Several weeks ago I watched a documentary by Holocaust survivor, Vera Shirav, on the parallels between the Third Reich and current events with the covid lockdowns and the mRNA genocide.
Here it is in full:
The main discussion was of the Third Reich prior to the mass extermination of the Jews in the death camps during world War 2 and concentrated on the euthanasia programs of the nazis.
When I posted this on the blog I got pushback from a keyboard nazi who told me that it was all nonsense and that the Holocaust was just an invention of the Zionists and the communists.
This is toxic nonsense that I will have nothing to do with. I have a sharp sense of history and what is true and what is not. I know the difference between the elimination of millions of innocent Jews and the nature of modern day Zionism.
In this context it is interesting that the Holocaust deniers have an ally in the most rabid living zionist of them all, Benjamin Netanyahu
I shall return to the question of Holocaust denial.
I was particularly interested in the question of the psychology of those who take part in genocidal programs, both now and in the Third Reich. What is the difference between doctors with a conscience who speak out at their own cost (albeit not comparable with those who spoke out under the nazis who paid, not with their livelihoods but often with their lives) and those like my own doctor who go along with all without any questioning and seemingly without it pricking their conscience.
INTO THAT DARKNESS
About this time I discovered a series of short video interviews with the late Gitta Sereny (13 March 1921 – 14 June 2012), who interviewed the last commandant of the Treblinka death camp, Fritz Stangl, and extracted a confession from him just 19 hours before he died in prison from a heart attack.
Sereny was not a Jew but a Hungarian, born and initially raised in Austria. She not a “trained”, academic historian and did not fall into the mainstream of Holocaust historians.
Her lifelong mission was to try and understand the perpetrators rather than just judge them.
In the late 60’s she had her chance when Stangl was arrested in Brazil and put on trial in Germany. She was told to come to Germany where she had the opportunity of interviewing Stangl in great depth.
This is written up in her book, Into that Darkness : An Examination of Conscience
What the book shows is a woman who denounced the actions of the nazi murderers but wanted to understand them and so went to considerable lengths to go beyond the usual narratives of “evil nazis” who never recanted and escaped justice until caught up with nazi hunters like Simon Wiesenthal.
This mainstream black vs white approach is illustrated here:
What she did was to check and double-check the stories she was told and in my mind came as close as anyone could to divining the truth of the matter.
THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM
Sereny starts by taking of the euthanasia program that Stangl was drawn into because of his police work and administrative skills. It seems to have been an open secret that the euthanasia of the mentally ill was going on. Children would be taken into care, killed and alter be told: “ the patient had died of a heart attack or something like that. And they received a little urn with the ashes.” The planners and administrators were bureaucrats operating at a distance.
“The planners and administrators of these “programmes” were, of course, mainly bureaucrats functioning in offices hundreds of miles away from where their ideas and orders were put into practice. During the first and decisive years, 1938 and 1939, they were physically, and therefore psychologically, far removed from the terrifying reality of their activities. They were thus enabled to convince themselves – as all those who lived to testify in trials were to claim – that they were simply administering the “public health” of the nation and were in no way directly concerned with violence or horror.”.
The doctors and nurses believed they were doing the “merciful” thing. Here is an excellent documentary on the roles of nurses in the euthanasia program.
The churches’ response was at the least ambiguous; they seem to have known about the euthanasia tacitly sanctioned it – by calculated silence, as in this quote:
“And the priest who stood next to her nodded fervently. ‘Just look at him,’ she went on. ‘No good to himself or anyone else. How could they refuse to deliver him from this miserable life?’”
However, in the end Hitler cancelled the euthanasia program.
One reason for this may be that unlike the Bolshevik revolution which completely swept away the established order Hitler had to subvert it because he realised he could not take on the Catholic church head on. The other was that at the time the nazis had already killed those they wanted to.
Hitler realised that his program would be easier to carry out in the midst of Total War when the Church would not be able to put up the expected resistance.
THE BANALITY OF EVIL
Gitta Sereny’s discussion of evil can be seen here.
Sereny says that she disliked any discussion of evil, however in some ways she came to a similar conclusion as Hannah Arendt in her depiction of Eichmann in her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem (this is where the expression “the banality of evil” comes from).
She says that, like Eichmann, Stangl was a limited man, a grey bureaucrat who saw his role as being able to administer the genocide in the most efficient manner – he was responsible for everything being done “correctly”
“It was part of my function,” said Stangl, “to see that the families of patients – afterwards – received their effects: clothes and all that, and identity papers, certificates, you know.”
The people who administered the euthanasia program as well as those who carried it out could persuade themselves that they were carrying out orders in the best and most efficient manner. There are direct parallels between then and now.
Everyone is a link in the chain and is also carrying out orders from above in the most efficient way whether it be in administering lockdown, administering the covid-19 “vaccines” or what are essentially a cocktail of euthanasia drugs to elderly patients with “covid-19”.
