Holocaust Believers

Special guests are seated at the actual entrance to the former concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, colorfully lit up as a show-biz production for the 70th Anniversary remembrance ceremony in 2015.

by Carolyn Yeager

WHAT IS THE HOLOCAUST? It’s a belief, nothing more. If you try to get hold of it, touch it, find where it exists, you discover you can’t and it doesn’t. It’s words, it’s stories, it’s narrative. It’s more similar to religion than to history. The ‘history’ has been built up after the fact around the religion, or belief, to give it greater plausibility.

The Holocaust is a few photos from a few very selective places taken in 1945 after the Allies gained total control of the air and bombed the hell out of everything in Germany. They purposely disrupted/destroyed all communications and deliveries by road or rail, killed even farmers working in their fields, preventing food and medicines from reaching those in need. Many of those in need were in the detainment camps, where even the clean water infrastructure was destroyed by Allied bombers, such as happened at Bergen-Belsen where the worst pictures were taken. Naturally, epidemics broke out that the Germans were helpless to prevent or deal with. The result of this end-of-war bombfest was photographed and called genocide—not genocide by the Allies, which it was, but genocide by the Germans!

Have 6 million Jewish victims of this “genocide” ever been accounted for? Not even close. This number is simply repeated in newspapers, on television and in commentaries hundreds, or thousands, of times a day all over the world, thereby given incredible reinforcement as an undisputed “fact.” But the real fact is that it is disputed, and very powerfully disputed. Many documents are collected in this book alone that pull the rug out from under that number, showing it to have symbolic meaning for Jews, and nothing more. It was never meant to be taken literally until a huge case was undertaken to blame the defeated German foe for massive war crimes and sole responsibility for World War II.

When it comes to the fabled documentation, what the believers offer is mostly dishonest atrocity propaganda churned out by intelligence agencies and partisans during the war, faked documents and forced confessions produced for the “War Crimes” military tribunals after the war, and witness testimony that was never allowed to be questioned or cross-examined in court.

What the so-called deniers offer (their term for themselves is Revisionist) is a remarkable library of scholarly documentation called the “Holocaust Handbooks.” You don’t have to read all these books, or even one of them, to understand that the Holocaust is a religious-political belief, not a real historically documented event of the claimed proportions. But the books are available and highly informative, some with free access on the Internet, and more are in the works based on continuing research and investigation.

So I propose we adopt the term Holocaust believer for all those who automatically believe what they read in the media about holocaust and are shocked when they hear someone say they don’t believe it. Deborah Lipstadt is called ‘one of the world’s leading Holocaust scholars with a special expertise in Holocaust denial’ by the Jewish school that she works for–even though she has admitted, “I do my research on the internet.” As is typical with believers, her ‘expertise’ is accepted without critical investigation by both the media and general public– and even in academia. But Lipstadt doesn’t know anything about what happened to Jews during WWII other than what little she herself has read from Holocaust believers, and that’s why she refuses to debate with Holocaust deniers on principle. The only reason she gives for her refusal is that all Holocaust deniers are antisemites, no exceptions, and the Holocaust is a priori the ‘factual, objective truth’ and not open for debate. Defending that ‘objective truth’ will not be attempted.

Weak though the story is, all the believers out there just keep believingbecause they never hear anything else from the media-United Nations-global-world order conspiratorial control, with the power of World Jewry over government institutions thrown in for good measure. They should therefore be called what they are.

Published in: on July 29, 2018 at 3:47 pm  Comments (1)  

The Passing of American National Socialist Harold Covington


by Billy Roper

‘The Old Man’ finishes his tour of duty.

A couple of weeks ago, Harold and I had ironically been discussing our health and joking about who would go first. He told me that he was seriously concerned about his medical condition. From all appearances he passed away from natural causes, probably from heart disease, in his apartment in Bremerton, Washington. He also dealt with other physical issues which challenged him.

Harold and I disagreed about the location of a future White ethnostate, but little else except, perhaps, the efficacy and utility of public activism. We were very cordial and civil to one another, especially in our private conversations. He and I discussed his past interactions with other movement leaders, whether rancorous or cooperative, as he sought psychological closure and confided in me. I had a great deal of respect for him for his lifetime of dedication to our movement and our people. He was a fellow member of the Balk Right, recognizing that the future breakup of the United States and the rise of White ethnostates is inevitable. He also upheld strong standards of character and behavior as a proud ‘purity spiraler’, opposing the inclusion of race mixers, Jews, and homosexuals in the movement, as well.

harold Rhodsia.jpg

His life was one of adventure and heroism, too, from his time as a volunteer in Rhodesia fighting against black Communist revolutionaries, to his open pro-White patriotism here in the United States for decades.

If you have not yet read Harold Covington’s books, you really should. Here is a link to them. He was a better writer than me, and I told him so. I don’t know if he believed I was being sincere or thought that I was just being diplomatic, but it was true.


While it would be indiscreet of me to share our private conversations now that he is gone, here is our last public conversation, a Balk Right roundtable discussion which I think you’ll enjoy.

Rest In Peace, HAC. I’ll miss you. Who will help me keep these young kids straight, now?

