|
11 October 2003
Dear Fellow Patriot!
In a recent Z-Gram from Ingrid Rimland, the German in
her came through when she appealed to all of the
revisionists to get along with each other.
http://www.zundelsite.org
Then, Dr. Frederick Toben forwarded another piece to
me
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org
with a similar appeal:
[START]
REVISIONISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
(updated version here)
No comment from the media, no comment from individual
Revisionists, but only a deafening silence from all.
On 9 October 2003 German lawyer Horst Mahler called
out the Revolution against the Holocaust dogma,
thereby breaking laws in many European countries, in
particular in his own country, Germany.
He stated publicly and in the electronic media that
which the current German government punishes with at
least 2-3 years prison.
What did he say?
"You can't deny what never happened
There is no DENIALISM because the
HOLOCAUST never happened!"
Usually in Christian countries the Jewish-controlled
judiciary begins its vindictive actions during the
Christmas holiday period.
In Australia we had the particular case during the
early 1990s when the war-crimes trials preliminaries
began in Adelaide through the media generating heat -
shaping public opinion beforehand - during the
Christmas holiday period.
Now let us anticipate the 2003 Christmas period. What
does it hold for Revisionists?
In Austria it is ( no not Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Wolfgang Fröhlich, now in prison, who challenges the
Holocaust lies, because he does not fear death.
In Germany it is Horst Mahler who has taken up the
challenge to expose the Holocaust lies because he does
not fear death!
In Canada-USA there is Ernst Zündel who has been
placed in the position of standing firm against the
Holocaust lies, something he will do because he does
not fear death!
In Australia it is Fredrick Töben and the Adelaide
Institute supporters who are pushing the limits of a
Federal Court of Australia gag order, and pressuring
the upholders of the Holocaust orthodoxy to admit they
are living on a LIE. Töben does not fear death.
Who else is out there ready to defend their quest for
free speech, for truth in history, for moral and
intellectual integrity?
Please advise and we shall draw up a list of
courageous individuals who are prepared to sacrifice
themselves for the higher goal, for freedom, for
truth, for justice and for honour. These are timeless
universal values that all peoples of the world
understand and appreciate. It transcends artificial
class-thinking, racism, nationalism; and it defeats
globalism because it is the individual and the family
that matters.
We have the example of a courageous person set by a
Palestinian woman, Hanadia Jaradat, who sacrificed her
life to fight oppression and for love of family and
Palestine. Her martyrdom and altruism exemplifies the
fearlessness that hedonistic consumer societies do not
understand.
Men, where are your chivalrous qualities, your desire
to defend your women from moral and intellectual
bankruptcy? Women, where are your values that abhor
oppression!
A willingness to make that supreme sacrifice is needed
in order to eliminate the crippling effects the
Holocaust orthodoxy has on healthy minds. The German
Horst Mahler has shown the way. The initiating impetus
had to come from Germany - it has come - it is timely
- we wait no longer - we join in the battle to defend
our world view.
[END]
I have been saying this for many, many years. I go
even further. It's not just the revisionist community
that needs to unite, but also the white civil rights
movement. I have done one appeal after another, and I
have come to the conclusion that only when things get
much worse than they are, will there be cooperation.
I hoped that the Zundel tragedy would eliminate what I
call "The vicious cycle of competition", but it
hasn't. Some of the revisionists are just as bad as
some of the white civil rights leaders. The only
difference, revisionists at least retain a certain
kind of civility, when they viciously attack.
When I started this, I did it not for the money, not
for fame, only for my personal emotions. I was sick of
the defamation, the lies, and brainwashing against
European-Americans, specifically Germans, by the Jews.
The more I looked into the issue, the more infuriated
I've become. With the help of numerous revisionists,
I've even discovered the mass murder of my people. So,
I went public with my newfound knowledge. Hell broke
loose then. The usual distractive methods were used to
get me out of the picture. It was years of hell and I
have been accused being a bigot, a homophobe, a
neo-Nazi, a hater, an anti-Semite and a homosexual.
Most of the slurs just made me look legitimate amongst
our movement. And the Jews know this. So then they
come up with the usual filthy and disgusting stuff.
