Dear Fellow Patriot!

The months of January, February, March and April are
memories of horror for most Germans who know their
history. It was the last few months of WWII, and the
Allies had gone on a murder rampage, killing men,
women, wounded and children alike. 141 cities in
Germany were bombed to shreds. Million so civilians
deliberately killed. On February 13th and 14th, the
Dresden Bombing Holocaust, where more than 500,000
people were murdered, will be remembered with a
"Trauermarsch" in Dresden. Joerg Friedrich's book
"Brandstaetten" is currently the best photo
documentary of the real holocaust, happening to the
German population.

However, there is another bombing holocaust, just as
horrible and gruesome, but very little talked about. I
call it the holocaust by the sea.

Around 1.5 million civilians and 500,000 soldiers,
wounded on the East front, tried during the last few
months of WWII to flee the Russians through the East
Sea. 790 merchant ships were turned into swimming
lazaretts (hospitals). Most of them displayed the Red
Cross on their side. Nevertheless, the Allies made it
a sport to hunt down these ships and sink them.

Today, February 10th, is the anniversary of the
sinking of the hospital ship Steuben, which was sunk
by Russian submarines in 1945. 4,300 refugees and
wounded were on board. Only 400 survived.

The evening of January 30th, 1945, the former luxury
cruiser, the "Wilhelm Gustlhoff" was also sunk. By the
beginning of the war, the huge luxury liner was turned
into a hospital. 3 torpedoes from a Russian ship put
it on the floor of the East Sea. OF the 10,000 women
and children, only 1,200 survived.

On May 3rd, 1945, British bombers sunk two hospital
ships in the Bay of Luebeck. The Cay Arkana and the
smaller ship Thielbek. However, what the Allied troops
didn't know was that SS Heinrich Himmler had just
ordered to put 15,000 prisoners from concentration
camps on the Cay Arkana. More than 7,000 people died.
For weeks, bodies of the victims were washed up on the
shores of Luebeck Bay.

All of these ships were unarmed, and of no danger
whatsoever to the Allied troops. The Allies sank them
all deliberately.

*******************************************************

Dr. Faurisson on Cole:

Robert FAURISSON 10 February 2004

On David Cole (Response to Robert H. Countess)

I do not give a "psychologist's" judgment on the
person of David Cole, still less an "amateur
psychologist's". I give a judgment on his work
(essentially his video and the promotion of it that he
made with Bradley Smith) and also on his abjuration of
revisionism.

On the first point, you may refer, for example, to the
letter that I had published in the JHR (Jan.-Feb.
2000, p. 71). Therein you'll see that Cole, badly
acquainted with his subject, had indeed failed in his
attempt to catch Piper red-handed. In the video, never
did the latter acknowledge that what is presented at
Auschwitz I as an execution gas chamber was only a
fake. Piper merely told Cole that the room presented
to tourists as a gas chamber had been "reconstructed"
and that it was "very similar" to the original room.
Piper was lying brazenly but Cole was not up to the
job of showing that he was lying. All in all, Piper,
in that video in 1991, did nothing more than to take
on as his own the lie that his predecessor, Jan
Machalek, had told me on 23 April 1975. I've related
the story many times and am not about to go into it
again here. Still, remember how I confounded Jan
Machalek, Tadeusz Iwaszko and the Auschwitz museum
with the photos of the original plans that Cole,
unhappily, many years later, would be unable to put
under Piper's nose. Those photos played a major part
in the two Zündel trials of 1985 and 1988, where we
demonstrated, bit by bit, under oath, in public,
before the eyes of the journalists, the pure lie of
the Auschwitz I "gas chamber". Moreover, in France on
19 January 1995 a stunning article in the weekly
L'Express was to confirm all that and to acknowledge,
in its own words, that in the late 70s I had
demonstrated, on the subject of the alleged gas
chamber, that "everything in it is false".

I must acknowledge a remarkable acumen for publicity
on the part of David Cole, Bradley Smith and also, to
some extent, Mark Weber and even my friend Ernst
Zündel: they made such an "American style" hustle and
bustle over the tape (as over another one, portraying
E. Zündel as Cole's pupil!) that many people ended up
sincerely believing that Piper, on the video, had come
clean! 

