Newsletter No 277

                                                                                                           ISSN 1440-9828
                                                               March 2006
                                                                                                                     No 279

DEFENDING OUR WORLD VIEW

Germar Rudolf - the latest letter

Will Germar Rudolf re-cant in order to save himself? (Silly Question!)

Read his latest letter from Stammheim Prison, Germany

G Rudolf

Asperger Str 60

D-70439 Stuttgart

Germany

30 December 2005

Dear Fredrick

Your letter of December 14 arrived here today. On December 1, the Mannheim Court took over censoring, hence the long posting times.

1. Re my other letters: If I do not expressly say so, you can publish it.

2. Thanks (remitting stamps).

3. This must be published: Once and for all – David Irving is a disgrace for historians and revisionists alike. He does not know what he is talking about. The well-known Hötle report on the deportation figures through the Aktion Reinhardt camps was discussed in Mattogno’s book on Belzec [- obtainable through Michael Santomauro at http://www.tadp.org] where it is reproduced in the document appendix. Nothing in it indicates that the numbers mentioned in it are numbers of killed inmates.

If Robert Jan van Pelt claims otherwise, as the media reported, it proves once more that van Pelt is a liar. He is correct, though, that the Hötle report figures are congruent with the figures mentioned by Koherr, but Koherr expressly wrote about “deported to the east”, not killed, and he also separated these from Jews under “special treatment”, so if special treatment was death, “deported to the east” was not special treatment, hence, not death - of course, special treatment was not necessarily actual death.

As to Aumeier, I have analyzed his statement in my review of the Maser book as published in The Revisionist 4/2004, I think, and Carlo has added added some more points to his book on The Banks of Auschwitz, clearly stating that Aumeier made his absurd, anachronistic statements under duress and are therefore worthless as evidence.

David Irving never reads the books of other authors, and most certainly not those of revisionists, as he despises revisionist scholars.

He himself told me the fact of his never reading revisionist books. Hence he is an ignorant fool and he should be treated as such.

4. Aderlaß: Get in touch with Michael and Perry. They have orders to publish it in T&DP. If not, they have it now. I had an agreement with Claus. It’s his donation.

5. Who is Müller? Rabied dogs get shot.

6. You need to exercise and breathe fresh air while doing so! Strengthens your lungs!

7. Food is plenty and good since I can now buy supplements, like milk and Müslie.

8. I am both in Straf-and in U-Haft – on remand and sentenced – and receive all disadvantages of both together. Therefore: phone prohibition and long-lasting mail censorsphip.

9. No problem, but no revolt triggered yet either. Working on it, though.

10. – 13. no comment. I am isolated, so don’t expect me to comment on political bullshit going on in the world, nor on trials happening in Caparthia – Kaparten.

So far to your points. I leave 9 obscure. I do not really need anything right now. If you can, work on Aderlaß – wasn’t Damon working on it? – or Bellinger, on all other projects. That would be fine. Back to work! I’ll get a typewriter soon, so my next letter will be legible, odds are …

Alright, I leave it at that.

Have you been in touch with Marc Lemire and Bradley Smith at all? Is something moving there? Better action it than waste your time to answer me on it.

See you in a couple of years …

Germar Rudolf

30. Dezember 2005

Lieber Fredrick,

heute erhielt ich Deinen Brief vom 14. Dezember. Seit 1. Dezember hat das LG Mannheim die Zensur meiner Post übernommen, folglich die lange Wartezeit.

1. In bezug auf meine anderen Briefe: Wenn nicht ausdrücklich von mir untersagt, können diese veröffentlicht werden.

2. Danke für die Übersendung der Briefmarken.

3. Folgendes muß veröffentlicht werden: Ein für allemal sei gesagt: David Irving ist eine Blamage für Historiker, wie Revisionisten. Er weiß nicht wovon er redet. Der bekannte Hötle Bericht über die Anzahl Deportierter durch die Aktion Reinhardt Lager, wurde in den Büchern Mattognos über Belzec erfasst [erhältlich über Michael Santomauro http://www.tadp.org] wo dieser als Dokument im Anhang reproduziert ist. Nirgendwo befindet sich dort Hinweis, daß die darin vermerkten Zahlen, die Zahlen von getöteten Gefangenen sind.