Stangl was not a brute or psychopath but like the administrators or doctors and nurse of today operating, as Gitta Sereny describes so well, on two levels of consciousness, and conscience.
They can be in normal circumstances outwardly nice people but unlike the tiny minority that find themselves unable participate in an evil agenda, who act out of their conscience and will make a stand regardless of the consequences – will rationalise their actions. They need to continue to support their families and so on.
Is the anger and aggression, as well as the total lack of sane regard for the truth to be explained that at some level we are pricking their underdeveloped conscience?
Perhaps, these are not inherently bad people but circumstances, combined with their underdeveloped sense of right and wrong, make them that way.
Speaking in Christian language they open themselves up to Satanic possession?
What does the mRNA “vaccine” and whatever is in it do to the human soul and conscience?
Right on the last scheduled meeting with Stangl Sereny got a confession from him that in her words “allowed him to become the person he could have been.
19 hours later, Fritz Stangl died of a heart attack.
She describes it here:
“‘My conscience is clear about what I did myself,’ he said, in the same stiffly spoken words he has used countless times at his trial, and in the past weeks, when we had always come back to this subject, over and over again. But this time I said nothing. He paused and waited, but the room remained silent. ‘I have never intentionally hurt anyone, myself,’ he said, with a different, less incisive emphasis, and waited again – for a long time. For the first time, in all these many days, I had given him no help. There was no more time. He gripped the table with both hands as if he were holding on to it. ‘But I was there,’ he said then, in a curiously dry and tired tone of resignation. These few sentences has taken almost half an hour to produce. ‘So yes,’ he said finally, very quietly, ‘in reality I share the guilt … Because my guilt … my guilt … only now in these talks … now that I have talked about it all for the first time …’ He stopped. He had pronounced the words ‘my guilt’: but more than the words, the finality of it was the sagging of his body, and on his face.”
(Gitta Sereny, Into That Darkness)
TESTIMONIES OF TREBLINKA
As I read on I became more interested in what the truth of the Holocaust and the death camps. How zionists worldwide have exploited the Holocaust and used it to smear people who ask questions about the nature of the modern state of Israel as “anti-semitic” has little or nothing to do with the reality that actually happened.
The usual sort of video the keyboard nazis point to is this:
It is hard for me to imagine such an elaborate hoax or the contention that “Hitler was a good man”
Personally, I find the testimony of those who were there and participated described in Sereny’s book quite compelling even if there is no one document that can prove it all – which is what the deniers rely on.
One example is the testimony of Franz Suchomel who participated in the euthanasia program as well as the elimination of Jews and others in the death camps.
Here is the interview with Suchomel by the French filmmaker, Lanzmann in the epic film, Shoah.
The entire film can be seen here
Holocaust denial and David Irving
I have now, to return to the question of Holocaust denial.
Much of the intellectual material of people who swallow the “there was no Holocaust” line comes from the revisionist historian, David Irving. who contends that Hitler knew nothing about the “Final Solution”, and therefore could not have ordered the “Final Solution”.
There was personal animosity between Sereny and Irving. Irving describes Sereny as “that shriveled Nazi hunter“. Sereny says that ‘we jostle at the same trough’. The difference is that he loves that trough, and I don’t.
Sereny was initially influenced by Irving’s contention that Hitler did not know about the Holocaust but changed her mind when asked to cross-check the source cited by Irving to support his assertion.
There is a sense that Sereny was a direct danger to Irving because she had access to the same documents and also because she knew “many of the same people as he does who were of Hitler’s circle…”.
Sereny says “that is scary for him.
I know how cherrypicking documents and quoting only part of the document that bolsters the argument can lead to the distortion of facts and having read her book can quite accept that Irving is a “brilliant propagandist” made “dangerous” by his “clever mixture of truth and untruth,”.
If you want to dive deeper you can find documents relating to this HERE.
An interesting article from the Guardian when they still did journalism can be read HERE
It is personally interesting to me that neither Gitta Sereny nor New Zealand writer, Ian Wishart who is also very good at dealing with documents to show distortions, are “trained historians” with academic affiliations
I do not believe that any voices should be silenced but only drowned out by well-researched history.
As I posted the Holocaust denial video above here is David Irving in his own voice so you can make up your own mind.
In the current situation, I believe it is important to look at past events and to see how that history rhymes with what is happening today. I believe that Vera Shirav’s documentary, Never Again is Now Global identifies the issues.
We also need to look at the psychology of those who are (for now) willing participants in today’s genocide and I believe that the works of writers and philosophers of the past, especially that of Gitta Sereny make a contribution towards that understanding.
Nothing I write here is a fixed position but my attempt to look for answers in a balanced way. I believe that, like with the Holocaust this will remain contentious for many years in the future,