Above: Rodney Martin in 2008 (?) and Elie Wiesel – two con men.

By Carolyn Yeager

Just like Elie Wiesel, of whom we ask, “Where’s the Tattoo?,” and whose tales of sadistic treatment at the hands of the “Nazis” have been totally discredited by me and many others, Rodney Martin supplies no evidence for the numerous, fanciful claims that continue to pour out of his mouth and pen in an effort to revenge himself on this writer for telling the truth, and on everything, everyone I am, and have ever been, associated with.

Just yesterday, on February 5th, Rodney posted the following on the Facebook page of David Rottweiller Jones, a British White activist. It led me to not only respond with the below, but to do a more thorough search through the archives on Rodney Martin at the Porterville Recorder (Calif) newspaper [Rodney’s home town]. It’s amazing what has been sitting in there all this time. But I will begin in an orderly fashion with some very basic responses to what Rodney wrote on David Jones’ Facebook page. Rodney’s words are in black text, my comments are in blue.

* * *

RM: Sorry David, but I have to reply to this idiot Paul. These are all FACTS.

1. Paul Hickman broadcasts on a Network with a person who is engaged in Jew race-mixing,

Attach a name to “a person.” (One of Martin’s hallmarks is not to name people he talks about.)

2. Another Co-Host of Paul’s on his Network uses a fake name, and is on record as saying “Jews are NOT a Race”, “Jews did not create Communism” and is on record standing up for a convicted pedophile (Jews are notorious in defending Pedophilia)

Name this “other Co-Host”. Why leave people guessing? And quote his statements in context; otherwise you are not credible.

3. Has the Grand Ole Queen of Paul’s Network posted a photo of her Ex Husband, Theodore Kahant, a Jew, who was born in a Jewish suburb of NY City and whom she married in Palm Beach, Fl, a notorious Jew City, where he resided and died? By the way, Mr. Kahant’s family appears in Jewish Gen.

Name the “suburb of NY City” where so-called Theodore Kahant was born.

Give a single address in Palm Beach, FL where “Mr. Kahant” resided and died.

Post the information (with working link) that you refer to from Jewish Gen on “Mr. Kahant’s family.”

Without any of these specifics, you have nothing except your own gossip-mongering.

4. The “Cherokee matter”, i.e. the newspaper article which it was based was discredited and was shown to be discredited by many WN in the USA, who has seen me and my wife attacked in that same Newspaper for being “Nazis”, and for being “opposed to race-mixing” Interesting that my wife and I would be attacked in that newspaper for being opposed to race-mixing isn’t it? I might remind you that Hitler said those who rely on newspapers are simpletons, what does this say about Paul and his Network Drama Queen?

The newspaper article is here. Nowhere does it say it was ever discredited. No one, including Rodney Martin, has ever shown that it was discredited. It still reads: “He has been married to his wife Peggy, an Eastern Cherokee, for 12 years.”

Name the “WN’s in the USA” who have “shown [it] to be discredited” as you put it. State what they said or did to discredit it. Without any of this, you have no credibility.

5. Many WN and Revisionists have met my wife and I before she became ill, including David Irving for one, and know she is a White, Redhead, German/Irish woman with very strong racial views.

Name some of these “many WN and Revisionists.” Why mention David Irving unless you can get him to speak on your behalf? Without naming the people and providing their statements with their endorsements, you have nothing.

6. The Alexia ratings Paul cites is NOT for my Radio Network, but rather for my Research Website which is designed only for a limited audience, i.e for those who follow my research work. By the way, Alexia ratings can be artificially inflated.

Which of these two is your “Research Website?” This one: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ana-ann.com at 8.5 million rank or this one: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wvfoundations.org at 3 million rank?

To be believable, you must explain how all those people’s sites that are light-years ahead of yours are “artificially inflating” their numbers. Without further explanation backed with evidence, your mere words mean nothing.

7. I posted an announcement that I would be speaking at this years FreedomPalooza to support Paul Topete who has been attacked for denying the Holocaust Fraud. I noted that my wife and family would be in attendance and I invited everyone to attend and meet me and my family (IN-PERSON).

