Walter Mueller and Deborah Lipstadt should be friends
– both defame, then run and hide. Are they both suffering from NDP?
On the eve of 17 August, 2005, when the Israelis return stolen land to Palestinians, and when Germans – who still want to be Germans – commemorate the murder of Rudolf Heß in 1987, Walter Mueller adopts ‘Holocaust’ believer Professor Deborah Lipstadt’s tactics and refuses to give Germar Rudolf a right-of-reply.
16 August 2005
Fredrick Töben advises:
After launching a blistering and unbalanced attack on Germar Rudolf, Walter Mueller advised me that he would not run through his email list the thoughtful and balanced response that Germar Rudolf sent him.
This means that one of the moral imperatives adopted by Revisionists, the principle of Natural Justice, has been violated by Mr Mueller. I cannot accept the excuse offered by some that Mr Mueller does not understand the implication of his not according Mr Rudolf a right-of-reply.
His justification is clearly stated, rational and sober and vigorous, and although I noticed at times his dynamic stance taken against those he does not like, I have not noticed Mr Mueller attacking a person, then running away from the scene – as he has done in the Rudolf matter.
My attempt to elicit a possible change of mind also failed – so be it. No one in Revisionism is indispensable!
I wonder what caused this Mueller reaction? On compassionate grounds alone, I am astounded at the viciousness with which Mr Mueller lashes out at Germar Rudolf. Does this viciousness hide some kind of hurt or disgust that Mr Mueller has been nurturing for all these years? No-one can get into the mind of another person, and so his behaviour will inevitably display a pattern that will help explain why he did it at a time when Germar Rudolf faces unprecedented private and professional problems. Any normal empathetic understanding would have/should have tempered Mr Mueller’s attack. It did not.
The following is the email exchange, beginning with Mr Mueller’s statement about Germar Rudolf.
1. -----Original Message-----
From: Walter Mueller [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 August 2005 12:13 PM
To: Walter F. Mueller
Subject: PATRIOT LETTER: GERMAR RUDOLF: A BOYISH REBEL???? -- YOUR TURN
Dear Fellow Patriot!
Zundel In Germany:
For Zundel updates please visit the above website!
To submit news, information, etc. about Ernst Zundel, please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
This Patriot Letter will sure generate some controversy. I have only done a little bit of your mail because of my lengthy contribution. I have researched the subject of Germar Rudolf for a week and here is my assessment. This is not a vicious attack, it is just a mind-boggling experience that I did not expect. I should have gone with my first impression, because they are mostly right. I have had run-ins with Germar Rudolf before, but got convinced that he is hard-working for the cause.
GERMAR RUDOLF: A BOYISH REBEL?????
by Walter F. Mueller
"A Boyish Rebel" is how Diplom Chemist Germar Rudolf describes himself. It was the first time that I actually checked the part of his website that he calls "Germar Private.":
A Boyish Rebel
My Mottos: I dared! Only dead fish swim with the stream. Somebody has to do it, so why not I? Problems do not exist, only tasks. Give more flowers during life; they are in vain on graves. I do not want to believe, I want to know! We all should eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong!
External Features and Characteristics
Hair: Light Brown
Height: 6 feet 5.5 inches / 196.5 cm
Body Type: slender athlete
Weight: 195 lbs / 89 kg
Health: excellent; never saw a hospital from the inside, see physicians only for routine health check; practically never take any medicine (not even
Food: I hate fastfood, love good restaurants; Müesli, raw oats, granola; milk, apple juice and black current juice, club soda; prefer German, French and, most importantly, Italian food (with lots of cheeeeese), German multi-grain bread (topped with cheeeeese), French cheese, Swiss cheese, German cheese, Dutch Cheese..., all milk products (buttermilk, sourmilk, quark, yoghurt, cheese, cheese, cheese, and cheeeeese); salad with blue cheeeese dressing; you get the picture
Languages: English, German (both fluent), French (a bit rusty)
IQ: plenty, probably too much
Ethnicity: 95% German, 5% Polish
Religion: Once an active Christian/Catholic; now anti-dogmatic, agnostic
Avail. Income: sufficient
Smoker: Don't Smoke
Drinker: Don't Drink
Marital Status: remarried
Children: two with my first wife, one with my second wife in the making
Mottos: I dared! Only dead fish swim with the stream.
Somebody has to do it, so why not I? Problems do not exist, only tasks. Give more flowers during life; they are in vain on graves. I do not want to believe, I want to know! We all should eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong! (that is black sarcasm about mass demo-crazies)
Character strengths: courageous, honest, modest, open-minded, strong-willed, ambitious, diligent, self disciplined, strong sense of justice, talkative, passionate, romantic, family-oriented, sometimes spontaneous
Character weaknesses: all the above, plus sometimes impatient, stubborn
Preferred place to live: rural, close to major city
When it comes to my space: pretty clean and tidy
My fashion sense: What is that?
Sense of humor: Dry/Sarcastic
When it comes to parties: If it's a good one where I can dance, and if I am invited...
Preferred leisure activity: working out, reading good books, dancing, sailing, volleyball, hiking, conversations, spending time with children and family
When it comes to TV: I generally dislike it. A good DVD is ok, though
When it comes to work: 40-50 hour work week
Attending religious services: Rarely
Political views: anarchistic, conserving, social libertarian
When it comes to money: I hate making compromises for it
Punctuality: I am almost always right on time
Favorite types of music: Pop, R&B, Country & Western, Folk, Blues, Classical, Children music & Nursery Rhymes - and I will sing and whistle along!