Published in: on July 28, 2018 at 4:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

German Social Democrats Commemorate 1944 Traitors

In the courtyard of the Bendlerblock, July 20th, 2018. Main plotters’ portraits visible among the floral arrangements, left to right, Friedrich Olbricht, Ludwig Beck, Claus von Stauffenberg, Werner von Haeften.

By Carolyn Yeager

THE DATE OF JULY 20TH IS USUALLY PASSED FAIRLY QUIETLY IN GERMANY. But this year, although not a milestone year, it’s being played up more strongly, possibly because of the important Bavarian state election coming up in October amid fear of strong support for the nationalistic AfD party.

Deutsche Welle writes that it is “usually framed as a celebration of the re-establishment of justice in Germany following the aberration of Nazism, but this year there was a clear note of defiance against new far-right populismin Europe and around the world.”

The commemoration took place in the courtyard of the Bendlerblock building in Berlin, which houses the Federal Ministry of Defense both in the 1940’s and now. It is sponsored not by the government but by something called the July 20, 1944 Remembrance Foundation and the Bundeswehr. Foundation chairman Robert von Steinau-Steinrück spoke about the “populists” in jealous terms:

“They claim for themselves the sole right to represent and recognize the true will of the people. Their actions and their language are totalitarian, but the resistance was anti-totalitarian. For that reason I want to make clear once again – also in the names of the families of the relatives – that the foundation of July 20, 1944 distances itself in the strongest possible terms when right-wing populists try, as now happens every July 20, to use women and men of the resistance for their own aims. That is nothing less than abuse.”

Both Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Berlin Mayor Michael Müller also used their speeches to express outrage that ‘far-right’ populists in Germany staged their own commemorations for the July 20, 1944 plot – though without naming the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party directly.

Doesn’t German history belongs to all the German people, not to a select few political parties who want to interpret historical events for their own use and benefit? All the current leaders in the AfD are real, genuine ethnic Germans, which cannot be said for the leftist party leaders, who pride themselves in introducing foreigners and foreign interests into German politics.

Maas aggressively invoked those he saw as holding a pan-European vision at that time, saying of the plotters: “For [them] it was clear; Peace in Europe could only be achieved by overcoming borders. [Their] hopes rested on a European federation – with its own army, a customs union, a common currency, and a common supreme court.” This is the dangerous dream of Heiko Maas and of all the leftists in Europe.

Read: A shocking, totally inaccurate and traitorous DW “opinion piece” accusing the Wehrmacht of lacking “moral courage” during WWII.

Published in: on July 22, 2018 at 12:39 am  Comments (2)  

Adolf Hitler on ‘Causes of the Collapse’, Part 2

MK_DaltonHitler points first to the influence of international finance, its belief that expanded trade could make up for the inability to produce enough goods at home. This caused the agricultural sphere to suffer while urban industrialization increased, leading to imbalances and greater class divisions. Next, he explains the poisonous, unregulated Jewish press in a way that we can instantly recognize in today’s media empires.


During the long period of peace prior to the last war, certain evils were evident here and there—although, with one or two exceptions, very little effort was made against the virus. Here again, these exceptions were first and foremost those economic phenomena of the nation that were more apparent to the individual consciousness than the harmful conditions existing in many other spheres.


The amazing increase of the German population before the war brought the question of providing daily bread into a more prominent position […]. Unfortunately, those responsible couldn’t decide to arrive at the only correct solution, but preferred to reach their goal by cheaper methods. Renouncing the idea of acquiring fresh territory, and substituting for it a mad desire for global economic conquest, was bound to eventually lead to unlimited and harmful industrialization.

The first and most fatal consequence was a weakening of the agricultural class, whose decline was proportionate to the increase in the proletariat of the urban areas. In the end, the equilibrium was completely upset.

The big barrier dividing rich and poor now became apparent. Luxury and poverty lived so close together that the consequences were bound to be deplorable. Poverty and frequent unemployment began to wreak havoc with the people, leaving discontent and embitterment behind them. The result of this was to divide the population into political classes. Discontent increased despite commercial prosperity. Matters finally reached the point at which everyone felt that ‘things can’t go on as they are,’ although no one seemed able to visualize what was really going to happen.


Far worse than these, however, were other consequences that became apparent as a result of the economization of the nation.

In proportion to the degree that commerce assumed definite control of the state, money became more of a god, to whom all had to serve and bow down. Heavenly gods became more and more old-fashioned, and were stuffed away in the corners to make room for the worship of Mammon. And thus began a period of utter degeneration. This was especially pernicious because it came at a time when the nation was at its critical hour, and more than ever needed an exalted ideal. Germany should have been prepared to protect with the sword her efforts to win her own daily bread through ‘peaceful economic labor.’

Unfortunately, the domination of money was sanctioned in the very quarter that should have opposed it. His Majesty the Kaiser made a mistake when he raised representatives of the new finance capital to the ranks of nobility. Admittedly, it may be an excuse that even Bismarck failed to realize the looming danger in this respect. In practice, however, all ideal virtues became secondary considerations to those of money; it was clear that having once taken this road, the nobility of the sword would soon rank second to the nobility of finance.


[F]rom the standpoint of blood-purity, such a development was deeply regrettable. The nobility began to lose more and more of the racial qualities that were a condition of its very existence. In many cases, the term ‘ignobility’ would have been more appropriate.