“FreedomPalooza” is a music festival in Pennsylvania advertised for this summer. To expect people to wait several more months, then travel a long distance at substantial expense to attend something they don’t want to attend otherwise, and at the risk your wife might not be in attendance after all – as she might get ‘sick’ and have to miss it* – is the height of lunacy, and an insult to the people to whom you owe evidence to prove what you say. By not performing the simple act of posting a wedding picture of you and your wife on your ‘Research Website’, you have no credibility.

*Is it not reckless to continually repeat that you are caring for your very sick wife at home and at the same time promise she will be well enough to travel to Pennsylvannia in June-July and hang out for a few days among crowds of people, ready to greet them?

By the way, the “attack” on Paul Topete, was written in 2010 – four year ago! – so he should not still need “support” because of it. I have also been “attacked,” (as you call it) in print, as a holocaust-denier by the ADL, and the SPLC. You have not. Wonder why they passed you by? In any case, it is no big deal.

Furthermore

RM: Also of note, Paul’s Network is quick to attack WN Activists based on discredited newspaper articles* because “she does not like my style, but the real reason is because I refused to allow [Ms. Yeager] to appear on my Network a week prior to her attack, you see, she herself was wanting to appear on David Baillie’s Show** on our Network and I said no because she wanted to use our Network as a platform to attack other Whites, so I guess my Network was good enough for [Ms. Yeager] to appear on.

* You have yet to show them to be discredited, remember?

** To prove such a self-serving interpretation, you need to present a statement from David Baillie, along with Andrew Anglin, Scott Roberts and Mike Delaney, who were all a part of this ridiculous episode , and publish them to prove “Ms. Yeager wanted to attack other Whites.” I have every one of the emails involved, and I can publish them if necessary. Would you like me to do that? Without corroborating evidence for your interpretation, you have nothing.

RM: Finally, I might add, I was told that the Queen of Paul’s Kosher Network announced the Listenership on a recent broadcast, if that number announced is correct, our Listenership exceeds Paul’s Network by far and we have only been on the air less than 12 months and our web site has only been up 60 days and is NOT the web site Paul referenced.

In spite of “what you were told,” on this broadcast I did not say anything about listenership, but only about website visits and pages viewed. Therefore, you cannot even know from what I said that “our listenership exceeds Paul’s Network by far,” can you? You fail in Logic 101.

Again, you must publish proof of your listenership and be specific about where it is coming from and exactly what you are referring to … if you are making claims about it. Without doing that, your mere words are empty air and only demonstrate that you are a con-man.

This is Part 1. To be continued … the best is yet to come.

Ron Doggett and Glenn Miller talk with Carolyn about the announced sale of the bulk of the National Alliance property in West Virginia. The National Alliance was founded by Dr. William Pierce in 1974; he died rather suddenly in 2002 and Erich Gliebe took over as Chairman. Gliebe now controls a Board that consists of only two other directors who do his bidding. Is it important is it to try to salvage the remnants of the NA or better to move on and build something more useful for today?

Will Williams, a long-time associate of Dr. Pierce, called in during the 2nd hour and added his insight to the mix.

The discussion also covered the problems White organizations seem to have, and have had in the past, and what is the best way for us to talk to White Americans about the shrinking future prospects they face.

Prominent Seattle artist Charles Krafft, whose comment on this very program last July that he believed the holocaust was “a myth”  caused shock in the politically far-Left and Jewish-dominated art world, tells what it’s been like on his end since The Stranger article appeared on February 13th.  Discussion includes:

• Charles’ interview requests include Public Radio International (PRI);
• What his old friends are saying and writing to him now;
• His history as a ceramics artist with his “Disasterware” debuting in 1991 and “Spone China” in 1999;
• His connections to Slovenia and Romania, and the influence they had;
• Difference between holocaust denial, skepticism and revisionism;
• The importance, or not, of the artist’s intention and reasons for creating the work of art;
• Is it the art or the artist that the art public should consider;
• Art like Krafft’s can give a little distance from the “relentless mythologization of figures like Hitler (seen at right in the form of a teapot) into symbolic demons.”

