The Holocaust Story

If the Holocaust was an event in history, it should be open to the routine critical examination to which all other historical events are open. Those who feel it right to argue against the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans should be free to do so. No one should be imprisoned for thought crimes. Contrary to how Hollywood and the Israeli-Firsters have it, the Holocaust story is not about Jews. It’s about Jews and Germans together, inseparable, for all time to come.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

David Irving should be protected by free speech laws

This is a simple but almost unheard of argument in favor of intellectual freedom for Holocaust revisionists by a working journalist. Of course, he's a Brit. American journalists and the mainline press they write for just don't have the stomach to argue for a free press. If you choose to read more, go to comments. A story may develop.

Source: The [London] Independent (11-29-05)

[By Charles Glass]

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, 10 December 1948.

One of my first stories as a reporter for The Observer was a student strike in 1977 at the London School of Economics. Whenever a fellow student spoke against the strikers, they chanted, 'No free speech for fascists'. It had never . . .

Read more

Monday, November 28, 2005

European socialist empire moving against intellectual freedom

Search first, charge later: the EU way

David Irving, the British historian, is in an Austrian jail facing trial on a charge of denying the Holocaust - a crime there and in several other European countries, but not in ours. Serves him right, you may say. He returned to Austria knowing that he could be arrested over two lectures he gave in 1989. It may not be the British way - at least not yet - to jail someone for a thought or for an obnoxious interpretation of history, but that is Austrian law and Mr Irving, who committed his offence in Austria, must face the music.

But imagine if Austria could order the Met to search Mr Irving's home and office in England for evidence, and seize papers and documents. Could it possibly be right for the British authorities to enter a person's home at the request of a foreign court to obtain evidence for the prosecution of a crime that is not a crime in Britain?

Read more

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Should Holocaust Deniers Face Prison Time?

Austria News as a part of is asking the question in a reader poll:

Do you agree that British historian David Irving and other Holocaust deniers should face prison time? (Nov. 25, 2005)

The news service may be found at:

Right now the voting is slightly against the lock up of revisionists.

Friday, November 25, 2005

David Irving and Holocaust 'Denial'

As November 2005 rolls to a close, David Irving, renowned historian of the Second World War sits behind bars in an Austrian prison. Prosecutors charged Irving with denying the Holocaust. In Austria, this thoughtcrime comes with a 10-year prison sentence if convicted.

The first question one must ask is what exactly is "Holocaust Denial?" This may seem like a simple question at first, but the answer is more complex than you might think. To arrive at an answer we must first consider the question of what is a Holocaust revisionist? Years ago in his article, "Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace," Harry Elmer Barnes defined historical revisionism as follows, "Revisionism means nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts, a more calm political atmosphere, and a more objective attitude." Therefore if we apply Barnes definition to the subset of Historical Revisionism known as Holocaust Revisionism we see that it is merely an attempt to correct the historical record about the Holocaust.

With a broad definition many people can be classified as Holocaust revisionists including Princeton Professor Arno Mayer, Pat Buchanan and others. However, even within the community of those who consider themselves Holocaust revisionists, the definition is more specific. It generally includes only those who believe that fewer than six million Jews perished at this time and even more specifically that the Nazis did not kill Jews or others in Gas Chambers. It is this latter point which tends to define whether someone is part of the revisionist community or not. Therefore if you have given up your belief in Nazi Gas Chambers, you are a Holocaust revisionist -- if you still believe in this early day Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD), you are not.

By the 1990's with the successes of Holocaust revisionism, the anti-revisionists coined a negative term to define the revisionists, this was "Holocaust Deniers." This term comes with much baggage and confusion on both sides of the debate. Some revisionists have missed the point and even accepted this term. Their thought process is that they do not believe in Nazi Gas Chambers and therefore they "deny" their existence, thus they are Holocaust "deniers." They don't see anything wrong with the term. Among the anti-revisionists, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman miss the mark in their "Denying History," when they write, " According to this widely accepted definition of the Holocaust, so-called Holocaust revisionists are in effect denying the Holocaust, since they deny its three key components- the killing of the six million, gas chambers, and intentionality."

It is Deborah Lipstadt, who I belive deserves the credit for properly defining "Holocaust Denial." It is Lipstadts viewpoint which is the prevailing perspective. Lipstadt uses the term in her "Denying the Holocaust" in one of the popularly accepted definitions of "denial." That is to say (according to Webster's) that "denial" can mean "refusing to believe, accept , or embrace; as a denial of the faith or the truth." Lipstadt writes, "The attempt to deny the Holocaust enlists a basic strategy of distortion. Truth is mixed with absolute lies, confusing readers who are unfamiliar with the tactics of deniers. Half-truths and story segments, which conveniently avoid critical information, leave the listener with a distorted impression of what really happened." Lipstadt goes on to explain that her book is an effort to "demonstrate how the deniers use this methodology to shroud their true objectives." She later explains that Holocaust "denial" is "intimately connected to a neofascist political agenda."

