ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (ERIC HUNT) BITES THE DUST By Jim Rizoli & Diane King

ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (Eric Hunt) BITES THE DUST

By Jim Rizoli & Diane King

FIRST EMAIL:

From: Diane King <dianekayking@hotmail.com>
Subject: ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (Eric Hunt) BITES THE DUST
Date: February 15, 2017 at 10:41:59 AM PST

Jim and I have received a response from Eric Hunt about my inquiry: “Did Eric Hunt Write This” and we responded to it. (These letters are in a separate email.) Below are OUR responses to the news of Eric Hunt’s capitulation. Diane

“ERIC HUNT: For over a decade I have devoted a great deal of my life to investigating what is known as “The Holocaust.” I’ve endured 18 months imprisonment, overwhelming hardships, and live life as an outcast due to my activism as a Holocaust skeptic. All along, I claimed I was looking for the truth and out to tell the truth. I have determined I have reached “the end of the line” in the extent relevant research in the central issue of the “Holocaust denial” debate is able to go.”

JIM RIZOLI: Another HoloHoax truther bites the dust….Why are these people retreating from the revisionist camp? Are they being threatened? No matter…..I still will stick to my hardcore revisionist views until I can be proven wrong with FACTS and not just what ifs, and maybes. I notice that this article supposedly by Eric Hunt seems like it came off the skeptics site….maybe they are his new friends.

DIANE KING: I would like to thank Joe Rizoli for finding and sharing this ‘reversal’ and Germar Rudolf for confirming this unexpected issue. (My letter response to Germar Rudolf):

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

WE ARE A FACT-BASED not a FAITH-BASED movement. Now, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool, 100%, BORN AGAIN BELIEVER – Christian. I wouldn’t say my belief system is based exclusively on faith … OR facts. I believe there are plenty of FACTS to support my faith. There are so many things we CAN’T PROVE in our ‘faith,’ but having come to understand the Lord’s character, I have no problem with my inability to prove everything about GOD.

Having said that, THAT isn’t the way it is in the revisionist world. We springboard FROM the facts and nearly EVERYTHING can be proven. So, I’m appalled at this “bailing” mindset. How can you turn your back on the facts!!!!

It’s like NO ONE has suffered but him. (Not to minimize what he’s been through). MANY soldiers of truth – Germar, Leuchter, Faurisson, Fredrick, Deckert, Fromm – a number of us in lesser AND greater degrees — have suffered too. We haven’t ‘bailed’ on the truth. But bottom line is the facts addressing the specific points concerning the claims of the holohoax are nearly indisputable. So because of this, isn’t this PC-incorrect issue worth fighting for????!!! It’s like he’s been tortured (as it seemed were David Cole and David Irving) until he RECANTED. So once he does, instead of the peace he seeks, he will continue to be hounded to keep him in line.

So what’s he going to do now? More articles denouncing what HE KNOWS is the truth??? Go on the road and try to ingratiate himself back into his tormentor’s good graces? If nothing else, what is going on with Ingrid and Ernst Zundel should prove THERE IS NOT ENOUGH GROVELING you can do – when you resist them, YOU ARE MARKED FOR LIFE.

Jim and I will be pursuing this further (stay tuned for further correspondence).

Eric Hunt’s Kapitulation

Jim and Diane’s Response to Eric Hunt

Dear Eric:

Diane and I collaborated with our response, as this was a big discussion point with us, to make sure the wording and sentiment were precise. This may be long, but we took the time to read yours. You can do us the courtesy of reading ours.

I appreciate your response but you still haven’t proven anything … you sound like you’re coming from the Skeptics (forum) crowd who continue to uphold the Holohoax theories 100?, where not only do they just emote on certain points, but they ridicule and punish counter arguments by censorship. I’m not saying that the National Socialist Germans were angels. I don’t maintain that – it was wartime – but had they wanted to exterminate ANYONE, you KNOW they’d have come up with extremely MORE EFFICIENT means than drafty/questionable facilities using a less than effective agent — Zyklon B. or whatever silly method they say. (By the way, your using the term ‘gassing’ for the means of extermination suggests you’ve bailed on scientific proof.) Have you even considered the other ridiculous methods that were said to have been used? Have you heard about these? Eric do you really believe this below? Have you even read revisionist literature?

Killing methods
Holocaust or Hoax book Jurgen Graf. 55

If we trace the evolution of the Holocaust yarn over the years since 1942, we stumble across one surprise after the other. In particular, innumerable methods of mass killing of which there is not the slightest mention in the later literature, are described in the most graphic detail, particularly:

a) Pneumatic hammers
This method is described as follows in a report of the Polish resistance movement on Auschwitz (23): “When the Kommandos went to work, they led them into the courtyard in the penal company where the executions took place by means of a ‘pneumatic hammer’. They bound the prisoners’ hands together behind their backs and brought them in, one after the other, naked, into the courtyard. They placed them in front of the barrel of an air gun, which was discharged without a sound. The hammer crushed the skull, and the compressed air destroyed the entire brain.”

b) Electric baths
As reported by the Polish resistance movement, the following method was also commonly used in Auschwitz (24): “According to the report of an SS officer, the number of victims in the electrical chambers amounted, unofficially, to 2,500 per night. The executions took place in electrical baths…”

c) Electrical assembly line killing
Another variant was described by Pravda on 2 February, five days after the liberation of Auschwitz: “They (the Germans) opened up the so-called ‘old graves’ in the eastern part of the camp, removed the bodies, and wiped out the trace of the assembly linekilling installation where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electrical current.”

d) Atomic bombs
At the Nuremberg Trial, US prosecutor Robert Jackson made the following accusation (25): “A village, a small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them; the explosive used developing temperatures of from four to five hundred degrees Centigrade.”

e) Burning alive
Elie Wiesel, honored with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, was interned at Auschwitz from the spring of 1944 until January 1945. In his memoirs of the camp, La Nuit, published in 1958, he never mentions the gas chambers — not once, not with one single word — even though 400,000 Hungarian Jews, among others, are said to have been gassed during his period of internment. (In the German translation, which appeared under the title of Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa, the gas chambers nevertheless make a miraculous appearance, for the simple reason that, whenever the word “crématoire” appears in the original, the translator has mistranslated it as “Gaskammer”). According to Wiesel, the Jews were exterminated in the following manner (26): “Not far from us blazed flames from a pit, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drove up to the pit and dumped its load into the pit. They were small children. Babies! Yes, I had seen it, with my own eyes…Children in the flames (is it any wonder, that sleep shuns my eyes since that time?). We went there, too. Somewhat further along, was another, bigger pit, for adults. ‘Father’, I said, ‘if that is so, I wish to wait no longer. I shall throw myself against the electrified barbed wire fence. That is better than lying around in the flames for hours’.” How little Elie survived lying around in the flames for hours, by some miracle, will be revealed below.

f) Steam chambers
In December 1945, at the Nuremberg Trial the following accusation was made regarding the mass killings at Treblinka (27): “All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers… After being filled to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over… From reports received may be assumed that several hundred thousands of Jews have been exterminated in Treblinka.”

g) Suffocation by pumping all the air out of the death chambers
This method was described by the Soviet-Jewish writer Vassily Grossman at Treblinka.

h) Quicklime trains
At Belzec the Jews were killed according to eyewitness Jan Karski as follows (29): “The floors of the car had been covered with a thick, white powder. It was quicklime. Quicklime is simply unslaked lime or calcium oxide that has been dehydrated. Anyone who has seen cement being mixed knows what occurs when water is poured on lime. The mixture bubbles and steams as the powder combines with the water, generating a large amount of heat. Here the lime served a double purpose in the Nazi economy of brutality. The moist flesh coming in contact with the lime is rapidly dehydrated and burned. The occupants of the cars would be literally burned to death before long, the flesh eaten from their bones. Thus, the Jews would ‘die in agony'”, fulfilling the promise Himmler had issued “in accord with the will of the Fuehrer”, in Warsaw, in 1942. Secondly, the lime would prevent decomposing bodies from spreading disease. It was efficient and inexpensive – a perfectly chosen agent for their purposes.

It took three hours to fill up the entire train by repetitions of this procedure. It was twilight when the forty six (I counted them) cars were packed. From one end to the other, the train, with its quivering cargo of flesh, seemed to throb, vibrate, rock, and jump as if bewitched. There would be a strangely uniform momentary lull and then, again, the train would begin to moan and sob, wail, and how. Inside the camp a few score dead bodies remained and a few in the final throes of death. German policemen walked around at leisure with smoking guns, pumping bullets into anything that by single motion betrayed an excess of vitality. Soon, not a single one was left alive. In the now quiet camp the only sounds were the inhuman screams that were echoes from the moving train. Then these, too, ceased. All that was now left was the stench of excrement and rotting straw and a queer, sickening, acidulous odour which, I thought, may have come from the quantities of blood that had been let, and with which the ground was stained. As I listened to the dwindling outcries from the train, I thought of the destination toward which it was speeding. My informants had minutes described the entire journey. The train would travel about eighty miles and finally come to a halt in an empty, barren field. Then nothing at all would happen. The train would stand stock-still, patiently waiting until death had penetrated into every corner of its interior. This would take from two to four days.” This Jan Karski was, by the way, appointed to chair a committee for “Scientific Research on the Holocaust” along with Elie Wiesel.

i) Chambers with submergible, electrified flooring. Stefan Szende, a Doctor of Philosophy, describes the extermination of the Jews at Belzec quite differently: “The death factory comprises an area approximately 7 km in diameter… The trains filled with Jews entered a tunnel into the underground rooms of the execution factory… The naked Jews were brought into gigantic halls. Several thousand people at one time could fit into these halls. The halls had no floor. The floor was of metal and was submergible. The floors of these halls, with their thousands of Jews, sank into a basin of water which lay beneath — but only far enough so that the people on the metal plate were not entirely under water. When all the Jews on the metal plate were in the water up to over their hips, electrical current was sent through the water. After a few moments, all the Jews, thousands at once, were dead. Then they raised the metal plate out of the water. On it lay the corpses of the murder victims. Another shock of electrical current was sent through, and the metal plate became a crematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies were burnt to ashes… Each individual train brought three to five thousand, sometimes more, Jews. There were days on which the lines to Belzec supplied twenty or more trains. Modern technology triumphed in the Nazi system. The problem of how to execute millions of people, was solved.”

j) Blood poisoning
This method, described on 7 February 1943 in the New York Times (“… gas chambers and blood poisoning stations which were erected in the rural regions…”), appears to have gone into oblivion as soon as it was invented.

k) Drowning
According to the Israeli Holocaust specialist Yehuda Bauer, the Romanians in Odessa murdered 144,000 Soviet Jews, mostly by drowning (31). The same method of extermination was testified to by the underground press agent for the Warsaw ghetto, as well as for Babi Yar (32): “Not a single Jew remains in Kiev, since the Germans have thrown the entire Jewish population of Kiev into the Dnieper.”

l) Chlorine gas, assembly-line shootings, boiling water, acids
Mass murders with chlorine gas, as well as assembly line shootings were reported for Treblinka (33). Reports of massacres with acids and boiling water round make a complete assortment of killing methods (34).

The exterminationists no longer wish to be reminded of all these stories today. At that time, however, they were considered to be “proven fact” — “proven” by the testimonies of “eyewitnesses” — just like the gas chambers, which have been placed a under legal protection order in several “free democracies”. Not to mention, that as the revisionists assert certain facts, the hoax changes to attempt to address the ‘new’ findings, not the least of which is the diesel to gas discussion (following) again, from Jurgen Graf:

Diesel or gas?

A marvelous metamorphosis is already taking place in the holocaust story. Several leading Holocaust proponents are now taking great pains to drop the Diesel claim and replace it with the view that the engines were not Diesels but conventional gasoline engines which simply burned Diesel fuel, presumably to make the engines more deadly than if they had only burned regular gasoline. This amazing transformation has appeared in a recent book in Germany entitled Nationalsozialistiche Massentötungen durch Giftgas. (fn. 34) The book was a joint project of 24 of the most eminent scholars on the subject, including such notables as Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rueckerl, Gideon Hausner, Germaine Tillion and Georges Wellers. The book represents the current state of the art of holocaust mythomania and has already been recommended by the World Jewish Congress in London. (fn. 35) The new, “revised” version of the holocaust says, in effect, that Gerstein and others were mistaken when they had claimed that Diesels were used to kill Jews at reblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. The claim now is that gasoline engines were used.

The clumsy juggling of evidence which characterizes this book is exemplified by the fact that although the Gerstein statement refers to Diesel engines four times, the portion of the Gerstein statement which is quoted in this supposedly definitive rebuttal of the revisionists does not mention Diesels at all, nor does it even describe the alleged killing process. (fn. 36) For a description of the killing process that Gerstein supposedly witnessed, the book gives a piece of postwar testimony by Dr. Pfannenstiel in which there is also no mention of the use of Diesels, but only of the use of Diesel fuel in the engine. How one could possibly have operated a gasoline engine with Diesel fuel is, of course, left to the imagination. The fact is that any gasoline engine simply would not operate with Diesel fuel (and vice-versa).

A fatal flaw in the new, non-Diesel, version is the retention of the recurrent claim that the corpses were “blue.” Although any possible death from Diesel exhaust would have been due to lack of oxygen, which would in turn have caused a bluish appearance of the corpse, death from gasoline engine exhaust would “only” have been due to carbon monoxide and could “only” have caused a distinctive “cherry red” or “pink” appearance. Although Pfannenstiel’s postwar testimony is generally less wild than the Gerstein statement, nonetheless he and other “eyewitnesses” also repeated the claim that the corpses were “blue.” (fn. 37)

That the Gerstein statement, although in a severely abbreviated form, is included at all in such a scholarly work, despite the problems for the “revised” version of the holocaust story which should be obvious to anyone looking at the complete text of that statement, only shows how desperate the holocaust scholars are to scrape together everything they have in support of their monstrous fantasy. They have precious little, and the Gerstein statement is still the best evidence they can present.

The new “revised” version of the holocaust story is actually more absurd than the old version. Although it might be remotely possible for an engineer to have mistaken a gasoline engine for a Diesel engine, how could anyone possibly have mistaken “red” for “blue”? Perhaps they were all color blind-we will just have to wait and see. No doubt, we will see many more attempts by desperate men to hold together a crumbling patchwork of lies.

The Diesel gas chamber claim is rubbish-apparently some of the exterminationists themselves recognize that now. However, the alternate claim that gasoline engine exhaust was used instead is rubbish also.

Holohoax museum
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220

Snippet…
Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka

In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers (with carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines) began at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in Poland. As victims were “unloaded” from cattle cars, they were told that they had to be disinfected in “showers.” The Nazi and Ukrainian guards sometimes shouted at and beat the victims, who were ordered to enter the “showers” with raised arms to allow as many people as possible to fit into the gas chambers. The tighter the gas chambers were packed, the faster the victims suffocated.

I hope all that was educational for you for future discussions.

Lets get back to the gassings.

FRED LEUCHTER: Not withstanding the evidence that Irving and Weber, have relative to “Limited Gassings”, The fact remains that Mass Gas Executions are impossible from a hardware standpoint. The evidence cited by both Weber and Irving is circumstantial. I have great respect for circumstantial evidence. It indicates an need for further investigation. This evidence will convince some and not others, and I can respect everyone’s opinion. However, the fact that is impossible from an engineering standpoint to effect Mass Executions with gas is not circumstantial. It is Scientific/Engineering Fact. This should override any doubts created in anyone’s mind about the matter. If anyone is willing to believe “Leuchter” and “Rudolf” some of the time, they should believe all the time. There is not middle ground in Science (Rudolf) and Leuchter (Engineering) …. I have left no room for doubt nor has Germar. (Fred Leuchter).

In complete agreement, the claimed mass extermination could NOT have occurred in ANY venue – because the facts for such are just not there like the solid facts of mass killings in the Reinhardt camps like Treblinka. (On this topic, Both Jim and Diane on separate occasions asked Mark Weber, “How did they do it, how were the killings done in the Reinhardt camps?” To which he responded, “I don’t know.” We learned that David Irving was asked the same thing and he answered, “I don’t know and I don’t care!”) THAT’S A PROBLEM! What kind of answer is “I don’t know?” How about “results are pending” (.LOL) Even some Jews admit there are some issues here.

