Originally Published, 29th August 2019
Now I must say before getting started that this article was very spontaneous so the writing will perhaps be different from the other articles i’ve written as it’s more free flowing? I dunno, it was just something I wanted to write about because it has to do with a trend i’ve noticed in some of the literature on the Third Reich that i’ve read/skimmed. Basically something frustrates me about historians, but what else is new? This isn’t an article about revisionism per se, it’s more about how the mainstream narrative fails to connect with itself, so it will be written on the basis of the mainstream narrative without the explicit revisionist view being present. It’s hard to explain. Anyway, continue and it should all make sense. . .
I myself do not know how I first learned about the Holocaust, I presume it was over years of hearsay in media, films and popular culture in general because I know it wasn’t in school. As an Australian I do not recall ever having learned about the Holocaust at all, except for a time in year 10 when ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman was on the booklist. Yes. I’m serious, this comic book about Nazi cats and Jewish mice was to teach teenagers from the age of 16 about Nazi persecution of Jews and the supposed mass industrialised killings that took place.
Regardless of how we learned, it’s universal (in the western world) that we did. I’m sure that everyone reading this had roughly the exact same feelings and knowledge about it. For instance, we all knew about these Gas Chambers in which the evil Nazis with swastika armbands pushed thousands of Jews into on the pretence of taking a shower; and how they would stand in a room all looking into the showerheads expecting water to come out, but nope, deadly poison gas would fill the room and all the Jews would die. This is the Holocaust we all learned. But that’s not quite all. We saw the videos of emaciated corpses being bulldozed into pits, we saw the pictures of starving prisoners naked (or nearly) packed like sardines into barracks, we heard about ‘survivors’ and we most importantly learned that the “Nazis” particularly a man with a toothbrush mustache named ‘Adolf Hitler’ orchestrated and planned the entire evil catastrophe to the smallest detail, revelling in his epicly evil deeds which had not only caused the Second World War but also the most evil event in all of human history, the annihilation of the Six Million Jews!
This story seemed very hard to dismiss. It was a fact, as the sky is blue it is also true that the Holocaust not only happened, but was the act of some kind of divine intention. This historical act defined a century and also an epoch. Some historians have even suggested the Holocaust started all the way back on January 30th 1933 when Adolf Hitler came to power. Obviously this is false and not taken seriously today. But in any case, the idea that the Holocaust is tied to the very heart of the National Socialist regime and history since February 1920 at the NSDAP’s humble beginnings is universal.
This ‘fact’ is made plain to anybody that’s read books on Hitler or the Third Reich in general; the Holocaust is there influencing all things even when the events being read about have nothing at all to do with events that would supposedly take place years later in the mess of a giant war. Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw explicitly tells us as much
The old emphasis on the Nazi state’s repressive apparatus and the dangers of defying the heavy hand of coercion in a police state was gradually replaced by emphasis on willing consent and active complicity. And as the Holocaust came into focus at the base, not just the pinnacle, of Nazi society, so it seemed that there was scarcely a strand of ‘daily life’ that was not somehow inextricably linked to the dire criminality of the regime.—-in the context of research on the Third Reich, Nazi ideology started to be taken seriously whereas it had often been seen as little more than a jumbled amalgam of half-baked notions and propaganda slogans. What could sometimes seem like abstract functions, structures, and processes of Nazi rule lost much of their appeal as research drivers, and were replaced by increased attention paid to the ideological motivation of the actors or ‘perpetrators’, of Nazi genocidal policy, once more, the recently attained, undisputed centrality of the Holocaust playing a large part in determining the research agendaIan Kershaw, Visions of Community in Nazi Germany, pp. 30
And expert witness Van Pelt at the Zundel trial would make this even clearer for us
[01:23:30] “If the Holocaust Revisionists would be shown to be right we would lose our sense about the Second World War, we would lose our sense about what Democracy was. The Second World War was a moral war, it was a war between good and evil. And so if we take the core of this war, which is in fact Auschwitz, out of the picture then everything else becomes unintelligible to us. We collectively end up in a madhouse.”– Van Pelt Quoted by Germar Rudolf at the 13th IHR conference, 37:14
Germar Rudolf aptly summarizes Van Pelts two options in this case, “to reaffirm the Holocaust story, or to go Insane”. This thinking from Historians is a dangerous one, because not only is it a sign of pre-occupation, but it’s a desperation that will hurt genuine scholarship on this most important historical event. If it wasn’t already obvious that the Holocaust permeated every single crevice of the history of the National Socialist era from beginning to end, it should be now. For it’s the lense in which all the historiography is written even if that same historiography has been forced to go through radical shifts since studies on the Holocaust began. I will explain what I mean by this now.
