You are relatively known already, but I think it would be good for a start if you could introduce yourself with your own words to the readers. Without trying to make this interview seem sensationalistic, maybe you could also summarize and describe your experiences with persecution, related to your research and publishing? I believe what you (and revisionists in general) have been through is something that the world needs to be reminded of time and time again: both because it is outrageous and those responsible should be blamed and shamed, and also because learning about your sacrifices for this cause gives one a good idea about your sincerity and character.
I have described myself with 250 words on my personal website, where anyone interested in more can also read more elaborate self-descriptions. But let me try to wrap this up in even less than 250 words. I am a German national who, starting back in the 1990s, ran afoul of Germany’s tough censorship laws by naively thinking that the German constitution protects scientific research, even if its results challenge societal taboos. Simply put, my research conclusions were that, for numerous technical, chemical and historical reasons, the claimed homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz cannot have existed as claimed by witnesses. That didn’t go down well with the German judiciary, who put me in prison for that while prohibiting me under the threat of further prosecution to defend my findings in court. I learned my lesson and went abroad, as I cannot live in a country that imprisons peaceful dissidents. Once established abroad, I started a small company – Castle Hill Publishers – with the focus on publishing exactly those kinds of scholarly works which the German authorities and many other governments around the world want to suppress or destroy. Over the years, I have written multiple articles on my experiences with censorship and persecution, which can be read online, where you can also find a book describing my trial in Germany. I will not regurgitate all this here. In essence, I have spent 45 months behind bars as a political prisoner who didn’t exist – because the German authorities insists that they don’t have any political prisoners, although the internal choice of words by prosecution personnel, prison staff and probation officials clearly proves that I was exactly that. But I don’t want to whine about this endlessly. There are others who have suffered far more for their peaceful views than I have, and there are dissidents who are in prison right now, and not just in Germany. These dissidents really need our attention and support. In contrast to them, I am out of the woods, or so I hope, so there is no need to focus on me.
I have described myself with 250 words on my personal website, where anyone interested in more can also read more elaborate self-descriptions. But let me try to wrap this up in even less than 250 words. I am a German national who, starting back in the 1990s, ran afoul of Germany’s tough censorship laws by naively thinking that the German constitution protects scientific research, even if its results challenge societal taboos. Simply put, my research conclusions were that, for numerous technical, chemical and historical reasons, the claimed homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz cannot have existed as claimed by witnesses. That didn’t go down well with the German judiciary, who put me in prison for that while prohibiting me under the threat of further prosecution to defend my findings in court. I learned my lesson and went abroad, as I cannot live in a country that imprisons peaceful dissidents. Once established abroad, I started a small company – Castle Hill Publishers – with the focus on publishing exactly those kinds of scholarly works which the German authorities and many other governments around the world want to suppress or destroy. Over the years, I have written multiple articles on my experiences with censorship and persecution, which can be read online, where you can also find a book describing my trial in Germany. I will not regurgitate all this here. In essence, I have spent 45 months behind bars as a political prisoner who didn’t exist – because the German authorities insists that they don’t have any political prisoners, although the internal choice of words by prosecution personnel, prison staff and probation officials clearly proves that I was exactly that. But I don’t want to whine about this endlessly. There are others who have suffered far more for their peaceful views than I have, and there are dissidents who are in prison right now, and not just in Germany. These dissidents really need our attention and support. In contrast to them, I am out of the woods, or so I hope, so there is no need to focus on me.
 Germar Rudolf |
After the fading away of the Institute for Historical Review, Castle Hill Publishers took over, and it's been the driving force behind revisionist research, producing seriously high-quality content for quite a while now, taking on important tasks, such as analyzing the "Aktion Reinhardt" camps, or dissecting the legacy of key figures of the orthodoxy, such as Raul Hilberg, Jean-Claude Pressac, Miklós Nyiszli, or Deborah Lipstadt, etc. The Holocaust Handbooks series is currently at Volume 44, and some more is already on the horizon. What was your motivation to start Castle Hill Publishers, and, to jump ahead in time, what can you tell us about these upcoming books? After all these important works, you don't seem to feel like slowing down, and this year alone you've put out quite a few books, with very hard punches at the orthodoxy. What are some dream projects you personally would like to make one day, or what topics do you think are important and need their own books from a revisionist perspective? For instance, one could say a deep-dive into the legacy of Danuta Czech is such a work, given her key role in the development of the exterminationist narrative, and one of the upcoming books will be exactly that – and who could do that justice better than Carlo Mattogno, with his amazing encyclopedic knowledge and analytical skills?
The primary impulse to start Castle Hill Publishers was the ruin of my career as a chemist due to the relentless campaign by media and judiciary to destroy my livelihood. I was married and had two little children, so I had to come up with some solution to earn a living. Initially, I envisioned establishing some kind of German-language version of the Institute for Historical Review, translating the books and magazines they were putting out. I simply didn’t feel competent and resourceful enough to start something like a dissident historical publishing outlet all by myself. But the IHR’s director Mark Weber turned down my request for such a project, so I had no choice but to start something from scratch and all by myself. Initially, between late 1996 and early 1998, I was operating under the umbrella of the now-defunct Belgian revisionist organization Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO). During that time, I had access not only to VHO’s list of German customers and supporters, but a number of other small German-language organizations operating in Europe also gave me their address lists, which allowed me to kick-start the operation. I was very pleased by the positive feedback I received when starting this back in late 1996, so I knew that there is a market for this, and that, while not making me rich, it can earn me a living to support my family. And it worked out, indeed. In early 1998, I created Castle Hill Publishers as my own enterprise and became fully independent, and It’s been flying ever since, in spite of all the attempts of many governments around the world to kill it. It still keeps growing, slowly but surely.
The series Holocaust Handbooks has now 50 titles defined. 44 have been published, three more I already have sitting on my hard drive awaiting their translation to German and English, and three others are in some stage of preparation. Volumes 45 and 46 will continue what Volume 44 has started: two more books with thorough critiques of the testimonies of individuals claiming to have worked in the Auschwitz gas chambers. Volumes 47 and 48 have their focus on Danuta Czech. Volume 47 is a book-length critique of her massive book “Auschwitz Chronicle”, which serves historians the world over as a standard work for the history of the Auschwitz Camp. This book will prove with many examples the fraudulent and mendacious methods Czech used when creating her mockery of history. The other book, Volume 48, is meant to replace Czech’s book with something that is not based on eyewitness fairy tales, misrepresented documents and historical delusions, but rather on solid chains or documents presented in their documentary and historical context. It will be the new gold standard of Auschwitz historiography. Volumes 49 and 50 have their focus on other camps. One is about gas chamber claims at the Dachau Camp, the other about gas chamber claims at the Neuengamme Camp. Both camps have been addressed briefly before (mostly in Volume 25, which covers the entire gamut of gas-chamber claims), but there is much more material to be covered about both camps. Thorough historical analyses of other camps may follow later, who knows… All these books are authored by Carlo Mattogno.