“Most of the memoirs and reports of Holocaust survivors are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks…” –Samuel Gringauz, “Jewish Social Studies” (New York), January 1950, Vol. 12, p6.

Now, I’m all for open debate but honestly, the stupidity or believing things that are just totally impossible to have occurred, which you seem to now believe …. !!!! You’re a smart guy. But sadly You seem to just parrot the mainstream, PC-driven, mind-numbing, brain dead drivel who make statements without any facts to back up the claims: Saying “it” happened because (all hinging on the trumped-up question) “Where did these people go?” Really now we have to prove that to make our points valid? We don’t have to prove ANYTHING (the accuser must make his case) We just have to show that the official narrative is wrong which I think I’ve done with above comments.

What this is really about?

The Holohoax narrative is operated and controlled by a high-powered CULT, one that wants to USE the Holohoax narrative to control and suppress ALL thought and expression. THEY will decide what WE are to think and express. THEY will determine the parameters of what is acceptable to speak about – their game, their terms – typical CULT behavior and if you question ANY of their tenets, YOU will be dealt with as an apostate, as you have been, as Germar has, Leuchter, Deckart, Faurisson, Toben, Zundel have, to name a few of the many high-profile targets of this cult. And then there are also the low-profile ‘deviants’ (in their mind) like ourselves. So if you think you’re going to get on the fast track and be welcomed again by these people that hate you and what you believe, you better think again.

You think that by taking on this new PC-version of truth, you’re going to be accepted in the Holohoax community? That by ingratiating yourself to THEIR narrative (at least partially) that they will welcome you with open arms or leave you alone? Do you really honestly think that the Holohucksters are going to appreciate you in your back pedaling when you don’t subscribe 100% to THEIR version of the narrative, that you don’t believe in the Six Million!!!??? They still will look at you as a HOLOCAUST DENIER largely because you KNOW that 6 million did NOT die (even with those deaths you claim at Treblinka).

Sorry Eric – ain’t gonna happen. You’re a marked man now just like David Cole, Mark Weber and David Irving? You have joined THEIR dishonorable and even cowardly ranks? The only problem now is people are going to look at you as a sell-out – someone who couldn’t “take the heat,” who sold his soul to the PC devil, if you will. The only good news is your videos have been state of the art and MOST desired and respected and largely, THAT’s how you will be remembered. It’s easy to give in. It’s difficult to HANG TOUGH, which you have done for quite some time. Know this, though, that by caving, whatever you do from now on will be tainted and discounted. We draw the line on your work up to this date, as we have with Weber, Cole and Irving. Are you now going to recant what you have already done and call it wrong, misguided, and not in harmony with the facts?

I just think you’ve been sold a bill of goods and cannot accept the truth that the entire narrative of the Holohoax is a farse because it has cost you to maintain that stance. Why would you capitulate after so many years of ‘hanging tough’!!!! They wear you down? You waved the WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER/CAPITULATION. You didn’t have to. You now have the option to hang tough or place yourself as a doormat where the HoloHoax Cultmasters can wipe their feet on and claim victory. Is that what you want? Because that is exactly what you will get from them.

I guess there is not much more to say to you….As a final note, and hopefully you will entertain this invitation we’d like to interview you so you can say exactly what your thoughts are so you won’t be misquoted… I’ve interviewed nearly all of the high-profile revisionists and many ‘unsung revisionist heroes’ who have consented to such an interview. We’ll give you your voice, your say and we’ll have a lively debate. Also note, I’m NOT like Ray Dawson, who would hang up on you if he doesn’t like what you say. We look forward to hearing from you about the interview.

ELISABETH CARTO: Eric H’s story can be totally disproved by Walter N. Sanning’s book “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry”. The breakdown of individual countries by their Jewish populations, who had a low birthrate in any case, shows that the disabled and children were absorbed into the nearby Jewish Ghettos as in Hungary. They certainly were not killed in gas chambers that did not exist. In 1990/91 Auschwitz had to remove the 6 mil figure from it’s stone monument and changed to 4 mill deaths. There was not ever any word of children being killed there. Actually, there were registered births of babies at the camp hospital. If the book is still in print, readers should buy it. Good luck, Elisabeth Carto

Keine Kapitulation (No Surrender),
(Capitulation is more than surrender, which may suggest ‘mere ceasing hostilities’. Capitulation is GOING OVER TO THEIR SIDE – a worse betrayal).

Jim Rizoli and Diane King
508-872-7292

Ben Gadd: Pea-brained Propagandist for Zion’s “6 Million” Holohoax Lie by Marcus

victoryinend-copy

“In the end Victory stands!”

Ben  Gadd: Pea-brained Propagandist for Zion’s “6 Million” Holohoax Lie  

by Marcus

atrpeditor300

[Editor’s Note: The following commentary by Marcus on on the post “A Reply and Challenge to Ben Gadd  By Monika Schaefer” was so on point that I decided to publish it as a stand alone article.]

“Are the police and courts “haters” when they accuse the Mafia of crimes?”  I suspect in Ben’s pea sized brain, the answer is no. It’s only a crime when Jews are accused of something.

This little rat doesn’t know his backside from his elbow, but goes on talking about the so-called holocaust as if he’s an expert.  Who knows what thoughts that little brain he has contains, but if he swallowed everything the Jews said, then he also believes the Germans made lampshades from Jews skin and soap from Jews fat and believes that the “NAZIS” killed four million Jews at Auschwitz.  Does he even know that the Jews and the allies have already been exposed as liars for all three of these accusations.  The soap and lampshades stories have been discarded by historians as false (that means the allies and Jews lied) and the authorities at Auschwitz reduced their atrocity claim from four million to one million.  That was obviously a lie too.  They had no evidence (still don’t) and they smeared the German people with that lie.

This double talking guttersnipe works to spread the most vile and hateful things about the German people and he calls others the “haters”.  The Jews and idiots like Ben (or perhaps he is one himself) have made doublespeak a centerpiece of their narrative.  Myself, Monika and all Germans must accept the lies peddled by this Jew or in their twisted minds we are the “haters”.

6milben

I wonder if this know nothing, commie looking draft dodger knows that Jews founded and ran (completely dominated the murderous USSR government by being 80 to 85 percent of it) the most murderous regime in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bSAB5OPkwQ

Does this liar know (or recognize) that this has been completely hidden from the public, with the media keeping it out of their reporting for almost 100 years now and that Jews were the leaders of the Soviet government that burned down Russian churches, raped nuns and murdered priests, oversaw the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians and mass murder of millions of politically suspect Russians. The German government knew it and that is why they called it Jewish Bolshevism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKOBWz0_4Y

And while world Jewry was making the strongest efforts possible to push the world into WW II by spreading hateful, atrocity propaganda, Germany was at peace before the war broke out in 1939 and Germany’s relatively small Jewish population was safe, with Jews from Poland actually trying to stay or get into Germany.

Yes, those poor, innocent Jews.  Don’t people know that “anti-semitism” has “resulted in the hate-sparked deaths of millions of people over many hundreds of years”?  Ben Gadd sounds like a sayanim and the worst form of propagandizing Jewish liar there is.  The kind that Polish ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki was speaking of when he reported back to Warsaw on his observations of the American political scene in 1938:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February 9) and then reported back to Warsaw again in January 1939:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people, who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy,’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere, and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_2/the_jewish_hand_in_the_world_wars_part_2.php

Meanwhile, in Britain “innocent” Jews (read “warmongering”) were bribing Winston Churchill to start a world war against Germany:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jc9ltEIwpo

And the “innocent” Jews continue to operate today, as they did in the 1930’s and I suspect as they always have.  Here is the “number one contributor to the Republican Party”, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.  In this speech he says Iran should have a nuclear bomb dropped on it if it doesn’t do what the US says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc

Adelson knows and met each Republican candidate who took the money he offered them and promised to carry out his wishes – every one of them.  Trump refused the money at first.  I’m not sure if he eventually accepted it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFAlloGYiSw

The Jewish push for WW II began immediately upon Adolf Hitler taking office as chancellor of Germany.  They immediately began holding atrocity propaganda rallies in New York and international Jewry declared a worldwide boycott of German goods within two months.  Just as in the USSR, the Jews were leaders of the communist party in Germany.  They were violent and had overthrown the Bavarian gov’t shortly after WW I and these were the Jews that were arrested.  There was no terror.  That would come later, as the Jews continued to push for war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myh-dqvUgYA

In 1936 a Jew named David Frankfurter murdered the Swiss National Socialist politician Wilhelm Gustloff in cold blood.  Two years later the Jew Herschel Grynszpan murdered the young German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in cold blood.  Vom Rath left his wife and young children behind.  This murder kicked off what became known as “Kristallnacht” in which an estimated 91 Jews were killed (not six million or six trillion).  But of course the Jews made the most they could out of it, as they had been lying since Hitler took office.  Compare that to the number of Russians and Ukrainians Jews were murdering at the same time in the USSR.

In 1940 the Jew Theodore Kaufman published his book “Germany Must Perish!” in which he put forth a detailed plan to sterilize the entire German population to kill the Germans off.  His book received rave reviews in the top US media outlets, including Time Magazine.

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-7-41-32-pm

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-7-42-18-pm

http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.shtml

And this was in the US, a country thousands of miles from Europe that had no business in European affairs.   Charles Lindbergh pointed out the “innocent” Jews as one of three groups (the others being the FDR administration and Great Britain) pushing the US into WW II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI

Here is FDR, one of the biggest liars in history, making a speech based upon a phony map and making ridiculous accusations against Germany, claiming it wanted to take over South America and then presumably march on to Washington, D.C, all while the German army was already fighting for its life in the USSR.  FDR justifying the US entry into WW II.  This speech was made a month after Lindbergh’s speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak61DaD32Ww

How the phony map speech came about:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html

Meanwhile, in Poland and the USSR the Germans noticed that wherever Jews made up a significant part of a population, that is where atrocities against Germans would take place (Bromberg) or partisan attacks on German soldiers or European Nationalists from other countries would be carried out.  The partisan war had begun.  It would end with the Soviet Jew propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg calling for the mass rape of German women, which the Soviet army (and the Americans and British to a much smaller degree) carried out, gang raping two million German women, ranging in age from 8 to 80.  Today that Jewish animal Ehrenburg is honored and buried in Israel (while Germany continues to persecute 90 year old nurses or clerks that served Germany).

Hopefully the bigot Ben Gadd will read this.


In the interests of public justice and truth should anyone wish to contact Ben Rudd his email address is: Ben@bengadd.com

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

Do you care to know about how the people you have trusted all your lives have lied to you?

If anything were to ever convince you of the terrible Jewish lies about World War II, this would be that document. You can’t possibly read this compilation of sources by hundreds of serious minded examiners and still believe the lies that mainstream accounts have forced upon you as “the truth” of World War II.

Many thanks to my friend “pdk” in France.
Please read as much as your mind can tolerate. You will never find as many courageous truth tellers represented in one place.
Best wishes,
John Kaminski

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

“The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.”
~ Douglas Christie, Barrister & Solicitor from his Summation to the Jury
in the Ernst Zundel Trial, February 25, 1985

I chose the above quote from Douglas Christie, the greatest defender of freedom of speech Canada has ever produced. Doug, more than any other person I know (and I knew him personally for seven years right up to the time of his death in March of 2013), epitomized the spirit of Truth, intelligence of Heart, the noble Grace and indefatigable Courage and Integrity of a free man all combined with an adamantine faith in God.

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

It was due in great part to the efforts of Doug Christie during the trial of Ernst Zundel that he, like the biblical Moses of old, was able to lead the captured consciousness of Truth Seekers of the 20th Century out of their mentally-induced prisons into the fertile lands of freedom of speech and expression.

tazebook_dees-1-copy

Ernst Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly “published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good” when he began dispensing a small booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die? – one which he hadn’t written himself but felt expressed his views on the alleged Jewish Holocaust. It was Zundel’s trial that finally brought to a head the (then) forty years of Canadians wondering aimlessly through a cognitive “6 Million” wilderness of deception not knowing that all the while they were being psychically manipulated and conditioned to believe the greatest LIE ever told to humanity.

Awhile ago I typed out and digitally recorded on RadicalPress.com Doug Christie’s Summation to the Jury which first appeared in booklet form not too long after the trial ended and I highly recommend that anyone in the least concerned about this massive experiment in mind control read it. If nothing else it will vividly show you the brilliance and logic (and levity) of the lawyer who honestly earned his handle “The Battling Barrister”.

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

Doug Christie put the issue of Ernst Zundel’s concerns before the jury in the following manner:

“The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million.”

In Christie’s Summation to the Jury at the culmination of the trial he recapped much of what was revealed to the court through weeks of mind-bending cross-examination, regarding this one fundamental LIE that has superseded all other interpretations of what took place during WW 2 in German occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

During the Zundel Trial Christie literally demolished the illusions of the “gas chambers” and the “6 Million Jews” myth that the Crown and its Expert Witness Raul Hilberg had attempted to foist upon the Jury and, by extension, the nation and the world as a whole. The final results showed that the much-touted, world renowned “holocaust expert” Raul Hilberg’s testimony (the Jews considered Hilberg to be their No. 1 man) ultimately proved to be nothing more than unsubstantiated bluff.

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

“Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has….”

“Has Dr. Hilberg proved a single thing here to be false? No, he hasn’t. He says he had documents. He produces none. He talks about the train tickets and schedules. What train tickets and schedules? If we’re talking about a criminal case we should have evidence. There isn’t enough evidence here today to convict one person for murdering one other person. But they want you to believe that six million died, or millions died, and that this question mark is false. Where is the evidence to support one murder by one person? There is no Hitler order; there is an alleged order somewhere by somebody alleged to have heard it from somebody else. There’s no evidence.”

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

Now, seventy-one years later (thirty-one years after Doug’s summation) we’re still witnessing the relentless, malicious efforts of the Zionist Jews (and their sycophant zombie clones) to brow-beat, bludgeon, bedazzle and intimidate Canadians into accepting as FACT everything that the Ernst Zundel trial legally established as mere FICTION.

I am specifically referring to the current mainstream media uproar of feigned sound and fury that’s overtaken not only the local media in Jasper, Alberta The Jasper Local, and the Canadian Edmonton, Alberta media but has even extended itself to the state of Israel’s Haaretz newspaper since one of Jasper’s better known residents and peace activists, Monika Schaefer, published a short video denouncing the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust”. The video in question was titled, Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust.

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

No ifs ands or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA.

No ifs and or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA. Canadians, like people everywhere, have been unwittingly under the hypnotic, sorcerer’s spell of Jewish controlled “mainstream media” since the end of World War 2. They have surreptitiously endured a lifetime of brainwashing and mendaciously motivated mind control and for many today they still have little or no clue that the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” was and is the BIGGEST and most pervasive LIE ever foisted upon the world.

Of course that’s how it was intentionally designed to be when the perpetrators of this fantastic fiction first formulated, then forecast for use on such a massive scale, their serpentine “6 Million” siren song purposely meant to entrap the masses into subconsciously entering a Zionist-induced cognitive gulag or concentration camp strikingly similar to their own Talmudic Rabbi’s historically induced ghetto consciousness that forms the superstructure upon which Zionism’s atheistic ideological edifice rests.

Back in 2009 I wrote an article titled Israel’s Wall: For Palestinians or Jews? where I try to show the similitude between the wall that the Israeli government constructed on stolen Palestinian land and the mental/emotional wall that the Talmudic Rabbis built around their own tribe in order to control the minds of each successive generation of Jews and keep them trapped in the Talmudic oral “law”; an alleged law that purported made them especially chosen by God to rule over the world and because of that exclusiveness therefore separate and a step above the rest of humanity. It was a thesis first put forward by the British author and journalist Douglas Reed in his monumental classic, The Controversy of Zion.

The final point thought that needs to be restated again and again is the fact that down through history and right up until the 20th Century the most astute observers of civilized development in the West continually questioned and criticized the actions and motives of the Babylonian Talmudic tribe of Pharisees whenever they began to meddle too deeply in the affairs of other nation states but beginning with the take-over of the majority of the media in the West around the turn of the 20th century this practise began to cease and in its place there began renewed efforts on the part of the Zionist Jews to attack any and all critics of their ideology and their actions with the endless epithets of “anti-Semite” and “racist” and “Jew Hater”, an enterprise that has today reached such epidemic proportions that critics of present day Zionism lay wasting away in dungeons and website owners, university professors, researchers and writers everywhere are being accused of “hate crimes” throughout most, if not all, western nations.