The Holocaust used to be thought of as Hitler’s long term ambition in culminating his anti-semitism, and that’s indeed how many of us would’ve thought of it as children or even teens and adults depending on when the redpilling began. Now, do not be mistaken, this view is one even our ideological enemies have been forced to move away from as the cult of the Holocaust has been forced to sing a different tune over the past decades. It is now known that the Holocaust was never based on a plan and no order written or signed by Hitler or anyone else has, or will ever be found, it was instead a side-show in the words of prominent Holocaust scholar David Cesarani
“Compared to the construction of coastal fortifications in north-west Europe, flak defences in the Reich, or practically any other aspect of the war effort, in material terms the war against the Jews was a sideshow. It was ill-planned, under-funded, and carried through haphazardly at breakneck speed.”David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949 (Macmillan, 2016), pp. 459
if that wasn’t damning enough
Ultimately, the course of the war rather than decisions within the framework of anti-Jewish policy triggered the descent into a Europe-wide genocide.David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949 (Macmillan, 2016), pp. xxxvi
So not only was there no plan for the Holocaust as other books and historians have made abundantly clear over the years but Anti-Semitism itself despite being a generally held view was never really prominent in any coherence
“Unlike most previous narratives, this account contests whether Nazi anti-Jewish policy was systematic, consistent or even premeditated. […] While it is possible to locate programmatic statements from key players, particularly in the SS, there was no overall, centralized, coherent policy or practice until late 1938. While there may have been a broad anti-Semitic consensus within the Nazi movement and throughout the institutions of government, and even if policy tended in one direction towards ever-harsher measures, this does not mean that one thing led to another logically, necessarily, or even deliberately.”David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949 (Macmillan, 2016), pp. xxxi
nor was Anti-Semitism unique to Nazi Germany
Even as late as 1939, it was by no means clear that the Nazis were the worst anti-semites in continental Europe. Nor was their racial state at this stage unique in the world. In neighbouring Poland for example, there was no shortage of newspaper articles that could equally well have appeared in the Nazi Völkische Beobachter. […] Nor was anti-semitic violence purely verbal. There had already been pogroms in Wilno (Vilnius) in 1934, Gorod in 1935, Przytyk and Minsk in 1936 and Brzesc (Brest) in 1937. In 1936 Zygmunt Szymanowski, a professor of bacteriology at the University of Warsaw, was shocked by the conduct of Endek students in Warsaw and Lwow, who assaulted Jewish students between lectures. In the mid-thirties, between one and two thousand Jews suffered injuries in attacks; perhaps as many as thirty were killed.Niall Ferguson, The War of the World (Penguin Books LTD, 2007), pp. 270
In fact Jews in Germany, despite having been stripped of their roles in German public life to an extent, were still allowed to possess their own property, and continued to lead “relatively normal lives”. Anti-Semitism in the Third Reich was quite ‘tortuous’
The path of anti-Semitism in Hitler’s Germany was tortuous. The first Jewish restrictions in 1933 were so inconclusive that it seemed as if the Führer were deliberately compromising his principles. Could this be an attempt to solve the Jewish question by rational means acceptable to those Germans who wanted Jews controlled but not persecuted? There followed a period of struggle between the racial radicals in the party and moderates in the government and civil service which came to a climax during the summer of 1935.John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Anchor Books), pp. 501
The point is that anti-semitism in Nazi Germany was slow and kind of unimportant in the pre-war years. Jewish persecution wasn’t a key priority. Some of course could say that Hitler was merely taking it slow, perhaps because persecuting the Jews would be bad for the economic recovery? That might very well have been part of it but I would argue that it simply wasn’t a priority of Hitler’s to bother with the Jews as he had much more pressing issues to deal with particularly the economic recovery and his goal of bettering the welfare of the German people, not only materially but spiritually, culturally and nationally. He loved his people the most and he was unconditionally motivated by that love first and foremost, not by “hate” as our opponents erroneously claim. This is a simple misunderstanding we Nationalists face all too often, we’re portrayed as the faces of “hate” as if “hate” is an ideology within itself. This is false, we’re motivated, as Hitler surely was, by an all embracing love for our people, our country and our culture. This is what we value most in this world and of course if there’s a group like Jews in Germany who at this time were perceived by the National Socialists to be corrupting their people and welding disproportionate control over their people it would make sense to become hostile, even aggressive towards this threat. Hitler’s own utterances would be the best indicator of how he pursued Jewish policy in the pre-war years, or perhaps, lack of utterances.
