz Chronicle, first published in 1989 (German edition). However, the author, working from communist Poland, has given an extremely biased picture of the camp: It is limited to the alleged extermination of Jews and Gypsies, which is presented as virtually the sole purpose of Auschwitz. A separate study (volume 47 of the present series) has documented in detail that Czech’s work is a mendacious conglomeration of assumptions, distortions, inventions and omissions.

 

The opening of Eastern archives after the collapse of the Eastern bloc has provided access to vast collections of sources, opening up immense historical horizons that require a complete revision of the communist propaganda view of history prevalent during the Cold War, which is attempted herewith.

 

This present work focuses on sources that were unknown or inaccessible to Czech, or that she intentionally passed over. The purpose is to provide the reader and researcher with a more-comprehensive historical picture of Auschwitz Camp activities. In the first, chronological part of the present study, the focus is on documents concerning the sanitary and medical situation and the planning and construction of the camp. They show, for example, that there were always tens of thousands of prisoners at Auschwitz who were not fit for work: „inpatients“, „invalids“ and „juveniles“. Other documents show that a lot of effort was made to nurse sick prisoners back to health. These prisoners were therefore not killed, as Czech could falsely claim by hiding these documents from her readers, but they persistently appear in the documents as alive and kicking.

 

The only merit of Czech’s Auschwitz Chronicle is the listing of deportation transports that arrived at Auschwitz. However, her approach is purely chronological, making it impossible to get an overall picture. Since compilations of overall figures are far more important than individual data, the statistical aspects of the history of Auschwitz have not been integrated here into the first, calendrical part, but are reproduced in tabular form in the second part. This also lists what Czech reprehensibly neglected: the occupancy rate of the camp as well as the verifiable mortality rates. This also finally provides a definitive answer to the question: How many prisoners demonstrably died in the Auschwitz camp? Moreover, the number of inmates transferred from Auschwitz to other camps in 1944/1945 is meticulously documented: about 280,500 witnesses to what happened at Auschwitz. The Germans had nothing to hide.