What I would like to see is an actual revisionist Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and, no, Carlo would not be the right person for such a job. We’re still thinking about how to best approach such a project, but I’m sure we’ll find a solution. Next, I’d like to see a book written for adolescents introducing them to the other side in this debate, which teachers tell them does not exist or at least has no legitimacy. It is very easy to make a point that it is legitimate, but it is more of a challenge to write it in a way that is attractive to adolescents without stirring them up in any way, because we do not want them to get in trouble. After reading such a book, we want them to be aware of the dangerous pitfalls this topic comes with: censorship, persecution, destruction of livelihoods, etc. Young people need to come to understand the paradox of living in a repressive society which hypocritically claims to be liberal, but acts liberally only as long as everyone agrees to the basic tenets of that liberalism, the most important of which is uncritical belief in the orthodox Holocaust narrative. Nowhere else is any kind of dissent punished as harshly as here.
The primary impulse to start Castle Hill Publishers was the ruin of my career as a chemist due to the relentless campaign by media and judiciary to destroy my livelihood. I was married and had two little children, so I had to come up with some solution to earn a living. Initially, I envisioned establishing some kind of German-language version of the Institute for Historical Review, translating the books and magazines they were putting out. I simply didn’t feel competent and resourceful enough to start something like a dissident historical publishing outlet all by myself. But the IHR’s director Mark Weber turned down my request for such a project, so I had no choice but to start something from scratch and all by myself. Initially, between late 1996 and early 1998, I was operating under the umbrella of the now-defunct Belgian revisionist organization Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO). During that time, I had access not only to VHO’s list of German customers and supporters, but a number of other small German-language organizations operating in Europe also gave me their address lists, which allowed me to kick-start the operation. I was very pleased by the positive feedback I received when starting this back in late 1996, so I knew that there is a market for this, and that, while not making me rich, it can earn me a living to support my family. And it worked out, indeed. In early 1998, I created Castle Hill Publishers as my own enterprise and became fully independent, and It’s been flying ever since, in spite of all the attempts of many governments around the world to kill it. It still keeps growing, slowly but surely.
The series Holocaust Handbooks has now 50 titles defined. 44 have been published, three more I already have sitting on my hard drive awaiting their translation to German and English, and three others are in some stage of preparation. Volumes 45 and 46 will continue what Volume 44 has started: two more books with thorough critiques of the testimonies of individuals claiming to have worked in the Auschwitz gas chambers. Volumes 47 and 48 have their focus on Danuta Czech. Volume 47 is a book-length critique of her massive book “Auschwitz Chronicle”, which serves historians the world over as a standard work for the history of the Auschwitz Camp. This book will prove with many examples the fraudulent and mendacious methods Czech used when creating her mockery of history. The other book, Volume 48, is meant to replace Czech’s book with something that is not based on eyewitness fairy tales, misrepresented documents and historical delusions, but rather on solid chains or documents presented in their documentary and historical context. It will be the new gold standard of Auschwitz historiography. Volumes 49 and 50 have their focus on other camps. One is about gas chamber claims at the Dachau Camp, the other about gas chamber claims at the Neuengamme Camp. Both camps have been addressed briefly before (mostly in Volume 25, which covers the entire gamut of gas-chamber claims), but there is much more material to be covered about both camps. Thorough historical analyses of other camps may follow later, who knows… All these books are authored by Carlo Mattogno.
What I would like to see is an actual revisionist Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and, no, Carlo would not be the right person for such a job. We’re still thinking about how to best approach such a project, but I’m sure we’ll find a solution. Next, I’d like to see a book written for adolescents introducing them to the other side in this debate, which teachers tell them does not exist or at least has no legitimacy. It is very easy to make a point that it is legitimate, but it is more of a challenge to write it in a way that is attractive to adolescents without stirring them up in any way, because we do not want them to get in trouble. After reading such a book, we want them to be aware of the dangerous pitfalls this topic comes with: censorship, persecution, destruction of livelihoods, etc. Young people need to come to understand the paradox of living in a repressive society which hypocritically claims to be liberal, but acts liberally only as long as everyone agrees to the basic tenets of that liberalism, the most important of which is uncritical belief in the orthodox Holocaust narrative. Nowhere else is any kind of dissent punished as harshly as here.
Considering the high quality of the works you publish, please tell us how a book like this normally comes into existence? As a writer myself, I know how exhausting working with lots of data, studies, names and figures, etc. can be, not to mention putting all those countless details into a comprehensive body which the reader can digest. Maybe readers will be more motivated to donate and support this important work if they don't just take it for granted (in the age of the internet, when so much content is always just one click away), but get a better idea of the processes that end up on their shelves or devices, in the shape of a book/e-book.
Most of the books we offer were written by the authors without any input from us as publishers. So we did not have to invest anything into them being created, but we sure have to pay the authors royalties for the books we sell. With Mattogno, we usually have a fixed price per book, because some of his books are such specialized studies that they will never sell in large quantities, even if revisionism were to go mainstream. In other words, we pay a lumpsum before having sold a single copy, and then, in the years to follow, we are trying to recover that investment. What really is cost intensive and time consuming is translating the books into English and German. Mattogno, our main author, writes in Italian. In the past, I had to rely on third-party translations, which were not only expensive, but also not always very accurate. In the meantime, I have gotten so good at reading, comprehending and translating from Italian that I can do it myself, thus saving big time both financially and timewise. For instance, Mattogno’s book on the cremation furnaces of Auschwitz, a 450-page book, narrowly set, with heavily technical and mathematical contents, would cost me some 10,000 dollars to have it translated by a third-party translator, and it would take at least half a year to complete. But all I would get out of it is a text in the correct language, but with no quality control and unformatted. It would then take me another month or so to format the text as needed and to check the translation for completeness and accuracy. Hence, such a book would come with a price tag of near $20,000 for royalties, translation, editing, formatting. Divide that by maybe 200 copies we might be able to sell of that book over a span of five years or so, and you can figure out what we would have to ask for a single copy in order to just cover our costs for that project, let along the actual printing cost of the book, and the profit we need to make to pay all the overhead costs a business like this inevitably has. In other words, we could never get close to breaking even, let alone making a profit, if I ran this operation that way. Therefore, we have a project fund-raising page where we ask our supporters to contribute financially to a project in order to cover some of these costs. Plus we use the help of unpaid volunteers for proofreading our texts, and I do most of the translation work myself. Take, for example, the German edition of the book on the cremation furnaces I just mentioned. I translated this myself, did the editing and peer-reviewing while translating it, and put everything right away into the proper format we need for final publishing, and all this in just a little over one month. My growing skillset of handling Italian texts in addition to artificial-intelligence translation software such as DeepL make it possible. This way, I speed up the translation process by at least a factor three, and thus cut cost to a third. Considering that simultaneously, or rather consecutively translating new books first to English and then straight away to German yields more time and cost savings due to synergy effects, my savings easily reach a factor of five compared to having two third parties translate a book independently and separately to English and German. However, this do-it-yourself method limits the number of books we can do per year, as there is only one ME around who is fluent on an academic level in German and English, well-versed in Italian, has a profound knowledge of the historical and technical issues involved, and knows exactly how to quickly and reliably edit and format text exactly the way it is needed for publishing both in print and as an eBook. But this limit we can live with. The one painful limit we currently have is promotion. We have plenty of books to brag with, but hardly any audience to brag to, because of widespread censorship. Marketing is expensive, and the return on investment is dismal.