To Hitler’s portrayal of how things were prior to WWI, I will compare today’s ‘business-friendly’ conservative politicians (i.e., Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney types) who approve of allowing third world immigration that provides cheap labor to American businesses and wealthy citizens, which undercuts both the traditional working class and our nation’s White racial majority. For these people, profits come first.


It is an overriding interest of the state and nation to prevent these people [referring to the simple and credulous majority “who believe everything they read”] from falling into the hands of bad, ignorant, or even vicious-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the state to supervise their education and prevent every form of mischief. Particular attention should be paid to the press. Its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all, because its effect is not transitory but continual. It’s immense significance lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching. Here, if anywhere, the state should never forget that all means should serve the same end. It must not be led astray by the drivel of so-called ‘freedom of the press,’ or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding from the nation that which is good and which does good. With ruthless determination, the state must keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it at the service of the state and the nation.

But what dish did that German press serve up to it’s readers, in pre-war days? Was it not the worst poison imaginable? Wasn’t the worst form of pacifism injected into our people at a time when others were preparing, slowly but surely, to pounce upon Germany? Even in peacetime, didn’t this self-same press of ours already instill into the public mind a doubt as to the sovereign rights of the state itself, thereby limiting its means of defense? Wasn’t it the German press that understood how to make all this nonsense about ‘western democracy’ palatable to our people, until an enthusiastic public was eventually prepared to entrust its future to the League of Nations? Wasn’t this press responsible for promoting moral decay? Weren’t morals and public decency made to look ridiculous and old-fashioned, until our people finally became ‘modern’? By means of persistent attacks, didn’t the press continue to undermine the authority of the state, until a single blow sufficed to bring this institution down? […]


The function of the so-called liberal press was to dig a grave for the German people and the German Reich. We need not mention the lying papers of the Marxist press; for them, lying is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international capital and its masters, the Jews.

And what did the state do to counteract this mass poisoning of the nation? Nothing, absolutely nothing at all! A few silly decrees, a few fines for criminality, and that was it. By this policy, they hoped to win the favor of this plague by means of flattery, with a recognition of the ‘value’ of the press, its ‘importance,’ its ‘educational mission,’ and similar nonsense. The Jews acknowledged all this with a knowing smile and a sly thanks.

[…] No one had the courage to employ any thoroughly radical methods. Everyone piddled around with halfway prescriptions. Thus, instead of striking at its heart, they only irritated the viper. The result was that not only did everything remain the same, but the power of the institution that should have been combated grew stronger year by year.



It must be admitted that all this was the result of, on the one hand, extraordinarily crafty tactics on the part of Jewry, and on the other, an obviously official stupidity or naivete. The Jew was too clever to allow a simultaneous attack on the whole of his press. No: one section served as cover for the other.

In the most despicable manner possible, the Marxist newspapers reviled everything that was sacred, furiously attacking the state and government and inciting certain classes of the community against each other. At the same time, the Jewish bourgeois-democratic papers knew how to camouflage themselves as models of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing well that blockheads can only judge external appearances and never penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. They measure the worth of something by its exterior and not its content. The press owes its esteem to this human frailty.

For these people, the Frankfurter Zeitung [like the New York Times in the USA] was the essence of respectability. It always carefully avoided coarse language. It rejected the use of every form of physical force, and persistently appealed to the nobility of fighting with ‘intellectual’ weapons—an idea that was, curiously enough, most popular with the least intellectual classes. This is one of the results of our half-education, which turns people away from the instinct of nature, and pumps them with a certain amount of knowledge without being able to create a complete understanding [This is why, under Hitler, public school consisted of less academics and more sports and citizenship-moral training until an academic specialization was chosen in higher grades. Common sense was encouraged].

Man must never fall into the insanity of thinking that he was meant to become lord and master of nature, which a half-education has helped to encourage. Man must realize the fundamental necessity of nature’s rule, and realize that his existence is subject to the law of eternal strife and upward struggle. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a universe in which planets orbit suns, moons orbit planets, and where the strong are always the masters of the weak—subjecting them to such laws, or crushing them. Man must submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them, but he can never free himself from their sway.

It’s for just such intellectual hedonists that the Jew writes his so-called intellectual press. The Frankfurter Zeitung and Berliner Tageblatt are written for them; the tone is adapted to them, and it is on them that such papers have an influence. While studiously avoiding all crude forms of expression, poison is injected from other vials into the hearts of the readers.


The moment any attempt is made to proceed against a member of the gutter press, all the others rush to its assistance—not to support its policy, God forbid, but simply and solely to defend the principle of freedom of the press and of public opinion. This outcry will succeed in cowering even the staunchest critic, because it comes from the mouths of the ‘respectable’ papers.


I believe that our present generation could easily master this danger, if they were rightly led. It has gone through certain experiences that surely strengthened the nerves of all those who didn’t lose them completely. In days to come, the Jew will surely raise a tremendous cry in his newspapers, if a hand is laid on his favorite nest, if a move is made to end this press mischief, and if this tool of education is brought under state control and no longer left in the hands of aliens and enemies of the people. I believe that this will be easier for us than it was for our fathers. A 30-cm shell hisses louder than a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers—so let them hiss!


