Newsletter No 229 December 2004

Editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel "belittled and denied" the "gassings" of Auschwitz without being prosecuted!

Fritjof Meyer withdraws from public debate

By Robert Faurisson, 6 September 2004

In May of 2002 Fritjof Meyer, editor-in-chief of the magazine Der Spiegel, published in the monthly Osteuropa, whose editorial commission is headed by Rita Süssmuth, former president of the Bundestag, an article (p. 631-641) entitled "Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde" ("The number of victims of Auschwitz. New figures through the discovery of new archives"). Rejecting the figure of 4,000,000 victims (the official one until 1990) and that of 1,500,000 (no less official, but steadily revised since 1995), he boldly proposed the "presumed" figure of 510,000 dead, of whom "probably" 356,000 killed by gassing.

He stated that this "genocide" had "most likely" been perpetrated "predominantly"(überwiegend) outside the camp, in the "White Farm" or "Bunker I" and the "Red Farm" or "Bunker II". For the guardians of the holocaustic faith this latter assertion contravened the dogma holding that the gassings had been carried out, very predominantly, in the four great crematories of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

From July 2002 revisionist publications announced this spectacular revision coming from an author who in his study had condemned what is called Nazi barbarism. In November The Journal of Historical Review presented an account by Mark Weber on pages 24-28 of its issue dated May-August of that year. In February 2003 the first issue of Germar Rudolf's The Revisionist carried an essay on the subject by Carlo Mattogno (p. 30-37). In Germany itself, the review Nation und Europa launched and maintained a long revisionist campaign on the theme of F. Meyer's "revisionism". Wieland Körner dealt with the matter in a brief work entitled Die neue Sicht von Auschwitz - The New View of Auschwitz, January 2004, Durchblick-Bücher, PF 33 04 04, D 28334 Bremen.

Some orthodox authors indeed found it necessary to break the silence at their end. In Die Welt of 28 August 2002 Sven Felix Kellerhof opened fire by bemoaning the fact that a "key witness of the liberal left" had lost his way and gone to the aid of the "Holocaust deniers". There followed a controversy, with F. Meyer protesting his good intentions and "antifascist" convictions. In turn Franciszek Piper, the Polish communist and former curator of the Auschwitz Museum, entered the fray. F. Meyer made a rejoinder. The affair began to grow nasty. Certain revisionists cleverly forced the German judicial authorities to explain their failure to prosecute F. Meyer. Their answer: the author had doubtless come forth with reduced figures but he had done so without minimising the gravity of the crime (for the full text of the Lüneberg public prosecutor's reply, see Recht und Wahrheit, n° 11 & 12, p. 16-17, published in Tenerife).

Eventually, with the business nonetheless taking a more and more irksome turn for him, the editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel preferred to throw in the towel. In a short piece dated 12 February he stated that, in view of the profit that the revisionists had garnered from his article and their intention in future to persist in "instrumentalising" his arguments, he preferred to withdraw from the public debate. In closing, he called for a mobilisation against fascists wherever they might be. He confided his decision to the "Information Service against Rightwing Extremism" - Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus - directed by Albrecht Kolthoff who, for his part, in a text of 23 February, said that, although he understood F. Meyer's decision, he lamented it.

French politico faces firing for calling existence of gas chambers debatable

PARIS, Oct. 15 (JTA) — Bruno Gollnisch has spent years preparing himself to take up the mantle of French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Now he appears to have outdone even his master in provocative remarks about Jews and the Holocaust.

Gollnisch, Le Pen’s likely successor as head of the National Front party, said Monday that the existence of Nazi gas chambers was a matter of legitimate debate for historians.

“There isn’t a serious historian around who totally sticks by the conclusions of the Nuremberg Trials,” Gollnisch told a press conference in Lyon on Monday. “I’m not questioning the existence of concentration camps, but on the number of deaths, historians can discuss it. As to whether gas chambers existed, that’s up to the historians to determine.”

The remarks could see Gollnisch removed from his post as a professor at the University of Lyon III, while the European Parliament could sanction Gollnisch, who is also a member of the legislative body.

Such action would mirror disciplinary action taken by the European Parliament in 1997 which lifted Le Pen’s parliamentary immunity after the National Front leader repeated comments describing the Holocaust as a “detail” of World War II.

Gollnisch’s remarks followed the publication of a last week government report that accused the University of Lyon III of systematically tolerating academics who advocated Holocaust denial.

Gollnisch teaches Japanese at the university and is one of a number of far-right academics associated with the institution since it was created in 1973.

The report was commissioned by former Education Minister Jack Lang in 2002 and chaired by the historian Henry Rousso. While the report’s conclusions noted that the university “was not a fascist campus,” it went on to say the school had, during the course of its existence, provided “shelter for a far-right kernel” of academics among its staff.

Lyon III has often been at the center of controversy over the legitimacy of academic debate regarding the Holocaust.

In a notable example in 1985, Jean-Paul Allard, a professor at the university, approved a student thesis that denied killings were carried out in concentration camps during World War II.

And in 1990, the university awarded a student a bachelor’s degree with an honors citation after the student submitted a thesis shining a favorable light on the life of Georges Montandon. An academic who studied racial theory in the 1930s, Montadon was responsible for providing certificates of “Aryanness” during the Nazi occupation of France.

For his part, Gollnisch this week also chose to attack Rousso’s impartiality.

Rousso was “a Jewish personality, a respected historian, but his neutrality cannot be assured,” Gollnisch said.

Such remarks were slammed by Jewish and anti-racist groups with the CRIF umbrella organization of French Jews, which called them a “double provocation.”

Gollnisch had “called into doubt the existence of the gas chambers and questioned the legitimacy of an academic by the sole fact of his Jewish origins,” CRIF said in a statement.

Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary-general of the European Jewish Congress, told JTA that Gollnisch’s comments showed that “this man, who calls himself a scholar, is totally ignorant of history.”

“There weren’t just concentration camps, there were extermination camps; every reputable historian accepts that as a fact,” he said, adding that Gollnisch’s comments were “not academic, but politically and ideologically based.”

The Paris-based International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, known by its French acronym, LICRA, called on the European Parliament to take action against Gollnisch.

In a letter to Parliament President Josep Borrell on Wednesday, LICRA’s president, Patrick Gaubert, asked the legislature to enforce sanctions against Gollnisch “for his revisionist comments which place in doubt the historical veracity of the existence of the gas chambers.”

The letter drew a quick response from Borrell, who condemned Gollnisch’s remarks in a statement to the European Parliament session on Thursday.

Directly addressing Gollnisch, Borrell said he was “ashamed” to have heard a European legislator making “scandalous claims” regarding the existence of gas chambers.

“I hope you will be held accountable for your slanders by the courts,” Borrell added.

Gollnisch’s remarks are not the first time he has strayed into controversial territory.

In 1991, he called for “the respect of freedom of expression for educators who exercise a critical perspective towards the history of the Second World War.”

And in 1996, Gollnisch publicly praised French soldiers who fought alongside the Nazis on the Eastern Front during World War II.

The remarks are likely to heat up the increasingly vicious battle within the National Front regarding who will succeed Le Pen when he decides to retire.

While Le Pen has denied any intention to step down, the party is currently split between its traditionalist wing, led by Gollnisch, and the so-called modernizers gathered around Le Pen’s daughter, Marine.

Those close to Marine Le Pen immediately drew on Gollnisch’s comments to place in doubt his fitness as a potential future party leader.

Eric Iorio, who is responsible for election strategy for the party, said that “if Gollnisch wants to appear as a historical reprobate, he should do it in a personal capacity, not as a personality and a future president of the National Front.”

Another senior party figure suggested that Gollnisch “only needs now to put on a hood and dress like the Ku Klux Klan.”

In the meantime, Lyon III has distanced itself from Gollnisch’s remarks and called on Education Minister Francois Fillon to initiate disciplinary measures against Gollnisch.

“These remarks are as much unacceptable in themselves as they are for the serious attack they bring upon the honor and credit of the university,” Lyon III’s president, Guy Lavorel, said in a statement Wednesday.

The inability to find backing even within his own milieu seemed to have at least brought the point home to Gollnisch.

“I don’t know if I’m going to be chased out of my chair in Japanese or even put in prison for this phrase, but I assume responsibility for it,” he said.

He did not, however, apologize.

Attacking what he described as the “thought police” and the “considerable interests who want to prevent this debate,” Gollnisch said it was “in the interests of the State of Israel to have endless discussions about reparations.”

SUNRISE, Florida, Oct 17

IslamOnline.net & News Agencies –

Flying aboard his Air Force One to the battleground state of Florida, home to the third-largest Jewish population in the world, US President George W. Bush on Saturday, October 16, signed into law a controversial bill on combating the so-called global anti-Semitism.

"Today, I signed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. This law commits the government to keep a record of anti-Semitic acts throughout the world, and also a record of responses to those acts," Bush told thousands of cheering supporters packed into a sports arena.

With polls showing the race deadlocked in Florida, Bush’s aides said they hoped his staunch support for Israel and aggressive outreach would lead Jewish voters who usually vote for Democrats to cast ballots for him, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Florida, which boasts the third-largest Jewish population after Israel and New York, is the richest haul among the battleground states expected to decide the November 2 presidential election, with 27 electoral college votes out of the 270 needed to win.

The law, which seems to be part of that effort, commits the US State Department to documenting acts of physical violence against Jews, their property, cemeteries and places of worship abroad, as well as local governments' responses to them and take note of instances of anti-Jewish propaganda and governments' readiness to promote unbiased school curricula.

"This nation will keep watch; we will make sure that the ancient impulse of anti-Semitism never finds a home in the modern world," Bush said.

"Extending freedom also means disrupting the evil of anti-Semitism."

The bill was introduced by California Democratic Representative Tom Lantos, in response to alleged acts of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East.

But the US State Department opposed the measure, saying the department already compiles such information in its annual report on human rights and religious freedom.

This position irked Jewish groups -- which wield significant political power especially during a presidential election year -- and in September, more than 100 prominent Americans signed a letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell saying that stance was "wrong."

"The fight against anti-Semitism deserves specific, focused attention," said the letter which was signed by former Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp and ex-UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick among others.

What Is Anti-Semitism?

A leading American civil rights organization kept pressure on the publishers of an edition of a Merriam Webster’s dictionary for linking anti-Semitism to Zionism and Israel.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.

It was coined in 1879 by German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time.

However, Richard Levy, a professor of History in Chicago, had told IslamOnline.net the term is often misused when Jews and others "refuse to see any difference between criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism".

"Anti-Semitic charges are sometimes employed to stifle objections to anything the Israelis want to do or have done".

Analysts tend to agree that Israel has gained much from the intensively-used anti-Semitic cliché.

Earlier in April, Israel accused the BBC of anti-Semitism after it published a report on the situation in Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli army.

A French play and a Norwegian painting became the victims of the heavily-used charges resulting in the cancellation of the play and removing the Norwegian painting from the gallery.

Dear Fellow Patriot!

The learning process never stops. Michael Santomauro forwarded everyone his letters of support. I wasn't surprised. I have known for a long time that there is a sub-group out there that attacks the Jews, criticizes Israel, but believes in the holocaust and the demonization of Germany's Reichs Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

It is strange. That’s why I call it the "Fifth Element" or "Playing both Sides." I cannot understand, how one can hate the Jews, but subscribe to the holocaust? If you think that the holocaust story comes actually from the same people they so ardently criticize.