Pets: I have none currently, but I like Cat(s), Dog(s), Fish
Turn Ons Turn Offs
Thrill Seekers, Sarcasm, Brainiacs, Boldness / Assertiveness, Willpower, Natural Food, Natural Beauty, Clear Speaking, Well-founded Argumentation, Large Beds, Mild Climate, Rugged Landscapes, Altruism,
Healthy Asceticism Intrigues, fast food, make-up,dishonesty, indecisiveness, lack of will, alcohol (drink what you want, but don't force me to drink it), smokers, treeless flat landscapes, tedium, egoism, materialism
In 2004 I married a US citizen, and in late February 2005 we will expect our first child. Considering the permanent financial drain caused by my ongoing legal struggle to receive permanent residence in the U.S., my publishing company is doing relatively well, at least well enough to support me and a few part-time employees. But the ongoing attempts of the U.S. authorities to deport me back to Germany are hanging like a sword of Damokles over me all the time.
Already that self-description should make any reader uneasy. If not that one, this one sure does:
"We all should eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong."
Now anyone who knows about narcissism will instantly realize that Germar Rudolf is a dangerous narcissist.
You think this is far fetched? Go read "Germar Private" on his website.
After I was finished going through the sickening self-descriptions, I was pretty sure that the German revisionist has narcissist personal disorder (NPD):
Arrogant, selfish, conceited and full of himself.
Most narcissists are highly educated people with a high IQ. But the also cannot be satisfied and can do a tremendous damage to friends, partners because of their relentless demand for a perfect outer appearance to reflect the perfect inner image that obsesses them.
Rudolf is the poster child of NPD. The way he compliments himself is shocking. The constant flattery and complimentary of himself makes your skin crawl.
He admits that he has abandoned God. He describes himself as "athletic" and says that he has "too much IQ." Interesting to know is that Rudolf claims that he has "Sufficient funds" to make a living. Never mind that according to Jamie Kelso the white supremacist community just paid $50,000 on lawyers bills.
His arrogance, a typical trademark of narcissists, reflects when he brags that he has raised 167% of what he needed in defense costs. He promises that he will use the surplus for "future legal proceedings."
He says about children:
"...two with my first wife and with my second wife in the making."
It is also amazing when one follows Rudolf’s desperate attempt to find an American citizen to marry. After many failed attempts, Rudolf found one and shared his bliss with the Revisionist world. A miracle baby emerged!
It was only in April of 2004 when Germar Rudolf made reservations for him and his secretary to visit Sacramento. Then, in September of 2004, he met his current wife and somewhere in 2005, they got married.
Already, he bulk mailed the revisionist world with the first pictures of the baby. I am not sure, in my calculation, this baby shouldn't have been there until this fall!
A marriage of convenience? Sure. No one falls in love this often and this fast as Germar Rudolf does. I remember when the late and dear McKenzie Payne sent out fundraising letters to finance another attempt of Rudolf getting married.
Germar Rudolf was born in 1964. 41 - and he thinks still he is a boyish rebel. His research on the gas chambers in Auschwitz made him eventually a fugitive from the law in Germany. Just as he was to start his sentence, he fled to Spain. Amazingly, Germar Rudolf always found a sugar daddy who financed him. Under many alias' Rudolf went into the publishing business.
Business owner Hans Joachim Dill was Rudolf's first sugar daddy, then Karl Philipp.
Rudolf's favorite alias was Ernst Gauss.
After Spain came England. That's where he founded Castle Hill Publishers. Soon the British authorities found him and threatened to extradite him to Germany.
On the run again, Rudolf found another lad in Nevada,
USA: John C. Zimmermann, who helped him to apply for political asylum in the U.S.
Since then, Germar Rudolf has gone through sponsors like I through fresh shirts. He appeared at the IHR Conference in May of 2000 as a guest speaker. "Der Mann Mit Dem Koffer," managed again to find several sponsors and merged CODOH and VHO.
It is my belief that from the beginning Germar Rudolf and his associates were planning a revisionist coup, hoping to take over revisionism in the U.S.
For many months, Germar Rudolf stayed as a guest in the wealthy household of late Dr. Bob Countess. Later he moved into the house of veteran revisionist Bradley Smith in Rosarito in Mexico.
In 2002, Germar Rudolf announced again marriage. He called it the wedding of the year. Soon, that occasion was cancelled.
The NPD driven Rudolf wanted to become famous in the U.S. In order to do so, he launched attacks against those who had sponsored him.
Let me make clear that there is no doubt that Germar Rudolf's work is good, and has made a difference.
Nevertheless, these constant setbacks are typical of people with NPD.
In August of 2004, a Court in Mannheim, Germany, confiscated an account, which was established by Rudolf in 2000. "Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall" as we say, not only was it stupid but also dangerous to do so. In the process, Rudolf destroyed the lives of another friend and his family: Dr. Rudolf Grosskopf.
Today, the Grosskopf family wants nothing to do with Germar Rudolf.
Despite the quick marriage to an American citizen, the U.S. INS rejected Rudolf's application for political asylum, citing fraudulent reasons.
Now here is another whole strange behavior of the NPD driven revisionist. His urge to be famous triggered some very bad decisions. He hooked up with the white supremacist community, despite his pending application for political asylum. A guest speaker at the David Duke Conference, America's ex-felon white supremacist.
On October 17, 2004, Germar Rudolf was a special guest at the Duke Town hall Radio Show. Then, Duke was just released from prison for misusing funds from his supporters. David Duke became Rudolf's latest male sponsor. I would say $50,000 isn't too bad.
It is safe to say that Germar Rudolf's attempt to hijack the revisionist community in the U.S. failed miserably. Today, he is the star of the white supremacist community. His "largest revisionist website" is often down, and his publications are so irregular that many people are fed up with it.
After studying the Rudolf website, I cannot emphasize enough what a danger this narcissist is. Ruthless and the lack of empathy make him a user. He uses other people's opinions, he borrows work from someone else whom he regards as an authority. He takes all he can while giving nothing back. Once you have nothing to offer anymore, he discards you as a waste of his precious time. Another trait of narcissists is that they are enraged over trivial disagreements, mistakes and competition. He will say anything to destroy a competitor (as he did with me).
