ISSN
1440-9828
March 2004
No 213
Fighting
Judaism’s ‘Holocaust’ from within
Germany
Horst Mahler challenges Judaism and aims to liberate Germans from
the ‘Holocaust’ dogma
From:
Adelaide
Institute
Sent:
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
1:01 AM
Subject:
Professor Arthur Butz and the Horst Mahler initiative
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, Ernst Zündel, for example,
has been imprisoned since
5 February 2003
.
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 -----
From:
ArtButz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Association fondée par Horst Mahler
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
People
might not grasp to whom that letter was addressed and whom, at the
end of it, Butz was quoting on historical "exactitude".
For instance, Walter Mueller did not see that it was a quote and
took it to be Butz's own remark. In fact, Butz was answering me and
he was approvingly quoting the end of my own October 20 letter to
Mahler.
This
is to show that the quote was that of someone who, unlike Butz, was
IN FAVOUR OF A PUBLIC SUPPORT of that "League" (Verein)
for the defence of the revisionists. It does not imply that I agree
with Mahler's political statements, of which, in fact, I am not
really aware. My closing statement about historical
"exactitude" concerned exactly that and nothing else.
In
1979, at our first revisionist conference, held at
Northrup
University
in
Los Angeles
, Butz advised me against public collaboration with Zündel. His
reasons were the same as today with regard to Mahler. Nevertheless,
I decided to collaborate openly with Zündel, whatever his political
views might be. What I had in mind was only the big battle for what
I call historical "exactitude" about WW 2. Today, I really
cannot regret my decision since, without our active and continuous
collaboration, especially for the 1985 and 1988 "Holocaust
Trials", never, ever would the revisionist arguments have been
shown "coram populo et historia" (in front of the public
and for history) to be outstanding and powerful. We vanquished and
even humiliated Raul Hilberg, who was the best possible
"expert" for our opponents, and we brought down their best
possible "witness", Rudolf Vrba; we also got the Leuchter
Report to be known all over the world. Believe me, among the thirty
or forty "direct collaborators" of Zündel, only perhaps
half a dozen shared his political views which, by the way, are often
profound because the man himself is profound.
Remember
that, in more than fifty years of the battle between "Holocaustorians"
and revisionists, this was the first and last opportunity for a real
confrontation of the two opposing theses. It was a public
confrontation that the "Holocaustorians" had up till then
constantly refused. It was a confrontation that, in future,
historians will be able to study by examining court transcripts of
statements made under oath by either side.
On
the contrary, the lamentable
Irving
trial in
London
shows how wrong it can be to distance yourself from certain people
only because you think they might compromise you.
Irving
refused the collaboration of such a remarkable expert as Germar
Rudolf. It was the major blunder of a man who was too afraid of the
Jews.
Ponder
this: "The Zündel trial was a didactic failure... the law
should avoid trials of Holocaust deniers because a proceeding of
this nature runs the risk of obfuscating historical truth and
instead furthering deniers' lies" (Hilary Earl, Wilfrid Laurier
University, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, September 2003, p.
193-196, a review of Lawrence Douglas' book, The Memory of
Judgment). This was written a long time after the Zündel trial (or
trials) and shortly after the
Irving
trial.
I
have no idea what will come of that League initiative. I do not care
if it is called "Nazi". I am used to being called
"worse than a Nazi", with the Nazis considered as having
killed living people whereas I am considered a coward killing those
already dead.
Simply
put, when I have a decision to make in such matters, I ignore the
Jews and their usual theatrics.
As
for Butz, he thinks that this legal initiative is "very
clever" and should be supported financially but without a
formal association as a member or founder of that league, and I
guess he considers Mahler as a nuisance for the revisionist cause.
Butz is prudent. We need prudent people. As for myself, I prefer an
open, public, direct and perhaps even offensive stand. It is not a
question of being for Mahler. It's a question of giving some of my
money and some of my time to what seems to be a "very
clever" initiative in favour of a revisionism which, generally
speaking, I find nowadays shy, bloodless and without real
inspiration.
Best
wishes. RF
From:
Michael Hoffman hoffman@hoffman-info.com
Hoffman:
The Revisionism of the Future:
Human Rights, not Reich,
19 November 2003
Dr.
