The Heretics' Hour: Why we need a consistent message for White people and where we go wrong

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2014-03-03 19:32

March 3, 2014

This program marks the fourth anniversary of The Heretics’ Hour, which began on March 1, 2010 on the Voice of Reason Network. Carolyn addresses the need for a consistent message from those who have a platform to speak to White people and points out where the message is most dangerously inconsistent. Major points made:

  • The behavior of people who cannot defend themselves from charges made against them vs behavior of those who can;
  • Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon as human rights advocates whose “liberal” Jewish views about Germans stop at the Adolf Hitler/”Nazi” line;
  • Revisionist Michael Hoffman, a Roman Catholic, also abhors Hitler and tells lies about him, thus keeping religion above race;
  • Rodney Martin’s page at Metapedia – how it came to be;
  • Martin’s brand of activism – speaking at an IHR meeting (see photo at right) and writing letters to U.S. senators on behalf of a U.S.-German peace treaty;
  • Martin’s exchange with a German who was trying to correct him about a German/U.S. peace treaty.

Image:  The Three Stooges? Rodney Martin, Mark Weber, David Cole -- three flawed messengers with three different flawed messages.


24 Responses

  1. ulf

    March 4, 2014 at 1:30 am

    I would like to point to two other insane claims:
    ~John Friend said, his grandfather saw the gas-chambers in dachau (Spingola Speaks in 2012)
    ~Veronica Clark said, “the germans” had offered Hitler´s resign from office in exchange for an alliance with England in 1940/41 (Spingola Speaks 2013)

    Do you need the exact date of the shows?

  1. Carolyn

    March 4, 2014 at 3:35 am

    Yes, that would help.

  1. ulf

    March 4, 2014 at 9:50 am

    1st Ms. Clark:

    Spingola Speaks V.K. Clark “Churchills Deception…” 06.07.2012
    00:48:10 – “Hitler actually offered to step down” -Really??
    “He offered to step down from fuehrership”

  1. ulf

    March 4, 2014 at 10:10 am

    By the way, before she made this nonsensical claim, she already spread other BS(46:00-48:00): I never heard about a “triple”-agent -Haushofer- working for german intelligence who was a half-jew and had a gay relationship with some “lord hamilton”. Haushofer or Haushoffer was the name of someone who had inspired Hitler´s view on geopolitics, I believe. But I did not look it up.

  1. Norma

    March 4, 2014 at 11:27 am

    Ha! This division is, exactly, what the Feds want!

    What a pity!

  1. Carolyn

    March 4, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    What division, Norma? The division between the liars and the truth-tellers? Are you really so naive as to believe there is something solid, with a beating heart, that is being divided? [No, you're just a troll.] If we keep digging into it, we will find no more substance than what makes up Rodney Martin’s Metapedia page — self-invention and self-promotion. There has never been anything on that page about Martin’s past, as one expects to find on such pages: where was he born, who were his parents, where did he go to school, what did he do before he suddenly became an “American nationalist activist, radio host and writer?” Can you answer those questions?

    Rodney himself, or his agent, made a point to say that what was important to know about Rodney Martin was a “dispute with Carolyn Yeager” who “claimed” his wife was an Eastern Cherokee Indian. At the same time, he argues in the page Discussion that it is all “White Nationalist drama” that Carolyn Yeager is stirring up. But why did he add the drama to his page to begin with? My answer: so that he could present HIS side … which is inaccurate and dishonest, and it has since been somewhat corrected.

    BTW, I need to correct something I said (I think 3 times) on this program: Not all that important really, but I said erroneously that the first time I saw RM’s Metapedia page was in September. It was actually in January 2014. September was something else and got stuck in my head.

    Watch out Norma. I’m going to carry on with the “Clowns in the movement” theme next week, which I kind of got sidetracked from because I decided to talk about Eisen, Atzmon and Hoffmann. Think of all the division!