In an article entitled, "Denying the Revisionists" Richard Widmann commented, "For Lipstadt, “deniers” are not those who express doubts about some element of the Holocaust story but those who actually believe the orthodox story in all its gruesome details. The “deniers” purposefully distort materials and even “lie” in order to support their ideology. At various times Lipstadt defines that ideology in varying terms but the net result is always the same, "they are fascists and antisemites with a specific ideological and political agenda.”

It is in the spirit of Lipstadt's definition, that so many countries of Europe (including of course Austria) have created anti-Holocaust-denial laws. The argument would be that the "deniers" believe in the Holocaust and the specifics including Nazi Gas Chambers used for extermination, but purposefully lie about these to "white wash" Nazi Germany in order to legitmize and resurrect the Nazi party. As absurd as this logic is, it is exactly this point which returns us to the Kafkaesque imprisionment of David Irving.

Irving is charged with "denying the Holocaust." The charges stem from two speeches which Irving gave in 1989 (whatever happened to a statute of limitations?). During these speeches he allegedly "denied the existence of the gas chambers." Therefore, remember, in the anti-revisionists mindset this means that Irving in fact believed in the extermination gas chambers but lied about them for ulterior purposes. Today however, according to Irving's attorney, Irving claims that he believes that Nazi gas chambers existed! Irving is reported to have said, "Look, there was a certain period when I drew conclusions from individual sources which are maybe provocative or could be misinterpreted or could be even wrong."

So it is clear, that if Irving believes in Nazi gas chambers, that he can't be "denying" them for any ulterior motive. However, now Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has come out and announced "It is an admission designed to extricate himself from imprisonment and in no way truly reflects his views." The Austrian thought-police should think this over carefully. For if Irving admits that Nazi Gas Chambers existed, he cannot be charged with denying their existence. But if Mr. Zuroff is correct and Irving is lying when he says that the gas chambers existed, and in fact believes that they did NOT exist, then too, he is not a Holocaust "denier" by Lipstadt's definition.

If this reasoning is unclear, consider the opposite. How can Irving be proven not guilty? If he says he believes in the Nazi gas chambers, he is lying and needs to be imprisoned. Alternatively if he says he does not believe in the Nazi gas chambers, he is lying and needs to be imprisoned. Like the witch-trials of the 17th century, the verdict is already in. The real question is, will we stand by and do nothing while the fire is lit and our freedoms are exterminated in the flames of political correctness?

Thursday, November 24, 2005

French deputy must defend Holocaust comments

AFP Tuesday, 22 November 2005

BRUSSELS — EU lawmakers refused Tuesday to grant immunity from prosecution to a French far right-wing deputy for remarks about the Nazi gas chambers, in a case threatening to embarrass the EU assembly.

After four times delaying a vote on Bruno Gollnisch, number two in France's extreme right National Front, the parliament's legal affairs committee voted overwhelmingly not to give him protection as a member of the European parliament (MEP) from court proceedings.
Gollnisch was charged over his comments at a press conference last year which trod a fine line on the edge of French laws against calling into question crimes against humanity.

The committee chairwoman, British MEP Diana
Wallis, said her panel felt that the way Gollnisch had acted "was not fairly and fully and squarely within the member's exercise of his duties as a member of this parliament."
"We are not in any way entering into a debate on the nature of the charge in France or the nature of the law in France," she said.

Speaking in Lyon, France, in October 2004, Gollnisch said: "I do not deny the existence of deadly gas chambers. But I'm not a specialist on this issue, and I think we have to let the historians debate it."

He did not contest the "hundreds of thousands, the millions of deaths" during the Holocaust, but added: "As to the way those people died, a debate should take place."
Four days later, then French justice minister Dominique Perben, who is now transport minister and intends to run against Gollnisch in 2007 municipal elections, ordered police in Lyon to launch an inquiry.

They found he had no case to answer but Perben insisted charges be laid.
The trial of Gollnisch, who claims he is being persecuted by Perben, was scheduled for September but was pushed back until November 29 so that parliament could rule on his immunity.

The EU assembly will vote on the committee's recommendation in full session next week. In the unlikely event that it votes against the committee's advice, the case against Gollnisch would probably have to be dropped.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Viewing issue?

