[In this new book, by a well-known “Holocaust” Revisionist, Jurgen Graf, the planned “slow-motion” extermination of the White race by the globalists (aka, Organized jewry) using the socially engineered below replacement birth rates, mass Third World immigration and various other methods is described. In the introduction Graf talks about how he became involved in “Holocaust” revisionism and how the “Holocaust” is used to demoralize and guilt Whites into passively accepting their racial and cultural destruction — KATANA.]

 

 

[NOTE: The following excepts are provided to encourage readers to purchase the book. Please support the author and his work by purchasing the book at Barnes Review or as an e-book at Amazon.]

 

_______________________

 

 

White World Awake!

 

Stopping the Planned Extermination

 

of Our Volk

 

 

By JURGEN GRAF

 

TRANSLATED by DR. FREDRICK TOBEN

EDITED by JOHN R TIFFANY

Copyright 2016 by Jurgen Graf &

THE BARNES REVIEW

 

 

ISBN 978-1-937787-32-5

FIRST US EDITION, 2016

Published by:

THE BARNES REVIEW

16000 Trade Zone Avenue #406 Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 PEACE BOOKS P. O. Box 3300

Norwood SA 5067 Australia

 

Ordering more copies:

Order more copies of White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk (softcover, 540 pages, $35 plus $5 S&H) from THE BARNES REVIEW 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774.

TBR subscribers may take 10% off the list price. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge copies to Visa, MasterCard, or Discover.

See more books and videos online at www.barnesreview.com.

 

Subscriptions:

A subscription to THE BARNES REVIEW historical magazine is $46 for one year (six issues) and $78 for two years (12 issues) inside the US. Outside the U.S: Canada/Mexico: $65 per year. All other nations: $80 per year sent via air mail. Send payment with request to TBR, 16000 Trade Zone Avenue, Unit 406, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774. Call TBR toll free at 1- 877-773-9077 to charge. Order online at www.barnesreview.com. See a special subscription offer at the back of this volume, or call toll free number above and ask for best current subscription offer.

 

Reproduction Policy:

Portions of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission in critical reviews and other papers if credit is given to author, book title is listed and full contact information and subscription information are given for publishers as shown above.

Original Australian ISBN 978-0-994198-30-3

WHITE WORLD WORLD Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk

BY JURGEN GRAF

THE BARNES REVIEW 2016

 

 

AUTHOR’S DEDICATION

To my mother Valentina Ivanova, dedicated with love and gratitude.

— JORGEN GRAF

September 2016

 

PUBLISHER’S DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to the White race, whose very existence is on the brink of extinction. It is our hope that this book’s contents in some way can help to make more people aware this disturbing situation and work together to make it a prominent public issue. Certainly the loss of any individual race on this planet is a great tragedy, but the extinction of a race with such a noble and prolific history such as ours would be globally catastrophic.

— THE BARNES REVIEW

September 2016

 

From the Publisher

 

White World Awake!

Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk.

 

Western civilization is in desperate peril. White people — our volk — are in trouble. The question of the day — and very likely the question of the millennium — is whether Europe will survive—and with it its American, Canadian, Australian and South African cousins — and, if so, how?

 

Seeking to answer those questions is a very important new book, White World Awake! Stopping the Planned Extermination of Our Volk. Those who seek the truth will find the truth in the pages of this book, and those looking for a practical plan of action will find that as well.

 

For too long, observes the author, White people have fought among themselves. The European Union and NATO are failed efforts to correct that situation. Europe faces an existential threat with tsunamis of unassimilable Africans, Middle Easterners and Asians swarming in. Russians, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans and Poles, Serbs and Croats, Romanians, Finns and Greeks, Spaniards and Hungarians are all in the same rickety boat.

 

The time has come for Europe to speak with one nationalist voice on military and foreign policy matters, while it is equally necessary for each nation and ethnic group to preserve its distinctive language and culture, and for historical injustices to be discussed openly.

 

A Eurasian Federation is proposed, which, like Old America, will not interfere in other parts of the world except to provide humanitarian aid and ensure the safety of such places as Armenia and Georgia against any immigration threat.

 

Traitor politicians who see no problem in allowing Europe and other White nations to be transformed into mixed-race caliphates — a dream of the mysterious Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi — will be voted out of office.

 

Many of the solutions apply equally to the rest of the White World. “Close the borders! Stop the flood!” is key not only for Europe, but America and all other White areas of the world. Thus Graf lays out a practical 10-step program to stop the genocide of the West starting with Europe, the cradle of White Western civilization.

 

This is a book that needs and deserves to be in the hands of every concerned person who cares about the future of the Western world.

 

__________________

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Introduction: How to Become a Dissident ……………… 7

1 The Red Bird from the Danube Delta ………………… 39

2 Conspiracy Theories? …………………………………….. 55

3 The Plan ……………………………………………………………………….. 71

4 Intelligence and Development ……………………………………… 93

5 The Blessings of Multiculturalism ………………………………….. 109

6 Battle of Ethnicities and Cultures ………………………………….. 133

7 The Cost of Suicide ………………………………………………………. 159

8 The Plan to Destroy Sweden …………………………………………. 171

9 The Decline of the U.S.A. ………………………………………………. 185

10 Two Types of Weights and Double Standards ………………. 199

11 The Destructive Principle ……………………………………………… 211

12 The Foundation of the New World Order ……………………… 237

13 Homosexual Propaganda & Gender Mainstreaming ……… 319

14 Infanticide in the Mother’s Womb ……………………………….. 337

15 The Locusts by Thomas Brookes …………………………………… 345

16 The Battering Ram of the New World Order ………………….. 365

17 The Ukrainian Scenario ………………………………………………… 401

18 The Henchmen ……………………………………………………………. 445

19 What to Do? …………………………………………………………………. 473

20 After the Storm ………………………………………………………….… 489

21 Afterword: Coloring the White World ……………………………. 505

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………… 522

Index …………………………………………………………………………………. 531

 

 

Jurgen Graf

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

How To Become a Dissident

 

“C’est quily a de terrible quand on cherche la verite, c’est qu’on la trouve.”

 

“The terrible thing is that those who seek the truth will find the truth.”

— French biologist and scientist FELIX LE DENTEC (1869-1917)

 

 

When, at age 62, I reflect on my life, it appears to me that the first 35 years were nothing, but a preparation for future tasks. I still thank my teachers at the Basel Humanist High School, who gave me a general education. In my following education I obtained language qualifications that became indispensable to me. Since my 9th, or 10th year, I have always had a passionate interest in politics and history, and this interest was to determine my life’s journey. Early in life, in matters of national defense and foreign affairs, I was right wing, where “‘right wing” was essentially “‘anti-communist.” I had not quite consciously experienced the 1956 Hungarian uprising, but the construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban crisis were indelibly imprinted on my consciousness. The Soviet tanks in Prague and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, which I devoured, convinced me that the current battle was against eastern totalitarianism. Until the beginning of perestroika, I was firmly convinced of a …, perestroika, I was firmly convinced of a possibly inevitable Soviet occupation of Western Europe. Inevitably. my favorite politician was Franz Josef Strauss, the baroque Bavarian ancient colossus who incessantly warned Western civil society of the impending Red danger. Only sometime later was I able to revise my undifferentiated anti-communism and anti-Soviet Unionism- and as before in other matters — to correct my historical and world views.

 

At the same time, from the beginning I always stood left of center in social justice matters, and my anti-communism did not, for example, prevent me in the least from supporting the 1972 submitted Communist Party of Work initiative to grant a Volks pension, which was massively rejected at the referendum. The fact that on some points I could unhesitatingly support a right-wing and a left-wing position was proof for me that we lived in a dynamic democracy. I believed that there was no alternative to democratic capitalism; the deficiencies within the system would step-by-step be solved. All in all, I believed I was living in the best of all possible worlds.

 

However, quite early in my life that I realized that even this best of all possible political words could not do without a taboo, or two, of which the strongest concerned the topic of “the Third Reich and the Jews.” Just as in most European countries, in Switzerland during my childhood a pervasive anti-German climate was propagated by most of the media. During that time there were two daily newspapers in Basel: The left-wing National Zeitung was most noted for venomously inciting against Germans, while the right-wing Basler Nachrichten remained more reserved in its diatribe against Germans.

 

My father, Friedrich Graf, was a Swiss citizen born in the Ruhr Valley, and we had numerous relatives there whom we visited regularly. This is why from childhood I had a friendly disposition toward Germans, and I could not understand why the German people collectively were held responsible for crimes committed by the National Socialist government. However, not for a second did I question the historical reality of the crimes, especially that of the industrialized extermination of the Jewish people. After all, I had never come across a book, or a newspaper article in which the conventional version of events had been questioned, much less have someone cross my path who disputed the Nazi atrocities. Even my father, who had spent the entire war years in Germany, accepted the conventional version of events, except to insist that only since 1945 had he heard about the gas chambers.

 

It thus became quite clear to me: In a deceptive blinding ideological fit of madness, the National Socialist regime committed horrendous crimes of which its people were totally unaware, and for which they collectively stood accused. This offended my early childhood sense of justice.

 

That the government of Germany constantly and abjectly apologized for its Nazi past, and threw Israel ever new reparations down its insatiable throat, was disconcerting for me as much as the German media’s seeming obsession with dragging its own people into the dirt. Likewise, I found the Nazi war crime trials, 10 or more years after war’s end, repulsive.

 

A key event was the murky drama of the Majdanek Trial, which began in Dusseldorf in Nov. 1975 and dragged out until June 1981. Charged before the court stood former wardens of the Majdanek concentration camp, among them a number of women, who were accused of having participated in the gassing and shooting of Jewish prisoners. The trial forced the Federal Republic of Germany to renewed submissive penance rituals and offered the media a welcomed opportunity to redouble its hate campaign against its own people.

 

I could not then foresee that decades later I, together with Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno, would publish a book about Majdanek, [1] but I followed the proceedings with growing irritation. Although I had not the slightest sympathy for these accused individuals, I saw no sense in bringing to court three decades later a handful of scapegoats who had participated in this murderous struggle between nations that produced over 50 million casualties. This was all the more worrisome, because it was always Germans who had been accused of committing crimes: not a single individual of the victors was tried, for example, for the senseless destruction of militarily insignificant Dresden, the dropping of the atomic bombs on a capitulating Japan, the brutal ethnic cleansing of the old east Germany and Sudetenland, nor the Katyn Massacre. It seemed to me that I was the only one who saw the futility of holding such trials. After the Majdanek trial began, I attended the reading room of the University of Basel in order to follow the reporting of this trial by the national and international press. There seemed no differentiated evaluation of the procedures, which were clearly stated as being necessary; the only criticism was made of the West German judiciary for having unnecessarily delayed the opening of the trial.

