Newsletter No 316

                                                                               ISSN 1440-9828
                                                   February 2007
                                                                                   No 316

Charlemagne, Slippery Slope

Holocaust denial is profoundly wrong. But should it be illegal?

The Economist, January 27, 2007

GOOD intentions are rarely enough. There is no doubt that in proposing to make Holocaust denial a crime throughout the European Union and to ban the display of the swastika (to some a 5,000-year-old symbol of peace), the German government is activated by the best of intentions. But caution applies even in this matter. One of the most moving books about the Holocaust, one describing the moral compromises forced upon leaders of the Judenräte, Jewish councils appointed by Nazis in the ghettos of Warsaw, Vilnius and Lodz, takes for its title the common adage about good intentions: “The Pavement of Hell”. As Jacques Chirac says, Holocaust denial is a perversion of the soul and a crime against truth. But that does not mean it should be a crime in law.

Criminalising it would obviously limit freedom of speech, one of the basic freedoms on which other liberties depend. But that alone is not a proper objection. Brigitte Zypries, the German justice minister, is surely justified when she says, “We believe there are limits to freedom of expression.” The question is where you draw those limits. In the liberal tradition, they have been put at the point where speech becomes a threat to others (hence child pornography is rightly banned; so is the proverbial shouting of “Fire” in a crowded theatre—at least if it is false).

But Ms Zypries goes further. History, she argues, puts Germany under a special obligation to combat racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. “We should not wait until it comes to deeds. We must act against the intellectual pathbreakers of the crime.” This is a much more controversial claim.

In its favour, one might cite the Holocaust itself. In describing Hitler's personal responsibility for “the final solution to the Jewish problem”, historians have mostly stressed its indirect character. He got his way not through written orders but through his minions' understanding of his hunger for extermination, expressed in “Mein Kampf”. So imagine if the book had been banned: might that have struck at the “intellectual pathbreaker” of the greatest of crimes? At a time when Iranians have elected a Holocaust denier as president and when the leader of a new far-right group in the European Parliament is facing charges of Holocaust denial in France, it cannot be said that there are no politically influential Holocaust deniers around.

But one is still entitled to ask whether the proposed remedies would actually work. Eleven European countries already have national laws against Holocaust denial—Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. These countries contain most of Europe's largest racist and xenophobic parties. Perhaps one might turn the argument around and say that Nazism is such a threat in those countries that anti-Nazi laws are justified. But even if that were true—and the claim is surely an exaggeration—it would only justify having laws there, not throughout the EU. Anyway, the German government's argument is different. It says laws against Holocaust denial can help stop anti-Semitism before it really starts—which seems highly doubtful.

Laws against Holocaust denial also come up against the rule of unintended consequences. In theory, outlawing Holocaust denial would put an end to the belief, except for a few misguided hold-outs who would be dealt with by the impartial majesty of the law. In practice, the courts would be just as likely to end up giving publicity to the hateful views of people like David Irving, a British “historian” who was sentenced to prison amid fanfare in Austria. Or they could become circuses for cases like that of Britain's Prince Harry, who wore a swastika-emblazoned uniform to a fancy dress party but was merely pilloried for it in the press since Britain does not ban Nazi regalia. Or the courts would make idiots of themselves, as happened in the case of a Stuttgart clothing company which sold T-shirts with swastikas crossed out to show opposition to fascism: the manager was prosecuted.

Where might it end?

Holocaust-denial laws, then, may not be the best way of dealing with the problem of Holocaust denial. In addition, they impose their own, often hidden, costs. Such laws can take you down a slippery slope. One may think the Holocaust was a uniquely dreadful event. Even so, it is hard, once you have passed a Holocaust-denial law, not to extend it. Asked why the EU proposed to pass a law about the genocide victims of one of 20th-century Europe's totalitarian ideologies (fascism) but not the other (communism), Ms Zypries replied it was just a matter of timing. By implication, the EU will one day propose banning gulag-denial too. This may seem fine, but sooner or later genocide-denial laws end up restricting expressions that might cause ethnic or religious offence. They can quickly result in a lot of speech-restricting laws.