On my browser, the side bar to the right of the screen is not working right. The text in that side bar is all the way down at the bottom, rather up on top where it should be. Do any of you have the same problem?

Intelligent design and Holocaust denial

The following text is from an article posted on History News Network, a page by historians for historians.

Whatever Intelligent Design Is, It's Not a Theory and It's Not Science
By Richard L. Cravatts
Mr. Cravatts Ph.D., a lecturer at Boston University, Tufts University, and Emerson College, writes frequently on social policy, housing development, Constitutional law, business, and politics.

"The fact is that not every intellectual viewpoint is worthy of being discussed in the classroom, merely because one group feels passionately that their issue has intrinsic value, is true, or should be heard as part of the marketplace of ideas. Some truths are absolute and do not require a fair and balanced measurement against some contradictory body of thought. An entire intellectual ‘industry’ of Holocaust denial research has many fervent followers, for instance, but few sentient school boards would find it palatable or reasonable to have students exposed to the ‘theory’ that the Holocaust never occurred along with history lessons expressing the verifiable and incontrovertible fact that it did."

I intitated a discussion here that, while it was not frutiful, was interesting. I am always taken aback by the unwillingness of academics to argue for free inquiry through an open debate on WWII history. Historians are serious folk. I have to suppose that I'm an innocent.

If you decide to Read more, go to "comments."

Monday, November 21, 2005

David Irving: The rights of a 'paper Eichmann'

By D.D. Guttenplan, London correspondent for the Nation

WHAT DO YOU DO with a problem like David Irving? Until a few years ago, the British author of "Hitler's War" was usually described as a "controversial historian." But in April 2000, a British high court judge held that Irving not only had denied the reality of the Holocaust but was an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathizer who "deliberately falsified and distorted" historical evidence in the service of his right-wing views.

Read more

Saturday, November 19, 2005

UN decides on a universal ban on revisionism

Dr Robert Faurisson

The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism
17 November 2005

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.
Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Read more

Thursday, November 17, 2005

David Irving in Austrian jail six days so far

Far-right British author David Irving has been arrested for Holocaust denial in Austria and has been in jail in Graz for six days, Austria's interior ministry confirmed today. Mr. Irving was arrested last Friday on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws that make Holocaust denial a crime. The charges stemmed from speeches he delivered that year in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben.

In a statement posted on his website, Mr Irving's supporters said he was arrested while on a one-day visit to Vienna, where they said he had been invited "by courageous students to address an ancient university association".

Read more

The Failure of C.O.D.O.H.

The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) and its founder, Bradley R. Smith have failed. Since the 1950's there have been many revisionist writers, researchers and organizations. Most of these have devoted themselves to historical research, publishing, editorials and the like. Bradley Smith and CODOH have been unique in their mission. Only CODOH has claimed its mission to be "open debate on the Holocaust." That is to say to establish and protect "intellectual freedom" on this one topic.

Bradley Smith originated the Campus Project to do exactly that. Through this project many articles were run in college newspapers to make students aware of the revisionist case. In the past twenty-five years many battles have been raging on the revisionist front. Many would argue that the case for revisionism was won by the revisionists through their scientific studies and historical research. The case that was surely lost however was the case for Intellectual freedom.

Just this week has seen the United States deport revisionist scholar Germar Rudolf to Germany where he now sits in prison facing a five year prison sentence. In the past week, world war two historian, David Irving was arrested in Austria and faces up to twenty years in prison. In the recent months Ernst Zuendel, a right-wing revisionist activist was also deported. This time from the U.S. to Canada, and from Canada to Germany. Zuendel faces five years in prison. The lesser-known revisionist publisher Siegfried Verbeke was also grabbed in Belgium and deported to Germany to stand trial.

Be clear. There is no "open debate" on the matter of the Holocaust. While the countries of Europe were passing their laws to criminalize Holocaust revisionism, CODOH lacked focus. Time was spent on the gas chamber story. Time was spent on autobiography. Time was spent on Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler. Time was spent on the plight of the Palestinians as well as so many other things. CODOH needed to have one mission and one job -- to fight for freedom of speech in this one area. This lack of focus has contributed to this monumental failure.

Now, understand that the deck was surely stacked against Bradley Smith and his small cadre of supporters. All the governments of the western Europe and Israel are lined up against him. Presumably the United Nations as well. But Bradley Smith should be singing a one note song.

What is the problem with Israel today? For CODOH the answer is simple -- that they criminalize Holocaust revisionism -- and even seek the deportation of revisionists to Israel. The Palestinians, the Arabs, Zionism, the establishment of Israel, etc. etc. should not matter. Only this one thing. And this is what is wrong with France and Germany and Austria and on and on.

