Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The Realist Report - Veronica Clark

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined by historian and author Veronica Clark. Veronica and I will be discussing her book Warwolves of the Iron Cross: The Union Jackal and a variety of other subjects relating to Adolf Hitler, National Socialist Germany, and WWII generally. You can download the entire program here.

Below are relevant links for this program:


  1. John,

    Here's "Truth for Germany" (free online version):

    1. John,
      I know this is a "dead thread," but, please compare these two Germans. Are they the same race or further evidence that Germans are a "mixed race people" (substantiating my thesis):

    2. John,
      You don't have to post this if you don't want, but I think you'll find it enlightening as to who destroyed this movement from within. It has taken me over a year to compile all of this data and to finally have figured it all out. The primary culprits are Lewka, Paul and some Jew named "Max Woodword". All of them, as I suspected, were Mami fans:
      The truthhertz chatango linked in my post continues to refer to you as "Jewn Friend", me as "Veronicock" and "Veronicunt", etc. I discovered that Woodword leaked this URL as well as Mami's chatango URL to They Can't as well as Anti - Semitism dot net. This is why our show showed up there.
      The rabbit hole does indeed run deep here. But at least I uncovered the rat's nest.

  2. I like what Carolyn Yeager has to say about Veronica Clark.

    1. Carolyn Yeager has a lot to say about a lot of people. Since Carolyn seems to have such a problem with Veronica Clark's books and research into WWII, Hitler, and National Socialism, why doesn't she invite Veronica on her program to civilly discuss these matters? I don't even know if Veronica would accept such an offer, but it seems like the professional and rational thing to do on Carolyn's part.

    2. What for? If You listen her last two shows, she has read VKC's books and various comments. VKC is a Hitler-basher. She has made many errors in her books and Yeager has shown them and refuted them.

    3. Anonymous/nameless,

      Since CY has, in your view, "refuted" all 13 of my books so thoroughly, including the one that isn't even published yet(!), why are you still bothering with me? And why did she have to do -- what is it now -- 5 uploads/posts about me? I find this odd for a woman who claims to have already "thoroughly discredited" my research in the past.

      And why did she email Friedrich Berg declaring more than once her "hatred" and "hate" for me in an effort to break up our friendship of 9 years? Ask her that for me, Ruup. Please. And why is it that Dr Toeben, whom she adores, endorses my research:


      I have no qualms with CY, but she has a vendetta against me. No idea why. The only time I ever took her to task was after she launched into an attack against me without any legitimate reason to do so. Seems to be a trend with her. She even managed to turn her partner of three years against her, Tanstaafl.

      Anonymous/nameless, I appreciate your invite to listen to CY regarding my work, but I must politely decline. I'm not interested in what she has to say anymore.

    4. Your books are good when You are not the writer or you have written very little and not about Your crazy theories. I have listened the show and heard a lot of nonsense and jewish propagandafor the whites.

      Also Tsalin was a great leader who at last noticed that the Communism was a bad religion? During the War he was soon just a russian impreialist and a panslavist? He was not in the jewish control and therefore he was murdered? He was murdered but we don't know the answer why. Stalin was afraid that Churchill and Hitler are making peace and he wanted to do a pre-emptive attack?

      The slavs are more beautiful than the germans and the germans who entered into Poland were confused with this. They were full of Thule-bullshit before that. Hitler believed also in the crazy Thule-teachings until he during the war or before realised that there were more races in Germany than The Nordic Race? When Heydrich has "the eyes of a Mongol", it does not matter, if he was 100% Mongol. "Hahaha, look at Goebbels and Heydrich and Eichmann"? And so on and on.

      Lies and lies and bullshit that You have dreamed and many people think that You are clever because Friend is so interested in and will invite Yoiu again. And they shall begin to believe Your nonsense before they sometimes may realize that You were just a fool and amateur who spoke out Your delusional dreamings and strange conclusions. And Your race-propaganda is just jewish poison.There is no white race? The colour of skin does not matter at all (for whites only) etc.

    5. You are seriously misinterpreting what Veronica said during this interview.

    6. Not to be rude, anonymous Ruupi, but I can't even answer your reply. You have twisted and contorted everything I said into a pretzel here. May I suggest you begin by reading my interview with Mourning the Ancient, so at least you know what I have said and believe about Stalin, etc.?

      As for white skin being a mutation, I rely on science instead of mythology and speculation based on fanciful imaginings:




      Or is this all part of a "Jewzi conspiracy" as well? In that case, the fact that Montagu Norman lent to Hitler via Schacht must mean that Hitler was a "Jewzi tool." How to get around Hitler receiving weapons from the Brizis...Vickers anyone? Heinrich Pudor attacked the NS government for this very reason (among others, such as its leniency regarding the Jews), which is detailed in "The Hyenas of High Finance", but since this primary evidence does not fit your preconceived notions, you must not look at it...right Ruup?

      That said, I have no problem if you, John or anyone else here holds a different view of race than I do. I am not dogmatic.

    7. Both of your reference sources contradict each other. One confirms the common origin of Aryans in India or Asia. The other is based on the assumption that all humans used to be some proto-Negro Ape-like being in Africa before they became cro magnon.

      This is based on the discredited Darwinian Theory of Evolution that suggests that kinds mutate into other kinds over millions of years. This whole theory is so dogmatic and based on already exposed lies, it really still exists only based on manufactured consence and bias financing in the world of science and fundings. Creation science succesfully dismantled the Evolution Hoax. (That doesn't mean their alternative dogma is nessecarily true). The only applicable science is micro-evolution, or variation within the kind. Darwinism is one pillar of the Protocols to confuse the Goys that they are animals and therefore can be treated as such.

    8. So white people are a mutant race evolved from negroes because some yellow monkey from Penn State Jewniversity says so.

      John. What's happening man. Get a grip.

      Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars

    9. Look at the DATES of the research. One study is newer.

      "The only applicable science is micro-evolution..."

      If the above quote is true then why do you believe 1920's and 1930's NS German racial anthropologists regarding race? Even Hans F. K. Guenther believed that Negroes had influenced the German race in the distant past. These theorists did not base their findings on "micro-evolutionary science."

      This is the first time I've heard Darwin is part of a Jewish conspiracy. Incredible. Are you aware that Otto H. Warburg was conducting cancer research under Hitler: http://www.smokershistory.com/OWarburg.htm

    10. 'Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.'
      Protocols of Zion, 2002/2003 Historical Review Press Edition, p. 28

    11. Darwin only had a BA in theology, not science.
      His entire idea is based on a never observed notion that kinds can macro-evolve into other kinds. It is an attempt to establish the ancient myths that half-man half horse etc creatures exist or could exist (half-fish half land animal etc), which would justify transhumanism.
      Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism is also a fraud. First, he made up the age of the earth as 73,000 years old (which has inflated now to even more absurd numbers) and his geologic column does not exist in nature. It is also based on circular reasoning. Index fossils are dated by the strata they are found and the age of the strata is identified by the index fossils.
      Abnormalities like upside down petrified trees that connect several layers are ignored to keep the theory.
      Differentiating orderly strata can very well be demonstrated by hydrological sorting. Ice rings in Greenland etc also don't indicate years but warm and cold periods that occur daily.

      All this is well known but doctored in a certain way to fit an agenda.

      There have been many scientists that have pointed out the contradictions, yet funding for science in this field must always conclude that Darwin was right.

      Darwinism was mandatory in the USSR as it is now in secular schools in the West.

    12. Carolyn Yeager says she got a 23andme DNA kit. Let's see what lingers in her "pure German" genetics, shall we?

    13. John, CY's DNA is not 100% pure German. She has some Asian genes as well as non-German European genes. She still has not posted the graphic of her 23andMe however. We must rely on what she tells us it says.

      I'd like to see yours. ;)

  3. A really interesting programme John. Veronica Clark presents a very learned and balanced view of Germany and the Hitler Government. It's easy to romanticise and glorify NSDAP Germany, the Hitler Government and the Germans' role in WW2.I'm quite sure Germany had its fair share of fanatics and psychopaths. Some of the things that went on in the Eastern Front were atrocious war crimes. But that's probably war for you. Her comments regarding Poland and the German attitude to the Slavs were esp enlightening. I firmly believe that this mistreatment of the Slavic people by the Germans, in general, was an enormous mistake. An ignorant mistake really. Had they allied more fraternally with the Ukranians for example the battle against the USSR may well have had a very different outcome.I think an earlier guest, Frederik Tedor, made the point about the Pan-Europeanism of the SS, later in the war, was particularly relevant here. A shame it came too late. Can't agree with her comments regarding Paganism however. The Nazi movement was steeped in old Nordic mythology, whatever their official policy on Christianity may have been. Just my opinion.