All this may seem an exaggeration, but remember that many European countries do have anti-incitement rules already. French law, for example, imposes sanctions on those who deny crimes against humanity or who express racist points of view. When Ms Zypries defended restricting free speech, she went on to say that “the limits are there when it is offensive to other religious and ethnic groups.” This is close to saying something is a crime if the victim says so—an unhappy legal principle, and an encouragement for people to take offence at every opportunity.

Holocaust denial laws are wrong whoever imposes them. But they are at least understandable in countries where Nazism had indigenous roots. No such excuse can be made for the European Union as a whole. In addition to all the other problems, an EU-wide Holocaust law offends against the principle that laws should be enacted at the lowest possible level of government, not the highest. If European politicians want to do something about Holocaust denial, perhaps they should worry more about the government of Iran, which contains a Holocaust-denier one really needs to worry about. Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

JAILING OPINIONS

Freedom of Speech; 3: Heresy Trials - Produced by Lady Michele Renouf

Running time 116 mins. Three Chapter Format: 1: Illegal Opinions; 2:

Reviewed by Arthur R. Butz, Dec. 29, 2006

DISCLAIMER: It is not to be presumed that JAILING OPINIONS is endorsed by the British historian David Irving, who could not access this film while imprisoned.

Jailing Opinions. A documentary exploring the criminalization of normal historical enquiry and expression, including first-hand accounts from those attending the trial of British historian David Irving who was incarcerated in Vienna, Austria, [and released on 21 December 2007] for talking about events that happened (or not, as the case may be) more than sixty years ago. A DVD produced and narrated by Lady Michele Renouf and published in Sept. 2006. Available online at www.noontide press.com/catalog/

My earlier review (SR #133, November, 2006 www.codoh. com/report/sr133.html, see following item, is assumed to be fresh in the mind of the reader. Again I shall use the term “revisionist” as synonymous with “Holocaust revisionist” and “Holocaust denier”, and I apply “confrontation” and “credentials” as important tests in evaluating a DVD intended for the layman viewer.

This DVD is generally professionally done. In its production Lady Renouf applied well her background as a model and actress. For example there are observations made, relating to the subliminal aspects of the media treatment of the persecution of revisionists, that I would not have noticed unaided.

David Irving was arrested in Austria in November 2005 for denying, in 1989 in an exchange with a Vienna journalist, that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz. In February he was sentenced to three years imprisonment. His case is the basis of this DVD. The case of Ernst Zündel is also treated but only to a relatively small extent, and the case of Robert Faurisson gets even less notice. This review, therefore, is mainly an exercise in weighing David Irving and our relationship to him.

Submission of this review was delayed by the editor’s participation in the Tehran conference and by the Christmas holiday. When during that recess Irving was released on probation hasty changes were required here. Lady Renouf has been closely associated with David Irving since the Lipstadt trial in 2000, when she was attracted to the case by Irving’s public comments that Jews should be more concerned with why they are scorned rather than how. At Irving’s invitation, she sat at his side throughout the trial. After Irving lost this civil action, Renouf invited Irving and Count Nikolai Tolstoy (a long-standing family friend) to a Russian dinner-discussion at the elite “Reform Club” on London’s Pall Mall, where she was a member of ten years’ standing. Both historians sat as her guests at that evening’s Current Affairs Society top table. The following day a cabal demanded, and got, Irving’s banning from future Club functions, but failed to get Renouf’s expulsion. However, after her nomination to an important committee had again made her membership controversial, an amplified campaign succeeded in winning her expulsion in 2003.

Renouf was studying for a Master’s degree in Psychology of Religion at Heythrop College of the University of London during 1999 - 2001 when she was asked to “study elsewhere”. She has visited jailed revisionists in Austria and Germany and attended the July 2006 trial of Robert Faurisson in Paris. In summary, Lady Renouf knows the score because she learned it the hard way or, if you wish, the easy way.

David Irving is a military historian of major achievement. Prof. Harold C. Deutsch, a President of the Conference Group on Central European History, an important official of the wartime OSS and later an interrogator of Nazis at Nuremberg, and then at the U.S. Army War College, wrote (American Historical Review, June 1978, p. 758) that Irving’s book on Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, entitled The Trail of the Fox, “is another example of extraordinary enterprise and ingenuity in ferreting out material others have overlooked or have resigned themselves to do without. His success here is as dazzling as in Hitler’s War.