  1. Carolyn

    March 4, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    ulf – There is truth to these two statements by V.Clark, but it has to be explained accurately. There were two Haushofers, father and son. I went into this pretty deeply in my radio shows about Rudolf Hess’ flight to Scotland. Hess was being advised by Haushofer Sr. and introduced him to Hitler. Haushofer’s specialty was partly in understanding the British, he had a solid friendship with the German-friendly Lord Hamilton (not homosexual! – that sounds like gossip). I have read myself that Hess did carry the message that Hitler would “step down” as Fuehrer to secure peace on the Western front while Germany carried on its war with the S.U. Even this offer was rejected by the warmongers whose real objective was to destroy Europe.
    I don’t think there is any solid evidence that Haushofer was a “triple-agent” — this is speculation from the gossipy-type books Clark likes to consult. Clark also likes to entertain the idea that Bormann was a Soviet agent — from the same crappy sources.

    You should look up Haushofer – it’s quite easy to do. This is a start. This is saying that Karl Haushofer’s wife was half-Jewish, not him. Thus his son was 1/4 – exactly similar to Tanstaafl’s situation.

  1. ulf

    March 4, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Ok. Thanks for the education, I was aware of some generous proposals but I never heard of this particular one. Maybe he underestimated the english determination for carrying out and prolonging the conflict

  1. Carolyn

    March 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Oh certainly. It was probably a way to begin negotiation. But I’m not sure it was Hess that carried that proposal to Britain. I/we need to do some research on that to get the details. As if I have nothing else to do, LOL.

  1. Markus

    March 7, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    This German that talks about the peace treaty is absolutely correct.

    There is so much evidence to proof his point and peace activists in Germany talk about this all day. So called “Selbstverwalter” (Self-Administers) and Reichsdeutsche.

    The UN lists GERMANY as enemy state from its inception in 1945/46, while the FRG and GDR that were created as allied occupational zones joined the UN in 1973 only and thereby adhere to the enemy state clause against Germany.

    The 1947 Treaty of Dunkirk is an alliance of France and Britain against GERMANY, while at the same time, they occupied parts of Germany’s territory including Berlin. There are about 10 other post 1945 treaties against Germany, which I had all in one place at one time. I will post them if I find them.

    I talked to Rodney about this letter as well and informed him about the problems. Although, I appreciate his efforts, the legality of his approach is simply wrong, especially given that Dönitz was removed from office contrary to the Hague Convention.

    The Allies are intruders and occupy the country illegally. There is no negotiation possible with such people.

    The Eastern Provinces are furthermore not stolen, but simply in the Russian occupation zone with most parts of it administered by Poland. The Germans were expelled but it is still Germany, legally and true peace activists know that. You can compare it to the occupied territories in the West Bank, just it’s a third party that lives in Eastern Germany now (Poles) and not the direct enemy (Israel) aka the 4 Allies mainly, as in Palestine.

  1. Carolyn

    March 7, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Markus – Thanks for this comment. It supports my own conclusion that the German who wrote to Rodney was right, and Rodney is wrong. You say you also talked to Rodney about his ill-advised letter (at some earlier date), yet Rodney’s letter remains on his website, and no doubt will stay there because Rodney does not care as much about Germany as he does about his own stubborn ego (or possibly another agenda he has).

    I do wonder why you feel obliged to say you appreciate his efforts if his efforts are so misguided; as you said, the German whose email name is nachttopf10 was absolutely correct. Rodney would not listen to him, nor did he listen to you. Why does he set himself up as the expert – without knowing a word of German or ever being in Germany – against German patriots who actually live there?

    If Rodney loves Germany so much, why didn’t he request to be stationed in Germany during the period of time he was serving in the U.S. Military? He says he went to Somalia, but I’d bet he spent the rest of his time in the U.S. However, he won’t describe his soldier life, even sketchily. Why not?

    The only information that comes from Rodney is anecdotal — a little hint here, another there. Again, why is this so?

    Could it be because Rodney is an imposter? What do you think, Marcus? You should care about this because you care about true Germany.