    1. The "anti-Slavic" position of Hitler? Poles massacred Germans and other minorities after 1919 and did not even bother to negotiate a very good deal Hitler offered. The Pan-Slavic conference of 1848 already drew the lines for ethnic cleansing of Germans East of the Oder River.
      The Soviet Jews encouraged raping German women 8-80 and the Slavs did it.
      Stating the obvious that Slavs are compared to Germans less developed in their civilization is rather a minor crime, is it not?
      I'm sick and tired of the whining Slav card. A people that inhabit half of Europe and half of Asia with unlimited resources, yet for some reason eternal 2nd world states. What country was the best Soviet economy? East-Germany. A tiny state-fragment with no resources but brains. Is that anti-Polish to say, since Poland got 1/3 of Germany and $ reparations from Germany on top after 1945 and still sucked in comparison?

      Hitler's fault that the Poles provoked a war that led to a world war when Britain made a rather minor border dispute a world war.

  4. Veronica, why are you still a "proud" member of the SPLC when your anti-White nationalism position is abundantly clear these days?

  5. John,

    Here's the verbatim commentary on the 'Heredity Protection Law' as well as the 'Law to Protect German Blood and Honor'. Dr Ernst Brandis, a senior legal bureaucrat in the NS government, wrote:

    "The German people is no unitary race, rather it is composed of members of different races (of the Nordic, Phalian, Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, East-Elbian race) and mixtures between these. The blood of all these races and their mixtures, which thus is found in the German people, represents 'German blood'." (Brandis, 1936: 33).

  6. I think a more accurate word to use in conjunction with Nordic, Phalian, Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, East-Elbian is phenotype. Thus saying Germans are mixed-race is not valid. As I understand mixed race it would be a child born to parents who white and negroid for example.

    1. Anonymous/nameless,

      That is your opinion and you are 100% entitled to it. But this is about what the NS Germans thought about race...not what you think. Brandis called them "different races." Your thoughts are therefore irrelevant.

    2. Are you suggesting that by 'different races' he meant different sub-species? LOL

  7. To those who doubt the authenticity of Hitler's Platterhof speech from 1944, I am the person who managed to get it from the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, Germany. I also helped with the translation into English and, as far as I know, the text that Veronica Clark has published is entirely accurate.

    I hope these few words of mine will end some of the malicious speculation about Veronica Clark. She deserves everyone's praise for her courage and determination to expose important truths about extremely contentious subjects like Hitler.

    Friedrich Paul Berg
    Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
    Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

    1. Friedrich Paul Berg - Think about what you are saying. Just because the speech is archived at the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich does not automatically make it "authentic." I am not one who doubts the authenticity of it (although I can't verify it either), but it should be said that this institute was created as part of the re-education of the German people by the Americans and Jews after 1945. It was to assist in the De-Nazification program that was underway, and it remains that. To speak of it as an honest operation performing serious historical research about German history is just wrong.

      Therefore, your translation of this document, no matter how "accurate," does not prove it to be authentic.

      Carolyn Yeager

      Also, it's typical of you to decide who is "courageous" and exposing "important truths." You tend to be blinded about the persons you champion; equally so about those you fight against. Maybe you should be more specific about the "important truths" Clark has exposed. What are they, in your opinion, and do you agree with them? I think you are probably entirely ignorant about these questions of race, in Germany and elsewhere.

    2. The only person who doubted it was authentic was Wilfried Heink. And CY believes him. I have the German edition and it looks exactly like all other typewritten documents of that era. There's no reason to doubt its authenticity. Why Heink said this is unknown to me, but he is not an expert in NS documents. Ingrid Weckert is a document expert and we sent her samples and she said it appeared authentic. Her opinion is more important in this respect.

      CY, Mr Heink asked you twice to remove that speech from your site. I own the rights to the translation and it is registered with the US Copyright Office: TXu 1-701-672 dated July 21, 2009. Why have you hidden the speech and lied to Wilf, and why do you continue to violate the copyright? You are a liar and mean-spirited person. Any integrity you may have had is vanished.

    3. I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity of the Platterhof Speech, since it says nothing about race that wasn't already official doctrine of the NSDAP as early as 1933 (as stated for example by Hansjoerg Maennel, Politische Fibel).

      It's Veronica Clark's pretense that there is something new about it that is annoying. Her motives seem highly questionable. I got the impression when she was arguing (sophomorically -- or perhaps sophistically -- based on a failure to consider that the word race has a range of meanings) that there was no White race that she quite rightly lost John Friend's credence at that point.

      Her response to the quote Dr. Rudolf Frercks was also poor. Frercks is certainly a more authoritative source on the NSDAP's view of race than some A. James Gregor writing in 1958, but she prefers the inferior, secondary source because it says what she wants said, obviously.

      I looked briefly at the so-called "new racial classification." Who is the author? I don't see the name of the person responsible for it. If the person has no credentials then that would-be system of classification has no importance.

      It seems that the author is mainly just playing with definitions anyway. For example, he regards Negro genes as something inherent in the Mediterranean race, whereas traditionally, while we have long been aware that there is Negro genetic material scattered around the Mediterranean rim (e.g. Lothrop Stoddard mentioned it), we regard it as an admixture, as something extraneous and damaging to the Mediterranean race that existed before that admixture. I don't see how sweeping such distinctions under the rug is supposed to represent an improvement in understanding. Quite the reverse.

    4. Scott Hadding,

      May I ask what your qualifications/credentials are? I do not claim to be an expert nor do I claim to have come to definitive conclusions about race. I am still learning as we all should be with the advent of genetic mapping, new findings, etc. What I fail to understand is your dogmatism when it comes to race. You base your own views on research from 1935 and prior? Frerks had "all" the answers about race? Okay.

      You seem to avoid Hutton like the plague. He deals with Frerks et al. in detail. I consider his analysis of these primary sources superior to yours. His findings are the basis of my current view.

      And what about this NS official's view of Germans as "different races" as it pertains to NS law?

      Dr Ernst Brandis:

      "The German people is no unitary race, rather it is composed of members of different races (of the Nordic, Phalian, Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, East-Elbian race) and mixtures between these. The blood of all these races and their mixtures, which thus is found in the German people, represents 'German blood'." (Brandis, 1936).


      The Nazis dropped the term/use of "Aryan" in 1935; error one. If the NS regime had experienced in 1935 what it did in 1945, would you cling to "Aryan" like you do "Nordic-Phalian"...as though it is the word of the Creator itself?

      The Ministry of the Interior declared racial anthropology, Frerks' work for example, unscientific in 1941; error two. If the NS regime had "ended" in 1941, would you cling to race anthropology as the word of the Lord?

      In 1939, Haase-Bessell dismissed the idea of a typology in which fixed physical and psychological traits were associated with individual races as "superficial." The human races were to be understood not in terms of purity or a fixed inventory of traits, but as fields of variation in which genes showed particular statistical distributions. These of course came about via genetic mutation...example white skin pigmentation. He also said race was to be defined as a "higher order unity" and not reduced to "shared features." This marked a break with traditional racial anthropology.

      Extreme Nordic chauvinism was discredited in 1936 and the conclusions of racial theorists like Staemmler, Viernstein and Verschuer reduced the Nordic notion to at best an ideal set of personality traits and at worst a mere slogan for the sake of unity.

      Eickstedt concluded that Voelker (peoples) were "races in the making."

      Walter Gross, head of the Race Policy Institute, was concerned about the lack of a clear orthodoxy on race and he marginalized or muted all race talk until a cogent theory could be sold to the public. This means that NSism had NOT in fact come to any clear definition of race and all that this subject entailed. This is why race policies were contradictory and ad hoc.

      That said, CY can scream against Bryan Rigg's work all she wants; fact is, while Hitler was preaching NO JEWS, he was exempting them -- oftentimes personally -- by the thousands and thousands to become "German blooded." Whoops.

      Again, I am no expert. I simply relay what I read from many different authors and researchers. My job is to assess and synthesize given my knowledge base and understanding. I am not perfect and have never claimed to be so. Valg, the author of the research on that blog post you denigrated so readily, is no more or less qualified to speak on race than you, Scott.

      But please, continue to bully and defame people into accepting white nationalism. It seems to be working really well for you and Ms Yeager.

    5. V Clark tells Fritz Berg what to say and then even answers for him! She also speaks for Wilf Heink!

      Speaking for myself, I said that I was NOT one who doubted the authenticity of the speech, but VClark ignores that and says that I do ... because I believe Wilf Heink. She knows what I believe without my saying it!