Let me also get rid of another myth that Germar Rudolf claims. He is the only German Revisionist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Compared to the German revisionists like Guenther Deckert, Manfred Roeder, Walter Ochensberger, Froehlich, Horst Mahler, and of course Ernst Zundel, he is a coward.
So, in the end, Rudolf says:
"Mueller hasn't done anything for revisionism."
He also believes that I am nuts. It is true that I haven't published any books, or have became a target of law enforcement agencies. But that's not a plus. It is a sign of his bad judgment. It is a fact that most revisionists are going broke. Almost weekly I receive their begging letters because they have failed to deal with the mainstream.
Oh - I forgot, that venue is closed for them, because of their affiliation with people who believe that all humans of different colors should be banned from this earth - gay people should be killed - etc.
Clearly, if you are that stupid, you get what is coming to you. Yes, I have very little academic credentials with people like Germar Rudolf and his associates. However, I believe in stability and consistency. Community News has been around for 13 years and was never late.
It is people like me who are the true revisionist. I believe that the lies of the holocaust should be exposed to everyone, not for a select group of people whose arrogance has almost destroyed holocaust revisionism. The damage done to the cause is almost irreversible.
Be honest, doesn't it amaze you that revisionists who are already on the lam and closely watched by the enemy continually associate themselves with the white supremacists? We all know why that is. Because they have no credibility in the mainstream because of the very same association with the white supremacists community.
Besides, as Germans, we should not tolerate the German bashing that comes from these people.
In closing, I say that the U.S. government will deport Germar Rudolf. Never mind his marriage. He cannot escape the stench of hate and racism that is affiliated with these friends.
2. -----Original Message-----
From: Adelaide Institute [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 9 August 2005 2:31 PM
To: 'Walter Mueller'
Subject: Not for publication
Oh, oh, - Walter, Walter, Walter ...this kind of criticism can be made of any person...
3. -----Original Message-----
From: Adelaide Institute [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2005 2:59 PM
To: 'Walter Mueller'
Cc: Adelaide Institute
Subject: A partial view inside Revisionism's politics...
Walter - 'emotionale Selbstzerfleischung' - the Germans are good at that!
1. Full-blown politics has, again, hit Revisionism - that's life. Our Australian Prime Minister has just begun his new term with a majority of one in the Senate, and just now he has pleaded and advised with his crew that party unity must be maintained. The opposition labor Party has become irrelevant and can't even get sound-bites on account of the focus on the seat of power...while the Coalition Nationals' Barnaby Jones, the one who has given the government control of the Senate, refuses to yield to Howard, and up to now he claims he will be representing his constituents in the state of Queensland.
2. The stakes are high in politics. In Australia it is still about the privatisation of the national telephone carrier - Telstra. Revisionists don't know too much about such battle of the wills because we are not into the millions of dollars - and when this occurred during the early 1990s, we saw how Carto was challenged and had his IHR taken away from him.
3. Generally, though, Revisionists are not really in a power-surge, except in a personal way when the inevitable legal pincer movement begins its work on us as we are locked up.
4. Generally then, Revisionists are lucky in that we have a small power-supporter base - and when that disappears, then we call it a day and daydream in our splendid isolation.
5. Having said this, Walter, I do not understand why you had to lash out at Germar Rudolf who is so vulnerable, legally and financially - and to whom you show little empathy. I have read Germar's as yet unpublished reply to your email of yesterday, and although in the past I have been naughty in not eliciting from another person a right of reply before publishing an item - the last one concerning Mel Fowler on Kevin Strom - I would have expected you to clarify things with Germar before lashing out.
6. We do have a gentleman, Stahl, who in his splendid isolation is fighting with David Irving - who isn't?, and also with Germar Rudolf - and such activity even involves forged documents to prove a case.
7. The question I would now ask is, in whose interest is this latest squabble? Just as with the 2004 Sacramento Conference planning, the initial impetus for sabotage came from Ingrid Rimland who wished to discredit me with that tag, which I consider rather funny: "he screws women from eight to 80", rather a compliment and a certain gentleman asked me to help him out with one of mine! Was this comment designed to get you horny or what? Now you let fly on account of what you thought Germar Rudolf had said/written about you. Is this a matter where our so-called enemy just sits back and sows discord by proxy!
8. Email traffic is tremendous if the sources are checked where and if they matter, as it mattered in that Kelso-Rudolf-Mueller item.
9. Without slipping into the conspiracy mode - something that is always an actuality, and is all too often a physical fact as soon as more than one individual starts to think and act - you now have to observe who rubs their hands in glee at the Mueller-Rudolf flare-up, then sends consoling notes to you, that you did the right thing. I do hope you have not adopted the typical German attitude of Rechthaberei - I am right, I am right! The right-wrong thinking does not help clarify issues ...
10. Here's my position: I know both of you and I value both your different kinds of Revisionist work - both of you have the typical German dynamic for hard work; presenting a daily email service is no mean feat, and being a one-man publishing powerhouse - and a political refugee at that - is also no mean feat. In this way the whole spectrum of humanity is offered a Revisionist viewpoint - on a daily basis and at more depth. Just compare Prof Butz's website to other Revisionist websites - his is lean and mean but fundamental because he assumes that he does not have to regurgitate the basic known facts of an issue again and again.
What about Prof Faurisson? He does not wish to be bombarded by daily emails from just anybody - and as happened recently, he shies away from starting anew in presenting his basic thesis that he nutted out over 30 years ago to someone who just happened to stumble on Faurisson's challenge. I imply here that Germar Rudolf simply does not have he time to read your daily email - and he relies on others to sift through it for any goodies that may be found therein.