  1. Markus

    March 7, 2014 at 3:57 pm


    I don’t know if I’d go that far. It could also be that Rodney is just ill-informed, stubborn and thinks, it would be more practical to talk to the FRG administration, since Merkel & Co already have titles and are indeed recognized by the US, Britain etc, instead of approaching self-declared exile governments that are not as pompous and recognizable and ignored by the Allies.

    Many German patriots and peace activists also have many flaws and handle things not right, but I wouldn’t say all of them are imposters. Some may. Some say back to 1871, others 1919 or 1945. I favor 1871 or 1945. 1919, as Rodney demands: NEVER. We Germans reject the Weimar Constitution without the corrections during the NS time. That would mean, we accept Versailles and an unratified Constitution written by Jew Hugo Preuss.

    It’s complicated. But Rodney clearly brushes off opposition and thinks he knows best.

    The two also spoke of reparations. The FRG has not paid any reparations whatsoever, but has only made contributions (read extortion). Reparations are part of peace treaties, not illegal extortions from occupied countries as the FRG is used for within parts of Germany (West & Central).

    A clean example of occupying another country is Germany’s occupation of France. France remained a sovereign nation with its own government, yet it was neutralized and occupied for German military strategies against Britain and the US. France remained neutral and did not switched sides either to fight Britain or the Soviets. Whenever the Allies occupied a country, they forced them to switch sides (Romania, Finland, Italy etc) instead of simply neutralizing it and advanzing on its territory without interfering into inner affairs.

  1. Carolyn

    March 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    Rodney is just ill-informed, stubborn


    Rodney clearly brushes off opposition and thinks he knows best.

    That’s good enough for me. :-)

  1. Carolyn

    March 16, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    An email to me from Danny W:


    Seriously, I think the most controversial aspect of Freedompalooza is having Larry Sinclair as an invited speaker. Sinclair alleges he had a homosexual affair and did crack/cocaine with Obama years ago. This homosexual is going to be speaking again this year, and I thought this was supposed to be a “family riendly” event. I wonder is it wise that Paul Topete put this hodge-podge of people together, and is it unwise for Rodney Martin and his family to attend?

    I did not know who Larry Sinclair was when I read the speakers who were announced by Topete on Rodney’s program. As of now, Rodney will be sharing the speaker’s platform with the Jew Alan Sabrosky and the homosexual Larry Sinclair, who claims to have committed a sexual act on Barack Obama in a rented limousine.

  1. Dissent

    March 16, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    When I heard you say Larry Sinclair I had forgotten who he was. Yeah, he is that faggot who makes the conspiracy web site / radio show rounds every once in a while. I know he is on Rense and places like that. He has zero credibility and he is a disgrace.

    Again, we see that Rodney talks really big about principles and such but he never stands behind them. Let’s get down to brass tacks shall we? What does Freedompalooza have to do with our movement? Nothing. It is just more grandstanding for Rodney along with the idea of attaching himself with people who he thinks matters (but don’t)

    From what I can tell, Freedompalooza is a ragtag collection of conspiracy-type misfits and outcasts who don’t really fit in anywhere. I do not know what they stand for. I guess they stand for “freedom” or whatever.

  1. Carolyn

    March 16, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Again, we see that Rodney talks really big about principles and such but he never stands behind them.

    Couldn’t be better said.

  1. Nick Dean

    March 16, 2014 at 9:05 pm

    Well the truther movement is not the White movement, so Topete shouldn’t be expected to run a Jew-free event. Martin, if he were a genuine pro-White activist, could reasonably hope to attend this kind of generalist event and shift the audience our way.

    I never paid any attention to Martin, but I will say I think it’s clear Carolyn has caught him out in a lie or two. Cruel internet commentators might suggest she followed that triumph with a claim, that only made her look silly, about detecting some Indian ancestry in the photo of Martin’s perfectly White-appearing wife. Me, I’m saying nowt.