Published in: on July 22, 2018 at 12:35 am  Leave a Comment  

The Schaefer Trial


It is true that the Schaefer siblings’ trial  commenced on the same day as the judgment in the big trial of the “National Socialist Underground” (NSU) “terror trial” – a long-running Process of seven years’ duration concerning the murder of nine immigrants (mainly Turks) and one policewoman – first believed to have been killed by ethnic-minority gangsters, now said to have been victims of a “neo-nazi” conspiracy which somehow escaped the attention of numerous state agents close to the alleged “terrorists”. (Incidentally, one of the defence lawyers involved in the NSU case, RA Wolfram Nahrath, is also the lawyer for Monika Schaefer.)

It is also true that actions of Alfred over the last few months have raised concerns among many National Socialist, as they have been very provocative, regularly threating Jews with lynch mobs, the kind of  rhetoric that plays right into the hands of our enemy and begs the question of whether or not we are watching yet an other clown show. I would say there is quite a bit to suggest we are but this dose not change the fact that it is a crime in Europe to question the Holocaust, and the trial of the Schaefer’s needs to be examined.

Perhaps there is  a certain attempt to conflate the idea of actual murder cases (NSU) with “thought-crime” cases in which there is no crime but only a Prosecution argument to make out an “aggression” case out of rendering simple opinion as equally culpable to actual crimes? Yet as Alfred Schaefer well exclaimed to the Munich court judge – and similarly one might say as did Jez Turner to the London court judge – “there is a difference between warning and threatening”.

A great pity is that German law has had no jury system since 1924, when juries were abolished supposedly as a money-saving measure, at a time when the German economy was under great pressure due to the onerous reparations payments imposed at the end of the First World War. (Interestingly, as these trials are occuring in Munich, for a very short time from 1948 to 1950 this city and the rest of Bavaria reintroduced jury trials, but they were scrapped again once the Federal Republic of Germany was established.)

Day 5 of the trial, Thursday July 12.
The morning session was farcical!  It had to be recessed until 13.30.
This late start was because the Court had failed to inform the Stadelheim Prison that Alfred had to appear in court that day!  They were only told about it after Alfred did not show up in the morning when all other actors in the proceedings had duly arrived on time at 09.15, including Monika.
It was just the kind of slack incompetence that Alfred draws on when saying his opponents keep making “own goals”, for when eventually he was brought to the court not until the afternoon, he declared: “Had you let me sleep at home instead of prison I’d have arrived perfectly on time!”  I ask, why goad the court?
In the afternoon Alfred’s video “Brainwashing 9/11 Part 1“, was shown.  Since it has no German version, an official interpreter had made a translation and this German text was read simultaneously during regular pauses while the video was being screened.
Alfred was asked by the judge, how he had reacted after he had “found out about 9/11”?   Alfred said, that at first he had sleepless nights, then he started doing a lot of investigation and research. He reached the conclusion that we are in big trouble, like noticing your house is on fire yet the people inside the house do not notice or dare to deal with its disquiet, disturbance, or danger.   So he felt the obligation to warn and awaken everybody.
Alfred said, “what our judicial system is doing now, is wrapping duct tape around a steaming pressure cooker while turning up the heat on.
  Another question from the judge was, how did Alfred make the step from “9/11” to the “Holocaust”?   Alfred answered that it was the TV interview with Michael Chertoff, which Alfred presents in his video, where Chertoff states that denying the official story of “9/11” is like denying the “Holocaust”.
Day 6 of the trial, Friday July 13.
 As usual in the public gallery there were five persons in the morning, then three by the afternoon. Fewer in the Press gallery.
  Concerning the media,  as observed on the day of the release of (the now late) Ernst Zündel from Mannheim Prison that only one single reporter, from the Associated Press, turned up with a single photographer, thus proving how the internationally syndicated Press relies on one story and one take on how that monopolised story will be presented.  There seems to have been no story of note about the Schaefer trial in the German media to date. Yet one would think news proprietors would estimate that German citizens would be interested to buy newspapers about this dual siblings’ case with its international aspects.  Not least, a general public interest could be expected, bearing on how their country’s laws are seen to be perpetrated on Canadian citizens.
Trial Session DAY 7, Monday, July 16th.
The session began at 09.45 and the whole day was devoted to viewing first Monika’s then Alfred’s videos.
The entire morning was spent on Monika’s case.
Monika was asked questions about her video “Sorry Mum I was Wrong About the Holocaust” by the leading Judge.
Why did she make the film? What was her intention in doing so?
Monika read her Statement (Einlassung), which was considered by some in the public gallery as “very impressive”.  Some of the public hope a full version of it will be made public.
 In the afternoon the video “Dissidenten sprechen Klartext” (Dissidents Speak Out) was shown.  This is an Interview Alfred had with the political firebrand Gerhard Ittner (who is himself now locked away in Nuremberg prison).  Incidentally, Gerd Ittner was the organizer of the Dresden Commemoration, February 2018, who was permitted to organize the demo yet conditionally disqualified from speaking at it himself because of an earlier conviction for “incitement”.  Alfred was one of the scheduled speakers and that transcript was posted here at ANS a few days later.
The judge asked Alfred:  Why this time in this video he does not differentiate between Jews as a whole and the jewish “Großkapital” (Jewish big business), which he had in his “brainwashing” video, shown the day before?  Alfred pointed out that, “if it is okay all the time to blame all Germans for the nazis, why is it that we do not get the same right when referring to the Jews?”.  Why the exceptionalism for some generalisations and not for others?
Finally before close of day the video was shown which was filmed by the German police from Alfred‘s speech in Brezenheim – at the Rhine-Meadow (Rheinwiesenlager) Memorial where one million German POW soldiers were herded there to starve to death in those densely crowded, open muddy fields under the orders of the “Allied victor” General Eisenhower who denied Red Cross access.  At this atrocity-mourning Commemoration in Brezenheim, Alfred is  accused of having made the “Hitler-Gruß“ (the Hitler greeting) at the close of it.  Alfred said he never mentioned Hitler, instead he had shown the “Roman Salute”.
 A civil liberties group is urging the Canadian government to end the “unjust and immoral” imprisonment of Monika Schaefer.

