The William L. Pierce Memorial Hall




Hello, and welcome back to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. I'm your host and Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

As you listen to this broadcast, the Holocaust Revision Conference sponsored by the National Alliance is beginning at the William L. Pierce Memorial Hall in Hillsboro, West Virginia, USA. The conference is scheduled to last all day Saturday and for most of Sunday, with speeches by several prominent revisionist historians and personalities. Perhaps you have been keeping up-to-date on the plans for the conference via the National Alliance Web site, at www.natvan.com. I might have more to say about what happens at the conference in the next couple of broadcasts but, for now, I'd just like to make a few general comments about Holocaust revisionism and why the established version about what happened in the German concentration camps needs to be attacked and set straight.

The men and women who adhere to the tenets of Holocaust revisionism normally aren't dyed-in-the-wool racists and Jew-haters. Usually, they are more-or-less ordinary men and women who have noticed the Jewish establishment's use of the Holocaust as a weapon against non-Jewish people. They have noticed what looks like -- and in fact IS -- a huge extortion racket from the German government and from private industry, both German industry as well as non-German companies who did business in Germany during the war. They have noticed that the Jews in the media world scream bloody murder whenever anyone criticizes basically any Jew for any reason, even if that reason has no outwardly connection to the Jewishness of the individual, and even if the issue is completely unrelated to whatever happened to an unknown number of Jews at German hands during World War II. And not only noticing these things, but also by openly stating their willingness to consider alternative versions of the Holocaust story, these ordinary people have taken on the status of extraordinary ones, at least in the eyes of the dominant Jewish establishment.

That establishment, as it has done many other times, has attempted to marginalize the Holocaust skeptics by giving them a label, a label that is meant to signify to all those who come into contact with them that their words and ideas are not to be heeded. That label is "Holocaust denier," and it has been a fairly effective label, as far as labels go. By and large, it has done what it was meant to do, and that is to scare away the possible converts to revisionism, or at least the timid ones which, in this day and age of governmental persecution, is virtually all of them.

Only the supremely brave and supremely objective men and women are able to see past and through the Jewish slimestorm called forth upon a so-called "denier." And this is why, historically, Holocaust revisionism has made such slow progress in the United States -- the so-called bastion of free-thinking and free speech, the so-called "land of the free and home of the brave." Let the free-thinkers and the brave souls come forth, for we have a boatload of truth to dump in your lap, and it's too potent for the lemmings and the timid ones to handle.

As I mentioned, because it requires some level of courage to side with the cause of revisionism, its growth in the U.S. has been slow. Revisionism in general, and Holocaust revisionism in particular, has been professionally presented by a number of organizations.

So while Holocaust revisionism's growth in the United States has been consistently slow, its development elsewhere has depended largely on the stance of the local government. In many European countries, for example, Holocaust revisionism is a crime, as the incomparable World War II British historian David Irving came to understand intimately while serving time in an Austrian prison as a Holocaust criminal. In the Arabic Middle East, on the other hand -- particularly in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where a popular opposition to anything that benefits Israel is almost taken for granted -- Holocaust denial is growing by leaps and bounds. In December of last year, Iran hosted its first-ever Holocaust Revisionist Conference, and we in the United States are following the lead of the Iranians with whom -- whatever differences we have in terms of religion -- we are squarely on the same page with on the Holocaust and on the international power of the Jewish establishment.

Now, as unpopular as it is in the United States to say anything good about Iran -- or any part of the Middle East except Israel -- it seems to me that most of the Arabic Middle Eastern countries simply want what we Whites in the National Alliance want: autonomy from outside forces; that is, the freedom to set up our societies according to our unique racial and cultural needs, without having to worry about some bossy cultural ignoramus like George W. Bush demanding that the world operate according to his personal whims, and may self-determination of peoples be damned.