Faurisson's Nov. 18 statement, "The Revisionist ADL
Affair" is correct in some details but errs in at least one:
the accusation that because David Irving blundered in refusing the
services of Germar Rudolf, that blunder renders Irving "a man
who was too afraid of the Jews."
This
is a serious charge and it is not for reasons of a defense of Mr.
Irving that I bring it up, since David has formidable polemical
skills and can take care of himself. Rather, I am concerned about a
linkage between certain tactics and strategy and "fear of the
Jews." To be cunning or reserved or wily is not ipso facto
proof of "fear of the Jews." In a heroic fashion Mr.
Irving went to court every day in
London
without bodyguards, completely exposed and alone and fought
tooth-and-nail against Deborah Lipstadt. Seated behind Lipstadt was
the Israeli Attorney General, Elyakim Rubinstein. Another staunch
supporter lent Lipstadt assistance from
Hollywood
, mogul Steven Spielberg. Simply because
Irving
, in his world-historic defiance of the Zionist establishment in his
Lipstadt libel action (which also left a remarkably edifying court
transcript that will be studied for decades), made an error with
regard to Rudolf's offer of assistance, should not cause him to be
branded as someone who is in "fear of the Jews." Yes, he
had a regrettably naive faith, common to the English middle and
upper classes, in the British court system and the judge, but this
is a peculiar trait of the English people, rather than a personal
failing.
I
do not accept the analogy between Ernst Zündel and Mr. Mahler. Zündel’s
research and defense team was diverse, composed of persons of Jewish
background (the elderly Mr. Berg and Ditlieb Felderer); the defense
lawyer was a libertarian and many other anti-Nazis like Bradley
Smith were actively involved. Zündel’s defense was based on the
right of free speech and press and not the rehabilitation of
"The Reich." Where he did raise World War Two issues it
was in defense of the human rights of the German people. I am very
concerned about Mr. Mahler's approach because it fails to capitalize
on the German Left's new interest in the fate of the eastern and
ethnic Germans after the war.
Germany
today is an Israeli satrapy.
Canada
in 1985 was a liberal utopia in comparison. To advance revisionism
in the Israeli-German police state requires a coalition based on
free speech, truth in history and defense of the German people. Any
suggestion that the "Reich" is also being resurrected or
even defended will translate into the destruction and defeat of Mr.
Mahler's cause.
Robert
speaks of contemporary revisionism as "shy, bloodless and
without real inspiration." The reason for that predicament in
the
United States
at least, is due to the fact that World War Two revisionism
continues to dwell in a ghetto comprised of people who are, it is
sad to say, strongly sympathetic to a neo-Nazi agenda. Even those
who are not of this political class continue to spout ancient, 19th
century Dreyfus case terminology about "fear of the Jews."
The
enemy is not "the Jews," any more than it is "the
Germans" or "the Arabs." The enemy is an ideology
--Zionism, Holocaustianity, Judaism --not a race or ethnicity. There
is an entire class of Aryans, i.e. the Freemasons and the American
Protestant fundamentalists, who are more rabidly Zionist than many
Israelis. I was fired from my job as a reporter for the
establishment media by Aryans. My chief defenders were two Judaics (Chomsky
and Alfred Lilienthal). Perhaps I should go about speaking of those
who are "too afraid of the Aryans" to properly organize
and revitalize revisionism?
From
my study of orthodox Judaism, I know that the rabbis love it when we
fail to make these distinctions between Judaic people and ideology.
The Kabbalah and Talmud teach that the goyim always hate "the
Jews" all the time, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly. By
means of this legend, the rabbis enforce obedience and solidarity in
their ranks. The more we speak categorically of "the
Jews," the less likely it is that we will win the valuable
allies and gain the vital counter-intelligence we need from their
camp. We will also continue to drive fair-minded Judaic persons back
into Zionist and rabbinic ranks, because they will reason that no
matter how much they try to be decent, they will still be lumped
into the category of those fearsome "Jews."