What's the explanation? I think they are simply hoodlums who play both sides.

The list of supporters of Michael Santomauro's comparison of Adolf Hitler to Ariel Sharon carries a few popular names. Popular in the sense of their own sub-cultures. They all believe that it doesn't matter what good Adolf Hitler did. The "evil" he brought outweighs it all.

Another very strange thing is that most of the "Fifth Element" people support the IHR. In return, Mark Weber has endorsed Michael Santomauro's policies of playing both sides. In fact, when asked by revisionist giant Prof. Robert Faurisson whether or not Weber believes in the gas chambers, he could not give a direct answer.

The same with Michael Santomauro when he was asked if he believes in the holocaust. He also avoided a direct answer and said that they are playing with the numbers.

Israel Shamir is one of the persons who wrote a compassionate letter of support to Michael Santomauro. Not that I care, because he is a Jew and I despise them all, whether they are good or bad. In his letter, Mr. Shamir mentioned me. He called me a "Hollywood Nazi" who celebrates Hitler's birthday with Sauerkraut and Bratwurst.

I have not had much contact with Mr. Shamir. He used to inundate my box with his column and I told him to unsubscribe. Simply put, he is a con man who charges $3,000 for a speaking engagement in addition to $200 a day for him and his wife. He was solicited for the Sacramento Conference and I told him to shove it where the sun don't shine.

Barry Chamish, also an Israeli, highly critical of his own country, however, claims to have lost relatives in the holocaust.

I was not surprised to find Attorney Edgar Steele amongst the supporters of Michael Santomauro. Many times Steele also made derogatory remarks about Adolf Hitler. Again, strange, if you consider the circle in which he is looking for clients.

Nelson Waller, another one who wrote a supportive letter and got quite belligerent about the "evil Nazis" and Hitler. I have taken him off my mailing list a while back.

Include in that pack also Bradley Smith and Michael Hoffman, who both try to please the Jews by maligning the German people.

In reality, my friends, it is just double talk. Michael Santomauro calls himself an amateur revisionist. Strange comes to mind again when you think that he just couldn't give a direct answer about the holocaust to the New York Times.

So, one has to wonder what they are up to. Are they just mentally retarded or clever con men? These are people who have no character and no guts. Trust me when I tell you that they are after your money. They criticize Israel and the Jews, and that's the hook with which they get you. Once you are on the hook, it is too late.

At the same time, they demonize Hitler and believe in the holocaust. So, they are talking both sides. Extracting money from everyone is the common denominator.

What was Santomauro thinking when his New York City roommate service went belly-up and he started to become an "amateur revisionist? In the Capitol of the Jews? Did he really think that he is going to be left alone? I am not sure why this was a big deal in the first place. We all have gone through it.

The bottom line: If you criticize Israel and the Jews, but support the holocaust lie and demonize Adolf Hitler, you are not any better than those you criticize. Israel was built on the holocaust lie. Without it, its economy would collapse. In my book, criticizing Israel does not open the door for you to come in. As we have seen with the Michael Santomauro issue, the "Fifth Element" people are amateur crooks at best and traitors at worst. I am a straightforward guy and I despise those who play both sides in order to gain favorites with one or the other. Here it is again: The holocaust is a lie. Adolf Hitler was a great man and did great things for the German people. Anyone who believes differently is an enemy, and we should not deal with them or support them in any way.

Unless you can bring me proof about the negative things you say about the Third Reich, stay out of my mailbox.

HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST STARTS FEUD ON UPPER WEST SIDE

By CHUCKK BENNET amNewYork Staff Writer, http://jdo.org/naziweek.htm, Oct.14, 2004

A rumble is brewing on the Upper West Side between members of the militant Jewish Defense Organization and a self described Holocaust "revisionist." For 20 years, Michael Santamauro has lived in a rent-controlled apartment on W. 72^nd St. He runs a small Internet business, www.roommatefinders.com, while writing and disseminating articles that deny the Holocaust. Recently, he began organizing Holocaust denial lectures in the neighborhood - one of them featuring David Irving, an infamous English Holocaust denier. "There is nothing kosher about a neo-Nazi headquarters on the Upper West Side," Jeffrey Silver, an organizer with the Jewish Defense Organization, told amNewYork. Silver said he learned of Santamauro's links with Holocaust deniers last week and embarked on a campaign to get him evicted. Since Santamauro runs abusiness out of his home, Silver said, he violates the lease.

Although Santamauro's Web site posts virulently anti-Semitic messages on the discussion board, he denied being a neo-Nazi or hating Jews. "Every time I dabble into anti-Zionist politics, they have a death threat on me," Santamauro told amNewYork, referring to Jewish groups. He espoused the writings of the California-based Institute for Historical Review a group the Anti-Defamation League called "the foremost Holocaust denial organization in the United States."

When asked if he believed that six million Jews were killed in concentration camps, Santamauro said, "I think people play with numbers. Whatever you can get away with."

Silver compared Santamauro to Thomas Zibelli, the Bronx man accused of recruiting neighborhood kids with booze and porn to take part in neo-Nazi activities. "We want them all out," he said.

The Jewish Defense Organization has already plastered the neighborhood with fliers calling Santamauro a "Nazi pig" and demanding his eviction.

The group will stage a protest outside the building in two weeks. A spokesman for West Pierre Associates, the owner of Santamauro's building, was not available for comment yesterday. But the doorman said Santamauro has "always been a gentlemen."