“… Aspiring biographers who are less well equipped with personally-discovered material will perforce hesitate to follow The Trail of the Fox.”

To those who complain that Irving has no Ph.D. in history, or even a university diploma, I reply that such an endorsement is much harder to get than a Ph.D. in history.

This glowing evaluation of Irving as a military historian does not apply to Irving as a revisionist, and I believe a retrospective view of his record on the Jewish aspect is necessary. It has been erratic from the beginning.

It started, as far as I know, with the publication in 1975 of Hitler und Seine Feldherren, the German version of Hitler’s War, which finally made its appearance in 1977. In the Introduction Irving declared that “The Diary of Anne Frank” had been authored by Meyer Levin. I knew that to be a story that had been bouncing around in dubiously sourced publications at the time and I was surprised that a historian of Irving’s stature had not taken the trouble to confirm the story before passing it along in a book. Levin was involved in the English language adaptation for the stage, not the original Dutch-language book.

Hitler’s War did not advance that claim, but it did advance what became Irving’s most controversial thesis, supported by an illogical interpretation of some personal notes of Himmler, arguing that while the physical exterminations of Jews took place, Hitler did not order them, was opposed to them, and was unaware of them until late in the war.

Irving’s first appearance at a conference of the Institute for Historical Review came in 1983, his lecture being published in the Winter 1984 issue of the Journal of Historical Review www.ihr.org/ jhr/ v05/v05p251_Irving.html.

He devoted many words to the Jewish aspect, but his remarks were enigmatic and useless. Though it seemed that he accepted the extermination legend as it applied to Auschwitz, he ended up declaring that he will not “go into the controversy here about the actual goings-on inside Auschwitz, or other extermination or concentration camps. We do know in the meantime that Dachau is a legend, that everything that people found in Dachau was in fact installed there by the Americans after the war - rather like Disneyland . . . .”

I wondered what was the point of going into the Jewish aspect at all while disregarding the problem of Auschwitz; that’s the elephant in the living room! As for the remarks about Dachau, they reminded me of the earlier remarks about Meyer Levin, as I had seen them in similar dubious publications. The Dachau crematorium was real, the delousing gas chamber was real, and the shower was real. Some modifications may have been made to the shower to help pass it off as a gas chamber, but that doesn’t make the place a “Disneyland”. The remark made it clear that, even at that late date, Irving did not understand the problem.

A serious involvement with revisionism came in 1988 in the second Zundel trial, with the appearance of the Leuchter Report. Irving seemed convinced and even published his own version of the Report. However his subsequent behavior was erratic, evasive and vacillating and many of us were losing patience with him. In 1995 Irving said that the number of Jews who died from all causes “might have been as many as four million” and, in communicating with Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review, based this opinion on the well-known Korherr Report, discussed in many revisionist publications. At that point I lost patience and advised Weber to stop presenting Irving as a revisionist leader.

From that point on, I did as I had advised Weber and I have not been confounded. However Irving had, until his arrest in Austria, what I considered the most current web site from the revisionist point of view, because I looked at it almost every day for recent news stories of interest.

In 2002 the Journal of Historical Review respectfully published Irving’s opinion that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, just near Auschwitz www.ihr.org/jhr/ v21/v21n3p29_irving.html, but this only confirmed what I had by then been expecting from Irving. I was upset only that this descent into what could pass for slapstick comic revisionism was a feature in the demise of that once-great Journal, which died with that issue. In an article in Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 2000), during the Irving-Lipstadt trial, D.D. Guttenplan remarked that “What David Irving actually believes about the Holocaust remains mysterious …. Irving’s arguments have a quicksilver quality, and over time he has occupied a number of contradictory positions.” Right on! That is why veteran revisionists do not consider him a comrade, and that is why our enemies who know better delight in representing him as revisionist no. 1.

Lady Renouf’s objectives are not revisionist, and no deep revisionist knowledge is evident here. She is mainly interested in fighting Jewish bullying. Since Irving’s revisionist status is problematical, therefore, we must ask whether the centrality of Irving in Renouf’s DVD serves the revisionist objectives that I have defined. Applying the tests of credentials and confrontation, it does serve those objectives, but I have caveats.