Revisionism
needs a revision, thinking outside the box, coupled with mutual
respect for those with whom we disagree. I happen to regard
Faurisson, Butz, Rudolph and Irving as admirable men. I do not see
that because Faurisson fires his cannon on the quarter deck and
Irving
from the main -- and I don't like either man's aim -- that this
makes them any less my comrades in the battle. We are all soldiers
in a fight for Truth. To hate one another because we exercise the
sovereign right to choose when and how we shall fight the battle,
smacks of an attempt to impose generalship over the rest of us. For
good or ill, revisionism will not suffer its would-be kings and
generals. Zundel had the wit to tell me, in the basement of
Zundelhaus on the snowy evening of January 6, 1985, the night before
he would commence his epic court battle, "Mike, there are no Führers
here." It was on the basis of that disarming statement that I
joined ranks with former SS soldier Hans von der Heide, former
Allied soldier Doug Collins, Jewish information-archaeologist
Ditlieb Felderer, Catholic traditionalist Doug Christie, atheist
Robert Faurisson and so many others from diverse backgrounds,
politics and races, to fight for Zundel's right to ask "Did Six
Million Really Die?"
In my book about the trial, I did not conceal Ernst's personal
Hitlerian convictions. I tried to show that as a holocaust survivor
himself (having survived the firebombing of
Pforzheim
), Zundel's trauma was not going to result in the embrace of a
politically correct philosophy. But he kept his politics distinct
from the libertarian cause of freedom of speech, and this was the
key to his early success. It was only later, when he groomed Ewald
Althans for leadership, that I began to see the possibility of his
decline. It is not "fear of the Jews" that motivates me to
remind revisionists that the German government has been found to
have bankrolled even the polite neo-Nazi movement in
Germany
, for reasons that are too patent to require elucidation.
I
write this not out of any desire to pander to Leftist bias or Judaic
egomania. The book I co-wrote with Moshe Lieberman, "The
Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians" is proving
influential and enjoys brisk sales at Amazon.com, but I continue to
be boycotted within the Leftist, anti-Zionist circles of Alexander
Cockburn et al. because of my World War Two revisionism. This
boycott is very much a product of their fear of being stigmatized,
and I realize that there is a certain faction that will label me a
"little Hitler" probably until the day I die, in spite of
my actual beliefs and opinions. None of that fazes me. Left and
Right are equally distortions in my eyes. Revisionism will one day
unite both of these flawed, dying parties into a new movement, where
fidelity to truth is the sole raison d'etre. But I continue to
insist that revisionism should not just be stepping on rabbinic toes
and violating Zionist taboos. It should also be an affront to Aryan
myths and Nazi egomania. It is to put us on the road to that
revisionism of the future that I offer these observations.
Michael
A. Hoffman II
Robert
FAURISSON,
20 November 2003
To
Michael Hoffman about Horst Mahler’s initiative - the
founding of a Revisionist ADL
Dear
Michael,
I
have read your message on "The Revisionism of the Future: Human
Rights, not Reich". I am surprised you did not see that, when I
say "the Jews", it is just as when one says "the
Germans", "the Christians", the "Inuits".
When one states: "The Americans are constantly at war", it
does not mean that an American citizen called Michael Hoffman is
currently bombing and killing people. When I say: "I am afraid
of the Americans and of the Jews", the words
"Americans" and "Jews" are obviously GENERIC
terms.
What
would you think upon hearing someone state: "From 1914 to 1918,
French and Germans were at war" only to hear someone else come
back with: "You are wrong, not all the French and not all the
Germans were at war; we even know that at times some French soldiers
and some German soldiers, disgusted with the war, decided in the
trenches to stop killing each other and even struck up a casual
friendship"? And what would you think, Michael, of someone
putting on simpering airs and adding to the conversation: "From
1914 to 1918, millions of French and millions of Germans were having
a jolly time, peacefully enjoying the usual pleasures of life
without trying to kill anyone"? It might sound clever to make
such an exact statement but, put back in its context, it would a
wrong correction of the above statement according to which French
and Germans were at war.
I
am afraid of the Jews. David Irving also is afraid of the Jews.
