Dear Fellow Patriot!   14 January 2004 The February issue of Community News goes to the printer on Friday. Another incredible work of our team. The two lead articles are: 1) A new series by Paul Krupp, entitled "A look into history." Again, a view of the Third Reich in less than 1,600 words. Full of facts. An eye-opener. 2) The second is part II of constitutional expert Richard Warren on the Patriot Act. It's a must read for anyone who cares to be informed. On the last page we feature again the ad for the 2004 International Revisionist Conference, dedicated to Ernst Zuendel. Our series on the horrible pictures of life as a WWII German prisoners continues. The "Kultur Korner" and "Can we talk" are back. We bring you also a memorial to the bombing of Dresden, including a picture of the new memorial card, which you can view at http://www.adelaideinstitute.org We've ordered a few hundreds of these cards to support Die Jungen Sachsen, who design every year a new card to memorialize the Allied bombing holocaust. We sell them for 75 cents each. February issue of Community News - miss an issue, miss a lot! For a complimentary copy, please e-mail us with your postal address. ******************************************************* And we're back to the Grubach/Krupp/Faurisson controversy. This is the last day! I am closing the discussion. Here is Veteran Revisionist Paul Grubach with a response to Apollonian: [START] Paul Grubach responds to "A., impoverished combat-scholar" from the 1/13/2004 issue of The Patriot Letter   In the 1/13/2004 issue of The Patriot Letter, there was a rebuttal from "A., impoverished combat-scholar" to my response to Paul Krupp.  Here is my response to "A...."   1.  First of all, why won't our "impoverished combat-scholar" reveal his true identity?  Is he afraid to reveal his true identity?  Or is there some other reason for this?   2.  "A., Impoverished-Combat Scholar" writes: "I'd like to submit Krupp wins rather emphatically; Grubach is really quite weak.  What was TITLE of work of Mattogno's and Graf's?--so we can check for ourselves--Grubach doesn't say, and his argument, such as it is, is weak.  We really need more information for Grubach to pretend more seriously to any substantial point."   The reason that I didn't give the title of Mattogno's and Graf's work is because most knowledgeable revisionists that I know are already aware of the most current and cutting edge Holocaust revisionist scholarship being published by Germar Rudolf. Apparently our "Impoverished Combat-Scholar" does not keep up with such things.  The title of the book is Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study and it is available from Germar Rudolf's website at www.vho.org   3.  "A., Impoverished Combat Scholar" continues: "All Grubach does is partially quote the conclusion without giving substantial premise (or argument), and ends by essentially saying, "see, Graf and Mattogno say so, therefore it must be true"--this is fallacy of argument-from-authority, very weak inductive argument and scholarship."   This is baloney from beginning to end.  Graf's and Mattogno's study is 311 pages in length!  In order to adequately summarize all of their arguments and evidence, I would have had to write at least a 30 page essay.  I don't have the time to write such an essay, nor do I think that Walter Mueller wants essays of that length for his online newsletter.  So, for the sake of brevity, I simply quoted their conclusion.  I never said "see, Graf and Mattogno say so, therefore it must be true."  Knowledgeable revisionists who keep up with the most up-to-date scholarship are aware of the book and they can easily go consult the book for themselves and see the correct line of reasoning used by Mattogno and Graf to arrive at their conclusion on page 247, which is: "The concentration camp Majdanek was a place of suffering.  The people imprisoned there suffered under catastrophic sanitary conditions, epidemics, at times completely insufficient rations, back-breaking heavy labor, harassment.  More than 40,000 inmates died, primarily from disease, debilitation and malnutrition.  An unknown number were executed.".   4.  "A. impoverished combat scholar" writes: "Same goes regarding David Irving upon Goebbels: just because Irving "says so" doesn't necessarily make it true; Goebbels' "Diary" is notoriously corrupted, and Irving is rather weak in any case."   Once again, "A. impoverished combat-scholar" reveals his lack of knowledge.  I never said nor implied that "because Irving says so, therefore it must be true." Knowledgeable revisionists are aware of the line of reasoning by which Irving arrived at the conclusion that the passage from the Goebells Diaries is authentic.  