You are here

Kollerstrom vs. Myers debate: Should 9/11 truthers avoid holocaust revisionism?

Broadcast December 24th, 10-11:00 a.m. Central (1500 GMT) on, archived here. Note: subscribers can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of and go to the “Private Blog” to get early access to the shows. 

Nick Kollerstrom has exposed the 7/7 inside job

Nick Kollerstrom of begs to differ with Peter Myers, who recently argued on my show that 9/11 truth-seekers and other opponents of the New World Order should avoid holocaust revisionism – both because it makes us look bad, and because it isn’t true. Nick argues that it is true: There were no mass human gas chambers, the “death camps” were labor camps, there was no organized effort to exterminate Jewry or any other group, and the number of Jews killed (by typhus, starvation, etc.) was below one million, not six million.

In this interview Nick and Peter argue about the holocaust, but agree on many other issues related to 9/11, 7/7, and the New World Order.

Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD, recently turned himself in to Scotland Yard as a “nonviolent extremist.” His new book Breaking the Spell  lays out his research and conclusions on the holocaust.

Nick Kollerstrom has two history of science degrees, one from Cambridge 1968, plus a PhD from London, 1995. He was an honorary member of staff of UCL for 11 years. He co-edited The Case Against War (Spokesman, comprising the CND legal arguments against the Iraq war) and then co-organised the Belgrano Inqury in 1986, publishing The Unnecessary War as its proceedings in 1998. In 2008 he received widespread publicity and ethical damnation owing to his interest in studies of the residual cyanide levels found in walls of the World War Two labor-camps. His book Terror on the Tube is the sole comprehensive account of the 2005 London bombings. It endorses the hypothesis of Islamic innocence.

Peter Myers is an Australian researcher on topics related to the New World Order. He has broken with some other non-mainstream thinkers including Frederick Toben over their pro-Nazi sentiments, which he does not share.

6 Thoughts to “Kollerstrom vs. Myers debate: Should 9/11 truthers avoid holocaust revisionism?”

  1. Anonymous

    Look, man-o-man…Peter Meyers has the best view in how the Jewish Influences has penetrated over the centuries…I'll just call it Zionism for now…and I'll be using Peter's POV in my white paper. Here is my rationale: If a Tribe is small in number but high in intellect, and they want to control masses [and as much else as they can], then they will cleverly and carefully pick their spots to send their small numbers of the Tribe to gain influence and control…and those spots will be the "control points" in governements, politics, finances, and social media controls such as corporate news…and the most important of all…Hollywood [its the subliminal messaging that allows citizens to agree to their own demise. This lines up with, Bollyn…Sabrosky…me…and you too [with a little too much fine tuning re: the 9/11 attack scenarios. If I remember correctly, were there not Muslim or Arabic men flying those very routes earlier in the summer? So, Myers is correct…somewhere in the entire scenario there were Muslim patsies to be "seen and connected" somehow. FYI…I'll be presenting three or four options about how and who in the hijackings…the absolute LAST option is that the 19 Muslims were onboard, entered the cockpits and flew the aircraft themselves. This is virtually impossible and not worthy of one's time to consider except to dismiss that option! But Kevin, there WERE planes… …and again, I LOVE that you gave Reynolds all that rope to expose himself as a contrarian…and full of shit too! An economist working for the baby faced devil speaking authoritatively about engineering and aviation elements. WELL DONE! Kevin please…NEVER…forget Baby Faced Gates…a most gruelish sub-human shoulder-to-shoulder with Cheney and Rummie. That guy has been the most "henchy" of henchman for many decades now. peace, love and progress… r

  2. Anonymous

    Dear Kevin

    Congratulations in hosting this discussion, and below are some of my reflections – for what they’re worth:

    1. Think statistically about the alleged gassings, for example, at Auschwitz:
    2000 line up – 2000 undress – 2000 gassed – 2000 cremated – 2000 body ash to be removed
    – work out how long this would take –

    2. Peter Myers’ quoting quotes and he fails to state that about a decade ago the Rauschning Gespraeche were deemed to be of questionable value, but German haters such as Peter Myers loves this source because it suits his mindset and value-system wherein the life-denying Talmudic-Marxist dialectic of win-lose operates and where rational hubris rejects the imperative of moral values such as truth-content.

