Introductory remarks by Fredrick Töben

 

German lawyer Horst Mahler has initiated an action in Germany that some regard as merely a lit candle to which the Revisionist moths fly to their doom. Someone reminded me that Revisionists are perhaps a little more intelligent than those moths that are blinded by the light.

 

However, there is room for caution, especially when we recall that Ernst Zündel has spent almost a year in a Canadian 'detention' centre because he will not bow to the 'Holocaust' dogma and stop pointing out what a massive lie it is.

 

Wolfgang Fröhlich is currently spending one year in an Austrian prison for the same reason. There are many others who are spending time in prison because of their refusal to accept this oppressive dogma.

 

So, as  in any enterprise we need to be careful, especially  when we approach the 'Holocaust' industry upon which in part the so-called New World Order rests. 

 

Decades-long propaganda has made the world pliable and intellectually fuzzy. The latest word that joins the other shut-up words such as 'hater' and 'antisemite', is DENIALISM.

 

In Australia a couple of academics have begun with their policing efforts to thereby stifle open enquiry - and that is very sad for our up-coming generation because their minds will definitely suffer from arrested development.

 

Professor Arthur Butz has quietly fought the good fight at the same time held on to his professorship at North Western University which in itself is miraculous and reflects upon his moral and intellectual courage and integrity. His 1970s book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century remains a classic.  

 

Below is his considered opinion about the Mahler initiative that is to force the German judiciary into action as Mahler gathers around him those individuals who have been persecuted-prosecuted for so-called 'Holocaust denial', in many European countries, and including Canada and Australia.

 

Mahler's case is strong because he uses the 2002 Fritjof Meyer article that in effect eliminates the claim that Auschwitz was a death camp where millions of Jews were murdered in homicidal gas chambers, this being one of the three major pillars on which the 'Holocaust' lie rests.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Here is my opinion on Mahler's new VRBHV.

If I understand his legal initiative correctly, it is very clever and there is no question that it should be supported. The support I have in mind is financial.

Formal association as a member or founder is something else. For one thing, when I resigned from the Editorial Advisory Committee of the IHR I vowed that I would never again join any sort of permanent committee endorsing any particular operation. I had had enough of the tensions involved.

As for Mahler's specific operation, he frequently makes public declarations of a political nature. Today I received his message advocating that Jews be kicked out of Germany, and that all Jews in the world be sent to the Levant after Israel collapses in 5 years.

It is not possible to understand the "Holocaust" in its historical aspects without considering Zionism, and therefore Israel, which brings us to the front pages of today's newspapers. The "Holocaust" subject is explosively political. Long ago I saw that the only hope for forcing a focus on the historical problem was to minimize concern for political aspects.

I believe Mahler recently called his operation "Friends of the German Reich". I am not sure what he means by the "German Reich" but, whatever he means, I am neither its friend nor its enemy. In a Nov. 6 e-mail, he said that "Each person loyal to the Reich should now feel called upon to join this society and to support its work to the best of his ability." This will be interpreted conversely, viz. any member of the society is "loyal to the Reich".

As a practical matter, the VRBHV will not be viewed as you probably view it and as I would like to view it: an organization pursuing a clever and badly needed legal initiative. It will be viewed as an organization trying to kick the Jews out of Germany and most other countries, and revive the Third Reich.

I think it was a blunder to publicly subscribe to the VRBHV. In the case of Germar Rudolf, it was a very grave blunder.

The worthy legal initiative that Mahler wants to organize can be carried out without a formal list of endorsers.

As for your letter to Mahler, I thought that it expressed about the same sentiments as I have expressed above. I liked in particular "Revisionism, in my view, is not,  and must not be, a matter of ideology, but instead one of method by which to attain the greatest degree of exactitude.

"What I seek is historical exactitude and, thus, the abolition of anything that obstructs the free striving towards that exactitude."

In my opinion Mahler is enthusiastically generating an excessive amount of such obstruction.

Best regards, Art