Jürgen Graf battles uncertainty in Russia and continues to explore and translate for the Revisionist cause. He does not have the time to read a daily email.
Even Irving called my emails 'spam mail', something I disagreed with because he could have asked to be taken off the list - in a polite way. And so it goes on.
There is in Revisionism, as in any human enterprise, a definite seniority ladder, a pecking-order, if you wish. And it is humbling, for example, for me to meet a man who in five years has produced so much material that I can see my 12 years' work fading into insignificance. More on this man's work in our September newsletter.
There are others still who hold on to their claim for any importance among Revisionists by stating - and counting - to have 'deflowered' the ignorant of their false beliefs, and now bathe in the glory of the hard workers, while themselves sitting back doing no more work expect trying to find converts, much as any religious enterprising person, and of course supporting the cause financially.
I sense that anyone who wishes to contribute to Revisionism, particularly 'Holocaust' Revisionism, can still find a niche and be productive and support the powerhouse that is Germar Rudolf - among others, I hasten to add - so as not to offend the delicate and fragile individuals who need buttering up - as we all do at one time or another in varying degrees when we are hit with exhaustion that comes from contemplating the odds against which we fight - a multi-billion dollar 'Holocaust' industry.
11. Walter, in this sense, I do hope that you review and reflect on matters in the hope of staying focused so as not to slip into non-productivity that befell the IHR as the productive energy was sapped in fighting the Revisionist and not the Revisionism ball. The comment you made about Germar and his wife - and I say this as someone who knows both, and as a somewhat mature 61-year-old male whose judgment is tempered by personal disasters - is that it is below the line and way out of line. Sexually Germar is continent, and beyond reproach a heterosexual family man who, after all he has been through, still maintains his ideals of what life is all about. I have seen lesser individuals break down and hit the bottle and drugs and embrace hell where anything goes! Your comments on this particular aspect is pure gossip - and it does deserve a retraction, if not an apology, something I personally shy away from because it is given so easily. I once had this apology business with Mel Fowler, among others, but then it was over a view-point, I think, if my memory serves me correctly. Germar is mature enough to cope with such defamatory statements - but he does not need to be shot at from within Revisionism - again, in whose interest is all this, and is it a proxy attack of which you are not aware who is doing it?
12. One comforting thought - all this in-fighting is a human condition and rather normal, and those that are now rubbing their hands in glee merely indicates their immaturity about human nature. To varying degrees it happens in families and companies and bureaucracies. Imagine the in-fighting that is going on between personnel from the White House, Pentagon, CIA, etc. For example, I personally liked Colin Powell, but he gave the game away when he lied about the war on 5 February 2003 before the UN. This moral imperative also operates within Revisionism, within any human enterprise. We should take to heart what the Arabic-speaking world stated about the Iraq war: With my brother I'll fight my cousin; with my brother and cousin I'll fight the enemy outside. Revisionists know who the enemy is, and that we have all the makings of power politics, i.e. 911 as an insider job, is to be expected wherever independent thinkers work on an enterprise
Submitted for your consideration.
4. -----Original Message-----
From: Walter Mueller [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2005 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: A partial view inside Revisionism's politics...
I was not surprised to receive your letter in defense of Germar Rudolf. I have known for a long time that you are good friends.
Let me first get something out of the way. If you think I apologize, you have another thing coming. If any apology is to make, then it is Germar Rudolf and his associates.
You know that I was right about my assessment of him being a narcissist. For the last year, I have tried so hard to get along with him, however, that arrogant bastard wouldn't even say thank you for ANYTHING we did for him. He didn't even acknowledge it.
His defense of Jamie Kelso prooved to me that the Kelso letter is not fake. But here is one thing we can do. He leaves me alone and I leave him alone.
Should he continue to bash me, I will publish several letters from him that Harvey Taylor gave to me. In these letters he did more than just assassinate my character. So, it's that easy. All I ask from Germar Rudolf is to be left alone. He is a user and I had to find it out the hard way!
5. -----Original Message-----
From: Adelaide Institute [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2005 1:29 PM
To: 'Walter Mueller'
Subject: Using people
Thanks for your response.
We all use people - mutual benefit of association - that then needs to be augmented with empathetic understanding, natural justice, a general moral framework, etc. I try to do it that way - and many a times it has helped retain workable relationships if not outright love, i.e. if one bothers and cares in retaining certain relationships.
PS: Without asking for your permission, I am sending a copy of this email to Germar - as your Right-of-Reply to my letter.
======================================6. ----- Original Message -----From: Adelaide InstituteTo: 'Walter Mueller'Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 2:42 AMSubject: RE: Right of Reply
Walter, please note my response below - >>> …<<<
From: Walter Mueller [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Sunday, 14 August 2005 1:21 AM
To: Adelaide Institute
Subject: Re: Right of Reply
As I have said so many times, the Patriot Letter does not recognize a "right to reply."
>>>One of my fundamental principles/ideals is to give anyone a right-of-reply/Natural Justice. Why? This guarantees that our battle-of-the-wills attains some kind of beneficial objective BALANCE.
By not according Rudolf this basic civilising principle, practically this means that you are behaving exactly as Prof Deborah Lipstadt, who simply states: "There is no debate" on contentious issues. She accuses, labels, libels and throws out all sorts of statements about individuals and things, then remains silent and excludes any possible opportunity for clarifications to be made.
This, for some, illustrates a tantalising closed-mind power game. Imagine, as you did, you attack, go over the top, then withdraw into your world and turn the page on another day. Well, in the battle of the wills, such behaviour is understandable, and even inevitable, but in your case it is definitive.<<<
However, I am sure that his associates (David Duke, Adelaide Institute, The Birdman, Stormfront, Aryan Nation and many more) will be happy to post his "reply."