There are differences between us in the National Alliance and the Middle Eastern Arabic peoples, of course. In the National Alliance, we want racial autonomy. We want a White racial homeland where the values and aspirations of the White race will once again be the driving forces of the society. All other considerations are secondary to this one. We believe that if we put the race first, then not only the whole people but also individual Whites will have a more productive, successful, and satisfied existence. I take the many examples of individual and collective excellence from National Socialist Germany -- athletic excellence, bravery and heroism in war, and technological prowess -- as evidence of my assertion that the success of the collective people and the success of the individual go hand in hand. An orderly and well-cared-for garden consists of robust and vigorous individual plants.

Anyway, amid all of the misinformation that the Jewish media offer us here in the United States about the Middle Eastern Arabic countries, it seems to me that the non-Jewish Semitic peoples want a couple of things. One, they want freedom from Western influences, which they see as ungodly and subversive to the stability of an entrenched state. And secondly, they want back the land stolen from the Palestinians by the Jews in the creation of the State of Israel and, as a corollary to that, they want a Jew-free Middle East. Now I'm painting with a broad brush, but I think that -- on the whole -- my simple analysis pretty much sums up what non-Jewish Middle Easterners want.

Again, not to say that the Arab Muslim world has got everything figured out, but I guess I'd have to agree in principle with their assessment of the ungodly and subversive nature of Western culture. I don't look at the world through the lens of Islam, and there is a good portion of Islam that strikes me as being a little bit nutty, but Western culture -- or should I say "so-called Western culture"? -- has no good effect on anybody, least of all... Western culture. The problem here is that so-called modern "Western" culture has become so Judaized that to say that that culture of shortsightedness, instant gratification, and materialism represents the deepest longings of the White race-soul is -- if we Whites believed in such a concept -- blasphemy.

And to top it off, we've got a rootin', tootin', shoot-'em-up cowboy for a Chief Executive, a Chief Executive who got let out of the corral riding a REAL horse instead of his rocking horse, with REAL guns instead of his snap-cap pop guns, and then his whispering Jewish advisors like Wolfowitz got him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, with an invasion of Iran now becoming quite a possibility. It's no wonder that the Arabic peoples hate us so much.

But you know, that's really too bad, because if the West were made up of all-White states guided by the principles of progressive White racialism and led by White racialist leaders, the bickering, nose-thumbing, and indignant posturing that characterizes relations between the West and the Arabic Middle East would die down considerably. In fact, the West and the Arabic Middle East -- despite the religious differences -- might actually have congenial relations. Obviously, each side would be most concerned about its OWN interests and would put its OWN welfare first, but I think there would be more of a willingness on the part of both parties to find some common ground on lots of issues. That seeking of common ground is, of course, essentially nonexistent today, and the main reason for that relates to -- who else? -- the Jews.

So both the White West and the Arabic Middle East would benefit if the Jews were weeded out of both societies and sequestered far away from both regions. That brings up the question of where they would go, because it is almost one of the guiding principles of non-Jewish humanity that no one wants the Jews around. Is any race but ours naive enough to voluntarily agree to letting the Jews immigrate into their living space? Hitler suggested that the Jews be given Madagascar -- off the eastern coast of Africa -- but nothing substantial ever came from that. But it remains a fact that our monoracial homeland of the future will have no Jews in it. They can have their own turf, for all I care, but we can't have them meddling in our business, no matter what.

Anyway, the Arabic Middle Easterner has even more disgust for the Jews, on the average, than does the typical White Westerner, whose mass media of news and entertainment constantly cover up and lie about the true role of the Jews in all affairs, both in the West and in the East. And while historical revisionists in the West have been plugging along for decades, trying to rinse the murky film of Jewish deceit off of the true historical record, the Islamic countries have only in the last few years made a concerted effort in a similar effort of unmasking. And although the Islamic forces started later, the stances taken by their governments and media are such that they have come a long way in a short time, unlike here in the West, where the government opposes revisionist investigations and the media are occasionally stridently critical, but mostly dead silent on the subject.

It seems to me that the situation we face today in the West with regard to the so-called Holocaust and historical revisionism is analogous to another touchy idea in history. In both cases, an established idea was challenged by a truer idea, an idea that was not only simpler, but also was more consistent with the available data. In both cases, the proponents of the established idea sought to silence those of the new idea, even going so far -- again, in both cases -- as legal action and prison sentences. In both cases, the new idea was at first adopted only by a minority of men who, valuing truth above fashion, fought the old idea, each in his own way and in his own time.