Sollte Robert Jan van Pelt anderes behaupten, wie die Medien berichteten, beweist dies wieder einmal, daß van Pelt ein Lügner ist. Aber er hat insofern recht, daß die Zahlen des Hötle Berichts mit denen von Koherr benannten übereinstimmen, allerdings schreibt Koherr ausdrücklich über "deportiert in den Osten", nicht getötet, und außerdem trennte er diese von Juden unter "besondere Behandlung", wenn also besondere Behandlung Tod bedeutete, war "deportiert in den Osten" nicht besondere Behandlung, daher nicht Tod - selbstverständlich war besondere Behandlung nicht unbedingt wirklicher Tod.

Was Aumeier betrifft, so habe ich seine Aussage in meiner Rezension des Maser Buches analysiert, die, wenn ich mich recht erinnere, in "The Revisionist" 4/2004 herausgegeben ist, und Carlo hat dazu noch einige Aspekte in seinem Buch "The Banks of Auschwitz" hinzugefügt, worin er klar darstellt, daß Aumeier seine absurden, anachronistischen Angaben unter Zwang erstellte, was sie deshalb als Beweis wertlos macht.

David Irving liest die Bücher anderer Autoren nie und ganz sicher nicht die der Revisionisten, da er revisionistische Geisteswissenschaftler verschmäht.

Er selbst hat mir das als Faktum erzählt, [nämlich] daß er nie revisionistische Bücher liest. Daher ist er jemand, der sich nicht um Erkenntnis bemüht, und sollte als solcher gehandhabt werden.

4. Aderlaß: Setz' dich am besten mit Michael und Perry in Verbindung. Sie haben Anleitung zur Herausgabe in T&DP. Wenn sie die noch nicht haben, haben sie die jetzt. Ich habe mich deswegen mit Claus verständigt. Es ist seine Spende.

5. Wer ist Müller? Wütende Hunde brechen ihr Genick.

6. Du brauchst Körperertüchtigung und frische Luft während ...Das kräftigt Deine Lungen!

7. Es gibt [jetzt] genug Essen und es ist gut, seitdem ich Zusätzliches - wie Milch und Müslie - einkaufen kann.

8. Ich habe beides am Hals: Straf- und U-Haft - in Untersuchungshaft und verurteilt - und erhalte alle Nachteile beider zusammen. - Deshalb: Verbot von Telefongesprächen wie auch lang anhaltende Postzensur.

9. Kein Problem, jedoch kein ausgelöster Aufstand bisher. Schaffe dran.

10-13. Ohne Kommentar. Ich bin isoliert, erwarte also nicht, daß ich den in der Welt kursierenden politischen Müll oder sonstige Verurteilungen in den Kaparten kommentiere.

Soweit zu Deinen Fragen. No. 9 lass ich mal unklar. Ich brauche im Moment eigentlich nichts weiter. Wenn Dir möglich, arbeite an Aderlaß - arbeitet Damon nicht dran?- oder Bellinger an allen anderen Projekten. Das wäre gut. Zurück an die Arbeit! Bald kriege ich eine Schreibmaschine, so daß mein nächster Brief leserlich sein wird, was tut's...

Also gut. Das wär's dann.

Bist Du mit Marc Lemire und Bradley Smith irgendwie in Verbindung? Bewegt sich da was? Besser was tun, als Deine Zeit mit Antwort darauf an mich verschwenden.

Wir sehen uns in einigen Jahren...

Germar Rudolf

*******

www.Tadp.org

Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15: Item No. 29

Germar Rudolf: Lectures on the Holocaust. Controversial Issues Cross Examined

In 1976, Holocaust revisionism produced its last "standard work," if there ever was such a thing: Prof. A.R. Butz' Hoax of the Twentieth Century. "How can a quarter century old text not be obsolete today?" Butz asks in the preface of the 2003 edition of his own book, pointing out "the age of this text, and the great advances that have subsequently occurred in Holocaust revisionism." Hence, there is a great need for a new, integrated work summarizing Holocaust revisionism after 30 years of very intensive and thorough research.

And here it is, the new standard work of Holocaust revisionism! It was written by German scholar, writer, and publisher Germar Rudolf, based on the research of the most prominent revisionists, most of which Rudolf had the pleasure to publish in a multitude of German and English language journals and books over the past 15 years.

The book was written to fit the need of both those who have no in-depth knowledge of the Holocaust or of revisionism, as well as for well-versed readers familiar with revisionism. Anyone who wants to bring himself up to date on revisionist scholarship, but does not want to read all the special studies that were published during the past ten years, needs this book!