  1. Nick Dean

    March 16, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    Carolyn, I heard you once complain about the people who call others ‘Jews’ who have only a fraction of Jewish ancestry, as if White or German ancestry in particular was unimportant and the expression of good European genes would necessarily be fouled up by somehow more powerful Jewish ones. You may have been talking about Emil Maurice – someone like that.

    Well on that point, Sabrosky deserves more kindness:

    “Having only one Jewish grandparent makes me pretty much an outsider, at least for the Orthodox, although guaranteed of an early ride to Bergen-Belsen had I lived ‘there and then.’”

    Clearly I’m not suggesting he’s an Emil Maurice kinda guy in every possible way, but like EM he’s only part Jewish.

    I’m more worried by how quiet he’s been the last few years, and how ill-chosen his 9/11 truth appearances were back when he was active (VT, Daryl Bradford Smith, Kevin Barrett, Mark Glenn, Press TV).

    If I had a CV like his and contacts like he claims, I’d do a much better job of finding credible media partners and I would keep on shouting my truth ’til they shut me up. Sabrosky did little, did it with arseholes, then vanished from the scene like vapourized Jews in a Robert Jackson dream.

  1. Carolyn

    March 16, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    The reasoning goes, Nick, that the identification of Martin’s wife as an Eastern Cherokee was not an error or a slam at RM from non-white reporters/editors. If that were the case, he would have gotten it removed (which he claimed several times that his wife had accomplished). Yet there it remains, which tells me that it was information offered by Martin, and that it was information possibly known to other people — perhaps he even bragged about it during his “Indian” tenure. We know he professed a pro-diversity political stance.

    One doesn’t have to be but 1/8 or so in order to receive a share of the income of the Tribe, if you can prove your lineage. Michael Collins Piper likes to talk about his American Indian ancestry (a great grandmother?) and he has blonde hair and blue eyes. The picture of “Peggy” is very blurry.

    I have a neighbor a little distance away who is supposedly an Indian, and he sort of looks it in profile and wears his hair long, but his skin is white-looking and he doesn’t stand out as too different.

    If you read about Cherokees you learn that they are one of the most White-looking tribes, and on some Cherokee web pages one sees pictures of some who could pass for White to the average American. So what I said was not silly, but you would like for me to look silly. Fact is, I don’t care whether she is part-Indian or not (as I’ve said before), but I care about RM’s lying. Is he unable to speak the truth? Does he speak with forked tongue?

  1. Carolyn

    March 17, 2014 at 9:22 am

    “Having only one Jewish grandparent makes me pretty much an outsider, at least for the Orthodox, although guaranteed of an early ride to Bergen-Belsen had I lived ‘there and then.’”

    You are right, that’s not so very Jewish and I would revise my remark calling him a Jew, but …. then he has to add that in Nat-Soc Germany he would have been sent to Bergen-Belsen. Not true! That tells me he identifies with his 1/4 jewishness more than with his 3/4 Polishness. And that being Polish is close to being Jewish when it comes to their typical kind of resentments. Maybe the guy really is bad news.

  1. Dietlef Busch

    March 17, 2014 at 9:31 am

    As a parent, I want to ask ANY responsible parent, a father, a mother, that reads Carolyn’s blog, WHO takes their children, their family to a concert that PROMOTES the usage of Pokerface Grassoline – Weed, Hemp, Cannabis

    Just one of many of Rod’s double standards and hypocrisy!

  1. Jason

    March 18, 2014 at 6:26 am

    “Revisionist Michael Hoffman, a Roman Catholic, also abhors Hitler and tells lies about him, thus keeping religion above race”

    Hoffman just repeats the lies that he’s learned which he assumes to be the truth. I think if he knew better he’d do better.
    —–Hoffman considers himself a scholar. He doesn’t “repeat lies he’s learned” without checking them. It’s because of his strong religious views that he rejects Hitler and wants to paint him in the worst possible light. In other words, I think he rejects Hitler on religious, moral grounds. -CY

    Adolf Hitler, so many seem to conveniently forget was also Roman Catholic.
    —-It is well known that Hitler did not practice his Catholicism (receive the sacraments or make Confession) after he left his family home. He was nominally a Catholic. -CY

    Here’s a quote from him… Note the last line:

    “I am personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won’t allow any other religion to be promoted. That is why I have turned away from Ludendorff and that is why I reject that book by Rosenberg.