      My point made to Fritz Berg was that his claim for the accuracy of the translation does not equate to the authenticity of the speech - they are two separate matters. He was "guaranteeing" the latter because he thinks he can guarantee the former.

      But this is typical of VClark to interpret what she reads in her own way, regardless of the actual meaning of the common words used.

      As to Mr. Heink, whom I consider a friend (of longer standing than his association with you), he does not care about the speech one way or the other. It is your bullying and anger that he is reacting to, being in his late 70's and not liking to be involved in unpleasant discord. You, VClark, should be ashamed of yourself for the way you manipulate elderly (over 70) German men to do your work for you, a non-German, promising that your goal is to improve the reputation of Germany in the world, when it is not but is actually harmful to Germany.

      I do not believe that I am violating your copyright ... if I were you would be doing more than calling me names and trying to shame me about it. The work that Wilf did belongs to him to do with as he wishes; he never "gave it over to you," as you carefully worded it, when he sent it to you, nor did he reach any agreement with you. Plus, if you and Fritz Berg worked on it extensively after Wilf sent you what he had done, as you have repeatedly said and I can quote you, then what I have posted is not the same as what is in your book. If it is, then you and Fritz are liars. Additionally, Wilf was working from a scan that was not entirely legible -- I'm sure you're unhappy that I mentioned this too, since it puts some question on your "perfectly accurate translation."

      I know that Wilf doesn't like being in the middle of this, and wishes he had never sent it to me, but for me the important thing is the truth. For you, VClark, it is selling your books and selling yourself as an historian. But you don't own the Platterhof speech, copyright or no. You only have rights to one translation, the one found in your book ... if that. So take all your ugly attacks on me based on "morality' and stuff them.

      Carolyn Yeager

  8. CY,

    "It is your bullying and anger that he is reacting to, being in his late 70's and not liking to be involved in unpleasant discord. You, VClark, should be ashamed of yourself for the way you manipulate elderly (over 70) German men to do your work for you, a non-German, promising that your goal is to improve the reputation of Germany in the world, when it is not but is actually harmful to Germany."

    Ms Yeager, I submitted a DMCA takedown notice to your registrar, Enom, your web host, 1and1.com and I got no reply. Enom said they did not host you. I also submitted it to WhoIsGuard, your ID protection service based in Panama, and I received no reply. That's all I can do. I tried to send it directly to you via your WhoIsGuard email ID and the email kicked back. There's not much else I can do other than get an attorney involved and I do not want to resort to that.

    At this point, the only thing I'm ashamed of is you, Ms Yeager. Wilf and I have reconciled. And it's none of your business anyway. Fritz put Wilf and I into contact with one another circa 2007/8; you had zero to do with that. He was willing to translate. No bullying or manipulation was necessary. I did a lot of work and book purchasing for Wilf in turn. The only thing he contested to, which he told me, was his name being affiliated with Luis Munoz's chapter about Hitler's financing. I explained to him he need not worry about being affiliated because each chapter is clearly attributed to each independent contributor. He was only named as translator, not author. That is plainly spelled out on the cover as well as inside the book. We've already talked about this and resolved it in private. Again, it's really none of your business. And you have translations that you receive from Germans as well, so you hardly have room or reason to comment about my doing so.

    The version you have is the copyrighted version. The phrase "racial nuclei" and "nuclei" is all Fritz's material. That whole race section is Fritz's and my translation/editing.

    Before you twist and contort this even more, I am aware that you tried to get Wilf to send you the Himmler translation as well. I already know. And you twist everything into a pretzel. That said I am no longer speaking with you. When Tan made the point on his blog about you twisting and manipulating everything he said, he was right as far as I can tell. You do the same thing to me and my words. I cannot reply to you and try and explain anything to you because you twist and manipulate it all. It's exasperating!

    And why did you email Fritz, telling him you "hate" me? That is harsh. After all you've said about me, I still do not "hate" you. That is downright rude.

    1. So you are trying to take down my website. Nice touch, Ms. Evil One. Or is this just more of your bluster to cover why you can't enforce your “copyright.” The translation I have is what Wilf sent to me as his original translation which he completed “as best he could” and then sent to you … and considering all the personal notations he made on it, not all of which I included in what I posted, it seems unlikely that you are telling the truth. How is it that these fairly numerous personal remarks are still interspersed in the copy, if you and Fritz Berg have already redone it and have it ready for publication? I have become well-acquainted with your dishonesty in the period of time I have been aware of you, but your chutzpah is reaching new heights!

      For instance, Fritz put you and I into contact with one another in 2006, but we did not become “friends.” Fritz is famous for getting people together. However, I do realize that Wilf did eventually work with you willingly and thought of you and him as friends. For you to say that it is “none of my business” is to imply I am trying to make it my business, which I am not and have not.

      I have really tried not to drag Wilf's name around in this dispute; it is so cheap and thoughtless to do so. But I have to point out that I did not “try to get Wilf to send [me] the Himmler translation as well.” I asked only for the Platterhof speech; I think he asked if I wanted the Himmler speech too and so I said, "Sure." When he told me he could not find the Himmler speech, I replied I didn't care about that because it was available online. (I may be wrong about that, but that's what I thought and said.) So you, VClark, are twisting the story in your own mind … no doubt you even believe what you're saying.

      Since you have nothing more to bring up against me, you stoop to bringing in “Tan”, one of those White Nationalists you dislike so much, and I'm sure the feeling back is mutual, and say that his angry invectives toward me (to cover his own bad judgment in making reckless decisions) are proof of what you say. And following that, you pull the Jew trick and moan “How can you hate me?” It's easy, I hate your message; I hate what you're out to accomplish; since you embody your anti-German message, I hate your person, like the plague. That's how I see you … just like we see the Jew. Live with it.

      By the way, I emailed Fritz (a long time ago) to give him fair warning about you, and to tell him how you appeared in my eyes. It was between me and him … but obviously he relayed it to you. And you lecture me about what is “none of my business!”

      Carolyn Yeager

    2. No CY, I am not "trying to take down your website." I did a DMCA on the two violated URLs only. Let me repeat that: I only did a DMCA notice for the two violating URLs, not your "website."

      Please stop twisting, misrepresenting, lying and suggesting.

    3. Carolyn on January 19th, 2011 12:36 pm

      "Hi Bob,

      Emma Goldman is a pseudonym for Veronica Clark, who is definitely not a Jew, nor are those associated with the website you’re speaking of, VSS, which I also can’t find now... I don’t agree with this, and have told her so, but we are still on friendly terms. I asked her to be a guest shortly after I began the program, but she wanted to lie low at the time. She seems to be under attack alot.

      In a sense, though, it is a kind of co-opting, but meant to improve Hitler’s image. You’re right though, that there are jewish groups that are trying to take it over. When Hitler’s image begins to improve, as say with Mike’s book, this attempt to take control will accelerate and become very devious..."

      URL: http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110117/the-heretics-hour-interview-with-michael-collins-piper

      Apparently, CY, you are feeling undue pressure: “…growing acceptance of anti-racists in our ranks who promote an internationalist agenda while believing themselves, or pretending to be, innocent of such an intent.”

      Who said anything about “anti-racism” and “internationalist agendas”? Please stop putting words in other researchers’ mouths. Please cease from attributing to others your own view and interpretations of things. Please refrain from twisting everyone’s words into pretzels. And please cease with the ad hom assaults. Modern racialists and Nordicists are entitled to their views and those of us who challenge these folks are entitled to ours. I am not interested in ad hom attacks nor do I seek to discredit others. I just do my own thing and I will continue to do so. If folks disagree with my findings regarding race, that’s fine with me. I am not interested in bullying people to accept my POV.

      If Ms Yeager is more convincing then by all means, check out her material and donate to her. She is doing wonderful things for Germany with her impeccable research on the Third Reich and WW2. And she likely has dozens and dozens of German contacts and supporters.

      That said, please take a look at Klaus von Schmeling-Diringshofen. This physically stunning German soldier was JEWISH (with obvious white Nordid influence):


      And here is my 23andme (as well as my brother's). Perhaps Hadding can enlighten us as to whether or not I am "non-German" as CY suggests:

      FYI, Mr Dean comments here too. A thoroughly decent WNist it seems.

    4. I've always found Carolyn Yeager's quick accusations that everyone she loathes is a Jew to be rather odd.

      My great-great grandfather's surname was Yaeger, spelt differently, yes, but nonetheless, he was a German Jew! Yaeger, Yager and Jagger are common German Jewish names in fact. The English equivalent 'Hunter' can often be a Jewish surname also.

      Not that I'm making any accusations Carolyn Yeager. Just sayin'...