>>>I don't know what to make of this statement of yours - but I sense a kind of labelling is going on here that short-circuits real thinking. You seem to be groping towards the establishing of a conceptual prison within which you are placing those that you don’t like or feel threatened by.
I think Germar Rudolf has addressed the matter you raise here in some detail - and that is important for your readers to know. Withholding information can be regarded to be a form of lying.<<<
I am disappointed in your biased behavior. Germar Rudolf attacked me for the sixth time now. This time, he cowardly claims that Kelso's letter is a fake, but, at the same time, he defends one of America's worst white supremacists, who also goes by the name of "Lindbergh."
>>> This comment of yours reminds me of those who keep a tally of the number of antisemitic incidents that occur in a country. Are you certain that Rudolf attacked you six times, and not perhaps six-and-a-half times? Even your use of the number 6 may suggest devil work is here at play?! This comment of mine is, of course, to be taken figuratively and not literally.
Still, such subjective behaviour of keeping count of things in time will cause individuals to go mad with fear or hate because the prism through which they view the world is itself distorted. I once knew an individual in a small town who kept a list of social IN and OUT, and thereon listed individuals’ names. Of course his was on the IN list. Unfortunately, in time, his was the only name on the IN list.
Although I don't know the ins-and-outs of American factional politics, as you allude to above, I think it is in order here to state that your use of the word 'biased' is misplaced. I liken your use of the word to that used by you to describe Germar Rudolf - NDP - which to me actually fitted just as well on to you – a perfect fit. Hence my comment that your criticism of him also applies to your own person. Such psychologism, however, is pure wankery - works every time but is unproductive/barren without new insights about anything emerging therefrom - emotionale Selbstzerfleischung - emotional self-destruction.
That is why productive thinking is so important for me, i.e. the process where you attempt to distance yourself from your own subjective - feely-feely-touchy-touchy and woolly - thinking so as to gain some objective knowledge of a matter.
Further, by stating above that Germar Rudolf 'cowardly claims…', you are compounding your labelling activity. Again, it reflects more on your character than it does on Germar's. You are wrong in what you state above because Rudolf is anything but a coward.<<<
As I told you, I only wish to be left alone by Germar Rudolf's unbalanced attacks, which are a result of his NPD.
>>>You can't tell me anything, Walter. You may inform, advise, recommend, suggest, state, but telling an adult anything is condescending behaviour fit for children only. The above statement is actually, as I said earlier, describing your own NDP that has made you unbalanced in what you have written about Germar Rudolf, and in your attitude of not according him a right-of-reply.
If you were to count the number of 'I' that you use in any one of your emails, then you will note that you are merely describing your own person when labelling Rudolf with NDP. I thought at first you were jesting, but then realized that such subtlety was not present in your writing style, and that you were quite literal.<<<
My goal, as I have stated many times before, is to convince as many people as I can, that the holocaust is a lie. I can only do that if I distance myself from those who seek support from America's hate communities.
>>>Again, you are implying that Germar Rudolf belongs to 'America's hate communities', a notion that seems to me to be absurd. There may be a misunderstanding on your part as to what it means to be unbiased - and I accept that you let your bias hang out quite openly.
Even to accept this 'hate' category is a problem for me because it indicates more about the person using the word than it does against whom it is used.
The other word often misused is 'arrogance'. Those who accuse others of being arrogant actually reveal their mindset to be wanting in something. It indicates to me they have some deficiency thinking flowing from their perception of life. All too often a supposedly 'arrogant' person is extremely shy and full of self-doubt that is hidden by developing a certain stance-image. Germans are supposed to be masters of ‘arrogance’, and all too often it is merely a state of feeling whole, complete, not lacking in deficiency thinking. Those raised in negativity then are driven by hatred and envy to tear down anything smacking of beauty and truth. The Marxist/feminist mindset exemplifies this so clearly where the artificial class-enemy is postulated as evil and that needs to be eliminated.
I think hubris – Übermut - is a real quality that better describes those that some would consider arrogant because hubris includes power-politics, something Germar Rudolf does not indulge in. Why not? Because he is far too busy working and has little time for gossip. Is Übermut driving you, Walter?
Back to the guilt-by-association-syndrome; for example, Dr Nordbruch has no "Berührungsängste"- guilt-by-association. He has no fear of addressing any group that invites him to speak, be it from the traditional political left or right.
Likewise, I have also always had this inclusive attitude as I began my Wanderjahre through the world. For example, when I began associating with you, I had voices warning me off you! I listened to these voices, then made my own assessment of you – and the productivity factor loomed large in your favour.
What you seem to fail to notice is that you are accepting the principle of guilt-by-association, something that is a trademark of the 'Holocaust' believers - the divide-and-rule principle is contained therein. Do you now, Walter, feel the blow-torch on you and do you feel the need to decry individuals so as to possibly make yourself out to be a good boy, for whatever reason?
Mature individuals have the courage to reject any such guilt-by-association that others attempt to impose upon them. Why? Because by my works you will know what moral and intellectual values I carry and live by, not by what others say about my politics.
Guilt-by-association contains a controlling principle/mechanism that is often used by control freaks who cannot tolerate giving another the freedom to decide what life is all about, though I hasten to add that it can be used in good faith!
Germar Rudolf's attitude is one of total openness, including his personal life, something you viewed with horror, so it seems to me, and felt the need to decry and cheapen with superficial commentary. Even if you personally do not have a family and children - but you do have the Revisionist family to nurture - then you should not begrudge Germar relishing in having his new wife and baby without viewing this situation in such a debased form.
Interestingly, you are not the only one who has made some remarks about Germar Rudolf living an open-private life, and I detect some personal aversion in those who comment negatively about it, instead of just accepting it that here is a man who is still doing normal things without falling into deficiency thinking on account of some perceived void within the self.
As I keep on implying, now stating it openly, your comments tell me more of what is going on in your head, Walter.
