Recent Posts

Postings by date

September 2023



Recent Comments


The myth of the holocaust (the extermination of 6M Jews by Hitler’s Germany) is gradually being revealed.

I was personally shocked to discover this in my own research.

But when the scales fall from your eyes, the evidence is everywhere and the scale and horror of the lies become such a beacon of the Jewish all-encompassing deceit I referred to earlier.

And so, this interview becomes yet another illustration of this unfolding revelation and of the way the game is played.

Have you noticed how Jews are champions of multiculturalism everywhere except Israel, for example? Take a look. They’re at the forefront of its promotion throughout Europe, Britain, the United States, Australia, etc. But don’t suggest it for Israel. That’s anti-Semitic!!! And so, to the interview between Jonas Alexis and Germar Rudolf:

Alexis: Some writers have proposed that there is a “new tactic of using natural sciences to deny the Holocaust,” and it “seemed to be successful and was able to impress less-informed people.” Those writers place you in the same category. Ironically, they could not provide serious evidence against what you are actually proposing. They are not even trying. They write,

“Although Rudolph’s report, of which several disputed versions exist, appears to be more scientific and serious than Leuchter’s, it is scientifically as flawed as Leuchter’s. Rudolph was finally dismissed by the Max Planck Institute and has now found his way into right-wing extremist circles that exploit his report.”[1]

I had to laugh a bit because I thought they previously argued that your report was “scientifically as flawed as Leuchter’s.” I was expecting to see rigorous scientific evidence against the report, but what I found was mumbo jumbo. They seem to believe that the last statement—that you were dismissed by the Max Planck Institute—is “scientific”. Can you address these points here?

Germar Rudolf: Those people are wrong. I wasn’t dismissed. The Institute tried to fire me, but when I sued them for violating our contract, they agreed to withdraw that dismissal and to replace it with a mutually-agreed-upon termination of my limited employment contract three months prior to its original expiration date. The legal difference between a mutual agreement and a dismissal is considerable. It was important for me to keep the record clean.

Next, science is not a tactic. It’s the reason why we no longer sit in trees eating bananas. And it’s the only way to get things right, even when it comes to researching the Holocaust. It’s also not impressing “less-informed people,” but rather more-informed people, like for instance the science historian Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, who, after learning about my research, turned revisionist himself and has since contributed considerably to the field with his book Breaking the Spell (2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015), or like associate professor Dr. Thomas Dalton, author of Debating the Holocaust (Theses & Dissertations Press, New York 2009; 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015).

There are many more scholars and academics like that, but most of them either use pen names to avoid persecution, or they work merely in the background by helping other revisionists with their research.

Those claiming that my expert report is flawed and has been refuted, usually refer either to a paper by an Austrian chemist first published in the mid-1990s,[2] or to a number of online papers written by the U.S. chemist Dr. Richard Green, which were wiped off the net when the domain where they were posted got deleted earlier this year.

I have scrutinized both so-called “refutations” in detail in Chapter 8.4. of the 2003 and 2011 English editions of my expert report, where I show that their arguments are so deeply flawed that they are truly embarrassing. I also published a deeper critique of their “rebuttal” in a separate book dedicated to discussing these and other, less pertinent attempts at refuting revisionist arguments.[3] That book also contains a critical review of Shermer’s and Grobman’s anti-revisionist book.

As to right-wing extreme circles: the term “extremist” usually refers to individuals willing to employ illegal methods in furthering their ideology. The problem with that is that it is the German government who is employing illegal methods to suppress free speech. Hence, it’s the German government that’s extreme, not its victims.

That has become clear when in 2009 the German Constitutional High Court decided that the German law used to prosecute historical dissidents is a special law designed to suppress only certain views on certain topics. As such, the court stated, it would usually be unconstitutional; but then they rubber-stamped that law anyway, saying that the exceptional experience of National Socialism justifies exceptional laws.[4]

So even the German High Court violates the German Constitution, for even if the highest judges decree that black is white, that doesn’t turn black into white; it only turns judges into criminals in robes.

Furthermore, in the early 1990s, when I was getting involved in revisionism, the German authorities believed their own propaganda that I had to have been some leading figure in “right-wing extremist circles.” One day several cops showed up at my home, asking me out for a chat. They asked me to use my influence on the “scene” to prevent any major demonstrations on occasion of the umpteenth anniversary of the murder of Rudolf Hess.

Fact is that I was neither aware of that anniversary nor of any “scene” organizing anything, because I have never been a part of those circles. But I guess they keep believing in their own false political propaganda, just like they keep believing in their own false Holocaust propaganda.

Alexis: On a side note, I have been fascinated by a Washington Post article entitled, “Auschwitz is a sacred place of Jewish memory. It’s no place for a Catholic church.” It’s written by Avi Weiss, senior rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and the author of the forthcoming book Open Up the Iron Door: Memoirs of a Soviet Jewry Activist. Interestingly, Weiss says that 1.1 million Jews were murdered in Auschwitz![5]

Whatever happened to the four million figure? I also thought it was interesting for Weiss to say that “Auschwitz is a sacred place of Jewish memory.” This really goes back to what Israel Shamir said, that the so-called Holocaust “replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha with Auschwitz, and the resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state.”[6]

Germar Rudolf: Very true. The Holocaust has been transmogrified into a secular religion, if there can be such a thing.

End of quote.

Rudolf goes on to illustrate this point.

As Mark Twain said, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

How true.

Interestingly, this brief video claims that:

Published from 1948 to 1959

“Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe” a total of 559 pages;

“Churchill’s Second World War”, (the 6 volumes) I total of 4,448 pages;

De Gaulle’s three-volume “Memoires de Guerre”, a total of 2,054 pages;

In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages; “one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers”, a “genocide” of the Jews or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.”

Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus, University of Ulster


Check out the extraordinary new, life-changing technology at

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next Post

The CIA Sex Mercenary Army

Tue Sep 27 , 2016
Gordon Duff lays out how the sexual drive, fuelled by a range of carefully crafted incentives and the lubrication of the process by the agents […]
WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :
Follow by Email