A Brave Woman Has Passed: Ursula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck (11/8/1928 - 11/20/2024) recently passed at the ripe old age of ninety-six. She was known or “notorious” in Germany because she dared to challenge the Jewish Holocaust ‘narrative’ of six million. Time after time, she got into trouble with the German authorities for ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘incitement to hatred,’ a crime that often results in either an exorbitant fine or imprisonment. The poor woman’s offense was that she dared to believe that Auschwitz was a work camp (which it was) and not a death camp. In a speech that Ursula gave in 2016 in the southern Berlin district of Lichtenrade, she described the Holocaust as one of the greatest lies in history. She also stated that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were not real.

According to her Wikipedia entry, “In November 2015, at the age of 87, she was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment for Holocaust denial. Several additional convictions in the fall of 2016 led to further such sentences. She unsuccessfully appealed all sentences, and on 7 May 2018 began to serve her latest two-year jail sentence after being picked up at her home by German police. Released from a prison in Bielefeld at the end of 2020, she was quickly charged again, faced a new trial in March 2022, and was sentenced to one year in prison. She was again convicted on 26 June 2024 and sentenced to an additional 16 months in jail.”

Ursula’s imprisonments, however, reveals something deeply maniacal about our enemies. It shows not only how desperate they are to maintain at all costs the Holocaust propaganda they’ve spoon-fed us for the past 60 years, but how foundationally weak it is that they feel it necessary to imprison a woman in her 90s simply because she thinks differently about Auschwitz. Ursula’s crimes were essentially thought crimes; she happened to think differently than what the German authorities thought about that historic period of time from 1939-1945. And as a result, she was arrested, fined, sentenced, and imprisoned.

Ursula might have been allowed to keep such ‘heretical’ thoughts and never suffer a day in court if she had just kept it to herself. But she dared to share her ‘heresy’ with others and to align herself with Germany’s ‘far right’ political dissidents. Tyrannical governments, such as Germany’s, can’t allow their citizenry to ‘notice’ or even publicly question Jewish dogma about what happened at Auschwitz. All of it must be believed. To do otherwise is to invite inquiry, differing opinions, or even disbelief in the entire Holocaust story itself. Thus, it’s better to stamp out a dissenting whisper or even the mildest objection lest the entire house of cards crumble to the ground.

Would Ursula have been fined and imprisoned had she dared to challenge or question whether the Cambodian genocide (1976-1980) by the Khmer Rouge actually occurred? Would she have been arrested for ‘incitement to hatred’ if she professed not to believe certain parts of the Holodomor genocide (1932-1933) that led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians? Or what would have happened to Ursula if she refused to believe the Armenian genocide by the Turks (1915-1923) in which approximately one million Armenians were brutally slaughtered? Or what if Ursula had thought differently about the Rwandan genocide (1994) which led to the mass murder of nearly one million Tutsis? Would Ursula have been arrested or fined if she declared Joseph Stalin’s mass murder of approximately 50 million people (1929-1953) never occurred or that his regime had nothing to do with the Great Purge which targeted political dissenters? If Ursula were to tell her German countrymen that Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1976) never led to the mass murder of an estimated 40 to 70 million people, how likely is it that she would have been summoned to the authorities for questioning?

Truth is, nothing would have happened to Ursula. No German court would have criminally convicted her for believing differently about such human genocides, nor for sharing her thoughts to others. The subject of the Holocaust, however, in their minds is an entirely different matter and that not because of its overwhelming historical and numerical veracity when examined carefully, but because of the power, money and influence that Jewish power wields throughout Europe. Jews will not permit any deviation on whether the Holocaust death count was six million or something far less. They will not agree to anything less than Auschwitz being a death camp for the sole purpose of exterminating Jewish prisoners. And they have placed enormous pressure on the German authorities to never allow even the slightest departure from the received narrative.

In a way I understand this because every aggrieved group or ethnicity that feels it has been wronged view themselves as history’s ultimate victims. Jews, then, are only doing what other groups who feel they have been wrongly persecuted have done.

But there is an important difference.

Jews use lawfare and criminal indictments to enforce their beliefs that pressure non-Jews to comply lest they be summoned by the authorities. As it currently stands, there are 17 European countries, including Israel and Canada, that make Holocaust denial a punishable offense. Jews often publicly malign those who refuse to go along with the narrative via their media outlets. They do all in their power to portray any and all dissenters in the worst possible light. This is something no other ethnic group on the planet does.