    It was written by a Protestant. It is not a Party book. It was not written by him as a Party man. The Protestants can be left to argue with him … As a Catholic I never feel comfortable in the Evangelical Church or its structures. That is why I will have great difficulty if I try to regulate affairs of the Protestant churches.

    The evangelical people or the Protestants will in any case reject me. But you can be sure: I will protect the rights and freedoms of the churches and not let them be touched, so that you need have no fears about the future of the Church.”
    ——Where does the above quote come from? When and to whom was it written? I did not find it at your link. Thank you. -CY

    “As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc., because it knew what the Jews were like.

    I don’t put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representatives of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service.”

    - The Nazi Persecution of the Churches

  1. Jason

    March 20, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Hi Carolyn,

    Yes, Hoffman’s a scholar, but there’s a lot of garbage about Hitler out there. He wants to be as mainstream as possible and that’s impossible if one openly professes admiration for Hitler (for now).

    You say Hoffman tells lies about Hitler but you don’t suppose he actually made those lies up himself do you?

    Many Roman Catholics don’t really regularly attend or anything, but they usually hold to their faith.

    The quote comes from a book called ‘The Nazi Persecution of the Churches’ by John S. Conway

    Hitler was speaking to Bishop Wilhelm Berning, of Osnabruck at the time. The pertinent bits are on pages 25-26. I just tried the link and it took me to the book so?

  1. Carolyn

    March 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Hi Jason,
    Thanks especially for the clarification about Hitler’s statements. I went to your link at the time, and now went again, and you’re right, the first quote is right there above the second one. Moving back and forth in the pages (easy to get lost on Google Books) I didn’t notice it. My fault.

    So first we must establish that the author, John Conway, is an English historian who helped found the Scholars’ Conference on the German Church and the Holocaust, and that he uses the word “Nazi” in the title of his book. There is no doubt he is biased in favor of the Church.

    I learned that Hitler’s words came from an interview he granted to German Bishop Berning on April 26, 1933, just after becoming Chancellor and when he was establishing his government’s relations with the Churches. He was definitely seeking support and to allay any fears. After quoting these remarks made by Hitler to Bishop Berning, and 2 days later in a letter to Cardinal Bertram, the author Conway calls them “specious promises.” I myself don’t think Hitler was insincere in these words, but 1933 was not 1941. By 1941, he had already seen how both Church confessions would attack him when they thought their interests were threatened. He was also firmly in control of Germany and accepted as Fuehrer in the minds of Christians. He had no intention of harming the churches and didn’t. But during the war years, among his personal circle of various aides, he allowed himself to speak frankly — one reason may be that speaking aloud was his way of thinking things through — seeing how his ideas sounded (outside of his own head). That’s just my idea. It was something he had always done.

    Anyway, if you’re trying to prove that his Catholicism meant a lot to him, I don’t think these quotes do. I said he was a nominal catholic – that’s what you’re calling “holding to their faith.”

    I believe you’re wrong on Hoffman. He doesn’t attack Hitler because he wants to be mainstream, but because he doesn’t like Hitler, based on his (Hoffman’s) particular Christian beliefs. He accepts without protest that Hitler disregarded moral and humanist values. His anti-Jewishness is based on the Talmud, not on biology and not on race. Hoffman is a non-racialist even though he may not be an anti-racist. Consider this: he is a “holocaust denier” already, so he can’t be mainstream based on that. His lies appear to be anti-Hitler stuff he reads here and there, and repeats if they fit his own mindset without much regard to the source.