 

In order to obtain a different view of things to that offered by the anti-German Basler Blattes, I had to read Munich’s much maligned “right-wing” National Zeitung, which I could buy at the Basel Railway Station.

 

Biting criticism in this newspaper was leveled against the Germans coming to terms with their past and with their Nazi trials, but even this newspaper did not question the reality of mass extermination at Majdanek and other camps. It only objected to having such trials against Germans only, and pointed out the inherent danger of witnesses not recalling exactly what they had experienced and so perjuring themselves, which increased the risk of a flawed judgment. That only an extreme “right wing” non-mainstream newspaper had the courage to state such fundamental truths irritated me no end. I comforted myself by hoping that the whipped up hysteria would die down as the events of World War II would, with each passing year, inevitably slip further into the past. How was I to know then that the mystery play of German executioners and Jewish victims, who in their millions marched into gas chambers disguised as showers, was created for eternity? [Note: there are two National Zeitungs, the German one and a Swiss paper of the same name, but different politics. — Ed.]

 

At the end of Dec. 1978 I first became acquainted with the Revisionist thesis that radically questioned the usual version of the Jewish fate during World War II. At that time, I regularly read Le Monde, because this paper reported in detail about the state of affairs in Indochina. Vietnam had marched into Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge was about to collapse. The genocide of the Pol Pot regime perpetrated on his own people was often compared to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. And now in Le Monde I came upon an article by a French professor of literature, Robert Faurisson, who made the assertion that the Nazi gas chambers were a myth, a fiction of propaganda. [2]

 

This article almost caused me physical discomfort, which lasted for some days. It was obvious that this professor was no fool; he offered factual arguments. The significant paragraph was the following:

 

“Anyone who today visits Auschwitz, or Majdanek will find places designated as ‘gas chambers,’ in wherein each gassing would have led to a catastrophe for the perpetrator and for the environment. A mass killing by gas must not be confused with a suicide, or accidental death through gas. To gas a single prisoner, the Americans use a volatile gas, in a small room, in which the gas is extracted and neutralized after the completed execution. How then could, for example, at Auschwitz, 2,000, yes, 3,000 people be piled into 210 (!) square meters, then insert granules of the commonly used and highly toxic insecticide Zyklon B, and then, immediately after the death of the victims, send a group of workers, who do not wear gas masks, into the room saturated with hydrogen cyanide in order to pull out the cyanide saturated corpses?”

 

Later I asked myself why I had not then contacted Faurisson. Essentially, I had the ideal prerequisites to become a Revisionist: I was friendly toward Germans, the self flagellation of the Federal Republic’s elite was abhorrent to me, and I had not the slightest guilt feelings toward Jews. Had I taken that compelling step then, my life would have taken a different course. But for that step I simply did not yet have the maturity. I was not prepared to dare to approach such a touchy subject and to possibly realize that the system in which I lived was a monstrous lie that was defended by a perfectly functioning censorship. And so I comforted myself with Christian Morgenstern’s Palmstrom, wherein it is stated, “that which cannot be, must not be,” [3] and I decided to forget the matter.

 

On Jan. 16, 1979 in Le Monde, and in reply to some articles of his opponents, Faurisson was able to publish an opposing view, which I apparently did not read, at least I cannot recall reading it. Likewise, I cannot recall the Feb. 21, 1979 declaration in Le Monde of 34 French historians, which produced the following disarming argument into the field:

 

“One must not ask oneself how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened. That is the requisite starting point for any historical enquiry into the subject It is incumbent upon us to state this truth simply: there is not, there cannot be any debate on the existence of the gas chambers.”

 

Only 12 years later did I receive this prime example of intellectual brilliance. But let us not get ahead of the events.

 

In July 1982 I embarked on a trip to East Asia. A year later I found a position as a lecturer in German in Taiwan where I remained until May 1988. After my return to Switzerland, I immediately noticed that my country had changed. This was in connection with the increasing number of immigrants that had come into Switzerland during my six-year absence. These new immigrants were not the familiar Italians and Spaniards of my childhood. Most immigrants came from foreign continents. The countless house facades smeared with Turkish slogans attests to that.

 

Obviously, non-European immigrants have always been a part of our society. During 1980 and 1981, I supported Vietnamese refugees and never once regretted doing so. The Vietnamese behaved as one would expect of them: they respected our laws and endeavored as quickly as possible to find a job so as not to become a burden upon the host nation.

 

Now, only less than a decade later, things looked different in Switzerland. By abusing our asylum laws, which enabled politically persecuted foreigners to seek refuge in Switzerland, a stream of economic immigrants flooded across the borders. The absolute majority was Turkish citizens of Kurdish background; the second largest group were the Tamils from Sri Lanka, where the rebel organization the Tamil Tigers had been fighting an underground war against the majority Singhalese government. The remainder of the asylum seekers came from Yugoslavia (where ever-increasing ominous warning signals of impending atrocities arose), Lebanon, the Indian subcontinent outside of Sri Lanka (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), as well as three African countries (Ghana, Zaire and Angola). A few Iranians and Afghans as well as some individual from diverse East European countries rounded out the picture.

 

After my return home to Switzerland, it seemed that fate gave me the first job, the role of an asylum adviser. Switzerland had established various reception centers for asylum seekers, one being located on the Rhine steamer Basilea, where on Aug. 8, 1988 I began my work. Very early into my job I had the feeling that I was in a typical Franz Kafka novel wherein the laws of logic had been suspended.

 

In order to apply for asylum in Switzerland two avenues were offered to foreigners: Either they applied at a Swiss embassy, or consulate in their home country, or they applied at a reception center in Switzerland. Few made use of the first possibility: It was implausible to enter a Swiss embassy freely, then claim political persecution. Thus the second avenue was to register at a reception center that — with the exception of Yugoslavia — required asylum seekers from all other countries to possess a Swiss entry visa, without which they could not legally cross into Switzerland. And so they entered Switzerland illegally and thus began their residence with a legal infraction.

 

After their registration, the asylum seekers remained from 7 to 10 days on the ship. After their interrogation they had to await instructions as to which canton they would be sent. Each canton was required to take asylum seekers according to their population number. The questioning of asylum seekers, often done through interpreters, focused on three points: personal information, travel route and flight reasons.

 

Problems already began at the first point. While Turkish and Yugoslavian asylum seekers could usually produce parts of a passport, or identity card, on the Basilea I do not recall ever having seen a Sri Lankan, Indian, Pakistani, or Ghanaian passport. Upon crossing to Switzerland, these applicants had lost their papers, or their handler had taken the documents from them. So it was impossible for the interviewer to ascertain whether the statements made were true, or not. Such statements were most likely not true in 99% of the cases.

 

The reason why these illegal immigrants had “lost” their papers was, because most of them had crossed to Switzerland from Germany where they had already applied for political asylum, and had been rejected. Others did not even wait for their application to be assessed in Germany, but secretly entered Switzerland where the work prospects were greater and the social security payments were higher. This negated their right to apply for Swiss asylum. Hence, without exception, the Sri Lankans, Indians, Ghanaians etc., asserted that they had entered Switzerland via Italy.

 

That this was not true became obvious because-again the exception being the Turks who crossed over to Switzerland via Italy — they could not describe the places where they allegedly crossed to Switzerland. I vividly recall a refugee from Bangladesh, who answered my question as to how he could possibly have swum across the huge river at, possibly have swum across the huge river at the Italian-Swiss border, which I had made up. He claimed his passport had become so wet that he had to throw it away. In a normally functioning state such a person would have been placed on the first available flight back to his country — but our asylum-seeking procedures could not be called normal. How was it possible that a large Gypsy family from Serbia — whose patriarch gave as a reason for his “flight” that his children were constantly teased at school — obtained the right to an extensive and expensive asylum procedure!?

 

The most absurd aspect of such procedures was the following: Our borders were manned by officers whose task it was to apprehend and to return illegal immigrants. Those who carried with them passports, or identity cards had these stamped with an “R,” for “refused.” However, if an illegal immigrant succeeded in tricking the officers, then he had won the game: Without hindrance he could travel by train to the next reception center where he could submit his asylum request which enabled him automatically to gain a residence permit until a decision on his application had been made. Once a Lebanese came to the Basilea who had more than half a dozen “R’s” stamped in his document. Six times he had been caught attempting to cross the Italian-Swiss border, but the seventh time he was lucky in convincing the Swiss officer to let him in. In such cases these border guards were sentenced to the “work of Sisyphus.”

 

Officially, the Swiss state behaved like a schizophrenic who constructs a fence around his house, but then loudly proclaims that anyone who can get over the fence is rewarded by unhindered entry to the home.

 

The real politically persecuted were found amongst the Turks who could show you physical evidence of torture on their bodies. At a point in time I conducted my own private statistics, which enabled me to conclude that in view of the asylum laws about 5% – 9% of Turkish asylum seekers were indeed political refugees. These private statistics were later confirmed through 1988 official figures: 5 – 4% of Turkish asylum seekers had obtained asylum. The remainder were economic refugees who had fled their own country’s harsh economic problems. As they could not gain entry in normal ways, they had to lie and invent persecution stories. The police were after them, because they had belonged to prohibited left-wing parties and had painted slogans on walls, or distributed leaflets.

 

I did not harbor any antagonistic feelings toward these Anatolian farmers and shepherds, with whose situation I could quite easily empathize. A certain antipathy was aroused in me by asylum seekers from Africa and the Indian subcontinent: First, such asylum seekers obviously belonged to the middle class (for a representative of this class from Angola, or Pakistan, even the cheapest flight was out of their reach) and, second, the detailed, but easily discerned fabricated stories that these gentlemen had made up stories about their persecution irritated me to no end. The success rates among these nationals were practically zero. Slightly different was the case with the Tamils and their claim to political persecution through the partisan activity of the Tamil Tigers, as well as the government’s reprisals. This was a ground for them not to be sent back to their home whenever an application was rejected. That these Tamils could resettle 30 km north of Sri Lanka, in the Indian state of Tamii Nadu, never crossed the minds of our asylum politicians.

 

After their first interview on the Basilea, each asylum seeker was assigned to a place of residence, where, after a while, he was subjected to a second and more in-depth interview as to his flight motives. This, together with the first interview, then became the basis on which a decision was made on his asylum application. As a result of the number of applications and the lack of qualified personnel, the procedure could take up to a year before a decision was made. Throughout this time the asylum seeker was supported by the Swiss state. After a rejection of his application, the applicant usually appealed; naturally, this did not occur without a Swiss lawyer, whose fees were paid by Swiss refugee organizations. Quite a few lawyers became rich through this procedure. Besides the social workers and the full-time Turkish, Arabic, Urdu and Tamil translators, the lawyers were also among those who profited from the misery Swiss asylum politics had become.