    5. @Anonymous

      Agreed. But her statement here is more revealing as to her motives in slamming me repeatedly and going after my means of earning anything from my research, etc.:

      "...you pull the Jew trick and moan “How can you hate me?” It's easy, I hate your message; I hate what you're out to accomplish; since you embody your anti-German message, I hate your person, like the plague. That's how I see you … just like we see the Jew. Live with it."

      I think this woman is trying to destroy me in any way she can due to her deep seated need to control the WW2 narrative and everyone's perception of Hitler and the Reich. Even Mr Heink seems to be fed up with her 100% rosy picture of every NS official who existed, except Albert Speer. She hates him for some reason.

      I am baffled that she considers my body of work "anti-German". A number of people in my life, both white and non-white, have my books and they have taken well to them. Not one of them feels as negatively about Hitler et al. as they did prior and many of them are now "enlightened" if you catch my meaning. This is helpful not hurtful to modern Germany and Germans.

  9. I am the same 'anon' who is relatively new to this blog, and also to Veronica Clark's work, which certainly deals with a lot of provocative themes. But before I delve further than the first hour into your work and theses, Ms. Clark, would you possibly elaborate on your affiliation with the SPLC? It does seem difficult to take anyone who was ever part of such an organization seriously, although I'm open to hearing about whatever went on.

    1. "Give me your name, horse-master, and I shall give you mine."

    2. No offense, Veronica, but I'm not going around on radio shows and youtube and wherever else asserting much of anything, much less such controversial views on some of the most controversial subject matters as Hitler's Germany, so I don't see how my name is really that relevant. You, on the other hand, are going around and asking people to consider the veracity of your assertions, so it would seem apropos for you to give some explanation of what your qualifications are, etc. Consider the source, as they say. You're pretty assertive in your presentation about conveying and interpreting what Hitler thought, but not too willing, it seems here, to shed light on just who is telling us this information.

      Color me unimpressed, John, with your choice of this week's guest. When I am a guest speaker on your show, I'll definitely answer questions about who I am and what makes me someone anyone should listen to. Veronica can't countenance a simple question about her background that would weigh heavily on anyone's assessment of her credibility.

    3. Anonymous/nameless,

      You're well spoken and I'll hand you that...but I do not trust anyone online unless they have a name and a face. If you don't trust me that's fine with me. I don't trust you. I have already discussed this topic numerous times in my uploads on YouTube as well as on Ms Spingola's shows. I'm not going over it again to satisfy the needs of a single nameless troll.

      Good day.

  10. I don't think that John Friend or anybody else should be promoting that "new racial classification," especially calling it THE new racial classification, as if it carried some kind of authority.

    With no name of an author attached, it seems to represent nothing more than some anonymous person's whim.

    1. I contacted the author, whose email is clearly written at the top. I will find out for you.

      That said, I fail to see how this man's "whim", based on research and valid sources (see citations at the end) is any less credible than your own thoughts on race, Scott. You base your view of 'Germanness' on one source, Frercks, published back in 1935...before the advent of modern genetics. That seems whimsical.

      I cannot speak for John, but I do not think he is endorsing any single racial view at this point. I myself am still learning...but I am not about to refuse to look at something just because it is written by an "amateur", as you suggest. In that case no one should read Mein Kampf!

    2. Does anybody other than CLARK here not understand that when discussing historic National-Socialist views of race, original National-Socialist sources are the best kind of source to use?

    3. SCOTT, Chris Hutton does analyze primary sources...dozens and dozens of them. And his analysis is superior to yours because he is credentialed. Dr Gregor in his essay does the same thing. He translated and analyzed PRIMARY sources...more than one. That's why he has footnotes. And he is superior to you because he too was credentialed.

      I do not see how/why a genetic test such as 23andme needs a credentialed scholar to analyze what it means. If a white person has Mongol DNA, well, that is what it is. Perhaps you can tell us why Reinhard Heydrich looks Mongol/Armenized since you allegedly have expertise in this area. You never told us your credentials by the way.

    4. I think it was already established that YOU don't appreciate the importance of primary sources in this matter, CLARK.

      The reason why I mentioned credentials is that something called "THE new racial classification" made up by some anonymous guy on the Internet is meaningless. If it had a name under it like that of the late Professor John Baker of Oxford University (author of RACE), that would be a reason to take it seriously. As it is, it's just some anonymous bs that VKC is pushing.

    5. I just want to underscore here that CLARK has admitted that she is pushing what she calls"THE new racial classification" when even she doesn't know who wrote it.

      Wonderful care you take about your sources there, Ronnie! That's gotta be the reason why your work is so credible!

    6. HS,

      You have resorted to strawman tactics. Knock down the one weak aspect of a thesis in an effort to bring down the house.

      The man who wrote this based his research on "Valg". I emailed him as to Valg's credentials/ID. I am waiting for a reply. He could be a scholar for all we know. When I have an answer I will post it here.

      You never told us what your credentials are. Why should we accept your analysis of racial theories over this guy's analysis? Was Darwin credentialed before he undertook the most important aspects of his work? No. He observed and analyzed with his European brain....much like this guy has done and you yourself do. Is HS your real name? If it isn't then you are anonymous and non-credentialed too.

      "Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge (Christ's College) encouraged his passion for natural science. His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.

      Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection. Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority. He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories." (Wiki)

      He was a student who observed and then developed one of the most widely accepted theories in modern history based on observations and insight:

      "Charles Darwin's education gave him a foundation in the doctrine of Creation prevalent throughout the West at the time, as well as knowledge of medicine and theology. More significantly, it led to his interest in natural history, which culminated in his taking part in the second voyage of the Beagle and the eventual inception of his theory of natural selection. Although Darwin changed his field of interest several times in these formative years, many of his later discoveries and beliefs were foreshadowed by the influences he had as a youth." (Wiki)

      The reason I brought this blog post up is because it is agreement with what Hutton found in his scholarly and credentialed analysis of NS race theory. He too found evidence that NS racialists said Germans possessed Negroid, Mongoloid and Near Eastern race traits/influence. This anonymous guy calls these three Congid, Mongolid and Armenid.

      I have noticed that you and Ms Yeager frequently team up and launch double-pronged assaults on my research.

      I have received a number of emails about the show and from what I can tell it was well received by many. I apologize if this makes you uncomfortable, but there are people in the world who do not agree with your views of race and your analyses of certain primary evidence, HS. Please deal with it as CY tells me to "deal with it." As I too have scholarly and primary sources to support what I say.

    7. Eric Hunt is not credentialed. Caroline Sturdy-Colls is. Does it matter re: Treblinka? Who's more credible?

      I find Valg and this anonymous thinker more convincing about race than you. Remember you took on Jean Valjean on TWN? (BTW, his IQ is in the 130's...higher than mine.) You spoke as though you were an authority on the matter of haplogroup distribution, etc. Remember that? You want folks to believe you, while you have not stated your credentials and you write under a pen name, but you do not extend this courtesy to others like you.

      Translation software is eventually going to make human translation unnecessary. But average readers will still need to interpret and analyze the translated text, deriving some sort of practical meaning from there.

    8. I am not offering any radical new ideas of my own about race, Miss Valjean, er I mean Miss Clark. It means that my personal credentials don't enter into it. I am pointing at original NSDAP-approved literature (Maennel, 1933, and Frercks, 1935) and saying: look what it says!

      NSDAP-approved literature is obviously the best source for what the views and policies of the NSDAP were. If Hutton or Clark say that it was something different, they are liars -- regardless of what their credentials may be.

    9. Here is what the blog author wrote me when I asked him about his (and Valg's credentials):

      "...the new racial classification is not based in National Socialist raciology (which didn't recognize the existence of two very different Nordic races). Even the NSDAP authorities realized that their findings in Physical Anthropology were still in the making phase, and thus were not final."

      MY RESPONSE: This is correct. Hutton argues the same thing in "Race and the Third Reich" and offers numerous primary sources to support his stance. And we see in Dr. Gregor's essay the same thing: the war ended NS research in this area before any final conclusions were reached.

      "However, we do acknowledge that National Socialism tried to protect "Europoid" humanity and also left behind one excellent hint: Hans Günther's photography of the type described as "Armenoid"."

      ME: I verified this. Günther did describe an "Armenoid" type in his research.

      "Valg and I have studied some subjects in university (Valg Genetics, me History and especially Geopolitics), but neither of us have a degree and we're mostly autodidacts. Universities seem to be Orwellian tools of social engineering, rather than centers of true knowledge and debate."

      ME: So both gentlemen have some formal education in this field.