    3. The non-violent extremist Nicholas Kollerstrom focuses on facts and figures – he is a courageous seeker of factual truths and whose moral and intellectual integrity is in-tact. He seeks dialogue and tries to avoid monologues, the mode that Myers specialises in.

    4. And Fredrick Toben does not shy away from discussing Adolf Hitler as a man, as a person who, for example, loved Wagner’s operas. Demonising Hitler is designed to make those look good who dare not to question the Holocaust and the Nazi legacy. The homicidal gas chamber story is pivotal to the demonization of Germany and the Germans wherever they live. And so it is a fundamental right, for Germans especially, to focus on the homicidal gassing allegations – and to thoroughly investigate this allegation for factual truth content.

    5. Peter Myers attempts to deflect from this by wandering off into irrelevancies, such as turning the debate into a religious argument where quotations prove a theoretical point but are irrelevant to the factuality of, for example, the Holocaust. Such sophistry is, as Kollerstrom hinted at, engaging in and conducting a mere monologue – bordering on hedonistic-nihilistic inversion.

    6. So much from me, an alleged Nazi missionary who dares ask difficult questions of a factual nature and who refuses to bow to the imperative of GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, which Myers attempts to hide behind when the going gets tough. We must not shy away from dialogue because if we do we suffer a failure of moral and intellectual nerve. After my first legal challenge came my way in 1996 I formulated the following: If you take away my freedom to think and to speak, you take away my humanity, and you commit a crime against humanity. Truth is my defence. Now, crimes against humanity are committed by those who stifle open debate on vital matters such as the Jewish Holocaust, and that charge sticks on those who deny us this right.

    Fredrick Toben

    PS: And there is more to think about –
    Read what Carolyn Yeager says about the Holocaust-Antisemitism nexus:

    International Holocaust Remembrance Day has failed, says one prominent Jewish spokesperson

  3. QFG

    I have deplored the mainstream academia/media's biased coverage of many political issues–not excepting Middle Eastern politics–and their disproportionate coverage of the sufferings of Jewish atrocity-victims, in comparison to other victimized peoples. I continue to hold these same views. On some points, the conventional history of Germany's war crimes during WWII has left unresolved ambiguities. In the course of history, Britain, Soviet Russia, and my own government have perpetrated some outrageous atrocities, attempted to destroy evidence of such crimes, and to silence, and even to put to death, witnesses. In some regards, therefore, the conventional history does rely on compromised sources. Why, otherwise, should we lend credibility to an accusation of mass murder, made by a mass murder, who is still attempting to suppress the evidence of his own crimes. Profligate vested interests also had very biased interests in the convictions of Germans in postwar trials, and there is no telling what measures they might have taken to manipulate the litigation. In these regards, I believe some uncertainty remains with regard to particular points of history, wherein some prudential scrutiny remains justified. Partly for these reasons, for much of the past 5 1/2 years, I have viewed the conventional account of the holocaust with some skepticism. Rather than allow confusion to arise, I neither yeilded my hearty belief in Catholic ideals and teachings to the National Socialist belief in scientific materialism, nor did I condone the kind of persecution typified by Kristallnacht.

  4. QFG

    At this stage, I remain persuaded of revisionist explanations of the origins of conflicts at that time, however, I have elsewhere become persuaded that a balanced evaluation of the history and evidence does indicate that millions of Jews perished under Axis rule, besides members of other unwanted ethnic groups. Pogroms, harsh treatment in camps, and disease may have been more common causes of mortality than deliberate extermination, rather than gas chambers, and a re-investigation of the numbers of Axis victims, and the causes of death, would probably be appropriate. Even if poison gas was not used to exterminate internees, or was not applied as frequently as claimed by conventional history, there is no doubt, however, that the regime within the internment camps was extremely harsh, and mortality rates were very high. It is just as clear that millions of Jews died under Axis rule. All serious demographic studies attest to this reality, although revisionists like to cite figures from the World Almanac for the postwar Jewish population, which was an estimate, rather than a reflection of contemporary demographic research.