 

Generally, while the asylum seeker’s application was afoot, it was common for those with families to have their wives and children follow them, and to have their children enrolled in schools immediately. Then, after a “final” rejection of an asylum seeker’s application had been processed, the lawyers would object on the grounds that the children were already attending school and to return an applicant to their home country was a “callous” act. The argument usually succeeded in quashing the deportation order. And so the asylum law had become a de facto avenue for uncontrolled Third World migrants to enter Switzerland.

 

After two, or three months’ work on the Basilea, I wrote a long letter to the then-refugee commissioner, Peter Arbenz, and made specific suggestions how the procedure could be expedited. I received a polite, but non-committal reply.

 

At this time, I was still under the impression that those responsible for Swiss asylum politics were honest, but weak and timid individuals who, on grounds of their fearful panic of the left-leaning aggressive asylum lobby and the media, did not have the character strength to adopt effective measures to control the influx of refugees. That this Third World migration would have a terrible effect on Switzerland was inevitable, but the media behaved like the three famous monkeys: the first didn’t say anything, the second didn’t see anything and the third didn’t hear anything.

 

Constantly we heard that our “humanitarian principles” and “human rights” demanded we take in as many asylum seekers as possible and any question about the limits of our capacity to absorb more asylum seekers was not raised in the media. Quite early on I noticed that journalists writing for the various newspapers loudly advocated “humanitarian principles” and “human rights”, but applied them only to the immigrants, not to the indigenous Swiss. That the once effective class instruction in our school system was breaking down on account of large numbers of students not speaking the required language did not in the least interest our “free press”; not a single journalist regarded such a state of affairs as a violation of our students’ human rights. Protests were even organized against the deportation of drug dealers, on the ground that upon their return to their home country they could be politically persecuted. And when our drug-dependent youngsters died miserably in railway station toilets, those working in the media extended no empathetic understanding toward such individuals. Such individuals did not have any human rights, because they were just Swiss native citizens.

 

Just as I had followed the media reports on the Majdanek Trial in disbelief 13 years earlier, I now had to take note that, except for a few non-establishment papers, all media outlets specifically offered disinformation. except now it was a fundamental question concerning the future of our country. Again, I recognized quite early that there was a connection between these seemingly completely different questions — the Nazi crimes against the Jews and the mass migration to Switzerland — because it was stressed again and again in justifying a generous Swiss asylum program that Jewish refugees, who had been refused entry at the Swiss border during World War II, were sent to their certain death.

 

I felt growing anger at the asylum lobby, the journalists and the politicians who drew unjustified parallels with what happened then and now in order to torpedo a reform of our asylum policies. For me it was absurd and a sign of moral bankruptcy to bring into the discussion about foreigners and our asylum politics the Third Reich, which had disappeared 43 years ago, as a justification for implementing institutionalized censorship.

 

At the end of January 1989, I resigned from my position on the Basilea and began writing a book, which appeared a year later with the title Das Narrenschiff: Als Asylantenbefrager auf der Basilea. Naturally, without mentioning names, I clearly exposed and cited from questionnaires, and made the following suggestion:

 

Each asylum seeker is to be questioned by a group of three experts on the reasons for fleeing from his home country. A decision is then made on the spot whether to accept, or reject the asylum seeker’s application. If the three individuals unanimously agree that with reference to the Swiss asylum law there are really no valid refugee grounds, the applicant is immediately returned to their home country. Otherwise the matter is referred for further, closer inspection.

 

Introducing tightened procedures such as this would have enabled us to repatriate about 90% of asylum seekers, which would ever so quickly filter through to the countries of origin that Switzerland would not accept economic refugees anymore. Within a few weeks this would have stopped the flow of refugees and we would have become masters of the problem. That this was not the desired outcome became clear to me. I had finally understood that our asylum seeker policy had nothing to do with lack of courage, or stupidity on the responsible politicians’ behalf, because so much lack of courage and stupidity was not what it could be about. Also, the parallel development of policies in neighboring countries excluded such a coincidence. It soon became clear to me why the elites of Western Europe were interested in receiving an influx of asylum seekers from foreign cultures and races.

 

Thanks in large measure to a massive advertising campaign by Dr. Ulrich Schluer, the publisher of the right-wing conservative newspaper Schweizerzeit, the book Das Narrenschiff sold quite well, and in 1990 a second edition appeared. If I recall, around 6,000 copies were sold. I became known in patriotic circles. It was through the publication of this book that a number of Swiss Democrats — previously known as National Action for People and Homeland — invited me to address them.

 

In March 1991, at such an evening’s event, I met the retired secondary teacher Arthur Vogt, with whom I had earlier exchanged some correspondence. At one time, while reading through a number of newspapers, I had come upon a letter written by Vogt wherein he bitterly complained about the “suicidal asylum politics.” Vogt was not unknown to me, because in 1970 he had made headlines when, after supporting the James Schwarzenbach initiative that pressed for a citizen initiated referendum on “Being Swamped by Foreigners,” he was expelled from the Social Democratic Party. I had sent him a copy of my book and then invited him to attend my address at the Swiss Democrats in Zurich. At this conference we arranged to meet again in the middle of April, in Zurich, Vogt introduced himself as a Revisionist and handed me a copy of The Leuchter Report about the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, as well as a cassette and text titled The Holocaust — Legend or Reality? which also later appeared in printed form and today is available on the Internet.

 

That very evening I listened to this tape, and although Vogt’s deliberations had not quite convinced me, and countless questions remained unanswered, I experienced a serious shock. My somewhat critical attitude toward the system in which I lived did not now permit me — as I had done 12 and a half years earlier after reading the Faurisson article in Le Monde — to shield myself with an armor of slovenly thinking against undesirable truths. Vogt’s text contained an abundance of verifiable facts that caused any thinking person to be amazed. I was especially perplexed that the founder of Revisionism was not a German, but a Frenchman, who was also a resistance fighter — Paul Rassinier, a former prisoner of the Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps. How was that even possible?

 

The next day I began reading The Leuchter Report. The author, the American execution expert Fred Leuchter, had been responsible for the construction and servicing of gas chambers in various U.S. states where executions were still being carried out with cyanide gas. He had moved into the spotlight in 1988 when the second Toronto Revisionist Holocaust trial of German citizen Ernst Zundel took place. Three years earlier Zundel had been sentenced to 18 months in prison under an antiquated law against “spreading false news.” Zundel had republished a booklet by English Revisionist Richard Harwood called Did Six Million Really Die? During the appeal Zundel and Faurisson contacted Fred Leuchter and commissioned him to forensically investigate and write a report about the alleged mass gassings at Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek through the use of the insecticide Zyklon B. With a small group of helpers, Leuchter flew to Poland, examined the alleged gas chambers, then wrote his report that concluded it was technically impossible to gas people in such facilities. The most significant part of his report was the chemical analysis. Leuchter had taken samples from the walls of the alleged “homicidal chambers” at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau, and a similar number of samples from the delousing chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the undisputed fact existed that clothes had been fumigated there using Zyklon B. He sent the samples for analysis to an American chemist, Dr. James Roth, who did not have any idea where these samples had come from.

 

The laboratory results confirmed that the samples from the delousing chamber, even after four decades, still contained a high percentage of cyanide residue, while the samples from the “homicidal gas chambers” revealed no cyanide residue, or at most only a trace amount. Leuchter hypothesized that this small amount was due to cyanide having occasionally been used to delouse these facilities.

 

Although Leuchter was able to present his findings at the Toronto Appeal, the appeal court sentenced Zundel to 15 months in prison, which he did not have to serve, because in 1992 Canada’s Supreme Court declared the law about “spreading false news” to be unconstitutional.

 

Now the question about the gas chambers did not let me rest. I phoned Vogt and requested more Revisionist literature so that I could acquaint myself with the arguments, whose advocates the media of the free world had endearingly labeled “extreme right-wing deniers”, or “neo-Nazi nut cases.” At our next meeting, Vogt presented me with three of the then-important Revisionist texts: Serge Thion’s Verite Historique ou Verite politique?, Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and Wilhelm Staglich’s Der Auschwitz-Mythos. Even before I read these books I turned to an article that Vogt had also given to me. It had appeared in Pravda on Feb. 2, 1945 titled “The Death Kombinat at Auschwitz,” and was translated by the eminent German historian Udo Walendy, who published it in his Historische Tatsachen. Let us place this article within its historical context.

 

On Jan. 27, 1945 the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. The SS had left shortly before and had evacuated the prisoners to the west. About 4,299 inmates, mainly Jewish, remained behind, because they could not be evacuated: the sick, invalid, children and old people. Accompanying the Soviet army was a contingent of war correspondents, who immediately began the task of inspecting the camp and interviewing those inmates who had been left behind. One of the correspondents was the Soviet Jew Boris Polevoi, who penned the article that Pravda published seven days later.

 

This quite undisputed factual report must give rise to serious reflection by any critical thinker who is conversant with the official version of events at Auschwitz. It does not make sense, for example, if we follow the Holocaustian historians, that at Auschwitz between Feb. 1942 and Nov. 1944 about a million Jews were murdered, but 4,299 Gypsies were left behind, instead of these undesirable witnesses being liquidated. After having killed a million, it would not have mattered to also kill another 4,299 victims. Second, the so called “facts” contradict the official historical account that sick Jews, invalids, children and old people actually survived. According to the mass media version of events, it was these who, upon arrival at the camp, were immediately gassed and were not even registered. Establishment historians claim that Jewish prisoners who became sick were killed immediately either by gas, or injection. Most of the preserved documentation about Auschwitz places such claims in the sphere of fables.

 

Here is a single example. When the Red Army moved into Auschwitz it found among those prisoners left behind by the Germans 205 almost exclusively Jewish children in an age range between a few months and 15 years. [4] I was then not aware of this, but Walendy’s translation of the Pravda article speaks for itself. Four years later both Carlo Mattogno and I obtained a copy of the original Russian copy in Moscow. Here is an extract:

 

When last year the Red Army revealed to the international public the terrible and disgusting secrets of Majdanek, the Germans began to eliminate the traces of their crimes at Auschwitz. They leveled the hills surrounding the ancient tombs in the eastern part of the camp, removed and destroyed the traces of the electrical assembly line system where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electricity. The bodies fell onto a slow-moving conveyor belt that transported them into a blast furnace … The special mobile equipment for the killing of children [was] brought into the hinterland. The stationary gas chambers in the eastern part of the camp had been rebuilt. They had even attached to them turrets and ornamental architectural features so that they looked like harmless garages.