 Hardcover edition of the Holocaust Handbooks series |
Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald outlined in his latest book his theory about the tendency of White people to form "moral communities" instead of focusing on given kinship groups. I believe this is part of the reason why so many see the "Holocaust" as a moral sin and therefore "Holocaust denial" as morally abhorrent. A recent study in Science Advances might help to understand this better, in which the researchers conclude that people tend to see perceived victims as automatically moral, even if they do nothing to objectively deserve it (and are more likely to punish those who they perceive as their abusers). Within this framework, revisionists are not seen as victims of persecution, but as abusers of martyrs. Many might not want to accept, or even consider, revisionist narratives simply because, as if out of a religious impulse, they see it as committing blasphemy simply by considering such points. (The same can be said about other sacred cows of today: race differences, "LGBTQ+ rights," etc.) Not everyone is strongly committed to "truth", and are willing to accept whatever is "the moral norm" instead. I believe if revisionism wants to be heard and considered by a large number of people (putting aside censorship issues here), it needs to present itself not only as "the truth," but also as something morally entirely valid, even important. This is why our traditional enemies put so much effort into vilification and delegitimization. Another view might be that it's enough to convince a small but high-quality revolutionary group of people, who, once they acquire influence and power, will give higher status to revisionist perspectives – somewhat like how, e.g., "LGBT" activists infiltrated high status institutions (media, academia, popular culture, etc.) and made their views the new consensus in a top-down process. This is probably a question as old as revisionism itself, but what are your thoughts on how to make revisionism more acceptable for the general audience? Is wider acceptance a necessary condition for it to succeed, or can it defeat the orthodox narrative some other way, before winning over the masses?
The masses usually believe what they see on TV (or video-streaming platforms). TV and online streaming are highly monopolized, and revisionists get the worst treatment there one can possibly imagine. Under these circumstances, it is delusional to think one could ever convince the masses. We keep trying, but we have no illusions about it. Each time we make progress and have some kind of local breakthrough, the powers that be instantly hit us with massive censorship measures and bring us back to square one. It’s been that way for the past 70 years, and I don’t see that change under the current cultural and ideological paradigm prevailing on this planet. It requires a paradigm shift to allow for a change. For now, I merely try to collect, preserve and present the best evidence we can find, and hope for things to change at some point in the future, within or after my lifetime. However, as I just mentioned, we keep trying to reach out to influencers who could rock the boat, and maybe one such rocking can make it capsize, but it’s a long shot, and we cannot bank on it. We need to be in it for the long haul, digging in our heels and continue this trench warfare as long as we possibly can.
Robert Faurisson contributed to the revisionist cause greatly throughout the decades, both with his own individual work, and as a collaborator with others (like during the Zündel Trials). He passed away a while ago. I'd be interested in hearing your summary of his work, in light of his passing. What is it that the world has learned – or could learn, if it just listened – from Professor Faurisson? What is his ultimate legacy?
The question is why such a question comes up in the first place. If Mattogno were to die today, his legacy is easy to pinpoint. Just look at his long list of books laying out his cutting-edge research on so many topics around the Holocaust. You cannot do that with Faurisson, because he never wrote one single dedicated book on the subject. We have his trial documentation, and then we have the collection of his many, usually brief essays, and that’s it. It is difficult to extract an impressive legacy from that. Hence, his legacy is not so much in what he left behind in writing, but in what he inspired in others. It is similar to Socrates, who didn’t leave a single piece of writing behind that we know of. We know about him only through his disciples such as Plato, and Plato’s pupil Aristotle. While Socrates was the founder of modern (Western) philosophy, Faurisson was only a pupil of the founder of revisionism, the French history teacher Paul Rassinier. While Rassinier wrote several books which are classics to this day, the same cannot be said about Faurisson. However, while Rassinier may have inspired some, Faurisson triggered a landslide of revisionist activities as a result of the so-called Zündel Trials, which he orchestrated in the background. The evidence presented during those trials, and the public attention these trials received, have inspired tens of thousands of people to become disciples of Faurisson’s method of Exactitude. Where Rassinier was merely dabbling about, Faurisson went to the sources and wanted to be as accurate as possible. Moreover, while Rassinier was conciliatory in his approach, Faurisson was uncompromising und relentless. His provocations cause many “scandals” over the decades, and the attention revisionism got due to this is unparalleled. Just like Socrates, he insisted that ultimately Western societies will profit from him being a gadfly that irritates a complacent society and forces it to face uncomfortable truths. In this regard, Socrates’s “apologia” speech during his trial could be used as Faurisson’s speech as well.
 Robert Faurisson (right) during his trial in March, 1991 (photo: Marc Deville/Getty) |
The status of the almost sacred and symbolic "gas chambers," "extermination camps," or "Nazi plan to eradicate Jews" seems as strong as ever in the public's eye, but do I see it correctly that orthodox historians and propagandists somewhat shift from focusing on these "chambers" toward "gas vans," or the Einsatzgruppen activities in the East? Sometimes I see arguments between regular people online, who, once they feel cornered by a revisionist about Auschwitz or cremations, seem to find refuge in the perceived safety of the more obscure Eastern "Holocaust by bullets" and the "Aktion Reinhardt" camps. Is this shift an actual thing, in your view? Will we see more and more emphasis on these topics, perhaps an increased abandonment of the more classic camps and "gas chambers"?