Here is a key passage from the diaries of Joseph Goebbels, one of Nazism's most important officials, concerning the deportation of the Jews: "Beginning with Lublin the Jews are now being deported eastward from the Government-General.  The procedure is pretty barbaric, and one that beggars description, and there's not much left of the Jews.  Broadly speaking one can probably say that sixty percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only forty percent can be put to work."    Irving found that this passage is in the original Goebells diaries in the Hoover Library in California. Well, you say, perhaps the American officials who took possession of this diary forged this ugly passage? Irving went to Moscow to examine the microfilmed version of the diary.  Sure enough, this passage was in the Microfilmed Goebells diary.  The Nazis microfilmed the diaries in 1944 or 1945, before the Americans took possession of it.  This is indeed good evidence that the incriminating passage is genuine.   Irving isn't "weak" on this point.  The only thing that is weak here is "A. impoverished combat scholar's" knowledge.   5.  "A. impoverished combat scholar"--who has not revealed his identity--then makes an utterly false and ignorant statement: "Fact is Grubach is miserably prejudiced against Germany..."   This is patently false.  I have no respect for cowards who slander people behind anonymous identities.  One of the many reasons that I am trying to reveal to the world the truths of Holocaust revisionism is because I want to end the defamation of the German people.  But I refuse to promote falsehoods.  I try to describe historical reality in the most honest manner as is possible.  And intellectual honesty demands that I say that the Nazi deportation of the Jews was brutal and violent.   My country, the USA, is guilty of a horrible war crime.  During WWII, The US supported and propped up Joseph Stalin, undoubtedly one of the worst tyrants and murderers in all of human history.  Does this mean that Paul Grubach is miserably prejudiced against the USA??  Hell know--I am an American patriot that loves the USA.  But intellectual honesty demands that I speak the truth.   In closing, I just want to say this.  I reject Walter Mueller's political beliefs, but I respect his courage, straightforward honesty, fairness, and candor.  I also respect his laudatory attempts to let all points of view have their day in court.  Walter and I may disagree on matters involving Hitler and the Nazis, but we still remain Internet friends.   Paul Grubach   [END] Paul Grubach and Dr. Faurisson. Please note RF is Dr. Faurisson's response: [START] Dear Dr. Faurisson, In an old English translation of your writings from April 25, 1979, you were quoted as writing: "In reality, however, for reasons that need no explaining here, Hitler, the person, as well as his ideas and politics are unattractive to me as those of Napoleon Bonaparte." RF:  "Unattractive" was inaccurate! "m'intéressent aussi peu que..." = interest me as little as... I wished to focus on my topic at the time which was the alleged gas chambers of Hitler and not his ideas or politics. You were also quoted as writing: "I will regard any charge or insinuation of Nazism against me as defamation." FR: Right! It meant: Beware! If you keep insinuating I am a Nazi while you have no proof that I am so, I will do what anyone would do when he is attacked without proof and I will launch against you, as we do in France in such a case, "un procès en diffamation". In the January 16, 1979 issue of Le Monde, you allegedly wrote: "I admire the French who struggled against Nazism.  They defended the good cause." RF: 1) Right! I admire courage, including the courage of those who fought for or against Hitller. During the war, as a young boy (I was ten in 1939 and sixteen in 1945) and having a Scottish mother I was totally on the side of the British (I did not care very much for the Americans or for the Russians). I considered it was the good cause. After the "victory", I was disgusted by the behaviour, the crimes and the lies of those who had defended that "good cause". 