They know that it works every time with the mostly
Christian crowd. I have successfully eliminated this
stuff, and, finally, thought I found people who think
like me and feel like me. In fact, most of them went
through the same hell that I did.
I never thought that the fight would start all over
again. The exact same accusations I had to fight again
from those people who claim to be on our side. Of
course, I don't believe that. They are bought and paid
for by the Jews. I felt singled out, so I checked, and
realized that I was still better off being called
"queer" than some of the most renowned activists in
our movement. Hell, David Irving has been accused of
far worse things than I was accused of being. Kevin
Strom's wife was accused of being a lesbian. Don Black
from the Storm front was accused of having allegedly
sex with black people.
It was just amazing for me. And I told myself that I
be damned if I answer again to all those allegations
that I had to answer to the Jews. The Jews and these
opportunists in our movement have the same motives.
Both want to get rid of me. One because of fear and
the other because of competition.
I always thought it wasn't about the money. I had to
realize, yes, it is about the money. And some people
in our movement do anything to eliminate potential
competition.
The Godfather of all what's wrong with our movement is
Willis Carto. One can trace everything back to him.
Community News has become a competitor for those who
peddle their stuff. So, what better way than to try to
get rid of me, than to discredit me in my own
community? Of course, it doesn't work, however, the
methods are just as vicious as those ones from the
Jews.
German Rudolf, who want to be THE revisionist business
in the country. He's badmouthed the IHR and now the
Willis Carto clan. He calls Community News a "sheet",
because we are a potential competition.
Just a few days ago, I met with Michael Hoffman in
Idaho. I was quite pleased with our conversation, and
thought I had found a new ally.
I was blown away when I received an e-mail from
Michael Hoffman that he had sent to one of our
distributors in Coeur d'Alene. We had left almost
1,000 Community News issues with two groups of people.
Michael Hoffman felt that distributing Community News
in public places would be bad for his reputation,
especially in post offices. He demanded that the
distribution stop and compared our methods to
"Khazars" and "Butler activities."
"You are endangering the operation of Independent
History and Research. It's a shortsighted move by an
outsider from California, who still does not
understand the unwritten rules of Idaho decorum and
civility. This is what gives our side a bad name. I
consider this an attack on me personally. It is always
a blunder to behave like a big city Khazar and shove
stuff done local people's throats."
This is what Michael Hoffman wrote in his e-mail.
Remember that it was the special Zuendel issue that is
being distributed in Coeur d'Alene, Hayden and Post
Falls. Frankly, I am outraged and here is how I
responded to Mr. Hoffman:
[START]
Dear Mr. Hoffman,
With great regret and offense did I read your
correspondence with my distributor in Coeur d'Alene.
As the publisher and editor of Community News, let me
give you some ground rules about distribution of
Community News.
Sir, you are in no position to tell any of my
distributors where they can and cannot distribute
Community News. As for your specific concern about the
post office, I am not sure what you mean.
Unless the United State Postal Offices have become a
stock company and you own a substantial amount of it,
your concerns are not valid. Here in Sacramento, we
distribute Community News in four post offices in the
county, including our own. The concern that the
distribution of Community News affects your reputation
is a very selfish point of view. So, you really can't
blame me that I am also very selfish and don't care.
Unless we receive a call from the locations owners,
and outsider will never determine where we distribute.
Your comparison of Community News to Butler's
activities is false. The dishonesty you display about
the real reasons as to why you don't want the
Community News in "your territory" are quite obvious.
I respect the tremendous work you have done for the
revisionist community; however, I despise the selfish
and vicious behavior that is constantly displayed when
dealing with intellectuals like you.
Let's face the facts, Mr. Hoffman, your concern isn't
really Community News, it is your fear of competition.
The fear that you won't be the only revisionist source
in Coeur d'Alene anymore. That you might lose a few
dollars to us.
Comparing us to Khazars is ridiculous. Why don't you
look in the mirror, it is the Khazars who are trying
to limit our First Amendment rights. We've never told
you that you can't or sell your literature.
Live and let live, Mr. Hoffman. We might disagree on
the methods that each of us are using, however, as
long as it is done without slurs and violence, I
welcome all of them.
