In an obscure (to me) blog by someone who signs Karl Radl I found these very interesting and well-written articles about the Holocaust, which I think go well together as a kind of Holocaust triptych.
The first, called Holocaust Survivor Stories, frames the other two and speaks for itself so I will not comment on it except for a side observation: I do not recall reading before that the Germans had been accused in WWI of making soap out of the bodies of Belgians! Either the Germans were pleased with the product and reprised its fabrication in WWII using Jews or the Jews are plagiarists with no imagination of their own. One other possibility is the
The two I call case reports deal with a topic I have not seen discussed elsewhere before: the devastating effects of the Post-traumatic Stress syndrome induced not by the Holocaust but by the “Holocaust, and not in the “survivors” but in non-Jews, specifically in Germans, and in this case innocent Germans bearing the demonized names of well-known officers of the 3rd Reich.
The stories of the lives of these two women make one shudder to think of the effect of subjecting the whole German nation, including children from an early age, to a non-stop brow-beating brain-washing with an orgiastic pornography of horrors for which they have had to make professions of collective guilt ever since. How many of them are in fact driven to reflexly reject in fear the truth revealed by historians and researchers like Butz, Zündel, Irving, or Faurisson and believe that it is just to imprison them as ‘deniers.’
* * * *
Holocaust Survivor Stories (Week Ending 20/07/2014)
Roll up, roll up. It is time for this week’s edition of ‘Holocaust Survivor Stories’ and to begin let’s go to California where a local school tasked its students with producing an essay on whether they believe in the ‘holocaust’ after going out and looking at the facts. The result?
Well to the horror of the teaching staff: most of the students argued in their assignments that the ‘holocaust’ is hard to take seriously as it posits a series of implausible, and occasionally outright impossible, events and situations. Allegedly the students discovered these facts after reading older revisionist work like that of Fred Leuchter. What is not mentioned, and seems to me more likely, is that the students read more widely available revisionist work such as that published by the ‘Inconvenient History’ journal as well as a couple of articles by Leuchter et al (and since the teachers and ‘experts on holocaust denial’ generally seem to have only heard of revisionists from the 1980s/1990s they immediately attribute their being convinced to reading said revisionists).
The simple fact that the jews and the education profession in general have failed to understand is that sans the need to believe in the ‘holocaust’: the theory is grossly lacking evidential support and once someone punctures the façade of ‘it happened therefore it is possible’ arguments then it is obvious to anyone that the entire theory is a load of half-arsed bunk.
I mean if you can’t provide direct evidence of your pet theory seventy years after the fact then why on earth do you still believe in said theory?
Sometimes the gullibility of otherwise rational ‘holocaust’ promoters is utterly frightening and exceeds that of the type of individual who believes that the world is flat or that Elvis was abducted by aliens.
Anyway back in the la la land that is the personal universe of ‘holocaust survivors’: we find that said individuals are now demanding more money from the Claims Conference and are even writing angry letters to local newspapers about it. Oh, my the militancy and chutzpah of these ‘holocaust survivors’: eh? Asking their fellow jews for free cash handouts? Oy Vey! The Horror!
Clearly the Claims Conference and the Holocaust Industry would prefer that said ‘survivors’ get mown down by a bus (as this one was in Washington D.C) or commit suicide (like these two in the United Kingdom) instead of bleating for free handouts while screaming ‘Never Again!’ from their retirement homes. Indeed those deaths we’ve mention this week are clearly part of a conspiracy to remove problematic ‘holocaust
survivors’ by those damned jewish apparatchiks in New York and Tel Aviv. So much so that the Satmar Rebbe (the spiritual and political leader of the Satmar Chassidim) allegedly ‘knew’ about the ‘holocaust’ in 1943, but didn’t tell anyone.
Well isn’t that wonderful? The head of a large Chassidic sect ‘doesn’t tell his followers’ about a supposedly ‘super-secret’ operation that nobody in the German government seems to have known about (as no German documents mention such a program) and that, according to the orthodox historical narrative about the ‘holocaust’, nobody did know about till 1945 when the Allies and the Soviet Union ‘discovered death camps’.
The Satmar Rebbe probably knew of the rumours about ‘death camps’ (which were after all doing the rounds in the anti-Nazi underground in Poland) but these he intelligently put down to just being the type of sordid rumours that usually accrue in such a situation. After all the Germans in the First World War were allegedly making ‘soap’ out of dead (usually Belgian) bodies, which was then regurgitated as ‘making soap out of dead jews’ in the Second World War.
