Friday, June 10, 2022

Ryan Faulk Is Not a Slave to Your Funhouses

Ryan Faulk is a guy who likes to depict himself, according to his Youtube channel "The Alternative Hypothesis, as "Anti-racist, anti-Nazi, anti-totalitarian." That said, his race-IQ obsession would seem to undermine the first claim. And now, his foray into Holocaust denial would seem to belie the second.

In a video posted to Bitchute on June 7 entitled "Then Where Did the Jews Go?", Faulk dips his toe into these troubled waters. You can find the video if you want; he also posted the text transcript, which you can find here.

You'll notice, on page 7 of the transccript, that Ryan's analysis begins with the American Jewish Yearbook figures. He also relies fairly heavenly on Walter Sanning's Dissolution of European Jewry. We've addressed both texts quite extensively at this website: here's a representative sample. In short, Faulk's video is just old sardines in a new tin. So why bother with it?

I decided to respond to some of Faulk's arguments in a comment on his Bitchute channel. Rather than going point by point, I decided to address the figures on page 25 of his transcript (roughly 40 minutes into the video). Faulk's assertion here was simple -- six million Jews could have not been murdered because there were slightly fewer than three million Jews within reach of the Nazis or their allies in August 1940.

The question I posed in response was simple: Why should we trust his figures when the Nazis' own population figures, presented at Wannsee in January 1942, indicate quite different numbers? Faulk claims there were only 720,402 Jews in Poland (here, he is referring is referring only to those areas of Poland under German control in August 1940); however, the Wannsee Protocol puts that number (Generalgouvernement + Ostgebiete) at 2.684 million. The number for Hungary that Faulk presents (431,731) is more than 300,000 less than the Wannsee figure (742,800). A quick Ctrl-F search will tell you Faulk doesn't mention the Wannsee data at all in his presentation.

Then, I went after his claims about the movements of Jewish populations within Poland between September 1939 and June 1941. Faulk makes the following claim, being charitable (he claims) in presenting the lowest possible estimates: "This means we assume 750,000 Polish Jews fled from Nazi Poland to Soviet Poland, and 100% of them survived that trip, and 100% of them wanted to return to Nazi Poland, and were thus sent off to Siberia."

It so happens that I wrote a term paper on this topic not that long ago, so I was pretty sure he was way off here. As I noted in my Bitchute comment, the USHMM put the number of Jews fleeing into the Soviet zone of occupation following the Nazi invasion at 300,000. Moreover, of these Jewish refugees, not only did 100% of them not desire return to Nazi-occupied Poland (for what should be obvious reasons), but also not all of the Jewish refugees in the Soviet zone undergo deportation. Grzegorz Hryciuk's study of the topic found two major deportations of Jewish refugees: the first, which was forced impressment to Ukraine to work in mines, deported 60,000 people, but Ukrainians and Poles were both deported along with Jews. Even if we assume that all of the deportees between October 1939 and August 1940 were Jews, that's still far smaller than Faulk's number of 750,000. Further, Hryciuk's study identifies only one further deportation of Jewish refugees from the Soviet zone -- this one in June 1940 -- subjected more than 75,000 Jews to either deportation or arrest. Even if we add these two figures together, it only yields a total of 135,000 Jews, compared to Faulk's 750,000.

Why, I asked, should we consider Faulk's figures at all reliable?

Not only did Faulk not respond to my topic, but he deleted it and subsequently blocked me from posting further on his channel. When I asked him on Gab (his Twitter account has been suspended) why he had not responded to my comment and blocked me, he responded cryptically, "I'm not a slave to your funhouses."

So much for the confidence of the young new generation of deniers in their assertions.


  1. From the PDF, out of nowhere:
    "Mussolini, whose appearance and mannerisms are similar to Donald Trump, seems to be of remarkably similar personality to Trump. Today, Trump let his daughter marry a Jew. In his day, Mussolini prevented Jews from being shipped to the east – whatever that means. Though perhaps I'm taking mere
    coincidence as evidence of a physiognomic truth."