For future references, sir, please do not interfere
with my methods, as I won't interfere with yours.
Your post was not only very condescending and
arrogant, but also hurtful.
Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"
Publisher/Editor - Community News
[END]
You gathered from my e-mail to Michael Hoffman that I
hit the nail right on the head. Here it is. For many,
many years revisionists have drawn from a very limited
pool and never tried to reach out to the American
people themselves. Big financiers have kept them over
water, however, many of them are or have been dying,
and the hunt for the money has begun. Like sharks,
they are ready to fight for their territory.
I am done with this. Thank God Community News is
independent, thank God Community News is reaching out
to all people, and thank God Community News has
currently, of what we hear, the largest distribution
pool.
Of course, one cannot stereotype. There are those who
have class and decency and really do it because of the
cause. And there are too many to mention.
I am not sure what has to be done to single those out
and throw them to the wolves, because they are nothing
but baggage, which eventually will kill our movement.
I will work with anyone that wants to work with me,
but no longer will I pay attention to those who
through their laziness and stupidity can't stand other
peoples success.
****************************************************
This next item goes with the commentary above, because
it is another successful step by the enemy, since we
are so involved in attacking each other. Only
unification will destroy this hateful propaganda by
the Jews.
Switzerland ratified a EU Cyber Hate crime Law, which
includes anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial, forwarded
to me by our friends in Italy:
[START]
Additional Protocol to the Convention on cyber crime,
concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and
xenophobic nature committed through computer systems
Strasbourg, 28.I.2003
Explanatory Report
-----------------------------------------------------
The member States of the Council of Europe and the
other States Parties to the Convention on Cybercrime,
opened for signature in Budapest on 23 November 2001,
signatory hereto;
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is
to achieve a greater unity between its members;
Recalling that all human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights;
Stressing the need to secure a full and effective
implementation of all human rights without any
discrimination or distinction, as enshrined in
European and other international instruments;
Convinced that acts of a racist and xenophobic nature
constitute a violation of human rights and a threat to
the rule of law and democratic stability;
Considering that national and international law need
to provide adequate legal responses to propaganda of a
racist and xenophobic nature committed through
computer systems;
Aware of the fact that propaganda to such acts is
often subject to criminalisation in national
legislation;
Having regard to the Convention on Cybercrime, which
provides for modern and flexible means of
international co-operation and convinced of the need
to harmonise substantive law provisions concerning the
fight against racist and xenophobic propaganda;
Aware that computer systems offer an unprecedented
means of facilitating freedom of expression and
communication around the globe;
Recognising that freedom of expression constitutes one
of the essential foundations of a democratic society,
and is one of the basic conditions for its progress
and for the development of every human being;
Concerned, however, by the risk of misuse or abuse of
such computer systems to disseminate racist and
xenophobic propaganda;
Mindful of the need to ensure a proper balance between
freedom of expression and an effective fight against
acts of a racist and xenophobic nature;
Recognising that this Protocol is not intended to
affect established principles relating to freedom of
expression in national legal systems;
Taking into account the relevant international legal
instruments in this field, and in particular the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocol No. 12
concerning the general prohibition of discrimination,
the existing Council of Europe conventions on
co-operation in the penal field, in particular the
Convention on Cybercrime, the United Nations
International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965,
the European Union Joint Action of 15 July 1996
adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of
the Treaty on European Union, concerning action to
combat racism and xenophobia;
Welcoming the recent developments which further
advance international understanding and co-operation
in combating cybercrime and racism and xenophobia;
Having regard to the Action Plan adopted by the Heads
of State and Government of the Council of Europe on
the occasion of their Second Summit (Strasbourg, 10-11
October 1997) to seek common responses to the
developments of the new technologies based on the
standards and values of the Council of Europe;
Have agreed as follows:
Chapter I - Common provisions
Article 1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Protocol is to supplement, as
between the Parties to the Protocol, the provisions of
the Convention on Cybercrime, opened for signature in
Budapest on 23 November 2001 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Convention"), as regards the criminalisation
of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed
through computer systems.