Whether there were gas chambers or not. Whether its advocates are neo-Nazis, white nationalists or whatever -- it doesn't matter. All should be free to research, to speak, to publish. If the revisionists are wrong, demonstrate that they are wrong with your research, your speeches, your books. But persecution and imprisonment for an idea is wrong.

Didn't we learn anything from the McCarthy period? Didn't we learn anything from the Salem Witch Trials?

The time to stand up for freedom is now.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

David Irving held in Austria for revisionist thought crimes

This is all I have on this story. It originates on his Action Report page.

November 11, 2005

THE historian David Irving has been arrested while on a one-day visit to Vienna. An expert on Hitler's Third Reich, he had been invited by courageous students to address an ancient University association in the Austrian capital.

He chose as his subject the secret negotiations between Adolf Eichmann and the Jewish leaders in Budapest, Joel Brand and Rezsö Kasztner, the so-called "trucks for Jews" deal, and British knowledge of the scheme from codebreaking. He has researched the topic extensively in Allied archives for both his Churchill and his Himmler biographies.

Despite precautions, the Austrian political police are believed to have learned of the visit by wiretaps or intercepting e-mails. Mr Irving had privately visited his embattled friend the German playwright Rolf Hochhuth on the way to Austria; they had not met for twenty years because of travel restrictions imposed on each of them

Read original

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Rudolf telephones Arthur Butz before his extradition to Germany

Germar telephoned me three times on Sunday Nov. 13.

He telephoned me in the morning to tell me that three people whom he would like to call have their phones blocked in relation to his calls. This is a common problem and has happened to me too. There is nothing sinister about it; it has to do with excessive charges. It can be unpredictable, and awkward to fix on a Sunday. Germar wanted me to phone those three people to ask them to get their phones unblocked.

He called me in the late afternoon to tell me that the German media are saying that he will arrive on Tuesday, so he assumed he will be deported on Monday. The media are also saying that the prosecution will press for a 5 year sentence, followed by a 20 year prohibition on leaving Germany. He asked that on Monday I call his wife to learn whether or not he has been deported and then send out a report to his many friends around the world. His parting message is that we must uphold and advance his legacy of scholarly research, exposition, and publication.

Germar called me Sunday evening, around 8:45 PM, to ask me to telephone his wife, whose phone had become blocked. The telephones in the jail were about to be turned off, and he did not know whether he would be able to speak to her Monday morning. I should tell her he loves her, very much, and will miss her and the baby. I communicated that message to her immediately. I was quite in the dark throughout Monday but, since I received no phone calls from him, I assumed the worst. His wife seemed too distracted to give me information, and I did not know of his deportation until the e-mails of Tuesday afternoon came in.

A.R. Butz

Germar Rudolf in his own words

The arrest and deportation of Germar Rudolf has been reported with sweeping slanders and misleading suggestions. We read that Rudolf is charged with "inciting racial hatred." Who is this "hatemonger?"

In the English edition of "Dissecting the Holocaust," Rudolf commented extensively on the Relationship of Germans and Jews. In an article entitled, "The Controversy about the Extermination of the Jews: An Introduction" Rudolf wrote the following (under the pen name Ernst Gauss)


A German-Jewish Vision of the Future

When the cultural and social integration of the Jews in Germany became a reality in the course of the past century, this development also heralded one of the greatest and most fruitful symbioses that ever connected two peoples.

Could this symbiosis, so profitable for the whole world, be possible once again today?


It is my wish that both peoples should come together again in a partnership of mutual respect, so as to take up the traditions of an era that brought the world, Jewry, and the German people, such immense benefit. It is also my wish that the time may come, at long last, where all the reciprocal contempt or disdain, mutual distrust and fear are eroded and ultimately removed.


Reconciliation can progress only in a climate which fosters speaking from the heart and listening with an open mind and spirit; where opinions are expressed rather than choked back or even suppressed; where points of contention are discussed in a civilized manner and not hidden by hushing up, distractionism, or violence.


The first and foremost goal of this discussion is the joint and sincere search for truth, in order to contribute to a reconciliation between Jews and Germans which may perhaps result in a realization of my dream of a revival of the German-Jewish symbiosis.

Trial of Ernst Zundel delayed again as court refuses to accept his legal counsel

The trial of notorious Holocaust-denier Ernst Zündel will have to be rescheduled after the judge disqualified the public defender. She had appointed a debarred right-wing extremist as her legal assistant.