The DVD establishes Irving’s credentials as an important historian of World War II. Confrontation on “Holocaust” issues, indeed successful confrontation, is established here, ironically, by noting an aspect of Irving’s most infamous defeat: the Lipstadt trial in 2000. For reasons not worth exploring here, in that libel trial the reality of the gas chambers became an important issue, and at that point Irving was arguing there were none at Auschwitz. Irving had both been denied the support of important revisionists in arguing that issue, and he had also eschewed such support (remember, Irving has to be ambiguous or contradictory on the “Holocaust” - don’t blame the apparent contradiction on me!).

However his arguments obviously drew on the copious revisionist literature so effectively that the judge conceded (judgment of 11 April 2000) his surprise at the overturning of some of his assumptions, conceding that Irving “is right to point out that the contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of diseases such as typhus.”

Irving should not have been surprised when the judge ruled against him anyway, affirming his continued belief in the gas chambers on the basis of the usual arguments, based mainly on testimonies, this time put to the court by defense expert Robert Jan van Pelt and later published as the book The Case for Auschwitz. As for the missing holes in the roofs of the morgues, the judge even embraced van Pelt’s explanation (pp. 370f, 406 of the book) by ruling “There is a possibility that the holes were backfilled.” The logic as presented by van Pelt is flawed on several grounds, but this is not the place to examine it.

Irving’s views on the “Holocaust” have been unclear, to put it delicately. However there is no lack of clarity on this fact: Austria imprisoned a major historian for expressing dissenting historical views, these views being of conceded weight as historiography. This DVD brings all that out nicely.

Now the devil’s side. Shortly after his release, AP reported that Irving “said he had been obliged to express regret during the court case but now had ‘no need any longer to show remorse.’” The euphoria of some revisionists was understandable, as the words seemed to confirm their assumptions. They should have looked at what followed: “During his one-day trial earlier this year, Irving pleaded guilty to the charge of denying the Holocaust but maintained he never questioned it in the first place.”

Then Irving gave an interview to The Guardian, posted on Dec. 22, repeating his claim that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, just near Auschwitz. He added that the Reinhard camps were the “real killing centres” but that the Nazis had extinguished all traces of them. “This has screwed up the tourist trade, so they concentrated on Auschwitz instead.” He is no revisionist, and I am sure that fact had much to do with his early release.

My main concern in relation to Irving is wondering how much damage he will do to the public image of revisionism, now that he is free again, especially as he seems to love the limelight. However, and I have thought this over carefully, I don’t believe any such damage will come as a consequence of this DVD, which delivers exactly what it offers.

Bottom line: buy this DVD and promote it. It proves to the intelligent layman that there is something very rotten in the state of “Holocaust awareness”.

Available from Telling Films, PO Box 18812, LONDON SW7 4WD, UK Tele/fax +44 207 460 7453. Email address: tellingfilms@hush.com. Suggested donation towards the making of the film: US $19.99 plus $6.00 p&p. Available online at www.noontidepress.com/catalog/.

*Review first appeared in Smith’s Report, No 135 January/February 2007 www.Codoh.com Bradley R Smith, PO Box 439016, San Ysidro, CA 92143, USA

Here I shall use the term "revisionist" as synonymous with "Holocaust revisionist" and "Holocaust denier". This new DVD explores the imprisonment and other persecution of revisionists. It is timely. On account of laws criminalizing revisionism Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel are in prison in Germany and David Irving in Austria. Dr. Robert Faurisson recently received a suspended three-month prison sentence in France and was ordered to pay a fine. These are only the most prominent victims as I write.

These events have not gone unnoticed in the media. Historian David Irving, in particular, is a household name and the British press and others have editorialized against his imprisonment. However, the press support for Irving's release falls far short of satisfying revisionists, because that support is formulated in such a way that it could also be applied to flat-earthers. The gist of such support is that everybody is entitled to say ridiculous things.

Why?

It is significant that, until the mid-70s, there was little legally enforced persecution of revisionists in Europe or elsewhere. Books by Paul Rassinier and others had circulated free of official interference, however loud some protests. The screws were tightened in the 80s, and the 1990 passage of the Fabius-Gayssot law in France was a watershed event. Orwell's 1984 arrived about on schedule. The past must not be investigated. We are now a select minority chosen as victims of blatant hypocrisy.

