Nick Kollerstrom - Branded as a Heretic

To deny the danger posed by the Holocaust religion and its followers is to be complicit in a growing crime against humanity and against every possible human value. —Gilad Atzmon

It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislature bodies and courthouses. 

—Michael Santomauro, Ed., Theses & Dissertations Press 

Of course, no physical evidence whatsoever was shown to verify the alleged homicidal gas chambers, despite knowledge of their existence being denied by every single defendant. 

—Jason Myers, on the Nuremberg trials of 1946,  Smith’s Report, July 2009

If Nick Kollerstrom had been wrong, he would have been refuted – not fired. The mindless persecution of Kollerstrom, and his opponents’ inability to answer his arguments convincingly, suggests that the story of the Nazi gas chambers cannot withstand critical analysis. —Dr. Kevin Barrett

Branded as a Heretic 

After somewhat over a decade of quiet academic research, my life changed rather abruptly as I became ethically damned, thrown out of polite, decent groups, banned from forums and denounced in newspapers, with half my friends not speaking to me any more – while the other half still would, provided I kept off “that awful subject.” So as a philosopher I was granted an unusual and excellent opportunity to ponder the difference between what is real and what is illusory.

I should be grateful to my fellow-countrymen for absolutely refusing rational debate on this topic, for insisting on my silence over it, and for trans-forming discussion into insult. I know what I have been through. I have been well-cooked, and what you have now in front of you is the end-result. 

The damnation cast upon me was ostensibly political – people were suddenly averring that I was “far right,” and I had to try and figure out what that meant and why it was being applied to me – whereas no-one seemed interested in what I had actually done, namely synthesize a couple of chemical investigations concerning residual wall-cyanide taken from World War II labour camps. The damnation cast upon me did not require any opinion from me to confirm it – I was merely informed. And it wasn’t just our corrupt media, the BBC, Sunday newspapers, radio stations; oh no, it was blogs as well. 

Going into my local, or even my gym, I felt as if some Mark of Cain had been branded onto my forehead. I had done something so awful that we could not even discuss the matter. The Mediaeval crime of Heresy was back alive and well, even if I was not going to be tortured to recant. From The Observer to Private Eye, from the Metro to the Morning star, from the Jewish Chronicle to the Evening Standard, readers perused the shocking news about my awful heresy, with me being allowed little or no right of reply. 

I had long noticed how collective hate against the “Enemy” seemed to be the deepest emotion, collectively speaking, the British people got to experience, whereby for example during the Cold War one could be inten-sively damned if one did not sufficiently hate the Russians, Reds or Communists. NB, “holocaust” was then used in its proper sense, “the nuclear holocaust,” with no upper-case “H,” and meant a fiery process. 

Then in 2009 I wrote a book about the new “enemy” of Islamic terrorists, explaining how this had been fabricated by the Establishment to warrant more wars. This got me further ethically damned as an “apologist for terror.” The media could not say why I was investigating the London bombings – i.e. writing the definitive book on the subject2 – so I was averred to enjoy a “ghoulish” interest in the dead. 

The blessing which Jesus Christ promised to the peacemakers may finally come to them, but in the meantime they are likely to get damned in a war-maker civilization like our own, where hating and fearing the correct enemy is a primary requirement of being a good citizen. That demonizing process is essential, in order that a politician standing up on his hind legs can bray about the “enemy” and thereby call for more military expenditure, a new war, more trashing of our democratic liberties etc. – as Adam Curtis described in that BBC classic trilogy “The Power of Nightmares.”3 But this rhetoric does a lot more than start new wars: it closes down your frontal-lobe capacity for higher reflective thought and erases what possibility we might have had, collectively, to ponder what it means to be human. 

We here try to wonder, which Plato said was the beginning of philosophy, to open the gates of wonder. Please do not regard me as an expert, as you peruse these chapters. Maybe put some brown paper over the book’s cover, or just read it in Kindle. We here look at the primal myth that keeps this nightmare, death-in-life Eternal-War civilization going. Why does the word “Nazi” conjure up images of hate far worse than any modern enemy image, as if the War had just ended yesterday instead of seventy years ago? 

I, as your guide though this minefield, am a mere science historian, strug-gling to seek out primary-source data on this matter. 

**

The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps. This is considered to be absolutely forbidden. How strange is that? After being a member of my college for 15 years I was thrown out with one day’s warning, having been given no opportunity to defend myself, a fact announced on its website.4 What I had done was so terrible that it could not announce what my crime was: I felt like Faust caught making his pact with the devil. The British media had carte blanche for their character-assassination.5 Fortunately, a few friends could still bring themselves to talk to me. 

I majored in the History and Philosophy of Science precisely because I believed that we are a science-based civilization, and that therefore controversial aspects of historic science and technology should be critiqued and studied. But generally this seemed a crusty academic discipline about to disappear into oblivion under challenges from more exciting college courses. 

One day it dawned upon me that there was a chemical angle to “the Holocaust,” because a simple chemical reaction had taken place in walls where cyanide gas had been used in World War II. I understood that young men had gone out, illegally chipped away bits of old wall, then had their careers terminated by what they found out. I was intrigued by the permanence of the iron-cyanide bond, which promised a fairly simple approach to finding out what had happened, sixty years ago. Naively, I did not ap-prehend that what I reckoned or hoped to be a scientific question was ap-parently more like a deeply religious one. 