The tendency of shifting the focus away from the gas chambers and to the mass shootings in the East could be noticed already in the mid-1990s, in particular since French hobby historian Jean-Claude Pressac started downsizing the death toll of those chambers for Auschwitz and all three “Aktion Reinhardt” camps. Among the Reinhardt camps, Sobibór has received a lot of attention, since they re-discovered some foundation walls which they claim was the “gas chamber” building. The lack of evidence is usually conducive to the formation of myths and fairy tales, so the Auschwitz Myth, in light of the vast amount of physical and documental evidence for that camp contradicting the myth, was the first to go. While there is little evidence for any of the Reinhardt camps, the orthodox narrative about Treblinka and Belzec is riddled with so many physical impossibilities that it was inevitable for the orthodoxy to focus on Sobibór, whose claimed death toll is only a fraction of that claimed for the other two camps, so the claims for Sobibór are not quite as implausible as those for the rest. When it comes to mass executions behind the German-Soviet front, there is a vast documentation about mass shootings, quite some forensic documentation about exhumed mass graves, albeit mostly of suspicious Soviet origin, yet almost nothing about gas vans and their use. I therefore doubt that the gas vans will ever become an orthodox focus, but we will have to see.
Some non-believers hold the opinion that Holocaust revisionism is ultimately pointless, because even if it became widely accepted in the mainstream that there were no gas chambers, or a plan to exterminate all Jews, it would still remain true that Jews were seriously persecuted and suffered great losses due to some killings (like in the Eastern territories) or illnesses as a direct consequence of being deported to camps or ghettos, and all that because they were "hated". According to this line of thought, "the Holocaust" would still remain, even if it's "gas vans" and not "chambers," and even if it's maybe "2 million" and not "6", or if it's "killings in different ways" and not "gassings". Similarly to how the number of "6 million" remained, even after it went from "four million" to "about one and a half million ... mainly Jews" (in Auschwitz). Another example might be the stubborn number of "11 million," even though it's already been admitted by none other than one of the world's foremost Holocaust scholars, Yehuda Bauer, who's the academic adviser of Yad Vashem, that the added 5 million non-Jewish victims was a "lie" (his word), invented by Simon Wiesenthal. Bauer, if I remember correctly, started saying this well before the Times of Israel or The Jewish Telegraphic Agency both posted an article on it in 2017, and yet, the number persists. The victim numbers of some camps have been changing through the decades, but "the Holocaust" still remains as if it just didn't matter. I assume this is a fundamentally pessimistic view, as even success is seen as pointless, but I'd be interested in how you see this issue?
In my experience, it is usually those having a political agenda, and who want to use Holocaust revisionism as a tool to further their ideological goals, who ultimately, after a brief infatuation with revisionism, realize that it isn’t the panacea for their political problems. I have seen a lot of right-wingers, conservatives, racialists, identitarians, anti-Semites and National Socialists go through that evolution. Fact is that revisionism isn’t about having a “point” to achieve a “goal” other than getting it right. Exactitude in historiography isn’t a trivial thing, and when it comes to the Holocaust, it is both extremely difficult and extremely important. It is difficult because of the extreme pressure anyone is subjected to when voicing viewpoints that don’t jibe with the generally accepted narrative. It is important because the powers that be use and misuse the Holocaust as one of their main psychological weapons to further their own ideological goals. History, in particular the more-recent aspects of it, has always been used and misused by those wielding political, economic, financial and societal power. I think that this is inevitable. Using history to teach lessons for the present and future is actually important, and if history is taught accurately, and if the lessons learned from it are wise, then it is a good thing. The Holocaust is no exception from this. It is true that the historical events and non-events encapsulated in that term, as well as the way most societies have treated the subject, are exceptional, even unique in nature, no matter which historical version of it you consider true. The persecution of the Jews by National-Socialist Germany isn’t a pretty thing even when viewed from the revisionist perspective, and the death toll is staggering no matter what you think of it. At the extreme lower end of revisionist estimates, which I consider to be far too low, we are talking about some 300,000 Jewish victims, which is still a huge number. Historical revisionism is not a tool to whitewash any regime or support any ideology or agenda. If you approach it that way, you will inevitably be disappointed in the long run. Rather, revisionism is a tool to understanding what really happened back then, what went wrong – and still goes wrong – within our societies which are preventing a balanced assessment of that history, often under the threat of penal law, and what the actual proper lessons are to learn from it all – from the actual history, and from its misuse for ulterior political motives.
Speaking of a somewhat shifting focus, instead of asking about revisionism itself, and its development or successes, let me ask you also about the orthodox narrative and its development through the years or decades in general... What do you think were the strongest works, points, narratives (from their own perspective), coming from orthodox circles lately? How would you describe the exterminationist line's evolution? For example, Jean-Claude Pressac was a significant push for them (at least initially: many of his points are still repeated today), but who is the Pressac of the post-Millennium era? Who advances orthodoxy from a historiographical point of view? Or are their advances only due to censorship and control (e.g. social media, payment processors or market)?
Jean-Claude Pressac has tried to push the mainstream into radically revising their own narrative, but he ultimately failed with it. His semi-revisionist Auschwitz narrative has been replaced by that written by Robert van Pelt, who took some of the evidence published by Pressac, but forced it into the old propagandistic framework (see Volume 22 of our series Holocaust Handbooks for details). The latest orthodox book addressing the general state of Holocaust research in relation to revisionism – Morsch’s and Perz’s “Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas” – was a clear setback almost to the status ante. It pretty much regurgitated what Kogon et al. had set out in their 1983 book “Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas”, and it is no accident that both books pretty much have the same title. With all the advances revisionism had made in the decades since the early 1980s, we were entitled to a thorough assessment of the orthodoxy’s position in view of all the new evidence brought to light, but they instead decided to turn a completely blind eye to it and stick to the old guns of wartime propaganda (see Volume 25 of our series Holocaust Handbooks for details). We know from some mainstream historians who secretly communicate with us that they are fully aware that the orthodox narrative is rotten to the core, but they are all afraid of societal persecution and government prosecution. Hence, censorship wins.
Somewhat related to this: how do you view the younger generation when it comes to revisionism? I'm specifically asking here about both the knowledge and familiarity of younger people with revisionist research, and also when it comes to contribution. One could argue that the younger generation isn't reading enough books or long-form texts, or that they are too apathetic and indifferent to be motivated enough for this challenging work, but even if one accepts that to be the case, surely there must be at least a few highly capable individuals who could be well-equipped to be excellent at both research and attitude. Are there "new Faurissons"? Perhaps a "younger Mattogno"?