Monika Schaefer’s case is the latest in that long and disgusting list of Truth Revealers who Jewish lobby organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the new viper on the holohoax block The Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) along with all their trance-induced toady followers are attempting to smear and degrade and destroy in order to keep the BIG LIE from being questioned.

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

The longer this travesty of injustice goes on the more insanely vile and blood-thirsty the Zionists are becoming. Their desperation has grown almost exponentially over the past decade as they wend their way through the corridors of Canada’s justice system plying their rag-tag “hate crime” laws in order to safeguard the collusion they’ve made with the Devil.

No better example of just how demented it’s becoming was the latest attack upon Monika Schaefer that occurred but a day or so ago in Jasper. When Monika Schaefer moved to Jasper, Alberta busking (i.e. the playing of an instrument on the public streets) was illegal. Bearing that in mind, in communication with Monika over this matter  she told me the following:

“The irony of the fact is that it was me who brought the issue of busking to town council already a few years ago, made a presentation (at least on one occasion, and have raised it a few times since…) to support busking in town. You see, it has always been illegal to busk in Jasper. Yes, you read correctly Arthur. Anyway, so you see the irony – I have been pushing for busking for a long time. This summer is the first time it is legal. So when I went yesterday to get my busking license, my senses already went up. Dave wasn’t there, but the woman who was there (whom I have also known for decades – it’s a small town) was behaving very cagy. Then I left a phone message, text message, and email message with the person who was supposedly in charge (someone else, not even Dave). Today my gut feeling of yesterday was proven correct when I received Dave’s message.”

And here’s the rub for those who haven’t read the article. Dave’s message read: “We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.”

“publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs” !!!???

As one commenter on RadicalPress. com wrote in reply to the article, Surely you guys are making this up! because no one can possibly be dumb enough to actually write and publish that sentence – NOT, in Canada, no f’n way!”

Unfortunately for Canada someone in an official position with the municipal government of Jasper, Alberta DID write that sentence and sent it to Monika Schaefer.

Since my own arrest, incarceration and criminal case began back in May of 2012 after I was charged with “communicating statements” that did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code” I’ve been doing my damnedest to warn Canadians of the extreme danger of these so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws that the Zionist Jew lobbyists created and are using with increasing fervour and zeal to censor any and all criticism of their deeds both here at home and abroad in the state of Israel. And of course the kicker is the fact that they used the “6 Million” holocaust lie in order to justify the inclusion of these Orwellian anti-free speech laws into Canadian jurisprudence.

Given the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau’s, longstanding indoctrination on the holocaust deception and his unabashed public display of obeisance to the perpetrators of this hoax there’s little chance that we will see him do what Conservative PM Stephen Harper did with the equally nefarious Sec. 13(1) legislation formerly contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act; that is, repeal the law. But that is the only and final solution to this “hate speech” madness that’s slithered like a snake from out of that den of vipers known as the Canadian “Jewish Lobby”.

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

The issue must be taken from Cybespace’s Facebook and the Alternative media and transposed down onto the streets and turned into a public spectacle that the mainstream media cannot refuse to cover. Instead of focussing their attention on Gay Pride festivities it’s time that the Jewish-controlled media was forced to recognize that the fundamental rights of ALL Canadians are being jeopardized by these draconian “hate speech” laws and the only way this is going to happen is if normal, law-abiding citizens of Canada get their act together and begin to openly PROTEST this blatant act of sedition by these foreign lobbyists against Canadians’ lawful right to freedom of expression both on and off the Internet.

The time to organize this is NOW. Their game plan is so in our face obvious and the people know it. All that remains is for concerned Canadians to stand up, take to the streets and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

If we want our basic freedoms we’re going to have to fight to hang on to them one way or another.

______

The Rizoli rebellion by John Kaminski

RizoliRebellionHdr

The Rizoli rebellion

Tenacious brothers battle immigration epidemic
and Holocaust hoax

Their motto: Exercise the courage of your convictions

By John Kaminski

pseudoskylax@gmail.com
http://therebel.is/kaminski

I know a lot of keyboard warriors. Heck, I’m one myself, trying to convince people of the dangers we face without actually confronting them in the real world. Though my advice might be authentic, my actions are not, because I’m not out there in public battling the tyrants and swindlers who are busy ripping us off and killing those who oppose them.

Am I afraid of suffering the harsh penalties incurred by so many who have challenged the powers that be? You bet I am. Do I know the day will come when I will be forced into open warfare with the people who run our country and have turned it into a giant prison system? Absolutely I do. It could happen any day now. And each day this unpleasant but vital task inevitably draws closer.

Though I am definitely a member of an exclusive club that has tried for decades to alert my fellow citizens to the lethal danger we face living in a society governed by ruthless Jew bankers who have no real point to their lives other than stealing from others and murdering those who stand in their way, my admiration really goes out to my compatriots who step out from behind their keyboards and wade out into the public chaos to defend the courage of their convictions and expose the constant and profound crimes that are being perpetrated by our owners against ordinary people who don’t ever quite seem to grasp the danger of their own predicament and how near they are to losing everything, including their own lives.

I’ve observed Jim Rizoli stepping out into the public spotlight for ten years now, first as a courageous protester of this strange and mysterious epidemic of foreign born illegal aliens being inserted into towns all across America, seriously diminishing the lives of native-born Americans who have worked all their lives for their modest piece of the pie. They have been constantly betrayed by their own leaders.

Some might consider what Rizoli is doing as tilting at windmills, but others of a more intelligent nature realize he is a 21st century patriot running at top speed to try and prevent the descent of the United States into a thoughtless prison camp dominated by aliens from the Third World and the Warsaw ghetto.

This surreptitious sabotage of American culture has grown to epidemic proportions with a deliberate but secret program of importing Third World aliens into the U.S. that has wracked big cities and small towns with ungrateful non-English speaking migrants who overload social systems and steal jobs from unemployed locals who need them.

And more lately, Rizoli has become the chronicler of one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century, a lucrative scam that has persisted into the 21st century as disingenuous Jews continue to swindle governments around the world with their heinous heist known as Holocaust reparations.

He has done this by undertaking a series of YouTube videos aptly titled the League of Extraordinary Revisionists, introducing to the public those heroic truth tellers who have been savaged by the poisoned mainstream media yet have persevered to correct the damaging Jewish lies that not only caused the destruction of Germany back in World War II, but are now wrecking America and Europe with their Jewcentric political correctness that encourages perversion, anarchy and dependence on government to destroy a thousands of years old family structure that has been the bulwark of civilization and now teeters on the brink of ruin.

“The Holocaust is like a wheel with spokes that extend out from the center and poison all areas of human activity,” Rizoli likes to say.

He, like so many of us, has seen far too much of it. But he, like so few of us, has been slugging away at the corrupt basis of it for more than a decade, going nose to nose with the Jews who control the political cobwebs of every town in America.

Oddly, it was his resistance to the sudden appearance of hundreds of Brazilian immigrants in his hometown of Framingham, Mass. that eventually led him to correlate this social disease to Jewish power and more specifically to the lies that have been told about the Holocaust.

“It all goes back to immigration,” Jim says. “My brother Joe got into it first.” Joe still writes commentaries and passes on links to his brother, but it is Jim, accompanied by his new sidekick Diane King, who are constantly updating a remarkably thorough website (ccfiile.com — note the extra “i”, standing for Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement) that contains both the story of their immigration battles with the corrupt town fathers as well as a unique and thorough set of files about the Jewish manipulation of reality.

“We held a meeting at the library, and right off the bat they jumped on us,” Jim explained. “They pegged us as racists and wouldn’t let us even talk about it.

“It made us more determined to go at it.”

It was the Rizolis’ stand against the barrage of immigrants overwhelming Framingham that initially got them in trouble with their community, repeatedly banned from their local cable TV channel, and on the Jewish Anti Defamation League’s target list as Holocaust denying anti-Semites. Its description of the Rizolis’ activities is absolutely heroic. http://archive.adl.org/nr/exeres/7f918ae0-1eeb-4037-b83a-46c92344a4a7,db7611a2-02cd-43af-8147-649e26813571,frameless.html

• During an October 2009 segment of his public access television show, which was aired during a primetime slot, Jim delivered a lengthy diatribe promoting Holocaust denial. He defended Holocaust denier and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instructed viewers to conduct their own research on the Holocaust to discover the “truth,” and directed people to visit Web sites that advance Holocaust denial.

• Jim Rizoli has attempted to defend his statements about the Holocaust to the Boston Globe, which reported in November 2009 that he “believes…only around 300,000 people died, not six million, and that the majority were not killed but ‘died of sickness and disease.'”

• During the same segment of his public access television show, Jim Rizoli alleged the existence of a “Zionist controlled government,” implying that Jews manipulate national and global institutions.

• Rizoli also claimed during the show that “a lot of the Jewish people are not going to be happy to hear this [referring to his recommendation to view videos that advance Holocaust denial] because this whole thing all stems upon Judaism [sic] and what happened with them.” This is an anti-Semitic implication that Jews fabricate the Holocaust to advance their own agenda.

• Joe Rizoli has questioned the severity of the Holocaust on the Jews. During an interview with the MetroWest Daily News in February 2004, he argued, “What happened to the Jews was atrocious, but you know what? Nine million people in Germany died in Dresden and related incidents. They say 13 to 20 million people died in Russia.” Rizoli went on to question, “Did the Holocaust happen? You define to me what the Holocaust is. I don’t know. There’s no letter or whatever that pinpoints Hitler saying it.”

• In 2004, Joe Rizoli signed an Internet petition supporting Ernst Zundel, who was fighting deportation to his home in Canada from the U.S., which he entered illegally. Reportedly, Rizoli became interested in Zundel after receiving a “ZGram,” an E-mail that Zundel’s wife, also a Holocaust denier, sent to subscribers. Ironically for a xenophobe, Rizoli spoke out against Zundel’s deportation, which was the result of Zundel’s illegal entry into the U.S.

As they say, one man’s meat is another man’s poison. To those onto the Jewish scam of the Holocaust, these are all admirable achievements. But to Jews, ever the promoters of lies and false stories, Rizoli’s unflinching achievements are anathema.

“We had a good following,” Jim remembers. “We became like celebrities because we had the balls enough to talk about illegal immigrants. It opened up the door to talk about it in the whole state. Even the governor came and talked to us. And a Brazilian station put us on down there.”

“Then I started getting into the Holocaust and even the immigration people were scared off,” he remembers.

“We took the most heat from then on. In 2010 we were banned by our cable station for a year for false allegations. We came back in 2011 with four shows. We were on 12 times a week.

“We were pounding away at the Jews. It’s a wonder that they didn’t kill us.”

The cable company shut them down again in 2014.

“Nobody would dare come on a show dealing with the Holocaust issue.”

Good fortune came Rizoli’s way about this time when he hooked up with Diane on Facebook and the pair have become teammates in a game most Americans are afraid to play — Holocaust revisionism.

What has gained Rizoli new found attention after years of battling the Jews in a beat up suburb of Boston now dominated by Brazilians is a series of YouTubes sketching the lives of famous historians who can tell the real story of World War II, which is not the one told in movies and on TV by paid shills who spout the bogus Jewish version of reality.

League of Extraordinary Revisionists
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkhr7Ooo_lnt0NLW83Q2ovw

Be sure and check out the real heroes of the revisionist movement captured on film by JIm Rizoli.

These include, among many other luminaries, Fred Leuchter, author of the Leuchter Report that proved there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz; Robert Faurisson, the dean of Holocaust Revisionists who for more than a half century has been challenging the Jewish liars “to show me or draw me a picture of the gas chamber at Auschwitz”; Germar Rudolf, the German chemist jailed for his efforts at refining and reinforcing the evidence for the Holocaust hoax; and the late Bradley Smith, interviewed in the final months of his life after selfless decades of preaching historical sanity on college campuses with his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.

In addition, there are many other controversial topics covered in ccfiile.com — Holocaust Liars and Holocaust Truthers, Auschwitz and Treblinka, AIPAC and the Slave Trade, witch trials and Rizoli Uncensored.

Among the many highlights are a riveting account of the fake Boston Marathon bombing and a Police file that explains how public officials are allowed to commit crimes and get away with them.

“We’re not letting up,” says Joe, then making this writer not mention an event they’re in the process of unleashing on the public.

“It’s going to be a struggle forever,” says JIm. “I don’t know how we’re going to do it (“it” being to get the public to accept the real story of what happened in World War II in Germany).

“We just have to hang in there. We’re not looking to convert the world we’re just trying to get the word out.”

Rizoli is constantly emphasizing that “the Holocaust is the hub of what has gone wrong with the world.

“But I love the fight. I’m not going down on my knees. If I go down I’m going to be standing up. You have to do what you know is right.”


Support JIm Rizoli’s important work by mail at
Jim Rizoli (LOER), 94 Pond St., Framingham MA 01702, 508-872-7292.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.
http://therebel.is/kaminski
http://johnkaminski.info/
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html
http://www.serendipity.li/john_kaminski_articles.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040323232319/http://johnkaminski.com/

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical and Scientific Level By Robert Faurisson

TotalVictory copy

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical 

and Scientific Level

By Robert Faurisson

R.Faurisson

December 31, 2015

“The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.”

~ Robert Faurisson

In France and in the rest of the world historians and specialists of “the Holocaust” no longer know what to answer to the revisionists’ arguments. And to speak only of my own case, which has been going on since 1978 (that is, for some thirty-seven years), never has my country’s justice system, despite the tireless requests by self-righteous associations to rule against me on the substance of my writings or statements, been able to note therein the least trace of any rashness, negligence, deliberate ignorance, falsehood, falsification or lying. My adversaries, rich and powerful though they may be, have never succeeded in getting our judges to convict me on the merits of the conclusions reached through my research work which, for over half a century, has focused on what is commonly called “the genocide of the Jews”, “the Nazi gas chambers” and “the six million (or nearly)” Jewish victims of the Third Reich. At most, at the end countless cases I have lost suits (whether as plaintiff or defendant) or been found guilty mainly 1) for a malevolence, supposed but not demonstrated, towards the Jews, 2) for breaking the gayssotine (the Fabius-Gayssot or Faurisson Act, legislation of convenience specifically targeting the findings of my research) or 3) by virtue of the “good faith” (sic) of individuals like Léon Poliakov or Robert Badinter, even though found to be at fault by the judges themselves.

For years Poliakov had well and truly manipulated the writings of SS officer Kurt Gerstein (who, having “repented” (?), then committed suicide (?)), when not fabricating outright fragments of text to attribute to him. But the judges granted the presumption of good faith to Poliakov. He had been, we were told, “animated by the passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and about facts of contemporary history that were particularly tragic”. It was therefore appropriate to forgive him for having “perhaps, on minor points [sic!!!], broken scientific standards of rigour without, however, it being permissible to state that he is a manipulator or fabricator of texts”. As for Badinter, in 2006 he claimed that in 1981, when he was still barrister for the LICRA and just before becoming Minister of Justice, he had got a court to rule against me “for being a falsifier of history”. A decision of 2007 restored the truth and held that Badinter had “failed in his evidence” to demonstrate my alleged dishonesty; but, the court hastened to add, he had been in good faith. For want of both money and a lawyer (Eric Delcroix having retired – not without being refused honorary membership of the bar), I did not appeal and was forced to pay the Socialist millionaire the sum of €5,000. But at least since then I have had the satisfaction of being able to speak of “Robert Badinter, my liar, my slanderer… in good faith”.

An astute observer will have noted that the more our opponents sense the game is getting away from them on the historical or scientific level, the more they feel the need to increase their propagandistic drum beating, and the repression as well. In France, at this very moment, they are putting all their hopes in having Parliament pass a supergayssotine. Good for them! A few weeks short of my 87th birthday, I have six cases pending, four against me and two others that I have had to instigate, albeit quite unwillingly. Will my judges finally decide, in 2016, to leave us, my wife and me, destitute? Or are they getting ready simply to throw me into a prison of the République? It is understood beforehand, is it not?, that if they were to carry things to such extremes it would only be on the grounds of the noblest républicain principles and in the name of human rights.