The Golden Dawn party in Greece is presently the primary interest for Alex Linder of VNN Forum. Our conversation started and ended with it, but in between he also talked about Anders Breivik, the gun control legislation Obama is trying to pass, and infighting in the “movement” – how it should and shouldn’t be done. Some of the points made:

• Why a nationalist party could gain success in Greece, but not elsewhere in Europe or the U.S.;
• Only young men will carry out a revolutionary movement;
• Must say clearly that “we are White and want what is good for Whites;
• Begin organizing from national conditions or on a state or regional basis?;
• How much individualism can be tolerated in a political party manifesto;
• Sandy Hook and Gun Control – planned or accidental;
• Alex’s thread on Strategy.

An email from Paul and a phone call from Stuart added to the show. Missed an email from Stuart telling me the militias are alive and well, see here. Sorry about the abrupt closing – my fault.

Where are we going? … is the overall theme discussed by Tanstaafl and Carolyn — not only in relation to The White Network, but to the entire White Advocacy or White Nationalist movement. The two see themselves as unique in Internet radio in the sense of being totally intolerant of any Jewish or other non-white presence, and see no need to change that.  After a slightly delayed beginning of one full minute (sorry about that),  some areas of discussion were:

• “Race Matters” is the subject of Tan’s  shows on tWn and also the lesson taken from the recent Presidential elections;
• Carolyn wants to explore ways to go on the offensive using Jewish tactics to expose Jewish tactics;
• How serious are the divisions that exist between pro-white peoples — are we exacerbating them unnecessarily;
• The pros and cons of selling advertising and seeking for larger audiences;
• The White Network experience with hosting other programs and why it is difficult;
• What is effective vs what is entertaining and just fills people’s listening needs;
• Call from Don about the decline in TV watching.

In the end we conclude we want to satisfy ourselves, making that our standard. We hope by satisfying ourselves we can satisfy our listeners too.

This week is about one of the biggest cultural ‘movers and shakers’ of our time. John Lennon, unofficial leader of the biggest musical act in all of history, that being The Beatles, will be discussed and viewed under the magnifying glasses of our host, Robert Lloyd. Lennon is uncovered in a negative light at times, but also we hear some of the greatest musical compositions that he wrote and created. At the end of the hour we will hear Robert’s production of Lennon from about 10 years ago with a collage of Lennon’s songs culminating with his untimely and tragic death in 1980. The show covers:

*Young John, as he was taken from his mother and was raised by his Aunt Mimi;

*Though always inquisitive, he grew as a child into a rebellious teenager;

*He was a chauvinist as a husband to his first wife, but became a feminist later on with Yoko Ono;

*Was responsible for 25 number one songs on the American billboard;

*How could such a mean spirited man write such beautiful music?

Listen as John Lennon is exposed for both his good side and bad.

This show is about a ‘few’ of the songwriters in this world that are prolific or are called prolific and we will decide on that point today. Robert considers the songwriters as being the most important ingredient in the music industry. Without the song, nothing moves forward. The musicians have nothing to play and the singers have nothing to sing.

But songwriters are a strange group. We will be discussing:

*Current and past stars such as Hank Williams, Kris Kristofferson, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Barry Gibb (of the Bee Gees), Willie Nelson, and some controversy of placing Woody Guthrie in this group of talented people;

*Is Woody Guthrie one of the great songwriters, or is he promoted for being on the left;

*Which one of these writers was a Rhodes Scholar;

*Some started at the bottom in life but one was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a foot in the door.

Enjoy getting to know these artists and give us your thoughts after you listen to the show.

By Thomas Dalton

July 31, 2012

(This article was freely distributed by Michael Santomauro, publisher of  Debating the Holocaust, with permission of the author, after The Occidental Observer refused to publish it.  Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. writes for Inconvenient History Online Journal and is the author of Debating the Holocaust.)