One concerned neighbor, Andy Moskowitz, said he doesn't want Nazis in the neighborhood, but added, "If a guy invited people to his apartment to discuss Holocaust denial, it seems to be okay"

From: RePorterNoteBook@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Subject:HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST STARTS FEUD IN NEW YORK CITY

RePortersNoteBook Memo: The Jewish Defense Organization's Mentality andIntelligence I received this on Oct.13, 2004 from the JDO.org.

Start: The JDO is not interesting in collecting an award and we are not interested in debating you with any of your bullshit. We are interested in only one thing...f***ing your mother. We hear she is a hot number. The only problem is the last time someone stuck a dick in her ear she went nuts, had to go the Institute for Hysterical Review. See you at the demonstration, and more.... judeaM@jdo.org (Jewish Defense Organization)

N.B.: The protest failed – only about 20 protesters turned up, and this in the heart of Jew York.

French news chief accused of anti-Semitism – Journalist resigns after remarks about ‘racist’ Israel

National Post; Date: Oct 19, 2004, AFP, with files from The Daily Telegraph

PARIS • Alain Menargues, head of news at the state-owned Radio France International, resigned from his post yesterday after he was accused of anti-Israeli bias. Promoting his new book Sharon’s Wall on the security barrier being built to separate Israel from Palestinian centres of population, Mr. Menargues more than once described Israel as racist, earning condemnation from the government as well as journalists at the French national broadcaster and Jewish groups. Speaking on LCI television on Sept. 30, he said, “You say Israel is a democratic state. Let me rapidly add that it is also a racist state … The law of return only concerns Jews. What is the basis of Zionism? It is to make a state for the Jews.” On another occasion he said, “What was the first ghetto in the world? It was in Venice. Who made it? The Jews themselves, in order to separate themselves from the rest. Afterward Europe put them in ghettos.” The French Foreign Ministry said that Mr. Menargues’ description of Israel as racist was “unacceptable” and journalists’ unions at RFI called on management to “assume its responsibilities.” Gilles William Goldnadel, vicepresident of the France-Israel association, said the remarks were made “in the context of a deeprooted anti-Jewishness and the fact they were made by a director of RFI, the voice of France abroad, shows there is a sense of total impunity.” Mr. Menargues has rejected the charges against him, saying, “Israel is a country like any other and like the others it must be criticized. There is no exception in my vision of the world, no country is above international laws.” He told The Daily Telegraph, “This is a sad day for the freedom of expression. To say I am anti-Semitic when my wife is Jewish is ridiculous. I have had 150 e-mails giving me support, including some from Jews, and five insulting or opposing me.” The 57-year-old journalist is a Middle East specialist who has spent many years in the region. He was named to his current post, which bears the rank of deputy director-general, in July. Israel and Jewish groups have long accused France of pursuing policies that are biased in favour of the Arab world.

Lieber Fredrick Töben,

hier eine Schilderung der Lage:

Seit längerer Zeit unterliege ich als bekannter Aktivist des Revisionismus, der Reichsbürgerbewegung und des Nationalen Widerstandes einer massiven politischen Verfolgung mit dem Ziel, mich "aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen". Eine bedeutende Steigerung der Repressionen erfolgte, als ich begann, das Deutsche Reich zum zentralen Punkt meines Kampfes und auch meiner Reden bei Demonstrationen zu machen. Seitdem konnte ich kaum noch eine Rede zu Ende führen, ohne vorzeitig unterbrochen und festgenommen zu werden. In Dortmund im Oktober letzten Jahres erfolgte das bereits sofort nach den einleitenden Worten: "Kameradinnen und Kameraden, Heil Euch und Heil dem Deutschen Reich!"

Die diversen Hausdurchsuchungen mit immer wieder erfolgter Beschlagnahme der jeweiligen Rechner will ich gar nicht aufzählen. Im November letzten Jahres ereignete sich jedoch ein besonderes Schurkenstück, welches sich in der Folge zu einem noch größeren auswuchs: Zusammen mit Kamerad Reinhold Leidenfrost, ehem. Flugzeugführer der Luftwaffe auf einer Me109, war ich in dessen Auto unterwegs nach Bad Kreuznach, wo Leidenfrost anläßlich einer Gedenkveranstaltung für die Opfer der Rheinwiesenlager der Alliierten eine Ansprache halten sollte. Noch bevor wir diese erreichen konnten, wurden wir - als einziges Fahrzeug - 2 Stunden in einer Polizeikontrolle festgehalten; solange, bis die Veranstaltung zu Ende war! Nicht nur das: Im Kofferraum unseres, selbstverständlich von der Polizei völlig durchsuchten, Pkw befand sich unter anderem mein Labtop - und auf den hatten es die uniformierten Schergen offensichtlich abgesehen. Nun ist es aber nicht verboten, einen Mobilrechner im Kofferraum eines Autos zu transportieren. Mit der Zeit trafen immer mehr Zivilpolizisten ein - "Staatsschutz" - und palaverten um einen Polizeikleinbus geschart. Dann erfolgte nochmal eine Durchsuchung unseres Fahrzeugs; unter anderem auch meiner auf dessen Rücksitz liegender Jacke. Dort fanden die "Beamten" in der Brusttasche einen Zettel mit einer Abschrift des Gedichtes "Vereinsamt" von Friedrich Nietzsche. Der Stasi-Mann las es kurz durch und befand, der Text sei "volksverhetzend und verfassungsfeindlich" - deshalb werde mein Labtop als Beweismittel sichergestellt! Man stelle sich das vor! Das sind nichts weniger als bolschewistische Methoden eines total heruntergekommenen Verbrecherregimes.

