Well, our young are catching on, and Revisionism is making inroads on college
campuses through individual activism.
At Washington U in the Northwest, there will be a David Irving bash, come Monday , because the kids have raised the extra money that they need to pay security - apparently a stumbling block put in their path administratively and possibly illegally.
At Cornell University, a level headed pre-med student and Student Assembly leader has been "found out" and "outed" by Jewish fellow students, and the end is yet nowhere in sight because she is drawing support from her friends.
And from Sweden comes this tender story from a young student named Dan whom I met the ZGram way, who did some translations for me, and who learned enough in the process to try his Revisionist wings.
Here's Dan:
I really just wanted to update you on some things that have happened here in Sweden, but I got carried away and the letter ran to the length of War And Peace...
I wrote to you in December after giving a speech at Umea University before an audience of about ten students. Please allow me to refresh your memory by quoting some of the letters I sent before:
(Dan then recalled some correspondence he and I had, the gist of which was that I told Dan that a speech on National Socialism in the positive mode, which is what Dan had planned, would surely be inconceivable here in America. He then went on to say:)
Actually, pretty much inconceivable here in Sweden, too - or so I thought until a friend of mine told me that somebody made us this offer. Maybe, just maybe the Swedish universities have, after all, not totally lost touch with what they were meant to be - oasis of knowledge, learning and freedom to think for oneself, in a society where most people just believe whatever the current power structure tells them to believe. As you've said yourself a number of times - remember Galilei! I (tried to reach) the students with that message, too. Was I being naive!
(He then referred to a female comrade named Karolina):
We're probably going to use a little trickery to avoid being cancelled. She's going to advertise the debate under the title "What Do the Nazis Want?" or something like that. That sounds a bit like the usual couch debates with a bunch of know-it-alls (and certainly no Nazis) raving about our ideology being based on hatred, and we're really just frightened little boys, and we have a need to attack people who are weaker than we, and we're obviously going to "gas" all the immigrants if we get any real power.
(Don't laugh, I've seen this idiocy advanced seriously on prime-time Swedish television - in a "gas wagon", believe it or not.) So, we figured such a title will reduce the risks of the debate being pulled.
We did pull it off without being cancelled, but attendance was really lousy: about fifteen people, which I feel is ridiculously low although it didn't seem to be unusual - the other seminars were attended by about the same number of people. Since we couldn't advertise the whole thing properly for obvious political reasons, I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Anyway, I'm still encouraged by this for a number of reasons, the most important being that we might be able to squeeze our way into other universities just *because* this passed so quietly.
The "about fifteen" people included three of my comrades and the female doctoral candidate, Karolina Matti, who arranged the whole thing. Only eight students were in attendance, ten including two who came in later.
A lot of things have happened since this little thing "passed so quietly" on December 5th. The things I wrote in the first letter seem really tragicomic in retrospect.
The first thing I got into during my introductory speech were the lies being told about us in the media. I cited specific examples - which are not exactly difficult to find, if you know what I mean.
Then I got into the Hoax of the Century: I delivered a revisionist argument for a good forty-five minutes.
When the students later got to ask questions and debate with me, only one (1) question about the Holocaust was asked. As circumstantial evidence against the supposed extermination program and against the stories of NS Germany being a nation of brutal butchers, I had cited the fact that SS officials were punished by the Germans themselves when caught mistreating Jews or other inmates in the concentration camps. In particular, I had cited the case of Erik Koch, the Commandant of Buchenwald, who was hung in front of the inmates and staff of the camp for abusing his position and mistreating inmates.
One of the students asked if this could not have been due to rivalry between the Wehrmacht and the SS, rather than any concern for the prisoners. I answered simply that he was sentenced by an SS court. Aside from that easily dismissed objection, the students didn't even mention the "Holocaust" during the debate.
Now comes the really tragicomic part: I did tell the students to remember Galilee. Twice, in fact.
Want to know what the students did after the debate was over? They went straight to their Jewish teacher, Stephen Fruitman, who called in the inquisition.
About three days later, it really hit the fan.
Articles on the "Nazi seminar" appeared in the national press, and it wasn't long before Karolina Matti was bombarded with phone calls from all sorts of people. Journalists wanted interviews, political dissidents ranging from National Socialists to Libertarians wanted to give her helpful advice or make contact, and all sorts of people just wanted to talk to her or express their sympathy.
Letters also started pouring in the day after. The reaction was overwhelmingly friendly: for every nasty letter or phone call, she got a hundred supportive ones - at least. A few people even came up to her in the street to talk to her, including one Arab; all were supportive.
All the time, she took the simple position of not revealing her political preferences. She didn't want a public debate on her political views, but on whether or not the so-called "Nazis" should be let into the public debate. Also, she felt that her political views really shouldn't matter. If it was the right thing to do to let a "Nazi" debate at a university, then it was right whether she herself was a "Nazi" or not, and vice versa.
The debate raged for a few days in the media. The Minister of Education, Carl Tham, really showed how much freedom that remains in the Politically Correct version of democracy, when he stated that "Nazis" couldn't be allowed at the universities "under any circumstances".