“In the period of just six years, from 1933 to 1939, and amidst a global depression, Germany rose from a ruined, bankrupt nation to the strongest on Earth.  The Holocaust—the real event—is a nationalist success story. Rein in Jewish-controlled banks and capitalist enterprises, restore national integrity to the media, expel Jews from the seat of governmental power…and your nation will flourish.  What better lesson could revisionism provide?” … Thomas Dalton 

Greg Johnson’s concise and articulate essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust”, is to be commended for grappling intelligently with two very controversial topics: White Nationalism and the Holocaust.  But amidst his many insightful observations, I sense a kind of misunderstanding of the nature of Holocaust revisionism, and an undervaluation of the role that it can play.  What follows are a few thoughts to clarify and elaborate on the important issues he raises.

Johnson’s basic position is this:  Revisionism is useful in its own field of inquiry, namely history, but is of dubious value to any White Nationalist movement.  This is true because (a) there is no necessary connection between the two topics; (b) a fixation on history is unhealthy for any forward-looking nationalist movement; (c) any revisionist successes (lower death tolls, explaining away the gas chambers, etc) are irrelevant; (d) the standard Holocaust narrative is actually useful for nationalist causes; and (e) revisionism avoids the moral and psychological basis for Jewish oppression of whites, and thus overlooks the central issue at hand.  I will address each of these points.

As an advocate of the “New Right” form of White Nationalism, Johnson recognizes and accepts that he cannot ignore the Holocaust question.  His answer to this question is two-fold.  First, we must promote a “universal” form of nationalism, on the principle that all peoples should desire to govern themselves on an ethnonationalist basis.  The Jews certainly wish this for themselves, and they are right to do so.  But what’s good for the Jewish goose is good for the white gander.  (As well, presumably, for Latinos, blacks, Asians, and so on.)

This is not a radical position; in fact it was the status quo for most of human history.  Humans have always been “nationalists”, where a ‘nation’ is defined as a group of people that share a common culture or ethnicity.  Throughout history, culture and ethnicity have largely overlapped.  People lived in ethnically or racially homogeneous societies, relatively speaking.  The primary exceptions were those empires that grew sufficiently large to encompass other ethnic groups; their diversity then contributed to their downfall.  Only in recent times—by which I mean, the past century or so—have we abandoned ethnonationalism.  We are now seeing the consequences.  Ethnic diversity is not a human evolutionary condition, and we ought not expect it to be a viable form of social order.

The second part of the answer is rather simple:  “move on”, “step over it”.  I understand the need to not linger on historical tragedies, and I agree that a strong culture must be able to forget, but this part of the solution is inadequate.  For one thing, it comes perilously close to “ignoring” the Holocaust—something we were just recommended to avoid.  Furthermore, it conflicts with the later call to utilize the Holocaust tale to our (nationalist) advantage.  These recommendations are mutually incompatible.  But more importantly, the “move on” approach implicitly rejects the usefulness of revisionism—a mistake, as I will argue.

The virtue of universal nationalism is that it says to all people, “You have a right to govern yourselves, and to not be dominated by others, whether an external power or any minority group within your national boundaries.”  This is true self-determination, and it is a universal human right.  Whites are an identifiable ethnic group, and, like all others, they do hold the right to self-determination.  Jews appear white, but by their own estimation, and according to human genetics, they are a distinct ethnicity; in fact the same is true for many Middle Easterners.  A truly Euro-American white nationalism must be free to self-govern, away from dominating control by Jewish or other near-white ethnicities.

But more to the point, such nationalism is, in principle, independent of events like the Holocaust—precisely as Johnson says.  In theory, they are distinct issues.  The real question is the pragmatic one:  In practice, in the actual world of today, is revisionism important to ethnonationalism?  Johnson says no, calling it “rather clumsy” at best; I disagree.  Granted, it has its drawbacks.  But the relevant question is, Do its advantages outweigh its disadvantages?  And here, I think, the answer is yes.

To begin with, the revisionists have a very strong case.  As one who has studied revisionism for several years, and documented the competing arguments in my book Debating the Holocaust, I can attest that it poses multiple, serious challenges to the conventional view—challenges that have been either weakly responded to, or, more commonly, ignored.  The many absurdities and inconsistencies of the survivor claims is only one problematic area.  The dearth of human remains, the illogical gassing procedures, wartime air photos, and the lengthy propaganda history of “6 million” suffering Jews (dating back to the late 1800s), all conspire to seriously undermine orthodox claims.  If there were rational answers to these challenges, surely by now the experts would have responded.  Instead, they react with silence, even as they subtly back down from the hardline position.  Recent expert analyses, for example, hardly mention witness statements any more.  Some, such as Peter Longerich’s long-awaited study Holocaust (2010), go further, refusing even to cite the famous “6 million” figure at all.  Orthodoxy is gradually retrenching, but popular media is lagging behind—which is why, as Johnson complains, we see no larger effects so far.