In a letter signed by executive director Joseph Hickey, the association calls on Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland to act immediately, starting with appointing a consular observer and direct contact for Schaefer.

“We ask you both to do everything you can to save Monika Schaefer from her ongoing unjust and immoral imprisonment in Germany,” the letter says. “Every day that Canada refuses to act or acts ineffectively is a day that Ms. Schaefer spends in a foreign jail. Therefore, we express the required urgency.”


Monika has been in custody since her arrest and her trial is set to continue until Aug. 17,  the maximum penalty for each count is three years’ imprisonment.

The Department of Justice referred questions to Global Affairs Canada, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Trial Session DAY 8, Tuesday, July 17th.

The hearing was opened on the eighth day of the trial with the judge’s announcement that the evidence had been closed by August 16, 1818, and that the verdict would be announced on August 17, 1818, because the court did not intend to drag the case into September ,

It was followed by the continuation of the screening of the third video at the point where the day before had to interrupt the session because the translation of the video was not yet complete.

The video explains that the slave trade, in which significant Jews would have been involved , the gas chamber stories, 9/11 and other  false flag operations, showing the tactics were always the same. It also explains why Noam Chomsky’s opinion on 911 is implausible and incorrect. Overall, the Marxist-Leninist indoctrination lasted three generations. Then democratization would be complete, ie the moral decline of society would be recognizable everywhere. For the last step, the complete destabilization of society leading up to a war. 

When asked where he got the quote used in the video of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Alfred Schaefer mentions the corresponding bibliography:

” Our race is the master race. We are holy gods on this planet. We are as far from the inferior races as they are from insects. (…) Other races are considered human excrement. Our destiny is to take control of the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leaders with a staff of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as slaves! “- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset. Found By: Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,” New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

Alfred Schaefer went on to explain that,” there was little interest in the videos at the beginning, but that there was exponential growth from recent reactions and affirmative commentaries, as the listener and our audience recognized our present situation .”

“I had to do all the videos because otherwise I would have had to look on as an omitted assistance if I had not acted. But I had never pursued evil intentions with my videos. All human beings would sooner or later be confronted with the excesses of the dark machinations.Everything we believe now will be swept away and all the teachers and professors would then have to explain why they had been silent for so long. It was our task to deal with reality and to no longer believe the fantasy stories we were presented.”


The judge asked what the new world order would look like and Alfred Schaefer replied, “it would not look like it would systematically destroy 60% of the population.” He also refers to another book which predicts that the invaders would make a friendly face in Western industrial nations as long as they needed us and were dependent on us. But as soon as they reached a certain percentage of the population, they would destroy our civilization. Then a situation would arise that none of us would want and that no one in the developed world would be prepared for.”However, every people should regain their self-determination and not be controlled from the outside by separating us from our roots and making us sick by telling fairy tales. Everywhere in the world it would look just like ours and you come to the same conclusions.”

The judge wants to know how he sees it, if someone has a different view and come to different conclusions and Alfred Schaefer explains, ” this is not a problem, only one can not solve the problem by imparting prohibitions. People are hungry for logical explanations.”


Alfred Schaefer goes on to explain , “we were trained with symbols like a dog. The longer you had been at university, the harder people were reachable. That had not happened organically, but that had been made targeted. If you go to the doctor, then you must first know what you are sick, so that you can even initiate a healing process. His work should help to recognize the disease.The illness can not be recognized with evasive and false answers that have made Noam Chomsky himself unbelievable. He was not honest.”

Subsequently, another video entitled “CODOH” was presented, in which three people were asked why they supported the open debate about the HC. The court wanted to know where Alfred and Monika Schaefer knew the interviewees and if there had been a script for the video. Monika Schaefer explains that there was no script, because everyone tried to describe his point of view and one had only want to give food for thought. The answer to the question of whether or not you got money for the video was “No, of course not!” This video was made for the English-speaking countries only and was intended for an open and honest debate to find the truth. Monika and Alfred Schaefer are also always ready to revise their views if they would provide you with valid evidence.

The application for detention in the Alfred Schaefer case was rejected by the court because the postcard that Alfred Schaefer had sent to his relatives was considered a threat.

The next hearing will take place on 26.7.2018.