Figuratively speaking, it is difficult for young trees to grow in the shadow of a few huge, mature trees that are soaking up all the light. By now, Mattogno’s work is so vast and so thorough in scope and scale that it is intimidating to anyone who considers dipping their feet into this topic. I have heard this frequently from “amateurs”, as they call themselves, and it is holding them back from even trying. How could anyone possibly compare to the scholarship Mattogno has shown and still is showing? Even I, who is no small entity in this field, am extremely impressed by his knowledge of the source material, which easily exceeds the knowledge of most, if not all scholars on the planet in this field. Considering this, I would not be surprised to find out that it may take many years or even a few decades after Mattogno will haves stopped churning out his trailblazing material for any new major revisionist scholar to follow in his footsteps or to even break new ground.
 Carlo Mattogno |
Your writings and the books you have published are powerful enough to bother those who have a stake in keeping falsehoods prevalent, largely succeeding in censoring these books from mainstream platforms. As The Jewish Chronicle put it: "The online retailer Amazon has stopped selling three Holocaust-denial books after Jewish groups voiced growing frustration that the website was giving a platform to antisemites." Those three were Thomas Dalton's books from Castle Hill Publishers, but of course more works have been purged. These Jewish groups seem to have a key to the doors of higher positions of power to the point where they can make such calls as this: "Should any member of the public find further offending works, please get in contact with us and we will report them using the appropriate channels.” They know that if they report these heretical books, the platforms will listen. Many dissidents report that – especially during the Trump era – payment processors, and even banks, kicked them off for obviously political reasons. What is the situation with censorship and attacks on your freedom to speak to people since the 2017 Amazon purge?
Some think that censoring a medium only makes it more interesting, hence backfires, but that is true only for those who pay close attention to what is going on, are open-minded and can think out of the box. That’s only a tiny fraction of the population. For the masses, if censorship didn’t work, it would not be used. It works. In 2016, we launched a campaign to create a revisionist book-length critique for the major best-selling mainstream books on the Holocaust. The books have a title resembling that of the book they critique. As a result, Amazon’s search algorithms displayed our books right next to the books they criticize, and since customers then started buying both books together, Amazon’s algorithms started offering both books as a packet deal for a discount. While the mainstream books kept selling at their usual rates, ours went through the roof, pulled equal to the mainstream sales and even started overtaking them. That was in late 2016/early 2017. Needless to say, we were thrilled. This shows that, if given a level playing field, revisionism can easily prevail in the open marketplace, and can even gain the upper hand. It goes without saying that the powers that be could never accept such a development, as this would swiftly get out of control and could upend a lot of societal and political developments. So, the Israeli government agency Yad Vashem and the Board of Deputies of British Jews pulled the plug by twisting Amazon’s arms to have some 70+ books of ours taken offline, which for us meant a loss of revenue of some 50% from one minute to the next. Then they lied to the public about that censorship by claiming that only three books had been taken offline. In the meantime, Amazon is censoring some 150 books of ours. Each time we launch a new book, they take it down within a few days or weeks. Amazon’s subsidiaries such as AbeBooks and The Book Depository joined the fray a year ago or so by also throwing out our books.
Numerous countries, spearheaded by the German-speaking ones, have outlawed our books, meaning that it is a criminal offense to advertise or list them for sale, let alone to sell them in those countries.
In 2019, YouTube closed all our accounts, hence cutting off our main venue to reach out to the public.
With some regularity, our credit-card processing partners bail out on us after having been “tipped off” by some pressure group as to what our business is “really” about in their eyes, and each time this happens, it gets more difficult to find new partners. Right now, we have to put up with a contract that withholds 10% of all our credit-card revenue because we are a “high-risk” business. Although this is true when it comes to the societal arena, our business is extremely low risk financially, because our customers are unusually loyal, supportive and forgiving when it comes to us having occasional difficulties getting our books to them, mainly caused by government interferences in postal traffic, meaning: censorship. Usually, people don’t donate to mainstream bookstores when buying books there, but for us, this is very common. Moreover, if ever a deal goes bad because we cannot deliver for one reason or another, our customers are usually very supportive and understanding for the constant struggle we have to keep this operation up and running in the first place. So, during all the 20+ years we have accepted credit-card payments, we never had a single deal go bad, meaning that no customer ever complained to their bank about us charging them unfairly or illegitimately. This, too, is unusual.
The latest act of censorship was the massive sweep of social-media account closures that happened as a result of the riots in Washington D.C. in early 2021. We lost some of our social-media accounts then as well and have since switched to alternative platforms.
Despite all the increase in censorship and all sorts of corporate roadblocks, for some, even this isn't enough. From earlier this year, the Simon Wiesenthal Center published a study from a Dr. Harold Brackman. He says: "Yet German Germar Rudolph began blanketing the web with pseudo-scholarly trash several notches below that was published earlier by the IHR. Declining numbers of Holocaust Denial 'researchers' concentrated on smearing the character of reputable historians." His paper is weak to the point of being embarrassing, but we've seen many orthodox "scholars" with baffling levels of incompetence, and yet they still define the narrative. The Center is encouraging more censorship and prohibition. Another anti-revisionist study from this year complains that there are still some revisionist results showing up in internet searches for the Holocaust, which they call "malperformance." They admit the number of revisionist results is "low," they still suggest "constant monitoring and updating of content curation systems," as well as "intensifying the dialogue between heritage institutions and industry." While in the U.S. legally banning revisionist content is not simple, they can simply step over legality and develop a more thorough censorship and algorithmic suppression, which, in today's internet-focused age, essentially erases this content from the public view even without outlawing it. Revisionists are in an odd situation here: while Left-leaning platforms are censorious (because of "racism"), Right-wing institutions cheer this on (because of "anti-Semitism"), given how Zionist and pro-Israel mainstream Conservatism is (see their enthusiasm over anti-BDS actions). What do you anticipate in this regard in the near future?
"Yet German Germar Rudolf
That said, calls for more censorship and indoctrination of the masses, in particular children, currently are the only way for us to measure whether we are successful or not. If our works were no threat to the establishment, they wouldn’t call for ever-increasing censorship measures. The more censorship, the merrier we are, in a way. They keep tightening the thumbscrews, but our business has a steady growth curve anyway. No matter what they do, they can’t win. They can and do hold us back, but they can’t win this in the long run. At some point, something will give way, and once the genie is out of the bottle, there will be no way of getting it back in. They know it, and therefore they will keep tightening their grip. As a result, the pressure to burst open this totalitarian grip will also rise steadily. The higher the pressure, the bigger the bang will be, once this censorship vessel bursts. And it won’t be a pretty bang. But maybe they want it that way, because they can profit from a big bang, as they have done repeatedly in the past. After all, they have lavishly profited from the big bang called Holocaust, so why not prepare for another such big bang and profit from that as well? Every anti-Jewish event is exploited by them. They thrive on it. They depend on it. Without such events, they would assimilate and disappear. So in a way, they want us to be angry, so that we might lash out, which in return fuels their agenda. Hence, if you don’t want to feed that monster, don’t cater to it with any acts they will profit from.