The message I get from your snide comments about Germar Rudolf exposing his private life is envy and perhaps regret. I feel inspired when I read such things, and I certainly cannot see anything negative about it. Germar is not a split personality but a whole person - he has no dark secrets that would permit him to be subjected to any kind of blackmail.
That is why your uninformed comment about his marriage being one of convenience sounds so empty and hollow, as if you yourself feel a certain deficiency by not having a woman to love. Most healthy men need one woman only - and Germar is lucky in that he managed to catch himself a person with whom he is at one – he got himself a lover, a woman, a wife, a partner, a mother - all in one. His energies can therefore be focused on the big issues, and there is no need for him to flit from one affair to another – an energy wasting exercise because it all too often needs some form of justification, while family needs no justification.
Since 1997 I have been following this aspect of Germar's personal life with some interest. His marriage last year on 911, 2004, is quite consistent with his character - and the mercenary streak that you inject on to him about marrying is simply misplaced. No, it is wrong and mean of you to talk like that.
So, by making such a statement, it needs to be refuted, and that is why a right-of-reply is needed. Otherwise your writing and personal behaviour merely reflects that of those whom we challenge to clarify and debate issues - publish and throw into the public arena wild allegations of 'hater', 'Holocaust denier', 'antisemite', 'neo-Nazi', Xeno/homo-phobe', etc.., then close the door and talk to the insiders and glory in mutual adoration.
This is what Professor Lipstadt did while visiting Australia in July this year. Though publicised in the newspapers as a function conducted by an institute that is part of a university in Sydney, I was excluded from attending her meeting. How was this done? The meeting was declared to be a private meeting and that then justified my exclusion.<<<
So, the answer is No. He has not earned the right to reply. No apology has been issued and besides, what is the worry? Rudolf and his associates believe that I am nuts. No one is going to believe me anyway, according to their own assessment.
>>>Oh, Walter, Walter Walter - this is heavy stuff, you stating that Germar Rudolf has not earned the right to a reply! His letter, of which I have a copy, is maturely written, open, reflective, conciliary, and substantial.
For the sake of, FOR THE RECORD, I beg you to re-consider your absolute comment - but, of course, must accept as final if you refuse.<<<
Please, let's close this issue!!!
>>>There is a nagging thought in my mind that something is behind all this, that at this point you are looking for a reason to break with Rudolf - for whatever reason.
What you have offered as a reason is insufficient and not justified because each matter that you level at Rudolf can equally apply to your own person because you also suffer from NDP.
I find this NDP concept quite amusing because it will no doubt be added to the vocabulary of shut-up words by those who are too lazy to think things through and therefore rely on such short-cut labeling to vent their pent-up frustrations.
It will be interesting to observe the next year or so with whom you are aligning yourself as this action of yours is definitive, as it is vicious!
The issue will only be closed if you run Rudolf's letter addressed in reply to your over-the-top attack on him because therein the allegations made by you against him will be clarified. Then productive work will continue on all fronts, though that will no doubt also continue without you complying with the principles of Natural Justice!<<<
Walter F. Mueller
"The truth is back in business"
7. From: CHP [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2005 8:51 PM
To: Mueller, Walter
Subject: Re: Using people
Dear Mr. Mueller,
I may state that
a) I repeat: I did not defend Kelso.
b) Whether the email you quoted is a forgery, is irrelevant to the fact that its claims are wrong.
c) As I told you before, I NEVER received the mailing list you claim to have sent me. You told me that you would send it again, but again, I did not receive anything.
d) The books you shipped for free to England were Dr. Nordbruch's books, not mine. You paid for shipment, I paid for the books, even though I have no need for them, because I can hardly sell items like that. Dr. Nordbruch owed us thanks for this, and he did thank both of us (at least me; I do not know your end of the story) for paying for his books.
e) As to the lack a gratitude allegedly shown to you, I may quote from several emails I have in my "Sent" box of 2004. If need be, I can send copies of all of these emails.
Here is what I wrote in an email to you on April 01, 2004:
"Dear Mr. Mueller!
May I ask you to provide me with a shipping address where I can sent my books to, and please apologize if you mentioned it earlier, but since I initially intended to come by car and carry the books with me, I would not have made a note of it.
Theses & Dissertations Press"
Here is what I wrote in another email to you on April 1, 2004:
"Dear Mr. Mueller!
May I suggest that I offer to donate as a gift for every speaker of the conference one copy of Don Heddesheimer's "The First Holocaust"? I would appreciate doing this.
Let me know if that is acceptable, and if so, how many copies would be required.
Here is what I wrote in an email to you on April 19, 2004:
Here is what I wrote in an email to you on April 20, 2004:
"Dear Mr. Mueller!
Assuming that the conference will not take place, would be so kind and
a) refuse to accept all 14 book boxes that are scheduled by UPS for delivery either today or tomorrow? This way they will come back to me with no further cost to any of us;
b) send me a copy of the contract you have with that Turnverein, so that I can decide whether I start (or join your) legal procedings against them for damages and lost revenue;
c) consider to make a mailout to all intended attendees of the conference -- or let me use your mailing list, or simply include some material to the mailing you might plan anyway -- with a new book programm of Theses & Dissertations Press, so that I can undo a little the harm done to all of us?
Thank you for your kind considerations.
Here is what I wrote in an email to you on April 23, 2004:
"Dear Mr. Mueller!
Thank you so much for your kind words and also for your suggestion to enable me to send book programs to your list. I would actually not need to have physical possession of the list. I can also mail you my programs plus fitting envelopes and have you send them out, all expenses fully covered by me, of course. [...]
Castle Hill Publishers [...]"
Here is what I wrote in an email to you on April 26, 2004:
Here is what I wrote in an email dated April 28, 2005:
"Yes, I would be interested, but I would need them in England, not here. I'll get in touch with Claus.