The Armenian people, in contrast to Jews, will not engage in a holy crusade against anyone who happens to think differently about the details of the Armenian genocide. They may argue against such notions as individuals, but not in some collective public campaign to force everyone to agree on every conceivable detail over those events. The same may be said of any other ethnic group that has experienced wholesale slaughter at the hands of their enemies. Neither do Armenians erect sympathy museums throughout Europe and America that visually dramatize their sufferings by the Turks as Jews have done in their Holocaust museums. Armenians have not sought exorbitant amounts of reparations from other countries either nor have they instituted policies of perpetual reparations to each new generation of their people as Jews have. Only Jews could create such devious financial scams and trickery and manage to get away with it. Rightly did Norman Finkelstein title his 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

The Israeli government, interestingly, has refused to formally acknowledge the Armenian genocide (see Yossi Melman, “Israel’s Refusal to Recognize the Armenian Genocide is Indefensible,” Foreign Policy, 4/29/2019). Jews have tended to either deny or downplay the horrors of the Armenian genocide because anything that detracts from the centrality of Jewish suffering is seen as a threat to their power, to their very existence as a people.

The Jewish obsession to marginalize and criminally prosecute those who refuse to believe the Holocaust reflects a strongly religious character. Like the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages that persecuted ‘heretics’ for their thought transgressions, so also today’s Jewish power system that has infiltrated the West fanatically believes it must attack and, if possible, criminally prosecute anyone who renounces Holocaust dogma and makes it known to others.

Many Jews cannot even accept that one might reject the Holocaust story because of problems associated with it that make it appear questionable or greatly exaggerated and still have positive feelings for the Jewish people. In their minds, an unwillingness to fully accept what Jews have suffered is clear proof that they are ‘anti-Semites.’ No reasonable nuances are accepted. For the Jews, the Holocaust is an all or nothing proposition that again reveals its overly dogmatic and religious nature.

All of this on the part of Jews stems from an inflated and grandiose view of themselves. Nothing in the world even matters except how it impacts the Jewish people, and this includes the suffering of other groups. Jews may claim to care about non-Jews, poor migrants and the impoverished in their efforts to ‘repair the world.’ But what it almost always amounts to is burdening White western governments with more non-White immigrants at tax-payer expense and less social cohesion.

There is a popular phrase among Jews taken from the Talmud: "Whoever destroys a single life is considered as if he destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a life is considered as if he saved an entire world” (Sanhedrin 37a). I was at first bewildered by what it meant until I realized that what it’s really saying is that saving one Jewish life has so much intrinsic value and worth that it’s equivalent to saving the entire world, all of humanity! Granted, modern Jews try to argue that it applies universally to everyone, Jews as well as non-Jews. But this is not the dominant opinion among the ancient rabbis, especially when one considers how painfully derogatory Jews routinely spoke of gentiles evident in their Talmudic writings.

One understands, then, why Jews are unwilling to see the genocidal suffering of other groups as equivalent or greater than that of their own. This is one of several reasons why Jews seek to punish all forms of Holocaust denial. The same will occur here in the U.S. if the first amendment is ever neutered or abolished altogether. Jews in America are currently working on doing that very thing since the first amendment stands in the way of their efforts to outlawing all speech deemed ‘anti-Semitic.’

What Jews seem to fear most are words. As Abe Foxman, the former national director of the ADL, reminds us: “The Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers or Auschwitz. It started with words.” Is it any wonder, then, why they do so much in their power to both control the thoughts and words of others? Jews only want free speech when it benefits them. What they really want is controlled speech.

Our opponents try to justify prosecuting dissenters to the Holocaust story by arguing that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were unique in all of history. It’s necessary, therefore, to maintain the historical integrity of what occurred, including Germany’s complicity in the deaths of millions of Jews which must never be forgotten. Thus, it’s incumbent upon the German government to fine and even imprison those who ‘incite hatred’ against Jews lest the same events be repeated.

But such thinking is wrongheaded from the outset. The Holocaust is not a unique event in all of history if one is talking about genocides or human death tolls. Aside from serious questions about where the notion of ‘six million’ originated, including its symbolic usage among Jews many years prior to WW2, the Holocaust story is replete with a multiplicity of historical problems that have caused a growing number of people to question its veracity.

Moreover, a host of truly bizarre and outright silly Nazi death stories surround the Holocaust narrative that only serve to cast even more doubt on what we’ve been told about it (e.g., death by masturbation machines; soap made from the skin of Jews; and the silliest accounts of surviving the gas chambers).

There have also been numerous genocides throughout human history that were greater in number and sheer horror than the alleged Holocaust. Any attempt to make the Holocaust the greatest human atrocity one could imagine is absurd and flies in the face of the historical record.

Finally, when has outlawing speech and free inquiry ever benefitted the progress of Truth? If the Holocaust narrative is factually true, why is it necessary to surround it with legal penalties and punishments if one dares to think and speak otherwise? Why can’t the proponents of the Holocaust story defend their position in the arena of ideas and open inquiry rather than so often resorting to threats of criminal punishment and costly fines? Is the conduct of Jews in this realm the mark of a people devoted to Truth, or a people so desperate to maintain lies that they will gladly resort to imprisoning a 96-year-old elderly woman because she dared to have a contrarian viewpoint?

Ursula Haverbeck was a brave woman who stood by her convictions. She was willing to pay the price for it too. I hope more Whites will be as steadfast in their convictions as she was.