Write to Monika at the following address:
Monika Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Schwarzenbergstr. 14
81549 München

Write to Ursula at the following address:
JVA Bielefeld-Brackwede
z. Hd. Ursula Haverbeck
Umlostraße 100
33649 Bielefeld

Write to Gerd at the following address:
Gerd Ittner
JVA Nürnberg
Mannertstraße 6
90429 Nürnberg

Write to Jez Turner at the following address:
Jez Bedford-Turner A5544EE,
wing E3-02,
HMP Wandsworth,
PO Box 757, Heathfield Road,
Wandsworth, London SW18 3HU.

Write to Alfred at the following address:
Alfred Erhard Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Stadelheimerstr. 12
81549 München

Published in: on July 18, 2018 at 1:50 am  Leave a Comment  

Adolf Hitler on ‘Causes of the Collapse’


Only that which is capable of extraordinary heights can experience a profound decline or collapse. The collapse of the Reich[referring to the ‘Second Reich’ or reign of Hohenzollerns (1871-1918), initiated by Bismarck] was so difficult and terrible because it had fallen from a height that can hardly be imagined in these days of misery and humiliation.

[T]his empire had not been brought into existence by a series of parliamentary maneuvers, but by reason of the noblest circumstances. Its foundations were laid not amidst parliamentary debates but with the thunder and boom of war along the front that encircled Paris. It was thus that an act of statesmanship was accomplished whereby the German princes and people established the future Reich, and restored the symbol of the imperial crown. Bismarck’s state was not founded on treason and assassination by deserters and slackers, but by the regiments that fought at the front.

This unique birth and baptism of fire surrounded the Reich with a halo of historical splendor such as only the oldest states—seldom—could do.


[…] The signs of future collapse were certainly there in those earlier days, although very few made any attempt to draw a practical lesson from them. But today, this is more necessary than ever. Just as bodily diseases can be cured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so too with political disease. […]

[T]he majority of people among us recognize the German collapse only in terms of the prevailing economic distress and its consequences. Almost everyone has to carry his share of this burden, and that’s why each one looks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of the present deplorable state of affairs. The broad masses of people see little of the cultural, political and moral background of this collapse. […]

That the masses should hold such a view is quite understandable. But the fact that intelligentsia regard the German collapse primarily as an ‘economic catastrophe,’ and consequently that a cure requires an economic solution, seems to me the reason why any recovery has been thus far impossible. No improvement can be brought about until it is understood that economics play only a second-or third-rate role, while the primary factors are politics, morality, and blood. Only when this is understood will it be possible to understand the causes of the present evil, and thus to find the ways and means of curing them. […]


The most facile, and therefore the most widely-accepted way of accounting for the present misfortune is to say that it’s the result of a lost war, and that the World War was therefore the real cause.

Probably there are many who honestly believe this nonsense, but there are many more in whose mouths this is a lie and a conscious falsehood. This applies to all those who are now feeding at the government troughs. For didn’t the prophets of the revolution repeatedly declare to the people that the outcome of the war would be immaterial to the great masses? On the contrary, didn’t they solemnly assure the public that it was ‘big capital’ that was principally interested in a victorious outcome of this gigantic struggle—but never the German people or the German workers? Indeed, didn’t these apostles of world conciliation habitually assert that, far from any German downfall, the opposite was bound to take place: namely, that the German nation would be resurrected, once ‘militarism’ had been destroyed? Didn’t these circles sing the praises of the Entente [France, Britain, Russia], and did they not also lay the whole blame for the bloody struggle on Germany? Without this explanation would they have been able to put forth the theory that a military defeat would have no political consequences for the German people? Wasn’t the whole revolution dressed up in gala colors as preventing a victory of the German flag, and thus that the German people would be assured of freedom, both at home and abroad?

Isn’t that so, you miserable, lying scoundrels?

It takes a typically Jewish impudence to proclaim the defeat of the army as the cause of the collapse. Indeed, the Berlin Vorwärts, that organ and mouthpiece of sedition, wrote that the German nation should not be permitted to bring home its banner triumphantly!


As a matter of fact, the loss of the war was a result of their activities and not of ‘bad’ leadership, as they now would like to maintain. […] Indeed, it is universally admitted that the German victories that were steadily won during four years of warfare against the whole world were due to superior leadership, apart of course from the heroism of the troops. […]

The collapse of that army was not the cause of our present distress. It was itself the consequence of other crimes. But this consequence in turn ushered in a further collapse, which was more visible.



Let’s examine the symptoms that were evident at the time that the German people accepted this defeat. Isn’t it true that, in several circles, the Fatherland’s misfortunes were even welcomed with a shameless joy? […] Weren’t there people who even went further and boasted that they had caused the front to waver? […] Was there ever a case in history where a people declared itself guilty of a war? And that, even against better judgment and better knowledge!

No, and again no. From the way that the German nation reacted to its defeat, we can see that the real cause of our collapse must be sought elsewhere, and not in the purely military loss of a few positions or the failure of an offensive. […] The war was the catastrophic consequence, visible to all, of an ethical and moral poisoning, and of a degeneration of the instinct for self-preservation. These were the preliminary causes that, for many years, had been undermining the foundations of the nation and the Reich.


Above all, we would never have had that disgraceful state of affairs in which a British officer, Colonel Repington, declared with scorn: “Every third German is a traitor!” […]


It required the entire bottomless falsehood of the Jews, and their fighting comrades the Marxists, to lay blame for the collapse precisely on the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe that he had foreseen, and to save the nation from that time of humiliation and disgrace. By placing sole blame for the loss of the World War on Ludendorf, they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed against the betrayers of the Fatherland.