We can generalize that Hitler was consumed by anti-Semitism, especially with our knowledge of the 1942 decision to begin genocide. Knowing this oncoming genocide, we are almost forced to claim Hitler’s total preoccupation with anti-Semitism from 1919 through 1942.
Yet this tendency to do history backward can readily lead to an interpretation of Hitler that may be easily digestible but not necessarily real—Hitler emerges as a raging, visceral anti-Semite. It must nag at the reader that Norman H. Baynes, in his two-volume, 1,980-page collection of Hitler’s speeches, could annotate: “It is surprising to observe how little the Fuehrer has said on the treatment of the Jews by the National Socialist state. It would seem that the following brief collection of abstracts exhausts the material on the subject so far as the printed reports of Hitler’s speeches.” And Speer could comment that it had repeatedly surprised him, in later years, that “scarcely any anti-Semitic remarks of Hitler have remained in my memory.” The great biographers have noted ad infinitum Hitler’s prewar years of never-ending monologues at supper. In them, they note the recurring themes of history, art, Hitler’s experiences of war, and the development and success of National Socialism. Neither the great biographers as researchers nor Speer as eye witness have noted anti-Semitic subjects in his prewar supper monologues. In contrast, in his collected wartime monologues Hitler spent more time discussing the Jews, but still only a miniscule amount compared with other subjects.
Perhaps the above picture is not surprising. Hitler faced numerous enemies and challenges early from 1923 through late 1934 in which the Jew disappeared into the background as concerns his success and survival.R.H.S Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny (Prometheus Books, 2011), pp. 397-398
Nevertheless. Pushing out the Jews wasn’t the top priority of the German state in the 1930s nor was anti-semitism a primary concern of the German public, Jews even testified for years on end that they were never social outsiders
So where does this lead us? And what is my point? Simply that the easily digestible Hitler is the one we always get regardless of the facts. We know that the Holocaust in the mainstream narrative wasn’t planned, wasn’t even a priority for funding, yet it dominates history on the Third Reich, it affects all matters that don’t even share any relation, meaning issues where Jews aren’t involved, they become involved as either victims, or a ‘propaganda’ for the ‘evil Nazis’ to scapegoat; when in actuality preoccupation with the Jews was of such little importance that it was even neglected. Think of the Jewish boycott for example, you know, the one we all hear about, the boycott that lasted for one day on April 1st with no violence whatsoever; and it was even on the Jewish Sabbath in response to the Jewish boycott against Germany. That’s it. One day, not again. What about films? As David Irving put so well
The result was the three infamous anti-Jewish films made by the Nazis. Interesting, isn’t it? Of the approximately one thousand motion pictures made by the Nazis during their entire twelve years in power, just three were anti-Jewish: “The Rothschilds,” “The Eternal Jew” and “Jud Süss” (“The Jew Suess”). These three films – the last two going down in propaganda history – were very much part of Goebbels’ broad-front attack on the Jews. And yet, how many anti-German films has Hollywood made in revenge? It doesn’t bear counting.Revelations from Goebbels’ Diary
Perhaps the most famous would be November 9-10 1938, the famous Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) lasted for a small amount of time and is generally considered a turning point in anti-jewish policy for the Third Reich. But it too was a one time occasion in which many Jews had no clue it had happened and wasn’t as we know, unique in Europe at this time. This major flaw in research on the Third Reich (as if it wasn’t doomed to be rigged from the start) because the historians in their own narrative have revealed anti-semitism to be of such low importance to the National Socialists prior to the war, that even their holiest of holies wasn’t a main focus for them, yet they continue to paradoxically follow the historical determinist line against their own research framing it all on the Holocaust never mind it’s questionable