2)You know my position on this general topic. I expressed it in 1998 at the beginning of the four volume-set of my Ecrits révisionnistes and it was published in the January-February 2000 issue of The Journal of Historical Review (p.13-14): "Whether "just" or "injust" every war is a butchery ­ indeed, notwithstanding the heroism of countless soldiers, a competition in butchery. At the end of it, the winner turns out to have been nothing more than a good butcher, and the loser a bad butcher. So when hostilities have ceased, the victor may perhaps be entitled to give the vanquished a lesson in butchery, but certainly not in Right and Justice. Yet that is just what happened in the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, when the four big winners, acting in their own names and in the name of the 19 victorious entities (not counting the World Jewish Congress, which enjoyed the status of "amicus curiae" or "friend of the court"), had the cynicism to inflict such a treatment on a beaten nation reduced to total impotence" . Are these accurate statements and translations of your statements? Paul Grubach RF: I hope I answered your questions. I am pleased I was given the opportunity of correcting that "canard" of Faurisson having allegedly written "good riddance" with Hitler. I hate people spitting on the underdog. Best wishes.       RF [END] Community News columnist Paul Krupp responds to Grubach: [START] >Paul Grubach Responds to Paul Krupp on Jews, Nazism, >Holocaust revisionism, and Nazi apologetics, etc. >The 1/11/2004 edition of the Patriot Letter contained >Paul Krupp's response to Paul Grubach. I would like >to take this opportunity to rebut Mr. Krupp. Once >again, Walter Mueller is to be thanked for providing a >forum so that all points of view on these important >issues can be aired. >1. Paul Krupp begins: "Unfortunately, your [Paul >Grubach's] response consisted mostly of >categorical denials and no valid counter-arguments." >Grubach responds. This is baloney. My response >contained statements of fact that corrected Paul >Krupp's false and/or distorted views of reality. Well, just another denial, Mr. Grubach. It is very difficult to answer all the denials and accusations you have conjured up, since most of it is nothing but squabble, which I have been subjected to ever since I became aware of the lies of the so-called holocaust. I'm used to it. Walter Mueller's response was absolutely excellent and saved me a lot of time to answer your emotional outbreaks. I also noted that you did not reject Hitler's humane treatment of Jews; sending them on luxury-liners to the ports of their choice. Or the subsequent rejection of other nations to accept those "artists", "doctors", "professors", "scientists", "bankers" and other "heavy brains" such as the embezzlers in Russia, humanity's "cream of the crop". Nothing but the best. If you want, we can go into details. To pin the Neo-Nazi label on anybody who stands-up for his history and past, is a well used method by those who sell "gefillte fish". Sorry for pinning the label of Neo-Jew on you, but since your defense is pinning labels on people who do not accept distorted history, I feel I have the same right. >2. Mr Krupp states: "Mr. Grubach, Jews do not >identify themselves as 'good' or 'bad' Jews. For >non-Jews it is an impossible task to define between >them. If there are 'good and bad' Jews' then the >good-ones should control the bad-ones in order to stop >the cruelty they perpetuate in Palestine and other >countries, namely, so-called democracies, where >free-speech is punishable by law. Take Germany as an >example." >Grubach responds. Non-Jewish Europeans and Canadians >are to a large extent responsible for the cruelties of >the "so-called democracies" that you refer to. And there is a profound reason for that. One can only answer that with a quote from "Mein Kampf" - without being a Nazi - it is simply history: "On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light." Yes, Mr Grubach, there are simply too many "maggots" in our alleged "democracies" especially in most english-speaking and many European nations. Even the Bible tells us: "And many did not speak freely, because of fear of the Jews." Jews are everywhere and their terror is everywhere. Unfortunately, we have too many politicians and private citizens, even some in the Revisionist camp, who are propaganda damaged beyond repair. If you want, we can go into details. >In the French daily, Le Monde, he [Dr. Faurisson] >wrote: "Nazism is dead, and good riddance >with its Fuehrer." He also wrote: "I admire the >French who courageously struggled against Nazism. >They defended the good cause." Looking at the pictures of Prof. Faurisson where he lies in a pool of his own blood, courtesy of  6 "brave" young Jews who attacked the elderly man and beat him to a pulp, I doubt very much that he still holds his opinion; "They defended the good cause." >4. Paul Krupp makes this most ignorant statement; >"The 'brutal, violent and immoral' policies of Hitler >are but a figment of a vibrant Jewish imagination." Yes, I still do. All you have to read is the Anne Frank Diary, the Wilkomierskies, the Kogons, the Nyiszlis, the Wiesels, the T.N. Kaufmans, the Morgenthaus, the Wiesenthals, the Dr. Blahas and all the thousands of "eye-witness accounts, where you can see and feel the "vibrant Jewish imagination." If you want, we can go into details. To answer all your emotional denials, mostly based on such "vibrant Jewish imagination", would take-up too much room here. However, I will give you another example of "Adolf Hitler's brutal, violent and immoral attempts to solve the Jewish Question."  