Karolina was invited to two television debates. In the first one, a Jewish "survivor" attacked her, claiming that we "vant to murrder", supposedly an inherent part of our ideology, and that "they have driven me (sic!), my family and six million others into death".
In the next one, three Jews and one colored woman were put to debate against Karolina and one elderly and reasonably well-respected Leftist champion of freedom of speech.
Karolina had a really hard time trying to stick to the issue: whether everybody should be allowed freedom of speech or not. The Jews focused heavily on the "they want to murder" part and the "Holocaust", claiming with their usual chutzpah that we can't be debated with; that we really don't want to debate at all but only want an opportunity to spread our vicious, hate-filled propaganda.
This position was supported by the media, who for quite some time claimed that the seminar had been a "two hours long Nazi propaganda speech" and that I hadn't answered any of the students' questions or debated with them but instead only exclaimed "I don't understand the question" or "that's your opinion, not mine".
This was a pile of lies, of course, and I and Karolina claimed the opposite all the time. At long last, we invited two journalists to look at a video of the debate for themselves. (My comrades had taped it, partly just because we wanted evidence as to what was said and what wasn't.)
That changed their fairy tales a bit; from not answering any questions and just "agitating" before the terrified students, to actually having a really tough time trying to answer their clever questions. (This, of course, was just as false a claim as the first one.)
And they kept on lying. The headline of the story they ran after watching the video was "We Represent A Conscious Hatred". I never said that; the closest I got was "We represent a seeing nationalism".
It's pretty telling when the headline itself contains a lie of the vilest sort, and there were also about eight other lies or gross misrepresentations in the article. The sound on the tape was somewhat muffled, so I don't know for sure whether they are lying consciously or if they're so brainwashed themselves that they heard what they wanted to hear.
One of the students at the seminar even had misinterpreted "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children" as "We must secure the supremacy of the Aryan race", even though I both said these words right in front of her and showed them on an overhead projector.
These misunderstandings are weird enough to produce a laugh or two, but it's also scary to see the extent to which some people have been conditioned into seeing and hearing whatever the powers-that-be want them to see and hear.
All in all, and predictably enough, the bad guys won this round. They know they can't win a debate, so they use legislation.
From now on, the universities will be forbidden under law to invite "adherents of violence-ideologies", as they so neatly put it, to speak or debate. "Adherents of violence-ideologies" means National Socialists and everyone even loosely affiliated with us, of course. Some people claim that it will also mean Communists and some other left-wing movements, but that is hardly likely to happen.
About two months after the seminar on December 5th, an "Anti-racist", an adopted Korean who's been convicted of several serious and violent crimes, spoke at a university in Gothenburg. Not a peep from the media, of course. Now, I wouldn't want to stop either him or Communists from speaking and debating at the universities, but that would have given some semblance of credibility to the obscure concept of "violence-ideologies".
Might I reasonably assume that this legislation will be used against anyone who becomes a little too uncomfortable?
Right now, the Attorney General (or whatever is the correct translation) is investigating to see if I can be fined or put in jail under the Swedish equivalent of "incitement of racial hatred", and Karolina is under investigation for "inciting incitement of racial hatred", believe it or not.
Was it that I claimed that Blacks have smaller brains than Whites, who in turn have smaller brains than Asians - a view shared by many well-respected scientists? Was it that I wanted Sweden to be a White country once again - that I am a racial separatist? Was that the real reason for all these big Jewish media people to come out and condemn the whole thing and trying to put a lid on it - and succeeding, too?
Hell no. It was the Holocaust.
It always is. I really scared them by questioning the big H. This week, a three-day seminar on the "Holocaust" is taking place at Umea University and, according to the newspapers, my little seminar almost four months ago cast a shadow over the whole thing.
The seminars taking place during these three days had been arranged so that thousands of people could attend! It all ended yesterday with a big "anti-racist" demonstration.
The seminar now taking place has different names for each of the three days. The first day is the Day of the Witnesses, the second is the Day of Understanding, and the third is the Day of Learning.
Nice names. Why no Day of Forgiveness?
Oh, well, this story has a happy ending no matter what happens: Karolina and I got to know each other. We fell in love - very much so - in mid-December, and we'll be moving in with each other this summer.
Since we have made no effort to hide our relationship (why would we!), the media learned of it and published a few articles about it a few weeks ago. (Since she's refused to reveal her political preferences, this probably convinced most people that she's a "Nazi" after all.) Sometimes I think this annoys our antagonists more than anything else. She's lost her job at the university; she's been attacked by quite a few influential people; I am being vilified and ridiculed by these same people, and so on. So what of it? I'm happier than ever, and I know she feels the same way.
There seems to be some justice in the world after all.
And one last thing, Ingrid: When I, without any power or influence whatever, gave the Holocaust Myth yet another small crack, and all these powerful and influential people including Sweden's Minister of Education started screaming and yelling - please take credit for it. It wouldn't have happened without you."
Now isn't that a story worthy of a Movie-of-the-Week?
I wish both friend and foe a very happy Easter!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law so much as for the right."
(Henry David Thoreau)