They believed that, on the one hand, the
museum's official guide was giving visitors a
deliberately untruthful version and that, on the other
hand, Piper, in refuting the guide's version, had been
compelled by the clever little Jewish revisionist to
confess the truth. In fact, it was nothing of the
kind. The guide had simply recited to the visitors a
text that the museum authorities had made her learn by
heart and, quite naturally, she herself believed the
"gas chamber" to be in its original state. 

Piper, at
his end, in saying that this "gas chamber" had been
"reconstructed" and that it was "very similar" to the
original, lent a nuance or an attenuation to the
guide's talk that changed nothing of its content.
After all, what harm is there, I ask you, in
proceeding with a "reconstruction" that is to be "very
similar"?

At the time, I thus had to note that, in this
circumstance, revisionists, who supposedly made a cult
of historical truth, had cared nothing at all for
simple exactitude. When I subsequently made that
remark to some of them, they replied that this video
had nonetheless been damned effective for the
revisionist cause. I don't doubt that it has perhaps
been effective, and, for that matter, every day I see
in many individuals and amongst many groups a
readiness to sacrifice exactitude for the benefit of
efficiency or opportunity. 

I have often heard things
in the vein of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
may be a fake, but they're a fake that tells the
truth", or again "Certain truths are best left unsaid
because they might demoralise the revisionist ranks".
It seems to me that when someone makes remarks like
those, he's behaving a bit too much like those whom we
denounce for their lies. 

About ten years ago in Los Angeles, Cole suddenly
wanted to make a video with me. I was far from
willing. But he insisted. Finally, giving in to his
persistence, I decided to try the experiment, and so
he put me on tape. I had brought from France, for a
conference, my photos of Auschwitz. Thus I explained
in front of Cole's camera, with photos to show, what
the three successive states of the alleged gas chamber
had been and what Piper's so obvious lie consisted in.

B. Smith, of whom Cole was the protégé, had also
arrived on the scene but a bit late, having extended
his afternoon nap. Everyone knows Bradley's smiling
good nature and humour. Yet, that day, for the first
time in my life, I saw him pull a long face, gnash his
teeth and, in the end, behave in such a way as to make
us, Cole and me, cut the recording which, till then,
had been going ahead smoothly. On the way out,
Bradley, somewhat confused, told me that revisionist
writings bored him and that he had long ceased reading
them. In the following years, he would often repeat
that leitmotiv to me with a mixture of embarrassment
and satisfaction. 

On Cole's abjuration, I should say that it disturbed
me by the baseness of the words that the penitent had
agreed to pronounce with regard to revisionists or to
revisionism.

Today Bradley Smith proposes that we again welcome a
Cole who, if I understand correctly, seems to have
abjured (?) that rather base abjuration. I don't know
which of the two first approached the other. B. Smith
writes me that "David Cole is back, and it is, at
least in part, thanks to me. At bottom, of course, it
was his move", but I also read, in the latest issue of
Smith's Report (February 2004): "I decided to take a
run at tracking him down".

To sum up, without giving a judgment on Cole's
character or psychology, I should say that nothing in
his past, in his work or in his writings moves me to
trust him. 

I note that Walter Müller tells us now that Cole would
be "welcome" at the Sacramento conference but, still a
few days ago, he confessed, with his usual candour,
that he knew practically nothing about D. Cole. I
should therefore take the liberty of telling him that
he ought to have informed himself before making such a
decision. When a man, enamoured of publicity to the
point, in his work, of having us take a sow's ear for
a silk purse, has recanted (?) his recantation, he may
well one day just as easily recant the recantation (?)
of his recantation. 

==================

MY COMMENT: I actually had no say so in that matter. I
was asked by the two other organizers to make a
welcoming comment, since it was implied that David
Cole wasn't welcome. It was our sponsor, Dr. Toben,
who wanted to invite Cole to the conference. I was in
no position to make this decision, since Harvey Taylor
had already a tremendous schedule. Then, Dr. Countess
implied again that we should welcome Cole. I forwarded
that e-mail to the MC of the conference, Harvey
Taylor, and he responded to Dr. Countess. David Cole
was never considered a speaker at the conference by
Harvey Taylor or myself. However, I was asked to do
the diplomatic thing, so I responded to Countess,
after Harvey Taylor made it clear that our speakers
list was already full, the Cole would be welcome as a
guest. And, as the organizer, I was clearly outvoted.
As it should be in these matters, it can't be always
"my way." Otherwise, I agree with the sentiments of
Dr. Faurisson.