The fact is that the Satmar Rebbe was right: the stories of ‘death camps’, ‘brain-bashing machines’, ‘vacuum chambers’, ‘collections of human eyes’ and so forth are just atrocity propaganda and urban legend. They aren’t supposed to be taken seriously and his view on this subject will be validated in time by historians when they aren’t afraid to dispute the ‘reality’ of an obvious myth with the Holocaust Industry and the vested interests that underpin it.
Indeed long forgotten footage of the newly-‘liberated’ concentration camps from the archive of Alfred Hitchcock has recently emerged and been shown at the Jerusalem Film Festival. Although I haven’t managed to find a copy to view as of yet: the fact that it hasn’t been beamed around the world and shoved in the face of ‘holocaust deniers’ is highly suggestive of the fact that, while probably quite awful to watch, it doesn’t provide any actual evidence of the ‘holocaust’. It is just more emotive ‘look at the starving jews’ material that is designed to twist the hearts of the viewer and reassure them that the ‘gas chambers’ really did exist, because jews suffered from malnutrition during their time in the concentration camps. Logical: isn’t it?
Speaking of those who went through German concentration camps during the Second World War. Take the case of Teresa Fischlowitz who was sent with her parents to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and speaks of how she had her seventh birthday party on the train there. The problem is that while this is very likely true: it completely makes mincemeat of the ‘holocaust’ theory.
The reason why is really simple: seven year old children were allegedly to be separated from their parents and sent off to be killed in the gas chambers, because they could not benefit the Reich by working for their keep (thus they were classified as ‘useless eaters’ and killed). Thus runs the orthodox narrative, but oh whoops, Teresa is telling us that she as a seven year old girl wasn’t taken away from her parents and gassed in spite of being in a camp for years. So unless she is a random and particularly ugly phantom then she is yet another contradiction in the ‘holocaust’ narrative along with the embarrassing recent revelations from revisionist scholars about jews being sent to alleged ‘pure’ ‘death camps’ and then a few days later being transited on to ‘normal’ concentration camps. Whoops: eh?
So much for them being ‘pure’ ‘death camps’ and indeed they start to sound just like the transit camps with delousing stations (to prevent the spread of diseases picked up in the ghettos) for the shipments of jews being sent to the work camps that revisionists have long posited they were: don’t they?
To be fair however: you cannot fault Fishlowitz for being clueless about what is being claimed in relation to the ‘holocaust’ and for simply reporting the event in her life and the time that it happened. The fact is however that these combined ironically contradicts the ‘holocaust’ narrative that she is seeking to promote and profit off of with her ‘memoirs’ (like the other two million or so ‘holocaust memoirs’ currently in print).
Our final ‘survivor’ this week is Ingrid Cardozo who, according to her own account, was never shipped off to a concentration camp in spite of her father being of jewish origin (and nor was he shipped to a camp). Indeed the evil Nazis pensioned Cardozo’s jewish father off when they assumed power and apparently didn’t molest him at all afterwards and he died peacefully at home of a heart attack in 1944 in the middle of the so-called ‘holocaust’. The worst things that happened to her family was that Cardozo’s brother was put into a work camp after he made a thing of his jewishness when he was called up to serve in the Wehrmacht.
Cardozo’s account reminds me of what Heinz Weichardt wrote in ‘Under Two Flags’ about his jewish mother living openly and completely unmolested in Berlin till the Red Army besieged the city.
It is proof positive that the usual claims that the ‘Nazis exterminated/wanted to exterminate the jews’ are an absolute load of twaddle since it isn’t hard to find innumerable ‘exceptions’ to the rule among ‘holocaust survivors’ like Cardozo and even among contemporary accounts.
The ‘holocaust’ is bunk: deal with it.
* * *
Katrin Himmler’s Holocaust Complex
When I first read Katrin Himmler’s ‘The Himmler Brothers’ I was profoundly shocked at the depths to which she had sunk as an individual. It was as clear to me as it is now that Katrin was suffering from trauma brought on by the ‘holocaust’. It wasn’t that she was a ‘holocaust survivor’ oh no, but rather that she had been deeply traumatized by it from an early age given that she was made to feel ‘evil’ at an early age by no lesser personages than her parents.
For example she writes:
‘It was a question that I avoided myself for a long time. I knew about Heinrich Himmler, my great uncle. I knew about the ‘greatest murderer of the century’, who was responsible for the extermination of the European Jews and the murder of millions of others. My parents had provided me with books about the Nazi period from an early age. Shaken and tearful, I had read about the failed uprising of the people in the Warsaw ghetto, about the experiences of refugees and the survival of children who were kept in hiding. I identified with the victims, felt ashamed of my name, and in some inexplicable yet distressing way I often felt guilty.’ (1)
Several things are made very clear in Katrin’s description of her childhood.