As a founder-member of the dynamic 9/11 “truth” movement in London, I liked the people there and their angle on world affairs. I don’t know much about politics: I don’t read the papers or watch television, and I try to forget the names of politicians. I would learn at that group about current events, and hear experts – for that is what they were – debating the apocalyptic and ever-mysterious 9/11 event. Then in 2010 the group broke up, and I found myself being blamed for this and banned from their web-forum. This damnation wasn’t because of anything I had said during the meetings, but because of something which they had discovered that I believed relating to events of seventy years ago in Eastern Europe. This turned out to be vastly more important than any mere discussion about 9/11, because it was totally fundamental. Well, if it was so important, could we not discuss the subject? No, it turned out that we couldn’t: the group did not wish to discuss so terrible a topic! 

After I was expelled, the group disintegrated, for there was nothing further it could do.6 The pressure of not being allowed to debate the subject, which was so awful that I had to be expelled, kind of made it impossible to meet any more. That’s why the two UK 9/11 truth websites both have disclaimers – in case you’re interested – asserting that no Holo-debate is permitted. Thousands of people, or more likely tens of thousands, are in jail right across Europe7 for the crime of trying to find the truth of what happened sixty years ago, and what calls itself a UK “Truth” movement cannot discuss the topic.

You’re reading a treatise about something in history which never existed, a process in history which never took place. The understanding of this will involve a Copernican revolution. I seem to be in the position of taking away from people their worst nightmare, which has been the very foundation of their Unbelief and denial of Divine Providence, and has given us the comic-book concept of Pure Evil which endlessly enables our civiliza-tion to hate the collective Other, the Other-who-is-to-be-bombed.

That concept of Pure Evil has ruined our post-war culture. While being hammered with the Three Synonyms “Nazi! Anti-Semite! Holocaust-Deni-er!” I had cause to reflect upon what Jesus meant with his words about the Beam and Mote: we are required to perceive the view of the Other, who is being demonized. Europe needs that honest debate, where people are allowed to express their views and conclusions about What Really Happened without continually having false motives attributed to them. Europe has no worthwhile future unless it is prepared to have that debate. In my opinion, Revisionists are now going to win any such debates, which is why they cannot be allowed to take place.

Prelude

In centers recognized from time immemorial as epicenters for free thought and free debate, that so many would take hardened and unfalsifiable stances on the Holocaust is a paradox of the highest nature. —Jason Myers1

I might as well write Britain’s only Revisionist textbook, on what has to be the most deeply forbidden topic in our modern world. Just say that word, “the Holocaust,” and people shudder – as indeed they are supposed to; but by the same token it is, I affirm, the most important topic in the world for us to find out about. We need to find out how to discuss it calm-y, how to respect different viewpoints, and what are the primary sources we should be consulting. Can one hope to avoid abuse and insult while doing so? As the sole member of staff of University College, London (UCL), ever to have been expelled for ideological reasons (in 2008) – after having worked there as a science historian – I should be allowed to have an opinion as regards how the insecticide Zyklon had been used in World War II. That is essentially what drew me into the subject, and I still believe it is the best starting-point.

1 Myers, review of Mark Turley’s From Nuremberg to Nineveh: War, Peace and the Making of Modernity (Vandal Publications, 2008), Smith’s Report July 2009.

2 N. Kollerstrom, Terror on the Tube, Behind the Veil of 7/7. An Investigation, 2009.
www.terroronthetube.co.uk.

3 2004 BBC Documentary series, The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear: on Youtube

4 UCL, April 2008: “The views expressed by Dr Kollerstrom are diametrically opposed to the aims, objectives and ethos of UCL, such that we wish to have absolutely no association with them or with their originator.”

5 I was “promoting the Nazi agenda” according to a centre-page Observer article by Nick Cohen, “When Academics lose their power of Reason” (May 4 2008), to which I was allowed no right of reply. It expressed a death-wish against me; that I needed to be stuffed and placed next to the effigy of Jeremy Bentham at UCL. (Bentham has been described as the “spiritual founder” of University College London; editor’s remark)

6 I became in 2012 the only Briton to have been invited to speak at a US 9/11 truth event, the Vancouver 9/11 symposium. My paper on what hit the 2nd tower is online:
www.donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/nick-kollerstroms-vancouver-presentation/

7 According to Gordon Duff writing on Veterans Today in 2010: “Two thousand people in Europe are in prison today for questioning some part, no matter how minor, of the holo-caust.” (“Who speaks up for Holocaust Survivors?”) That has to be quite an under-estimate. Around fifteen thousand German citizens are tried each year for the Thought Crime, so-called “right-wing extremism.” The prosecution of dissidents, patriots and na-tionalists in Germany has grown increasingly severe in recent years. “Aside from widely publicised high-profile cases, it is impossible to definitively state the specific number of victims who have fallen under the punitive arm of Holocaust denial legislation since these laws were first enacted. It has been estimated that over 58,000 individuals in Germany alone have been prosecuted for various thought-crimes during the period 1994-1999. During the course of one year, 1999, Germany’s aggressive policy of enforcing these repressive laws accounted for 11,248 convictions.” J. Bellinger, Smith’s Report, “The Prohibition of Holocaust Denial,” Sept 2009. Germany has also become the only country in the Western world where defending oneself in court can be unwise, because it risks committing the very offence for which one is charged! Ask Sylvia Stolz (Santiago Alvarez, “Germany Proud of Persecuting Dissidents,” The Barnes Review newsletter, 5 August 2012; www.barnesreview.org/wp/archives/577)

from the book Breaking the spell  the Holocaust, myth  reality by Nicholas Kollerstrom