On the second day of the trial against neo-Nazi Ernst Zündel in Mannheim, Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen announced that a new lawyer would have to be assigned to defend the 66-year old.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz had appointed Horst Mahler, a debarred lawyer and well-known right-wing extremist, as her legal assistant. The judge said this was legally punishable. He dismissed both Stolz and Mahler from the defense on the first day of the trial last week.

Read more

Germar Rudolf deported to Germany for revisionist thought crimes

A man who published a study that he said proved the Nazis did not gas Jews at Auschwitz was deported from the US to his native Germany today to serve a prison term for Holocaust denial, Stuttgart prosecutors said.

Germar Rudolf, also known as Germar Scheerer, had his emergency petition to block the deportation rejected by the US Supreme Court on Thursday.

Rudolf, a 1989 chemistry graduate of Bonn University and a former student at Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, was sentenced in 1995 to 14 months in prison for Holocaust denial, a crime in Germany, but then disappeared.

Read more

Friday, November 11, 2005

Fredrick Töben reflects on the Hunt for Revisionists

This is a passionate, unstudied statement by Frederick Toben of the Adelaide Institute upon learning that Germar Rufolf will be extradited from America to Germany on 14 November to serve a minimum of five years in prison for revisionist thought crimes. It is, as well, a call for all of us who believe in the value of intellectual freedom to stand up publicly, with a sense of honor, and say so.

Adelaide, 11 November 2005 -- 10 November in USA

This morning, USA time Thursday evening – Prof Arthur Butz’s birthday -- I was informed that Germar Rudolf’s final attempt of resisting his deportation from the USA to Germany had failed when Supreme Court Justice Kennedy rejected leave to appeal. This means that the US Supreme Court has condoned the application of lies and the flouting of legal procedures as a means to achieve an aim – to remove an individual from the US who threatens Jewish-Zionist power structures by refusing to believe in the Holocaust.

On Monday, 14 November 2005, Germar will be flown to Germany, possibly to Stuttgart where over a decade ago, the German court case originated the absurd charges against Germar of ‘denying the Holocaust and defaming the memory of the dead’. Sentenced in absentia, Germar will upon arrival immediately be imprisoned, with possible further charges to be canvassed so as to maximize his current sentence, beyond the obligatory five years’ maximum.

Michael said to me, ‘Germar is such a prick, but he’s our prick and he has really turned out some dazzling work’. After hearing about Germar’s fate, Richard sees Germar’s extradition as a tragedy for Revisionism, and he asks what we can do to help. My response is that we must proudly proclaim – in public – that we refuse to believe in the Holocaust, and see whether this will lead to because we are thereby also fighting anew that old free speech battle. Further, we don’t want to believe, we want to know, and this means we must investigate the material evidence that is available to us. What will help us to clarify things is the massive effort Germar put into his Holocaust Handbooks series as a resource.

Read more

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Account of the First Hearing – Regional Court Mannheim, 08.11.05

This is the best individual account of the theatrical opening day of the trial of Ernst Zundel for revisionist thought crimes that has crossed my desk.


By Markus Haverkamp -

Dear all - the attachment contains a brief account of the first day in the hearings against Ernst Zündel in Mannheim, Germany. Please forward! Best wishes, Markus Haverkamp

On Tuesday morning roughly 80 supporters of Ernst Zündel and 35 representatives of the media met at the Regional Court Mannheim, a court notorious for its zeal and fervour in persecuting Revisionists. The atmosphere was extraordinarily pleasant, the supporters having come from as far as Canada, the UK, France and Switzerland.

Following the usual security procedures by the police, who were very friendly indeed, the hearing began shortly after 09.00 when the judge, Dr. Meinerzhagen, his two colleagues and two jurors entered the courtroom. Ernst Zündel, wearing a blazer and tie, made a healthy and confident impression; he was represented by Miss Sylvia Stolz, whom Ernst Zündel had appointed as his mandatory lawyer, as well as Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Herbert Schaller (Austria) as his lawyers of choice. Miss Stolz’ assistant was Horst Mahler. Ernst Zündel was thus represented by possibly the most experienced and highly qualified team of lawyers for dealing with Holocaust persecution and nationalism.

Read more

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Zionist power stems from West's belief in "Holocaust" myth: Faurisson

Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN – Following the designation of a day as “Holocaust Day” by the United Nations, the Mehr News Agency conducted an interview with French professor Robert Faurisson on November 2 about the motivations behind this move. In the interview, the professor says that Zionists will not tolerate any questioning of the “Holocaust” and argues that the more the Western public believes in the “Holocaust” the more Muslims will be killed.
Following is the text of the interview:

Q: As you know the UN General Assembly on Tuesday (November 1) passed a resolution designating January 27 as an international day of commemoration of the Jewish and other victims of the Holocaust. What is your view on the decision at this time?

Faurisson: For many years now I have been telling my acquaintances in the Muslim world that the Jews and the Zionists want to impose the religion of the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews on the whole world. It is normal that Jews and Zionists should seek to foist such an imposture on us, for it is the sword and the shield of the Jews in general and of the Jewish State in particular. It is also normal that the Jews and the Zionists should have got the UN to submit to their will to power and so decree that every year the six billion people who inhabit the Earth shall be reminded of the "Holocaust".

The Muslim world has been awakening from its too long torpor for only a few years. It ought to have listened to the revisionists long ago and denounced out loud the sham of an alleged German project to exterminate the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged six million Jewish victims.

Read more


Tuesday, November 08, 2005

The trial of Ernst Zundel, a leading Holocaust denier, opened Tuesday with the judge dismissing a defence lawyer

This AP article reveals the twisted nature at the heart of the issue to hand. A man is charged with a crime of denying that which is not specific (what was the Holocaust?), he apparently "loved" a man who led Germany to ruin for the second time in three decades (Germans have as much trouble governing themselves as do Americans--or as we say now--the Empire.) The defendant is charged with "incitement" for investigating a historical event and publishing his findings, for calling liars liars and frauds frauds, and for disparaging the wrong dead (there are no laws against disparaging the German dead--they deserve disparagement). Intellectual freedom then, open debate, and free press are crushed by State factotums who feel guilty because of what their fathers allegedly did, but are such weak sisters that they will not stand up for the great ideal of Western culture--the right to say what you think. What does that have to do with what their fathers did or did not do?

Within the Empire, it's not that bad yet. But it's sliding in that direction. --BRS

MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) - The trial of Ernst Zundel, a leading Holocaust denier, opened Tuesday with the judge dismissing a defence lawyer, himself a well-known far-right activist who was convicted of incitement earlier this year. Zundel, 66, who wrote the book The Hitler We Loved and Why, faces charges of incitement, libel and disparaging the dead. He was deported from Canada eight months ago after authorities there ruled he posed a threat to national and international security.

Read more

Ernst Zundel Sues Crown for False Detention

[Ernst Zundel goes on trial today in Germany for thought crimes. This is how the Holocaust Cult protects "truth in history." Threats, extradition, trials, imprisonment, and the destruction of normal life for those individuals who do not bend their knee and accept conversion. It is only natural that thought should recall the plight of Spain's Jews who were given the choice of converting to Christianity, or being deported, or worse. Revisionists have the same choice today as Spain's Jews had four centuries ago. Either convert, or pretend to convert, or suffer the consequences. --BRS]

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

In a dramatic move, November 24, Ernst Zundel's lead counsel Peter Lindsay filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court in Toronto demanding that the government release Mr. Zundel and declare relevant sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) unconstitutional as violations of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and FreedomsSpecifically, Mr. Zundel is challenging his 22 months of detention in solitary confinement and the government's hearing of secret evidence which has not allowed him to make an adequate or informed defence. This constitutional challenge also cites the fact that the judge can consider "anything" -- and Mr. Justice Pierre Blais has -- as evidence, even hearsay and double hearsay.

Paul Fromm, Director

Read more

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Gaza: a reply to Freeman

With regard to the archeological or historical verities present, or not present, in the Bible—I know very little about either. I would suppose, coming at the matter from the outside, that when I see a collection of stories as immense as that in the two testaments, that some of the stories would be true, some false. That’s conjecture on my part.

It’s like the Holocaust story that way. It’s an immese collection of war stories. I would suspect that most of them would be true, but we know that many of the charges made against the Germans are false, not to say filthy, and cannot be proven to be true, yet continue to be made anyhow. Shamelessly.

I agree with you that “An over focus on things Jewish seems to bring creedance to the negative claims of revisionism's detractors.” Revisionists are in a bind here. A good number of us who have come to see that the orthodox Holocaust story is corrupt through and through had a grudge against Jews to begin with. But those of us who do not have a grudge against Jews are charged with it anyhow as a technique for controlling the story. It works.

With regard to the central issue here: should my post referencing “Gaza—and the rest of it” be on this blog at all, a blog that is to deal with the Holocaust story? I believe it does, in the sense that the Holocaust did not happen in a historical vacum. I’m not an academic specialist. What I understand is that the story was exploited by the Allies to protect themselves from charges of having committed crimes against humanity. It was exploited by Europeans to rewrite the map of Europe. And it was exploited by Israeli-Firsters to morally justify the establishment of a Jewish State on Arab land where the overwhelming majority of those living on it thought it a bad idea.