What changed? Very simple: the considerable intellectual merit of revisionism had become obvious. For example the earlier works of Rassinier were honorable efforts, but they could not be reasonably compared to the work of Faurisson. I do not intend to belabor this further: our work is persecuted because it is good, and therefore threatens the crown jewels.

Our Evaluation

Our evaluation of Mark Farrell's DVD, therefore, asks the fundamental question of whether or to what extent it explains the preceding to the viewer. Mere proof that First Amendment standards of free speech are being violated isn't good enough. By "viewer" I mean those who are sometimes called "intelligent lay-men". The personal reactions of convinced revisionists are unimportant except as they evaluate this DVD as instruction for the intelligent layman.

A DVD has limitations. It can't transmit the content of revisionist theory and research in the sense of our books and past articles in full-length journals (e.g. the defunct Journal of Historical Review). How then does a DVD convince the viewer, or at least make plausible to him, that revisionists are persecuted because their work is intellectually consequential? This is a fundamental difficulty but there are some effective remedies. One is to argue from credentials, that is, the public stature of the victims apart from their revisionist work, as I shall illustrate presently. Another is to show confrontation or relevance, i.e. that revisionists are confronting matters that the popular press has made notorious in support of the "Holocaust" legend, and which almost every-body has encountered, e.g. Auschwitz.

I recently expressed myself to university students on the persecution, in my article in the student newspaper Daily Northwestern of 14 Feb. 2006, available on the web:

www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2006/02/14/Forum/Iran-Has.The.U.s.s. Number-1920928.shtml).

Of course I think the way I did it is exactly the way it should be done, otherwise I would not have done it that way! I am, therefore, a biased reviewer, but the only practical alternative to a biased reviewer is a reviewer who doesn't understand the subject. To relieve such a suspicion of a conflict-of-interest, it should be noted that the format of my presentation was quite different from, and the content not suitable for, a DVD.

The foregoing being understood, does this DVD accomplish what I think it ought to? I have some serious concerns.

I shall forgive my name being pronounced "boots", and being given short shrift; I have not been persecuted to an extent comparable to other revisionists anyway. My main complaints are that obvious opportunities to argue confrontation or credentials are not taken, and the substance of revisionism is unintentionally misrepresented.

Dr. Fredrick Töben, who was jailed in Germany in 1999, is shown prowling about the ruins of the crematoria and alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz. The viewer will wonder where Töben is and what he is looking for or has found. Sadly, nothing in the sound track or captions indicates he is at Auschwitz, or is examining alleged gas chambers. Confrontation was not pointed out. It would have taken only a few words.

Dr. Robert Faurisson gets only a brief passing notice as a French professor who was beaten up because "Jewish Holocaust enforcers . . . . considered him to be a revisionist," a wording that suggests Faurisson is at best a closet revisionist. In fact the Fabius-Gayssot law started out as a virtual bill of attainder against Faurisson! Everybody in France knew that. How could he be treated as a minor character in this context? While Faurisson is identified as an academic, his academic specialty, "criticism of texts and documents", served his revisionism well, and is evident in his writings even today, but the specialty is not mentioned. An opportunity to argue from credentials was bypassed, and a few more words would have shown confrontation.

The case of Fred Leuchter is important because, while he was not prosecuted in the USA, he was blacklisted by our legal system. His executions equipment business was ruined because of his revisionist gas chamber investigations. His case shows that legally-sanctioned repression exists in the USA as well. Incredibly, Farrell notices Leuchter only as somebody who served some jail time in Germany! He is not even identified as an American, let alone our leading execution technologist. A starkly obvious opportunity to argue credentials and confrontation was not taken. That appalls me.

As noted, a DVD can't do full justice to revisionist research, but this DVD misleads the viewer on its principal thrust. It is stated early that revisionists have been persecuted for stating "the truth", promising to answer the question "what do these revisionists have to say?" Specifically, it presents "what life was truly like in the German concentration camps" based on old films of Nazi origin to depict Jewish life under the Nazis. This material is in the central position and takes up almost half the time and will therefore be interpreted by the viewer as representing the revisionist position. Though it is eventually stated that "these camps were not paradises", the general impression left is that the Jews had an almost idyllic existence under the Nazis.