    While deliberate orders and plans might not be apparent, the corpus of surviving documents and archives leaves very strong reasons to suspect that this was so. While not stated openly, this is sometimes indicated in the documentary record. One relevant document is Dr. William Koherr's March, 1943 report to Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler. Koherr's report recounted the "loss" of 1/2 of the stock of European Jewry. His sources reported that 1/4 (2.5+ million) had emigrated to other contents. He does not, otherwise, offer any explanation for the remaining 1/4 (2.5+ million) who were "lost." If the Germans had a policy of official secrecy regarding the extermination of Jews, then we should not expect a specific admission. Koherr's silence regarding the destiny of 2.5+ million Jews, who were "lost," without having emigrated, however, remains a serious cause for suspicion:

    "In total it is likely that since 1933, i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist power, European Jewry lost almost half of its stock. Thereof again only half, i.e. a quarter of the European total stock in 1937, is likely to have gone to the other continents…"
    —–Dr. Richard Koherr, report on the ethnic cleansing of European Jews, to Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler, March, 1943

  5. Anonymous

    Kudos for a fast-moving and incisive exchange between two of the most razor sharp minds on the scene.

    This is the intellectual life's blood of any great social or cultural movement: Principled deliberation of world views and strategies.

    One of the secondary insights that I came away from this was, incidentally, that if Webster Tarpley doesn;t rework his paradigm to sufficiently explain Israel, Mossad, Zionism and the historical "Jewish question", then he fails to keep up with the pace of things, and risks becoming obsolete.

    I sure hope Tarpley has the sense to listen to these two with an open mind.

    And proceed intelligently. Otherwise, he'll be forgotten in the mix,

    Thanks again, for some of the finest cutting-edge radical debate, since the rosy way I recall 1968.

  6. Anonymous

    First of all, humanity has to bust the most walloping deception bubble in history.

    The Speaker of the Russian State Duma has recently made the – fully justifiable – claim that the US should be investigated for the WWII atomic bombings against Japan and compared them with Nazi crimes. That comparison, however, gives the impression, that Nazi crimes were already fully investigated. While those US atomic bombings have been thoroughly researched, the historical investigations into holocaust are still forbidden to historians in many countries, due to enormous pressure by Zionist lobbies. While the elitist and State Corporatist Fascism is being turned into an acceptable (neoliberal) movement, is the alleged “monstrous” phenomenon of (anti-capitalist) National Socialism forbidden to investigate, especially for historians. WHY ARE WE SO GULLIBLE, manipulable and trust alleged facts without being able to fully investigate them? BECAUSE IN our UNCONSCIOUS INNER NATURE, ‘TRUTH’ – which is given – is BEING LIVED, NOT PROVED, and ‘INSIDE’ IS INTUITIVE, NOT being ANALYZED. Even now, while Zionism is dehumanizing us and turning us into soulless beings and entities, our empathic nature continues worshipping holocaust industry and cult. But why should we be dehumanized, when everybody is being spied on in an absolutely controlling police state? It’s because empathy, though it is making us gullible in the face of a manipulating ‘outer world’, it generates – on the other hand – an increasing uncontrollable solidarity among people and nations. And why should we be controlled at all and around the clock? It’s because of the destructive profit system that needs to control us for its wealth creation, through pauperization, proletarization and a really burdensome currency’s ‘interest adjunct’ , neither creatable nor payable without real economic backing. Though the system destroys by all manner of means our livelihood and our health, it is not able to control us completely. What is making us uncontrollable, is our thought creating inner nature. The system has to dehumanize people in order to control them. The proof that we are exposed to be made soulless in different ways, is that several Western countries are planning to repeal from schools that “creativity-activating framework of thoughts” called ‘handwriting’, to be replaced by typing, while a depleting and hollowed out ‘plain language’ is being imposed. Should we wait patiently till the Zombie Apocalypse or should we reeducate ourselves now and change the world for the better?

Leave a Comment