As a matter of fact, if the story had to do with Germans and Jews alone, I wonder if I would even bother with it? I have not bothered with the Japanese in China. Arab tyranny. The endless conflicts of the Sub-Saharan Africans. And so on. Those stories are not in my face day after day. But the Holocaust story—that’s a different matter. Unlike the other stories, it impacts directly on my everyday life. I am condemned merely for expressing my skepticism about it—or any event in any part of the world that I see has been impacted by the story.

The idea that the modern state of Isreal has no right to exist does not have to be seen as a “conspiracy” theory. I believe it was a mistake, and not morally justified at the time, but it’s there now and I don’t know what to make of it. I see Israel as being a Jewish problem. I see the problem for Americans as being that the U.S. Congress pays for the whole shebang. Why we would do that is beyond me. It appears that Arabs, and an increasing number of others around the planet, see it as beyond them as well.

What I do know is that so long as I express my skepticism about the “gas-chambers,” and thus the heart of the Holocaust invention, I am going to be hounded by those who front for the Holocaust Industry. It would not matter if I were a strong supporter of Israel, and it would not matter if I were a Jew. Or if I never mentioned the word Jew. I would be hounded, slandered, and destroyed for breaking the taboo against open debate on the Holocaust and the impact I believe it has on our daily lives.

Of course, I remain willing to be convinced that I’m wrong about some or all of this.

Re: "Regarding Gaza -- and then the rest of it"

The post "Regarding Gaza" seems out of place on a Blog dedicated to "The Holocaust Story." I would think that unless in a more generalized historical revisionist blog, such a piece does not belong. An overfocus on things Jewish seems to bring creedance to the negative claims of revisionism's detractors. One of course could argue some 3500 year conspiracy theory (ala Douglas Reed) to connect such events and to attempt to show that the modern state of Israel is somehow not justified to exist. Such huge conspiracy theories like "The Conspiracy of Zion" and the more recent super-popular "The DaVinci Code" are fictions.

Without belaboring a topic which doesn't belong in the first place, the article in question contains assertions about the falsity of the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible without evidence. The opposite position can be found as well. Jewish scholar Nelson Glueck has observed, "It is worth emphasizing that in all this work no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement." In recent years archaeology has actually confirmed countless passages which were formerly rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts.

Without further discussion of the archaeological and historical evidence it may be worth noting that any such attack on the Old Testament is also an attack on the New. Jesus taught that the Old Testament is divinely authoritative, infallible, inerrant, historically reliable, and scientifically accurate. There are countless New Testament affirmations of Old Testament events. I would direct those interested to Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's recent work "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist."

Friday, November 04, 2005

- do not fear prison
- have the moral and intellectual courage to state:

- think of those who are in or face prison
because they REFUSE to

This announcement was sent by the folks at The Adelaide Institute, which is directed by Frederick Toben. It is a very brief and forceful statement and call to arms. It raises an issue, issues, that I have gone back and forth on for twenty years. Because there is not universal agreement on what constituted the “Holocaust,” the word means different things to different folks.

Most people in the West believe the orthodox Holocaust story—that the Germans, acting out the role of a uniquely evil people, wanted to exterminate all the Jews in Europe and maybe the world, and in Europe, using weapons of mass destruction (gas-chambers), largely succeeded.

Those who do not believe the Germans used WMD to exterminate Europe’s Jews find the Holocaust story to be saturated in fraud and falsehood. They—we—see the gas-chamber story as the heart of the so-called “Holocaust.” No gas chambers, no Holocaust.

Over the years when I have been interviewed via radio or the print press, I am always asked if I “deny” the Holocaust happened. I always reply: “That’s the wrong question.” The first question has to be: “What was the Holocaust?” We must be in agreement about what we are talking about, or we talk past each other.

That’s what I fear will happen with this Call To Civil Disobedience. It addresses only those who do not believe, but not those who do, the True Believers, which is where the problem is. That is, it addresses the choir. Of course—and thought recalls this only in this moment—there are many in the “choir” who do not sing. It is not only that they do not raise their voices, but that they hardly hum even a bar or two. These folk are in wide agreement that revisionist arguments are important to Western culture, but not important enough to risk—what?