Since 1992, Rudolf has been giving lectures to various mainstream audiences all over the world. His topic is very controversial: the Holocaust in the light of new forensic and historical findings. His listeners initially think they know exactly what "the Holocaust" is all about, but their world view is completely turned upside down after the evidence is presented. Even though Rudolf presents nothing short of full-fledged Holocaust revisionism, his arguments fall on fertile soil, because they are presented in a very pedagogically sensitive and scholarly way. This book is the literary version of Rudolf's lectures, enriched with the most recent finding of historiography to a topic regulated by penal law in many countries.

The book's style is unique as is its topic: It is a dialogue between the lecturers on the one hand who introduce the reader to the most important arguments and counter arguments of Holocaust Revisionism, and the reactions of the audience on the other hand: supportive, skeptical, and also hostile comments, questions, and assertions. The Lectures read like a vivid and exciting real-life exchange between persons of various points of view. The usual moral, political, and pseudoscientific arguments against revisionism are all addressed and refuted.

This book is a compendium of Frequently Asked Questions on the Holocaust and its critical reexamination. With more than 1,300 references to sources and a vast bibliography, this easy-to-understand book is the best introduction into this taboo topic both for readers unfamiliar with revisionism and for those wanting to know more.

US $30.00 568 pp. ., 6"x9", pb., ill., bibl., index (Aug. 2005) , ISBN: 1591480019 , ISSN: 1529-7748

You can place your order at: www.Tadp.org

*******

Fredrick Töben comments: Adelaide, 31 January 2006 – the day on which Germar Rudolf’s letter arrived.

After three months of prison Germar’s steadfastness looks good – there is little likelihood that Germar will one day cry out: “Yes, I believe in the HOLOCAUST!”

Like Germar, I will continue to state: “I REFUSE TO BELIEVE IN THE HOLOCAUST!”

********

Horst Mahler bravely asserts the same, but expressed in even stronger terms, saying with Robert Faurisson, et al, the Holocaust is a lie!

Mahler has just has his Passport cancelled to prevent him from travelling overseas.

The newspaper, Die Welt reports on it, and links Adelaide Institute with Mahler's work. We are proud to be associated with Horst Mahler's work.

*******

On this day our local The Advertiser ran the following non-event article on its front page, and next to an article about a 24 year-old female music teacher facing a charge of having seduced a 15-year-old boy. A while ago a similar case occurred in Melbourne - the concerned boy had received counselling, something he rejected because it aimed to inculcate within him a feeling of having been abused by the female teacher. Most healthy 15 year-olds would feel relieved and rescued by such an incident, and certainly not be traumatised by such generous acts of love.

TEHRAN, Feb. 1 (MNA) -- In the wake of the international uproar that arose in response to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s contention that the Holocaust is a myth, the Mehr News Agency spoke with Arthur R. Butz, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, about his views on the issue.

Following is the text of an interview of Butz conducted on December 26:

In 1976 I published a book entitled The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, in which I argued:

1. The alleged slaughter of millions of Jews by the Germans, during World War II, did not happen.

2. The extermination allegation is properly termed a hoax, that is to say, a deliberately contrived falsehood. It was not at its source an honest misunderstanding or accidental falsehood.

3. The hoax had a Zionist provenance and motivation. That is, while some of the original obscure stories did not come from Zionist sources, the elevation to allegations repeated by the American and other governments, and major institutions, was due to Zionist circles within those countries, who acted with Zionist motivations.

I continue to maintain those three theses, which have become core features of what is called "Holocaust" revisionism. Apart from some nuances of wording, the three theses were repeated by President Ahmadinejad. Therefore, there can be no question that I endorse his remarks in those respects.

In the years since the publication of my book in 1976 there were two developments that I did not expect:

4. Western countries undertook a massive repression of revisionism. In some cases, particularly in Europe, legally formulated persecution has sent revisionists to prison, in blatant contradiction of the sermons we have given the rest of the world on "human rights" and "freedom". In other cases, revisionists have been ruined professionally with the cooperation of government bodies.

5. The cognizance of the "Holocaust" in the West was transformed into a loud, never-ending series of ceremonies that can only be interpreted as religious in nature.

President Ahmadinejad's remarks also included the last two observations, so of course I also endorse the remarks in those respects. I congratulate him on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on these issues, and regret only that it was not a Western head of state.

His political remarks receive no comment on my side. By "political remarks" I mean those that deal with questions of what ought to happen now.