This impression is not representative of revisionist work. Revisionists are not being persecuted for suggesting Jewish life under the Nazis was idyllic. Revisionism has always centered on a negative: we say certain things did not happen ("deniers"). In so arguing, we must of course indicate at least tangentially some things that did happen, but what happened has not been our basic aim. The segments depicting Jewish life should be published, but not as representative of revisionism. Caution: the subject of what happened to the Jews is multi-faceted, no simple generalizations can be made, and I don't believe a single DVD could do justice to the question.

The general message that the intelligent layman will get from this DVD is that revisionists, of unknown intellectual credentials, are being persecuted for saying that Jewish life under Hitler was idyllic, though the contrary is stated there with a few words. Such distortion of our message is disturbing.

The Glass is More Than Half Full

Now that the devil's side has been heard I remark that, until Farrell came along, revisionist activity in the area of video productions was limited, consisting mainly of lectures delivered, in most cases at our meetings, and in some cases in camps. Many features of Farrell's DVD, and earlier ones he has produced, are quite professional. For example, he understands the need for frequent scene changes, the value of contemporaneous film clips, and the futility of extended abstract argument in such a format. In this connection, however, I advise that background music is not always necessary, and his choices strike me as weird and in some cases even eerie.

I think that this sort of professionalism dominated to the detriment of other needs. Availability of archived film or video trumped other considerations, or so it seems to me.

Though at the end he acknowledges help from several people, Farrell tried to do too much personally. He was producer, editor, director, historian, engineer, distributor and shipping clerk, probably from his kitchen table. The only thing he didn't do, apparently, was the narration. He needs at least one more working collaborator of solid revisionist knowledge. Then we will have a revisionist video house of real consequence.

The bottom line: revisionists should buy this DVD, but use it cautiously outside revisionist circles.

Available from: Honest Media Today www.HonestMediaToday.com/products.htm

$22 postpaid anywhere. Also available from Amazon.com, or from Mark Farrell; PO Box 141243; Cincinnati, Ohio 45250-1243; USA. 50 minutes.

Sawyer: What did you think when you saw the hanging of Hussein? He was your enemy?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, but who equipped this enemy? Who made him fight with the U.S. for eight years? Who supported him? The U.S. administration. The U.S. administration could support us.

Sawyer: Did you feel sympathy?

Ahmadinejad: What about you? Did you have any kind of sympathy?

Sawyer: I'm a journalist, I get to ask you.

Ahmadinejad: But you've come here in the disguise of politician, I guess.

Sawyer: No, I am a journalist, solely a journalist.

Ahmadinejad: Well, naturally when a criminal is eliminated, all the people will be happy, but we think that if the U.S. administration had not supported Saddam he would never have attacked Iran or Kuwait.

Nuclear Weapons

Sawyer: If you could have a nuclear weapon today, tomorrow, would you want one?

Ahmadinejad: Well, our position is clear: We are opposed to any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. We believe that the time is now over for nuke weapons. It is a time for logic, for rationality and for civilization. Instead of thinking of finding new weapons, we are trying to find new ways to love people. And if talking about the "Death to America" slogans, I think you know it yourself, it is not related in any way to American public. Our people have no problem with American public, and we have a very friendly relationship.

Sawyer: Quick question about the nuclear issue if I may. & A negotiator seems to be saying there will be settlement, that Iran is ready to settle the outstanding issues before or at least soon. Is Iran ready to settle issues?

Ahmadinejad: When it comes to & within framework of regulations, we're always ready to cooperate. We've always cooperated, and we'll continue to cooperate. We want to have dialogue, but within the framework of regulations and & on a fair basis. If regulations are used as a tool of inquisition though.

Sawyer: So this should be solved within 10 days before sanctions imposed? Additional sanctions?

Ahmadinejad: I think my answer was clear. We are always ready to talk in the framework of regulation. & As long as rights of human nationals are safeguarded. You see tens of millions took to the streets yesterday and insisted to have & what belongs to them. We are a member of the agency, and we intend to have what we are entitled to. & Within this framework we are ready to negotiate.

Sawyer: Are you still heading toward the 3,000 centrifuges? Is that what you will announce April 9?

Ahmadinejad: The ninth of April? Am I supposed to give any piece of news?

Sawyer: Yesterday you said.

Ahmadinejad: Did you listen to what I said?

Sawyer: I don't speak Farsi but.