So maybe the Call To Civil Disobedience is a good thing after all. It may be a very good thing to challenge closet revisionists to own up to their skepticism, to raise their voices in the name of liberty and intellectual freedom, and sing out their own truth—that they do not believe what they do not believe. I have ended up, then, in a place that is different from the place I started out from. The other issues all remain.
The greatest issue for revisionists is to acknowledge the catastrophe Europe’s Jews suffered during the Hitlerian regime. Most of the peoples of Europe suffered their own catastrophe at the same time, and before that during the regime of America’s wonderfully human ally, Josef Stalin. The fact that many Jews exploit their own catastrophe in exchange for money, land, and influence is their problem.

The fact that most of the rest of us go along with it—that’s our problem. Like those revisionists who do not believe that it is important enough, in one way or another, to stand up and be counted.

Thursday, November 03, 2005


$100,000.00 REWARD For locating the
Sponsored by NAFCASH TM

All you have to do is locate the alleged mass graves of Treblinka. You must scientifically—forensically—prove the number of graves, their exact location, dimensions, volume and density. The number of remains must total at least, 870,000, which is the number of victims that the legend claims.

I did a little work on the Treblinka story when I first got into revisionism. The story itself is a comic masterpiece. The way it has been used to demonize Germans to benefit Israeli-Firsters, however, is not very amusing.
I have no personal experience with The National Association of Forensic Criminologists, Archeologists, Skeptics and Historians, but I am in contact with the Adelaide Institute in Australia which sponsors it, and I have every reason to trust them. So if you believe that the professors have been telling you the truth about Treblinka these past 50 years, and you need a little pocket change, I would suggest you follow up on this one. You may find some discussion of this story on The Revisionist Forum.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Those Prosecuted for “Denying the Holocaust” Are Now the Prosecutors

They are exposing the Great Lie, whose days are numbered.

Potsdam, 7 October 2005

Dirk Reinecke, the Reich citizen indicted by the State Prosecutor in Potsdam on charges of “Denying the Holocaust,” has submitted to the Potsdam District Court his legal brief prepared by his defending attorney, Sylvia Stolz. On the day he is acquitted, the Holocaust jurists who once inspired terror among patriotic citizens will no longer be able to defend themselves with the excuse that they “just didn’t know what all was involved.” Reinecke’s complaint, which charges the subject jurists with treason and acting as accessories in the moral assassination of the German nation, comprises more than 1000 pages with attachments.

The foreign domination of the German nation set a trap for itself with the Holocaust muzzle law (Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Strafgesetzbuch (penal code).

That trap has now snapped shut. As we shall soon see, those who are caught in the trap will themselves soon be standing before the court as defendants.

The Holocaust jurists are being stripped of their masks and exposed as willing executioners employed by Germany’s foreign masters. You ask: how can they be prosecuted? Well, the basic question in every Holocaust trial is always whether the Holocaust is offenkundig (obvious, manifest, self-evident) or not. Until now, that question has been asked very infrequently in the German halls of justice, and always without success. I am aware of only three cases in which the defense was courageous enough to ask this question. Without exception the defending attorneys themselves wound up on trial.

Two of these have already been convicted of “Holocaust Denial” along with their clients.

Read More
Regarding Gaza -- and then the rest of it

Not long ago, archaeologists could agree that the Old Testament, for all its embellishments and contradictions, contained a kernel of truth. Obviously, Moses had not parted the Red Sea or turned his staff into a snake, but it seemed clear that the Israelites had started out as a nomadic band somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Mesopotamia; that they had migrated first to Palestine and then to Egypt; and that, following some sort of conflict with the authorities, they had fled into the desert under the leadership of a mysterious figure who was either a lapsed Jew or, as Freud maintained, a high-born priest of the royal sun god Aton whose cult had been overthrown in a palace coup. Although much was unknown, archaeologists were confident that they had succeeded in nailing down at least these few basic facts.

That is no longer the case. In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore.

Read More
Holocaust revisionism in Iran

Following are excerpts from an Iranian TV movie titled "Holo Causte", which aired on Sahar TV on October 28, 2005. The characters speak in French, English, and Arabic. This movie, which presents the alleged persecution of Holocaust deniers, was produced by Sahar TV and filmed in Lebanon. At the end of the movie, "special thanks" are conveyed to the Iranian broadcast authority's offices in Beirut, to Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV in Beirut, to Lebanese Ministries of Defense, General Security, and the Interior, and to the municipalities of Beirut, Sidon, Junieh, and Jbeil.

In Iran there is freedom of speech--with regard to the Holocaust story. In Germany, where Ernst Zundel is in prison for thought crimes, there is no freedom of speech with regard to the Holocaust story. How do you distinguish between the Iranian government and the German government? Depends on the issue. Otherwise, you don't.

Read More