Zur Verdeutlichung der Dimension der Ungeheuerlichkeit hier jenes "volksverhetzende und verfassungsfeindliche" Gedicht:

Friedrich Nietzsche

VEREINSAMT

Die Krähen schrein

Und ziehen schwirren Flugs zur Stadt:

Bald wird es schnein, -

Wohl dem, der jetzt noch - Heimat hat!

Nun stehst du starr,

Schaust rückwärts, ach! wie lange schon!

Was bist du Narr

Vor Winters in die Welt entflohn?

Die Welt - ein Tor

Zu tausend Wüsten stumm und kalt!

Wer das verlor,

Was du verlorst, macht nirgends Halt.

Nun stehst du bleich,

Zur Winter-Wanderschaft verflucht,

Dem Rauche gleich,

Der stets nach kältern Himmeln sucht.

Flieg, Vogel, schnarr

Dein Lied im Wüstenvogel-Ton! –

Versteck, du Narr,

Dein blutend Herz in Eis und Hohn!

Die Krähen schrein

Und ziehen schwirren Flugs zur Stadt:

Bald wird es schein, -

Weh dem, der keine Heimat hat!

Das also ist im "BRD"-Regime "volksverhetzend und verfassungsfeindlich" und führt zur Einziehung eines im Kofferraum mitgeführten Labtops von einem, zumal für einen Arbeitslosen, beträchtlichem Wert! Kommentar überflüssig.

Doch es geht noch weiter:

Mit Ausfertigung vom 14.01.2004 erhielten Leidenfrost und ich je einen Beschluß des Amtsgerichts Bad Kreuznach:

"Der Beschwerde des Beschuldigten Gerhard Ittner vom 15.12.2003 gegen die durchgeführte Beschlagnahme wird nicht abgeholfen. Die Gründe des Beschlusses vom 28.11.2003 dauern fort. (Ein Beschluß, der übrigens überhaupt nicht vorliegt. G.I.) Im übrigen unterliegen die Gegenstände der Einziehung"

Dieser Beschluß erging, OHNE daß Leidenfrost oder ich Rechtsmittel bei besagtem Amtsgericht eingereicht hätten!

Es wird noch bizarrer:

Kurz darauf erreicht uns ein Schreiben des Landgerichtes Bad Kreuznach mit Beschluß vom 15. Januar 2004 - EIN Tag nach der Ausfertigung des Beschlusses vom dortigen Amtsgericht!:

"Das Rechtsmittel der Beschuldigten Karl Reinhold Leidenfrost und Gerhard Ittner gegen den Beschluß des Amtsgerichtes Bad Kreuznach vom 28.11.2003, mit dem die Beschlagnahme eines Laptops, eines Adressbuches und diverser Schriftstücke angeordnet wurde, wird kostenfällig als unbegründet verworfen, da die Gegenstände als Beweismittel in Betracht kommen."

Wohlgemerkt hatten wir WEDER zum Amtsgericht NOCH zum Landgericht irgendwelche Rechtsmittel eingelegt! Ja - der Beschluß des Landgerichtes datiert vom 15.Januar 2004, die Ausfertigung des Beschlusses der vorhergehenden Instanz vom 14. Januar 2004! Am 15.Januar hätte uns also bestenfalls der Beschluß des Amtsgerichtes zugestellt worden sein können, keinesfalls hätten da überhaupt bezugnehmende Rechtsmittel zum Landgericht eingereicht sein können, geschweige denn das Landgericht über diese entschieden haben können!

Es ist unglaublich, wie sich das "BRD"-Regime bei solchem, nichts anderem als per Gewaltenteilung organisiertem verbrecherischen Treiben, einer immer repressiveren und perverseren politischen Verfolgung gegen mißliebige Oppositionelle nicht einmal mehr die Mühe gibt, auch nur den Schein der Rechtsstaatlichkeit zu wahren.

Im Jahre 2003 wurde ich in zwei Instanzen plus Revision letztendlich zu 900Euro Geldstrafe verurteilt (für einen Arbeitslosen mit 440Euro im Monat, von welchen Miete, der Lebensunterhalt - eben alles - bestritten werden muß, eine Menge Geld), weil ich, damals noch NPD-Mitglied, in einer Wahlkampfrede zur Bundestagswahl 2002 die Bundesregierung einer "rot-grünen Chaospolitik" bezichtigt hatte. Das erfüllt - in drei Instanzen - angeblich den Tatbestand der Verunglimpfung des Staates und seiner Symbole!...

Am 29.Januar 2003 stand ich in Gotha vor Gericht wegen "Antiamerikanismus" und "Antisemitismus" bei einer Rede anläßlich einer Demonstration zum Beginn des Irakkrieges im März des Vorjahres; insbesondere wegen der Aussage: der Holocaust an den Indianern habe tatsächlich stattgefunden. Das wäre eine Leugnung des "Völkermordes an den Juden" - obschon ich den "Völkermord an den Juden" in meiner Rede überhaupt nicht mit auch nur einem Wort erwähnt hatte. Ich hatte lediglich und ausschließlich den tatsächlich stattgefundenen Holocaust an den Indianern erwähnt. Es entspann sich bald ein ziemlich heftiges Wortgefecht zwischen Amtsrichter Ansorge (ein berüchtigter Bursche "gegen rechts") und mir. Es ging um das fortbestehende Deutsche Reich, die sich daraus ergebende Staatsbürgerschaft, die Reichsrechtsargumentation insgesamt. Ich stellte einen vorbereiteten Befangenheitsantrag, u. a. deshalb, da Ansorge als Vertreter einer Organisation der "BRD" ist, diese aber, durch Nato-Mitgliedschaft und UN-Beitritt, dem fortbestehenden Deutschen Reich und seinen Staatsbürgern als per Feindstaatenklauseln erklärter Feind gegenübersteht. Kurz und gut: Ansorge war völlig überfordert und hilflos. Er klappte die Akte zu und erklärte die Verhandlung für vertagt.

Am 21.Februar - geschlagene drei Wochen später - wurde ich dann bei einer Demonstration in Marburg festgenommen, aufgrund eines einen Tag vorher von Ansorge ausgestellten Haftbefehls mit der Begründung, ich wäre zur Verhandlung am 29.Januar in Gotha nicht erschienen gewesen. Erstunken und erlogen also! Am 29.Januar hatte ich unter Anwesenheit von bezeugungsfähigen und namentlich bekannten Zuhörern im Gerichtssaal nicht nur den heftigen Disput mit Ansorge, sondern ich hatte auch einen Befangenheitsantrag eingereicht - mit abgestempeltem Belegexemplar. Über die Polizeizelle Marburg und Verschub mit den Stationen Gießen, Kassel, Gera landete ich schließlich im ehem. Stasi-Gefängnis Goldlauter hoch oben im damals tief verschneiten Thüringer Wald. Erst nach insgesamt 12 Tagen wurde der in eindeutiger politischer Absicht Weise erstunkene und erlogene Haftbefehl vom Landgericht als rechtswidrig aufgehoben.

Am 8.April wurde ich dann aus heiterem Himmel in meiner Wohnung abermals festgenommen und diesmal ins Nürnberger IMT-Gefängnis gebracht. Wieder war der Haftbefehl erstunken und erlogen und lautete auf Fluchtgefahr aufgrund enger Auslandskontakte, insbesondere in die USA, wegen eines bevorstehenden Prozesses und der dort zu erwartenden erheblichen Freiheitsstrafe wegen Verunglimpfung des Staates und seiner Symbole und Volksverhetzung. Diese Auslandskontakte waren samt und sonders frei erfunden und mit keinem Wort, nicht einmal ansatzweise belegt. Auch die entsprechende Anklageschrift lag mir seit fast einem Jahr vor, so daß ich längst hätte fliehen können, sollte ich das überhaupt vorgehabt haben. Noch dazu handelt es sich bei den mir vorgeworfenen Delikten um solche der freien Meinungsäußerung, wie es sie in zivilisierten Demokratien als Straftatbestand überhaupt nicht gibt. Es handelt sich nicht um fortgesetzte Eigentumsdelikte; es handelt sich nicht um fortgesetzte Körperverletzungen; es handelt sich nicht um fortgesetzte Sexualstraftaten; es handelt sich nicht um fortgesetzte Sachbeschädigung,. Sämtliche vorgeworfenen Taten sind Kommunikationsdelikte, also Meinungskundgaben in gesprochenem Wort und Schrift. Und wegen dieser werde ich - noch vor einer Gerichtsverhandlung und Verurteilung - in Haft genommen, aufgrund eines frei erfundenen Haftbefehls wegen auch nicht ansatzweise belegter, lediglich mit ersichtlicher Absicht der politischen Verfolgung und "Kaltstellung" konstruierter angeblicher Auslandskontakte.

So also saß ich drei Monate im Gefängnis der Nürnberger Prozesse. Sinnigerweise in Zelle 231 - der Artikel 231 des Versailler Diktats schreibt die Alleinkriegsschuld des Deutschen Reiches fest.

Mit meiner Haftentlassung aufgrund der Außerkraftsetzung des Haftbefehls durch das Oberlandesgericht München traten Auflagen in Kraft, u. a., daß ich den Bereich des Landgerichtes Nürnberg nicht verlassen dürfe. Also eindeutig dazu gedacht, mich als ansonsten ständig und sozusagen allüberall im Einsatz befindlichen Demonstrations- und Vortragsredner kaltzustellen.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen

aus Nürnberg in Franken im Deutschen Reich

Ihr
Gerd Ittner

Michael,
It is not a question of "rehabilitating Hitler."

You wrote: "The notion that to criticize Hitler is a secret hated for the Germans is ludicrous." Maybe not...

Since long before the war, Hitler was vilified - virtually demonized – by the Jewish controlled establishment.

Thanks to their propagandizing, there are now basically two kinds of Germans; the new German who embraces multiculturalism - which ineluctably leads to amalgamation and extinction - and the loyal German who desires the preservation and improvement of his race and culture. The latter type is invariably tarred with the Hitler brush and made an object of scorn and contempt and persecution. The case of Ernst Zündel is the classic example.

Every modern-day attack against Hitler is, perforce, an attack on those Germans who resist amalgamation and extinction, and by extension, against all whites who have a similar inclination regarding their own race and culture.

The question certainly has nothing to do with whether Hitler was evil or not. If he was, he certainly was not more evil than Franklin D. Roosevelt who desperately wanted and instigated the cruelest and most disastrous war in history. Hitler wanted peace and worked toward that end. He offered reasonable terms of compromise to the Poles, who defiantly spurned them at the instigation of the warmongers who controlled Britain and the U.S. There is good reason to believe that he deliberately permitted the evacuation of the British Forces at Dunkerque in hope of restoring peace and that he was behind the flight to Scotland by Rudolf Hess for that same purpose.

By way of contrast, when Churchill was preparing to leave England for the Quebec meeting in the late summer of 1943, a reporter asked Mr. Churchill, "Will you offer peace terms to Germany?" Churchill replied, "Heavens no! They would accept immediately." Time, August 30, 1943, in: Revisionist Viewpoints, James J. Martin, 1971, pp. 74, 75 – res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

As to the "Holocaust," all informed persons understand that to be a vicious propaganda hoax. Take away falsely alleged war blame and the bogus "Holocaust," and what remains to justify labeling Hitler as evil personified? ...nothing worth mentioning! What can you lay at his doorstep to surpass Hamburg and Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? ...or the crimes against war prisoners recounted in James Bacque's Other Losses? ...or the crimes committed against German civilians in the postwar expulsions from their homes? ...or the infamous "War Crimes Trials" which were, themselves, war crimes? Certainly no sane person would argue that Hitler was more evil than Stalin.

Jews are masters in the arts of psychology and persuasion (and defamation) - and in the skillful manipulative use of words to conform people to their goals. And that is why Hitler's name and all that pertains to it has acquired such negative connotation in the "minds" of the masses. It is meant to intimidate and discourage those who resist their program for a "new world order."

Whether or not Hitler or Nazism was or is evil is completely irrelevant to the question.

Hence, to use Hitler's name - or Nazism - as a synonym for consummate evil, is to play into the hands of those who would use one to further their own nefarious ends. To imagine otherwise is simply to indulge in self deception. The difficulties that you are presently experiencing certainly should give you an idea of the character of the people you are dealing with here.

Regards, Jack Martin

Last month, Jarek Mensfelt, spokesman for the Auschwitz memorial site, announced plans to preserve the ruins of the gas chambers and crematoria in the notorious death camp at Birkenau near the Polish town of Oswiecim. “This is an attempt to keep it as it is now – in ruins – but not let the ruins go,” he said. “It was meant to be here forever as a warning.”

In the coming weeks, as the Auschwitz preservationists begin their work, they should be guided by the knowledge that these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.

Of course, the historical and circumstantial evidence of a premeditated Nazi plan to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe is overwhelming. There are the watch-tower-girded enclosures of Nazi concentration camps and the extensive testimonials of Holocaust survivors, as well as the court protocols of Nazi war criminals, but there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent. The Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the “Final Solution” in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or obliterating their machinery of death. The dearth of hard evidence has fueled a growth industry in Holocaust-denial.

The revisionists’ plaint is simple: They demand a proverbial “smoking gun” to prove that the Nazis deliberately and systematically designed an industrial system of extermination. They do not deny that millions of European Jews died from malnutrition, exhaustion and disease. They do not even deny that Zyklon B gas was employed at Auschwitz, but they claim it was used for delousing rather than homicidal purposes. One French critic has denounced them as “assassins de la memoire” – murderers of memory.

Auschwitz has been a particular target of Holocaust deniers – in particular the gas chamber in Auschwitz I, the original base camp a mile east of Birkenau. It was here that some of the first experiments with poison gas were undertaken in a converted air-raid shelter refitted with air-tight doors and special ducts for homicidal purposes. Dynamited by the Nazis in the autumn of 1944, the gas chamber was reconstructed after the war. As one revisionist notes: “The official view holds that the Soviets and Poles created a ‘gas chamber’ in an air-raid shelter that had been an air-raid shelter.”

While most serious historians refuse to dignify such statements with a response, Polish administrators have taken the bait. In response to revisionist charges, they tested the gas chamber walls for residual traces of cyanide gas but found none. Unlike the delousing chambers, whose walls still show cyanide “staining,” the gas chambers betrayed no residual traces of Zyklon B. The homicidal process was so murderously brief that the cyanide never penetrated the interior surface. Similarly, it was found that repeated postwar “cleaning” had leached the last traces of cyanide from the heaps of human hair, one of the most damning pieces of Holocaust evidence.

Four years ago, this evidence was used by the revisionist David Irving in his libel suit against Emory University historian Deborah Lipstadt. Though the judge handed down an unequivocal verdict against Mr Irving, the Holocaust deniers remain undeterred. “While the judgment in the Irving-Lipstadt trial is certainly a heavy blow for Irving personally,” a leading revisionist publication observed, “it is only a temporary setback for the ultimately unstoppable march of revisionist scholarship.”

In the battle against Holocaust deniers,

Birkenau’s extermination facilities remain important forensic evidence. Today, the ruined structures lei at the far end of the camp – beyond the railway line and the infamous “ramp” where Josef Mengele once stood to make his “selections” – tumbled and broken plates of concrete that rise from the earth like arctic ice shoals, the remnants of a once horrifically efficient piece of machinery.

Between 1942, when they were first put into operation, and 1944, when they were dynamited, more than a million human beings – mostly Jewish – were fed into these extermination plants, forced into subterranean chambers and gassed, their corpses removed and transported by mechanical conveyance to the crematoria ovens. The chimneys belched smoke into the air. The remnant ash was scattered in the surrounding fields, or dumped in a nearby pond whose muddy bottom, even today, is of a sticky viscosity laced with matchstick-size splinters of human bone.

The horrors of this machinery have been preserved in the classic memoirs of survivor-authors like Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi, in the myriad recorded testimonies of Holocaust survivors, and in the trial protocols of Nazi perpetrators.

But as with any account filtered through human memory, this “evidence” is subject to challenge and rebuttal. There is no arguing with presence of the Birkenau gas chambers. Here the proof of the Holocaust is written in concrete and steel.

This summer, as the preservationists clear the weeds and sort through the rubble, they should work in the knowledge that they are not just preserving a “warning” for the future but also excavating the hard evidence of evil.

Mr Ryback is the author of The Last Survivor: Legacy of Dachau.

This time it is Timothy Ryback writing for the Wall Street Journal in the July 7^th 2004 issue titled ‘Forensic Evidence Of the Holocaust Must Be Preserved’. Well, Tim, this is what the historical revisionist scholars and historians have been saying for the last 60 years while the world, especially the media, is happy with the “authentic evidence” of storytellers like Elie Wiesel who was last liberated in three Nazi concentration camps at once! Miracles do happen! From Wiesel to Wilkomirski. First you tell us that the forensic evidence in Auschwitz I and II (Birkenau) must be preserved, but then you say:

“… Polish administrators [for the Auschwitz memorial site] have taken the bait. In response to revisionist charges, they tested the gas chamber walls for residual traces of cyanide gas but found none. Unlike the delousing chambers, whose walls still show cyanide ‘staining’, the gas chambers betrayed no residual traces of Zyklon B.”

Eureka! What a discovery Tim.

Revisionists had discovered this fact as far back as 1988 and published it in the Leuchter Report, and, in 1992, in the more detailed Rudolf Report. So the Poles have only confirmed these two reports 16 and 12 years later.

But their scientific explanation for the lack of any Zyklon B staining in the gas chambers is, in truth, scientific nonsense, namely: the homicidal process was so murderously brief that the cyanide never penetrated the interior surface”. Is that a joke, Tim? If yes, it’s a sick one!

Similarly, Tim tells his readers “… it was found that repeated post-war ‘cleaning’ had leached the last traces of cyanide from the heaps of human hair, one of the most damning pieces of Holocaust evidence.”

Was there a dandruff problem?

Why would the Poles and/or the soldiers ‘clean’ hair which is not on the people’s heads anymore? Hair which was shaved off to prevent headlice infected with the typhoid disease causing an epidemic throughout the camp.

And why are ‘ heaps’ of human hair, one might expect to find in any concentration camp or GUlag regardless of whom they were run by – Himmler, Kaganovich or Lord Kitchener – proof of homicidal gassings?

Indeed, why are the watchtower-girded enclosures of Nazi concentration camps proof of homicidal gassings? Did not Gulags have watchtowers and fences too?

Most states in Australia during World War II maintained such establishments with these features. They were called internment camps.

Tim tells us in his “forensic dissertation that some of the first experiments with poison gas were undertaken in a converted air raid shelter refitted with air tight doors and special ducts for homicidal purposes dynamited by the Nazis in the autumn of 1944, the gas chamber was re-constructed after the war.”

There are two problems here. This air raid shelter doubled up as a mortuary of the adjacent Auschwitz I hospital complex. It was never dynamited by anybody and according to the Pope of the Holocaust history, Robert Jan van Pelt, this so-called gas chamber was never a gas chamber, but turned into one by the Poles and Soviets after World War II. It was to stand as a ‘symbol’ for the ‘real’ gas chambers at Auschwitz II (Birkenau), a mile away where the Polish authorities have not found any Zyklon B traces either.

While we are at it, Tim, let me inform you that your one million plus dead figure of Auschwitz I and II, which were “fed into these extermination plants, forced into subterranean chambers and gassed” have been reduced by Fritjof Meyer to approximately 356 000! But Meyer claims they were not gassed in the underground morgues of Krematoria II and III in Birkenau, but supposedly in two little farm houses outside the Birkenau concentration camp. There is no mention of this in your / forensic’ evidence of the Holocaust article. Just an added contradiction and obfuscation on the whole subject.

Before I forget, crematorium chimneys

anywhere do not belch smoke into the air. As a matter of fact they hardly smoke at all.

I read at the end of your article that you are the author of another ‘Holocaust story’ with the title: The Last Survivor: Legacies of Dachau. I hope you have mentioned in this book the homicidal gas chamber of Dachau Concentration Camp, and the sign on the front of it put up by the Dachau authorities saying in four languages: German, French, English and Russian “ This is a homicidal gas chamber built by the Nazis but it was never used.

As a footnote: A story recently reported in the UK media about by Michael Howard, Jewish leader of the British Conservative Party, telling the world that his aunty was sent into the Auschwitz gas chamber and survived, at one time, as Michael Howard says, because the Germans actually ran out of gas. So much for German efficiency! It would even make Eli Wiesel blush.

In Bergen Belsen concentration camp ‘Holocaust survivor’ Moshe Peer runs around as a placard man telling the tourists he was gassed here five times as a child. When asked by visitors why he survived, he replied: “Zyklon B gas does not affect children as bad as adults”. All historians agree that the Nazis never built or operated homicidal gas chambers at Bergen Belsen.

I am lost for words and herewith I rest my case. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and to you Timmy, Shanah Tova.

David Brockschmidt – Adelaide

BERLIN -- Nazi officials planned to move the Auschwitz gas chambers to a concentration camp in Austria as the Germans retreated westward from the Soviet army near the end of World War II, a magazine reported Sunday.

While SS chief Heinrich Himmler gave orders to raze the gas chambers and crematoriums at Auschwitz in the fall of 1944 to erase evidence of the Nazis' crimes, new historical research shows that officials sent at least some of the equipment to the Mauthausen camp for reuse, the Der Spiegel weekly said. Austrian historians Bertrand Perz and Florian Freund drew their conclusions in part from correspondence and accounts by survivors of both camps, the report said.

They also discovered a Feb. 10, 1945, letter to Mauthausen officials from J.A. Topf and Sons, an Erfurt, Germany-based company that made many of the incinerators for Nazi camps, that talked about sharply expanding the Austrian camp's gas chamber on the assumption that "all the parts from the Auschwitz Concentration Camp will be used again." Though accounts by camp survivors have indicated that some equipment from Auschwitz, located in present-day Poland, arrived, the war's turn against Germany prevented the Nazis from building the large-scale gas chambers they apparently envisioned for Mauthausen, Der Spiegel said.

Six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Between 1 million and 1.5 million prisoners - most of them Jews - perished in gas chambers or died of starvation and disease at Auschwitz. Advancing Soviet troops liberated the camp Jan. 27, 1945.

Mauthausen was liberated by U.S. troops in May 1945 when the Nazis surrendered. An estimated 100,000 inmates died at the camp near the Austrian city of Linz