I refer you to: <http://globalfire.tv/nj/04de/zeitgeschichte/seifenholo.htm> Here you find a "BILD" [German daily] picture and article about Arthur "Atze" Brauner (a Jew), movie producer in Germany, strolling - 1943 !!! - along the Kurfürsten Damm, a favorite boulevard of Berlin's Jewish community, dressed in the finest garments not even available to "Nazis". For you to interpret that as "Adolf Hitler's brutal, violent and immoral attempts to solve the Jewish Question" makes me question your motives in revisionist circles. Let me quote spiegel.de, 06012004 as quoted in: < http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/04de/politik/irakluege.htm> "The new American party "MOVEON" accused the American administrations thus: 'What 1945 was classed as a war-crime is in the year 2003 American foreign policy.'"  Of course this statement is not quite true, because it has been American foreign policy, especially towards Germany, for the past 200 years and not just since 2003. >Grubach quotes Joseph Goebbels: >"Beginning with Lublin the Jews are now being >deported eastward from the Government-General. The >procedure is pretty barbaric, and one that beggars >description, and there's not much left of the Jews..." And here your quote is incorrect, unless my quote from L.P. Lochner, p.170 is false: "Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely." You see, Mr. Grubach, I, too, keep a diary  and I write things exactly the way they were. The last line of the Goebbels' quote tells me; it was inserted, like in so many documents which were falsified, e.g. the "Wannsee-Protocol" or Himmler's Posen-speech, to "document" German crimes. Why did Goebbels, for his own record, not say how it was done? His diary was not intended for public reading, so why hide the "barbaric procedures" from himself?  And if this is supposed to be concrete "evidence" of a 6 million holocaust, any judge in an unbiased courtroom would laugh you right out of it. It is simply an important stimulatory booster-shot for the "vibrant Jewish imagination." The Goebbels diary was found in the streets of Berlin, scattered all over, thousands of pages, picked-up from the sidewalks by "pedestrians" (and Russians) during the chaotic end of the Third Reich. Well, do I need to say more? Any suffering of the Jews can be blamed entirely on their "liberators", who did not want Jews from Europe and then dropped bombs on them. And, as far as David Irving is concerned, not all his research turned out to be correct. He talked about "gas-wagons" of which not even one was ever found so far. If you want, we can go into details. >Grubach's closing remarks. Paul Krupp has written: >"...any treatment of Jews was justified." >Clearly, this statement, along with his others claims, >shows that Paul Krupp is a Neo-Nazi apologist. Your statement confirms my suspicion; "Neo-Nazi apologist" is a favorite label almost exclusively used by "gefillte fish" salesman. As long as I have to hear "Jews" telling me that "...any treatment of the Germans was justified", I will use my right to think so about Jews. I will admit, I admire Adolf Hitler the same way as King Edward of England did, or Lloyd George, or Knut Hamsun, or Savitri Devi, or John F. Kennedy, or Chas. Lindbergh, or "Winnie" Churchill, because Hitler did what needed to be done to free the Western World from the "Fear of the Jews" [and communism]. According to your "master mind" we are all Nazis or Neo-Nazis. Compare yourself to these mental giants in history. Hitler ranks on top with Jesus and Martin Luther, who have changed the world, trying to better it until the Jews got the better of them [that's questionable!]. Paul Krupp [END] ******************************************************* Dr. Fredrick Toben responds to the IDGR: [START] Not given a Right of Reply - Principle of Natural Justice -  on the IDGR website, Fredrick Töben states the following:   "Thank God for the haters, the bigots, xenophobics, control freaks, and the morally and intellectually bankrupt predators because these individuals at IDGR are taking note of a challenge for truth looming large on their horizon - the 24-25 April 2004 Sacramento Revisionist Conference.   