Explanation:

Butz says he is not a Holocaust denier but a Holocaust revisionist. However, he says: I have no objection to being called a "Holocaust denier" provided the meanings of terms are clear. The following has been on my website - http://pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/abhdhr.html - since 1997:

Arthur Butz: Holocaust Denial or Holocaust Revisionism?

A minor question that sometimes arises is the relative merits of the terms "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust revisionism" to describe the views on the Jewish "extermination" claim that I and others have expressed. Generally, my side says "Holocaust revisionism" and our enemies say "Holocaust denial". I did not originate either term.

I am willing to accept both terms under appropriate circumstances, but I usually say "Holocaust revisionism".

The problem with the term "Holocaust denial" is that it conveys, to most people, a false idea of what we say. For the typical person the term "Holocaust" refers to a complex of events. He thinks of Nazi persecution of Jews, concentration camps,

crematoria, dead bodies strewn about camps (especially Belsen) at the end of the war and, of course, "extermination" of millions of Jews in gas chambers located in some camps. Thus he tends to take the meaning of "Holocaust denial" as denial of all of these things, whereas we deny only the last among them. The effect is to make us seem, to passing observers, detached from reality.

In general I prefer the term "Holocaust revisionism" because it does not imply a complete rejection of all that is popularly understood by "Holocaust", and invites the observer to consider carefully what is being accepted and what is being rejected.

On the other hand I, and Holocaust revisionists generally, emphatically reject the "extermination" claim and, by implication, any figure of Jewish dead (due to Nazi policies) in the millions. Provided this is what is clearly meant by "Holocaust", I have no objection to calling my thesis "denial". Such a context of comprehension is sometimes difficult to achieve. An exception is when our enemies speak of us. They understand quite well what we do and do not claim, and they also understand that most in their audiences do not. Thus they use "denial" as a rhetorical device conveying an implicit false representation. **********

Dr. Arthur R. Butz was born and raised in New York City. He received his bachelor of science and master of science degrees in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1965 he received his doctorate in control sciences from the University of Minnesota. In 1966 he joined the faculty of Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois). Dr. Butz is the author of numerous technical papers and the book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry. The book is available from the Institute for Historical Review. Since 1980 he has been a member of the Editorial Advisory Committee of The Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review.

MS/HG - MNA - Publish date, Tehran: 2006/02/01, 15:43

My name is Joseph Bellinger - debunks@sbcglobal.net - and I am the author of the book, Himmlers Death - The Final Days of the Reichsführer-SS.

In 1999 I was invited by David Irving to deliver a lecture on this subject at his first Real History Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. Immediately thereafter, Mr Irving contracted with me to prepare a manuscript detailing the results of my sensational discovery. The preliminary manuscript was completed within a year's time, October, 2000, but was constantly updated as additional relevant evidence was released from the various archives in Great Britain and the United States. As it turns out, Mr Irving never honoured his promise to publish and so I sought another publisher.

Perhaps you are unaware that it was not Mr Martin Allen who initially struck upon evidence proving that Heinrich Himmler was murdered at the hands of his captors in May 1945. While Mr. Allen now has the rather dubious distinction of having discovered documents in the PRO which were subsequently declared to be forgeries, I had already completed my research into the bizarre and contradictory circumstances of Heinrich Himmler's death and thereafter signed a contract with Arndt Publishers in Kiel, Germany to publish that story - http://www.arndtverlag.de/homepages/himmlers-tod/index2.htm .

Unfortunately the editing of the manuscript was delayed by seven months, during which Martin's book was published before mine. Nevertheless, I must insist upon receiving the credit for having initially discovered the trail of evidence which led to a conclusion of foul play in the death of Heinrich Himmler, as well as other high-ranking officers of the SS. Furthermore, I did not rely on Mr Allen's documents to prove my case, since those documents were only said to have been released in 2003. Mr Allen's 'find' proved to be merely icing on the cake.

That being said, I find it very peculiar that Scotland Yard has yet to identify the culprit[s]? responsible for planting the alleged forgeries, even though they have been fully apprised of the internal investigation launched by officials at the PRO for four months now. As editors, do you not find this lack of response puzzling, in view of the seriousness of the charges? Certainly you are aware of the security precautions prevailing at the PRO, where visitors must present legal identification along with their request to view specific files and documents, and that their every movement is recorded by surveillance cameras?