Let’s consider our current Prime Minister. One day, Manuel Valls, in full pomposity, his mouth, heart and left hand clenched, let fly: “I am, by my wife, eternally linked to the Jewish community and Israel”. He saw himself as “eternal”: a vast programme! But fervour was leading him astray. He ought to come back down to earth, reconnect with the ground, get treatment and stop deluding himself: the revisionists have, already as of now, won the match.

As early as in 1983-1985, Raul Hilberg, surrendering to the arguments of “Faurisson and others…” had to drop the pretension of explaining, on the basis of valid arguments and documents of his own, that the Third Reich had, with proper Germanic efficiency, designed, prepared, developed, organised and financed the killing of millions of European Jews. The eminent Jewish American historian ended up finding himself reduced to trying to have us believe that this gigantic massacre had come about by the operation of the Holy Spirit or, in his words, by “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading within a large bureaucracy” that had, on its own, spontaneously decided, it seemed, gradually to abandon written communication in favour of verbal or indeed telepathic exchange to such an extent that no written or material evidence bespoke the six million Jews’ (or, in Hilberg’s case, a bit fewer) had been systematically killed either on the Eastern Front or in the gas chambers, mainly at Auschwitz.

Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 11.16.23 AM

A number of historians or researchers, such as Arno Mayer, Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt, have also capitulated, in a more frank and direct manner. The first has had to admit, among other bitter observations, that “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”. The second, a protégé of the Klarsfeld couple, came to understand that the dossier of the official story of the Jews’ extermination, “rotten” with too many lies, was bound for “the rubbish bins of history”. The third has concluded that “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove”; despite this, millions of visitors there have been and continue to be shown a “gas chamber” said to be in its “original state”, as well as ruins of other alleged “gas chambers”. As for the figure of “six million”, never subjected to the least scientific verification, it is rooted in the most sordid of realities: an old American publicity slogan used already before 1900 and up to the end of the Second World War to collect a windfall of cash especially from the Jewish community. The searing words amounted to the cry “Six million of our brothers are dying in Europe [by the acts, according to circumstance, of Poland, the Balkan countries, Tsarist Russia, National-Socialist Germany…]; we await your money for the victims of this holocaust [sic already in 1919]!”

Manuel Valls, our Prime Minister, and François Hollande, President of our Republic, devote themselves to launching, in several foreign countries, warlike crusades of the kind that have backfired horribly for us French this year. To proceed as they do, contrary to the Constitution, they dispense with the approval of Parliament, either in advance or within forty days from the start of operations. On top of their foreign wars, conducted in the most cowardly as well as the most comfortable conditions, they instil an atmosphere of internecine war at home. They call “cowards” certain enemies who, after all, are inspired on a grand scale by the practices of our glorious Résistants: “Hey, killers with the bullet and the knife, kill quickly!” If François Hollande has the stature of a pedalo admiral, Mr Valls resembles Picrochole, that character in Rabelais whose Greek name means “bitter bile” and who regularly gets all excited at the prospect of going off to war. Mr Valls began with a crusade against the Saracens of today and against the real or supposed enemies of Israel but he is also on a campaign against the revisionists, against “Dieudonné in peace”, against Marine Le Pen – even though she has pushed her own father down the stairs – and even against his friends of the Socialist clan. A good suggestion for him would be to calm down, take care of himself, try to laugh with Dieudonné, reflect for a moment with the revisionists, allow historians or researchers to work as they wish and, at long last, spare us the flag-waving frenzy, the bugle-blowing, the verse and chorus of the Marseillaise on the “day of glory”, the “impure blood” and the “ferocious soldiers”. As we know, it is, unhappily, all too easy to take the French in with that sort of thing.

Such, today, are the modest New Year wishes for 2016 that I allow myself to make for that person, for his victims, for the French and for the rest of the world. But is it perhaps already asking too much?

For their part, the revisionists know what awaits them: the confirmation in the mainstream media, sooner or later, that they have already won a total victory on the historical and scientific level. The political and media powers will indeed have to resign themselves to the facts: persistence in gunboat policies abroad and in those of gagging and censorship at home will only dishonour them a bit more. For nothing.

The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.

The lies of “the Holocaust” are modelled on those of the First World War. All those “Nazi death-works”, like the ones at Auschwitz, are but a reprise of the myth of German “corpse factories” of 1914-1918. They were merely modernised by the adding of gas (Jewish-American version of November 1944) and sometimes of electricity (Jewish-Soviet version of February 1945). The good people, already generally not well disposed towards the practice of cremating the dead, were led to believe that Germany, a nation considered modern and known for having an abundance of engineers and chemists, had built structures containing, in addition to a cremation space, others called “gas chambers” (in reality, the “depositories”, Leichenhalle or Leichenkeller, technically designed to hold bodies awaiting cremation). Thus a certain propaganda has managed to persuade us that those Germans devils were dumb enough to house under the same roof, on one side, spaces full of a highly inflammable and explosive gas (the hydrocyanic acid or hydrogen cyanide contained in the pesticide Zyklon B, created in the 1920s) and, on the other side, crematory ovens that had to be laboriously brought to a temperature of 900° C.

Germar Rudolf

In 1943 some of the men in charge of British war propaganda deplored “this gas chambers story”. For his part, the revisionist Germar Rudolf sums up the subject rather well in his Lectures on the Holocaust (Chicago, Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005, 566 p., p. 82-85). Even Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of the Intelligence Service in London ready to believe just about any nonsense said against the Germans, was to write: “I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas chambers story” (p. 83). The trouble was that the British, undisputed champions of lying propaganda during the two world wars, needed those fables. On February 29, 1944 their Ministry of Information sent the BBC and the Church of England a circular letter of the greatest cynicism, requesting their respective cooperation for the spreading of propaganda on the basis of atrocity stories either already in circulation or currently being concocted. It was a matter of forestalling the disastrous effect that the Red Army, an ally, was inevitably to bring about in Central Europe by real atrocities (p. 84)! On these inventions, these fabrications and the wide-scale dissemination of enormous tall tales, two books remain of great interest: Edward J. Rozek’s Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, New York, Wiley, 1958 and, especially, by Walter Laqueur (a Jew born in Breslau in 1921): The Terrible Secret, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980, 262 p., wherein we see Cavendish-Bentinck, him again, “Chairman of the British Intelligence Committee”, writing in July 1943 that “The Poles and, to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up” (p. 83).

Fifteen months ago, referring to the crisis that the historians of “the Holocaust” were experiencing, I wrote that there was “more and more water in their gas, and slack in their knotted rope”. Since January 2015 and the anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz I have noted a sudden acceleration of the phenomenon. I have a whole file and a whole demonstration on the subject but the continuing judicial repression has not yet left me time to publish this information. In any case, for the historian, it has become captivating to observe the never-ending agony of the “magical gas chamber” (Céline in 1950). This agony is accompanied, as we have seen, by a redoubling of the repression of revisionism and a turning up of the volume of holocaustic propaganda. May our Picrochole refrain, then, from going on the stage and into a trance! He would have a stroke. He might even be cruelly snatched away from us. Who knows? He could precede in death a man who will be 87 years of age on January 25, 2016 and whom some have, thus far in vain, so often sought to kill, not for his ideas (he has hardly any) but for having wanted to publish the result of his research, which is summed up in a phrase of about sixty words. I repeat it here for memory, and to have done with it:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

Note: For sources or references especially regarding certain points of this text one may consult the indices of the seven volumes of my Ecrits révisionnistes thus far published. On the Internet, for “The Victories of Revisionism” (11 December 2006), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/victories-of-revisionism.html and for “The Victories of Revisionism (continued)” (September 11, 2011), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2011/09/victories-of-revisionism-continued.html.

Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.

In preparation: 1) an article about an embarrassing secret of Serge Klarsfeld; 2) a study of the highly inflammable and explosive nature of hydrogen cyanide.

—-

Report on week two of  Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham    by  Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the news concerning this important trial further afield.

To date only the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, and CBC Prince George have given coverage to the story so it’s now firmly established that Canada’s major news networks (all of which are either controlled or heavily influenced by the foreign Zionist lobby) have no intention of informing the general public on this matter.

As I previously stated in the first report it’s up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers around the world.

The original time period allotted for the trial indicated that it would conclude by Friday, November 6th but such is not the case. It will now carry on into week three and likely conclude on Tuesday, November 10th one day prior to Canada’s federal holiday known as Remembrance Day.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

To Alternative Media Sources
Report on week two of
Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham

by
Arthur Topham

The second week of Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial R v Roy Arthur Topham got underway Monday morning, November 2nd, 2015.

Witness #1 former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team

During the fourth day of the first week of testimony (October 29, 2015) Defence attorney Barclay Johnson had cross examined former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator involved in the current Sec. 319(2) charge, arrest and incarceration of Mr. Topham back in May of 2012. Throughout his questioning of Wilson it was clearly shown that the former detective was not an “expert” on what constituted “hate” and that Wilson was solely relying upon only one definition of “hatred” which appeared in the Keegstra case from back in the 1980’s. It was also evident from the former Hate Crime Unit investigator’s statements that after the second complainant had filed his complaint to the BC Hate Crime Team back in May of 2011 Wilson traveled over to Victoria, B.C. to interview the complainant who, during the course of the taped conversation, told Wilson that he’d also been involved in laying an earlier complaint against Topham back in 2007 as a representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. That earlier Sec. 13(1) complaint on the part of B’nai Brith Canada, fortunately for Topham, was stayed in 2010 pending the outcome of a Constitutional challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Act (where the legislation existed); one that ultimately resulted in the repeal of Sec. 13(1) in June of 2012.

In the course of their interview the complainant told Wilson that his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, didn’t think they had any evidence strong enough to gain a conviction under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada until Topham published his “book” Israel Must Perish! on his website May 28th, 2011. The complainant, upon reading what was in actuality a satire that Topham had written of the actual book Germany Must Perish! concluded that he now had sufficient evidence to prove to a court of law that Topham was proposing the total annihilation of the Jewish population and would therefore qualify as a candidate for a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team.

Under cross examination Defence attorney Johnson suggested to Wilson that it wasn’t until the complainant had told him about the “book” that he made his decision to charge Topham.

Topham’s attorney also brought forth evidence clearly showing Wilson to have abused his police powers during the course of his investigation when he wrote a personal letter to Topham’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) Netfirms.ca back on November 21, 2012 informing them that Topham had been charged on November 5, 2012 with a Sec. 319(2) CCC offence of “Wilfully Promoting Hatred”. Defence pointed out to the court that Wilson had taken it upon himself to go to Netfirms.ca, read through their policy and then suggested to the company that Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal charge “may in fact contravene” said policy under section 4(b)(i). The result of Wilson’s letter to Netfirms.ca was that the ISP wrote to Topham the same day issuing what was basically an ultimatum stating, “We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” It was signed by “Zach P Corporate Support”.

Given such short notice and not having the technical expertise to shift his website to a new (and more secure) server in the USA Topham had to rely upon an associate of his who also wasn’t fully proficient in downloading and uploading websites. The end result was that all the content on Topham’s website prior to November 21, 2012 ended up infected with computer code script that required hundreds of hours of labour to correct and to this day still hasn’t been fully repaired.

Defence also pointed out to the court that when Wilson wrote to Netfirms.ca on November 21, 2012 there had already been one attempt on the part of Crown to have Topham’s bail conditions changed so that he wouldn’t be able to carry on publishing until after the trial (should he be found not guilty). That attempt had failed and Crown was attempting a second time to change his conditions and a hearing on Crown’s application had already been set for January 2, 2013 but Wilson disregarded the court and proceeded on his own to try and remove RadicalPress.com before that date. Because of these independent actions on the part of former Det. Wilson, Defence suggested to the court that Wilson had acted in an extra-judicial manner and in doing so had attempted to circumvent whatever decision the court may have come to regarding Topham’s bail conditions (Crown’s application was unsuccessful). In other words Wilson had acted as judge and jury and concluded, prior to Crown’s application being heard, that Topham was guilty of the crime before having been tried. In other words, according to Defence counsel Johnson, Wilson’s testimony could not be taken seriously and ought to be disregarded by the jury.

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

The first week’s proceedings concluded Friday, October 30th, 2015 with Crown’s Expert Witness, Mr. Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, completing his testimony. Week two commenced with Defence attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross examination of Mr. Rudner testimony.

Len Rudner copy

As noted in the first report the focus of Crown’s evidence was contained in four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books posted on RadicalPress.com:

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins
5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text (580 pages) of Douglas Reed’s historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion. Binders #3 and #4 were basically screen shots of all of Topham’s monthly postings on his website which Wilson had “captured” during the course of the Hate Crime Team’s investigation once the initial complaint was laid against Topham and his website on April 28th, 2011. As well, a number of Topham’s personal writings contained in the sidebar on the home page under the heading Arthur’s Court were also included.

Over the course of Len Rudner’s testimony Crown’s Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Johnston led Rudner through all of the above online books and portions of the articles, most of which contained Topham’s “Editor’s Note” prefaces. It was mainly these prefaces to other writer’s work that Crown zeroed in on as they apparently were having great difficulty in finding anything in Topham’s own personal articles on the site that they felt would meet the stringent standards that the law required in order to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Topham was “wilfully” promoting hatred toward “people of Jewish ethnicity or religion”.

Fortunately, for the defence, Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner provided the court with some extremely revealing evidence while under cross examination which, ultimately, led to some damning conclusions.

Given that Rudner had told the court that during the period of his tenure as a Director for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which spanned the years in which Mr. Topham had been harassed and dragged through the whole of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13(1) complaint process from 2007 until 2012, Defence counsel Johnson began questioning Rudner on statements he’d made under oath regarding his personal involvement in the laying of these Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charges against Canadian citizens. What Rudner told the court, was most revealing and in some instances totally unexpected. As it turned out, in his capacity as a director of this foreign Israeli lobbyist organization, Rudner stated that as far back as 2007 he had been personally involved in an attempt on the part of the CJC to file a Sec. 319(2) “hate” complaint against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com with the British Columbia Hate Crimes Team (BCHCT). This was the very same RCMP unit that on May 16th, 2012 arrested Topham and charged him under the same Sec. 319(2) criminal code section. Rudner’s statements were corroborated by the evident from Crown’s disclosure which contained the following document shown below.

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

While the document itself hadn’t indicated who, in particular, was responsible for filing the complaint, Rudner having sworn that he was personally involved in drafting a number of such complaints, admitted to having signed off on that one as well.

During the course of his testimony before the court Rudner also admitted to having had contact with Topham’s former Internet Service Provider (ISP) MagNet.com (now defunct) back as far as 2005 wherein he had complained to said company that Topham was publishing “anti-Semitic” materials on his website RadicalPress.com. He admitted under oath that at the time he complained to the ISP he realized that it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that Topham’s site would be removed from the Internet but that it would at least be an “inconvenience” for Topham! What Rudner and the court, including Defence attorney Barclay Johnson, didn’t realize was that the complaint by the CJC to Topham’s then ISP resulted in Topham losing all of the contents of his website, including a long and lively forum, that dated back to and included the period from 1999 to 2005 and constituted a valuable historic record of a section of history that has since dominated much of the narrative concerning the nascent period of the 21st Century and its reaction to the defining event now known as 911. At the time of the loss Topham had a strong suspicion that the person or persons responsible for filing the complaint to his ISP were most likely connected to either the Canadian Jewish Congress or B’nai Brith Canada (both of whom are admitted lobbyists for the foreign state of Israel), but his then server refused to divulge who had registered the complaint and had only given Topham 48 hours to find a new server. Now the truth regarding that premeditated event finally came to light ten years after the fact.

Given Rudner’s direct testimony that he had personally been involved in two previous attempts to have Topham’s website taken down, Defence attorney Barclay Johnson then questioned Rudner regarding the credentials used in determining his suitability to appear as an “Expert Witness” on behalf of the Crown. Johnson pointed out to the court that in order to qualify for such an esteemed position within the Canadian court system one had to be seen as impartial and unbiased and neutral in order for their “Expert” testimony to be considered credible. He then punctuated this scathing indictment of Rudner’s disingenuousness and confession of complicity by stating that Rudner had, in fact, “a horse in the race” all along and that his admission of these facts could only serve to discredit the worth of all of his testimony in the case before the court.