validity as a historical event. This makes their work fundamentally flawed, especially considering the largely ignored in depth revisionist material that exists and is constantly being written. If you take the Holocaust out of the World War Two Nazi period narrative the entirety of the literature on the topic becomes null, the historical interpretation done by Historians who mould the truth and complicate everything that’s written with their own assertions leave a gap in one of the most important periods of our history for the simple fact that it has influenced our world as it is today. For example, a new biography about Hitler is set to be released in less than a week, written by Brendan Simms it claims to be a new ‘revisionist’ take on Hitler and not for the better as you might expect. The promotion of this book and new interpretation comes the very typical stirrings you’d expect from brief descriptions about Adolf Hitler and his German National Socialists. While looking online it looks as if Simms will be holding a talk about his new book, so I found this page and read the description the first paragraph reads
What drove the genocidal fanaticism of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? Why did a mediocre postcard painter unleash the greatest cataclysm of racism and violence ever witnessed on the European stage? What inspired his rabid anti-semitism and determination to secure ‘living space’ for his imagined ‘master race’?https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hitler-only-the-world-was-enough-with-brendan-simms-tickets-62384578955
The rest is the same description you read for the book on any online bookstore. This paragraph is one i’m sure we’re all familiar with, it has the key words, genocide, mater race, living space. The entire implication that Hitler and his Nazis were fanatical genocidal maniacs to the core who wanted to carry out their long term goal to annihilate the Jews! But this is untrue, hell it’s even untrue that most ‘Nazis’ would’ve accepted genocide at all. Max Domarus the archivist of Hitler’s speeches tells us
In his public and private speeches, Hitler did not directly announce that he wanted to gas all Jews or in some other way transport them from life to death. Even in war, when his machinery of destruction ran at full speed, he limited himself in his speeches to dark hints and threats. He knew only too well that such an annihilation program would meet with rejection from the mass of the people and even the majority of his party comrades.Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, 1939 the War That Had Many Fathers (LuLu Publishing, English Edition), pp. 366
Domarus wrongly states Hitler had a ‘program’ this as we know is not true because the mainstream narrative tells us so. In any case the quote is revealing even if words like ‘program’ and ‘plan’ come too quick to the lips of so-called ‘historians’.
The danger is startling, we have these descriptions in books, advertisements, articles everything you can think of relating to the National Socialist regime because these historians despite having moved on from these accusations that Hitler had any actual plan either for war or the Holocaust continue to promote this broad false contention in the public mind. Why do this? Why not represent your research accurately? Why not admit that Hitler had no plans, that he was simply a man who wanted to make Germany a world power and was willing to risk war to do so and when that happened and the removal of the Jews to the east became hard the comrades around him particularly Heinrich Himmler ‘moved towards the fuhrer’ as Ian Kershaw describes it to ‘take care’ of the Jewish problem by a most inhumane means? This is the narrative the mainstream books provide, yet in their material and in their advertisements they continue to lie and pretend the opposite so the mind of the public doesn’t change on their view of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.
If they cannot write history detached from the Holocaust as it should be written (based on their own research) then they’re only making that period of history harder to understand. But perhaps i’m giving them too much credit? I do not believe these hack jobs want us to understand, they simply want us to be slaves to the horror stories they concoct. This much has been clear to me from day one, as it will become to many others.
