You are here

A listener sounds off on “holocaustianity”

Hi Kevin! OK – here’s the section of that Greg Felton interview that I thought was especially good – transcribed below. 
I continued to the point at which Felton started to diverge from the topic-description of the new “Holocaust-ianity religion” and started talking about the effect of World War I.
There’s a very ironic point to be made from what Felton says at that point. He asserts that the ultra-traumatic nature of WWI is what prevented the other European countries from “stopping Hitler when Hitler invaded the Rhineland.”
After having done a LOT of study of true-er versions of WWI and WWII history over the last 10 years or so, I now consider the entire paradigm of Hitler as the evil dictator and the Germans as the ultimate evil villains of the 20th Century to be pure Zionist propaganda B.S. Hitler did not start WWII and the German invasion of France did not occur until AFTER France had invaded Germany and England had started bombing german cities.
There are actually TWO ironies in what Felton says! To wit:
The lesser irony is this: 
1. He’s saying that there are times in which a country must engage in war and using Hitler’s invasion of the Rhineland as his example. The truth is that Germany was being radically provoked in numerous ways, not the least of which being the massacres of Germans who were trapped in the newly-created country called “Poland.” Germany was actually acting in defense of its own people being slaughtered in Poland when it invaded Poland which gave England and France the excuse that the war-mongering English (Zio) leadership desperately wanted to start the war against the German people (as confirmed by statements of Churchill).
The greater irony is this:
2. The “foundation” (one could say) of the “Holocaust religion” (and the Jews as the world’s ultimate victims) which is the subject of this discussion, is the assertion that the Jews were treated in this manner due solely to the completely irrational, radically racist nature of the German people in general (now this idea has been expanded to the White Euro cultures) and Adolf Hitler in particular. This conceptual foundation (of Hitler and the German people as evil racists) is near-completely false and is the basis for an extremely large amount of false history with which we’ve all been indoctrinated since.
So the irony in what Felton is saying is that he himself, in speaking about the “Holocaust-ianity religion” of our present, is expressing part of this false history that is the foundation of the Holocaust-ianity belief system! While attempting to expose this “false religion,” he unwittingly lends support to its foundation!
It’s just a great example of how deep the proverbial rabbit-hole goes and how thoroughly we’ve all been brainwashed regarding the history of the first half of the 20th Century for the purpose of hiding the role of Jewish power in the world and establishing the meme of Jews as the ultimate innocent victims.
Feel free to post all of this to your blog. Partial transcript of your Felton interview follows below.
From Kevin Barrett’s interview with Greg Felton
GF: There is no separation of church and state – we live in a theocracy. But it’s such a subtle theocracy that we don’t realize that we’re being dictated to – we’re being preached at. Anybody who’s a heretic, like Martin Luther when he nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door, you know, no one’s going to have the courage to do that unless we stop allowing ourselves to be afraid. And we are afraid. We have to stop.
KB: That’s the point that Thaddeus Kozinsky makes in his very interesting essay in We are Not Charlie Hebdo. He says that our supposed secular society, which is celebrated by the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, of course, and is distinguished from those evil fundamentalists, those evil radical Muslims who did this terrible thing – that in fact this secular society is a disguised religious society and it’s worse than a regular religious society because of the disguise. It’s actually more oppressive and harder to find a way out of. And the fanatical religious element of it, this faith-based quality of it that’s based on the sacred and human sacrifice and all that – that’s all hidden. It makes it a much worse prison than just an honest religious theocracy could ever be.
GF: He’s actually correct, and this is why “Holocaust-ianity” is their religion. Just like Christianity had the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, we have the Holocaust and Israel. We had the Church, which is the Catholic Church originally, the Orthodox or Catholic Church, now we have AIPAC. We have all sorts of little kinds of branch churches of the same faith, cropping up and imposing their order upon the world. Every state in the U.S. has an AIPAC office.
KB: Yeah, and you know we have our shrines – I call the 9/11 Museum our shrine to the monstrous lie. And of course there are all of those Holocaust museums and the 9/11 museum was modeled after these Holocaust museums. These are all temples, these are unholy temples of these new, idolatrous religions.
GF: Of course they are. And the people who traipse through them are shocked at the graphic detail of the suffering, and it’s that shock that subverts the critical faculties. 
KB: “Shock and Awe.” 
GF: “Schlock and awe.”
KB: “Schlock and Awe,” yeah, you’re right.
GF: The thing is that if you see the pictures of the bomb – even the holocaust pictures of the bombings, or the “collapse” of the World Trade Center, you almost feel it’s disrespectful to disbelieve it. You feel that “Who am I to say this didn’t happen?”
KB: It’s also a bit like the Crucifixion. You know, I’ve called 9/11 the most powerful shock to the human nervous system, with the possible exception of the Crucifixion – the difference is that 9/11 did it instantly. Even random numbers generators went haywire starting an hour or two before 9/11. There’s some kind of psychic thing there, I won’t go into that, but yeah, it was shock to the nervous system – half of the American public got clinical PTSD from the television images. It happened very quickly whereas the Crucifixion took a long time to work its magic on the world as it gradually spread this image and its story. In both cases I think there’s this kind of fascination with this image of awful human sacrifice that ties into a kind of sacred mythic structure on which whole cultures are founded. And of course the Crucifixion was the image on which Western culture was founded, and now this 9/11-Twin-Towers-being-blown-up image, which ties into the Holocaust images as well – this is the new sacred, sacrificial image of this new pseudo-secularist religion that been forced down our throats.
GF: I would also add one more traumatic experience, and that was World War I. This was the first time total war had been inflicted on the peoples of Europe – and other parts of the world, too, but mostly Europe. And the sheer destruction and suffering that came out of that war was so traumatic, it forever changed people’s understanding of war – of what it could be used for. It essentially superseded Clausewitz’s famous observation that war was (I’ll paraphrase here) “the continuation of politics by other means.” And really that’s what it is. And because of that, we had people like Woodrow Wilson and other sort of “soft-headed” individuals, try to legislate war out of existence. They tried to impose peace on a being that is not inherently peaceful. And you follow that, since WWI, we’ve had an unnatural understanding of war. We’ve almost denied ourselves the right to fight. We have shut down our defensive mechanisms.
So Adolf Hitler, during the 1920s-30s managed to be in power, so did Mussolini and other countries, so did Japan, while we stood by and did nothing because we didn’t want to go to war. We thought that war was a very bad thing. And even to this day you hear peaceniks get up in the street and say “We’re the anti-war party” or blah-blah-woof-woof. No, you can’t be anti-war because there are times when war is necessary. There are times when you have to resort to force of arms to defend yourself or to defeat an implacable enemy. And one such time you could have done that was to stop Hitler from going into the Rhineland. But there was no will to fight. And once you have a culture that denies war as an instrument of politics, you have a culture that denies the right of self-defense. You get a hyper-rational world in which you do not acknowledge the irrational nature of humanity.