 Germar Rudolf in an actual Auschwitz gas chamber for disinfestation, August, 1991 (The Chemistry of Auschwitz, 2nd edition, 2020, p. 317) |
In the United States, the Trump era saw the rise of not only online censorship, but also of street-level political violence: many times, with almost mundane regularity, we see average citizens getting caught up in some riot or outrage, either about race or sexual issues (such as hysteria over "transphobia"). People are attacked, beaten, stabbed, even shot sometimes, for purely political or ideological reasons, either by raging non-Whites, or the (often White) attack-dogs of the establishment: antifa militants. One needs only a social media post accusing them of "racism," or some sort of "bigotry" to have a riled-up mob gather at their house, or have their family members harassed. Thankfully, though, I haven't heard of physical attacks on revisionists in quite a while: maybe it's all about "race" and "trans" these years, and the media silence on revisionists might be helpful in staying under the radar. (I imagine this would change if suddenly revisionists would be on the TV again, like during those talk show debates in the early '90s...) How has your experience been as a political dissident in the U.S. so far, especially when it comes to safety?
It isn’t illegal and not even extremely unpopular or frowned upon on the popular basis to be a racist or an anti-lettersalad-ist – yet. So the mob has to resort to lynch justice to mete out “justice.” This is different with revisionism. At times when it was not yet illegal, and when people were not complete brainwashed yet, the mob took matters in their own hands. That ended in the 1990s, when revisionism became illegal in an increasing number of countries, and when the indoctrination of the general populace became so pervasive that nowadays most people willingly collaborate at outcasting any dissident. Hence, there is no need for lynch justice anymore. In a democracy, the only difference between lynch justice and legal prosecution is that the former is informal and can lead to excesses. Hence, it is better to have the ideas driving a lynch mob be cast into the letters of the law, turning persecution into prosecution, which is at least predictable. Lynch justice is not.
In the U.S., anti-revisionist laws do not yet exist, so lynch justice is still very much a threat. But revisionists have learned their lesson. They try not to give the mob any targets they can attack. We do not have any physical location people can attack. We do not organize physical conventions, lectures or any other kind of assemblies that could be disrupted. We do not picket, demonstrate or send individuals to gatherings in order to stir up a controversy. In the age of the internet, none of this is a necessity. We have retreated into cyberspace, if you will, where we are very difficult to attack, disrupt and suppress. And in the age of print-on-demand and e-books, not even our book trade is very vulnerable.
When it comes to my personal safety, I have no complaints. I have never experienced any hostility of any consequence where I have lived over the years, and I do not see that change any time soon. This, too, can be attributed to the fact that I am not running around in my neighborhood with t-shirts saying something provocative like “The Holocaust never happened!” Actually, a friend of mine gave me a t-shirt like this once, but I have only ever worn it as a pajama shirt – at the dark of night behind closed doors. My private life is that of an average citizen. I’m not wearing my historical views – actually any of my views – on my sleeves. Whoever wants to learn about them will have to go online. Not even approaching me directly would get a stranger very far, because I am not inclined to jeopardize my private peace for the sake of telling a stranger what I think about things. You cannot convince the world by talking frankly to your neighbors, but you can make your life miserable by talking incautiously to them.
Have you encountered any trouble through Castle Hill Publishers with countries that ban "Holocaust denial," and therefore have revisionist books on the blacklist? I don't want you to reveal possible secrets, if you need to resort to evading certain restrictions through loopholes maybe, but I'm wondering whether this resulted in any trouble yet?
Castle Hill Publishers sits in the UK, with a branch in the U.S. Neither the UK nor the U.S. have banned revisionism. Their governments detest it, to put it mildly, but under their respective shields of civil rights, we are entitled to do what we are doing. If any other government has any grudges about this, they need to fend this out with the UK and U.S. governments. Whether there were indeed any diplomatic attempts in this regard is unknown to us, because we have not felt any effects of it. What we do is strictly legal where we do it, and that’s all I’m interested in. There are many countries in the world banning one kind of books or another. China, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran… you name them. They all have their own kind of censorship laws. Germany, Austria, Israel, France etc. have others. To one degree or another, they all are dictatorships that everyone should stand up to in defiance. Dictators can win only if we citizens roll over and play possum. And once they win, they usually extend their grip on society, making things increasingly worse for everyone. “Wehret den Anfängen!” is a fitting German expression, literally translated “Fend off the beginnings!”, meaning “Nip it in the bud!” or “A stitch in time saves nine!” It is easy to fight a budding dictatorial government. Once their reign is consolidated, it becomes increasingly difficult to shake of the shackles.
 In 2018, Hungary, authorities searched the bookstore of Gede Testvérek and confiscated 109 books, among them Dissecting the Holocaust from Germar Rudolf |
You authored a whole book about your story as a revisionist, which is sometimes infuriating, sometimes heartfelt, and it touches upon your motivations, but maybe you won't mind if I ask: what is it that keeps you going year after year, three decades now? One must possess a very strong sense of idealism to be able to focus on a mission even if it feels like the whole world despises him for it, especially the part of the world that should be most appreciative. Exhausting historical research, even though almost the entire historian world spits fire and bile in your direction; rehabilitating the name of Germans (even if that might not be the motivation for most), while Germany, and possibly huge percentage of Germans, would put you in prison for mere scientific research... The same people who either shrug, or even support imprisoning elderly ladies (like Ursula Haverbeck) for revisionist opinions, might just be the ones who make excuses for the higher crime rates of some non-White migrant groups (they are victims of the circumstances, the racist system, etc.) – and yet, revisionists (or pro-White advocates that this also applies to) keep going. Surely nobody becomes a revisionist for money or material benefits – so what is it for you specifically? How would you describe the average revisionist in this regard? So many of them, including yourself, have paid incredible prices for this "mission" to do this just as a "hobby."
It’s a job. Okay, it’s not a job like any other, but that’s how you have to treat it if you want to keep going. You do your thing during work hours, but then you drop the subject and lead a normal life. The firefighter doesn’t give up halfway through his dangerous career either, so why should I?