 Professor Horst Moeller of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute of Contemporary History) in Munich has described that even this aspect of the Holocaust, the infamous Gas Chambers were more like icing on the cake than the actual pinnacle of the Holocaust. He says “The mass murder took place in three ways: firstly, the murders mainly by Einsatzgruppen, SS divisions or police battalions, to a lesser extent also individual Wehrmacht units, that is mass executions. Second, the quite targeted, but indirect killing by diseases, poor nutrition, hard work under extreme conditions. Third, the mass murder with the help of the gas chambers. These are the main forms. I would not call any of them negligible.” this was in response to a question about the infamous and racist ‘Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’ who wrote the book ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ in which Goldhagen described the Gas Chambers as a “minor phenomenon” and that their efficiency was “greatly exaggerated” – http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Goldhagen/MoelleronFocus.html
 “Predictably, a written order by Hitler for the ‘Final Solution’ was not found. The presumption that a single, explicit written order had ever been given had long been dismissed by most historians.” – Ian Kershaw, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2008), Pp. 96.
 See for example, Christopher Browning, Origins of the Final Solution (Cornerstone ARROW BOOKS LTD, 2005) — Martin Broszat for instance wrote that the Holocaust was improvised rather than initiated by a secret order, that it was a way out of a blind alley that become genocide not that genocide was some long held intention “Broszat, Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’,” pp. 98-102, 110 — Another prominent historian Hans Mommsen went further than Broszat even coming close to the coattails of David Irving when he wrote that not only was there no direct order issued by Hitler, but that when he was “confronted with the actual consequences of the destruction of the Jews he reacted in exactly the same way as his subordinates, by attempting not to be aware of the facts or suppressing his knowledge” — Mommsen, From Weimar to Auschwitz, pp. 238-9, 251, 348, note 149; see also Lukacs, The Hitler of History, p. 178
 “Although stripped of their roles in German public life, Jews were still allowed to possess their own property, and many continued to lead relativly normal lives. They were evidently in no hurry to leave.”Giles Macdonogh 1938: Hitler’s Gamble (Little, Brown Book Group, Constable, 2010), Pp. ix
 “Anti-Semitism was initially soft-pedalled, not only because depriving the Jews of making a living would hurt the economic recovery, but as I show in this book, also because most Germans in 1933 did not feel as strongly and as negatively about Jews as did Hitler and the Nazis” Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler (Oxford University Press, 2001), Pp. 4 It’s worth noting also that if pushing Jews out of the economy would hurt the economy so much then you probably have a disproportionate amount of Jews in quite a few sectors of your society. Just a thought.
 Kubizek writes that he [Hitler] was “unconditionally devoted” to the German people: “He lived in that people alone. He knew nothing but that people.” In his sublet at Stumpergasse, Kubizek says, Hitler would grow agitated all night long: “He was again trying to erect the Reich of all Germans which put the ‘guest peoples,’ as he called them, in their proper place. Sometimes, when he expounded on that for too long, I fell asleep. As soon as he noticed that, he would shake me awake and yell at me, was I perhaps no longer interested in what he had to say? Then I should just go ahead and sleep, just as all those who had no national conscience were sleeping [. . .].” – Brigitte Hamann, Hitler’s Vienna ( I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2011), pp. 78 (August Kubizek for those who do not know was Hitler’s best friend during his time in Vienna before the first world war. He wrote a highly praised memoir called “The Young Hitler I knew”)
 “The book shows how anti-semitism changed and slowly spread after 1933. Indeed, until the late 1930s, as many Jews who lived through those times have testified, antisemitism was not the primary concern of the public, most Germans were not rabidly anti-semitic, and pushing out the Jews was not the top priority of the German state.16 At the start of the Third Reich, as many Jews who lived there have testified for years on end, they were not social outsiders, certainly not in comparison with pre-emancipation times, and things changed slowly for many of them. – Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler (Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 4
 Ian Kershaw, To Hell and Back (Penguin, Allen Lane, 2015), pp. 212
 “The Stormtroopers who enforced the boycott on 1 April did indeed mostly avoid serious breaches of the peace, and kept their behavior at the level of threats and intimidation. Little actual physical damage seems to have been done to the shops themselves” – Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, (Penguin, Allen Lane, 2003), pp. 435