4 Thoughts to “A listener sounds off on “holocaustianity””

  1. Dear Truth Jihad fan:

    Thanks for the elaborate comment. I am always pleased when I manage to provoke debate, even critical debate. It's what I live for. However, I cannot help but note that you impute to me ideas I did not say and then proceed to criticize me. Allow me to respond.

    1) The story of massacred Germans in Poland has nothing to do with the changing philosophy of war. As I said, during the early and mid-1930s, the victors of WWI could have stopped Hitler from progressively violating the terms of the Versailles Treaty. Leaving aside the treaty's gross unfairness toward Germany, the militarization of Germany, which was a major factor in the build up to the invasion of Poland, could have been stopped. But the trauma of WWI was so psychologically devastating that no democracy had the will to resist an aggressor by force of arms. Let's not rewrite history here: Hitler was an aggressor.

    It is also worth noting that the "massacre of Germans" you cite is unsupported by any credible evidence. It is just as specious as the Holocaust ® itself. For the record, Germany sent soldiers disguised as Polish officers to create a pretext for invading Poland. One of those Germans was Oskar Schindler.

    2) At no time in the interview did I call Germans racist. In fact, I never use the term because it is an empty epithet overused by people who lack the capacity for rational argument. I also do not use the term "evil," which has no useful meaning and belongs only to religion. So, at minimum you have misrepresented what I said. Anyone reading the excerpt you provided can see that.

    What I DO see is that you latched onto my analysis to launch into a rant to rehabilitate Hitler, which had nothing to to do with the interview. As I have told others of a similar Pro-Hitler bent: I believe we have a done a disservice to Hitler and history by demonizing him instead of treating him simply as a historical character. Hitler is not evil or unfamiliar: he is alive an well and living in Israemerica. However, such an overdue, enlightened approach to Hitler should not be used to whitewash the history of German fascism, including that of the concentration camps.

  2. Lenin wrote a book about the real causes of WWI and it's a million times better than what the Nazis explain with their excuses.

  3. The thing is this. The state prosecutes people for talking about matters which happened outside their life experience if they 'deny' their conviction that a true account has been forwarded to the public by Allied Propaganda. I cannot think of a better reason to doubt the story – or wonder what evil is being covered up by that exercise forbidding discussion of the fate of German civilians in war. Ask that question and you get a quick response.

Leave a Comment