When Rudner attempted to justify his clandestine attempts to take down Topham’s website Johnson’s response was to suggest that it was nothing but “pure sophistry”.

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.

Mr. Atzmon had agreed to take the stand on behalf of Arthur Topham and testify as to why he felt that the charge of “hatred toward the Jews” was inappropriate and his decision to do so was based upon his strongly held conviction that the vast majority of criticism being directed toward the Jews was in fact political in nature rather than personal or aimed specifically at Jews based upon either their religion or their ethnicity.

While the Crown had made a big display before the court of the fact that their Expert Witness Len Rudner was being paid $195.00 an hour to appear to testify when Mr. Atzmon appeared on the morning of November 3, 2015 Defence Barclay Johnson pointed out to the jury that Atzmon had volunteered his expertise without pay and that only his airfare and hotel accommodations and food were being covered by Topham’s defence fund.

After much to do about having his status as an Expert Witness accepted by Justice Bruce Butler when Gilad Atzmon stepped up to the podium and began to speak it immediately became apparent to the court that here was an Expert Witness to be reckoned with. Being an internationally recognized lecturer and in possession of the academic credentials to back up his philosophical approach to the issues being discussed in the courtroom, Mr. Atzmon’s quickly took control of the narrative and over the remainder of his testimony spoke with an unabashed air of certainty and conviction. Unlike Rudner whose quiet, monotone presentation lacked any overt sense of passion in what he was saying, Gilad’s outspoken oratory coupled with his obvious depth of knowledge concerning what he talked about left little doubt in the minds of anyone in the courtroom that here was a man of scholarly quality who unquestionably knew his subject.

Defence counsel Barclay Johnson then led Atzmon through the various online publications that were the subject of Crown’s evidence and Atzmon framed each book and quotation cited within his own analysis of the overall question concerning the Jewish Question and what Atzmon referred to as “Jewish Identity” politics. He went on to explain by means of visual aids (a graphic of a triangle with the three points headed by “Religion”, “Ethnicity” and “Identity or Jewish-ness”), all of which formed the basis of his thesis as contained in his internationally renowned book, The Wandering Who? which has been a best seller since it first came out in 2011.

Of particular note were Atzmon’s comments on the controversial satire which Topham had written in response to his reading of the actual book titled Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann which Topham then satirically titled  Israel Must Perish! This was the already noted article on Topham’s website that the complainant in the case told former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team was sufficient evidence that Topham was promoting the total genocide of the whole of the Jewish population. When Gilad Atzmon addressed the issue he was adamant in his appraisal of the satire stating that it was an exceptionally important contribution to the overall discussion of Jewish identity in that it basically represented a mirror image of what Kaufmann’s book had said and that this mirror was now being held up before the Jewish people and in particular the Zionist state of Israel as a reminder for them to reflect upon their own actions and behaviour in todays political setting. He made reference to the plight of the Palestinians in his comments but Crown was quick to object (and Justice Butler was also quick to agree with Crown) that Atzmon wasn’t an expert on the Palestinian issue and therefore his testimony in that regard should be disregarded.

As Atzmon stated in his book, “As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson commenced her cross examination of Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th and it resumed the next morning of November 5th. It was basically on the second day of cross examination that the Prosecutor began her laborious efforts to try and get Atzmon to agree to the Crown’s position with respect to the term “Hatred” and also to many of the quotations cited throughout the trial that Crown felt showed evidence of Topham’s wilful promotion of hatred toward the Jews in general. Suffice it to say that every attempt at twisting Gilad’s words to conform to Crown’s preconceived mould of what “hatred” meant was met with not only dismissal but further testimony on Atzmon’s part as to what he actually was saying. This process continued on throughout his cross examination and it would not be unfair to say that the following exchange was typical of Crown’s approach and Gilad’s reaction:

Crown: Mr. Atzmon, I’m sure that you would agree that ….

Gilad Atzmon: No.

The jury and members of the public sitting in the gallery witnessed this scenario occurring over and over and the end result was that Crown was unable to refute any of Atzmon’s testimony nor discredit his presentation in any way.

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

Friday, November 6, 2015 was originally the final day scheduled for R v Roy Arthur Topham. But like most things the numerous delays throughout the past two week due to Crown’s own actions (which will be touched on at the end of this report) the only thing that happened on this day was that Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson was able to (after numerous interruptions by Crown and Justice Butler) finally sum up before the jury his arguments as to why they should find the defendant not guilty. That summation, in itself, was prolonged by the presiding Justice so that it wasn’t until 2:30 p.m. that Johnson finally was able to speak to the jurors. He ended at precisely 4:00 p.m.

The main thrust by defence was to speak to the jury about Crown’s two witnesses, former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner. Johnson outlined for the jury the many instances of bias displayed by both these two individuals while testifying. In addition to that he also (after much wrangling with Justice Butler) presented to the jury some of Arthur Topham’s writings taken from an article which had been included in Crown’s disclosure. That article, titled KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada was originally posted on the website back in 2008 and dealt with issues related to the first complaint laid against Topham by B’nai Brith Canada under the former Sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act in the article were references made to the character of Topham which the defence wanted the jury to hear.

Defence then read out the following to the jury: [please note that the defendant is restricted by his current bail conditions from naming his accuser online and therefore the individual in question is simply referred to as “Mr. Z”]

“I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 – 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as http://www.radicalpress.com . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.

In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, newsroom@quesnelobserver.com beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case….

There is one last, missing factor in this “hate” equation which Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.”

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

Given that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers to proceed with this trial is likely over one million dollars throughout the duration of this two week trial the court has been witness to endless problems dealing with Crown’s disclosure materials. Given the fact that Crown has now had over three and half years to put together the evidence in a format that would easily facilitate the normal reading habits of the jurors and Defence counsel what we have witnessed throughout the trial is a disgrace to the supreme court system in British Columbia.

From the onset of the case (beginning in May of 20120), defence had to fight tooth and nail to get disclosure from Crown and to try and have Crown particularize the evidence so it was clearly evident what would be used in the actual trial. Instead Crown insisted that the case was an “ongoing investigation” and therefore they couldn’t provide the full disclosure until final weeks preceding trial. When they did send Defence counsel their Disclosure much of it was unreadable. Defence had to redo pages and pages of Crown evidence in order that it could be read in court, not only by defence but also by the jurors who would be expected to follow along in their own Binders. This aspect of the trial consumed hours of time and even after the trial was well underway it became blatantly obvious that the last two binders would have to be republished so the jury might have a readable copy to refer to. Those final two binders didn’t enter into the court until the morning of Friday, November 6, 2015!

Typical of the quality of the documents is the image below taken from one page of KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada It would not be a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the jurors being each given a magnifying glass in order to try and read the evidence. Given that it cost the taxpayers an additional $2000.00 to have them reprinted twelve magnifying glasses might have been a more cost effective measure.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

Monday, November 9, 2015 will see Crown present its summation to the jury. On Friday Justice Butler asked the jury if they would be ready to have him charge them on Tuesday morning the 10th of November. He told them that if he charged them on Tuesday that in the event they couldn’t come to a decision by the end of the day that they would have to remain sequestered through to November 11th which is Canada’s Remembrance Day federal holiday. The jury went out and discussed this and returned to tell Justice Butler that they would prefer to be charged on the 10th. That meant they didn’t think it would take more than one day to make their minds up.

As it now stands Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 will conclude the trial and a verdict will be handed down on that day. Stay tuned folks!

•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH
By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.
February 25, 1985

dchristie2

DOUGLAS CHRISTIE, B.A., L.L.B.
__________________________________________________________

[EDITOR’S NOTE: In the Introduction to this small booklet published by C-FAR back in 1985, then President of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Daryl Reside, wrote:

“In this booklet, C-FAR’s Canadian Issues Series is publishing excerpts from defence lawyer Doug Christie’s spirited summation to the jury at the Ernst Zundel trial. This summation was delivered February 25, 1985.

Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good. In his ringing defence, Christie seeks to establish: 1) that credible reasons existed for much of what Zundel published; that is, he had justification and arguments for his point of view; 2) that he sincerely believed what he wrote and, therefore, did not knowingly publish falsehoods; and 3) that  a diversity of opinions, however controversial they may be, is vital to a democracy and in no way harms the public good. Threading its way throughout the entire summation is Christie’s passionate view that, right or wrong, a man must be permitted to search for the truth and express his point of view.

It is this fierce commitment to principle and to liberty that makes this summation an important historical document…. It should also be noted that Zundel nowhere advocated illegal or violent actions in the two pamphlets in which he was accused of violating Section 177.”

It is now going on 25 years, a quarter of a century, since Doug Christie gave this summation to the jury in February of 1985. In the interim period the forces of censorship and repression have been successful in punishing Ernst Zundel to the max and he now sits in a dungeon in Zionist-occupied Germany and has been jailed for over six years already for having committed the gravest crime of the 20th Century: Speaking the truth.

Obviously the battle to end censorship is far from over. In my own case with these same Zionist Jew forces working through B’nai Brith Canada’s League for “Human Rights”, we see their relentless and calculated designs continuing to unfold before the public’s now awakening eyes. The war for freedom of speech continues.]

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it’s my role as counsel, to address you now and speak to you about the position of the defence. My first observation is that probably never before in the history of your country, have twelve people had to grapple with a more all-encompassing and serious issue than you will have to deal with. When you have finished your deliberations, in all probability your country will be made different, for as long as you and I will live, by the decision that you will make here about the most serious issues that confront any citizen in a free society.

You have spent seven weeks examining the evidence in one of the most wide-scoped cases in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. I said at the beginning, and I repeat to you now, that this is a case that should never have been before a court of law in a free society because it is an issue upon which courts will have no end of difficulty in addressing and dealing with. If you have a clear understanding of the role of freedom in a free society, this may never have to happen again, because a clear indication that we permit and tolerate debate and points of view we may not agree with from a jury of twelve ordinary citizens will be the strongest indication to every politician in this country that we are not subject to the pressures of groups dictating ideas and determining how other people will think, act, and speak.

I suggest to you now that what you have heard in these seven weeks is a lot more information on the subject of the book, Did Six Million Really Die?, than you or I might ever have thought at first was likely to occur. I suggest that we have all learned something in this process. Tolerance, is indeed, one of the things that you have learned by hearing another side to a point that we always thought was so clear and so simple. But to everything we know in life, there are two sides, and many more quite often, and nobody, no matter how well informed or how expert, has all the truth, or ever will.

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

It shouldn’t be for the law to determine the extent of debate in a free society. It shouldn’t be forced upon judges and courts to decide what is the truth about some historical belief. It’s nobody’s fault in this room that we are here. It is the duty of every one of us to do our duty as we are, lawyers, judges, jurors, but really it was a wrong political decision to bring before you and me the duty to examine history 40 years old to determine where the truth lies. It is a question that never should have been here. But having been placed in this position, we must deal with it, and we must deal with it to preserve important values in our society.

The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.” Even though our society says, as it always has, in this and every other charge, the burden’s on the Crown, the burden to prove every ingredient is on the Crown, the burden to prove that the thing is false is on the Crown, where does the accused stand? He’s here. He’s been here like you, at his own expense for seven weeks and whatever may become of this case, he’s already paid a very high price for the belief that he had the right to speak what he believed to be the truth.

Who could deny that he believed it to be the truth? In fact, who can prove it wasn’t the truth? If this society cherishes freedom, as men and women in the past have, then you and I must very clearly state that truth can stand on its own. In a free society we have no better protection, for my opinion and yours, than that you should be free to express yourself and I should be free to express myself, and no court need decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

Is that going to be a danger to you and me? Error, if there is such, in my opinion or yours is best determined when you and I talk freely to one another, and you and I can then debate and hear from each other many sources of information which couldn’t be produced in a court of law. How many of our opinions could stand up to seven weeks of scrutiny? How much of anything you have ever written or I’ve ever written could be analyzed line by line for seven weeks, phrase by phrase, with experts from all over the world, and found to be true? There will be errors in anything you or I believe, and thank God for it. We are, none of us, perfect. But in the thesis Did Six Million Really Die? there is a substantial point of view, a reasonable argument found upon fact, that many will reject, but many are free to reject. Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has.

I’d like to refer to something Dr. Hilberg said in his book, and I asked him about it. He said, “Basically, we are dealing with two of Hitler’s decisions. One order was given in the spring of 1941, during the planning of the invasion of the U.S.S.R.; it provided that small units of the S.S. and police be dispatched to Soviet territory, where they were to move from town to town to kill all Jewish inhabitants on the spot. This method may be called the “mobile killing operations.” Shortly after the mobile operations had begun in the occupied Soviet territories, Hitler handed down his second order. That decision doomed the rest of European Jewry. Unlike the Russian Jews, who were overtaken by mobile units, the Jewish population of Central, Western, and South Eastern Europe was transported to killing centres.”

Through all the trial and all the arguments and all the discussion, I have yet to see one single piece of evidence of either of those two Hitler orders. If they exist, why can’t we see them? No footnote, no identification of source. We have a statement of very significant fact, without a single supporting document here in that book, or there on that stand from a learned and distinguished author.

Am I saying he has no right to his views? Of course not. Am I saying that I should be able to debate his views and disagree with his views? I certainly suggest that ought to be your right, my right, and the right of every thinking person. You see, there is an example. If I were to put Dr. Hilberg or any other person in the position of the accused and say, “All right, justify that,” how would he? We all hold opinions that at times we would have a difficult job justifying. But, so what? Is it not possible for people to disagree and be free to disagree when they themselves are not absolutely certain they’re right? Have we come to the stage in society where tolerance is so limited that we must prosecute those whose views we find disagreeable?

In this trial, I often wondered and I suggest, so should you, why all this. Why? For a little booklet that published a point of view which some people reject and other people believe? Why? Well, only in the last few hours of this trial did I really begin to see the reason why. It had nothing to do with Did Six Million Really Die?; very little to do with The West, War and Islam, a lot to do with Mr. Zundel and his views. Was he a racist? Was he a lover of Hitler? Was he perhaps a neo-Nazi, as so often we’ve been told? What difference would that really make anyway? If it was alleged that he had some views of a Communist nature, so what? We tolerate those views. In a newsletter complaining about what had happened to 2,000 friends and supporters and subscribers of his newsletter, many of them old, when their homes were entered in West Germany, with warrants in the middle of the night, he was angry. So, out of 25 years of his writing letters, they found a sentence which implied some deep anger and the resort to violence. Never once has there been a suggestion of any violence from Mr. Zundel at all. No suggestion he ever owned or had or would have had a gun. None of what is suggested. But you know who he actually quoted and paraphrased? You know it was the man who said, “All legal power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” That was – if you know history – Mao Tse-tung, a man who was eulogized in the Parliament of Canada upon his death. And yet, Mr. Zundel used it, and is cross-examined as to its deep-seated significance, as if he had some sinister intent.

I began to see, as I suggest you should, that the real reason for this prosecution was his views. If any of us is subjected to that kind of scrutiny, it will mean that freedom really ceases to have any meaning. You will be free to agree but not free to disagree. That’s the kind of society which will result if a conviction can be founded upon a prosecution of this kind.

I suggest that you don’t have to believe what it says in Did Six Million Really Die?, but you probably have good reason to. There’s a lot of truth in that pamphlet which deserves to be considered by rational men and women all over the world, not because they’re academics, but because they’re thinking human beings and they want to hear different points of view. What are we, lobotomized idiots, that we only have to accept the point of view of the “majority”? Or are we free, should we be free, to think of views that are not majority views?

How do you think change occurs in society? Do you think the whole of society decides, “Oh, we were wrong about the world being flat,” and all of a sudden, bang, the whole world decides, “Oh, it’s round now.”? Ask Galileo how difficult that was. In his time, he was a heretic, his views were totally contrary to 99% of the population. But, who was right?

Now, change has to occur in everybody’s thinking from time to time. Everybody grows. I’ve learned something here; you’ve learned something here; we’re all growing. And it’s in the process of hearing other points of view that we grow. But if we decide that somebody’s point of view ought not to be heard because someone else says it’s false, we’ve terminated all significant discussion, because significant points of view are always regarded as false by somebody, and if they’re controversial, my goodness, they create lots of heat, more heat often than light. So, if we are going to keep our children and grandchildren, and for the future of our country the possibility of progress and the possibility of exchanging ideas in a free society, we’d better respect the rights of others who honestly believe that they are right, even though we many think they’re wrong.

I don’t suggest for one moment that you or I have any right to determine from the evidence before you that Mr. Zundel is wrong. I would say to you that the case is unproven as to falsehood. Unproven. In Scottish law there is guilty, not guilty, or unproven. Well, you don’t have that verdict here, but it’s an interesting point by analogy, because in the case at bar it hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there’s anything false about Did Six Million Really Die?, not a word. It’s opinion.

Dr. Hilberg says: “Oh, I think it’s all misquotes and half truth and misconceptions.” That’s his view. I respect his right to his view. But he hasn’t proven any of that. He says, “I’ve read documents for years.” What documents did he produce? I didn’t see any. Who produced documents? Who produced books? Who produced maps? Who produced photographs? The defendant. He comes before you because he believes what he says is the truth and he wants to prove it to you. Why else would he waste a hundred thousand of his dollars and seven weeks of his life? Why do you think that he does all of this? Because he believes in the truth of what he says. He believes in it so passionately because he loves his nation. Is that a sin? He didn’t say he hated anybody. He didn’t say a word against anybody when he was on the stand. He was attacked. He said that he loved his race. He said, “I love my children, but that doesn’t mean I hate other people’s children.” Is there something wrong with that? If our society is to be scrupulous about what other people’s opinions are, who among us will be safe? If I or you were to have to reveal all our opinions on the stand, how many of them could withstand public scrutiny? If the right decision is made here, seven weeks will have been well spent in that never again will someone have to defend his position in a court of law on a statement of opinion.

You don’t have to share all of Mr. Zundel’s opinions. He has a right to his; you have a right to yours. He’s not questioning your right to yours. But there is a power that is questioning his right to his, and you are the only hope for the freedom of citizens to hold views that disagree with others. And if you can’t hold views that disagree in a free society, what is there? There are two things. If you can’t have freedom to disagree, then there’s either violence, or there is silence, neither of which is traditional in our country, neither of which is necessary in the future. Our country has been a peaceful country because we have tolerated points of view with which you and I might not agree, not because we have some hygienic method of extracting and eliminating bad views. That’s never been done before, and it should not be done now, and it should never be done again.

But there is a force in our society that wants that to happen. If there’s a means to stop it from carrying on and creating a situation where everybody has to stand before courts and justify themselves to their neighbours, we must find it.

You twelve people have more power in your hands for good or evil than any other twelve people I have ever met, and thank God for the right that you should be free today to defend freedom tomorrow, to make freedom a real thing. You or I have never really known that kind of power before, because we’ve never been put in this position before. A clear answer from you, without doubt, without fear, without malice, will put an end to a process which, if it continues, will lead us to the destruction of all freedom in society.

In his brochure Did Six Million Really Die?, Ernst Zundel presents a thesis, a thesis that men have paid a very high price for believing. No witness for the Crown needs fear for his job, for his security, for his family, but is that true for the defence? Then, why are the defence witnesses here? They are here because they love the truth and believe in what they say, and already I can tell you that the prices are being paid. So much for freedom in society, that men and women have to fight to get into courtrooms to give their evidence, to testify under fear. Well, with the right decision from you, that fear will be diminished. What little we know as ordinary citizens about communist societies indicates that where there is an official truth, where there is a state religion or belief, people become more and more afraid to speak. That should not happen here. There is what Orwell referred to as an official truth in some societies. Is that what you wish for your society? You will have more power to answer that question today than any other twelve people in our society so far. With a clear answer to that question, you will do some service to your descendants in the preservation of their rights.

I don’t know how many of you have controversial views. Maybe none. But will your children have none? Would you like to have the right to their opinions? That’s a question you too will answer.

The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war. You know most of us are from a background on the Allied side, I think, and so when we have Veteran’s Days, we love our country, we love our people who sacrificed for it. But what of the Germans? Are they always to bear the label of the villains? You see, they had an interest in looking into this question. There are so many people in our society who come from that background who desire to know the truth and don’t believe everything they have been told. They inquire. They have a motive. They indeed have a reason, more than you and I perhaps, to inquire, and their views may be in diametric opposition to yours. But if they have some truth let them tell it. Let them reason. Let the public decide whether they are right or wrong. Let not the courts make a decision. Let not people be forced to justify themselves in this way, but let the public decide. That’s all Mr. Zundel has asked for and that’s all anyone has a right to I suggest and it isn’t too much of a right for anyone to desire.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million. Oh, I’m aware that in this case there were repeated efforts to distinguish between Germans and Nazis, but is that really the way they’re portrayed? Is that distinction always kept? Is it justified to believe what we have been told so often? You have heard some reasons which prove that the story of the six million is not correct. Those reasons are given to you by sincere, honest individuals who have done diligent research.

You have heard the evidence of many witnesses and I’d like to briefly capsulize some of the significant things about their evidence. You remember Arnold Freedman. He was transported in cattle cars. He constantly smelled the smoke in Birkenau and saw it belching from chimneys. I want you to consider a very significant question which has troubled me. To create belching chimneys, day in and day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for weeks on end, one needs coal or coke, large quantities of coal or coke. I’ve heard all the evidence, as you have, of the process of unloading the people into the concentration camps. Why would all those people be unloaded by the helpless prisoners like Dr. Vrba, and the coal be unloaded by the S.S.? Keep in mind, in the days of 1940 to 44, we didn’t have backhoes, right? We didn’t have caterpillars unloading these trucks, coal cars. Everything was apparently done by hand. Well, you know, it makes me very, very interested, to put it mildly, that all this smoke and burning chimneys and flames shooting forth should occur with nobody unloading coke trains. Did you hear anybody talk of unloading coke trains? I didn’t?

To question should never be anti-anything. Why should it be? To think is not against anybody. To reason, to question, is the free right of a thinking human being. So I wonder, where does all this right to think go, if we can’t ask the question: where were the coke trains? Where was the coal?

The evidence of Mr. Zundel was that 80 pounds of coal is necessary to cremate a human body. The amount of coal to turn a human body into ashes is a morbid subject, of course, but it doesn’t change. The laws of physics don’t change for the Germans, for the Nazis, for the Jews, or anybody; they’re all the same, the laws of physics. Now, 80 pounds of coal or coke for 1,765,000 people is nearly a hundred and sixty million pounds of coke. Where does all this come from? Nobody bothers to answer that, but they say that Did Six Million Really Die? is false.

How is that question false? How is questioning anything false? Why should the editorial opinions of our writers be any different than Mr. Zundel’s? How many editorials contain false news every day? How many newspaper stories, how many books, how many movies? What are we doing here? We’re crucifying one man’s opinion because they say he is not a nice man, when every day in all of our society there’s a thousand misquotes, misstatements. Well, what’s the difference? I’ll tell you what the difference is. This man has no political power and big newspapers and big television stations and big radio stations and big politicians do. That’s the difference.

When John Turner quotes Brian Mulroney, do you think he does it to approve of him? Do you think they quote each other out of context because they wish to point out the inconsistencies of their opponent? The Crown, in his analysis, will no doubt say there are statements in Did Six Million Really Die? that are out of context, that the Red Cross did not say there was no extermination when they wrote their report, but it is true they said there was no extermination during the war, when they were in the camps. They don’t even produce for you a shred of evidence of a gas chamber, but they say 1,765,000 people died by going between two buildings. Remember Dr. Vrba’s evidence? Well, how do you accomplish that without a gas chamber? What, do they disappear and they’re all shot? No, you have to justify the claim that millions died; you have to have gas chambers and there’s no evidence to support them.

Now the defence has tried to show that the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz seen today, are impossibilities, scientific impossibilities. We have called evidence, witness after witness, to show they have tried to find the bottom of this story, and they have found nothing that makes sense to their experience. That’s pretty significant stuff. That’s pretty important analysis. Look what Dr. Faurisson has paid for his inquiries. He’s been beaten; he’s been beaten while he talked; he’s been subjected to quite a bit of ridicule; but does anyone deny the sincerity or honesty of his inquiry or his intelligence or his detailed analysis of what documents there are? I suggest not.

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

People want the right to ask these questions, and there are some people who don’t want anyone to have the right to broadcast what they find, and I would consider that, I suggest you should, a very suspicious situation. When any group of people wants to silence an individual, you’d better ask why. Maybe it’s a good thing, maybe it’s beneficial to social tolerance that we should ask these questions. Maybe it’s time to do that now. Maybe the way to peace is not through silence and coercion on these matters but through open discussion. How will that change the world? Maybe it will be a better world when we can look at ourselves more honestly in the cold light of reason rather than the heated passions of a war just ended.

That’s what revisionism is all about. After the First World War, there were many revisionists, many people who said: “Well, we really don’t have all the answers on our side.” We used propaganda. We told people that Germans killed Belgian babies and boiled cadavers to make soap. That’s not a Second World War story at all. If we want peace there must be freedom to discuss whether or not the morality was all on one side. That’s really the social effect of the booklet Did Six Million Really Die?. You don’t have to accept it. To see even that it puts some of the things that happened after the Second World War in a different context, would be a redeeming value in itself, but the booklet has a great deal more. It has truth, a lot of truth. It’s for you to decide, for the public, indeed, too, to decide how much truth, measured, as they ought to, with their right to read everybody else’s opinion.

Error needs the support of government; truth stands on its own. In fact, what is occurring here, is the endeavor to silence one opinion, one side of the argument. “But the world is no more justified in silencing the opinion of one man than that one man would be if he had the power to in silencing all the world,” these words of John Stuart Mill are as true today as when he spoke them. Do we have to learn the same lessons all over again, every generation? Do we never entrench and understand from one generation to the next the right to differ? Do we always have to re-fight these battles time and again? I guess we do. I guess it’s always going to be a struggle to have a different point of view, but I’ll tell you, it has always been the history of Man that good men and women have valued freedom, sometimes to the extent that they would risk their lives to save it, and if anything could be done to honour the memory of men and women who died in war for the sake of freedom, it would be to recognize that freedom now, for someone whose opinions they might not have agreed with. If we have a duty to admit a fact about ourselves, it’s that we don’t have all the answers.

Let our society, from the date of your verdict, be known for the safety with which we tolerate divergent views and opinions, when truth is left free to combat error in the open arena of a free society unfettered by the heavy hand of the state. That is a simple statement of principle. I guess it is necessary for you and I once again to make the little sacrifice that you and I have to be here and fight for that principle all over again. Thank God no one was really hurt. Thank God that we can do this in a rational context with respect for each other, with understanding, with charity for our many errors, without having to go to war, to discuss controversies. Maybe there’s progress, but there won’t be if everybody who wishes to bring forward a controversial view will have to do so in a court at their own expense. If you convict, that process will have only just begun, because in society there will always be people who would like to put their enemy right there in the defendant’s chair. That’s where a lot of people would like to see somebody they disagree with, right there. If you convict, I can say to you that’s a very likely situation. There are some rather nasty politicians who would like to put their opponents right there, and if we follow down the road that this prosecution will lead, if there is a conviction, there will be no stopping those types of politicians who wish to put their opponents right there. Then where will we be? Don’t think that they wouldn’t have the power, because they can find it. There are pressure groups today who can find that power.

The book-burnings by the Nazis were wrong, but what’s going on here? A book’s on trial, two books, if you like, pamphlets, tracts, if like. But every day in our society people say a lot more controversial dubious things than are written there. Why are these people so afraid of such a little book? If it was false, would they be afraid?

You’ve heard a witness, Doug Collins. He’s been a journalist for 35 years, and he says there’s the power of Zionists in the media. Do you really need some proof of that? How many publications today criticize Israel very strenuously? Is that the kind of society you want, where one view is the only legitimate view? The smear word of anti-Semitism is so easy to put upon anyone and so difficult to disabuse oneself of once you are labeled. Is criticism of Israel or the point of view of Jews any more evil than the criticism of Americans or the criticism of British or the criticism of French points of view? Why should it be?

It’s my submission to you, that maybe the basis of the Crown’s attack, is that the accused has chosen to criticize a very obviously Jewish belief. Now, I don’t question the right of any group, Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, whomever, to hold whatever views, but why deny Ernst Zundel the same right? And then let the public decide, as every time they will, between whom they believe and whom they don’t believe.

The future of the right to hold beliefs is at stake because the truth is never self-evident. There’s always going to be a debate about the truth especially in history. How many believed, as I did when I grew up, that Christopher Columbus discovered America? Well, they don’t always agree on that today. But what’s wrong with changes of view? They happen all the time. History is controversy. Today is controversy. Yesterday is controversy and tomorrow will be controversy. But so what? Nobody is going to be able to write the history of the world until God does. I’d suggest that what it amounts to, when you come down to the bottom line of this question, is that people will always differ. The danger is that if silence one point of view, you won’t get a balanced argument.

Has Dr. Hilberg proved a single thing here to be false? No, he hasn’t. He says he had documents. He produces none. He talks about the train tickets and schedules. What train tickets and schedules? If we’re talking about a criminal case we should have evidence. There isn’t enough evidence here today to convict one person for murdering one other person. But they want you to believe that six million died, or millions died, and that this question mark is false. Where is the evidence to support one murder by one person? There is no Hitler order; there is an alleged order somewhere by somebody alleged to have heard it from somebody else. There’s no evidence.

Let’s look at the evidence. Dr. Vrba says he’s an eye-witness. Dr. Vrba had a little problem here. You have plans, you know, submitted by the defence, of crematoria. Now, let’s make sure we understand each other. There certainly were crematoria. But that doesn’t mean there were gas chambers to gas people. But the issue is were 1,765,000 or millions gassed, killed by a systematic plan to do so? There’s no evidence of that. Dr. Vrba gave evidence of burning pits. Well, we know these places were no Sunday picnic. We know these places were unjust. Deprivation is unjust. The Jews suffered terribly, unjustifiably. The Jews were in concentration camps for war reasons and war is not justified, really. We had people in concentration camps here too. They lost a lot. Thank God we didn’t lose the war and couldn’t feed the people in our concentration camps. What would have happened in our country if the Eastern half had collapsed, the governments had collapsed, the railroads had collapsed, the food system had collapsed, the Western half had collapsed, and we had people, Japanese, for example, in concentration camps around Ottawa? Whom would we feed first, our troops or our prisoners? Thank God we didn’t have to answer that question. The Germans did. And they were hanged for answering it the wrong way.

Have you any idea what Germany looked like in 1945? It sure didn’t look like Toronto. And when the Russians came from the east, do you think they were a nice group of fellows as we are told the Allies were? I suggest to you that there is a great deal to be grateful for in this country and one of the greatest things to be grateful for is that we have never faced that kind of desolation, when everything you know, everything you trusted, everyone you believed in, your ideals, your neighbours, your friends, your country, your home, was ruined. I hope you’ll never know a situation like that. But if we are to understand what happened in Germany we cannot ignore these facts.

Did Dr. Hilberg know that? Was he there? No. Who was? Thies Christopherson was there. It’s obvious that this is a question that could only be understood really, by someone who was there. Dr. Barton was in a camp shortly after liberation, and, like many of us who saw the film Nazi Concentration Camps, he no doubt was as horrified as you and I had every right to be, by that scene. That picture Nazi Concentration Camps was put to you for a reason. It was to persuade you that there were millions of dead people. Well, you saw thousands of bodies, thousands of people who died from privation in war. Only once was there a deliberate suggestion of gassing. That was at Dachau, and I have gone into this with detail as much as you could hope to get, I suggest, in a court, to show that now people don’t say that there were gassings at Dachau. So what happened in that situation? Why did the Allies say there were gassings and now they don’t? Well, because of the same hysteria with which we have regarded Auschwitz for 40 years; Auschwitz, where no Allied soldier could go; Auschwitz where the Russians were; Auschwitz where 4 million or 3 million or 2.5 million or 1,765,000 or 1.1 million according to Hilberg or 900,000 according to Reitlinger, were killed? Cremated? Were what?

There are many reasons to say that this book has not been proven false, that’s all. It’s never been our burden to have to prove that it was true because our law has always allowed the reasonable doubt to go to the accused. He’s presumed innocent. This is presumed to be true until they prove the contrary, and I don’t think they’ve proved the contrary. How have they? Ninety percent of the quotations in the book are proven and accepted. Ten percent are unproven. That’s all.

The Malmedy trial took place in Germany shortly after the war. It may not technically be a Nuremberg trial. But do you really think that there is no substance to the suggestion that what took place there by the same allies against the same accused, is going to be different than what they did at Nuremberg?

You also have in evidence that, at Nuremberg, they didn’t even allow the press to talk to the lawyers of the accused, let alone the accused. So, how do we know what happened to them? Well, we know because some of them said so, and when they said so, like Streicher, they struck it out of the record. Don’t want the world to hear somebody complain about us, and we sure don’t want the press to hear what the accused says unless we say the accused can say it. Do you call that freedom? I don’t. I call that the attitude of war and victor’s justice. It works, obviously. The world believes in your cause, but is it necessary that for all eternity nobody should ever think to differ? Can we now look back with a little less passion, a little less contempt for our adversaries? Could we now maybe look at whether they might have had a point or do we have to believe forever they should be damned to silence?

We’ve heard from Dr. Barton that, in 1945, there was no cure for typhus. So, here’s some of those horrible Nazis telling these people in the concentration camps, “If you don’t delouse and typhus breaks out, you are going to be cremated.” That’s the way he interpreted that. There’s a lot of truth to it. If you get typhus, you are liable to die, especially there, in close confines. That is not to say I don’t believe the Jewish people didn’t suffer. I certainly do and so does my client, and so does this booklet. That’s not to say we lack compassion for the suffering of these people. It is to say we are prepared to examine whether there was a plan of deliberate extermination. There’s quite a difference.

If people died from typhus, disease, privation of war, you don’t have a situation that much different than you had in the Boer War, except on a larger scale, or in the American Civil War, where concentration camps for prisoners of war were hell on earth. And that becomes a significant question: why, if there was a plan to exterminate the Jews, was there a delousing program at all? Why were they told that they should delouse, and why were steps taken to provide the means that they could be protected from that disease?

You remember Arnold Friedman’s evidence. He could tell the difference between skinny people and fat people from the colour of the flames. Honest to goodness! Arnold Friedman is the kind of person you would like to know. Nothing do I say against Arnold Friedman, except that it’s a little bit far-fetched to say that you could tell from the colour of the flames, the people being cremated.

I could understand, as a young boy, how the stories would go around the camp, and I could well imagine how terrifying it must have been for a young boy in camp like that. I could understand how, being separated from his parents would be frightening. It would be horrible, beyond our imagination. But I suggest that when people say things like this, we have to understand that when people suffer, they want to communicate their suffering. They justifiably tend to exaggerate a little bit because they want us to understand how horrible it was. There are other reasons to look at the question, not to hurt the survivor’s feelings, but to look at it realistically and say, as this book says, it’s not correct to believe that six million people were exterminated in this way. It’s not correct to believe that you can tell the nationality of a cremated person by flames shooting from a chimney. That is not correct.

I am not wishing to accuses anybody of being a little bit loose with the facts. Let’s realistically consider that that doesn’t make sense. Let’s not make it a crime, anyway, to disbelieve it. All right? Let’s suggest that Mr. Zundel has at least very good reasons for his belief, common sense ones that he wants to believe in. He wants to understand that his people are not guilty of this crime. He has a motive to look at this. He is interested for the sake of his people, but realistically, is he far off the mark when he says, “I doubt that.”?

I am not saying that if even one Jewish person died that that wasn’t a crime. Of course it was, but we are dealing with an accusation of genocide, a book that questions it and the right to question it. That’s all. I am not suggesting for one moment that that minimizes the suffering, justifies the concentration camps, or anything else, but it allows us, I suggest, the right to question even Dr. Vrba, for after all, he too, is not God. If he’s going to tell us these things, under oath, I want to know why. Don’t you? If somebody tells you the whole population of Toronto went between two buildings, and disappeared, are you going to say, “Yes, I believe that. I don’t question that. I must accept that because he is a survivor”? I have reverence for their pain and suffering. I am not beyond understanding for that, but if we are dealing with a factual question, why not ask the question? And when you do ask the question, what do you get for answers? Hysteria, emotion, and appeals to emotions, too, justified as they are. But we are dealing with facts, let’s stick to facts.

Arnold Friedman also said that sick, older people came into his barracks after the selection, and, therefore, were not killed. And then we come to the question of selection. He describes the selection process in referring to selecting professions even among the older people. Now, why would they select professions? To kill the people? What do you care, if you are just killing people? You don’t care whether they are doctors, lawyers, tailors, whatever. You don’t select people by profession for the purpose of killing them, unless it’s lawyers, and then there’s lots of reasons for doing that.

I remember Dennis Urstein. He said, – and this is really, I suggest, where you’ve got to look a little bit skeptically – he said he lost 154 members of his family in the “Holocaust”. I said, “Could you name even 20?” I suggest to you that if any of us say we lost 154 members of our family, it tends to be a little dubious. How many members of your family do you know and how many generations do you go back? I asked him to name 20. He didn’t get there and ended up naming someone who died in the U.S.A. six or seven years ago. What it means is that people, because they suffer, tend to want you to understand their suffering and they sometimes exaggerate, that’s all.

Dennis Urstein was another volunteer witness who spoke of the colour of bodies hauled out of the gas chambers. Now, Dennis Urstein says he hauled the bodies out of Leichenkeller I, which is an underground mortuary, in Krema II. Now, you can see on the plan where that is. It may have been Krema III, he said, but I’ll tell you something. The two, Krema II and Krema III, are identical. No one will deny that. The plans are there. The two, Krema II and Krema III, in Birkenau are identical. They are long underground areas known as Leichenkellers. They are underground, because when typhus broke out, bodies, sometimes three or four hundred bodies, would be there, so that they would not infect the rest of the camp. The colour of those bodies, he described as grayish or green, but you heard Dr. Lindsay say that if someone is asphyxiated with Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide, his body is brick red. Now, if they were gassed with Zyklon B, why would that not be so?

There is another question that arises out of Urstein’s evidence. The bodies, he said, had no rigor mortis. No rigor mortis. Now, if the bodies were gassed, and then, he seemed to imply, they were washed and thereby were safe. But if hydrogen cyanide is, as I suggested, water soluble, then touching water associated with the bodies means hydrogen-cyanic poisoning. Yet, he survived hauling those many bodies. He alleged the gas chamber was on ground level. Now, if you look at the plans, he is referring to other than the crematoria and he is referring to the Leichenkeller. He says that it’s a closed-in area. That’s underground. If you are hauling bodies, you are not going to forget hauling them upstairs, but he says it was on ground level. I asked him about that several times and he repeated it several times. This is no minor error, because if he could remember hauling bodies upstairs, it would be hard to forget.

Furthermore, he said there were no pillars. Well, look at the plans. If he is talking about Crematorium II or III, and if he is talking about what he says he was talking about, a flat-roofed building, well the crematoria is not flat-roofed. The Leichenkeller is, and it is underground with a very small protuberance above the ground. This is where Vrba got himself into a real problem. This is a man who says he was an eye-witness. We are supposed to examine the evidence and look at what we know of the facts, and see if it conforms. If it doesn’t, there are reasons to doubt it. He says there were no pillars. If you’ll look in the plans, you’ll see in the Leichenkeller massive pillars. He said the ground adjacent to the crematorium was very beautiful, like a retreat. No collection of piles of coke or other fuel to burn large numbers of bodies which allegedly were burned in the crematoria.

Now, the story of the exterminations is that two to three thousand or more bodies a day were handled in these facilities. There has to be an explanation for the figure of 1,765,000 in two years mentioned by Vrba. If there are 80 pounds of coke required for each body, for two thousand bodies (that’s what half of what Krema II is supposed to be handling a day), that’s 160,000 pounds of coke a day.

Let me deal with Dr. Barton for a moment. He presents the truth to the best of his knowledge. He agrees that what’s in this pamphlet was accurate, and that it quoted his article. He was there. He was an eye-witness. In 1945, he was there and he was as brainwashed as everybody else at the time, saying the Germans deliberately intended the killing of these people shown in the movie. He believed all that. And gradually he began to think about it, looked into the kitchen and saw the preparation records for food, and changed his mind. The war involved a little bit more than most people comprehended would be possible in the way of destruction.

It’s my suggestion to you that he treated the subject more scientifically than most people of his time. Just look what happened to him. He dared to say that the Germans didn’t mean to kill all those people, and you know they accuse him now, on public television, as you’ve heard, of killing 15,000 Jews.

What I suggest to you is that when people disagree with the widely held views of their time, they are attacked viciously. He was attacked in the media, in the press and everywhere. Why? What did he do wrong? Well, he dared to say that the Germans were not all bad and the Allies were not all good, and that war itself was the cause of the problem. That’s what he dared to say. He dared to say that the Allies were not all good; the Germans were not all bad; and that war killed people, but not gassing. So, what’s the difference? I suppose the difference is that Dr. Barton was a witness and the accused is the accused. He said there was no treatment for typhus at that time. He thinks essentially, that views should be challenged. He agreed that the average age persons, under conditions of being subject to massive public propaganda, coupled with fears for their families, destruction of their homes, their property, their value system and the desolation of their country, may be brainwashed and make confessions. They would not be able to respond independently of their captors.

Dr. William Brian Lindsay testified that the interpretations of World War II should be looked at by a scientist. The basic problem is the vast number of charges in the readings about the Holocaust. Also, the various authorities have different answers. He said some of the primary sources of information about the Holocaust had been silent for 30 years, during which time history has been written. He looked at all the so-called murder camps in his research. He went to Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Birkenau, Monowitz. He put himself in the position of knowing what the accusations are, and, as a chemist, decided how reasonable the charges are.

In describing the properties of Zyklon B, he discussed the container it came in, the special opener that had to be used, the fact that the gas is lighter than air when it vaporizes, and that the best air would be at the bottom. Now, the Crown said that, well, it’s not very much lighter than air and it would rise slowly and the crystals might have fallen on the ground, enabling people to believe that the gas would come from the ground first. But that wouldn’t explain the fact that the people would stay where the gas crystals were and stay there so they could climb above each other. They were scattered in other areas, but that wasn’t asked by the Crown and that’s why, when Griffiths asked him his questions, and I asked him mine, in the end he said he did not think his opinion had changed.

He refers to the necessity of a venting system. No such thing exists in any of the plans. Look at the plans. That’s because it is a Leichenkeller, a mortuary, not a gas chamber. They want to call it a gas chamber? Then, produce the evidence. Where is it? He concluded that it’s impossible that gassings happened as alleged. For millions to have been gassed in four crematoria, by the method described, 2000 persons crammed into a space of the size alleged, is impossible.

He refers to these spaces that are put forward as gas chambers as unsealed rooms. The difficulties of unsealed rooms in comparison to the American gas chamber, become obvious. A small container of gas is necessary due to the quality of the gas itself. If it were otherwise, chemistry would change from time to time, and from place to place, but it doesn’t. The fact is, that if there is an allegation of this kind, there has to be a real possibility of it having occurred. Otherwise, we are engaged in fantasy.

He has examined the alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz I. There are no doors between gas chamber and the crematoria. Vents are not air-tight. The doors are very very small. The whole thing wouldn’t work. And he comes to that conclusion himself.

Now, he communicated this information to Zundel. So, why shouldn’t Zundel believe him? Why shouldn’t it be credible? Who has done more research into the subject? Who has actually made a study into these gas chambers? I suppose the Crown will answer that by saying, it doesn’t matter. If there are no gas chambers, we will find some other explanation for the six million. What? What was it – shooting, Einstazgruppen, the Stroop report? It doesn’t come to five million, especially when one considers the evidence in reference to the Einsatzgruppen. But we are supposed to believe anyway.

Dr. Lindsay examined the Gerstein statement. He discussed how carbon-monoxide poisoning from a diesel engine is not possible. Yet, that is said to be the method used in Sobibor, Treblinka and others – gas from diesel tank engines, from Russian tank engines. That is the story. Well, if carbon-monoxide is not produced by diesel engines, how is it supposed to be the cause of death? Then, we have the stories of prisoners eating and drinking after handling the dead bodies. It would be suicidal. Shower baths would be abysmal to gas people. What story are we dealing with? The same story we had in Dachau. The gas chambers are showers and the gas comes from the shower heads. Yet, Dachau now has a sign that nobody was ever gassed there. Lindsay fought for the Allies during the war, and I suggest that he is not really to be regarded as one with an axe to grind.

James Keegstra testified primarily to show what happens if you try to question the Holocaust. He is where he is today, not because of his attitude on anything else, but primarily because he dared to say that there’s another view on the Holocaust. That’s when it got picked up by the media. That’s when the ball got rolling. That is when everybody got up in arms. If somebody has an opinion on politics, that’s no problem. But if somebody says anything about the Holocaust, that implies they don’t believe in it, hook, line and sinker, then they are in big trouble.

It’s bad for people who want to discuss it. It is also bad because it denies the possibility to find the truth for everybody. So, there’s a man who’s been a teacher for 21 years, who has been the victim, I suggest, of a massive campaign of vilification because he dared to question.

What a surprising thing! Anybody could be accused of rape, murder, theft or fraud. I’ll bet they wouldn’t suffer the animosity, the hate that occurs to anybody who questions the Holocaust or anybody who is accused of a war crime in the media. Tell me how many murderers have received the publicity against them that Frank Walus got? He hadn’t been tried yet. He was accused of a hideous crime, but it was ridiculous. The man wasn’t even in Poland during the war. He was seventeen years old and he was accused of being an Obergruppenfuhrer during the war, murdering Jews. And eleven witnesses came forward, and said, yes he was, and seven of those said they weren’t even in Poland during the war. That’s justice? Well, that’s not very much different than the atmosphere that prevailed in 1945 and that’s why it is relevant to the issue today, because in this booklet it says Nuremberg was probably rife with prejudice. If the hatred and the prejudice is so great today that that type of thing can happen right now, in Chicago and in the U.S.A., how much greater do you think the pressure was in 1945 for the same result?

This is 40 years later. And who gives Frank Walus anything for what he suffered? Or this man? Even if he is acquitted, who will take care to see that he gets justice, other than maybe an acquittal?

The evidence of Gary Botting is that of an English professor who desired to put forward another view of the Holocaust story. He was presented, or attempted to present, in consideration of the need to tell both sides, the book Hoax of the Twentieth Century [by Arthur Butz]. The Government of Canada decided nobody should read it in Canada. Why? Is it obscene? Take a look at it and ask yourselves this question. Is this society free for people to think, to analyze this question, if a book like that is supposed to be banned and was prevented from being read by students at college level? These are some poor timid human beings in high school as we were told some are, who could be influenced deleteriously by this book. This is college level. They aren’t allowed to have this. Why is that?

It points in another direction than the thesis of the exterminationists. What kind of a country does not permit people to read a book like that? Have a look at it. There’s really nothing abusive in it about anybody. The truth is very clear, that there is a power in this land that doesn’t want you to think about it, doesn’t want anybody out here to think about it, and has made up the mind of somebody in power that anyone who questions this belief will be prosecuted and publicly humiliated. That’s not the kind of country I want nor should any free man or woman want to live in.

Our forefathers fought for the right to be free to think and free to speak. Now, what are we doing here? The sacrifices of those who died for freedom are not respected by this legal proceeding. Gary Botting and others have paid their price for coming here. You can bet on that. Those same forces that will make this man spend seven weeks in that box will make every witness who comes here pay for having done so. You can be sure of that. Anyone who even dares to support this man’s thesis will be labeled. And that’s supposed to be a free society? It’s all very very sad. It may be, if some of those people who are dead, who thought they defended freedom, were alive, we might not be here today.

Gary Botting said it’s a dangerous precedent to do what’s going on here. You know where his father is? He’s buried at Belsen. That’s what he told you. His father. Well, it’s dangerous alright. He dared to write to the Attorney-General to question why he couldn’t read this book or have the students read it. He has no sympathy for the Nazis. His attitude was that people should be free to hear both sides of an issue. No, not in Canada. We are not smart enough even to be able to read that book. We are not supposed to be able to read this book. We are not intelligent enough to decide whether we want to believe this or not.

Is this the way we are supposed to use our brains? The measure of a person’s honest inquiry is whether a person wants to examine alternative sources. Nobody asks them to be government-funded sources, sponsored by anybody. I remember at one point somebody said the research of Dr. Fourisson was not government-funded. So what? You mean to tell me that no one should be believed unless he is on a government subsidy? If Dr. Fourisson pays through his own efforts for his research, is that an indication he is insincere? Or, if someone publishes a book, like Udo Walendy, being a publisher himself, is this to discredit it too? Have we come to the stage of 1984 where, unless it’s published by Big Brother, it isn’t to be believed?