      "If you're interested in your genetic background, you can have your genome analyzed at 23andme.com. After that, you can request your "raw genetic data" and send it to DNAtribes.com. They will provide you an extensive PDF file with maps and percentages of your genetic similarity with ethnicities (for example, Orkney Islands, Basque Country, Utah Euro-Americans, Namibia hunter-gatherers and so on) world wide. It's only a shame they don't use pure racial examples to set standards, but I guess that at the moment, this is as good as it gets."

      ME: I agree. Genes don't lie or obfuscate. If a white person has Mongol, Jewish or Negroid DNA somewhere in their bloodline, then they have it. And they are "mixed-race" and "bastardized" by WNist standards. IMO, any WNist/racial purist who speaks/writes about race should have to post his/her 23andMe online for everyone to see.

  11. Oh, how idiotoc. I'll årefer to continue my list: "Putin is Hitler and his war is the same war". Putin and China are cahallenging the JWO". -But how then is that possible when the Jews are everywhere:


    If the Jews are running both Russia and China, everything can be only their game. So it was in the days of "Sidonia" (almost). I think the Soviet Union was a jewish tool and so was Stalin.

    I think John Froend has said he is fighting the enemies of the white race. How then he can invite this anti-white person? I would like to believe that almost everyone can see how she is for the Enemy.

    1. Ruup anonymous,

      May I ask what you're doing to "fight the enemies of the white race"? You leave comments and what not on blogs like "Mami's Sh*t". Do you think this has an impact? If so, to what degree?

      I know that the site "Daily Stormer" claims to be fighting the "enemies of the white race," but there is not a single female involved over there. But this should not be a negative thing. WNist men assert that this is THEIR fight, not women's fight. So why are you trying to get me involved in YOUR fight? Men are supposed to do that, remember? Women are, to quote one WNist (I recall the screen name J3313) who commented on Truth Militia, "side shows" and "c**ts." I'm part of this "sideshow," see? Just a historian who happens to be interested in World War II and the Third Reich.

      "The alt-right's focus should be on recruiting young men, the fuel of revolution…Don't get me wrong: it's not that women should be unwelcome, it's that they're unimportant. They are sideshows, not the main act.” (J3313 at Truth Militia before it went offline)

      Good luck to you.

    2. Not You bisnes was really commenting Friend I am not interested in You especially when You just keep on writing BS this kind of idiotism is terrorizing of the sites. But I think You are doing that on purpose and I know tha You are not an idiot.

  12. You certainly shot yourself in the foot with this program. The title of the program should've been called "trolololol." The white race doesn't exist and were all mutants.
    Oh joy. She sounds like a leftist jew. Your supposed to be CI and you put on this crap?

  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  14. Reading through all of this I forgot who our real enemy is. These days whichever alternative/ truth site I visit they all seem to be full of name calling and in-fighting - our 'Masters' must be very proud of us. THEY are unified, focused and determined, we are a rabble.

  15. I listened her last show with Spingola. She said that the Germans murdered a big part of the 3 (another time 2-3) million russian POWs they take. "They died in the camps"."Not until the germans had had losses and they started losing the war they started treating the russian pows more properly". "After they realized that the Slavs were a better race than they had believed." "Then Himmler apologised"
    "Every participant genocided people. Germans had the responsibility if she was aggressor"

    Always she is promoting the Slavs. Only 1,66-1,78 million Russian POWs died. Hitler had ordered to feed them (2000 kcal at the worst times) and keep them alive. Hitler was forced to attack and Stalin had destroyed everything. The Germans faced an impossible task. No, it was not the end of the Western civilization in the Germany (where the jews were not in power).

    She has gradually put more and more these kinds of lies into her stuff. Now one caller (Werner) asked about this. But she said everything again. I think that lying in this way is a crime. Especially when everybody are expecting that one is a revisionist and now we shall hear the truth. Disinfo. Lieas. Huh.

    But if someone tells the truth and only the truth, he is a "Hitler -worshipper". I don't know what is wrong in worshipping Hitler, but this is her accusation.

  16. Of course she backed everything by referring some book. But there are plenty off books that are full of lies or poor analyzes. I know books (F. E: Walter Post: Verleumdete Armee) in which are the facts about this.

    The bolscheviks have the same song in every country. Ous commies in Finland also always insist that the finns had treated the prisoners poorly and changed f.e. after Stalingrad.

  17. Just listening now, haven’t listened to all of it.. Veronica said, "A lot of things Hilter says in Mein Kampf and the 25 points were violated in the process of actually making this happen... Hlter believed in respecting other peoples and nations.. their sovereignty, their desires in the world, their culture... But, did he in fact do that? As far as with the Slavs and the Poles, absolutely not."

    That seems to be a fit unfair... All bets are off in war, bubba... Hitler didn't show up on Poland's doorstep because he somehow backed out of a moral commitment to honor national sovereignty. They were killing ethic Germans right and left and he'd had enough. You don't show up with cupcakes and soda when they (Poles) are killing your people.

  18. "They were killing ethic Germans right and left and he'd had enough. You don't show up with cupcakes and soda when they (Poles) are killing your people."

    Which Poles? Are you certain these were not fifth columnists like the fifth columnists who instigated Crystal Night, harming NS Germany in one of her most critical hours? You will also have to prove that this was Hitler's sole and honest to God reason for invading Poland. That is a heavy burden, but if you can write up the case and convince me, then I will accept your view.

    The reason I haven't done so is because I cannot read Polish and I do not have access to Polish archival information. I've no idea what lies on the other side of this argument other than what the Germans and Brizis said, which is biased. I would need to consider the Polish side to see if there is proof as to their greater guilt in relation to Germany.

    1. Watch Adolf Hitler: What Historians neglect to mention. It shows all the offensive intentions of the Poles to invade Berlin. Hitler tried to negotiate with them but the Poles were stubborn and ruthless and wanted even more German land. The Poles constantly mistreated and killed German nationals in the Corridor in 1919-39. Hitler was the first German president to acknowledge the Corridor borders of Versailles. But only if ethnic Germans would live in peace.

      Haven't you watched that film yet?

    2. Can You prove something biased? Otherwise You have nothing but KGB-lies of the Slavs. Why does You trust the Jews in the Rigg's book?

      You can not just say that everything German is biased when there is evidence and documents. There are no excuse: The poles did this all. Spingola is honest in her new book. I think You are a Pole. You are a liar. If something happens in Poland 20 years, this is a policy of a state. They publicly wanted their people to attack the Germans (and the Ukrainians etc). Of course there were the troops that killed everybody from children to grandmothers. They were the official policemen and gendarmeries. Summer and autumn 1939.

      You have Your brains. You must be able to notice, what has really happened and what is questionable. Who are lying etc. I think that this case is closed from the questions of Yours. I think that this is one of the strongest tabus just like the holocaust (polish violence especially before the war and between the wars). I think that it is criminal to try to prevent the truth from becoming publically known.

      You are fighting on behalf of the jewish narrative and especially for the lies of the Slavs. Is Putin Your new idol? Does the FSB provide the stories and the ideas to You?

    3. Veronica..

      Arguments from silence don't constitute a position.

      And this business of "You will also have to prove that this was Hitler's sole and honest to God reason for invading Poland” is silly. Since when is it possible to prove beyond dispute what someone's sole motivation is for any given action? Based on that kind of reasoning we cannot accept ANYTHING anyone says about Hitler, insofar as it relates to why he took a particular course of action, since knowing with absolute certainty what someone's sole motivation is is beyond the realm of the knowable. What’s more, your own litmus test, as stated, would preclude you from writing about Hitler and weighing in on questions about him since being qualified to do so requires complete precision regarding his motivation(s).

      The only hurdle here is whether there is legitimate proof that ethnic Germans were being killed, tortured, persecuted, etc. in Poland. And, for that there is substantial proof.

      Here's one link..

      http://www.germanvictims.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Polands-Censored-Holocaust.pdf Article is also heavily footnoted so there’s more for you there should you choose to pursue the sources.

      This author makes a further observation that is at odds with (or sheds further light, depending how you look at it) your view of Hitler wanting to restrict Polish sovereignty. The author states (p. 132, 1st paragraph), “Much later, even following Warsaw's capitulation in October 1939, the Fuehrer still called for an independent Polish state, a proposal emphatically turned down by Stalin, whose forces occupied about half the country.”

      Onward Christian Soldiers by Donald Day, (pp. 55-56, 61, 64)

      Deanna's Ruling Elite book starting on page 337..