All this was inspired by the unquestionably true principle that in the Big Lie there is always a certain degree of credibility, because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the very bottom of their hearts than consciously or voluntarily. And in the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more readily fall victims to the Big Lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large scale falsehoods. It would never occur to them to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how to exploit falsehood and calumny. Their very existence is based on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious commuity and not a race. And what a race. One of the greatest thinkers of mankind[Schopenhauer] has branded them for all time with a statement that is profoundly and precisely true: he called them “The great master of the lie.” Those who don’t realize the truth of that statement, or don’t wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in this world to help truth prevail.

It was a great stroke of fortune for the German nation that this period of lingering sickness was so suddenly ended by a terrible catastrophe. If things had gone on as they were, the nation would have slowly but surely come to ruin. The disease would have become chronic; whereas, in the acute form, it at least showed itself clearly to a considerable number of observers. […]

It is then a stroke of luck—although a bitter one—when fate decided to intervene in this slow process of decay and suddenly brings the victim face to face with the final stage of the disease. More often than not, the result of a catastrophe is that a cure is undertaken immediately, and carried through with a firm determination.

But even in such a case, the prerequisite [for cure] is always the recognition of the internal causes that created the disease in question.

Published in: on July 16, 2018 at 4:52 pm  Leave a Comment  

Adolf Hitler on How He Joined the DAP



In another direction too, this course of lectures had important consequences for me.

One day I asked to speak. Another participant felt obligated to break a lance for the Jews and entered into a lengthy defense of them. This aroused my opposition. An overwhelming majority supported my views. The consequence of it all was that, a few days later, I was assigned to a regiment then stationed at Munich, and given a position there as a so-called ‘educational officer.’

At that time, the discipline of the troops […] was still suffering from the after-effects of the period when the soldiers’ councils were in control. Only gradually and carefully was it possible to replace ‘voluntary obedience’—a cute name given by Kurt Eisner’s pig-sty of a regime—with a spirit of military discipline and subordination. The soldiers had to be taught to think and feel in a national and patriotic way. In these two directions lay my future line of action.

I began my work with the greatest enthusiasm and love. Here I was presented with an opportunity to speak before quite a large audience. I was now able to confirm what I had previously merely felt: I could ‘speak.’ My voice had become so much better that I could be clearly understood in all parts of the small squadron hall.

No task could have been more pleasing to me than this. Now, before being discharged, I was in a position to render useful service to an institution that was infinitely dear to my heart: the army.

I can now say that my talks were successful. During the course of my lectures, I led hundreds and even thousands of my fellow countrymen back to their people and Fatherland. I ‘nationalized’ these troops, and in doing so I helped to restore general discipline. Here again I made the acquaintance of several like-minded comrades, who later came to form the core of the new movement.


One day I received an order from my superiors to investigate the nature of an apparently political association. It called itself “The German Workers’ Party” and was soon to hold a meeting at which Gottfried Feder would speak. I was ordered to attend this meeting and report on the situation.

The curiosity of the army authorities toward political parties can be very well understood. The revolution gave the soldiers the right to take an active part in politics, and it was particularly those with the least experience who made the most of this right. But when the Center and the Social Democratic parties were forced to recognize that the soldiers’ sympathies had turned away from the revolutionary parties and towards the national movement and reawakening, they felt obligated to withdraw the right to vote from the army and to forbid it all political activity.



When I arrived that evening in the “guest room” of the former Sternecker Brewery in Munich, I found approximately 20 to 25 people present, most of them belonging to the lower classes. The theme of Feder’s lecture was already familiar to me, so I could therefore focus my attention on the organization itself.

The impression was neither good nor bad—a new organization, just like any other. In those days, everyone felt called upon to form a new party whenever he was unhappy with the course of events and lost confidence in the existing parties. Thus it was that new associations sprang up all around, only to disappear just as quickly. […] because of their utter lack of anything like an adequate grasp of the necessities of the situation.

My opinion of the “German Workers’ Party” was no different. I was glad when Feder finally came to a close. I had observed enough and was just about to leave when an open discussion period was announced; I decided to stay. At first this was just more of the same, when suddenly a ‘professor’ began to speak. He opened by throwing doubt on the accuracy of what Feder had said, and then—after Feder’s able reply—the professor suddenly began arguing on what he called ‘the basis of facts’. He argued that the young party take up ‘secession’ from ‘Prussia.’ In a most self-assured way, this man kept insisting that German-Austria should join Bavaria and then the peace would function much better … and other nonsense. At this point, I felt bound to ask for permission to speak and to tell the learned gentleman what I thought. As a result, and even before I finished he slipped out of the hall like a wet poodle. While I spoke, the audience listened with an astonished expression on their faces. When I was just about to say good night to the assembly and leave, a man came after me quickly and placed a booklet in my hand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, and asked me very urgently to read it.