That's where we stand right now in terms of historical revisionism and the so-called Holocaust. And of course, the other touchy idea that I'm talking about... is the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe -- the geocentric model of the solar system, which is sometimes referred to as the Ptolemaic system. And the new idea that eventually took its place is the Sun-centered -- or heliocentric -- model, which was given new life in 16th Century Europe by Nicolas Copernicus.

Although Copernicus was not the first person to suggest a heliocentric view of things -- Aristarchus of Samos, a Greek astronomer who lived in the 3rd century B.C., is given that distinction -- it was the geocentric model of Ptolemy that held sway with the established Church in 16th Century Europe. And the Church didn't tolerate any alternative viewpoints, a point that Copernicus, as a devout Catholic who was well-trained in Church doctrine, knew well.

The problem was that Copernicus couldn't stomach the many complicated amendments that had had to be made to the simple geocentric model in order to make the model fit the available data. He saw the Sun-centered, or heliocentric, model as being much simpler; no extra explanations or amendments were needed. The model was simple, and it fit the available astronomical data better than any geocentric model. But it didn't have the Earth as the center of things anymore, and that didn't sit well with Church leaders.

For better or worse -- probably out of fear of persecution -- Copernicus sat on his ideas for a while. When he finally DID publish his work, The Revolution of the Heavenly Orbs, he wisely dedicated it to Pope Paul III. Copernicus received his first copy back from the printer when he was on his deathbed, and so said his piece and yet saved the Church the trouble of trying and condemning him to death.

But the cat was out of the bag. Now, others -- granted, it was a limited number at first -- could read the ideas of Copernicus and decide for themselves how valid his arguments were.

Some years later, one of those readers was the famous Galileo, who immediately recognized that Copernicus was on the right track, and had the gall to say so. So the Church ordered Galileo to report to Rome, where he was given the choice between recanting and torture. He chose the former and was forced to say, among other things, that the Earth remains still in the heavens, although legend has it that he immediately muttered under his breath, "And yet it DOES move." But anyway, despite Galileo's recanting, the Church still didn't trust him, and so Galileo spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest. How many of our European brothers are today rotting in prisons for the crime of doubting the official doctrine of the Holocaust, just like Galileo doubted the official doctrine of the heavens?

One of Galileo's contemporaries, Johannes Kepler, was luckier. He, too, bought into the Copernican theory, and eventually uncovered what are known today as Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion. Unlike Galileo, Kepler wasn't persecuted by the Church, and he too published works elaborating on the ideas of Copernicus. A few decades later -- by the time of Isaac Newton -- the geocentric model was a relic of history, completely replaced by the heliocentric model that had been recently resurrected by Copernicus.

Let's hope that a similar fate awaits today's version of the so-called Holocaust story. The adherents of the old Holocaust theory have lost the psychological edge; compared to the explanations of the revisionists, the old theories are junk. The old theory itself has been repaired so many times with addendums and amendments that no rational human being can honestly believe it is the untarnished truth.

That job of awakening has been accepted by the historical revisionists, and it is my belief that the world is ripe for a new view of the so-called Holocaust, just as the world of Kepler and Newton were ripe for a new view of the cosmos. The new view of the so-called Holocaust offers us a new hope for the realization of our White racial homeland, and therefore we must aid that effort any way we can.

By way of closing, I'd like to add that according to some, the title of Copernicus's book, The Revolution of the Heavenly Orbs, gave a new meaning to the word "revolution." Prior to the book being published, the word referred only to the paths of celestial bodies around a common center. But after Copernicus -- and the fundamentally new view of the universe that emerged -- the word came to take on the meaning of radical change, a totally new way of things. That is, it is thanks to Copernicus that the word "revolution" -- in the political sense -- means what it does today.

Let's do what we can to help historical revisionism spark a revolution in the way we view things, and then... spark a revolution in the way we DO things.

I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.