Ahmadinejad: Well, we will say it clear when the time comes, we are the only country whose activities are completely transparent and we will just inform the world if we do something.

Sawyer: I talked to IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency ] yesterday, and they say something different, that there are gaps, but I'd like to move on if I can & because the president has said we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Do you think America is preparing to take military action against Iran?

Ahmadinejad: Well, of course the current president doesn't feel obliged to speak within the framework of law. He thinks to be above the law. We work within the framework of the agency, and we work based on laws and regulations and we want to have what we are entitled to, not war. I think it's quite clear. And President Bush cannot pass the buck to others and and solve the problems of Iraq by pointing fingers.

Israel and the Holocaust

Sawyer: Let's turn to Israel for a moment. I do not want to debate again the whole question of the Holocaust -- whether the Holocaust is a myth, which you have said. Would you be willing to go to Auschwitz and see their documentation? You're a scientist. Would you be willing to look at the room with documentation?

Ahmadinejad: Do you think it would solve any problem?

Sawyer: It would be information for you if you genuinely believe it's a myth.

Ahmadinejad: Well, one of the methods used for concealing the truth is diverting a topic. Question is if Holocaust is true. 1/2 To the Palestinian issue, why for the excuse of the Holocaust we have an illegitimate government in Palestine? Why in the name of Holocaust we allow people to occupy the land and make refugees and kill children? There are the questions that must be answered by American politicians, not to divert the attention.

If something has happened in the past of historical nature, then why are people sensitive to it now, and if it's not related to the Palestinian issue & they should tell us where it is relevant. If it is unimportant and if it is true, then open the way to research. & These are serious questions. I have nothing to do with these questions of course.

I'm asking why, for the excuse of Holocaust, we have an imposed regime here in the region with 60 years of invasion, making people refugees. We say that Palestinian children and women they are people & and love their homeland and if someone comes to the U.S. and with some pretense and some phony excuse, establishes a government and kills children, it's a serious question. You cannot let this question to go unanswered. This is a very serious question. The relationship, Holocaust and the & massacre of Palestinians. This is the question.

Sawyer: You have said Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. You have said that anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in fire of Islam's fury. Do you still say those things? Do you still want to say those things today? And & if the Palestinian issue, from those talks, if they agree there should be two states, would you accept Israel into the United Nations?

Ahmadinejad: It seems that you are to broadcast everything. Is that true?

Sawyer: Yes.

Ahmadinejad: You know some people cut the interview. They do not broadcast in full. And what we have said about Palestine, it's quite clear, based on the charter of the U.N., based on international regulations, we say let Palestinians decide. & Please allow the Palestinians to decide. Please respect their decision. But please give them the opportunity for decision making.

If what happened to the former Soviet Union, it disappeared, it disappeared from the face of the Earth, was it because of war? No, it was through the decision of the people and what we say is quite clear.

Sawyer: But burn in the fire?

Ahmadinejad: I will tell you, just wait a little. Just be patient and listen. We believe that in Palestine, there should be a referendum and Palestinians, Muslims, Jews, any Palestinians, and this is based on international regulations and I think it's their right to determine their future. Any decision made by Palestinians must be respected, and I think this is a very clear proposition.

Why are people opposed, what we say is clear. If you continue massacring innocent people, if you continue to make them refugees, and if you continue attacking neighboring countries, then the countries and the people of those countries, regions & get angry, because the Zionist regime was imposed upon them.

You know many families, they don't function & where their members are either incarcerated or killed. & Many mothers are now mourning the death of their children.

Even the Palestinian government, which was elected by democratic vote, is attacked by the Zionist regime. Members of the Parliament are arrested. The ministers are arrested. Israel is not following regulations. & Some American politicians support oppression. There is no other solution.

Full interview: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2873425

Also: Sawyer Answers Questions, Reveals Surprise About Ahmadinejad. Diane Sawyer Talks About Ahmadinejad's Unlikely Habit, the Hajib Scarf and Iranian Women, Feb. 13, 2007:

From: John Weir

weirwolf@HotPOP.com

Sent: Monday, 8 January 2007

To: Adelaide Institute

Subject: Re: FW: Irving-ing around

Revisionism is a label. In mainstream politics and media revisionist is a synonym for liar. Really, revisionism is an objective approach to the rewriting of history. So, the biased call the unbiased liars without explaining where the lie is.