The next morning, around 5:00 AM, I was fully awake in bed, watching the mice playing and vying with each other [for the few pieces of bread crust he had placed on the floor.] I had suffered so much poverty in my own life that I well knew what hunger was and I could thus imagine the pleasure of these little creatures. Since I couldn’t sleep, I suddenly remembered the booklet that the worker had given me. I began to read. It was a small pamphlet, of which this worker was the author. He described how his mind had thrown off the shackles of Marxist and trade-union phraseology, and that he came back to nationalist ideals. That was the reason why he had entitled his little book, My Political Awakening. The pamphlet grabbed my attention the moment I began to read, and I read it with interest to the end. The process described was similar to that which I had experienced in my own case 12 years earlier. Unconsciously, my own development came again to mind. During that day, my thoughts returned several times to what I had read, but eventually I forgot about it. A week or so later, however, I received a postcard that informed me, to my astonishment, that I had been admitted to the DAP. I was asked to reply to this communication and to attend a meeting of the Party Committee the next Wednesday.

This method of ‘winning’ members amazed me, and I didn’t know whether to be angry or laugh. I had no intention of joining any existing party, but wanted to found one of my own. It was presumptuous of them to ask and, for me, completely out of the question.

I was about to send a written reply when curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to attend the gathering on the assigned date, so that I might explain my principles to these gentlemen in person.


Wednesday came. The tavern in which the meeting was to take place was the Alte Rosenbad in the Herrnstrasse—a run-down place with very few guests. This wasn’t very surprising in 1919, when the menus of even the larger restaurants were only very modest and scanty. But I had never before heard of this business.

I went through the badly-lighted guest room, where not a single guest was to be seen, and opened the door to the back room; there I found the ‘session.’ In the dim light of a grimy gas lamp, I could see four young people sitting around a table, one of them the author of the pamphlet. He greeted me cordially and welcomed me as a new member of the DAP.


My curiosity was growing and I sat waiting for what was to come. Now at least I learned the names of the gentlemen. The chairman of the ‘national organization’ was a certain Herr Harrer; and the leader of the Munich district was Anton Drexler. The minutes of the previous meeting were read out, and a vote of confidence in the secretary was passed, Then came the treasurer’s report. The association possessed a total of seven marks and 50 pfennigs, whereupon the treasurer was assured that he had the confidence of the members. Then the chairman’s replies to a number of letters were read; […] then the incoming letters were read […] there followed a long discussion of the replies to be given.

Terrible, terrible! This was tedious bureaucracy of the worst sort. And was I to join such a club?

Next came the question of new members—that is to say, the question of my capture. I now began to ask questions. But I found that, apart from a few general principles, there was nothing; no program, no pamphlet, nothing at all in print, no membership cards, not even a party stamp; only clear good faith and good intentions.

I no longer felt like laughing—for what else was all this but a typical sign of the most complete helplessness and total despair of all political parties, their programs, and their activities? The feeling that induced those few young men to join in what seemed such a ridiculous enterprise was nothing but the call of an inner voice. It told them, more intuitively than consciously, that the whole party system as it existed was incapable of raising up the German nation or repairing the inner wounds. I quickly read through the list of principles that formed the party platform These were stated on typewritten sheets. Here again I found evidence of a spirit of longing and searching, but no sign whatsoever of a knowledge of the conflict that had to be fought.

When I returned to the barracks that evening, I had formed a definite opinion of that association. I was facing the hardest question of my life: Should I join this party, or should I decline?


Rationally, every consideration urged me to decline; but my feelings troubled me. The more I tried to prove to myself how senseless this club was, on the whole, the more my feelings inclined me to favor it.

In the days to follow, I was restless.

I began to consider all the pros and cons. I had long ago decided to take an active part in politics. It was clear that I could do so only through a new movement; but I had previously lacked the impulse to take concrete action. I’m not one of those people who will begin something one day and give it up the next, just for the sake of something new. That was the main reason why it was so difficult for me to decide to join such an organization. This would have to be the fulfillment of my goals, or else I shouldn’t do it at all. I knew such a decision would bind me forever, and that there would be no turning back. This was no idle game, but rather a serious and ardent cause. Even then I had an instinctive revulsion against people who took up everything, but never carried anything through to the end. I loathed these jacks-of-all-trades, and considered the activities of such people to be worse than doing nothing at all.

Fate itself now seemed to point the way. I would never have entered one of the big existing parties; I’ll explain my reasons for this later on. This absurd little group, with its handful of members, seemed to have the unique advantage of not yet being frozen into an ‘organization.’ It still offered a chance for real personal activity on the part of the individual. Here, it might still be possible to do some effective work; and, as the movement was still small, one could all the easier give it the proper shape. Here it was still possible to determine the character of the movement, the aims to be achieved, and the road to be taken; all of this would have been impossible in the big parties.

The longer I reflected on the situation, the more my opinion developed that just such a small movement could best serve to prepare the way for a national resurgence. […] What had to be proclaimed here was a new worldview, and not a new election slogan.

It was, however, infinitely more difficult to turn this intention into reality. What qualifications did I bring to this task? The fact that I was poor and without resources could, in my opinion, be the easiest to bear. But the fact that I was utterly unknown raised a more difficult problem. I was only one of millions that Chance allowed to exist, whom even their next door neighbors will not consent to know. And another difficulty arose from my lack of schooling.


After two days of careful brooding and reflection, I became convinced that I must take the step. It was the most fateful decision of my life. There was and could be no turning back.

Thus I registered as a member of the German Worker’s Party, and received a provisional membership card, with the number seven.

Published in: on July 11, 2018 at 2:16 am  Leave a Comment