 

All this stands in contradiction to what the Holocaustian literature asserts about Auschwitz. If we believe what the Holocaust historians write, the mass murder of Jews began in February 1942. The place where this occurred is said to have been the chamber of Crematorium I, Stammlager Auschwitz. After a few months the gassings were said to have been transferred to two farm houses about 2 km outside the perimeters of Auschwitz.

 

From March 1943 onward, four crematories were commissioned at Birkenau, where it has been alleged specific rooms were used as gas chambers. The main place where exterminations occurred was Mortuary I of Krematoria II. Orthodox historians claim that those who were murdered at Auschwitz, or who died through sickness and weakness were burnt in the crematory, or, if capacity was exceeded by demand, were burnt on pyres, or in open pits. It is now impossible to locate in Holocaustian literature any reference to the “electric conveyor belt that simultaneously killed hundreds of people through electric current.” This conveyor belt was mentioned for the first and last time on Feb. 2, 1945. Holocaustian historians also know nothing about a slowly moving conveyor belt that dropped corpses into a furnace, or mobile contraptions that killed children. Finally, according to the Holocaust literature, the gas chambers were located not in the eastern part of the camp, but at Birkenau, west of the Stammlager, and thanks to the appended miniature towers and architectural ornamentation they looked like “harmless garages,” which not a single witness could confirm. In other words: Polevoi’s report was a total fabrication without any truth content.

 

Why? Why would comrade Polevoi serve up to his Pravda readers such fictitious horror stories if for days he had access to thousands of witnesses who could have reported on the real horror that occurred at Auschwitz?

 

The answer was obvious.

 

On this day, April 29, 1991, I understood that the recounting of the events at Auschwitz was not done historically, but propagandistically, and the system in which I grew up had lied to me from childhood. In 1958, or 1959, when I was about seven, or eight years old, I had for the first time heard about the gas chambers and had unshakably believed in them as I did in the existence of a continent called Africa, or a planet called Mercury. Now I knew better.

 

Later I learned how the official Auschwitz version had been created. On April 7, 1944, two young Czechoslovakian Jews, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, escaped from Auschwitz and had made their way to Pressburg (Slovenian Bratislava), where they wrote a report on Auschwitz and Birkenau. [5] This document was distributed by the Geneva-based Jewish organization “World Headquarters of Hechaluz.” According to the then still anonymous authors an unbelievably large number of Jews had been murdered in the Birkenau crematories with the insecticide Zyklon B. (To date such an assertion had not appeared in any earlier reports from Jewish, or Polish resistance organizations. In a later chapter I shall focus on their stories.) In Nov. 1944 this “authentic report” written by these two Czechoslovakian Jews was published in an English translation by the War Refugees Board, an organization headed by the Jewish US finance minister, Henry Morgenthau Jr. As the Morgenthau people did not get their document to their contacts in Moscow on time it was not in the possession of the Pravda reporter Polevoi by the end of Jan 1945, and so he gave his imagination free rein when he wrote the “historical truths” about Auschwitz. However, his errors were corrected some months later.

 

Three former Jewish Auschwitz inmates — Henryk Tauber, Szlama Dragon and Henryk Mandelstam — appeared before a Polish commission, where they testified they had witnessed mass gassings in the Birkenau crematoria. On May 24, 1945 Tauber stated that the total number of deaths in the camp was 4 million. [6] This just so happened to be the figure a Soviet commission had just obtained two and a half weeks previously.

 

Until the beginning of the 1990s the Polish historical record clung to this grotesque figure. Western Holocaust historians never accepted this figure and were satisfied in adopting a lower figure — 1.25 million, which included 1.1 million Jews, said Raul Hilberg. [7]

 

The Nazi gas chambers were thus a gigantic historical lie, as was also the “industrial extermination of Jews,” which it was alleged had happened in these chambers. It was quite obvious that Jews were the main profiteers of this swindle: The Holocaust myth of their victimization made them practicably unassailable. This lie was also of importance to those whose aim it was to exterminate through interbreeding the Europeans and European-related peoples. (I do not doubt anymore that this has been the aim of the Western elites.) The relentless Holocaustian propaganda served the purpose of inculcating not only the Germans, but all White people with a poisonous guilt complex and a revulsion against “racism.”

 

Under such circumstances the exposure of the lie of the extermination camps and their gas chambers had assumed existential proportions for Europe and beyond for the whole White race. I understood this to be my duty, no matter what personal disadvantage this would bring me by being part of this battle. Remaining neutral would have been like a cowardly capitulation.

 

After long conversations with Arthur Vogt, who also repeatedly supported me financially, I decided to fill a gap in the Revisionist literature and write a book mentioning all the important Revisionist arguments. Such a work was then not available. At the same time as working as a teacher of French and Latin at the Progymnasium Therwil I began on my project and, during the next two years, read over 100 books on the topic. Obviously among them were the standard texts of the orthodox Holocaust historiography. Until this time, l had filled most of my free time by learning more languages, but now that had to stop. Still, in 1992, I began to learn Polish, whose sound appealed to me. Later in my research the knowledge of Polish was invaluable when reading primary sources.

 

In March 1992, I traveled to Vichy so as to catch up with that visit, which had never eventuated 13 years earlier, to Prof. Robert Faurisson. In the meantime, I had sent him the first draft of my manuscript for evaluation. This extraordinary man had become the primary hate object of one of France’s Jewish organizations. He had been convicted by a capricious judiciary and heavily fined. In 1989 a pack of criminals, who called themselves “Sons of the Jewish Memory,” had set upon him in a park and brutally beaten him. Faurisson impressed me with his sharp mind and his detailed knowledge of the topic that had brought this together. But especially I was impressed by his love for truth. Here I had before me a man who would never compromise with a lie. Since our first meeting we have remained in constant contact and I have translated many of his works into German.

 

In September 1992, Faurisson and I traveled to Badenweiler to visit the former judge Wilhelm Staglich, the author of Ver Auschwitz Mythos (1979). In the late summer of 1944 Staglich was for a brief time stationed at Auschwitz as a lieutenant of the German antiaircraft gun defense. During the early 1970s, he published in a right-wing magazine a report of his experiences, wherein he stated that at Auschwitz he had not seen any evidence of crimes committed. For this heresy he was punished by having his doctorate revoked on the ground that his book was unworthy of an academic distinction. Ironically, the law that enabled this to occur was personally signed by Adolf Hitler.

 

This gave rise to a commitment within Staglich to find out what really happened at Auschwitz. The research resulted in his producing a standard Revisionist work whose chapter — a magnificent analysis of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial of 1963-65. During our discussion, Staglich commented pessimistically about a Revisionist breakthrough in Germany. The incessant brainwashing that already began in primary schools and the open attacks on Revisionists made such a development most unlikely.

 

Meanwhile, my manuscript had grown to a few hundred pages. Arthur Vogt and I agreed that a shorter version was needed wherein the Revisionist arguments were presented in compressed form. Anyone interested in more details could then read the longer version of the book. In March 1993 the abridged version was published as Der Holocaust auf dem Prufstand [8] and led to my immediate dismissal from the Progymnasium Therwil. Two months later the full version with an introduction by Robert Faurisson was published as Der Holocaust-Schwindel. [9]

 

After my dismissal I had a lot of time to myself, which I thought of using productively as long as I could write without fear of legal persecution. In December 1992, both houses of the Swiss Parliament had passed an “antiracism” law — Section 261 of the Criminal Code. It stated that “justification, trivializing and denying of genocide and other crimes against humanity” be punished by a maximum of three years in prison and an unlimited fine. The actual purpose of this law was to suppress Holocaust Revisionism. That in autumn 1993 a small group of Swiss citizens was able to collect enough signatures for a referendum prevented this legal muzzle from becoming active. The referendum was set for Sept. 25, 1994, which meant I could continue my work peacefully.

 

A week after my dismissal as a teacher, I became acquainted with Swiss engineer Gerhard Forster, a pensioner of German descent, who asked me to collect and critically analyze eyewitness reports about the alleged gassings at Auschwitz. Soon I was to meet the two men who were then to shape the profile of Revisionism. In June 1993, the 27-year-old German chemist Germar Rudolf visited me in Basel. He had just confirmed the results of his Rudolf Report in an exacting scientific paper, which he had published under the pseudonym “Ernst Gauss,” Vorlesungenl uber Zeitgeschichte. Rudolf appeared to be extremely self-confident. He was convinced that Revisionism would soon experience a breakthrough. He felt that there were no arguments against facts. Soon this brilliant scientist would experience firsthand the methods employed by the “most free state in Germany’s history,” without any argument, in order to suppress uncomfortable facts.

 

In September 1993, I traveled to Rome, where I visited the Italian Prof. Carlo Mattogno, who possessed numerous difficult-to-find texts, which were vital for my own book that I was writing about Auschwitz. For over a decade Mattogno had been writing books about National Socialist politics on the Jewish question, especially a brilliant analysis of the Gerstein Report, which served as the primary piece of evidence of the claim that Jews were gassed at the Belzec concentration camp, as well as a book titled Il Mito dello Sterminio (“The Myth of Jewish Extermination”). My visit, the first of about 15, was the impetus of a developing deep personal and productive relationship that extended to five extensive research trips as well as the production of a number of books.

 

My book, Tatergestandnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust (Perpetrator Confessions and Eyewitnesses of the Holocaust), was published by Gerhard Forster’s Neue Vision in May 1994. Four months later, Arthur Vogt and I traveled to California to attend the 12th International Revisionist Conference. Mattogno was one of the invited speakers at that conference. His text had been translated into English by an Italian-American citizen, Russell Granata, who was then to accompany us in the following year on our Moscow trip. At this conference I met the already then-legendary Ernst Zundel as well as his future wife, Ingrid Rimland, a German-American psychologist and author, who had only recently been convinced by Zundel of the correctness of the Revisionist thesis.

 

At that time the director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was Mark Weber, who, through a putsch, had replaced his boss, Willis Carto. Weber had a charming personality, which impressed me greatly. In subsequent years I wondered, though, why the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review lost its quality. This caused the magazine to lose subscribers and so Weber ceased publishing it. What surprised me was how Weber refused to translate and to publish Germar Rudolf’s fundamental volume, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. Only in A.D. 2000 did I meet the disempowered former IHR publisher Willis Carto and his wife Elisabeth and learned their side of the conflict. The Carto couple was convinced that Weber had deposed them on the urgings of Zionists in whose interest it was to neutralize the dangerous IHR. At first I was skeptical of such a view, but later I gradually became convinced that the Cartos may just have been right.