      I'm sure there are volumes upon volumes beyond that…

    4. She uses basic trolling-tactics. She demands someone to tell everything. Again and again, although she herself has talked a lot of polish crimes in the past (F. E. in the Spingola-Specials. She cancelled everything publicly, but who believes that? She changed her views for political reasons or something like that). One should also write an ensyklopedia and prove everything. And she can herself just declare everything the germans have brought into a daylight and the whole german archives as bias without any proof. Only a poor logic perhaps. Why do the German officials (enemy-agents) conceal their archives, especially from 1939? They have censored books which have been based on the refugee-archives etc.

      Disgusting anti-german bashing and lying.

    5. Anonymous,

      I will take a look at this PDF. But, again, it does not reveal Polish motives or the Polish POV. I need to see that as well. The historian's job is not to say one side was right and the other wrong. It is supposed to consist of presenting an objective view so that both sides' motives, etc. are fairly presented and understood. I cannot think of another book more "pro-Hitler" and fair to Hitler and Germany than "The Union Jackal". It is glaringly obvious that not one of you has read it. I suspect CY's lies and distortions are the reason why so few of you have dared to look inside my books. It's quite sad that a single woman's poisonous invective can be so detrimental in this respect.

    6. You have said that You have taken back everything good You have said about Hitler etc. And if You are now anti-german liar it deos not matter if You have some good books in the past. Ylu clearly are with the Jews and not with others. I am afraid that this comment will not be published like my previous one. This raises questions like inviting You into this program.

    7. CLARK, some of the things that you say on your own behalf are more than adequate to deter any serious person from bothering with your silly books.

      You have discredited yourself over and over. Carolyn Yeager is mostly just calling attention to it.

    8. My comment has appeared. Thanks. By the way: How can VKC find any acceptable motives for the Poles to murder the Germans and others? What is wrong with the motives that the revisionists have provided in their analyzes? The only fair estimation is that they were criminals and tools of the freemasons (Jews) of the West.

      By the way I have read a book written by E. Kretschmer (Genius and the humanity or something like that) and in this book there was all the latest achievements of the german science. Of course in those days they were surveying the races. Soon at the beginning of the 30´s there were the 5 German races (or "Races in Germany) about which Kretschmer also writes when he talks about "genius and Race". I rad the book in the late 80's. My mom told me that she had also studied Kretschmer in the Uni. I think then there were only the typos by him.

      I think that the racial unity was not any problem for the Third Reich. The problem was that there were too much opposition to Hitler within the top-people.

    9. HS,

      You and others like you are not worth addressing anymore. You lie and contort everything to suit your dogmatic beliefs. Mr Berg agrees. We discussed this over the phone. He took a look at your site the other day and said there was nothing there worth looking at. You're the "silly" one. All you do to try and discredit those with whom you disagree is engage in "smart-aleck talk." That is how Mr Berg put it. I suggested he write a piece about this problem within revisionism. If all else fails, disparage them and play "know-it-all", right?

    10. "Others like me"? WHO IS THAT? I don't know anybody like that.

      How can translations of original National-Socialist material not be "worth looking at"? That's the very first time I have seen an opinion like that stated about my National-Socialist Worldview blog. What I hear more often is that people spend hours there, and that it's all interesting.

      I think if Fritz Berg wanted to say anything about me or my work he would say it himself. After seeing how you misrepresent Hitler I have no faith in your veracity about what other people have said. Maybe you cajoled him to make a couple of comments vaguely resembling what you report.

      Old men have a tendency to give indulgence to young women, and you clearly have exploited that, and not just in Berg's case either.

    11. Mr. Berg, Mr. Berg, Mr. Berg ... obviously he's the only one you've got left in your corner. But what does he know about it? He has admitted, and it's posted on your own "Veronica[Kaulitz]ClarkHistorian" website (the one with the pictures of Bill Kaulitz everywhere, the transvestite "singer" -- http://veronicaclarkhistorian.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/veronica-k-clark-fave-bill-kaulitz/) that he doesn't understand what National-Socialism can be and thinks every country is national and socialist. N-S "doesn't do anything" for him.

      Fritz Berg is obviously living in his own small world and unwilling to listen to anyone else. I agree with V.Clark that Mr. Berg should write up his ideas about how Willis Carto destroyed the IHR and all the other people he wants to complain about, rather than insisting someone debate him on a radio show, but Mr. Berg likes to get behind a microphone and just talk. Writing an article is too much work.

      Finally, V.Clark, this latest video posted on your personal blog shows the kind of Germany you like and want to see -- one of total libertine-ism, which could not exist under Hitler's National-Socialism.

      Carolyn Yeager

    12. Carolyn on January 19th, 2011 12:36 pm

      "Hi Bob,

      Emma Goldman is a pseudonym for Veronica Clark, who is definitely not a Jew, nor are those associated with the website you’re speaking of, VSS, which I also can’t find now... I don’t agree with this, and have told her so, but we are still on friendly terms. I asked her to be a guest shortly after I began the program, but she wanted to lie low at the time. She seems to be under attack alot.

      In a sense, though, it is a kind of co-opting, but meant to improve Hitler’s image. You’re right though, that there are jewish groups that are trying to take it over. When Hitler’s image begins to improve, as say with Mike’s book, this attempt to take control will accelerate and become very devious..."

      URL: http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110117/the-heretics-hour-interview-with-michael-collins-piper

    13. To VClark, who is hung up on repeatedly posting a part of a comment I wrote in January 2011 (!! - 3 years 8 months ago) before I had become aware of her devious agenda, my idea of an "improved image of Hitler" was not even then anywhere near what hers is today.

      Talk about contorting and twisting people's words to suit one's purpose, VClark is the champ!

      Carolyn Yeager

  19. Let's keep the personalities out and stick with the facts, if we can.

    You said: "The historian's job is not to say one side was right and the other wrong. It is supposed to consist of presenting an objective view so that both sides' motives, etc. are fairly presented and understood.”

    Did you present an objective view of Hitler's motivations regarding Poland when you intimated his purposes regarding Poland were really contrary to his original stated objectives to honor national sovereignty?

    I think its fair to say you did not. Understand this is not an attack on you, your book(s), etc. This is not about being fair to Hitler, being pro-Hitler, or anything like that. I don't understand the difficulty in seeing that.

    The simple fact is you made a claim in the interview that I disagree with. Its that simple. And, there seems to be far more support for a different viewpoint than the one you presented. Its not any more complicated than that.

    When we put the facts before us:

    Is there more support for Hitler invading Poland because of the murder/persecution of ethnic Germans within Poland and the Polish Corridor?


    Is there more support for Hitler being so anti-Slav and so anti-Pole that, in his heart of hearts, he really wanted to, from the very beginning, contrary to his stated objectives, deprive Polish/Slavic people of sovereignty?

    With respect to looking into your books/work, let me ask you a question:

    Do you think people would be more willing to read your books if they discovered you were willing to engage the details of history with open and honest dialogue, pitting facts against facts?

    Its like Fritz Berg said in John’s interview with him, he said he was getting rid of his David Irving book collection because Irving’s objectivity was in question due to Irving’s inability/unwillingness to consider/engage other narratives regarding Kristallnacht/Goebbels. Perhaps Fritz has seen that to be a pattern with Irving and finally decided to no longer rely on Irving as a source.

    My point in that is that you undermine your own credibility when don’t engage the facts head on and, instead, resort to arguments from silence (i.e. fifth columns), special pleading (i.e. appealing to potential Polish motives while ignoring we’re talking about genocide of Germans), and trying to shift the focus off the facts by implying objections are motivated by other personalties’ disapproval of you.

    I wouldn’t disagree with you that some of the comments in the comments section are ad hominem attacks. But, with respect to this discussion, you’ve failed to engage the objection(s). You said some good things in the interview, particularly with respect to the drug dealer/user metaphor. We can’t blame all societal ills on the Jews, bankers, media, etc. At the end of the day, if there is a market for their nonsense, meaning, if people in government can be bought/manipulated because of a lack of integrity or if people sitting in front of the TV can be entertained by nonsense then they themselves are part of the problem. However, if you think people are going to buy/read your books when you demonstrate unwillingness/incapacity to engage objections, you’re mistaken.

    1. Do you have proof that the Poles were as aggressive as you suggest from the Polish archives, sources, etc.? Again, I suspect you are only looking at German and non-Polish sources.

      As for this: "Did you present an objective view of Hitler's motivations regarding Poland when you intimated his purposes regarding Poland were really contrary to his original stated objectives to honor national sovereignty?"

      Hitler did not respect the culture or heritage of the Slavic Sorb minority living in Germany. Neither did Himmler or most of the other NS officials involved. So this contradicted what he said in MK about this. And the Sorbs were more supportive of the NSDAP than the ethnic Germans in their region: they voted overwhelmingly NSDAP in the elections. And if Hitler only wished to stop the murder of Germans in Poland, then why did he annex any parts of Poland at all? Himmler's speech details this well: they wanted that land for German settlement.