*******************************************************

Continuing Kelso vs. Weber, with Dr. Countess chiming
in:

---------------

Kelso vs. Weber:

[start]
"I also spoke on both occasions, pointing out that the
strident claims by President Bush and his government
that the US had to go to war because the Iraqi regime
of Saddam Hussein posed an imminent danger to the US
have proven to be lies." - Mark Weber

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is
imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants
announced their intentions, politely putting us on
notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted
to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words,
and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting
in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a
strategy, and it is not an option." - Bush State of
the Union address.

For the umpteenth time, Mark, please get it right!
Bush did not say the threat was imminent. READ IT!! He
said we need to attack BEFORE the threat becomes
imminent - before it is too late - as any sane leader
would do. Calling Bush a liar reflects on you not him.

Pat Kelso

[end]

CBS, huh? Now I know where Mark and you come up with
your views on current events. You just parrot ole Dan
like some people parrot the ADL.

The following looks like a filibuster to me, but would
you kindly advise your readers and me and perhaps Mark
how the following "CBS revelation" is apropos Bush's,
"...Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced
their intentions, politely putting us on notice before
they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all
recriminations would come too late."  That is: Bush
wanted to strike BEFORE, I say again, BEFORE the
threat became imminent. (Read: Before Saddam had the
chance to fully develop his programs of WMD; WMD other
than the gas used on the Kurds, that is.) AFTER
might/probably well be too late. Perhaps you don't but
I want my leader to take that possibility into
consideration. If Mark did not have the advantage of
hindsight and was later proved wrong a lot of us might
not be here to say, "I told you so."  .....Pat

[END]

[START]

Seems to me that the primary work of the IHR and its
present director is to publish timely books and a
journal with regularity and conferences rather than
making pregnantly half-baked statements about US
Foreign Policy plans, programs, and actions.

IF the IHR is TRULY non-political-as we have been
often told over the years-THEN politically oriented
assessments and condemnations are out of order for the
IHR's director, since these-if egregiously in
error-can lead to enormous embarrassments for the
Institute and its supporters.

Kelso seems to be correct about Weber's error on the
placement of the word "imminent" in Bush's speech, but
I would add to this that at the present time, we have
much too little evidence for a pronouncement with
exactitude to be made [one may wish to see our TADP
publication of January 2004, a Festschrift tribute to
Dr. Faurisson, wherein we focused on "exactitude" as
the method for Revisionism.

IHR pronouncements on Bush's  "War on Terrorism" are
not only premature but are being made by the likes of
David Irving in his whirlwind travels through the USA
at stops where the audience generally would like to
hear him discuss his REAL expertise-Nazi
biographies-NOT his views of the Kyoto Treaty nor his
views on the Iraq invasion.

Revisionists of all people ought to have learned that
when a War takes place there must eventuate many years
of careful study of the documents BEFORE we can be
assured of our conclusions about the events themselves
and the motivations.   For me, as bad as the Israeli
government and its policies are, and as much a toady
George W. Bush is to Zionist pressures from his
Neo-Cons, I judge that we are TOO close to the events
as of 2004 to be making the sort of superficial
statements that we hear from Weber and Irving and
others.

We need to follow the ancient Greek saying: "Make
haste, slowly!"

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

================

Melanie, on the subject of Iraq's WMD:

-------------

Walter, on the subject of Iraq's WMD, many of us knew
some years before 9/11 that an invasion and occupation
of Iraq was in the planning.  Clinton was under
terrific pressure from Israel to make war on the
Mideast countries "starting with Iraq, the easiest." 

You are aware, I'm sure, that Richard Perle, one of
the strongest war hawks, in the Defense Dept., was
employed by Israel under Netanyahu. He drew up the
plans for war against Iraq for Netanyahu and produced
the same program in Washington.  Cheney, Wolfowitz,
and many more of the gang of "Neocons" now in the
White House, were involved in the planning.