 

Soon after my return from California to Switzerland, on Sept. 25, 1994, we had the citizen-initiated referendum on the anti-racism law, which had been preceded by a malicious campaign conducted by the larger newspapers and media outlets. This new law was needed, it was argued by politicians and media scribblers, to protect foreigners from the threats of vile racists. They also lied unbelievably about the Revisionists, the so- called “Holocaust deniers” and “Auschwitz deniers.” Again and again it was asserted that we Revisionists deny the existence of the Auschwitz concentration camp. This propaganda of lies succeeded in persuading the Swiss citizens to vote in favor of their own disfranchisement by a 54% vote.

 

Meanwhile, Arthur Vogt and I, together with two other former teachers — Andreas Studer and Bernhard Schaub — founded the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Enttabuisierung der Zeitgeschichte” where we later changed the word “Enttabuisierung” — “get rid of taboo” to “Erforschung” — “research.” In the year following the publication of his book, Adler und Rose, in 1992, Schaub had lost his position as a German and history teacher at the Rudolf Steiner School. His book had contained a number of Revisionist arguments, and so he found himself in a similar position to me. We decided to continue our work after the muzzling law had come into effect. Vogt continued to publish his Aurora magazine of about 100 copies wherein he expressed his ideas about contemporary history and current affairs, as well as publishing some of my articles. Unfortunately, it was not possible to persuade Vogt not to send his magazine to judges and state prosecutors, because he fatally and erroneously believed these people were interested in historical facts. For this error he paid a heavy price. He was sentenced and convicted to heavy fines and only his advancing years in age prevented his being imprisoned.

 

In 1995 Carlo Mattogno and I undertook the already mentioned trip to Moscow, where we conducted extensive studies in two archives — the Center for Conserving of Historical Documents, which today is called the Russian Military Archive, and the Archive of the Russian Federation. We copied thousands of documents on which Mattogno was to base his future in-depth research about Auschwitz.

 

At the end of May 1997, Mattogno and I conducted a research trip that took us to Poland, Belarus and Lithuania, and from which we returned only in August. We returned with countless documents from the various archives on which the Majdanek book as well as the study about the Stutthof camp are based. Then in the historical archives of the Belarus capital city Minsk I met my future wife, the historian Olga Stepanowna, who had assisted researchers with their requests.

 

In May 1998, Mattogno and I undertook a trip to Belgium, where we met the indefatigable Revisionist publisher Siegfried Verbeke, then traveled to Holland, where we copied important documents held at the Amsterdam Imperial Archive for War Documents. Eleven years later these documents were to prove invaluable as we, together with the Swedish Revisionist Thomas Kues, published our book about the Sobibor camp.

 

In July 1998 Gerhard Forster and I appeared before court in Baden in Aargau for having distributed our Revisionist literature. As a witness for the defense I had invited Faurisson and the Austrian engineer, Wolfgang Frohlich, who was an expert in pest control as well as the killing of microbes through gas. The presiding judge refused Faurisson as a witness, but permitted Frohlich to make a statement. Frohlich had proposed to state the technical and chemical impossibility of the gassing scenario at Auschwitz, but was interrupted after a few sentences by state prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten, and threatened with prosecution were he to continue. This is how corrupt the Swiss judiciary had become. I was sentenced to 15 months in prison without parole as well as costs and fines totaling up to 40,000 francs. My barrister, Dr. Urs Oswald, who had mounted a competent defense, filed an appeal against this sentence.

 

Gerhard Forster, who was suffering from osteoporosis and other illnesses, appeared in court in a wheelchair. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison and received a fine almost as high as mine. He died two months after the trial.

 

Thanks to the German-Australian Dr. Fredrick Toben, who held a Revisionist conference in Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, two months after my trial it was possible for me to get to know the “Land Down Under”. Soon after my collaboration began with two Swiss comrades, Philippe Brennenstuhl and Rene-Louis Berclaz, the latter of whom had in September 1998 received a suspended sentence for translating the Rudolf Report into French. Together we founded the association Verite et Justice which then published numerous brochures. Among others, we also produced a response to the Bundesrat-produced Bergier Report which contained the usual lies about the role the Swiss played during World War II and lies about the ??? 82 year-old publicist Gaston Armand Amaudruz.

 

Soon after the Amaudruz trial, Mattogno and I undertook another trip to Moscow. There I learned that the Swiss Federal Court had confirmed my prison sentence. After our research in the Russian capital, I traveled to Minsk to visit Olga. At that time, we were not yet decided on whether I should serve my sentence, or whether I should move to Minsk, and so we postponed that decision to a later point.

 

Upon my return to Switzerland I was advised to begin my sentence on Oct. 2, 2000. As I could not pay the 40,000-franc fine imposed on me, my prison time would have been increased by about a year, and this would have meant a total of two and a half years of my freedom. So I left Switzerland on Aug. 15, my 49th birthday, and traveled, after a brief stop in Poland and Lemberg in west Ukraine, to Moscow, where Olga visited me. Instead of turning up on Oct. 2 at a Swiss prison, a day later I celebrated my engagement. Olga and I were not prepared to be separated for two and a half years. In any case, I did not see why I should spend time in prison for a crime I did not commit — “racial discrimination.” Our wedding took place in the following summer, because in November 2000 the Iranian Foreign Ministry had invited me to come to Tehran to assist in the preparation of an end of March/beginning of April 2001 conference on the topic of “Revisionism and Zionism.” The Iranian government did not wish to hold this conference in Iran, and so it was decided that it should be held in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.

 

In Tehran, I was looked after by three helpful and kind Foreign Ministry functionaries named Mohamed, Hasan and Nasir. I pointed out to my new Persian friends that a small and weak country like Lebanon, that bordered on Israel and was financially dependent on US financial support, could not, without difficulties, withstand the expected pressure coming from America and the Zionists. And so it came to pass. After the US State Department became involved, two weeks before it was to take place, the government in Beirut canceled the planned conference. In April 2001 I flew to Moscow, and from there traveled to Minsk. On July 26, Olga and I married in a civil ceremony in the White Russian capital. On Aug. 8 we had the wedding in a Roman Catholic church in Moscow.

 

In June 2002, my parents visited us in Moscow, which was the last time I saw my father: he died on June 7, 2008 at the age of 87. After my parents left us, Olga and I began our tour of the U.S., which we remember fondly. First we spent a few days as guests of Willis and Elisabeth Carto in Washington, where I also attended one of Carto’s Barnes Review conferences. There I was able to draw upon the book’s conclusions that Mattogno and I had written about Treblinka, which was to be published a few months later. We then flew to California, where we enjoyed the hospitality of our friend Russell Granata and his wife, Doris, and from there we journeyed to Germar Rudolf, who was then living in Alabama.

 

As a result of his Revisionist work, in 1995 Rudolf was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but he fled to England and from there to the US. Leaving aside the difficulties such moving about creates, Rudolf focused on Revisionism with extraordinary energy. He was then publishing the magazine Vierteljahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung, and as well he became a publisher of German and English Revisionist books. Three and a half years after our visit, and in spite of his marriage to a U.S. citizen and having just become a father, he was extradited to Germany where he remained imprisoned until July 2009. After some difficult legal negotiations, the US immigration bureaucracy permitted his return to the U.S., where he now resides with his family. In his book Widerstand ist Pflicht [10] Rudolf recounts and documents his persecution by “the freest state in Germany’s history.”

 

One of the nicest individuals Olga and I met in America was a Protestant professor of theology and Greek, Robert Countess, and his wife Elma. In July we drove with him to Tennessee, where we spent some unforgettable days, with Ernst Zundel and his wife Ingrid. At that time, we did not anticipate the dark clouds that were forming over this couple. Half a year after our visit, and under an immigration pretext of not having attended a parole meeting, Zundel was extradited to Canada. Without being charged and without a trial, he spent two years in a maximum security immigration facility under a security certificate warrant before being extradited to Germany, where he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison — which he had to serve to the day. Since March 2010, he is again free, but US immigration officials have denied him a return to his wife in Tennessee.

 

After our America trip, Olga and I settled in Moscow, and I will probably return to the years spent in Russia at another time. Suffice it to say that most of my time was taken up with translation work, and I did not do enough for Revisionism. Still, in 2008 I was able to publish a book for our Russian readers, which my publisher titled Der Zusammenbruch der neuen Ordnung. Together, with Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno I wrote the above-mentioned study of Sobibor. As well, I wrote a number of articles that can be viewed on my website www.juergen-graf.vho.org.

 

Of those mentioned Revisionists some are no longer with us. My friend and mentor Arthur Vogt died on Oct. 30, 2003, two weeks before his 86th birthday. Russell Granata left us in 2004, Robert Countess in 2005 and Wilhelm Staglich in 2006. Andreas Studer, who had been totally blind for some years, died in autumn 2013.

 

On numerous occasions I have been asked whether I would have become a Revisionist had I not met Arthur Vogt. The answer to this question can only be, “Yes.” At the latest, however, since the enacting of the “anti racism law,” I would have certainly asked the political class, which I now deeply distrust, why our politicians want to deny a free and open investigation of the Holocaust. I would have followed up this matter, and I would have met Faurisson, Rudolf, Mattagna and the other Revisionists, albeit a little later. Whether I would have ever met Olga is difficult to say. Such thoughts are superfluous, because fate would have it that I became acquainted with Revisionism under the circumstances related above and during a Revisionist trip I met my wife. That she came from the former Soviet Union, which I so feared as a child and adolescent, was a fateful irony.

 

Now that my Russian exile is nearing its end I would like to return to the topic of my first book, which encapsulates what I observed decades ago, how Europe began its “long day’s journey into the night” through mass immigration of people from foreign cultures and races. After I had clarified in Narrenschiff the specific problem of asylum abuse in Switzerland, I have now set myself the goal of reflecting on this problem in a much broader context.

 

My earlier predicted apocalyptical conditions did not eventuate in my homeland. Although Switzerland belongs to those European countries with the highest number of foreigners, these foreigners are easily integrated Europeans — Italians, Germans and Portuguese. That we did not experience the horrendous catastrophe facing France, Belgium, Holland, or England is a result of two factors. First, thanks to a constitutional right the Swiss citizen can bring about a citizen-initiated referendum on factual questions by obtaining a minimum number of signatures. This is the fundamental difference between us and our neighbor state, the Federal Republic of Germany, which calls itself “democratic”, but refuses to grant its citizens the right to comment directly on factual matters, and which, in its long history, has never granted its citizens a single citizen-initiated referendum. Second, the largest political party in our government, the Swiss Volkspartei, does represent the interests of the majority of the indigenous peoples, while the German, French, British and so on do not have any representation in their governing parties.