      While Ostplan was a lie concocted for the IMT, there was an underlying desire to colonize the east that cannot be denied -- Drang nach Osten. You probably need to read about Ukraine under Erich Koch.

    2. Of course Russia, Poland and Ukraine would have become Vassal-States of Germany. What's wrong with that? hey would hav got enough souvereignity. And when the Poles forced Germany into the war and the war become the World War, then the annexions were made. What's wrong with these?

      Are You serious suggesting that we should rely on the achives of the lying Poles? A real historian should be able to find out,which source can be trusted and how much and so on. Ah, but You are just trolling. You have plenty of time for trolling and attacking the real truthers with the enemys' lies.

    3. Ruup,

      Did I say there was something "wrong" with it? No, I didn't. But when Hitler said one thing in MK and then later went against it, that is called hypocrisy and/or reality. All leaders do it. He did the same thing with Jews. While he spoke against any Jewish blood "tainting" the German blood pool, he permitted (and even declared personally) tens of thousands of exceptions behind the scenes. Again, I'm not saying this is wrong or right. I am simply saying that theory did not always match reality in the TR.

  20. V. Clark is now promoting jews as part of Germany's NS. She claims it was non-nordicist...seems like her aim is mostly to be a provocateur.

    And you, John, refuse to approve a comment about her affiliation with SPLC. Do you really think that's fair?

    I don't, and I'm seriously disappointed.

    Also, V. Clark has said that there is only perception, not objective fact or something to that effect. This is not the mind set of an actual historian; it sounds much more like an artist or fiction writer.

    If you can't approve this civilly-stated post, John, I'll wonder what's going on with you. V. Clark's comments relate directly to the subject of her appearance on your show. To censor open discussion that's so related is heavy-handed.

  21. So telling the truth about Hitler's exemption of tens of thousands of Jewish-blooded persons is "provocateur", anonymous/nameless? Are you saying that Bryan Rigg's book is fiction? Have you read it? Be honest...yes or no?

    It appears an increasing number of revisionists and 'truthers' are as dogmatic in their views as the Zionists and leftists they claim to disdain.

    There are of course facts, (e.g. Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany, etc.), but our interpretation of said facts is a matter of perception and not truth. There is no "truth".

    As for the SPLC, we've gone over that nonsense dozens of times now. You apparently don't listen.

  22. So 1% or so of foreign blood is now an excuse to totally mix the European gene pool? That's as if you could gobble a gallon of chlorine without consequences, just because you put a drop into drinking water.

    The same with Islam. Just because Muslims oppose homosexuality, it is no reason for Europeans to allow Islam to take over Western Civilization.

    1. Who said anything about "totally" mixing "the European gene pool"? You are reading WAY too much into this, kid.

      Take a breather:


    2. I might as well just throw this out there (someone has to do it):

      What makes you think you can achieve what not even Hitler could achieve? If Hitler reneged on rigid enforcement of his own racial policies/views, then what makes you think you can succeed in a much more racially liberal world today?

      I'm not trying to be rude or cause friction. I really would like to know how you intend to do this. Is commenting in chatrooms and on blogs going to achieve what Hitler could not in the race purity/enforcement realm?

    3. The Jews have succeeded. They are just a cultural and perhaps ethnic unity. They are jealous because the Germans are so homogenous and racial community. And the Jews are very ugly compared with the Germans. Why do You spread Your theories about the Germans when they are fitting much better on the Jews?

      The Jews have succeeded to achieve their Israel. The only block for others are the Jews because they don't like that others could achieve such a state. We can achieve everything after we have crushed the Jewish Power.

    4. You did not answer the question. If Hitler couldn't even "crush Jewish power", then what makes you think that Internet armchair generals can (and will)? IMO this is delusional. Hitler was defeated, Ruup. The "Jewish" nations (Britain, America, USSR) won. I'm interested in discovering why this was the case.

      I recently got a book about why Hitler lost written by a Brit. I'll see if there's anything substantial in it.

    5. H lost because of he did not kill the traitors in his own army. He should have destroyed the Wehrmacht and created a new army.

      We must not surrender to the Jews. Why are You suggesting that?

    6. So now I'm suggesting that you "surrender to the Jews"? That's almost as rich as you and your fellow Finns calling me "transsexual", "a man", "a dude" and claiming that I "have an Adam's apple." Care to explain your nasty lies and other assorted nonsense:

    7. Tele, have you ever come across this?

      Arthur de Gobineau, in The Inequality of the Human Races (New York, NY:
      Howard Fertig, 1999), 182-183, wrote:

      “Artistic genius...arose only after the intermarriage of white and black...from the union of white and yellow, certain intermediary peoples have sprung, who are superior to the purely Finnish tribes as well as to the negroes. I do not deny that these [hybrids] are good results” (208-209). Gobineau’s work influenced Hitler’s thoughts on race, which Hitler himself declared. While both men expressed reluctance to accept “hybrids,” both of them acknowledged some degree of “hybridization” as acceptable (if not desirable) nevertheless.

      Here, Gobineau is dissing on "pure Finns."

      Here is what the Nazis thought about the Dutch settlers in the East:

      "One of the Dutch visitors, H.C. Van Maasdijk, wrote at the time that Kube delivered a friendly welcome speech, in which he mentioned the “unique civilizing task” in the east that rested upon the shoulders of all Germanic people.

      But the rhetoric proved to be only that. The Dutch farmers found their German counterparts unwelcoming and suspicious. The German authorities, for their part, complained the Dutch were too busy fraternizing with the Slavs,...Particularly disturbing were reports of Dutch farmers enjoying the company of the women of Vilnius. Some of these men even married local women, in direct violation of their instructions, and brought their new wives back with them to Holland when it became clear the Nazi empire would be overrun.

      In Ukraine, German anger was in particular aroused by Dutch activities on the black market. Some farmers sold everything they had, including uniforms of the NSB and shoes. “Theft, swindle and exorbitant prices” were among the words applied to Dutch craftsmen in Rowno. Notorious for their trading skills, the Dutch became “white Jews” to the Germans."

      So much for Nordic-Germanic solidarity in WW2!

  23. Then what is this discussion all about, girl?

  24. I am trying to reach people who think like this:

    There are a LOT more of them than us.

  25. Veronica,

    The state of war continues. There is no peace treaty. Only the Wehrmacht surrendered, Germany never. The German Reich still exists and is occupied by the 4 main Allies.

  26. Veronica,

    I don't know about that but it doesn't surprise me. If you inject one Chinaman into the German gene pool of 100 million people, the hybrid child will dilude into the main gene pool and cause only a small change. This can even help preventing folkish incest and the gene pool is able to decode all the information the Chinaman carries to apply it in its own structure. It does not destroy the gene pool but strengthens it. You do this every ten generations on a very tiny level, you do not interbreed en masse. It's like a vaccine.

    Regarding those Dutch. It's like the British and Americans. The Inner Jew took over. It is easier for all peoples in the world to cheat and steal and loot to get ahead, but only few peoples can also do otherwise and create, activating the Inner Aryan that he visibly is from the outside.

    All the shortcomings of our peoples can be improved, once the constant interference of our Aryan soul by the Jew is put ad acta.

    Idk what your point is, unless Hitler ordered mass mescegination to breed out his Volk, I really don't understand what the whole circus is all about. Where is the shocking revelation or what are you trying to achieve?

    1. I'm just a historian who writes about Hitler and the TR and who also, unfortunately, became a target of CY and disgruntled white nationalist boys who hate women and their lot in life.

  27. V. Clark says...

    @ Tele Funken

    You are so hung up on the term Aryan it's become silly. So Hitler used Aryan a few times in a few speeches...and? He didn't use that term at Platterhof: GEHEIME REICHSSACHE (behind closed doors where it really matters)! Go bark up CY's tree, Tele Funken, because she's the one who tells you exactly what you WANT to hear. She placates your ego.

    You are welcome to "save the Aryan race" all you wish. My question is why aren't you raising a white family instead of BSing on the Internet all day? Quit wasting time and get to it if that is what you want. I am not stopping you.

  28. First you call me kid, now more personal attacks? All that to divert from the topic that Germany and Hitler didn't use Aryan anymore from 1935 as you said, when that claim is not true?


      "Nordicism survived as one available rhetorical answer to the problem of the unity of the Volk, and to the meaning of 'racial elite' as applied to other European nations..."

      "Nordicism was effectively marginalized by 1936..."