I have never believed oil was a main motivation for
war, and I knew WMD were not either.  The purpose has
been all along to create a Middle East totally
controlled by Israel.  The Ha'aretz newspaper in
Israel has openly spoken of these plans for years and
that paper and others are readily available to anyone
with access to the Internet.

Prior to the March 2003 attack on Iraq I saw Sen. John
McCain (very pro-Zionist man) on Chris Metthews' show,
"Hardball."  Chris pinned him down when McCain said
Saddam was a threat, and kept asking, "How is Iraq a
threat to us?"  McCain tried to explain Iraq had
nuclear and bio/chem weapons.  Matthews asked, "So
what?  How does that threaten us?  How could he get
bombs here in the us?"  Finally McCain admitted Iraq
was no threat to us but was "a threat to Israel." 
Chris Matthews then demanded to know why, if Iraq
threatened them, didn't Israel take out Saddam.  He
told McCain that Israel is one of the strongest
military forces in the world.  Why should we go to war
to protect Israel?  They can defend themselves.
I was just "tickled to death" to see McCain pinned
down and tuned in on the repeat of "Hardball" that
evening and taped it.

If someone like Chris Matthews were to pin down
everyone in the Bush administration the way he did
John McCain we might get some truth.

BTW, the father of Sen. McCain, Admiral McCain was one
of the Navy brass that helped cover up the Israeli
attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, ordering the
survivors on Liberty to never speak of it to anyone,
even their families.

Melanie


*******************************************************

Webmaster, editor and owner of Vanguard News Network,
Alex Linder on slurs:

-----------

Mueller ought to think a little harder. Was America
more or less civilized when slurs -- for every group
-- were common parlance? The fact is that slurs go
with the truth because they are fitter, funnier, and
more
precise than euphemisms and honorifics. Calling Mike
Tyson an African-American is laughable. Calling him
black is objective. Calling him a nigger is accurate.
The second fact is that Mueller isn't bothered by
slurs, and neither is anyone else. When papers are
full of "white trash" -- and it is the rare paper in
which you don't find the term -- we're not stooping to
their level in using nigger, we're just putting away
our penknife and pulling out our gun. After all, their
whole argument is that niggers don't exist, and we
accede in their Big Lie when we pretend along with
them. There is no other term that precisely,
accurately, and emotionally captures the truth
about the majority of the black race. That is the
reason the term is forbidden in liberal papers. That
is the reason Whites must use it.  When a people is
asleep or desperate, linguistic half-measures don't do
the trick. Who, after all, says you can't use nigger?
The editor of the paper using "white trash."
The jewish guy producing the movie "Joe Dirt." The
college professor advocating "abolishing" whites. Fuck
them. Fuck all niggers and the jews who rode in on
them. Crude, emotional language gets the point across.

People aren't moved by reason, they're moved by
feeling you and your group will back up your words
with action. If you won't call blacks niggers, what
else won't you do to them? If you're talking to or
about a Thomas Sowell, then black is appropriate. But
if you're writing about rioting niggers of the type
that murdered Kris Kime, no other word will do.
'Nigger': there is no substitute.

A. Linder

==============

Zoomtown on the same subject:

-------------

I really liked what you had to say.  It is indeed
refreshing when reading of others who hold similar
opinions.

While I typically don't use slurs either, particularly
when writing something for more than a couple
colleagues to read, slurs by themselves don't bother
me, even if used against me.  I once recall a black
guy calling me a "cracker."  I responded, "That's
right."  Boy, did that get him angry.  He then said it
was meant as an insult, to which I told him it meant a
white person; so that's no insult.  If it was at all
possible, I'm sure his face would've been beat red
after that.

In any event, slurs have been used since before we
were born, since before America was born, and most
likely before even Egypt was born.  And slurs will
continue to be used.  While I'm typically a polite
person, I've been known to use them once in a while,
just as many others have as well (but feign innocence,
of course).

Even Abe Lincoln, when questioned if it was OK if the
President of Liberia (I believe it was) sent a black
man to visit the White House, which at the time was
against the rules (as no blacks were allowed inside it

up until then), Lincoln responded, "I shan't tear my
shirt if he sends a nigger." 

It's also well-known that behind closed doors,
President Nixon and others often referred to Jews as
"kikes."