Here is what I wrote in an email to you dated May 5, 2004:
Dear Mr. Mueller!
What a relief! I actually would need the books in Europe, slow pace:
If Harvey could send them per M-Bag (the cheapest method) to:
This would be very helpful. [...].
Let me know what the total is.
And here is what I wrote to you in an email dated May 10, 2004, in which you told me that you would send Nordbruch's books to England and would send me the mailing list:
"Dear Mr. Mueller!
Thanks a lot. Other than the address given where they are to be shipped to by M-Bag, I have no further directions to give.
And finally, here is what I wrote in an email to you dated June 2, 2004:
"Dear Mr. Mueller!
And thank you for the kind words about my speech at the conference.
May be that was not thank you enough. May be I should have thanked you more for helping me to help Dr. Nordbruch out of a total loss of his books and for unsuccessfully trying to send me that mailing list. Maybe. But may I also suggest that you simply may have forgotten that I did thank you an awful lot? May be it isn't just me who is wrong sometimes? Admitting an error shows character strength, Mr. Mueller!
f) I cannot remember character assassinating you in letters to Harvey Taylor, but maybe it is only my bad memory. Perhaps you can be so kind and send copies of these letters to me. As far as I remember, I harshly criticized Taylor and the IHR for considering revisionist articles published in your "Communitiy News" to be a major success. In this regard, I wrote on Nov. 18, 2003, under the headline "Revisionism: Doom and Gloom – or just a Phase of Restructuring?" the following in a circular letter sent to 25 persons considered to be of importance, including Mark Weber, Harvey Taylor, and all members on the IHR Board (to this very day I do not have a mailing address of you, Mr. Mueller):
"Harvey Taylor expressed his never-ending admiration for Mark Weber’s 'outstanding performance,' especially in view of the circumstances under which he had to work, etc. He particularly stressed Mark’s fine article in the Community News. That paper is nothing more than Wolfgang [sic] Mueller’s low-brow [that term was added by my editor. I just looked up its meaning, and I agree with it] tabloid with a rather high print-run and a correspondingly negligible public response and readership. Nonetheless, Taylor saw that achievement as a major success. I laughed when he said this, but that did not deter Taylor from continuing to heap praise upon Weber. He also expressed his firm belief that the IHR with Mark Weber as director was still the world center of revisionism and should be supported as such. He hoped for cooperation with me, even with my own contributions to the Journal of Historical Review – and, perhaps I would even become its editor. I tried again and again to make it clear to Taylor that he is only deluding himself regarding Weber’s performance and the IHR’s importance but to no avail. I concluded that Harvey Taylor simply can not be taken seriously. He either parrots whatever Mark Weber tells him or vice versa."
First, I apologize for using the wrong first name for you, indicating that I really did not know you at all at that time, not even your first name. As you can see, there is no character assassination in it against you -- at best (or worst) against one of your products, which reflects my general attitude toward tabloids. But that is a matter of personal taste. I made no judgment of you as a person at all. How could I? I did not know you. And I maintain what I said: The "Community News" -- or any tabloid -- are not the proper outlet for an institute that claims to be the academic flagship of revisionism. The "Community News" -- as all tabloids -- may have their place in society and could play a role in popularizing and spreading revisionist messages, and if such opportunity arises, it should be used. But to call such articles, being the IHR's only(!) noticeable activities in that year, a "major success," is ludicrous. If anyone should feel personally attacked here, then it is Taylor, not you. In that letter, I doubted Taylor's capability to properly assess reality regarding Mr. Weber and the IHR. But you, Mr. Mueller, are simply not part of that criticism.
But as I said, I maybe wrong, and maybe there is another letter I do not have a copy of anymore and in which I did say something bad about you, although I consider it unlikely. As to your character, I doubt that I attacked you, because so far I could hardly say anything about you, since I did not know you. But again, I may be wrong. Therefore, please send me a photocopy of any other letter (or send a scanned image of it by email), so that I can reconsider my actions.
In closing, I would like to indicate that I am still hoping for a reconciliation.
8. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 7:10 PM
Cc: Walter Mueller
Subject: Right of Reply
Please view the following link, and if so inclined make a comment - after that I shall open the link and advise our list -
Also, Walter, please remove me from your email service for not according Germar Natural Justice - a matter that I have been canvassing for a life-time.
From: Walter Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2005 11:48 AM
Subject: PATRIOT LETTER: RIGHT TO REPLY
Dear Fellow Patriot!
RIGHT TO REPLY
by Walter F. Mueller
"I covered for my friend in high-school and took the blame for his prank.
I covered for my friend in college when he was using drugs.
But when he killed a person to buy drugs, I knew that covering for a friend is never right."
Boy Meets Girl
The Germar Rudolf "controversy" (what controversy?) has his associates demanding a "right to reply" to my recent assessment of his character.
Dr. Fredrick Toben even asked to be taken off the Patriot Letter list if I do not give Germar Rudolf the "right to reply." Rudolf should feel lucky to have a friend like Dr. Toben, who so easily trades one for the other. I think I actually kind of envy Rudolf for that friendship. I have admired Dr. Toben greatly, and therefore complied with his wishes and have taken him off the mailing list.
The Patriot Letter does not recognize a "right to reply." I do not know who made it up, because it really doesn't exist. I have never known any publisher who grants such stupid thing. It's the old "he said, he said", a dilemma without an end. Especially when you think that we are talking about the Internet, which is anyway so incredibly superficial. Imagine that anyone actually thinks that correspondents on the Internet could actually be considered friends. Most of the people we communicate with use phony names and only mouth off because they have cloaked themselves in the anonymity of cyberspace.
Surely you know that your letters are always welcome, as long as they adhere to our rules.
Besides, I would be pretty stupid to give this "right to reply" to a person that has - without reason - already attacked me. He never gave me the "right to reply" either. And I have no problem with this.