 

Why is it that the peoples of the old continent have not resisted their ruling elites’ aim of killing their souls and bringing about their biological extinction? Ernst Junger provides an answer to this question in his marvelous novel Auf den Marmorklippen, wherein the tyranny of the head ranger at the Grossen Marina is vividly described:

 

There were other signs wherein the decline expressed itself. It is like a rash that appears, disappears and returns. In between there were also joyous days where everything seemed as before this was the head ranger’s — Oberforster’s — brilliant strategy; he injected fear in small doses, then increased them with the aim of paralyzing any resistance. [11]

 

If, during the 1960s, a European government had flooded its country with African and Asian immigrants, legalized the obscenely blasphemous same-sex “marriage” and introduced the criminal madness of “gender mainstreaming,” then the people would soon have had enough and voted them out. Thus the destruction of the social order needed to be done in small doses, as with Ernst Junger’s head ranger. Besides indoctrinating the younger generation, politicians and the media imbued the parent generation with fear in small doses and increased the pressure on those who contumaciously refused to march along toward the abyss and who were then labeled bigoted rednecks and screwed-up anti-progressives. And so those who still retained their independence of thought and whose instincts remained uncorrupted fled into silent resignation. For recalcitrant dissidents specific “anti-racism laws” were enacted throughout Europe.

 

According to the will of those who have written on their banners the extermination of the Europeans and the destruction of European culture, there is to be no tomorrow for the vanquished. But while I write these lines there is already a strong resistant wind blowing in the faces of those who are set on destroying our culture.

 

The last battle for Europe has not yet been fought.

 

Moscow, June 12, 2014

 

 

Notes to the Introduction:

 

1. Jurgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanck, Eine historische und technische Studie, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings, 1998.

 

2. Robert Faurisson, “Le probleme des chambres a gaz ou la rumeur d’Auschwitz,” Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978.

 

3. Christian Morgenstern, “Die unmogliche Tatasche,” in Palmstrom: All Galgenlieder, Diogenes Verlag, Zurich, 1987.

 

4. State Archive of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 7021-108-23, p. 179-198 and 200-217.

 

5. Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library, New York, WRB Box n 61.

 

6. Akten des Hoss-Prozesses, Band 11, P.130.

 

7. Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der euroaischen Juden, Frankfurt a. M., 1997, P. 946.

 

8. Jurgen Graf, Ver Holocaust auf dem Priufstand, Gideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993.

 

9. Jurgen Graf, Ver Holocaust Schwindel, Gideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993.

 

10. Germar Rudolf, Widerstand ist Pflicht, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2012.

 

11. Ernst Junger, Auf den Marmorklippen, 19. Auflage, Klett-Cotta 2008, p. 46. The first edition appeared in Hamburg in 1938.

 

 

 

Jean Raspail

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

THE RED BIRD

 

FROM THE DANUBE DELTA

 

 

 

When I think of the developments in Europe, I often recount with pain and sadness this mythical red bird of which the Romanian author Marin Preda metaphorically reports:

 

Romanian ornithologists have discovered a red-feathered bird that displays an inexplicable behavior. Each year foxes steal eggs from its nest and replace them with pebbles, which the bird incubates during summer, not realizing they are pebbles. In order to save the endangered species, the ornithologists chased away the foxes. To the scientists’ amazement, who watched with binoculars from a distance, the bird in an inexplicable hysterical rage broke the eggs with its beak, flapping its wings and dancing around in a mad fashion. What was wrong? Which dark instincts drove it to self- destruction? Why did it no longer wish to live? Who could know? Nature has condemned the red bird to death, and no one had the power to change the verdict. [1]

 

Just like this hapless red bird, it appears the European peoples are driven by a gloomy instinct to their self-destruction. This demographic winter already entered decades ago and should a spring not follow, then, according to the immutable laws of mathematics, it must lead to the aging and extinction of the peoples of the continent. In his 2002 book The Death of the West, the American author Patrick Buchanan described in a sober fashion the development as follows:

 

The prognosis is grim. Between 2000 and 2050, the world population will grow by more than 3 billion to over 9 billion people, but this 50% increase in global population will come entirely in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as one hundred million people of European stock vanish from the Earth. In 1960 people of European ancestry were one-fourth of the world’s population; in 2000, they were ones sixth; in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race. In 2000 the total population of Europe, from Iceland to Russia, was 728 million. At present birthrates, however, without new immigration, her population will crash to 600 million by 2050 … Europe dies. How bleak is the situation? Of the 20 nations with the lowest birthrates in the world, 18 are in Europe. The average fertility rate of a European woman has fallen to 1.4 children, with 2.1 needed just to replace the existing population … If the present fertility rates hold, Europe’s population will decline to 207 million by the end of the 21st century, less than 30% of today’s. The cradle of Western civilization will have become its grave … For 10 years Germany’s birthrate has stood at 1.3 children per woman, far below the 2.1 needed to replace the present population. Here is the future that is now hard upon the German nation. By 2050:

• 23 million Germans will have disappeared;

• Germany’s 82 million people will have fallen to 59 million;

• A third of Germany’s population will be over 65 years old. These seniors will outnumber German children more than two to one …

Prospects for the Italian race, which gave us Rome and all its glory, St. Peter’s and the Sistine Chapel, Dante and Michelangelo, Columbus and Galileo, are even more dire.

Italy’s birthrate has been below replacement levels for 25 years and is down to 1.2 children per woman. At this rate, Italy’s 57 million people will fall to 41 million by 2050 … Cardinal Giacomo Biffi of Bologna has called on Rome to restrict immigration to Catholics to “save the nation’s identity.” But where does his eminence propose to find these Catholics? Certainly not in Spain, where in the days of the Caudillo, Gen. Francisco Franco, big families were sacred and received medals and gifts from the state. In Spain, the birthrate is down to 1.07 children per woman, and the population is projected to fall by 25% in 50 years … What does the future hold for our British cousins?

Ethnic minorities already constitute 40% of London’s population. The fertility rate fell to 1.66 births per woman. [2]

 

But as Europe is dying;

“the Third World adds 100 million people — one new Mexico every 15 months. Forty new Mexicos in the Third World by 2050, while Europe will have lost the equivalent of the entire population of Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway — and Germany!”

 

It lies in the nature of things that the gradually aging, but still wealthy Western half of Europe attracts like a magnet the exploding population of the Third World. Already some decades ago, visionaries saw the writing on the wall. One of them was the author Jean Raspail. In his brilliant 1973 novel Le camp des saints (“The Camp of the Saints”) [3] he outlined a vision of the end of Europe which is heralded with the landing, on the French Mediterranean coast, of a giant fleet of I million refugees. For compelling literary reasons, Raspail let this armada arrive not from nearby north and west Africa, as would have been expected, but from faraway India. Several weeks would elapse from the time of the fleet’s departure to its landing at the French Mediterranean coast, as all of Africa had to be circumnavigated, due to the closure of the Suez Canal. This gave the author the opportunity to slowly increase the suspense.

 

Raspail depicts with terrifying realism the helplessness and inaction of the government in Paris. The agitation of the left-leaning intellectuals and journalists demanding self-righteously, in the name of human rights, the hospitable reception of the refugees. The happy excitement of the black and Arab population living in France, feverishly expectant of the impending Big Redistribution, as well as the final betrayal by the Catholic dignitaries of their true believers and indigenous population. Immediately after the landing of the armada, the French church leaders called and gathered for a hunger strike in support of the invaders, and the Cardinal of Paris offered the Muslims 30 churches to be converted into mosques. At that time the sitting Pope in the Vatican was Benedict XVI.

 

 

Pure Coincidence, or Clairvoyant Abilities?

 

Jean Raspail’s oppressive vision became reality long ago. Day after day boats navigate with refugees into European coastal waters. However, they do not arrive from India, but Africa. For most the first point of call is the Italian island of Lampedusa. A constant now of unseaworthy and overcrowded vessels arrives, with African passengers who, will then be transported to the mainland with the aim to “migrate” them to the north, where higher social service benefits are on offer and where a fanatic migrant lobby fights for the permanent stay of these illegal immigrants.

 

For this lobby — to which in Germany belong the Green Party, SPD (Social Democratic Party) and the left, but also increasingly the CDU —these Africans are “the poorest of the poor” and Europe is duty bound, for humanitarian reasons, to give the invaders a permanent stay. The publication Zuerst proves with naked facts that this view in no way coincides with reality:

 

To reach the EU from Africa and Asia without assistance works only in rare cases. In most circumstances the services of professional “people smugglers” are engaged, and they cost money, lots of money. This applies especially for the so-called professional people smugglers, who repeat failed illegal crossings until successful…. Often large families, or whole communities join together to finance organized people smugglers to transport a chosen person. His mission is: He must reach his destination, establish himself and obtain as much money as possible to enable other members of their community, or family to follow.

 

An Austrian member of Parliament, Dr. Johann Huebner, points out:

“Among the refugees are also numerous people who already were criminals in their country, among them street gangs from major black African cities, drug dealers and other criminals who have access to cash and foreign currencies which normally does not apply to the majority of black Africans.”

 

There is no question, but that there are many reasons for emigration. In all corners of the planet exist political, ethnic and religious conflicts, hostile clans fight for power and bully the population, natural disasters, misery and hunger rage. However, there are not only pushing, but also pulling forces: the allure of a life of plenty in faraway Europe transported by the rumor mill and the modern media. Television and Internet can today be found in every bamboo hut. [4]

 

Such logical arguments are naturally not amenable to the immigration lobby, as logic is a foreign word to them. Their actions are based purely on emotion, and the actual motives, mainly from the German advocates of this lobby, appear to be seldom genuine concern for the economic refugees. To most it serves as a battering ram for the destruction of their own country. Their real motive is the hatred for their own people which must quickly disappear in a racial melting pot. The system itself has cultivated this self-hate through the mindless Auschwitz and Holocaust propaganda. Therefore, the German immigration lobby is a waste product of this re-education.