Still, I'll have to agree with you that it's best not
to use such terms, if only because society at large
has been so preconditioned against the use of such
terms that they fail to recognize a credible argument
when such words are used (and often without).

Zoomtown

================

And Eric:

----------

Well I will toss my $0.02 into the hat.

Gibson: I dunno. No opinion. Have only seen one of
"his" movies so far.

Kosher butcher: Unless his being jewish was relevant
to the place being dirty, there was no reason to point
it out.

Missmiranda: You were spot-on. What the h*ll is the
point of a beauty contest anyway? And what does she
get for having the prize handed to her? The whole deal
smells. You were right.

Eric


*******************************************************

A. Hancock forwarded me this comment by David Irving.
It's a little "I told you so."

---------------

Gibson to Delete a Scene in 'Passion'

David Irving comments:

I HAVE refrained from posting on this website the
volume of material relating to Mel Gibson's film, as
it appears to me a manufactured controversy in which
each side has its own axe to grind.

A lot of the arguments seem false. Abe Foxman and his
corrupt cronies argue that this film will feed the
ancient "anti-Semitic slur" that the Jews killed
Jesus Christ. From my own knowledge of the
working-class mentality and the thinking of the common
man, there is virtually no discussion of that in the
pubs of Wapping, so to speak.

What enrages stevedores, steelworkers and the rest --
the ordinary human beings -- about "the Jews" is the
kind of thing I have been patiently documenting
in my website dossier on the origins of anti-Semitism,
offering little or no comment, in real time, over the
last three years: Graft, networking, greed,
criminality, brutality, intimidation, espionage,
conspiracy, extortion, drug racketeering, land
grabbing, and belligerence being just some of the
delinquencies involved.

IN the case of the preposterous Abraham Foxman -- who
has been called the Jewish community's own worst enemy
-- let it suffice to recall the manner in which he
solicited a quarter million dollar bribe (it may have
been more) from billionaire criminal Marc Rich,
another Jew, who fled into exile rather than pay the
taxes he owes to the US people.

In return for the secret bribe, which became known
from captured e-mails, Foxman agreed to write a letter
to President Bill Clinton, urging that Rich be
pardoned. Both men's hands are soiled, so to speak,
but Clinton shapes up to Jesus Christ in saintliness
when glimpsed standing next to the corrupt head of
the Anti-Defamation League.


*******************************************************

On the Missamanda issue, a great letter to the author
in the Sacramento Bee, Anita Creamer, and her
response, written by our friend Michelle Kunert:

------------------

I will note as usual, my letter is excellent, while
the Creamer's response to it sucks.

on 2/9/04 9:35 AM, Anita Creamer at
ACreamer@sacbee.com wrote:

"However your article tone demands that its judges
must vote to have Miss Green win this contest lest
they be racist and unfair."

My tone demands no such thing. In fact, I long ago
grasped that readers' reactions often have more to do
with their own biases than with anything that's
actually written on the page.

It's interesting that you see a human interest story
as a publicity stunt as well as an opportunity for
your narrow commentary. What a shame for you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle Kunert [mailto:michelsmac@macnexus.org]

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:39 PM
To: acreamer@sacbee.com
Subject: Was this a publicity stunt?

I got a comment from a friend who called your article
about Missamanda Green, "creating a new meaning to a
beauty pageant", and a publicity stunt.

Sure he felt sorry about Miss Greens' burn injuries
resulting from a fire her mother started, and could
clearly observe that she has overcome a horrible
amount of adversity growing up. But she still is
overweight, which adds to her looking like she is at
least in her 50's rather than her 20 years. Regardless
of a whether a contestant in the Miss Sacramento
contest is the survivor of a tragic childhood
accident, why shouldn't they be physically fit,
healthy and active? If Miss Green is confident she can
do anything, than she could make some necessary
lifestyle changes. However your article tone demands
that its judges must vote to have Miss Green win this
contest lest they be racist and unfair. It also leads
me to wonder who will next demand they have the right
win the Miss Sacramento contest, perhaps a sloppy and
obnoxious lesbian?
  
Michelle Kunert


*******************************************************

See you at the 2004 International Revisionist
Conference in Sacramento, held on April 24th and 25th,
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".