The strength of the revisionist case is precisely why they have been banned, censored, and outlawed.  Johnson notes, but underestimates, the fear that the Jewish power structure has in this matter.  He is right to observe that the Holocaust is not a “source” of their power; Jews have had disproportionate power in western nations for centuries.  But neither is it merely an “expression” of Jewish power, as he (and Mark Weber) claim.  If this were so, and if it was found to be deficient, they would simply find other ways of expressing their power.  Rather, it is a means—their most important means for effecting control.  Jews fear revisionism because it threatens to destroy their strongest guilt-tool.  They have invested much in this story, and it would be very costly and time-consuming for them to develop another, equally-effective tool.

Because the power structure has no response to revisionism except censorship, the general public, and whites in particular, can be given a “proof,” of sorts, of Jewish duplicity.  The Holocaust is a canonical case of Jewish deception and manipulation, and revisionism lays bare that fact.  Many of the central revisionist arguments are clear and obvious; they require little in the way of specialized knowledge.  Any non-Jew with a shred of rationality can be shown that they have been largely (though not completely) duped; this should make any thinking person more than a little angry.

The fact that Jewish fatality numbers never will go to zero, as Johnson emphasizes, does not really matter.  The likely death toll is perhaps 10% of the claimed figures.  A 90% reduction in deaths is not just some minor fiddling around the edges; it is a wholesale collapse of “the most well-documented event in history.”  Those who have staked their careers and incomes on this event will be in for a rude awakening.

Of course, there will be some who will say “500,000 Jewish deaths is still a Holocaust.”  Others will say, “Even one death is a tragedy.”  And on a personal level, it is.  For the Jews, 500,000 deaths is a Holocaust.  For whites, or humanity at large, it is a mere blip—one percent of the roughly 50 million deaths in World War II.  If it comes to this, and this fact is made known, the leading guilt-tool is effectively destroyed.  Without guilt, the moral burden is relieved.  And once the source of the false guilt is seen to lay in Jewish-inspired propaganda, white (and other) nationalisms will certainly benefit.

But for nationalist movements to realize maximum gain, the whole manipulation process must be spelled out.  Jews are less than two percent of the US population; in both Europe and Russia, the figure is roughly 0.2 percent.  These numbers are too small for direct personal control of finance, media, and government, so they rely heavily on two groups of servants:  their well-paid (and usually white!) corporate and governmental lackeys, and their ideological lackeys—primarily (white!) Christian Zionists and liberal leftists.  The lackeys have done, and continue to do, much of the legwork in protecting the orthodox Holocaust story, and in defending Jews generally.  And because they are predominantly white, they pose a special challenge to White Nationalism.  Downplaying revisionism lets these folks off the hook.

Finally, a few additional thoughts to bear in mind:

•         It is frankly a bit ridiculous to attempt to use the conventional Holocaust story as a lesson in the evils of genocide, on behalf of whites.  This story is destined either to collapse or to undergo drastic curtailment; the last thing white nationalists need is to hitch their wagon to a dying horse.

•         The claim that revisionist success would be a “political windfall” for Jews is likewise groundless.  Even if the Allies played a role in the scam—which they probably did, to cover for their own war crimes—few today will hold that against present-day whites.  It will rewrite Allied history, as it should, but even the Jews would be unable to turn this fact to their advantage.  They themselves are far more implicated than any war-era allies.