I agree that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is a sign of insanity. Therefore, trying something different after failure is the rational approach to all endeavors.

The Germans are a victim of circumstance when it come to the Holocaust lie. The Holocaust is used as a metaphor by "the rabbis" to describe the Jewish identity. Slavery under the Egyptians was used before the war. I can't remember which Jew said it, but he said all Jewish holidays could be explained in three sentences: "They tried to kill us. They failed. Let's eat!" So, the Jewish world view is one of paranoia. Germans play the role of "they" in this. They will continue the play this role until Jews find a better "they."

But it goes beyond that. Nazi Germany plays a role in American domestic politics. Nazi Germany is the example for why U.S. foreign policy has to be aggressive. Up until December 1941, the American people did not support participation in a foreign war, and especially not after World War I. President John Q. Adams, in 1821, that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." Since then, American government has decided going abroad in search of monsters to destroy is the American way. Poor old Germany has been made the monster to justify the repudiation of Adams. It is the nature of government to accumulate power through the destruction of liberty. In order to justify restrictions on liberty, the promise of security is made. Goering said that in order to promote support of government policy a foreign threat can to be created in order to "drag the people along". This observation by Goering is applicable to both American government tactics and the formation of Jewish identity.

I am sorry, but revisionists have, so far, been inept at getting most people to believe the obvious, or to even take the time and effort to know what revisionists have to say. I feel sorry for anyone who believes Germany's image depends on the success of revisionists. For the record, I don't believe Germans deserved the destruction heaped upon them during World War Two. I don't believe Germans deserve the goose-stepping Nazi image that has been put on them for the last three generations. It is absurd to think 1933-1945 defines the total of German history or accurately describes the German personality - especially not the caricature of the Hollywood Nazi that has become so cliche'.

As long as people find government pronouncements credible, or as long as government finds the Nazi image useful, Germany is going to suffer. Nietzsche wrote that the state lies about everything and everything it has it has stolen. This is true and people have to understand that. Germans best not look to revisionists for salvation, they had best look to themselves. The tools are out on the Internet. The information is there. Take it up! Germans arise! All you have to lose are your chains. Then again, there is comfort and security in servitude. Either way, I wish you all the best of luck.

John
Adelaide Institute wrote:

From: Dagmar Brenne

danaemet@ceinternet.com.au

Sent: Sunday, 7 January 2007 3:18 PM

Subject: Fw: Irving-ing around

Dear wise and learned Revisionists! Is revisionism a science? An academic platform? A worldview according to irrefutable proof?

Adjustments is the thing to be done, Lady and gentlemen! Adjustments!

Let me explain:

1- When Christóbal Colón sailed to America and did not fall off the edge of the world into the abyss--Science had to adjust its views--the world was not flat but round!

2- When it was finally scientifically discovered that butterflies did hatch from of caterpillars--science had to adjust once again and not burn poor women as witches who had maintained this at their peril.

3- When Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis linked the high mortality rate of women in childbirth to cross contamination, science had to adjust--with handwashing and hygiene.

Revisionists! Where is the adjustment?

Even though the colossal Holocaust lie has been exposed many times by Revisionists, often their attitude toward my German people has not been adjusted. Deep down Revisionists are often still hostile toward the first victim of the enormous fraud, the whipping boy Germany.

There appears to exist a schizophrenic attitude in regard to Germans:

NO--the Holocaust did not take place as prescribed

But--YES, the Germans deserved all they got, because they are Germans!

Revisionists, my German nation needs to be reinstated in honour, prestige, reputation, culture, language, in every respect, starting with the small band of people in the know, the Revisionsists, YOU, Lady and gentlemen!

I expect no less than the LIBERATON of my German people from shame, guilt and financial exploitation.

The Pariah-Status of Germans has to cease!

Yours sincerely,

Dagmar Brenne.

JAILING OPINIONS

Reviewed by Arthur R. Butz, Dec. 29, 2006

Our Darkest Hour

The Persecution of Revisionists. The Holocaust Unveiled .

EXCLUSIVE: Iranian President Calls Holocaust An 'Excuse'

Ready To Cooperate On Nukes,

Hanson will share stage with Holocaust denier

By Greg Roberts, February 15, 2007