"Metus Judaeorum" is to be found in a great many times,
places and individuals. I have never criticised people for being
afraid of bringing on the famous wrath of the Jews ("Ira
Judaeorum"). I have never criticised David Irving, "the
reluctant revisionist" as I call him, for not taking such or
such revisionist stand since, in his own words, it would be like
putting his head on the Jewish block (this he told me in
London
in 1991 when he invited Leuchter and myself to speak in
Chelsea
). What I do criticise are people who, in my opinion, go too far in
their fear of the Jews. For example, although I have been physically
assaulted ten times by Jews, although they have dragged me into
court so often, although they have destroyed the life of my wife and
of my three children, although my family and I have had to give them
so much money by order of the courts, although they got the French
Parliament to pass in 1990 a special law in order to protect their
cherished Gigantic Lie, although they are having my dearest friend
Ernst Z¸ndel held in prison in abominable conditions, although they
behave like whining persecutors and treat the Palestinians in the
way you see they do with their "Jewish Army" in a
"Jewish State" (please, note "Jewish"), I would
never, albeit in the face of so terrible a power, bow my head and
declare:
"The
Germans seem to be of a different personality [from the English and
other civilised peoples] and I'm afraid I have to agree to a certain
extent with that author, Daniel Goldhagen, who wrote a book
suggesting that the German mentality is somewhat different" (in
Australia, "Ron Casey [Radio 2 GB] talks with David
Irving", 8 November 1998, as reported in Adelaide Institute
Online, December 1996, p. 17).
And
never, in order to placate those who call me a Nazi, would I use in
court or elsewhere what D.
Irving
calls his trump card and which is nothing but a fake: the
"Bruns Report" as he dubs it.
You
find D.
Irving
to be courageous. Yes indeed, compared with some revisionists, he
shows some courage, but watch him, it is the kind of courage which
comes and goes and even, sometimes, as soon as he shows some
intrepidness, he hastens to pull back all the more. This I found to
be the case in different circumstances in
Washington
, in
Munich
and in
London
. I am pleased when he shows some courage, I feel pity for him when
he pulls back and I smile when he presents himself as a hero.
I,
for one, am afraid of the Jewish power but, when I have an important
decision to make for revisionism's sake, I ignore the Jews and their
usual theatrics. Which should be considered as normal and certainly
not heroic.
I
feel sorry for you, Michael. While reading some of your writings I
have often thought: "Jews should make Kamerad Hoffman Chief
Rabbi honoris causa" but, see, they instead call you a Nazi!
Like Faurisson and so many others!
Now
re Horst Mahler: by "Reich" he means "German
Reich" or "German Nation" and not "Third
Reich". Anyway, must I repeat that I do not care about his real
or supposed political ideas but rather about his idea of what I call
a "Revisionist ADL"?
May
I expect you to defend the human rights of those persecuted for
their ideas?
Best
wishes. Robert
PS:
"Apollonian" (see Walter Mueller’s last message) is
mistaken. My quote about the Zündel trial’s (or trials’) of
1985 and 1988 having been "a didactic failure" does not
come from a revisionist but from a Holocaustorian. In other words,
those trials may in fact be considered by us revisionists as a
victory.
Hoffman
to Faurisson,
20 November 2003
Dear
Robert
Thank
you for your rejoinder this date, to my letter of Nov. 19, "The
Revisionism of the Future: Human Rights, not Reich." Your
rejoinder contains a helpful and welcome clarification of what you
meant in your note of Nov. 18 about fear of Judaic people.
I
will not address at this time your defense of your use of the term
"the Jews." As with my campaign against adoption by
revisionists of the Orwellian "holocaust" neologism, my
points with regard to the phrase, "the Jews," are mostly
centered on concerns of epistemology and psychology, and to further
advance and defend these somewhat rarified issues is beyond the
scope of this letter. Hence, in response to your rejoinder, I will
address the following:
On
Nov 20, 2003
, at
10:30 AM
, FAURISSON wrote:
"I
feel sorry for you, Michael. While reading some of your writings I
have often thought: 'Jews should make Kamerad Hoffman Chief Rabbi
honoris causa..."
I
am wondering which writings of mine have earned for me the
ignominious title in your eyes of "honorary Chief Rabbi,"
when all my life I have fought rabbis and written an entire book
exposing them ("Judaism's Strange Gods")?
If
you have "often thought" this terrible thing about me, why
did you greet me so warmly and effusively at the 2002 IHR conference
and praise my newsletter there before others? Why did you wait until
now to make this scurrilous charge?
In
the eyes of Christopher Hitchens in the "New Yorker," and
Elinor Langer in her book, "One Hundred Little Hitlers," I
am the chief neo-Nazi, and to you I am the chief rabbi. There was a
certain Breton who once wrote, "The total contempt of all
humanity is extremely pleasant to me."
While
being insulted as the "chief rabbi," and simultaneously
attacked by the actual rabbis, who maintain a half-dozen websites
devoted to attempting to refute my book, "Judaism's Strange
Gods," one must ask, where is the "exactitude" in
that? On Nov 20,
2003,
at 10:30 AM, FAURISSON wrote:
"May
I expect you to defend the human rights of those persecuted for
their ideas?"
To
put this question to me is disingenuous, since I have never failed
to defend the human rights of anyone, including you, Ernst, Ditlieb
and dozens of others. I spent much of the month of September, 1989
publicizing the assault on you and protesting to the French police,
French government and Le Monde. Perhaps you have forgotten? For the
record: I am for human rights, but not for any attempt to resurrect
the Third Reich under the guise of human rights ("Rights, not
Reich"). I believe you are in error when you assert:
"Now re Horst Mahler: by 'Reich' he means 'German Reich' or
'German Nation' and not 'Third Reich".
Even
if you are correct and Mr. Mahler is in no way alluding to the Third
Reich, his use of the word Reich is a public relations disaster. You
harken to the victories of Ernst Zundel while proclaiming your
indifference to public relations concerns:
"Anyway,
must I repeat that I do not care about his real or supposed
political ideas...I have no idea what will come of that League
initiative. I do not care if it is called "Nazi".
Perhaps
it is natural for a professor of literature to think in this naive
way, but Zundel was far more canny and public relations were
foremost in his mind. From his "cool blue hard hat" to his
offer to go to synagogues to meet and debate, he undercut the
stereotypes, rather than compounding them merely for the sake of a
swaggering defiance.
Like
Chomsky, I will defend the rights of anyone persecuted for their
ideas, and this includes the human rights of Horst Mahler, in so far
as he does not advocate the abridgment of the human rights of
others. Moreover, I am one of those who are persecuted for their
ideas, in case you have not noticed. I must have many locks on my
doors, special security lights and so on. You may recall that a
Zionist mob chased my wife down a street in
New York
and tried to kill me at a cable TV meeting. I am on the hit list of
the JDL, among others. I get death threats directly from the Israeli
state. You might wish to type my name in the "search
engine" at Amazon.com and read the reviews for my books and
then you will get an inkling of this. I never know when some berserk
Zionist will crash through my door. So, to insinuate that Michael
Hoffman is someone who is sitting in his ivory tower, preserved from
the clamor and violence of persecution, where he leisurely decides
whether he will lend aid to the persecuted or not, is a strange
image. Who will defend me from persecution? I can think of some
revisionists who are among my persecutors, if libel may be
considered persecution.
I
will not join Mr. Mahler's organization, not just because of his
invocation of "the Reich," but also due to his statements
about "Jews," which he e-mailed me today:
"In
this war every single Jew stands in the frontline of the enemy in
order to uphold the
Auschwitz
lie."
This
disgusting statement is on the level of Streicher and Goebbels. It
is so infra dig, it sounds more like something the
Wiesenthal
Center
would falsely attribute to a revisionist spokesman. These are
exactly the words they will put into the mouth of the actor who
plays the revisionist in the next television docudrama about us,
only thanks to Herr Mahler, the quote won't have to be fabricated!
For
you to lend your name to an organization that is led by someone who
spouts such wild, racist invective, is most unfortunate. It is a
catastrophe for the movement of WWII revisionism to adopt racist
positions similar to those of our racist enemies. As Nietzsche
warned, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do
not become a monster."
And
please Robert, do not say any longer that you do not know what Mr.
Mahler's views are ("It does not imply that I agree with
Mahler's political statements, of which, in fact, I am not really
aware").
While a "revisionist anti-defamation league" is a splendid
idea, to be effective in
Germany
it must be led by someone whose human rights credentials are beyond
reproach. I continue to insist that neo-Nazism does the work of the
Cryptocracy. In 2002 it was revealed that the leaders of the NDP
party in
Germany
were members of the German secret police. Neo-Nazism is very useful
to the Establishment. If revisionism is headed in that direction it
is headed for shipwreck.
Fraternal
wishes,
Michael
A. Hoffman II
From:
Horst
Mahler
Sent:
Thursday,
November 20, 2003
6:52
PM
Subject:
AW: Hoffman: The Revisionism of the Future:
Human
Rights, not Reich
Michael
Hoffman is completely unaware of the contradiction in his position.
He votes for human rights, especially for free speech. But if
there is somebody making use of these rights, Hoffman alarms
the community not to cooperate with this guy because the latter's
views could damage "the revisionists cause". That's
exactly the pattern of behaviour our enemies try to impose on us.
My
criteria are not what people might think but only the truth. And the
truth is: The German Reich exists. It is oppressed by our enemy. The
Holohoax is warfare against the Reich and the German people as such.
So we have to fight back in order to survive. In this war every
single Jew stands in the frontline of the enemy in order to uphold
the
Auschwitz
lie. Only a handful of Jews has changed the lines - but that doesn't
stop the war of Jewry against the Reich.
Truth
will win. Populism
will fail - as it always did.
And
now let’s go to work.
Horst
Mahler
Robert
Faurisson’s
2
October 2003
letter to Horst Mahler
Dear
Herr Mahler,
As
soon as I learned of the existence of your “League for the
Rehabilitation of Persons Persecuted for Disputing the Holocaust “
(Verein für Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des
Holocaust Verfolgten) I applied for membership and sent you a
financial contribution.
Your
initiative is ingenious, and I wish it every success. I urge all
revisionists to support this undertaking.
You
have invited me to your first meeting, which will take place on
November 9. The date is well chosen, for it marks the anniversary of
the fall of a tyranny that one might have thought would last
forever. The place, Vlotho on the Weser river, is equally well
chosen, for it is associated with the name of our friend Udo Walendy,
who has fought so hard and so long for the reestablishment of
historical truth and, at the same time, for the cause of his German
fatherland.
I
would love to attend this meeting, but I think that the German
police might immediately arrest me there. Anyway, I have too much
work to do, and cannot go on vacation, even if it were to be spent
in a German prison.
With
regard to freedom of historical research, I have no confidence in
the French police or the French administration of justice. I have
even less confidence in the German police and administration of
justice. Frankly speaking, nowadays there is no country in the world
that offers a safe haven for revisionists. Even
China
,
Japan
and
Russia
serve Mammon
or else fear him, and so serve him. The United States of America, in
spite of its First Amendment, as well as Canada, have just recently
shown, in the cruel treatment of Ernst Zündel, to what depths of
iniquity they can descend to please Mammon. Ernst Zündel is a
heroic figure of the German nation, an exceptional man whom one
cannot fail to admire when one really knows him.
In
1999, I published in French a four-volume work of more than two
thousand pages, consisting of some of my writings of 1974-1998. It
commences with an “In Memoriam” note in which I mention, among
the dead, Franz Scheidl, Helmut Diwald and Reinhold Elstner. With
regard to the last named, I recall that on
April 15, 1995
, he committed
suicide in
Munich
by burning
himself to protest the “
Niagara
of lies”
against his people. The final words in that “In Memoriam” note
are these:
“May
[my book] also be read as a homage for the true suffering of all
victims of the 1939-1945 war, regardless of whether the victims
belonged to the camp of the victors, who are praised to the skies,
or to that of the defeated, whom have been humiliated and insulted
ceaselessly for nearly half a century.”
Remember
that these words are from 1998. During the past five years the
situation has
only
worsened. The
Niagara
of lies has broadened and
strengthened. We do not have
the
right to fold our arms and quietly contemplate the extent of the
damage caused. We
must
act and react.
That
is what you are trying to do.
Along
with everyone else, I do not know how successful this effort might be, but I
want to join with you in it, regardless of whatever differences of opinion or
outlook there may be among those of us who fight for a common cause.
In
December 1980, I summarized the result of my historical research in one
sentence of 60 French words. Before pronouncing that sentence on
Europe
1 radio, I gave this
warning: “Caution! None of these words has been inspired by political
sympathy or antipathy.” Here is the sentence:
“The
alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews
constitute one and the same historical lie, which has made possible a
gigantic financial-political swindle, the principal beneficiaries of which
are the State of
Israel
and international
Zionism, and whose principal victims are the German people – but not
their leaders – and the entire Palestinian people.”
In
my view, that sentence, now 23 years old, requires no changes.
I
have been accused of being anti-Jewish. In reality I wish the Jews no harm.
What I demand is the right to speak of the Jews just as freely as I speak,
for example, of the Germans. And I ask that the Jews be deprived of the right
to harm me, whether physically (between 1978 and 1993, I was attacked ten
times by Jews), or by means of a special law that they finally got enacted on
July 13, 1990, and which in France is known as the “Fabius-Gayssot Law”,
the “Faurisson Law”, or the “Anti-revisionist Law”.
It
is outrageous that out of the billions of events that constitute the history
of mankind, one single event, called by Jews the “Holocaust” or the
“Shoah”, must not be questioned – on pain of imprisonment, fines,
orders to pay damages and the costs of publications of judgments, the
exclusion from one’s profession, and so forth. This is an enormous special
privilege, and we demand the abolition of that privilege.
This
is a goal that is plain, clear and of narrow scope.
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.
My
best wishes are with you.
[Professor
(ret.) Robert FAURISSON, 10, Rue de Normandie, F 03200
VICHY
(
France
), 00 33 4 70 32 38
96]
From:
Mohammed
A. Hegazi
Sent:
Wednesday,
November 19, 2003
2:21
AM
Subject:
Re: Professor Arthur Butz and the Horst Mahler initiative
"The
German Reich" is a vague sentimental concept that patriotic
Germans use in lieu of "the German people" or "the
true spirit of
Germany
". I assume it is being in use in the absence of a strong
nationalistic ideology among today's Germans. It is "
Germany
today"
that should be paramount on the minds of German revisionists and
Germans in general. It reminds me of us, useless Arabs, in our fight
against the Jews, when we talk about passing fads such as "Nasserism"
or "Baath". We tend to lose sight of the main battle of
Jews
versus
Arabs in
Palestine
.
The
Holohoax is one of several vehicles Zionists have used over the
years. The latest hoax is the "War on Terror". But
there’s been more before that time, as the following indicates.
1986
Reflections
Well,
it must be about time I posted a light-hearted item on this serious
website. During my time as a mathematics teacher, my last few years
with the Ministry of Education,
Victoria
,
Australia
, were spent in a madhouse called the Correspondence School. The
population of the school consisted mainly of Russian Jews, who were
employed there upon their arrival from
Russia
. Never mind the Australian kids who freshly graduated and were
looking for teaching jobs, they could wait. In 1986, the Jewish
Catholic Pope visited
Australia
. It was then that teachers at the school found copies of the
sarcastic piece below on their desks. It was meant to be a harmless
joke, but in the Jewish tradition, Jews never failed to whine. So,
they complained to the school's Jewish principal, who in turn had to
issue an apology and a comment about the "insensitivity"
of that "cowardly act". Since then, relations
between the Jewish teachers and me were severed. I spent the
remaining years at the school on non-talking terms with them, which
I never regretted anyway.
Here
is the contentious piece:
AN
OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS THE POPE OF
ROME
I
would like to draw the attention of your Holiness to the fact that
the State of
Israel
has been declared the sole
representative of all Jews since 1948. It must be known to your
Holiness that such representation cuts across the barriers of time,
origin and nationality. Every Jew puts his loyalty to the State of
Israel
above his loyalty to his
country of birth, residence or livelihood. In return, the State of
Israel
undertakes to protect the
interests of all Jews in the present, the past and the future.
I
am writing to your Holiness, in my capacity as President of the
State of
Israel
, in order to relate a pressing
problem: It came to my attention that one of your predecessors,
known by the alias "Jesus Christ", held a banquet in
honour of his disciples, henceforth known as the "Last
Supper". It took place prior to the unfortunate events that led
to his alleged death, henceforth known as the
"Crucifixion". Materials for the aforesaid banquet, to the
value equivalent to US$ 1.09, were supplied by the Jews of Jerusalem.
Our records
show
that the bill for such materials has not been paid. The outstanding
account, inclusive of due interest, amounts to US$ 99000000000.99c.
We
are prepared to negotiate the terms and conditions of repayment, in
order to avoid litigation and the need for an
International Court
order. As a token of good will,
we are prepared to offer a discount of 9.99%, should your Holiness
recognise the State of Israel. We
are also offering a further discount of 90.01%, if your Holiness
would denounce the existence of the so called
"Palestinians", who occupied our land for thousands of
years, in defiance of the fact that we hold a divine title deed, in
fee tail, previously sealed and delivered to our ancestry by
Jehovah, the previous owner. The menace of those Palestinians has
been illustrated by their recent shooting down of one of our jets,
while on a peaceful mission trying to clean up their filthy abode in
nearby Lebanon. They also
continue to deny acts of international terrorism, which we arrange
on their behalf from time to time. This, in turn, forced us to annex
a buffer zone in that insignificant gentile land of
Lebanon.
We
would also like to warn you that we will continue to ignore any
notions of the so called “international law”, since we do have
the ultimate command over the gullible people and government of the
US
. They are totally brain washed
by our regular morsels of propaganda in their media, which we
totally own and direct. We hold all important government posts and
own the media in the US,
Europe
and the small outposts of
Australia
and
New Zealand
. We are strong and never
wrong. You are advised to take notice and to heed the lesson of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, who unwisely aimed at changing the status quo.
You are also advised to further your education by watching our
gas-chamber movies, which we insert regularly in television
programmes all over the above-mentioned countries, lest they forget
Yours
very truly,
H.
Herzog
November
1986
Swiss
citizen René-Louis Berclaz, general secretary of the disbanded
Swiss association Vérité et Justice, received a ten months
prison sentence for racial discrimination - Section 261 Swiss
Criminal Code - for publishing and circulating Le Contre-Rapport
Bergier - Against the Bergier Report and Le Procčs Amaudruz
– The Amaudruz Trial. Like Jürgen Graf, Berclaz now lives in
exile. Berclaz was due to begin his prison sentence on
3 November 2003
, but he left
Switzerland
on
15 October 2003
. New proceedings are being
instituted against R.-L. Berclaz in
Geneva
and in
Lausanne
, based on the issue of #22
of Vérité et Justice. Although Berclaz is now out of the
country some revisionist leaflets with the Vérité et Justice
imprint have been distributed in Lausanne and in Geneva, generating
new complaints from the LICRA and the CICAD (Coordination
intercommunautaire contre l'antisémitisme et la diffamation). The
website of Vérité et Justice, located in the U SA, is still
working - http://www.verite-justice.com
Fleeing
to the
US
, The Advertiser,
10 February 2004
More
than 30 Australians have sought asylum in the
US
. At least two Australians
have been granted asylum in
America
after complaining they
faced religious, racial, or political persecution in
Australia
. Four other Australians are
awaiting the outcome of US asylum applications. Between 1997 and
2002, 31 Australian nationals applied for asylum in
America
, US Department of Justice
records show.
Iraq
bombs kill three soldiers, The Advertiser,
13 February 2004
Baghdad
: Roadside bombs have
claimed more
US
lives, killing three
soldiers in separate attacks in
Baghdad
and Sunni areas to the
north of the capital. Six
soldiers were injured in the attacks, one critically. Meanwhile,
US
administrator L Paul Bremer
said yesterday he would move to block any effort by Iraqi leaders to
put Islamic law as the foundation of legislation in the interim
constitution, due to take effect at the end of February.
$11.5m
raid by Israelis, The Advertiser,
27 February 2004
Tel
Aviv: Israeli troops confiscated up to $11.5m from three Palestinian
bank branches claiming the money was earmarked for terrorism.
Israel
says it will be used to
improve the lives of Palestinians, but Palestinians denounced the
raid, likening it to a mafia operation. Meanwhile, the 15 judges of
the International Court of Justice in The Hague have retired after
three days of hearings to begin deliberations on the legality of
Israel
’s separation barrier in
the
West Bank
. But a decision could take
many months.
|