•         It seems like a losing strategy to cry “white genocide.”  The white American population will continue to grow, slowly, for at least the next century, and likely well beyond.  European white populations are likewise plateauing, but won’t be dropping significantly, let alone vanishing, any time in the coming centuries.  True, whites will be outpaced by minority groups, and they will gradually lose hegemonic power.  This is regrettable.  But it is far short of genocide.  And lacking a valid genocide claim, the conventional Holocaust story loses all relevancy. 
•         An obsession with a “long memory” is assuredly not good, but it is not as pernicious as Johnson suggests.  For one thing, all strong nationalist movements and cultures have long memories; perhaps they all are sick, but this is unlikely.  Second, that paragon of ethnonationalist toughness and persistence, the Jews, have a longer memory than anyone—so it can’t be that fatal.  Third, simple justice demands a long memory, certainly at least as far back as WW2.  Yes, the Holocaust story should ultimately be forgotten—after justice prevails.

•       Johnson is surely correct to say that there are deeper moral and psychological issues at play, to explain why so many whites succumb to Jewish guilt-ploys.  A Jewish-inspired Christianity is certainly a large part of the explanation.  Undoubtedly, we need a Nietzschean transvaluation of all values.  No one is suggesting that we all drop everything and become full-time revisionists.  But there is clearly an important role for such work in any contemporary nationalist movement.  We can trim the branches even as we hack away at the roots.

Lastly, we should not forget that the “Holocaust question” is only one, albeit important, aspect of a much larger and longer-standing “Jewish Question.”  Jews don’t just work against whites; they work against everyone.  One of the earliest recorded western commentaries on the Jews—that of Hecateus, circa 300 BC—noted that “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic and hostile to foreigners.”  This is documented in the Old Testament, and in the (self-)view of the Jews as God’s chosen.  Several early commentators, most notably the great Roman historian Tacitus, wrote about the Jews’ “hatred of the human race.”  When a detested ethnicity gains power, popular outrage naturally grows.  Thus the Jews came to be harassed, beaten, humiliated, and ultimately expelled from many nations of Europe. Nazi Germany was only the latest in a long chain of such expulsions.

This is a central aspect of revisionism, and one that is insufficiently appreciated.  As the revisionists argue, there is little evidence that the Nazis wanted to deliberately kill all, or even most, of their Jews; they simply wanted them out.  All those concentration camps and cattle-car journeys were, for the most part, aspects of an enforced evacuation program.  Only late in the war did they become a means of forced labor.  Hence the event known as “the Holocaust” is best read as a nationalist effort to, once again, drive out the Jews—all the while knowing that many would die in the wartime conditions.

But the vital point is, it worked.  In the period of just six years, from 1933 to 1939, and amidst a global depression, Germany rose from a ruined, bankrupt nation to the strongest on Earth.  The Holocaust—the real event—is a nationalist success story.  Rein in Jewish-controlled banks and capitalist enterprises, restore national integrity to the media, expel Jews from the seat of governmental power…and your nation will flourish.  What better lesson could revisionism provide?

In 1771, Voltaire wrote of the Jews, “they are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts…  I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.”  We should take Voltaire’s warning to heart.  White Nationalism has an important role to play, and to be effective it must defend historical accuracy, and use this to demolish the leading Jewish guilt-tool, the Holocaust.

Severus Niflson joins Carolyn to discuss his latest blog post “The Prefab Republic,” in which he argues that the shape of a North American White Republic cannot be designed ahead of time, but will depend on skirmishes and battles yet to take place. Severus describes the need to have capable people trained ahead of time who can function in all the different capacities every society requires, i.e. doctors, teachers, engineers, economists, farmers, builders, and generals … as well as political leaders. Young White Nationalists should be preparing now to function in these roles instead of ‘dropping out’ or becoming bloggers.

The clash between “personal liberty” and “collective responsibility” is discussed, with examples given. Also the nature of militarism as something that cannot be set aside, ever. Image at right: Map showing positions during the Gettysburg Campaign, Day 1.

Alex Linder, creator of Vanguard News Network and Forum talks about himself, his work, his beliefs, and how he thinks White Nationalism should proceed in order to move into a successful future. Linder points to Greece’s Golden Dawn party as a model (along with Hitler’s National Socialist party in Germany), noting that it utilizes a good relationship with some police and military personnel and/or veterans. Linder notes that just talking and writing is not enough.

There were several questions and comments from listeners presented to Linder in the 2nd hour, which he answered. All in all, an information-dense program.