Hopefully you will take the time to order my book and read it, and thereafter consider the evidence for yourselves.

[Note the false premise on which Ser’s thinking rests: He believes in the lies that make up the Holocaust. He does not say anything about the design ‘Holocaust’ mythology has on Germans – it is designed to exterminate them as a peoples – FT.]

I CAN’T cheer for the first United Nations-sponsored International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It’s just hard to think of anything related to the Holocaust as a victory, as far as Jews are concerned.

To be fair, it was quite an achievement for Israel to get the UN to pass the resolution establishing January 27, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, as a day for commemorating and teaching the lessons of the Holocaust. Together with a handful of other, mostly symbolic, moves in the UN this past year, it signals the body’s growing acceptance of Israel. Considering the rocky relationship that Israel has had with the UN throughout its history, that’s welcome news.

But it is worth asking why the UN needed six whole decades to declare the Holocaust “a unique evil which cannot simply be consigned to the past and forgotten”. Was it waiting for more evidence?

For survivors, this recognition comes way too late. And in Europe, where Holocaust memory is subjective, it probably won’t matter anyway. Germany has accepted full responsibility for the Holocaust and taken great strides to rectify what it can. But after that, the record of much of Europe is pretty ugly — ranging from the largely financial motives of certain states in erecting Holocaust monuments (to draw Jewish visitors and their tourism money), to the hypocrisy of countries that beat their chests over wartime crimes while tolerating modern antisemitism, to the offensive refusal of other states to even admit that their own citizens and officials willingly aided the Nazis in their genocidal scheme.

A remembrance day actually lets countries like these off the hook, allowing them to sweep their transgressions under the carpet as they pay lip service to “the horrible injustice against humanity that was unleashed on our continent”, blah, blah, blah...

Last year, during the highly-orchestrated 60^th-anniversary ceremonies at Auschwitz, more than a few respected figures in the world of Jewish causes/Holocaust commemoration shared with me their concern that the whole display was – at least in part – a way for world leaders to say, “Well, we can put all that behind us now, right?”

Then there is the question of the Holocaust legacy. Solemn homages to the Holocaust’s victims invariably devolve into the critique that genocidal massacres in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. show that the world has not learned the lesson of the Holocaust. Yes, the Holocaust has universal lessons for the rest of mankind. [How to establish Jewish Supremacism – FT] But it has a greater, Jewish lesson that is particular to us. What we have done with that profound and mesmerizing experience is turn it into little more than a genre. We have saturated the world with Holocaust movies, books, museums and speechy memorials. [- with all the willing helpers that cannot see through the charade of the Holocaust lies – FT] Hugely important as some of these have been, their sheer volume has also diluted Holocaust commemorations, making it less significant, and therefore less effective. The Holocaust is ceasing to be awesome, and is becoming downright common.

That doesn’t mean there is no longer a need to ensure that the Holocaust remains in the world’s consciousness or, indeed, in ours. Fundamentalist Muslims have taken up where Goebbels left off – attempting, as Iran’s president has done in recent months, to blot out the memory of the Holocaust, or to twist it and use it against us. The Arab world is awash with perversely antisemitic materials and Holocaust denial literature that is used – again, as in the case of Iran – to encourage the destruction of Israel and the persecution of Jews everywhere. [How can Arabs, who are Semites, be anti-semitic? = self-hating Arabs? Of course, the idea is to set up a premise for your enemy – as was done with the 9/11 terrorism scam – then use the premise to knock them down.]

Against such a threat, no Jew can afford to be complacent. What we should be, though, is discerning. And we can start by looking afresh at the way we choose to remember the Holocaust. [ Paraphrasing Prof Art Butz’s words, how healthy is it to base anything on an outright lie?]

For one thing, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz is the wrong date for such things. [It is also the Kaiser’s birthday!] By condensing the enormity of the Holocaust into one monstrous place, it homogenizes – even trivializes – the vast scope of the Nazis’ murderous campaign. [- again, an outright lie, according to expert Revisionists.] The unique pathos of each individual soul that suffered at their hands dulls and blends into a single (inadequate) narrative.

Another consequence is the perpetuation of the image of the Jew as victim – not as the religious, cultural and intellectual phenomenon that he is, but as one who is merely affected and does not affect others. In short, the world memorializes the Jew who left Auschwitz – either dead or alive. It does not, however, remember the Jew who went into Auschwitz.

Sam Ser is Jewish world editor of the Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.