Article 2 - Definition
1 For the purposes of this Protocol:
"racist and xenophobic material" means any written
material, any image or any other representation of
ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or
incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against
any individual or group of individuals, based on race,
colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well
as religion if used as a pretext for any of these
factors.
2 The terms and expressions used in this Protocol
shall be interpreted in the same manner as they are
interpreted under the Convention.
Chapter II - Measures to be taken at national level
Article 3 - Dissemination of racist and xenophobic
material through computer systems
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other
measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal
offences under its domestic law, when committed
intentionally and without right, the following
conduct:
distributing, or otherwise making available, racist
and xenophobic material to the public through a
computer system.
2 A Party may reserve the right not to attach
criminal liability to conduct as defined by paragraph
1 of this article, where the material, as defined in
Article 2, paragraph 1, advocates, promotes or incites
discrimination that is not associated with hatred or
violence, provided that other effective remedies are
available.
3 Notwithstanding paragraph 2 of this article, a
Party may reserve the right not to apply paragraph 1
to those cases of discrimination for which, due to
established principles in its national legal system
concerning freedom of expression, it cannot provide
for effective remedies as referred to in the said
paragraph 2.
Article 4 - Racist and xenophobic motivated threat
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other
measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal
offences under its domestic law, when committed
intentionally and without right, the following
conduct:
threatening, through a computer system, with the
commission of a serious criminal offence as defined
under its domestic law, (i) persons for the reason
that they belong to a group, distinguished by race,
colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well
as religion, if used as a pretext for any of these
factors, or (ii) a group of persons which is
distinguished by any of these characteristics.
Article 5 - Racist and xenophobic motivated insult
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other
measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal
offences under its domestic law, when committed
intentionally and without right, the following
conduct:
insulting publicly, through a computer system, (i)
persons for the reason that they belong to a group
distinguished by race, colour, descent or national or
ethnic origin, as well as religion, if used as a
pretext for any of these factors; or (ii) a group of
persons which is distinguished by any of these
characteristics.
2 A Party may either:
a require that the offence referred to in paragraph
1 of this article has the effect that the person or
group of persons referred to in paragraph 1 is exposed
to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
b reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in
part, paragraph 1 of this article.
Article 6 - Denial, gross minimisation, approval or
justification of genocide or crimes against humanity
1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures
as may be necessary to establish the following conduct
as criminal offences under its domestic law, when
committed intentionally and without right:
distributing or otherwise making available, through a
computer system to the public, material which denies,
grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts
constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as
defined by international law and recognised as such by
final and binding decisions of the International
Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement
of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court
established by relevant international instruments and
whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.
2 A Party may either
a require that the denial or the gross minimisation
referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is
committed with the intent to incite hatred,
discrimination or violence against any individual or
group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent
or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if
used as a pretext for any of these factors, or
otherwise
b reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in
part, paragraph 1 of this article.
Article 7 - Aiding and abetting
Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other
measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal
offences under its domestic law, when committed
intentionally and without right, aiding or abetting
the commission of any of the offences established in
accordance with this Protocol, with intent that such
offence be committed.
Chapter III - Relations between the Convention and
this Protocol
Article 8 - Relations between the Convention and this
Protocol
1 Articles 1, 12, 13, 22, 41, 44, 45 and 46 of the
Convention shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to this
Protocol.
2 The Parties shall extend the scope of application
of the measures defined in Articles 14 to 21 and
Articles 23 to 35 of the Convention, to Articles 2 to
7 of this Protocol.
Chapter IV - Final provisions
Article 9 - Expression of consent to be bound
1 This Protocol shall be open for signature by the
States which have signed the Convention, which may
express their consent to be bound by either:
a signature without reservation as to ratification,
acceptance or approval; or
b subject to ratification, acceptance or approval,
followed by ratification, acceptance or approval.
2 A State may not sign this Protocol without
reservation as to ratification, acceptance or
approval, or deposit an instrument of ratification,
acceptance or approval, unless it has already
deposited or simultaneously deposits an instrument of
ratification, acceptance or approval of the
Convention.