    What the hell?

  2. God only knows. The guys seems like a real piece of work.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I think what Ryan meant by "funhouses" was that he thought talking sense with you was "impossible," ergo that you were some kind of jester, who despite common sense and reasoning, would still throw logical fallacies, lies, and continuously try to "trick" him. A "funhouse" would be like that, where someone undergoes a bunch of playful tricks and things like that. But you guys are pretty smart, so debunking him with facts and logic won't be hard.

  5. When will there be a discussion of the Kinna Report document?

    The deniers missed an important contradiction in the document, because according to official history cripples, idiots and inferior people were exterminated until the end of the war, especially in "death camps", according to T4 action, while in the document we see that the RSHA prevents T4 against Poles. According to this "document" the Poles were supposed to die a natural death, which contradicts the official history. The official history says that idiot Germans were not allowed to die in peace, but were forced to die, and here the Poles showed mercy. This is especially noteworthy when looking at the extermination of incapacitated TB Poles in other "documents" One such statement alone is ready to put an end to the authenticity of this document

  6. Please do not spam the same comment/question under different posts, further repetitions will be deleted.

    Your question/comment on the Kinna report suggests you've not read the crucial lines properly: "Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidation to unburden the camp. But this measure has insofar complications as, according to the order from the RSHA, the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied to the Jews."

    - the first sentence refers to euthanasia within the KZ system, aka Aktion 14 f 13, which was suspended in April 1943.
    - euthanasia outside the KZ system, aka the T4 program of gassing psychiatric patients, had been suspended in August 1941, giving way to 'wild' euthanasia via starvation rations and lethal injections in psychiatric hospitals
    - the second sentence is Kinna, a non-KZ official, summarising how this policy contradicts the general intention to let Poles die a 'natural death', in contrast to the policies towards the Jews. Here Aumeier from KL Auschwitz is effectively equating such policies (towards unfit Jews) with 14 f 13 and the fate of "imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people"
    - Kinna is therefore recording the dilemma for Nazi policy and contrasting the fates of Poles and Jews, something done in many other sources in 1942 and later on, e.g. in the letter of Dr Hagen to Hitler around the same time, in which the chief medical officer of the city of Warsaw heard of rumours that Poles captured in the same Zamosc action that Kinna was involved with would be treated like the Jews, 'that is, to kill them':

    - it's true that Himmler rejected a proposal by Gauleiter Greiser of the Warthegau in May 1942 to subject Poles with tuberculosis to 'special treatment' at the hands of the same Sonderkommando responsible for exterminating 100,000 unfit Jews at Chelmno. But the paper trail provides even more direct evidence of exterminatory intent, resulting in a slip-up by Carlo Mattogno in one of his books:

    - in general, discussing the authenticity of documents requires two things, both of which you failed to do here
    a) bearing in mind the wider paper trail, in order to establish the contemporary discourse, and see how this was variously reflected in terms of chains of command, regions, institutions, 'need to know', and so on. The Kinna report fits very well into this wider paper trail as an admission of a policy conundrum, but also echoing many, many other contrasts between the fate of Poles and Jews (eg the Wetzel commentary on the Generalplan Ost from spring 1942 does the same - Poles cannot be liquidated, unlike the Jews).

    If all you have to doubt authenticity is your interpretation of a text, then your argument will likely be unconvincing.

    b) external criticism and considering provenance, which requires checking the files from where a document comes from, and being aware of what else was captured by which state. In this case, the Kinna report was used in several Polish NTN trials, we know the Poles captured various RSHA 'resettlement' agency collections of documents (and more from RSHA headquarters), they also received documents copied from the US Nuremberg successor trial records. But in this case, the document appears to be one of their own finds.

    As there is nothing inconsistent in the text with other documents, there is no reason to doubt authenticity further, but if you wanted to make a big spiel about this one, then unless you actually demonstrated you've seen the files and made a good-faith search of parent institutional records, the forgery gambit will not be convincing, and seems a little pointless when there are dozens of even more explicit documents to deal with.


Please read our Comments Policy