Ultimately, I am a bibliophile. I have collected books on scientific and all kinds of scholarly subjects since I was a child, and now I’m producing them. My dream job is being a lead editor at some science publisher. But once you’ve been involved in Holocaust revisionism as deeply as I have, there is no way back. The establishment thoroughly burns all the bridges behind you. Hence, when you have a criminal and public record of being an “evil denier” as I have, either you quit with the only career options left being a janitor or school bus driver, or you keep going. Of course, there is more to it, and I have written about it in the book you mentioned. It’s a matter of character. Most bend under pressure, a few stiffen. Most get deterred by threats, a few get curious. Most let go when getting punished, a few double their efforts in the face of injustice. Most care about what people think of them, a few don’t give a rat’s ass. The progress of humanity has always depended on the few, not the most. Had the new and dangerous always deterred all of us, we’d still be climbing through trees eating bananas.
You publish non-revisionist books as well. Could you introduce us to some of these? What topics interest you besides revisionism?
I am a keen reader of a number of scholarly publications. I subscribe to National Geographics, Scientific American and Science Magazine. Anything new on the scientific scene interests me, whether it is material science, astronomy or ecology, to name a few. I ignore the internet (except when I need it for professional reasons) and any other media exudations. But my publishing outlet would be the utterly wrong address for publishing anything that the mainstream willingly and happily embraces. Castle Hill Publishers are a niche publishing company focusing on topics that cannot be published elsewhere. If an author comes to us with a typescript for a book that could be published by another outlet, I recommend doing just that. We are only the last ditch in the trench warfare against censorship. Because we are blacklisted by mainstream media and advertising agencies, we have basically no means of advertising our products to mainstream audiences, and any book with our imprint in it is always in jeopardy of getting censored and banned anywhere. So you really want to publish with us only if there’s no other way. Apart, we are a small entity with very little resources, which we need to focus on our core business. I cannot afford spending those meager resources on some esoteric project while at the same time neglecting revisionism. We do have a number of books on free-speech related topics, mostly by revisionists telling their stories, and also on the so-called “Jewish Question,” which is just as much a “third-rail” topic as Holocaust revisionism. In fact, our books on the Jewish question usually sell better than our historical studies, probably because more people are interested in answers to current political and social issues than to some remote, unpleasant historical topic. But any book about Jews is always in danger of leaving the purely scholarly plane of research and entering the realm of opinion and political agenda, which I prefer not getting involved in. If you are looking for actual titles, look up the name “Thomas Dalton” at our internet shop.
 "Death to the Jewish-Bolshevik Plague of Murder!" Poland 1939-1945 |
Some time ago you have written about your parents and grandparents being victims of wartime and post-war anti-German atrocities, and how you had to research this topic on your own, as apparently it was not worthy teaching in schools – unlike a specific other story. One can easily notice a certain anxiety (often from Jews) about "competing" genocides, such as frustration over the Holodomor (especially given that some of the key figures behind it were Jewish: Genrikh Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich). It seems like, even though the world is supposed to be appalled by those who question official narratives of genocides, as immoral and despicable people, "Holocaust believers" have no such restraints when it comes to other genocides. I'm reminded of the Simon Wiesenthal Center asking Israel to not recognize the Holodomor as a genocide, and who could forget the chutzpah of Abraham Foxman from the ADL, demanding Ukrainians to tone down the talk about the their own genocide, because it threatens the special status of the Jewish Holocaust (in the documentary Defamation, 2009). Author and Haaretz journalist Sam Sokol had no issue "revising" when he said: "Ukrainian leaders have consistently inflated the death count of the Holodomor in order to raise the number of dead to exceed the 6,000,000 killed in the Holocaust," adding that this non-Jewish victimhood's "instrumentalization has been used to downplay Jewish suffering and to justify the rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators. It is this legacy that makes it hard for many Jews to recognize the Holodomor." Jewish media outlets also felt no guilt when debunking alleged gas chambers 2 years ago, in which Poles were allegedly "gassed." Assuming that your family and German people have never gained any power because of the atrocities they went through, maybe it's this shameless strategizing that results in that, and that might just by the point of upholding the orthodoxy. What are your thoughts on this issue?
In our societies, the Holocaust is taught in isolation from other historical events, and by doing so, it becomes incomprehensible, and no valid lessons can be learned from it as a result. The modern age is a dense sequence of atrocities committed by one part of humanity against the other. The root cause is the population explosion Europe went through ever since the late medieval era. When you have one part of humanity become technologically superior, and as a result, extremely fecund compared to the rest, conquest and population replacements become almost inevitable. That is what happened in the Americas to one degree or another since the 1600s. When Europeans started stepping onto each other in Europe, continent-wide conflicts also became inevitable, resulting in two thirty-year wars, the first between 1618 and 1648, which most Europeans have all but forgotten, but which, if we look at the devastation and relative population collapse it brought about in the areas where it was fought out, was worse than the second Thirty-Year War from August 1914 to May 1945. That is the over-arching perspective. The First World War was a result of Europeans having conquered the entire globe and having nowhere to turn against but against themselves. Germany, as the latest addition to the club of industrialized nations and as the most successful among them, has always been in an extremely vulnerable geographic situation, with no natural borders and more neighboring countries = potential enemies than any other country on the planet. Being successful with many envious neighbors and no river, mountain range or ocean as a protection is a recipe for disaster. That’s all there is to it. World War Two was nothing but a repetition of the First, with the jealous rest of the world finishing the job to get rid of this nasty successful competitor in the heart of Europe. The Holocaust, whatever we understand it to have been, was a mere subchapter of it.
The Russian Revolution was an effusion of an ideology that was trying to address ideologically the problems resulting from an overpopulated central Europe. Both the underlying ideology as well as the actual violent revolution were driven to a large degree by Jewish intellectuals. The atrocities that came with the revolution and particularly afterwards were blamed by many on “the Jews.” The anti-Semitic aspect of the National-Socialist ideology was an ideology of counter-revolution. National Socialism tried to solve the problems resulting from overpopulation in their own way, and tried to prevent communist atrocities to spread like a metastasizing tumor further into Germany.