      "Guenther realized that his project had failed in the face of the modernity of Nazism."

      "Nordic ideologues were clearly told to dampen down their 'exaggerated' rhetoric about the unique virtues of the Nordic race. Extreme Nordic chauvinism was discredited. The Nordic element was by consensus agreed to be the unifying bond of the German people...One could have brown hair, a round skull, and still claim to be of Nordic character or mentality."

      Viernstein, "By the same principle, 'an Alpine racial type can have the psychological qualities of the Nordic individual'." (1935)

      "Schmidt-Rohr argued that so-called 'Aryan peoples' had a great deal of non-European blood; on average, more then the Jews themselves, who now belonged linguistically to the Aryans." (1933)

      "While Nordicist racial anthropologists sought to exclude hybridity, the agreed 'facts' of German racial history forced them to come to terms with racial mixing. Even the Nordic race was frequently understood as related to, or hybridized with, the Phalian race."

      "...the scholars themselves, for all their bluster, did not have coherent or convincing answers to offer. The regime increasingly sought to keep academic and scholarly discussion of race separate from race propaganda in the public sphere."

      TeleFunk, the above quote is the reason why the term Aryan was periodically used in speeches for PUBLIC consumption. You nitpicking is strawman and you know it.

      "The question to be asked of each person was how compatible their achievements and inner outlook were with the Nordic-German way of being." (1935)

      Martin Otto Johannes argued that the most important factor was "'Nordic spirit, Nordic soul and Nordic mindset'" (1934).

      Helmuth Schreiner (1934) concluded "that there was no future for a German Volk based on a policy of Nordification."

      Fritz Lenz "had stressed that Alpine and the Dinaric racial elements Germany, i.e. the Mongoloid element, were a mixed formation on a Nordic foundation" (Lenz, 1927 quoted by Schreiner in 1934).

      "Race was understood as the dynamic interaction of environment and inheritance" (Merkenschlager, 1933), "rather than as a fixed inventory of racial features."

      "There were no pure races, and Germany's strength lay in its position at the crossroads of the Germanic, the Celtic and the Slavic worlds" (Merkenschlager, 1933).

      "In fact, this mongrel mixture or 'Bastardgemenge' was a stage on the way to a new, higher German race." (Saller, 1934)

      "Each race had its own possibilities and could attain its fulfillment in the service of the Volk -- there thus remained a zone of freedom of action and potential within the unchangeable framework established by hereditary nature."

      "While Germans were indeed largely Mischlinge [mixed-race] with Dinaric and Alpine blood, the Nordic race was what united all Germans (von Hoff, 1934).

    2. "In some accounts, this unifying factor was the 'Nordic-Phalian' race (Ruttke, 1937)," and the "virtues of the Nordic-Phalian hybrid were argued in Rauschenberger (1938)."

      "In late 1935, a terminological shift took place in the language of the law, and the term 'Aryan' CEASED TO BE USED...The phrase 'of German or cognate blood' was used in the later Civil Service Law." (26 Jan. 1937)

      "The official solution was to replace the problematic term 'Aryan' with the notion of 'German blood ties'. Setting out the argument for a Sippenamt (Genealogical Office), Achim Gercke (1934) argued that such an office would 'watch over the purity of the blood' (Blutsreinheit) of the Volk. Its task would be to awaken the 'racial will of the people', and those who worked in the office should represent the best 'German blood' (deutsches Blut).

      "At the 1936 conference of the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations...[t]here is NO MENTION OF AN 'ARYAN' RACE, and this notion of the racially hybrid German Volk followed academic orthodoxy..."

      The term Aryan was problematic well before the Nazis came on the scene: "...'Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to race'." (1912)

      There are many more examples in Hutton's book. And now I am done with you Telefunk. Please go "save Aryan race" now.

  29. You mentioned all that more or less before, and of course there was and still is discourse over these terms.

    Nevertheless, your claim that Aryan wasn't used anymore by 1935 is simply not true because the Ariernachweis was still issued as official document. Hitler evidently used Aryan in speeches during the war, as well, for public consumption.

  30. Yes, Hitler "evidently" used the term a few times here and there. Wow. This "must" mean he "believed" that "Aryan" was "a racial term" unlike all the academicians he was funding to research this. In that case, we have overestimated Hitler's intellect in this regard. Aryan was a linguistic term as demonstrated above.

    HENRY WROTE ON MAMZER (and I quote):

    According to my copy of Max Domarus's Complete Speeches that passage reads thus:

    We are fully aware that this war can end either in the extermination of the ARYAN PEOPLE [me: NOT RACE] or in the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. I said as much before the German Reichstag on September 1, 1939.43 I wish to avoid making hasty prophesies, but this war will not end as the Jews imagine, namely, in the extermination of the EUROPEAN-ARYAN [me: NOT ARYAN ALONE] PEOPLE [me: NOT RACE]; instead, the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” will obtain...

    -Adolf Hitler, Jan 30, 1942

    Another example...

    Now that the worst cold is over, now that the snow is beginning to thaw in the Crimea and in southern Russia, I am unable to leave my post, as preparations for the final confrontation are being made, to settle accounts with this conspiracy in which the banking houses in the plutocratic world and the vaults of the Kremlin pursue the same goal: the extermination of the ARYAN PEOPLE AND RACES [me: NOT ARYAN RACE ALONE].

    -Adolf Hitler, Feb 24, 1942

    I can cite other examples but I think "Ms Clark" may be setting us up for a fall...If you get my drift...But I will say that throughout his career as a speaker, Hitler's use of the term "Aryan" was SPARSE to say the least.

    In fact the term "Aryan" appears suddenly like a rash in early 1942 then GOES AWAY again.


    The "Aryan" certificate was RE-designated "Deutschblütigkeitserklärun" in 1935: The German Blood Certificate was granted to those of mixed-race by Hitler, declaring them deutschblütig (of German blood). This practice commenced after the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were implemented, allowing exemption from most of Germany's racial laws.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Blood_Certificate

    This is also in Hitler's Jewish Soldiers by Rigg and Hutton's book. This is what I was referring to, Telefuken. But I'll let you scream VICTORY!!!! since it means so much to you. But be on your guard, TF, I might be "setting you up for a fall if you catch my drift." LOL

  31. I thought you were done with me?

    Hitler said in German "europäischen, arischen Völkern" not europäisch-arischen Völkern. The en- of europäisch has to be dropped to combine terms. Otherwise it two adjectives.

    Deutschblûtigkeit was an addition to Ariernachweis. It was not a replacement.

  32. If VKC has never heard of Darwinstein being part of the J conspiracy then she's never read the protocols of Z. It clearly states some such point of, ".....if you doubt our power of the mind through our media...look at what we did for Darwin and Marx, inserting them into their minds against their own benefit." I'm massively paraphrasing but you should go read it yourself. That's what it's saying. Darwin didn't invent or found any belief at all. The Jews are notorious for scheming a plan then assigning a young "genius" to put out front accrediting the useful idiot for "conceiving" the "genius" plan all on their own and based on "scientific" research. ahaha Sounds like your probably think Einstein was more than an ad hoc theory sent to overcome MM and Airy's experiments when Lorentz's contraction was proved WRONG by Thornedyke and Kennedy. Lornetz said the reason the experiments showed the earth was at rest was because the the arm on the tool facing the aether.....shrunk!...ahhahahah.....not the one perpendicular but only the one facing...hahhahahhah.....and he said the aether slowed the clock....then T-K proved that to be absolute nonsense, and so enter Einsteinbergsteinbergsteinberg.... "NO!" said Slimestein", "It wasn't the arm that shrunk....IT WAS SPACE THAT SHRUNK!!!...AND IT WASN'T THAT CLOCKS SLOWED AGAINST THE AETHER....(GET THIS JEWISH BULLSHIT)...TIME ITSELF SLOWED DOWN!!!!!!" HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA IN RUSSIA YOU WENT TO INSANE ASYLUM IF YOU WENT AGAINST SLIMESTEINS THEORY, EVEN IF YOU WERE A UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, AND MANY DID. TESLA, WHO INVENTED EVERYTHING, SAID OF LIE-NSTEIN AND HIS AD HOC JEW THEORY, "....BUT A BEGGAR DRESSED IN PURPLE WHOM COMMON FOLK TAKE FOR A KING!" AHHAHAHA HE CALLED MARCONNI WHO STOLE HIS RADIO PATENTS, "HE'S A.....HE'S A DONKEY!" HHAHAHAHAH WHEN TESLA CALLS YOU A DONKEY....THEN YOU'RE A GOD DAMNED DONKEY. HAHHAHAHHAHA


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.