It's on, it's on -  and damn'd be him that first cries,  Hold, enough! "   From occupied Germany, a voice of hate and envy, haters of truth -   Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus IDGR:   http://www.idgr.de/news/2004/n040111-b.php   [END] ..........and so does Dr. Bob Countess: [START] Question for you:  Do I have an avenue of self-defense in "the Bubisrepublik Deutschland" to bring legal action against the IDGR for calling me "a neo-nazi"? My Voraussetzung is, of course, that the answer is a clear "Nein."   Only if I were a circumcised Holocaust Survivor with a tatoo on my penis MIGHT I HAVE RECOURSE TO LAW IN THAT CRAZY NATION. Seriously, since I am not old enough to have been a Nazi, and since I am not now, nor have ever been a New Nazi, and since I am NOT sympathetic nor empathetic with Socialism of the Jewish or German Nazi types, I find myself in a fascinating position: a sort of, shall we say in the  field of literature, a tertium quid [= a third thing]. When speaking in Australia, in Melbourne to be exact, in August 1988 on my book lecture tour, I recall saying that I hoped to see the day when Adolf Hitler might be discussed openly as any other head of state might be treated-that is, with the positive and the negative under discussion. I still hope to live so long, since I have said this: That if  someone put a loaded gun to my head and demanded that I choose to live in Hitlerian Germany of the 1933-45 era OR to live under the Stalinist Judeo-Bolshevist regime of the same period, I would-without hesitation-choose the former since there was greater freedom to travel within Germany, depart Germany, criticize government policies openly, engage in business and social associations, than in the totalitarian Judeo-Bolshevist Soviet Union. My written criticisms of Hitler are profound indeed: I fault him for NOT traveling to Britain and Canada and the USA in the early years of his Chancellorship and for NOT making positive relations with these powerful nations with whom he eventually-and disastrously!--got into war with.  The USA, whether rightly or wrongly in its warring, is just TOO strong to be on the opposite side of!   Hence, I fault Hitler for thus NOT providing the German people of the era with insightful leadership, for trusting overly much in his own wisdom and skills and "Providence" for success in his European role. I have other criticisms also, but I also have positive statements about his handling the economic and social and environmental problems of Germany from 1933 on. He and his Party were perhaps Planet Earth's  FIRST EVER 'GREENS PARTY'  TYPES.  The commitment to preservation of the environment was a prime interest, thus the opposite of the Judeo-Bolshevik USSR where pollution and disastrous exploitation of people and things knew NO bounds.    The Autobahn  system was of incalculable advancement of motor traffic and even John F. Kennedy was quite impressed with his 1937 travels on it as a young man.  By contrast, Israel in 2004 has almost NO superhighways [I say this based on my three tours of that "shitty little country"--as the French ambassadorial staff member remarked a couple of years ago!]. So, for me "the bottom line" is that the German hate-group IDGR has NO serious interest in die Wahrheit on ANY level, but rather is an insipid little group of Dummkoepfer who can only engage in "Smearbund" attacks on people they do not know, nor care to know. And when they engage in schmieren die Schmiere, they get the grease from their own schmierende faces!  These are people for whom daily bathing is a foreign concept!!! Sincerely, Robert H. Countess, Ph.D. Ancient Greek email: boblbpinc@earthlink.net 28755 Sagewood Circle Toney, AL 35773  USA Phone: (256) 232-4940  Cell: (256) 653-7598 Fax:  (256) 232-4940 [END] ...and last but not least, Veteran Revisionist Carlos Porter, short and to the point: [START] It doesn't look like the Weaselball Centre writes very good German, but then I don't either, so... but "also goes by the name of Toeben" is really too much. Not only do they lie, they just don't know anything. CARLOS [END] *******************************************************   See you at the 2004 Sacramento Revisionist Conference, hosted by the European American Culture Council, sponsored by the Adelaide Institute! Organizer: Walter F. Mueller thetruthisback@yahoo.com Make your reservations today by contacting hansgemuetlich@yahoo.com Walter F. Mueller "The truth is back in business" The "Patriot Letter" is a free news service of Community News, a monthly publication with a circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News please e-mail for more information. To be removed from this e-mail list, reply with "unsubscribe".