If we were to write down a chain of cause and effect, we would have Jewish exclusivism as the original sin, followed by Czarist anti-Semitism as the main ingredient to fuel both Jewish revolutionaries and a general anti-Jewish pogrom atmosphere in pre-revolutionary and revolutionary Russia. Many intellectual Jews both in Russia and abroad identified with the revolutionary cause, while non-Jews saw “the Jew” as the main perpetrator of all the atrocities coming with the revolution. In a sense, the Russian revolution put the Russian Jews and their supporters and financiers abroad into a corner with no way out. Either they had to prevail with whatever means was at their disposal – including terror against anyone actually or only presumably in their way – or they had to suffer the ultimate anti-Jewish pogrom. I have explained this escalating feedback loop in my documentary “The First Holocaust” (written as the introduction to Heddesheimer’s book of the same title, Volume 6 of our series Holocaust Handbooks). What happened when the war broke out between National-Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union was a clash between those two worlds. This clash was already going on during the years 1917 to 1921, with the revolutionaries eventually prevailing. But then, on June 22, 1941, this conflict went into the second round. Of course, it wasn’t purely “anti-Semites” against “Jews” or “Jewish Bolshevism,” as the National Socialists often portrayed it, but that aspect of it is what was at the root of “the Holocaust”: revenge and reckoning for the atrocities of 20 years of Jewish-Soviet rule with its 20 million victims or so, the Holodomor included. These two events are closely linked together, and anyone trying to detach them makes them incomprehensible.
This is not to say that whatever happened during the Holocaust is justifiable. But unless we understand cause and effect, we cannot learn any lesson. Portraying the Holocaust as something that fell from the sky without rhyme or reason merely leaves us in fear that it could happen again, unpredictably and at any time. That’s the paranoia into which modern Jews are raised as a group, and it doesn’t do them any good.
Most conflicts between two groups of people have a shared responsibility. Blaming only one side and ignoring the mistakes made by the other merely leads to those mistakes being repeated, leading straight to the next conflict.
The way Jews have been behaving in Israel ever since that country’s modern re-inception clearly shows that a new rift has been forming along the old lines: the original sin is Jewish exclusivism, resulting in Muslim/Arab anti-Jewish grudges, leading to terror against anyone standing in Israel’s way. The Arab/Muslim reaction to this is accordingly, and both sides have been on an ever-escalating path of conflict. Israel in the middle east is in a similar geographic position as Germany is in Europe: (almost) no natural borders, and many envious and angry enemies around them looking for a final reckoning. That spells disaster, and it is only a matter of time when this disaster will unfold.
It’s been the dumbest idea ever to put a few million people on a desert plot surrounded by hundreds of millions of lethal enemies, then provoke the hell out of these enemies for decades on end. How can anyone have any doubt as to how this is going to end? But the Jews don’t learn any lessons from the past, because they don’t face the ugly aspects of their own past.
 |
According to a Jewish poll in Hungary, between 2006 and 2019, disbelief in "gas chambers" fluctuated between 6-15% among the population. Belief that the number of Jewish victims is much lower than the symbolic 6 million fluctuated between 12-26%, whereas 9-21% believed that most of the atrocities were invented by Jews after the war, and finally, between 40-58% believed that it would be time to stop propagating the story so much after so many decades (p. 80). To stay in Europe, the Anti-Defamation League's 2015 poll said that 28% in Greece and 25% in Hungary and Latvia believe that the victim number is "much lower" than the one claimed (pp. 21-22). These are not really revisionists, but their openness is there, and these are decent numbers. However, many revisionists in the past were very optimistic about the developments of research into the Holocaust story: the Leuchter reports, and then the Rudolf report, for example, were powerful additions to deconstruction of lies and falsehoods. Many could have believed that in a decade or two, revisionism will achieve complete victory... But we are now three decades later, and even more since the early works of Paul Rassinier, or, to stay with a Hungarian example, the book Világhódítók: Az igazi háborús bűnösök (an English version also exists) from Nationalist author Lajos Marschalkó already openly called the gas chamber and 6 million story untrue back in 1958 (pp. 171-182 etc.), with many references. And yet, the official story is still powerfully in place, despite the very high quality and powerful research of the past 3 decades. Any public figure voicing clear disbelief in the official story is unthinkable still, even if it's not illegal in their country. How do you see the future of revisionism? What are the reasons for optimism, or for concern?
Jewish polls have an agenda: They are geared toward yielding high numbers of “deniers”, so they then have a reason to cry bloody murder and call for more help, more money, more influence, more censorship, more indoctrination. I don’t believe a word of what is coming out of these polling mouths. Fact is that our societies have never been as indoctrinated with Holocaust propaganda as today. From the cradle to the grave, we are all exposed to that unrelenting propaganda almost daily. There is no way this can result in any increase in the percentage of disbelievers. That said, I stick to what Robert Faurisson once said: We are optimistic about the future of revisionism due to its powerful arguments, but pessimistic about the future of the revisionists due to the ever-increasing censorship, persecution and one-sided indoctrination. This struggle for historical exactitude won’t be resolved, let alone “won,” within a few years. Whoever is not willing to get involved for a very long haul should think twice. We are talking decades here, probably many of them, before some kind of worldwide paradigm shift causes historians and the society at large to reevaluate the past from a more objective perspective.
 Mazsihisz: Anti-Semitic Incidents Report, 2019-2020, p. 82 |
Finally, I'm sure Hungarian readers would be interested in any anecdotes you might have about our country: or perhaps you might have a message you think we should heed? Thank you very much for your time! The last words are yours.
“Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube” – “Let others wage war: you, happy Austria, marry.” If I look at the situation in the K+K Monarchy before World War I, and if I compare that with what we have today within the European Union, with borders removed and people settling and mingling and doing business and intermarrying peacefully, I wonder why we had to go through two world wars to get from one place to the other that basically are the same. Sure, the K+K Monarchy had many flaws, but by and large it was a peaceful, civilized entity that could have evolved peacefully to where we are today, without any bloodshed at all. If people ask me, if I had the power to turn back time, what period of history would I like to come back, it would be the time before World War One, when Europe may have had many unresolved conflicts, but they could all have been resolved peacefully. The First World War created many more injustices and conflicts than it resolved, and the Second World War, apart from the mayhem it wreaked, also saw the implementation of a hedonistic ideology that led straight to population collapse, which makes the entire continent defenseless against the migratory conquest/population replacement by much-more fecund people from Africa and the Middle East.
If I were to choose my heroes in history, these would be the men in the trenches at the Western Front during World War One who, during Christmas season of 1915 (and to some degree again in 1916), when they heard the “enemy” sing the same Christmas carols they sang, put down their weapons and went over to the “enemy” to celebrate Christmas together, defying orders from their superiors to keep killing each other. Those soldiers are the true humanitarian heroes of our modern time. Unfortunately, when Christmas was over, they all picked up their weapons again and kept killing each other. We need more people who defy orders from superiors and laws from parliaments that contradict basic humanitarian values.
Resistance Is Obligatory!
* * * * *
Germar Rudolf's personal website:
http://germarrudolf.com/
Holocaust Handbooks (information and free e-books)
http://holocausthandbooks.com/
Printed books for purchase:
https://shop.codoh.com/
Support:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/
Szilárd Csonthegyi - Kuruc.info