 “Also contrary to what we have been told, most Jews were not directly affected by these events. In Berlin, for example, all of the teachers and pupils of the city’s largest Jewish school, which served the entire Berlin area, appeared in their classes the next morning without having noticed anything unusual during the previous night. Heinemann Stern, the Jewish principal of that school, wrote in his postwar memoirs that he noticed a burning synagogue on his way to the school on the morning after the Crystal Night, but he thought it was just an accidental fire. It was only after he arrived at the school that he received a telephone call informing him of the destruction of the previous night. He then went on with his classes of the day and only during the first recess did he take the trouble to inform the entire student body about what had happened.How can such evidence be reconciled with the claim by Herman Graml, a prominent German historian and associate of the Munich Institute of Contemporary History, who wrote: “Every single Jew was beaten, chased, robbed, insulted and humiliated. The SA tore the Jews from their beds, mercilessly beat them in their apartments and then … chased them almost to death … Blood flowed everywhere.” Is it conceivable that thousands of Jewish children would be have been sent to school by their parents on the morning after that fateful night if the attacks against Jews had been so horrific or extensive? Would any parents have let their children go to school if they had thought there was even the slightest danger of them being attacked by roving gangs of SA men? I think the answer is clearly no! Deplorable things did indeed happen which were bad enough, but the fantasies of modern historians and history writers such as Graml are simply inexcusable.”– Ingrid Weckert, Crystal Night’ 1938: The Great Anti-German Spectacle, Journal of Historical Review, Vol 6 No. 2 (1985) For Ingrid Weckerts full book on Crystal Night – Ingrid Weckert, Feuerzeichen : Die ‘reichskristallnacht’ Anstifter Und Brandstifter – Opfer Und Nutznie er, (Castle Hill Publishers, 2016) in English Ingrid Weckert, Flashpoint: Kristallnacht 1938 : Instigators, Victims and Beneficiaries
 For detailed works on Holocaust revisionism you can read all the full length Holocaust Handbooks series online for free. I would highly recommend doing so and even purchasing the books physically to support them and their work in the future
 Hitler had no plans for Poland what to do with an occupied Poland or his ‘eastern empire’ Richard Overy, 1939: Countdown to War (Penguin Books, 2009), pp. 113 also see Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, 1939 the War That Had Many Fathers (LuLu Publishing, English Edition) nor did he have plans for Austria when he requested them. Hitler’s plan for potential action against Czechoslovakia was called ‘Green’ and his plan for Poland was ‘Case White’ which was limited to the isolation of Poland and to avoid conflict with the west – Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Nemesis 1936-1945 (Penguin, Allen Lane, 2000) pp. 178-179
 See of course AJP Taylor’s ‘Origins of the Second World War’, Sidney Aster also seems to follow a similar tone in his book ‘1939’ The Making of the Second World War (Andre Deutsch, 1974) and Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1962), pp. 369-371 Bullock says “By September 1939 he was ready actually to use force against Poland, and run the risk of a general European war […] what changed was not the objective or the means, but Hitler’s judgement of the risks he could afford to run […] The harangue which Hitler delivered reflects the change of mood at the end of the first period and the opening of the second, a new phase in which Hitler was ready to increase the pressure and enlarge the risks of his foreign policy. […] war came at a date and as a result of a situation he had not foreseen. […] The importance of the occasion lies in the changed tone in which Hitler spoke, in his readiness to run the risk of war and to annex Czechoslovakia and Austria whenever circumstances offered a favourable opportunity, ‘even as early as 1938’.”
 “Nonetheless, he sent routine birthday greetings on May 6 to Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm. The prince replied with congratulations for Hitler’s contribution to peace in Europe. Hitler dourly remarked to Wiedemann, ‘I’m not here to ensure peace in Europe; I’m here to make Germany great again. If that can be done peacefully, well and good. If not, we’ll have to do it differently.’ – David Irving, Hitler’s War and the War Path (Focal Point Publications, 2002), pp. 89
 The ballad of Laurence Rees and his works of blatant lies. Not only did he win an award but none of his fellow historians bothered to criticize him for his actions, and he is only one example out of many. – Panagiotis Heliotis, The Holocaust: A New History (Inconvenient History, Vol 9. No. 4) follow links within to see more about this and other falsifiers