 

So it is that almost daily boats continue to anchor in Lampedusa. And tragedies continue to happen such as the one of October 2013 when almost 400 Africans drowned. The politicians dutifully sprinkled ash on their heads and asked themselves how such catastrophes could be avoided in the future. The only right answer to this question was issued by a lone voice in the wilderness, Thilo Sarrazin:

 

Where lie the limits for the European conscience? A yearly number of 100,000 economic refugees from Africa, or 500,000, or perhaps 1 million? And what if even more should arrive? Even 2 million refugees would not bring lasting relief to conditions in Africa …

The sociologist Max Weber, in a presentation, distinguished between the ethics of thinking and the ethics of responsibility. He said:

“There is a profound difference whether someone acts under the maxim of thinking ethics — speaking in a religious sense: A Christian does the right thing and credits God for the successful outcome — or, under the ethics of responsibility, one has to accept the (foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions …” 

Let’s look at Africa in this context: The population on this continent has in the last 50 years quadrupled and rests now at a billion people … Europe can assist by way of assuring that those who leave are not the ones who are needed to improve the conditions. It is not the poorest who are fleeing. It is the middle class, those who are relatively well educated and in a better financial situation and whose families are able to scrape together the $1,000, or $2,000 needed for a tug to Europe, so that a member of the family can go to Europe as a bridgehead. Those who are fleeing the African countries are needed most [in Africa] to help overcome their underdevelopment. Europe would do a service to these countries by preventing this exodus. Europe can best avoid deaths in the Mediterranean by not allowing refugees to reach the Maghreb coast …

The only way to win the fight against people smuggle/os is by stopping the demand for their services. This can only be achieved when it is made clew ‘that all refugees picked up in the Mediterranean are returned to their coastal point of departures. [5]

 

The following measures would dry up the influx to Lampedusa within days:

 

If Italy enacted a law which would make the commercial “people smuggling,” independent of the number of people smuggled, punishable with a five-year prison sentence. The captains of the refugee boats, or tugs could be made to face a court immediately after their arrival, convicted and the same day sent to prison for five years. This news would travel at speed to the Maghreb states and the potential immigrants would overnight have no more tugs available.

No attempt is made to check the identity and country of origin of the illegal immigrants on arrival. The latter is only seldom possible with black Africans, also due to language problems. Close to 2,000 dialects are spoken on the African continent, of which most Europeans have no knowledge, and apart from that, language and state borders in black Africa, states that were created by previous colonial powers and are arbitrary structures, do not correspond. Each arrival receives a shower and a warm meal, and he is handed a food package. Immediately following, the illegal immigrants will be returned by boat commanded by a European captain to the original departure point on the Libyan, or Tunisian coast from which they started their journey to the north. These points can easily be located from satellite pictures. The Libyan and Tunisian authorities will be responsible for the repatriation of the refugees.

 

Within days the “demand for people smuggler services” would sink to zero, to use Thilo Sarrazin’s phrasing. The stream of migrants over the Mediterranean would end, and no more refugees would drown.

 

Of course, as long as no radical political change occurs, no government in Rome will resort to such measures, as with nearly all governments in other European countries, so too are the Italians prisoners of their mad, liberal and international ideology.

 

Let us assume the impossible should occur and an Italian government decided to take up the steps above. In that scenario a deafening howl of protest would arise throughout the “free world,” and the do-gooders of all countries would cry out for sanctions against Rome. The loudest shouts would without doubt emanate from the Social Democratic Party in Germany, of which Sarrazin, for inexplicable reasons, is to this day a member. The SPD minister for social services in Lower Saxony, Cornelia Rundt, at the end of 2013, expressed the view that in future integration would no longer be demanded from immigrants, but to appreciate the growing diversity. She demanded the Germans develop a “culture of welcome.” How does a mentally sound human being such as Mr. Sarrazin feel in such a society? [6] 

 

Lampedusa is not the only destination illegal immigrants from the Third World strive to reach by sea. In the autumn of 2012 Greece constructed a nine-foot-high fence bordering Turkey to stop economic and war refugees from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria using Greece as a thoroughfare on their march to Europe. Now many migrants reach Greece over the Aegean Sea, others cross the River Evros with the use of tugs.

“[For] whoever has made it to Turkey, from there the journey is child’s play. Every day more than 100 planes land in Istanbul from Asia and Africa. It is not hard to find someone who for payment would organize a trip over the Evros.” [7]

 

In the economically prostrate country of the Hellenes, by now 10% of the population originate from the Third World. Only a small number of the newcomers remain. Most move on to comfortably settle in middle, west and northern Europe. An especially attractive destination is Germany. The reason being, Athens has no functioning asylum system, and the German authorities do not send back illegal immigrants who reach Germany via Greece. However, this still does not satisfy the immigration lobby:

 

In order not to be deported, refugees must first make it to Germany on their own accord. Welfare organizations such as Pro Asyl are not content with this passive stance.

“It would be a sign of humanity, especially people in need of protection, such as families with children, or children traveling alone, to distribute according to humanitarian criteria to other EU states. This would also be a sign of solidarity with Greece,” said Karl Kopp, European speaker for Pro Asyl. [8]

 

Although illegal immigration from the Third World is often based on and takes place under dramatic circumstances, and takes center stage, this should not detract from the fact that legal immigration procedures to enable family reunion also take place. From the moment a migrant has obtained permanent residency status, his wife and children may follow. If he is single, there are two possibilities open to him. Either he returns for a holiday to his home country, marries and returns with his wife, who through the marriage gains also residency in the particular European country where he now resides. Should this be too costly for him, he can send for a bride from his home country, who with the help of people smugglers crosses the border illegally, and then legalizes her stay through marriage.

 

In April 2013 the highest court in France, the Court of Cassation, made a significant judgment. It decided that Algerian and Turkish migrants working in France, whose children are born in their respective home countries, have the right to claim child support payments from the French government, as long as they settle in France. This also applies if those children are from various marriages. In the case of Turkey, which forbids polygamy, the latter clause has no practical meaning. However, it applies in the case of Algeria where polygamy is legal. In other words:

 

An Algerian man with four wives, who bore him 15 children, may bring these 15 children to France, and claim money for child support.

 

The same country that allows, with these measures, north African Muslims in droves into France permits year after year around 200,000 French children to be legally killed in their mother’s womb. Since the lifting of the abortion ban in 1975, on the initiative of the Jewish “health minister” Simone Veil, till the end of 2013 approximately 7.6 million children were pierced, dismembered and cauterized with the state’s blessing. Only in a disappearing and small number of cases were the abortions for legitimate reasons (danger to the life, or health of the mother; pregnancy resulting from rape, or incest). The others were the result of “social reasons.”

 

As a youth I came across this Quote during a lecture about the New Testament: “Der Tod ist der Suende Soll,” — “Death is payment for our sins” (Romans 6:23). This made no sense to me, as death comes to all of us, the righteous and sinners. However, if you apply this quote not to the individual, but to people and nations, then with fearsome clarity the sense of this comes to light. A people which with in 38 years kills off over 7 minion of its children for “social reasons” but, at the same time, entices millions of people of other religions, cultures and race to their country, is guilty of a sin, whose payment is their death.

 

The excuse that the responsibility for this policy lies with the politicians and their appointed judges and not with the French citizens does not help. The French people have voted for these politicians. In May 2002 the incumbent President Jacques Chirac, an advocate of multiculturalism and African migration, took up his post after the second round of the presidential elections against Marine Le Pen from the National Front, who wanted to stop immigration. More than 81% of the French decided for Chirac and thereby agreed to their own displacement. As a mitigating circumstance one could allow the fact that their judgment was clouded due to the mendacious media propaganda. However, no mitigating circumstance can save the French people from their displacement if they do not wake up in time.

 

Dmitri Kisseljow’s Russian television program Vesti Nedli (“News of the Week”) of February 2013 conveys an unembellished picture of the situation in French cities. We quote here a few passages from the program with the title “The unrecognizable France.” [9] The documentary begins with scenes from an underground Koran school:

 

It is not permitted to speak French here, only Arabic. Every day the first lesson studied is the Koran. Every genuine Muslim must learn by heart the 114 surahs of the holy book … Aysche and her eight sisters from Morocco have been wearing the burka since the age of two. Aysche’s family has never attempted to learn French … In this school exist no worldly laws. “Worldly” is translated in Arabic as “anti-religious.”

[A female student speaks:] “I respect my religion. This is the reason I wear the burka. If France wishes to ban it, then it can ban it for the French women. For me, only Allah can ban it.”

Last year three Islamic underground schools were closed. This school has therefore taken measures. It does not exist on the Internet nor in the city’s address book.

In the Belleville area are practically no non-Muslims left.

[A Russian migrant speaks:] “Myself and my children have been attacked by [Muslim] youths several times.”

How many are here, no one knows. Between 6 and 8 million. That’s a European record. [About] 200,000 people enter legally year after year. Add to that another 200,000 who cross the border without papers.

[Marine Le Pen speaks:] “If we don’t want that, France has to hide behind a veil, then we have to stop the stream of migrants.”

Forty-three percent of the migrants have never tried to work [and] 18% live below the poverty line, on the street.

[A Russian-speaking Arab:] “Netu raboty, netu nitsu evo.” [“There is no work, there is nothing.”]

 

The improvised city of the homeless lies directly under the windows of the Benedictine cathedral St. Denis. In the Basilica of St. Denis, you find the largest burial vault in France. There lie 25 kings, 10 queens and 80 princes. The grave of King Clovis is also there. He was the first of the Frank’s rulers to convert to Christianity. Charles Martel, who has entered history as savior of Europe from the Arabs, also rests in this cathedral … Now this suburb of Paris is the poorest and most criminal of all. Nine kilometers from the Champs Elysees, it is considered not necessary to speak French.

 

In 2004 an ethnic French woman bore 1.7 children. The fertility rate of migrants from north Africa, black Africa and Turkey living in France are as follows:

 

• Algeria 2.57 children per woman

• Black Africa 2.86 children per woman

• Tunisia 2.90 children per woman

• Morocco 2.97 children per woman

• Turkey 3.21 children per woman.

 

In view of the much higher birth rates of the migrant women compared to those of ethnic French women, and that 400,000 overwhelmingly Muslim migrants stream into France annually, partly legally, partly illegally, the ethnic French will, with mathematical certainty. within a few decades, be the minority in their own country if there is no timely change in direction.

 

France’s present is intended for the rest of Europe’s future: as an example, nearly two decades ago Finland had a nearly 100% White population.

 

In contrast to many other European states, Finland had virtually no immigration to speak of. However, then a rapid increase began … Today, Somalis represent the largest African group in Finland. There are over 10,000 Somali-speaking people … The number of people with Somali background will, due to family reunion, increase in the near future … Immigration from other African countries to Finland has increased considerably since the 1990s.

 

Jean Raspail, the prophet of 1973, has long given up the belief of the survival of the Europeans. Thirty-one years after the publication of his masterpiece, Raspail called out in despair:

“The whole of Europe marches to its death.”

 

This shattering conclusion in no way applies only to the western half of the Old Continent.

 

Russia’s demographic statistics also allow little hope for the future. In 2002 Patrick Buchanan stated:

“With a birthrate of 1.35 children per woman, Russia’s 147 million people fall to 114 million by 2050.” [10]

 

Nevertheless, since 2010, Russia’s population has been on the increase. It stood at 146.1 minion at the end of 2014. So the situation is not hopeless.