In the first is the fact that she was cozened and forced into a position where she had to read deeply traumatic literature (such as the descriptions of ‘death camps’, ‘abuse’ of jews, supposed ‘medical experiments’ and so forth), which deeply affected her since she describes herself as being ‘shaken and tearful’ as the result of reading such material. In other words she was deeply traumatized by what she read and had obvious trouble approaching the issue because she was so young and simply unable to understand and critically approach what she had been forced to read.
In the second that it was made clear to her at an early age that this trauma she was going through was the fault of her great uncle, Heinrich Himmler, who was the ‘greatest murderer of the century’. This then made her feel like she was personally involved since she tells us that she was ‘ashamed of her name’. In an interview with the London-based ‘Times’ she stated that when she was 11 she watched the television film ‘Holocaust’ and cried her eyes out, because she felt so responsible for what happened. (2)
This point is further reinforced by a later experience at school when someone joked that she was a ‘relative of Heinrich Himmler’ during a history lesson and she publicly admitted that she was. The result of this was absolute silence and the teacher moving swiftly on. (3)
In other words Katrin Himmler felt personally responsible (i.e. ‘I often felt guilty’/’felt ashamed of my name’) for her great uncle Heinrich’s alleged actions during the Second World War.
In the third we see that, in common with most ‘holocaust’ literature, Katrin identified the jews as the ‘heroes’ of the piece and that they were to be lionized as opposed to vilified. This is clear in the fact that she states she ‘identified with the victims’ and sympathized with those jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
This all leads to the conclusion that Katrin was deeply traumatized and personally affected by what she read. Further it informs us that she internalized it as a form of personal guilt and also identified with the jews as the ‘heroes’ that she should aspire to be like in order to ‘escape her Nazi heritage’.
We can see this in the fact that; although Katrin clearly knows a good amount of modern history, she claims that her great uncle Heinrich was the ‘greatest murderer of the century’, which is patent nonsense given that title easily belongs to either Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung who killed millions more than her great uncle ever could.
Indeed she also went out of her way to ‘forget’ that millions of Germans were deliberately killed by the Western Allies and the Soviet Union during and after the Second World War. This is likely because she sees the jews as the heroes and as such the only ones worthy of empathy.
Indications of this can be found in the fact that she spent a long time deliberately trying not to seem German at all (4) and married (as well as having a child by) an Israeli jew (5) who is the descender of ‘holocaust survivors’. (6) She also states that she ‘felt drawn’ to Israel (7) and in her description of her courtship with ‘Dani’, her Israeli husband (who she ‘conceals via a pseudonym’), (8) in Krakow and Berlin. She informs us that they bonded over an obsession with the scars of the Second World War and the ‘holocaust’. (9)
Katrin also rejects the idea of personality being derived from biology (in spite of the empirical science being in almost unianimous support of this), because her grandfather believed that personality was (partly) inherited from one’s parents. (10)
This gives us an idea that Katrin has suffered a deep form of trauma from her experiences, which are forcing herself to be ‘guilty’ for alleged atrocities and she is trying to spend her life in ‘repentance’ and ‘penance’ for what her great uncle Heinrich allegedly did. All the signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are there: (11)
A) She herself tells us she was ‘in denial’ about the close family connection to Heinrich Himmler.
B) She felt anger at her great uncle for what she believed he had done.
C) She herself tells us that she felt ‘guilt’ for her close family connection to Heinrich Himmler and blamed herself for what he allegedly did.
D) She felt that it was ‘hopeless’ because she would always hear the name ‘Himmler’ connected with the ‘holocaust’, which we see when she talks of crying her eyes out when she was 11 about that fact.
In other words Katrin Himmler is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) brought on by the emotional abuse of her parents forcing the ‘holocaust’ into her life and then refusing to allow her to be her own woman without it. This then caused her to seek any way she could to remove the stigma of guilt (for example never wanting to pass on her surname to her son) (12) or at least feel better about herself. The pilgrimages to ‘death camps’, the marriage to an Israeli jew whose parents were in the Warsaw ghetto (13) (which we already saw she heavily identified with) and the need to ‘blame herself’ again by writing ‘The Himmler Brothers’ are all methods she is using in order to gain catharsis.
Thus we can see there is little doubt that Katrin Himmler is a victim of the ‘holocaust’ and the holocaust industry, which has sought for seventy years to push it front of the world and make it a part of every individual’s life whether they have any interest in it or not.
(1) Katrin Himmler, 2007, ‘The Himmler Brothers: A German Family History’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: Basingstoke, p. 1
(3) Himmer, Op. Cit., p. 1
(6) Himmler, Op. Cit., p. 4
(7) Ibid, p. 3
(8) http://www.katrinhimmler.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Interview-TIMESONLINE.pdf; http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119439811745484656
(9) Himmler, Op. Cit., pp. 209-304
(12) Himmler, Op. Cit., p. 302
Bettina Goering’s Holocaust Complex
In my recent article on Katrin Himmler’s personal guilt complex that has been foisted on her as the result of her family relationship with Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS in the Third Reich, and how that complex was clearly a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). (1) Some of Katrin’s behaviours were even simply, as I stated, crazy and suggestive that she had become mentally and intellectually unstable as the result of the ‘holocaust’-related abuse she had long suffered.
Included in this were her obsessively watching ‘holocaust’ documentaries and programs that were calculated to make her cry desperately, her close identification with the jewish ‘victims’ of the Third Reich, her obsessive need to apologize for what she had never done but her great uncle allegedly had and the fact that her (Israeli jewish) husband and her bonded over their obsession with the alleged crimes of the Third Reich.
In spite of this though Katrin was comparatively normal when we turn to another case: Bettina Goering.
Now Bettina is, like Katrin, not a direct descendant of her ‘senior Nazi family’, but rather is his great-niece. In this case rather than being related to Heinrich Himmler: Bettina is related to Hermann Goering, one of the early members of the NSDAP, the head of the Luftwaffe in the Third Reich and one of Adolf Hitler’s confidants.
Bettina, unlike Katrin, was not exposed to the extreme cruelty of having the ‘holocaust’ shoved in her face ever since she was young (she claims that ‘everyone was in denial’). Her first experience of it was really when she watched a television documentary and her grandmother, the wartime head of Germany Red Cross, simply said that it was all lies as it didn’t happen (and she should have known). (2)
However it is clear from what she does say that she had had severely traumatic experiences during her childhood as she discovered a photo of her great-uncle Hermann then realized that she looked rather like him and simply ripped it up. (3) This is a classic symptom of the denial of abuse (which is an individual’s way of dealing with it by believing it isn’t happening and/or never happened) and when you combine that with her experiences during her 20s in a leftist commune in Pune, India where there were a large number of jews it is clear that she was subject to a lot of such abuse.
She relates her experiences via her ex-husband Adi thus:
‘”What kind of experiences?”
Bettina glanced at her husband.
“For example,” Adi offered, “I’m from Berlin, so I’m Prussian. They had me stand up and march and they all threw pillows at me, yelling ‘You fucking Nazi!’ They called me Obersturmbannführer and I had to just take that all in. They asked, ‘How do you feel about that? That’s what your parents did and that’s what you are because you are their child.’ And I felt a big collective guilt inside that I wasn’t aware of. Nobody in my family did anything, but I still have this guilt. I didn’t know I had it. I was so surprised.”
“Were you able to get past it?”
“It’s never totally past. You just put awareness to it so that it has no more power over you.”‘ (4)
Clearly being called ‘a fucking Nazi’ and being systematically humiliated in front of your friends by jews bent on taking sadistic revenge on a fairly frequent basis is not going to do anyone much good.
As we are told in the above excerpt: collective guilt builds up so that they are no longer sure who you are or what your purpose in life is. That in turns leads to self-hatred and this is particularly obvious in Bettina’s case since when she was 30 (i.e. after her years in the commune being abused by jews) herself and her brother had themselves voluntarily sterilized in order to prevent the Goering family line continuing. (5)
When we factor this in with the fact that Bettina’s parents had a rocky relationship and that she ran away from home when she was 13: (6) then it becomes clear that Bettina was ripe for an emotional and mental crisis in relation to her family. She appears to have found her coping mechanism for this in hatred of her family’s history and through that her own person (it wouldn’t surprise me at to learn that she had self-harmed in the past).
This is manifested both in her ‘pilgrimages’ to Israel to meet and apologize to ‘holocaust survivors’ (7) as well as her visits to former concentration camps such as Buchenwald: where she reports she had mystical experiences and felt a sense of mission. (8)
Essentially Bettina is suffering from what I have to come to refer to as the ‘holocaust complex’. This is where individuals, who have some kind of traumatic experience and feel they can relate to the ‘holocaust’ as the cause of that experience, develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and in so doing identify with those who are victimizing them (i.e. the holocaust industry) by inferring they are somehow personally responsible for the ‘holocaust’.
Bettina has absolutely no reason to feel the need to ‘apologize’ for anything she has done, but rather as the result of a traumatic early family life: she associates the Third Reich with her family and the idea that they are/were evil and thus she can understand her own trauma and also attempt to cure it by constantly trying to ‘make amends’.
It is a classic case where the abuser (the holocaust industry) is actually turned into the victim by the victim of the actual abuse.
Quite frankly: it is simply sick.
(1) See http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/07/katrin-himmlers-holocaust-complex.html