3 The instruments of ratification, acceptance or
approval shall be deposited with the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe.
Article 10 - Entry into force
1 This Protocol shall enter into force on the first
day of the month following the expiration of a period
of three months after the date on which five States
have expressed their consent to be bound by the
Protocol, in accordance with the provisions of Article
9.
2 In respect of any State which subsequently
expresses its consent to be bound by it, the Protocol
shall enter into force on the first day of the month
following the expiration of a period of three months
after the date of its signature without reservation as
to ratification, acceptance or approval or deposit of
its instrument of ratification, acceptance or
approval.
Article 11 - Accession
1 After the entry into force of this Protocol, any
State which has acceded to the Convention may also
accede to the Protocol.
2 Accession shall be effected by the deposit with
the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of an
instrument of accession which shall take effect on the
first day of the month following the expiration of a
period of three months after the date of its deposit.
Article 12 - Reservations and declarations
1 Reservations and declarations made by a Party to
a provision of the Convention shall be applicable also
to this Protocol, unless that Party declares otherwise
at the time of signature or when depositing its
instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession.
2 By a written notification addressed to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe, any Party
may, at the time of signature or when depositing its
instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession, declare that it avails itself of the
reservation(s) provided for in Articles 3, 5 and 6 of
this Protocol. At the same time, a Party may avail
itself, with respect to the provisions of this
Protocol, of the reservation(s) provided for in
Article 22, paragraph 2, and Article 41, paragraph 1,
of the Convention, irrespective of the implementation
made by that Party under the Convention. No other
reservations may be made.
3 By a written notification addressed to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe, any State
may, at the time of signature or when depositing its
instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession, declare that it avails itself of the
possibility of requiring additional elements as
provided for in Article 5, paragraph 2.a, and Article
6, paragraph 2.a, of this Protocol.
Article 13 - Status and withdrawal of reservations
1 A Party that has made a reservation in accordance
with Article 12 above shall withdraw such reservation,
in whole or in part, as soon as circumstances so
permit. Such withdrawal shall take effect on the date
of receipt of a notification addressed to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe. If the
notification states that the withdrawal of a
reservation is to take effect on a date specified
therein, and such date is later than the date on which
the notification is received by the Secretary General,
the withdrawal shall take effect on such a later date.
2 The Secretary General of the Council of Europe
may periodically enquire with Parties that have made
one or more reservations in accordance with Article 12
as to the prospects for withdrawing such
reservation(s).
Article 14 - Territorial application
1 Any Party may at the time of signature or when
depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession, specify the territory or
territories to which this Protocol shall apply.
2 Any Party may, at any later date, by a
declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the
Council of Europe, extend the application of this
Protocol to any other territory specified in the
declaration. In respect of such territory, the
Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of
the month following the expiration of a period of
three months after the date of receipt of the
declaration by the Secretary General.
3 Any declaration made under the two preceding
paragraphs may, in respect of any territory specified
in such declaration, be withdrawn by a notification
addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of
Europe. The withdrawal shall become effective on the
first day of the month following the expiration of a
period of three months after the date of receipt of
such notification by the Secretary General.
Article 15 - Denunciation
1 Any Party may, at any time, denounce this
Protocol by means of a notification addressed to the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
2 Such denunciation shall become effective on the
first day of the month following the expiration of a
period of three months after the date of receipt of
the notification by the Secretary General.
Article 16 - Notification
The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall
notify the member States of the Council of Europe, the
non-member States which have participated in the
elaboration of this Protocol as well as any State
which has acceded to, or has been invited to accede
to, this Protocol of:
a any signature;
b the deposit of any instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession;
c any date of entry into force of this Protocol in
accordance with its Articles 9, 10 and 11;
d any other act, notification or communication
relating to this Protocol.
In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly
authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.
Done at Strasbourg, this 28th day of January 2003, in
English and in French, both texts being equally
authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited
in the archives of the Council of Europe. The
Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall
transmit certified copies to each member State of the
Council of Europe, to the non-member States which have
participated in the elaboration of this Protocol, and
to any State invited to accede to it.
[END]
*******************************************************
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".
|