 

Gloomier is the picture for a large part of Eastern Europe. As the social conditions in some Eastern European countries descend more and more to Third World standards, although these states do not attract masses of migrants from Africa, or Asia, they bleed following a decline in the birthrate and massive migration of their own population to Western Europe, or America. Bulgaria’s population sank from 8.981 million in 1988 to 7.246 million in 2013. The communist dictatorship, which restricted the rights of its citizens, but guaranteed the continuation of the Bulgarian population, was replaced by a democratic system that admittedly brought the Bulgarians various rights, including the right for gay parades. Their biological survival, however, was thereby threatened. The migrants who search for their luck in Western Europe and America belong naturally to the younger generation, and this decline runs parallel with a quickly aging population. Should this development continue, then a diminishing Bulgarian population inevitably will awaken a desire in their Turkish neighbors; just as the 1.355 billion today. and perhaps 1.7 billion Chinese tomorrow, continue to look with ever more covetous glances at a diminishing population in Siberia. Only a fool would rebuke the Turks and Chinese for that. On their side would be the right of the stronger, just as the right of the Americas was on the side of the European colonists and not the Indians.

 

The gloomy picture is balanced by the White population outside of the European continent being on retreat. In 2002 Patrick Buchanan believed that around the middle of the 21st century only every second U.S. citizen would belong to the White race. [11] Statistics today indicate this could happen much sooner. Also, in Canada and Australia the majority of their European origin population is on the defensive in light of continued migration — from Asia mainly.

 

 

What is the Reason for This Development?

 

In his monumental work Der Untergang des Abendlandes (“The Decline of the West”), Oswald Spengler presented his view that each culture is allotted a certain lifespan. If that is correct, and should the life of the Occident and its bearer, the White race, according to immutable laws, have expired, one can lament, just as we can lament the imminent death of an old man whose organs are failing, but we are unable to prevent it. Important facts speak against the idea that Europeans, decades after World War II, entered old age and their announced death was the logical result of this development.

 

It is helpful here to use as a comparison the decline of Classical culture. The parallels to our situation today — turning away from religion, turning toward materialism, the emergence of the entertainment industry (then chariot races, gladiator fights; today Hollywood), decline of art and morals — is obvious. However, crucial differences come to mind. While the decline of ancient culture was a lengthy process extending over centuries, the abdication of Europe (including its outposts of North America and Australia) is happening at an unnatural pace. This can be recognized by the clear examples of Great Britain and France. They still owned mighty colonial empires after the end of World War II, but a few decades later were themselves colonized by their previous black and brown subjects.

 

Even more incomprehensible than the fast pace at which the abdication of White humanity from the historical world stage has taken place is the fact that this process is actively supported and even controlled by the elite in European countries. Certainly, traitors who collaborated with foreign intruders have always existed in all countries and at all times. However, the total elite of a great number of states encourage the displacement of their own population and citizens who oppose this development are exposed to ridicule and where possible hauled before courts and accused of “racism.” This is a phenomenon which finds no parallel in the past. It is also worth taking a closer look at these extraordinary elites.

 

 

Notes to Chapter 1:

 

1. Marin Prcda. Delirul, Editura, Cartea Romaneasca, Bucharest. 1975, p. 311.

 

2. Patrick Buchanan, Death of the West. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 2002, pp. 12-19 ff.

 

3. Jean Raspail, Le Camp des Saints, Robert Laffont, Paris, 1973.

 

4. “Asylmssbrauch,” ~ in Zuerst, Dee. 2013. p. 8 ff.

 

5. “Integration gestrichen,” Zuerst. Dee. 2013. p. 7.

 

6. “Fluchpunkt Athen,” Die Zeit. 23 Sept. 2012.

 

7. Internet.

 

8. Ibid.

 

9. http://www.YouTube.com/watch?y=WYh124a8E

 

10. Buchanan, Death of the West, p. 17.

 

11. Death of the West, p. 19.

 

 

 

Oswald Spengler

 

 

 

CHAPTER TWO

 

CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

 

In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler stressed that not all cultures die a natural death. He reminded us that the Aztec and Inca cultures did not die of old age, but were brutally destroyed by invaders. The same fate is now threatening the Europeans. [Note, however, that both the Aztecs and Incas were actually overthrown by the racially identical neighboring tribes of peoples they had enslaved and abused for generations, which were organized by racially different invaders, i.e., the Spaniards. — Ed.]

 

Initially, this parallel may not be fitting, because the Aztecs and the Incas had no chance of defending themselves against the superior weapons of the Spanish conquistadors. In addition, there were the introduced epidemics against which they had no effective defense and thus could not prevent their own mass extermination. In contrast to this state of affairs, it is easily possible for the Europeans to stop this influx of immigrants overnight. How this can be achieved was indicated in the previous chapter. If the political will is there, then it is quite possible to remove from Europe the culturally foreign and racially different immigrants, and the way to do it will be discussed in the final chapter of this book.

 

But it is exactly the will of the ruling elites of Western and Central Europe that is missing. Not only this, but they also desire this influx of foreigners and support any program that facilitates such developments, just as the US elites for decades have been encouraging the immigration of Mexicans and non-Whites.

 

In other words, the real enemy of the Europeans is their own elites. The innocent migrants from Africa and Asia merely serve as instruments in the process of destroying the traditional society and European culture together with its creators and carriers, the White peoples of the old continent. They are, in effect, the foot soldiers, the infantry, without whom officers cannot conduct a war.

 

To take the analogy further, the officers’ corps, with one, or two exceptions, has members from most ruling parties of Western and Central Europe, the gurus of the entertainment industry, the leading intellectuals as well as from the publishers and journalists of the controlled media. Any differences existing between the various parties, newspapers and television channels are today only microscopic. Whether the CDU/CSU governs alone in Germany, or with an SPD coalition, or whether the SPD forms a government with the Greens makes no marked difference. This also applies in Great Britain, France and other European countries where the electors can choose between conservatives, liberals, socialists, or Greens — all have adopted the same anti-nationalist policies of increasing poverty, cultural destruction and national death as well as the subjugation to the world hegemony of the U.S.A. The freedom to vote for any of these parties is like the choice between Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola.

 

This is especially applicable to migration politics. The Left and the Greens on the one hand and the centralists and the Right on the other may only disagree about the rate at which indigenous people are to be brought into a multicultural, mixed race society. The Left and the Greens wish to accomplish this process as quickly as possible while the centralists and the Right are quite happy with the speed at which this is progressing. For example, in Germany the Greens, the Left and the SPD would like to see the German people disappear overnight, while for the CDU-CSU it suffices if this process occurs tomorrow.

 

Parties that are not enthusiastic about “multicultural” blessings will not participate in governments. They are despised and defamed by the establishment media.

 

That not all European countries are marching to the same tune into the abyss is self-evident. As mentioned in the Introduction, Switzerland is in a far better position than, for example, Germany, France, or Britain. First, this is, because it has a citizen initiated referendum mechanism that can be activated through a large number of signatures. Second, the second largest Swiss party does at least nominally represent Swiss interests. In Hungary the party in power, Fidesz, has committed itself to representing traditional Christian values, and thereby is condemned in other countries. Unfortunately, such hopeful signs do not produce an optimistic picture for the European continent as such.

 

 

The Basic Thesis of this Book

 

The ruling elites of Western and Central Europe — as well as in the U.S.A. — aim to extinguish the White people through racial mixing. In order to achieve this, they actively encourage migration from Third World countries. As well, they encourage the birth rate of indigenous Europeans to fall. This is achieved through legalized abortions, as well as implementing financial policies that are detrimental to large families, but assist couples without children. Likewise, the propagation of homosexuality and the implementation of the obscenity of “gender mainstreaming” serve to achieve the goal.

 

Anyone who propounds such views is immediately attacked as a “conspiracy theorist.” Before we elaborate on this accusation, let us first focus on the question of how the ruling system in Europe handles critics who dare challenge the prevailing dogma.

 

Like Tibetan prayer wheels, the politicians of the West repeat the same mantra: the first thing is human rights, which can only be realized within a democracy, to which is added tolerance and free expression. For example, on May 15, 1995, then-German President Roman Herzog, when awarding the German Book Publishers Peace Prize to Islamic scholar Annemarie Schimmel, stated:

“When we begin a dialogue with others we bring into it some non-negotiable essentials. Free expression is one of these, and this means no one is to suffer, because of held convictions. A long and often bloody and cruel history has taught us Europeans that these rights must never become negotiable again … A dialogue is only possible when no one needs to fear that, because of an expressed opinion there is a possibility of imprisonment, torture, or murder. I repeat, for us human rights are non-negotiable, the dignity of the individual … freedom of expression, of religion and ideological conviction.”

 

Herzog’s hypocrisy was abhorrent. Only shortly before this had the television and press broadcast their sensationalized reports on former teacher and NPD chairman Gunter Deckert, who had been sentenced to two years in prison for “inciting racial hatred.”

 

In November 1991, Deckert had invited the US execution engineer Fred Leuchter — who in his report concluded that on technical grounds the gas chambers at Auschwitz could not have operated — to address the NPD, which address Deckert translated. For this, the Mannheim District Court sentenced him to a one year prison sentence, suspended. He appealed. The Federal Court quashed the sentence and ordered a retrial. In 1994 a new sentence was handed down. Presiding Judge Rainer Orlet, Judge Dr. Mueller and Mrs. Folkerts confirmed the original sentence, but gave the accused an excellent character reference — “strong character, responsible personality with clear principles.”

 

A storm of protest fell over Germany as if Heinrich Himmler had posthumously received the Nobel Peace Prize. In a new trial the federal judgment was vacated and, in April 1994, Gunter Deckert was sentenced to two years in prison without parole. This did not prevent this courageous man from continuing to air his Revisionist views openly. To date he has spent more than five years in prison.

 

Exactly three weeks before the quoted address by President Herzog wherein he sang the praises of free expression, the magazine Focus reported:

 

Rainer Voss, chairman of the German Association of Judges, stated the decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe was appropriate, which had sentenced the NPD national chairman Gunter Deckert to two years in prison without parole on Friday. The decision of the court that by denying the gas chamber murders Deckert had committed a dangerous intellectual arson, filled the Judges’ Association chairman with satisfaction…. The chairman of the Central Council of Jews, Ignatz Bubis, stated that the Karlsruhe court thus drew the correct conclusions … given the damage thus incurred, so the Secretary General of the FDP, Guido Westerwelle, the penalty imposed against Deckert is justifiable. Party colleague and Bundestag Vice President Burkhard Hirsch [said]:

“I welcome the judgment.”

 

 

[End of this sample Kindle book. Enjoyed the preview? Buy with 1-Click, or See details for this book in the Kindle Store]

 

 

============================================

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available soon)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 2: Feb 7, 2017  — Added chapter 1 and part of 2.

 

Version 1: Feb 6, 2017  — Published post.

Read Full Post »