Does that mean that I only dish out and can't take? Well, you all know the answer to that. In the business I am in, I believe 90% is taking "crap," - add on that I had to realize that our community is worse than the traditional enemy.
Naturally, Rudolf's associates asked if I imply that he is part of the hate community in the U.S. No, I am not implying that, he is part of the hate community. When it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it is a duck.
Word from England tells me that even they were surprised of Germar Rudolf's "glory, glory" to David Duke.
I don't know why the white supremacists put up with people who constantly show up as guests at their meetings, but when asked, deny that they are.
I am utterly fed up with finding the names of revisionists on websites like Duke, The Birdman, Stormfront, etc. and when asked why, they say "I can't control who posts my stuff." What a despicable way to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Dr. Toben asks who will be left if I continue to put people on my "out" list. I tell him what will be left, the decent, the honest, and the honorable. People like Prof. Robert Faurisson, Paul Grubach, Horst Mahler, Guenther Deckert, Walter Ochensberger, and so many more who are out in their communities, doing the real job.
Let's be a lot clearer about who I am going to be working with in the future. With people who recognize that a little humanity comes a long way. People who can celebrate their own heritage and culture, and still respect others. More and more people are fed up with the ever increasing power of the Jews. However, they do not want to join those who do nothing but insult and humiliate other races. It isn't really these people - if you think about - it is the government. And let me clue you in, the government is still predominantly white. Besides, with the enemies we already have, I am not willing to make any more. It is this attitude that has made the traditional enemy so strong.
I can see that in the beginning everyone will try to work with everyone. But once you have figured it out, come on! I used to meet with the National Alliance, I even used to praise them. But once I've got to know what they really stood for, I said "no more."
Changes start in your own community, in your own neighborhood, with your own friends and family. It is there where holocaust education takes place, and it is also there where we should refute it. Not in the exclusive 300 club where everybody rubs everybody's back.
It is also there where your Senators and Representatives come from. Holocaust and revisionism does not take place at a Duke conference where hate and bigotry dominate. Holocaust revisionism takes place where you live and work. But huuuuuh, that means you have to come out of your closet!
People like Germar Rudolf and others do not have the capacity to realize that their world has no chance to survive. Let's be honest, do you really think that any judge in the United States of America will grant Germar Rudolf political asylum for Holocaust denial? In reality, he is a wanted criminal from Germany. And if you think that anyone in the American justice system will look upon it favorably, you might want to get out of your soap bubble. Especially when the same person is so stupid to align himself with the most notorious hate groups in the country.
So, there will be no "right to reply" here. I am pretty sure Germar Rudolf's associates (The Birdman, David Duke, Euro, Stormfront, Aryan Nation, VNN, White Survival, etc.) will post his reply gladly.
Having said all this, it begs pointing out that again so many revisionists are lousy business people. In fact, they have a limited pool that over time has turned into a wading pool. First, most revisionists are anti-Christians - peng! 90% from around world are gone. So many revisionists also have aligned themselves with the extreme right - peng! Another bunch of people gone. So it isn't so bad that Dr. Toben gave me the boot. Let me remind you again that very shortly their soap bubbles are about to burst.
As I said at the beginning, never cover up for your friend, because in the end, it is you who has to suffer the consequences.
From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2005 3:37 PM
To: 'Walter Mueller'
Subject: RE: PATRIOT LETTER: RIGHT TO REPLY
All very, very sad, Walter - but no one is indispensable and no-one ought to believe in one's own propaganda - and become a legend in one's own mind -
Posted your response in the Zündel Updates - gave you a right of reply = closure of an issue...
Regards to Hans, and perhaps you can pass on my regards to Harvey - and advise him I am still waiting for a copy of that video, as is/was Germar for your list!
A final note: had the legal principle of Natural Justice not existed, then my 1984 teacher dismissal would have stood, but because I could prove I was not accorded a right-of-reply, I won the case and my dismissal was overturned.
Don't take this matter personally, Walter, as I said above, we are all dispensable in our once-only journey through life where there is no fast-forward, rewind, pause, slow back or forward but just an inexorable journey towards our own extinction. I fondly regard my meeting you and having experienced your wonderful hospitality and being associated with you on this historic topic that so deeply moves us all.
From: CHP [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 August 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Walter Mueller
Walter Mueller continues his hate and lie campaign against me, now openly admitting that he will not grant me a right of reply. He uses names of revisionists, like Prof. Dr. Faurisson, to claim that he will keep getting support and recognition from them. (See http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/MuellerNoRightToReply.txt)
Please read my documentation on this sad affair below (or at www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Mueller.html, if the links in this email get deleted) and consider writing Mueller a note (firstname.lastname@example.org) disapproving of his campaign and indicating that he has lost all support within the revisionist community as a result.
Thanks for your kind considerations
From Prof Robert Faurisson
Sorry, Mr Mueller, but I do not want your readers to believe you have my support in attacking Germar Rudolf. As I recently said, I, for one, admire this man for his achievements and "Germanic" energy. He might very well be deported to Germany, which means that, for many years to come, he would not anymore see freely his wife and children. His deportation to that enslaved country would be a disaster for himself, for his loved ones and for Revisionism. He is conscious of that. Therefore he is all the more admirable.
If, sooner or later, you could at least realise that one should never attack a person who is in such a danger, it would be good for you, for him, and for those who, in prison or elsewhere, are currently suffering for the Revisionist cause.
Avec mes salutations distinguées.
Dear Prof. Faurisson,
I never made my readers believe that you were supporting my character assessment of Germar Rudolf.
Dear Mr Mueller. You are right but there was a risk your readers might believe it.
So it is now OK and I wish you will one day in the future revise your opinion about what may be said or not said about Germar
Rudolf in his present situation.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute