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 -----


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,


Robert Faurisson responds:

The Revisionist ADL Affair, 18 November 2003

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: 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, 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 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:



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


In Brief

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 -

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.



Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute