Newsletter 251 July 2005

                                                                                                                              ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                      July 2005
                                                                                           No 251

Is Kevin MacDonald a Scholar?

Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

Most readers of this Bulletin will be aware of the controversy that embroiled ISHE member Kevin MacDonald at the recent annual meeting of our kindred organization, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES). At a special session MacDonald was charged with anti-Semitism and his scientific standing questioned. Any review must now be counted as contributing to that controversy since it bears on MacDonald's status as a scholar and evolutionary psychologist. With this in mind I decided to combine the book review with a description of the recent controversy concerning The Culture of Critique among human evolutionists. I shall be arguing that much of the criticism of MacDonald is founded on ignorance of his scholarship and a confounding of political and scientific issues.

Charges of anti-Semitism, political motivation, and shoddy scholarship are clearly plausible to many colleagues. The broad political Left, which constitutes the academic establishment since at least the 1960s, views interest in evolutionary accounts of human nature, and even claiming that such a thing exists, as tantamount to fascism (Singer 1998). This prejudice was directed at the pioneers of the evolutionary approach both in the U.S. and overseas, such as the late Bill Hamilton, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Napoleon Chagnon, and many others. The new leaders of America's evolutionary scene have been at pains to dispell this image. The name of a leading journal, Ethology & Sociobiology, was changed to an anodyne substitute, and an emphasis was maintained on cross-cultural universals at the expense of human biodiversity. Individual and group differences apart from age and sex are still largely ignored, with race and ethnicity conspicuous by their near absence from America's leading evolutionary academic journals Evolution and Human Behavior (the HBES home journal), Human Nature, and Politics and the Life Sciences.

Given such a defensive posture it is little wonder that a long, cold inspection of Judaism should raise a storm. What is one to make of a scholar who:

1. like so many anti-Semites takes pains to show the great overrepresentation of Jews in radical political movements such as post-WWI Bolshevism in Russia and Central Europe, the Communist Party of America, and the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s (including the claim that in 1928 Jews were 1000% overrepresented among socialist Reichstag deputies);

2. who revives the old Nazi canard about Freud by alleging that he was a Jewish activist nurturing hatred of 'Aryan' Europe, leading an essentially Jewish cabal of psychoanalysts intent on subverting Christian sexual standards;

4. who maintains that on average Jews constitute a quarter of America's elites and draws attention to 58% representations in the senior ranks of Hollywood (which it 'dominates'), 50% of network television producers, and 40% of elite university law faculty;

5. who maintains that since the mid 1960s the media elite has pursued a leftist agenda that includes promoting racial integration through school busing;

6. who goes so far as to question the appropriateness of large Jewish over-representation in a democratic elite;

7. who suggests that European-Jewish intellectual prominence is genetically based and the result of eugenic processes within traditional Jewish communities;

8. who argues that Jewish intellectuals such as Franz Boas, Felix Frankfurter, Harold Laski, Max Lerner, Morris Cohen, and Robert Merton, accelerated the 'deChristianization' of America's public life by selectively promoting as cultural heroes Gentiles who advanced their goals, such as Margaret Mead, John Dewey, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes;

9. who agrees with T. S. Eliot's most famous anti-Semitic statement, that any large number of free-thinking Jews is undesirable if one wants to maintain or develop a society in which a Christian, ethnically homogeneous tradition can flourish.

Surely it is reasonable to be outraged at such a person being associated with a respectable academic association? Well, not if that person is Stanley Rothman, Mary Huiggins Gamble Professor of Government at Smith College, New York, who makes the first six of these points and is a member of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (1974; 1978; Rothman & Lichter 1996/1982; Rothman & Snyderman 1988; Lerner et al. 1996; Lichter et al. 1986); or Prof. Arno Motulsky, Professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Seattle, who makes the seventh point (1995); or David Hollinger, Professor of History at UC Berkeley who makes points eight and nine and whose 1996 book was favourably reviewed in the Jewish press; but certainly if that person cites Rothman's, Motulsky's, and Hollinger's sources and becomes the centre of attention.

The fact is that most of the above descriptions (but not the speculations) are uncontroversial in the specialist historical and sociological fields on which MacDonald draws. These and most other assertions that have elicited the wrath of some colleagues are not only true but truisms, to those aquainted with the diverse literatures involved. Apart from the political sensitivity of the subject, much of the problem facing MacDonald is that his knowledge is often too far ahead of his detractors to allow easy communication; there are not enough shared premises for constructive dialog. Unfortunately the knowledge gap is closing slowly because some of his most hostile critics, including colleagues who make serious ad hominem accusations, have not bothered to read MacDonald's books. If this sounds incredible, please read on.

1. MacDonald agrees to testify as an expert witness for historian David Irving, the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit against historian Deborah Lipstadt who had accused Irving of denying the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. MacDonald neither denies or minimizes the Holocaust but seeks to defend Irving's freedom of expression. His testimony concerns certain Jewish organizations' techniques for silencing opponents. His testimony is published as a court record available at MacDonald's webpage along with his correspondence with Irving before the trial - http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd. After much of the controversy reported below, Irving loses his case, and is found to be a Holocaust denier.

2. Journalist Judith Shulevitz writes a critical article in her Culturbox segment of Slate, an online magazine - 24 Jan. 2000, criticizing MacDonald for giving evidence in the Irving-Lipstadt trial. Ad hominems are preceded by a confused summary of MacDonald's three books. Shock is expressed at MacDonald's statements on Freud, Jewish eugenics, and many more. Shulevitz makes several disparaging remarks about MacDonald's alleged prejudices, such as that his ideas about Jews 'represent the broadest, ugliest, and most vicious anti-Semitism passing for scholarship in this country today.' This is the beginning of an attack on MacDonald's academic standing. 'A man in his 50s, MacDonald is still an associate professor of psychology at a third-rate school ...' She expresses surprise that MacDonald has been allowed to hold his office of secretary-archivist in HBES and to be active within the organization. Why have evolutionary psychologists not 'policed' their discipline? All of the leading HBES members interviewed by Shulevitz claim not to have read his books on Judaism. Nevertheless 'they expressed extreme shock and said he contradicted the basic principles of contemporary evolutionary psychology' based on Shulevitz's verbal summary of MacDonald's ideas. MacDonald replies in Slate's letters column - 25 Jan. 2000 - by describing Shulevitz's article as 'yellow journalism.' 'Some of her statements are simply overly general, others simply false, while others are incomplete or take my thoughts entirely out of context.' Regarding the personal attacks, he writes: 'Actually I have been a full professor for about five years now. (I got a late start because of my involvement in 60s radicalism.) I like to think of [California State University Long Beach] as a second rate institution. It's not quite UC-Berkeley, but it's pretty good. Whatever Shulevitz may think, there are many fine professors and students here.'

3. Answering Shulevitz's call for HBES members to take a stand on MacDonald, and on the basis of her summary of MacDonald's book, John Tooby, HBES president, criticizes an aspect of MacDonald's thesis (Jewish genetic segregation), as well as an idea that is not part of MacDonald's theory (genetic group selection). Tooby agrees to a Slate discussion with Shulevitz, with MacDonald relegated to observer status and limited to defending himself in the letters section. In this discussion, Tooby claims: that MacDonald is a 'fringe' academic because of the low number of citations for his Judaism trilogy (not mentioning the substantial citation rate for MacDonald's other publications); that he does not qualify as an evolutionary psychologist because his ideas conflict with certain precepts set forth in Tooby's own writings; that his claim to be an evolutionary psychologist is quackery; and that his writings constitute a 'crime' (Slate 3 Feb. 2000). In his last Slate posting (15 Feb 2000), Tooby refers to 'the netherworld of marginal scholarship (of which MacDonald is a typical example).' In a subsequent article in the tabloid Newtimes L.A., Tony Ortega, 'In the hotseat', 24 May 2000) Tooby compares MacDonald to the death-camp doctor Josef Mengele.

In MacDonald's 3 Feb. 2000 Slate response (see Tooby.htm) he suggests that Tooby has not read his extensive review of population-genetic literature indicating that there are genetic frequency differences between Jews and Gentiles and that these differences have been maintained by endogamous Jewish marriage practices. There are, MacDonald notes, profound scientific differences between himself and Tooby: 'While Tooby and [coauthor] Cosmides focus exclusively on domain-specific psychological adaptations designed to solve recurrent problems in our evolutionary past, I emphasize in addition the importance of domain-general mechanisms, especially the g-factor of IQ tests, that facilitate the achievement of biological goals in complex, non-recurrent environments.... My views have much more in common with those of David S. Wilson ... and the cultural selection models of Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson.'

Another HBES member who takes up Shulevitz's call is Steven Pinker (Slate 27 Jan. 2000), who states 1. that MacDonald would never have been able to present papers at HBES conferences if the latter were peer reviewed, 2. that HBES's official journal has never published an article by MacDonald, 3. that MacDonald's ideas are 'preposterous' and do not warrant the attention of peers, 4. that MacDonald posits genetic group selection for humans, and 5. that his theories are consistently 'value-laden'. Assertions 2. and 4. are simply false. Pinker adds one criticism of merit, that MacDonald should have studied at least one control group to allow comparison with Judaism. In his books MacDonald does in fact compare Judaism with ancient Sparta, Roman society, and Medieval Catholicism, but by undertaking a new project on 'diaspora peoples' MacDonald implicitly concedes that more work is needed in this direction. Pinker admits that because he has not read MacDonald's books it is possible he is being unfair, while indicating that Shulevitz's summary has saved him the trouble of such reading.

On a personal note, it is overdue that John Tooby and Steven Pinker applied their professional skills seriously to critique MacDonald's work in the appropriate scientific forums. This now seems obligatory as a matter of professional duty given the severity of their attack on a colleague who has refrained from ad hominems throughout this sorry event. Still, it is now too late to reverse the harm done to both MacDonald's and probably HBES's reputation by what can only be judged reckless, unscholarly, and plain uncivil slurs. For these they should apologize.

4. In response to Shulevitz, David S. Wilson (Slate 25 Jan. 2000) supports MacDonald based on a reading of his first volume, noting that he is engaged in developing a general theory of groups taking Judaism as an example. In what must be the understatement of the new millennium, Wilson attributes unscientific motives to MacDonald's HBES critics: '[I]t is shameful how quickly those who are sensitive to being demonized are willing to demonize others. Even evolutionary psychologists, who have experienced their share of persecution in academic circles, seem more concerned to protect their own reputations than to defend the work of their colleague.'

5. At the June 2000 HBES, a session organized by Daniel Kriegman discusses MacDonald's theory of Judaism, with MacDonald responding. Scientific questions are raised by Kriegman and John Tooby, but political concerns take centre stage, and no point of scholarship is raised in the discussion period. Richard Wrangham states that MacDonald's books are approved by neo-Nazi organizations, and invites him to disown this connection, an invitation MacDonald implicitly refuses in his insistence on keeping to scientific issues. Fists are shaken at MacDonald from the floor. MacDonald had his supporters. At one point during proceedings, James Fetzer objects with a call for academic free speech and receives loud applause.

Clearly this reaction to Culture of Critique by a journalist and some HBES colleagues constitutes an attempt to dismiss the author's standing as an evolutionary psychologist. It is one thing to question a scientist's political judgment, another to downgrade his status as a scientist and scholar. In the following synopsis of The Culture of Critique I sample each chapter's main sources. Are they credible? Are MacDonald's empirical claims well documented? As will become apparent, the sources for many of the claims for which MacDonald has been criticized are mainstream. This raises a certain matter of consistency. If MacDonald but not his sources is to be condemned, logic requires that critics pick on aspects of his analysis that are distinctive to him. Following the synopsis I identify some of these distinctive aspects.

The Culture of Critique is the third and final volume in MacDonald's trilogy on Judaism and anti-Semitism. His central thesis, stated in the first volume - A People that Shall Dwell Alone, 1994 - is that Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy. This type of strategy is an experiment in living, one that can work or fail, that can raise or lower group members' reproductive fitness. An adaptive group evolutionary strategy protects inclusive fitness by achieving subsidiary goals such as resource acquisition, group defence and conquest. Group strategies are usually traditions, but can be invented using domain-general intelligence. They culturally manipulate evolved domain-specific psychological predispositions, such as dominance and ethnocentrism. The second volume - Separation and its Discontents, 1998a - applies the same approach to major cases of anti-Semitism, especially Medieval Spain, early modern Poland, and Nazi Germany, positing a reactive dialectic between Jewish and Gentile group evolutionary strategies.

The third volume brings the analysis up to the present, looking beyond traditional Judaism to examine the ethnic strategies of secular, assimilating Jewish intellectuals. Common to such strategies has been intellectual criticism of Gentile society, religion, and institutions, which MacDonald maintains have been aimed at neutalizing actual and potential threats to Jewish security and status.

Chapter 1. 'Jews and the radical critique of gentile culture: Introduction and theory.' This is a brief review of historical sources on the radicalism of assimilated Jews, beginning in the Middle Ages, and sets out MacDonald's theoretical frame based on his first two volumes.

Chapter 2. 'Boasian school of anthropology and the decline of Darwinism in the social sciences.' It is argued that cultural anthropology in the United States was founded by a largely Jewish circle of academics led by Franz Boas, who had a strong ethnic identification, promoted universalist ideology, and opposed Darwinian thinking. MacDonald relies on such scholars as Frank (1997), Degler (1991), Hollinger (1996), Stocking (1968), and White (1966), all mainstream sources.

Chapter 3. 'Jews and the left.' MacDonald argues that radical ideology has been attractive to Jewish intellectuals because universalism blurs ethnic distinctions, defusing anti-Semitism and ameliorating marginality. The marginality thesis is not original, advanced by R. Michels before WWI and by C. Liebman (1979; quoted in Rothman & Lichter 1996/1982, 110-11, 118-19). Sources for Jewish overrepresentation on the Left include Rothman and Lichter and S. J. Gould, who thinks that most American Marxists are Jewish (Ruse 1989, 203).

Chapter 4. 'Jewish involvement in the psychoanalytic movement.' MacDonald portrays the early psychoanalytic movement as resembling the Boasian school in being a predominantly Jewish group idolizing an authoritarian leader. The robust Jewish identity of Freud and of the psychoanalytic vanguard, and Freud's racial chauvinism and hostility towards what he described as 'Christian-Aryan' society are claims drawn by MacDonald from mainstream sources (see Rothman 1974; 1978; Yerushalmi 1991).

Chapter 5. 'The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the pathologization of Gentile group allegiances.' MacDonald draws on a vast literature examining the ideas and social relations of the group of largely Jewish intellectuals gathered around Max Horkheimer and Theodore H. Adorno which, before and after WWII fused Marxism and psychoanalysis to produce a radical theory of psychosocial development and prejudice. Many leading members possessed a strong Jewish identity (Marcus & Tar 1986).

Chapter 6. 'The Jewish criticism of Gentile culture: A reprise.' Here MacDonald draws together the lines of analysis developed in the previous case studies, finding unifying threads of collectivism and valuing of consensus over individualistic disputation. He raises theoretical questions about the interface between evolved psychology and cultural messages: 'What evolved features of the human mind make people likely to adopt memes that are inimical to their own interests?' (241).

Chapter 7. 'Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy.' MacDonald documents Jewish leadership of the effort to eliminate ethnic criteria for U.S. immigration. 'Jewish activism on immigration is merely one strand of a multi-pronged movement directed at preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Western societies' (245). MacDonald reviews Congressional debates from the early 20th century and the (largely Jewish) scholarship on the Jewish defence agencies to conclude that Jews took a leading role in delaying the 1924 quota system and finally having it repealed in 1965. This assessment might be wrong, but can MacDonald be condemned for accepting what analysts report, and, in the case of some Jewish analysts, report with pride? (eg. Cohen 1972, 49; Goldberg 1996, 127; Johnson 1988, 459; Neuringer 1971, 392-3; Raab 1993).

Chapter 8. 'Conclusion: Whither Judaism and the West?' Here MacDonald applies the theories developed in his three volumes to speculate about the stability of multi-ethnicity in Western societies, discuss the rapid demographic decline of European-derived peoples in the United States, and evaluate the risk of communal conflict in that country, including anti-Semitism.

As I hope has been made clear, MacDonald presents his readers with a broad and detailed scholarship that can usually be challenged only through matching his assiduous attention to many specialist literatures. I have made no attempt here to critique his theories beyond noting their mainstream documentation, but some of his most visible opponents have done even less, while adding personal and very public attacks to their criticisms. Unfortunately for those who rebel at his empirical claims, these are mostly not MacDonald's assertions but the expert opinions of leaders in various scholarly and scientific fields. Certainly, whether his theories are ultimately viable or not, MacDonald is a scholar of considerable analytical power and scope.

Several major aspects are distinctive to MacDonald's analysis. His is the first historical-sociological application of Boyd and Richerson's (1985) theory of cultural group strategy, which he elaborates into evolutionary group strategy theory (1st volume). He offers an evolutionary interpretation of Social Identity Theory (2nd volume). I suspect both are destined to become influential. But for me what is most impressive, and this is the achievement of Culture of Critique, MacDonald has shown theoretical and methodological pathways linking the micro-level analysis of human behaviour with the macro-level dynamics of contemporary culture. He has done so on a narrow front, in a monumental case study of social relations affecting one people's struggle to survive and prosper, but that is a big start.

Altermeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University
    of Manitoba Press, Winnepeg.
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary
    process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not free to desist: The American Jewish
    Committee, 1906-1966. Jewish Publication Society of America,
    Philadelphia.
Degler, C. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and
    revival of Darwinism in American social thought. Oxford
    University Press, Oxford.
Frank, G. (1997). Jews, multiculturalism, and Boasian
    anthropology. American Anthropologist, 99(4), 731-45.
Goldberg, J. J. (1996). Jewish power: Inside the American Jewish
    establishment. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Hollinger, D. (1996). Science, Jews, and secular culture.
    Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, P. (1988). A history of the Jews. New York: Perennial
    Library..
Lerner, R., Nagai, A. K. & Rothman, S. (1996). American elites.
    Yale University Press, New Haven.
Lichter, S. R., Rothman, S. & Lichter, L. S. (1986). The media
    elite. Adler & Adler, Bethesda, MD.
Liebman, A. (1979). Jews and the left. John Wiley and Sons, New
    York.
MacDonald, K. (1994). A people that shall dwell alone: Judaism
    as a group evolutionary strategy. Praeger, Westport, Conn.
MacDonald, K. B. (1998a). Separation and its discontents:
    Toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. Praeger,
    Westport, Conn.
MacDonald, K. B. (1998b). The culture of critique: An
    evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in
    twentieth-century intellectual and political movements.
    Praeger, Westport, Conn.
Marcus, J. & Tar, Z. (1986). The Judaic elements in the teachings
   of the Frankfurt School. Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 21,
    339-353.
Motulsky, A. G. (1995). Jewish diseases and origins. Nature
    Genetics, 9(February), 99-101.
Neuringer, S. M. (1971). American Jewry and United States
    immigration policy, 1881-1953. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation,
    1969. University of Wisconsin'Madison, Ann Arbor, MI.
Raab, E. (1993). Jewish Bulletin. 19 February, 23.
Rothman, S. (1978). Group fantasies and Jewish radicalism: A
    psychodynamic interpretation. The Journal of Psychohistory,
    6(2), 211-239.
Rothman, S. & Isenberg, P. (1974). Sigmund Freud and the
    politics of marginality. Central European History7, 58-78.
Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (1996/1982). Roots of radicalism.
    Jews, Christians, and the left. Transaction Publishers, New
    Brunswick.
Rothman, S. & Snyderman, M. (1988). The IQ controversy: The
    media and public policy. Transaction Books, New Brunswick,
    NJ.
Ruse, M. (1989). Is the theory of punctuated equilibria a new
    paradigm? Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 12,
    195-212.
Singer, P. (1998). Darwin for the left. Prospect, June, 26-30.
Stocking, G. W. (1968). Race, evolution, and culture: Essays in
    the history of anthropology. Free Press, New York.
White, L. A. (1966). The social organization of ethnological theory.
    Monograph in cultural anthropology. Rice University Studies,
    52(4), 1-66.
Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1991). Freud's Moses: Judaism terminable
    and interminable. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Contact Information:

‘The 6 million thing is quite inaccurate. 6 million didn't die in concentration camps - large numbers did. Many died in the Soviet Union, and it seems funny that a German film - Downfall - should be so inaccurate in its simple historical fact.’ Prof Robert Manne, 20 April 2005.

‘The shadow people - This mad fetish for war is really a case of blaming others for our own guilt, of our own unprocessed fear of death being projected outward into the world.’ John Kaminski skylax@comcast.net

From: "jdamon" jdamon@austintx.net; Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 1:10 AM; Subject: FW: Berlin Holocaust Temple

Thank you for your coverage of the newest Holocaust temple in Berlin, which has old timers asking "Why build tank barriers 60 years after the War?"

As the public grows more skeptical, the Holocaust Industry grows more crass. The first question that comes to mind on hearing of a Holocaust that cost the lives of 6,000,000 Jews is: which one?

- The Holocaust of World War II, proclaimed by the Soviets at the Nuremberg show trials?

There have been countless "Holocausts" since the ancient Talmudic prophesy that the Kingdom of David would return after 6,000,000 Jews died in fiery furnaces.

If 18,000,000 Jews had been murdered during the 20th Century, there would be no Jews left alive, yet world almanacs show that the Jewish population remained flat during the era of world wars. Encyclopedia Britannica shows a slight increase in population – Search "Holocaust Numbers" on the Internet.

Interested persons will want to acquaint themselves with statistics compiled by the Prime Minister of Israel in 1997, likewise available on Internet. For your convenience I include this report below.

Of the eight million Jews under German jurisdiction during the Third Reich, approximately one million were still alive sixty years later, according to the Prime Minister. It is unfortunate that some consider it anti-Semitic to quote the Prime Minister of Israel.

In his book on the Holocaust Industry, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, both of whose parents were interned at Auschwitz, points out that the number of "Holocaust" Survivors would be around 40,000 if the Germans had murdered six million Jews, including all those too young to work.

Shalom,
We have seen several inquiries in the past regarding the number of living Holocaust survivors.

A recent committee put together by the Israeli Prime Minister's Office in relation to other research being conducted was charged with the task of defining who is a holocaust survivor and estimating the number of survivors living today worldwide.

The committee came up with the following based on discussions with researchers and experts in the field as well as commissioning studies to complement existing data:

A Holocaust survivor will be defined as any Jew who lived in a country at the time when it was:

* under regime of Nazi collaborators as well as any Jew who fled due to the above regime or occupation.

Patients in Israeli hospitals, among them the elderly, children and the mentally infirm, have been used as guinea pigs in medical experiments without permission from their legal guardians, according to the country's main government watchdog. Geriatric patients had their fingers inked to give fingerprints authorising the tests even though they suffered from senile dementia and would not have known what they were doing. Some children had their eardrums deliberately pierced so that a drug, not approved for medical use anywhere else in the world, could be applied. Such tests needed approval but the hospital did not apply to the ministry. In another case, a painful procedure using a needle to draw urine from the bladder for testing was performed without the necessary ministry approval. Unlicensed drugs and invasive procedures were also used on patients, sometimes by researchers who were not even doctors. In one clear conflict of interest the researcher was employed by the commercial company selling the procedure.

And even though any fatality during such clinical tests should be reported to the ministry within 48 hours, it took researchers more than a week to pass on the information in 21 out of 37 deaths. Some took more than a month.

The image of helpless victims being experimented on is especially sensitive in Israel because of the horrors inflicted on Jewish prisoners of Auschwitz by its Nazi camp doctor, Josef Mengele.

The tests carried out in Israeli hospitals, however, bear no comparison with the sadism of the man known as "the Angel of Death".

Nazi 'survivor' admits fiction

A SPANISH citizen who was chairman of an association of Spanish Republicans deported from France to Nazi concentration camps during World War II has admitted his tale of surviving the Flossenbuerg camp was a lie. Enric Marco, 84, chaired the survivors' association right through to the eve of this week's 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Mauthausen camp in Austria, but now says he never set foot in a Nazi camp. A historian researching the Mauthausen anniversary used the opportunity to look into events at Flossenbuerg – and failed to find any trace of Mr Marco ever having been there.

Spain was neutral in World War II following its civil war, which ended in 1939, but thousands of Republicans hostile to the victorious regime of General Francisco Franco fled to France and were interned in camps from which many were later deported to Germany.

Mr Marco was already in Austria for the Mauthausen ceremony when the news of his deception emerged and the association ordered his return. "I admit I never was interned in the Flossenbuerg camp, though I was in preventative detention accused of plotting against the Third Reich," he said. He said he was freed and sent back to Spain in 1943.

Mr Marco has given hundreds of conferences in schools about his pretended experiences and wrote a biography called Memory of Hell in 1978. He was also secretary general of the Communist CNT union and chairman of a pupil- parents federation. The association's treasurer, Jesus Ruiz, said Mr Marco's deception was a sorry affair. "This story is a boon for the (Holocaust)

TELL LIES TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND THEIR GROUPS - Holocaust survivors lie about their WW2 experiences and historians repeat these lies, which benefits both groups financially and gives them media exposure.

CHANGE THEIR STORIES TO FIT NEW EVIDENCE - When new scientific evidence contradicts major parts of survivors' stories, Holocaust historians do not discard the parts proven false, but change the stories to fit the new evidence.

WILL NOT DISCUSS THEIR LIES - Survivors and historians say the Holocaust is above discussion and they will not debate with non-believers.

ACCUSE NON-BELIEVERS OF THE SAME SICKESS THEY HAVE - Call non-believers hateful intolerant bigots, but they are the hateful and bigoted group who for 60 years have continued the Holocaust lies through the media against

VILIFY THOSE WHO QUESTION THEIR LIES - In the media Holocaust lobbyists malign and smear non-believers, while persuading European governments to criminalize Holocaust-questioning and apply jail terms for non-believers.

NO REMORSE FOR HURTING OTHERS - Survivors and historians have no conscience forcing German people to accept shame and guilt and suppress national pride.

MANIPULATIVE PARASITES - Holocaust lies are used in Legalized Extortion for $80 Billion reparations payments from Germany to Israel and for life-time pensions paid to 3.5 million alleged survivors.

1. THEY LIE FOR NO REASON OR MATERIAL ADVANTAGE WHATSOEVER! They have an inner compulsion to lie and make themselves the center of attention by cooking up refutable fables.

2. THEY DO NOT KNOW WHEN TO SHUT UP! And so they end up destroying the effectiveness of their original lies. If they had not imprisoned Ernest Zündel, many of their lies would have remained unexposed to many people.

From: Paul Fromm - cafe@canadafirst.net - May 05, 2005 Dear Free Speech Supporter: The following is a transcription of a recently received handwritten six page letter from prisoner of conscience Ernst Zundel being held in “investigative detention” in Mannheim prison in Germany. We still need your support for the cause of one of the world’s most famous political prisoners.. The Zundel case continues in Germany. Please send contributions to help Ernst Zundel’s defence to CAFÉ, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date. Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

* Limits on stamps * Few phone calls * No calls to his lawyer * Loses secret court case & assessed the State’s costs! * Conviction a foregone conclusion. * Ruthless state means this to be an “impact prosecution” & example to other dissidents

I am short of stamps because I can only buy 10 stamps every two weeks for letters inside Europe, which cost 55-cents each, but if I want to write to my attorneys in Canada or the USA or to my sons or to Ingrid, or to you, I have to put on 2 stamps = 1.10E (Euros) so that allows me just five letters in two weeks. Luckily, Europeans (Germans) can include some stamps (three) with each letters, so it takes a few incoming letters to save up stamps for some outgoing letters, but my friends around the world will find it rough going and long waiting. Many will simply conclude that I have given up the ghost. Therefore, it is important that those who do receive letters, let everyone know, that Ernst is alive, kicking and struggling on.

The treatment, accommodation, surroundings are far more humane than they were in Canada or in the USA in the past 28 months! But as you can see from "the stamps", those regulations are obviously from the 19040s and 1950s if not earlier. Also, they allow me NO phone calls to anyone not even my lawyers while I am in investigative custody, and once I am convicted, one of FIVE minutes a month, ONE phone call! Now what is that in this day and age when people are very verbal and addicted to their cell phones, etc.? For most people, that's cruel and unusual punishment. Same with visitors. I am allowed TWO visitors A MONTH, an official in uniform who gives the visitor a date and his ½ hour.

One cannot get an appointment just by dropping in IT'S ALL WEEKS AHEAD! (During that ½ hour, 3 people can come into the room) but let's say you are a foreigner. English, French, American, even you have to write to the Court - which will pass your onto the judge who said that I was a flight risk and had to be incarcerated at once. This judge then has to OK your request for a visit after you state your name, address, etc. and then you have to tell him that you need an interpreter even though the visitor and I understand each other. But that uniformed official "sitting in" does not - and of course, rule are rules - the judge then OK's that request with a letter to you - that letter is important for two reasons: 1) it means the German state pays for the interpreter. 2) With that letter, you have to write to the institution (the prison) the visitors’ office, who then theoretically chooses an interpreter from a list of approved interpreters they have on hand, and then you will receive from them a date and a time for the visit, only then is it save to come! 3) Since interpreters notoriously eat up time, cause confusion, delay, etc., your visiting time is not just cut in half, meaning 15 minutes shared by two conversation parties, or 7.5 minutes each. Should 3 guests come in at the same time, they each get two minutes! if they are lucky! What can you say to a person in 2 minutes in a strange Orwellian prison surroundings of a WWII wooden barracks? Not much of value, let me tell you from my experience!

Therefore, does it make sense to come all the way from Canada or the USA to visit Ernst under these circumstances in these surroundings, where every painful word is tape, interpreted later and listened to on the spot? The answer is NO! It's ludicrous for someone to go to all that trouble since they could achieve more meaningful communication with a Canadian $1.45 air mail stamp. That's for sure!

Thus, do me a favour, send this letter in copy form to Ingrid, to Paul Fromm, to Doug Christie and whomever else you think should have it, at least the first two pages, so that they know the complications if someone still wants to try, since I have to give priority to potential witnesses naturally, till I have collected my obligatory conviction. I am discouraging all but he most urgent and important witnesses for the time being.

I have been here almost for a month (today is Easter Sunday) and I have already lost one legal skirmish - and as is usual in my case, was assessed the court and legal costs the German state incurred! I was not invited to be there before the judges. They did not see my lawyer either. They simply ruled, decided and sent me and my attorney a terse 1-1/2 page letter of the proceedings and their decision, which amounted to saying the arrest warrant was justified. So was the decision to detain me in investigative custody, because I am a flight risk! And that's the way German justice has always worked in political cases. I am sure exceptions are aberrations and quickly remedied by higher courts, not in favour of the victim in favour of the all-powerful state. Udo Walendy had that happen to him, Günter Deckert, and many others. Hans Schmidt just spoke to Ingrid telling her that it took his wife 10 weeks before she could talk to him, before HE could call HER! She, of course, could never ask for him to be given access to the phone that's the power of the court, the prosecutor, and there is a direction even given to the administrators when it is convenient for the prison to be allowing - especially overseas calls. So poor Ingrid and my sons, forget the grandchildren. They will not hear my voice for years to come. That's the new reality for me.

Maybe now people realize why I fought so hard to see if Canadian and American constitutional guarantees meant anything in reality!

Well, after two years plus, I did receive numerous answers from all levels of the Canadian judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court and at great expense just to find out they mean NOTHING. Not in reality - but they sure did look nice and civilized in our children's schoolbooks, and sounded nice and felt ever so furry and cozy as we told them to our children in Sunday School! They are a Fata Morgan - Pablum for the masses, Lenin would say opium for the people. I can tell you what will happen in my German proceedings! They will be the most underhanded, callous, arrogant, willfully unfair, arbitrary proceedings that have ever disgraced the inside of a German courtroom! Trust me, I KNOW!

The outcome is as predetermined as it was in Judge Harris’s [?] court room in Knoxville, Judge Blais’ in Toronto. Only where North Americans exercise their power under a veneer of civility and hypocrisy, the current German state and judicial system like to FLAUNT their power vindictively and openly. It would be a grave mistake for Ingrid or anyone else to assume or hope or expect to be different. Especially since I have been a thorn in this system's side for four decades. They hate me and what I stand for with a passion! They need to utterly humiliate and destroy me to make an example of me. You talk about an impact prosecution - this will be the mother of all prosecutions for political offences. And - they intend to milk this famous prisoner for all his fame is worth!

Not since this regime was installed in 1945 and thereafter, was there a case and a prisoner like Ernst Zundel's case. No one had the global fame and recognition! This is not bragging; it's merely stating a reality. A fact of history!

However, since every judge and prosecutor involved with this case has already stated in one form or another that I can expect a substantial or lengthy prison sentence for my crime of defending the German nation's honor and heritage, there is a temptation to overdoing it! Just like those behind the Canadian government have overdone in my case with that Security Certificate charade and the Americans have over done it barring me for 20 years for allegedly missing an appointment with a bureaucrat, these flagrantly transparent and unfair witch hunts have a way to come back and haunt the perpetrators. Political prosecutors are a bit like loose cannons in public. One never really quite knows what targets they hit and how severely these targets will be damaged.

Political prosecutions are fairly predictable in that short-term, because usually the state holds all the aces, since the state controls the police and pays, and staffs the courts and appointments the judges!

But the - after the initial glow of victory is over, the "Katzenjammer" the "hangover" sets in first slowly and imperceptively, then at an accelerated pace, with the name of the prosecutors and the judges are long forgotten, some even are retired or in their graves as many of my judges already are in Canada and many of my accusers are, I have outlived dozens! Then the victim begins to claw himself out of the grave or dungeon, like Gandhi, Nehru, Jomo Kenyatta, like Nelson Mandela, to name a few in recent history. In Germany and Europe, many political prisoners ended up becoming leaders of their country. After they toppled their former enemies and jailers through usually moral force and their power of persuasion or their personality once released, they replaced the very people and system that had sent them to prison in the first place.

Usually the vigor of the replacement and the speed is in direct proportion to the nastiness and proportion of the repression inflicted!

Thus, the British colonial regime in India utterly collapsed a few years after Gandhi's and Nehru's imprisonment! Does anyone remember Gandhi's judge's name? Or his prosecutor's name? Or the "threat to National Security" most of these men were accused of having been? The answer is a resounding NO! No one remembers!

With the exception of Pontius Pilate and the Pharisees and the role of Judas and his 30 pieces of silver, who remembers anybody else's prosecutors names? Or Lobbies? Or traitors? I do not remember the names of Galileo's prosecutors! Does anyone else? I don't think so!

So, my fate will be unpleasant for the next five-ten years! What is that in history? It's but an insignificant moment. The mere bat of an eyelash!

Mandela was jailed for 28 year. Rudolf Hess for almost half a century! History is an amazing thing! Napoleon radiated into the world and European history even though isolated on an island at Elba. He did not have radio, cell phones or the Internet. They could not even keep his murder by poisoning him a secret. An FBI forensic laboratory found that out over 200 years later. Amazing the power of revisionism!

I just wanted to share these thoughts with you and some of the friends you will send this letter to.

I see my fate clearly and I knew it for decades. It was foretold me in 1966 in great detail - and it's not over yet.

Ingrid Rimland - zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org - asks you to ask your German embassy if the following is true about Ernst Zündel’s illegal deportation and imprisonment:

1. Is it true that the Embassy of Washington, D.C. participated in a coordinated kidnap ambush of Ernst Zündel?

2. Is it true that an arrest warrant was sworn out by the German government on the very day of the Zündel deportation to Canada, even though the statutes of limitation on previous charges for "speech crimes" had expired?

3. Is it true that Ernst Zündel has not yet been charged by the German government, even though he has been in detention in a German prison for over three months?

4. Is it true that his wife's letters are withheld - that as far as she knows, not one of her personal letters have reached him?

5. Is it true that Germany, a so-called "democratic" country, has prosecuted tens of thousands of its own citizens for "speech crimes" with heavy fines and/or imprisonment?

6. Is it true that it is no longer safe to travel to Germany, even for non-German citizens? Mention the 1993 arrest of American Fred Leuchter, the 1995 arrest of the German-American author, Hans Schmidt, the 1999 arrest of Australian Dr Fredrick Töben.

7. Is it true that there is an arrest warrant out for Dr. Ingrid Rimland, an American citizen, wife of Ernst Zündel, for a website on an American server she and she alone has owned and operated since 1994?

8. Is it true that this arrest warrant is, in fact, Europe-wide? Tell the Ambassador/Consul that your letter is a formal, specific request for a reply that you want to make available to media.

BUCHAREST - The upper house of the Romanian parliament on Thursday adopted a bill that makes denying the Holocaust a crime punishable with between six months to five years in prison. Lawmakers in the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favour of the bill that was first put to parliament in 2002 but repeatedly delayed as political parties argued about its wording and the length of the prison terms. It now includes a definition of the Holocaust as "the systematic, state-sanctioned persecution and annihilation of Europe's Jews by Nazi Germany, its allies and collaborators between 1933 and 1945." The definition was inserted because Romanian politicians have in the past sought to minimise the role of the country, which was an ally of Nazi Germany until changing sides in 1944, in the war-time persecution of Jews. The former Social-Democrat government sparked outrage in 2003 when it denied that the Holocaust had also been carried out on Romanian soil between 1940 and 1945. The bill, which still has to be approved by the Chamber of Deputies, also bans racist and xenophobic organisations and symbols, as well as fascist propaganda and an allegiance to "people guilty of crimes against humanity." The last provision is considered to be aimed at the lingering personality cult around the pro-Nazi war-time premier Ion Antonescu. He is blamed for the death of 270,000 Romanian Jews during the war but still considered a hero by many for winning back Romanian territory annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940.

A PHOTOGRAPH of Nazi Hermann Goering in the program of the German Open tennis tournament and reference to the host club's "golden times" after its Jewish members fled in the 1930s has caused outrage. The head of Berlin's Jewish community, Albert Meyer, has said the passage is a disgrace. "This article is unthinkably tactless," he told German newspaper Bild in a report published today. Berlin's Rot Weiss tennis club has apologised for the incident and suspended director Lars Rehmann, who co-authored the text. In a section of the program on the club's rich heritage, Luftwaffe chief Goering is pictured sitting on the club's honorary tribune, with uniformed Nazi officers behind him. The text describes how Jewish members of the club fled Hitler and continues: "With its membership reduced by half in this way, the club, previously known as a 'Jewish club', opened itself to new members. "In sporting terms this change brought no interruption for the club and top German tennis. On the contrary, golden times ensued." The German Open tournament, with $US1.3 million ($1.7 million) prize money, has attracted the world's top female tennis players including Wimbledon champion Maria Sharapova. Rot Weiss President Hans-Juergen Jobski said the article was a catastrophe and inexcusable. The elite tennis club is just a stone's throw from the city's Grunewald train station, where a platform from which thousands of Jews were deported to their deaths has been preserved as a memorial.

Holocaust Handbook Series Volume 12:

Ingrid Weckert: Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich

http://www.vho.org/store/USA/bresult.php?ID=182

The emigration of Jews from the Third Reich is often depicted as some kind of secret action, as if Jews who wished to leave Germany had to sneak across the borders, leaving all their possessions and wealth behind. The truth is that the emigration was welcomed by the German authorities. German and Jewish authorities worked closely together. Weckert’s booklet explains such legal determinations, thereby augmenting the traditionally received picture of Jews emigrating from Germany.