Orwell1984BKCv

I remember the dramatic gesture performed by the Crown when he asked the accused: “Well, who published this? Institute of Historical Review?” Bang. So what? If they are all published by the Institute of Historical Review, so what? Have we come to the point where there is an official sanction on certain publishers? Is it the old argument of don’t look at the contents of the book, just see who publishes it. Well, if that is the case, I suppose the official view of history is already established.

Doug Collins was a soldier during the war. He was captured at Dunkirk. He was in German prisoner of war camps during the war, escaped, was recaptured, escaped and was interned again as far away as Rumania, and went to Bergen-Belsen even before Dr. Barton. One of the things he said about his own experience is, that when he saw the troops coming back, the S.S. released by the Russians, they reminded him of the prisoners in Bergen-Belsen, for their condition. He says Did Six Million Really Die? should be available. There isn’t an abusive line in it. “I have been more abusive in my columns.” He said politicians aren’t entitled to suppress views. This is endemic to all dictatorships.

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

He talked about Alice in Wonderland being banned in China. I wonder where we are. I remember when the Crown was cross-examining my client on the stand, I almost had to pinch myself to find out if I was really in the country I grew up in, because he was asking him: “Do you believe this? Are you a fascist? Did you write this?” What are we doing here? Is he on trial for his beliefs? Or is he on trial for this being false? Are we living in a free society, or are we not? He said, in the end, I guess, this country likes censorship. I wonder. If you do anything in this world, you will answer that question here. And, indeed, this might be the most powerful thing you will do in your life, certainly the most significant thing. It is a great privilege to practice law, but I don’t think there can be a greater privilege than to do what you are going to do – decide whether we like censorship or not. That’s a decision you will make. There is not, he said, an expert on the Holocaust. There are many versions. If one died, that’s important. If one died, that’s a crime. If one Jewish person died, it’s a crime. If one person, no matter whether he was Jewish or not died, it’s a crime. But that is not the issue.

AliceinWonderland

If we are dealing with the issue of genocide, mass murder by gassing, not by work or privation, or war, but this specific crime with the specific weapon of gas chambers; if that’s the issue, then we have to give freedom to others to put forward their views. That’s what Doug Collins said. He said Zundel’s pamphlet is a point of view. He doesn’t agree with it, but he upholds its right to be said.

When Hilberg was asked whether Zundel was being honest, he said what I think we all have to answer in the way of a question: “Can you read his mind? Can you look into his brain?” All you can do is look at the printed word. You had a chance to hear him. You’ve had a chance to see him cross-examined about his beliefs and whether he is this, and whether he is that. He’s not perfect. He is not a perfect human being and neither am I, neither are most people I know. So, why should he be on the stand for having views that maybe you don’t agree with? Why?

Considering The West, War and Islam, I’d like to draw your attention to a significant part of that publication. It says, for the cost of one plane, one rocket, one bullet, we can make a film, a book, or send a letter. That’s what Zundel tried to do, change the Arab response to Zionism, from violence to communication. Is that a crime? Is that an intent dangerous to the social or racial harmony of Canada, when the pamphlet was sent in a sealed envelope to people in the Middle East? Whether he said things that were right or wrong, being quite aside for the moment, would that itself be a crime – would it affect the social and racial harmony of Canada deleteriously? It would seem to me that all it would ever accomplish, if it could accomplish what it sought to do, would be to convert Arab responses of violence and terrorism into Arab responses of communication with the hope that somebody might bring influence in a political sense to bear on the whole problem of the Middle East. It would seem a fairly responsible, albeit somewhat grandiose hope, maybe a pious hope, at a time when Mr. Zundel perceived, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, that problems in the Middle East were about to erupt in a world war. Most of us would sit back and watch it on television, do nothing about it and hope that somebody else would act. Well, Mr. Zundel is not that kind of man. He desired a solution. He thought he could offer one. Now, if that’s a crime, we’d better forget about communicating. It would seem to me to communicate the alternative to planes, rockets and bullets of films, books and letters, is a pretty good solution to the problem. It sure brings us a lot closer to a solution than silence or violence. I don’t, with the greatest of respect, understand how the Crown can allege that my client is supposed to have upset racial or social tolerance in Canada by sending such letters, as he did to people in the Middle East, thousands of miles away.

The only two publications in which Mr. Zundel is alleged to have done anything wrong are The West, War and Islam, and this one. Is this wrong? And when he wasn’t sure, he took the chance, and published, and sent it to whom? Hiding something here? No, he sent it to the Attorney-General of Ontario, sent it to all the Attorneys-General, sent it to the Members of Parliament, and school teachers. He even wrote to the Attorney-General and said: “If you don’t think I’m entitled to publish this, please give me some guidelines.”

If this country is going to involve itself in censorship through official channels like the Attorney-General of Ontario, then I suggest it owes it to the citizens to tell them where the legal limits to freedom lie. If it was a suggestion made by the Crown that the accused deliberately provoked a situation damaging to racial and social tolerance, then why did he ask for an answer as to what he’s entitled to publish? Why didn’t someone give him an answer? I’ll tell you why; because it’s politically embarrassing for an Attorney-General to identify the real censorship that he’s seeking to introduce through fear. It’s easier to prosecute somebody and scare the whole world into keeping quiet, because they don’t want to be where he is. It works very well, but it’s rather insidious, and I suggest the best answer to that kind of censorship through fear, is to throw out these types of charges.

If they’re going to invoke censorship, they’d better write it down and say so and take responsibility for it in the House of Commons. Then, the public will know we don’t live in a free country anymore and can vote against them; but if they’re going to play this kind of political game with censorship by scaring people, by not answering their letters, as to what they’re entitled to write, the result is self-censorship. It’s called, “everybody keep their mouth shut,” That’s something Doug Collins mentioned. The result of the controversy surrounding the Holocaust and the danger of questioning it and the fact that you always get a visit from some particular group if you write on it, results in self-censorship. It’s not official censorship and so we can tell the world that we don’t censor people, but you just watch it. You don’t write about this and you don’t write about that and you keep your mouth shut about this because it’s safer.

I suggest that if you have any doubt about that, you take a good look at the Soviet constitution. They have glowing phrases about freedom of speech, but it’s often limited by some qualifying words about security of the State, and, suddenly, people know better than to say certain things. They know better than to criticize the government, they know better than to raise questions about certain issues, and they know better than to talk about the Helsinki Accord, or a few other subjects in the Soviet Union. What’s the difference with this question? It seems that political power has some influence in what you’re entitled to say and what you’re entitled to do, without it ever being responsible for censoring publicly through the legal process.

Section 177 is a very vague way of defining what you publish. If you’re talking about history, what’s false? There are so many views and so many issues. How can you be sure what you’re entitled to say? I suppose the best solution is, as Doug Collins said, on a subject like the Holocaust, to check with the Canadian Jewish Congress or the B’nai Brith as to what you can publish.

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

But I suggest that you could and should send a message to the world and to the rest of society. It’s not a message that’s intolerant; it is a message of decency, tolerance and understanding, a message to all the sincere young Jewish men and women around the world that perhaps they need not feel more persecuted nor the subject of more hate than any other group; that the war was not all that it is said to be vis-a-vis themselves; that they might no longer say, “Never forgive and never forget,” those types of comments; that they may feel no more the victims of suffering than others in war who have also suffered. Maybe that would be a healthy thing to say, beneficial to all. Perhaps. Just perhaps, they too should put behind them the story of the six million slaughter which they are being imbued and embittered with. Perhaps their suffering is no worse nor any greater than many, many others. So, for the sake of love, peace and understanding, we may not view Jews as extraordinary sufferers, and Nazis, which is a thin disguise, in much of our media, for Germans, as some inherently evil beasts. This stereotyping is intolerance. This evil exultation of hate can only be exorcized in the fresh air of free debate. That can only come through freedom to examine truth freely and throw off unnecessary guilt. If the guilt is necessary, it should be accepted. If it is unnecessary, it should be dispensed with, dropping the disproportionate lies of a mass hysteria which certain political forces daily feed upon. Stop seeing Nazis in every criticism of Judaism, or you will suffer from lack of true criticism. No one is absolutely right, not even the Jews; and no one is absolutely wrong, not even the Germans.

It should be at least open for people to discuss the Holocaust, and, if it isn’t, how healthy a society do we have? We should never suspend our critical faculties of reason and skepticism even to the suffering of the Jews on the issue of the Holocaust. Other groups of people are freely criticized every day. You know, when I was thinking about the context of this whole question, it occurred to me, that there are other atrocity stories, two of which are very famous. One is the Ukrainian Holocaust, or some people dare to call it that, where it is alleged in the thirties, Stalin starved to death five or six million Ukrainian people.

Now, if I was to put together all the evidence that contradicted that, that said it was a false belief, and published that, would that be false news? Or the Armenians say that a million or more of their people were slaughtered by the Turks in 1915 and they hold this as a very important part of their belief. If I were to dispute that and publish my views, would that be false news? And yet, whatever the truth or falsity of those beliefs may be, they stand on their own. No government sanctions say you must believe this. They are not taught in schools as history. In fact, I recently heard that you can’t teach the Ukrainian Holocaust in Manitoba in schools. But, this belief in the Holocaust has become so sacred that nobody can even question it. That is not right. In a free society, no group should have its beliefs imposed by law. We don’t have a state religion. We shouldn’t have one. We don’t have an official history. We shouldn’t have one. If this booklet is right, as the accused says it is, it should be freely heard and freely thought about and freely criticized. If it is not, why fear it? If it is false, there is easy access to a million more resources of public persuasion than this booklet ever had. It does not need the government’s help as some official repository of truth, however sanctimonious its bureaucratic officials may be. Let freedom solve the problem of any hatred or intolerance, else by suppression the human spirit, which seeks truth and seeks the ultimate truth of God, will become crippled by its fears to speak its deepest feelings. Only by our meeting fact to face, by our being as we really are with all our personal prejudices and suspicions, can we accept our faults and by airing our views without fear, learn to love each other with a true and deeper love than if we never disagreed in the first place.

Now, if my client has a wrong belief, he honestly does not believe his beliefs are wrong. He believes they are right. Then, let there be a debate. He invites debate. To the extent a free society allows debate, health and understanding will result. Let a few people decide, let the powerful decide, let some bureaucrat decide, or even, with the greatest of respect, force the duty upon a judge to decide what are true and false beliefs, and the State will inevitably have the power to define truth and become an absolute power. Violence is the end of the road for official truth. In a society where people aren’t free to have their own views, and official truth prevails, they will eventually resort to violence. You see that in many dictatorships throughout the world. If you can’t express views freely in words, in writing, in print, how do people express them? You can see in the world today how they generally do, and that’s very unfortunate.

I said in the beginning, this place, this court, is far too expensive, far too important, to be involved in debates about history. This court and the courts throughout Canada have rules of evidence which are there to determine disputes of fact, but here we haven’t dealt with fact, we’ve dealt with opinion about history. Free access to the marketplace of ideas does not and cannot take place here. This court was not designed to be a place where the affairs of the world are debated, but rather where individual conduct is inquired into.

Whoever is responsible for pursuing these kinds of prosecutions, and it is indeed, I suggest, a decision for which somebody is responsible, he should consider what is at stake, and what occurs in the court, and consider that it shouldn’t happen again. If by acquitting the accused, you make it clear that this is an improper type of thing to do to a citizen in a free society, we won’t have these sorts of trials again, I suggest. It would be less likely that those who made this decision in the first place will repeat it. But I can assure you that there are many people who would love to have the power to silence different points of view, and it’s very easy when you can put people through the kind of thing the accused has been through. I suggest the false news section may have been intended to deal with a specific allegation of false news like a publication of a sort which briefly stated a fact to be true that was false, but it surely can’t be usefully employed to deal with a matter of controversy involving history. The court should not deal with trials of historical issues. This place is too expensive and over-regulated by legal rules to permit an adequate discussion of history. For the sake of freedom, I ask you never to forget what is at stake here. You must remember that we have fought for your freedom as well as for that of the accused; that is, the accused stands in the place of anyone who desires to speak his mind. Even if you don’t approve or agree with what he says, you must take it as a sacred responsibility not to allow the suppression of someone’s honest beliefs.

I want to finish by reading you a little letter that I got once. It explains what I mean when I say history is a very complex thing and it changes from time to time and it should be free to do so. It says, “What is truth? As a child I was taught that the Indians were savages. Later on in life I found out that it was the white man who had initiated scalping and the killing of women and children. I was taught in school that Louis Riel was a traitor to his country and therefore executed and that John A. MacDonald was a hero.

Later on in life I was to discover that Louis Riel is regarded by some as a hero defending his people’s rights to their land and the famous Sir John A. had been caught taking bribes from the CPR, and resigned in disgrace. He also died an alcoholic. During the Second World War, I was told that Stalin was a good leader who fought on the good side. When I was older I found out that he was responsible for the government-imposed starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1933. In 1941 I was told that Germany was our enemy and Russia was our ally. In 1951 I was told that Germany was our ally and Russia was our enemy. In 1956 I was told that China slaughtered millions of its own people. It was our enemy and today I’m told that China is our friend and ally, in a way.”

Therefore, when an individual has the integrity to question the credibility of a government-imposed view of history, we should listen with an open mind and search for the truth. It would seem to me that the truth will be in debate for a long time. But if we silence one side of any dispute or anyone’s view of truth because we think he is wrong then society as a whole will suffer. An individual will suffer. And you will suffer.

Patrick Henry said: “Give me liberty or give me death.” If you don’t have liberty you have a kind of spiritual death, the death that comes from people who never use their minds. That’s a real spiritual death. If we are to live in a free society where people are alive and have hope in their lives then we must have liberty.

With the right verdict people who brought this prosecution into being will not do it again. It will take a lot of courage. But you are the repository of the trust of your country and in the moment you decide to acquit and stick to that principle you will give history the best gift your descendants could ever ask for: A free country.

—–
For further information on relevant cases, articles, letters, bio, videos and more please see: http://www.douglaschristie.com/

To obtain a copy of this document please contact Paul Fromm at CAFE, PO Box 332 Station “B”, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 9Z9 or write to Paul at paul@paulfromm.com

 

Brainwashing: 911 & the Holohoax by Alfred Schaefer (Video)

911BrainwashingHoloHdr
9/11 Brainwashing part 1
9/11 Brainwashing part 2
ATSmlEdScreenshot
Editor’s Note: Brainwashing: 9/11 & the Holohoax – a two part video by German producer Alfred Schaefer – is, without a doubt, one of the best visual productions to date outlining the massive deceptions on the part of the Zionist Jew criminal cartel now in control of the majority of Western civilization. Via its powerful media control, its control of western political leaders, and the power of its purse to wreak havoc across the globe using whatever ruthless tactics it so desires in order to create chaos, confusion and fear in the minds and hearts of the common people, these two videos give the viewer a comprehensive overview of just how the masses have been brainwashed over the past seventy years.
Schaefer’s 2-part video is amazingly well done and packed full with extensive footage relating to 9/11 and to the evidence surrounding the Holohoax that was revealed to the world during the famous Ernst Zundel trial in Canada throughout the 1980’s and ’90’s.
Brainwashing: 9/11 & the Holohoax reveals the endless deceptions, the blatant lies of the Zionist Jew media and those who labour to maintain the deception surrounding both these two world-changing events – the false claims of 6 Million Jews purported to have been gassed and “holocausted” in ovens during WW2 and the subsequent attack upon the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.
Using footage related to the 9/11 false flag where those complicit attempt to divert attention from the skeptical public’s questioning by equating them with “Holocaust deniers” Schaefer is then able to show viewers the striking similarities between these two Zionist false flags and clearly outline why 1+1=2 and not 3.
These videos illuminate with increasing intensity the dark shroud of lies that the Zionist criminal cartel continually uses to cover up their own diabolic actions and one cannot watch them without coming away feeling that all which Schaefer has presented as further evidence of these two massive cover-ups makes perfect sense in light events that have transpired since 1945.
Viewers are urged to pass these videos on to friends and those who are still in doubt about both these cataclysmic events that are driving the world further and further to the brink of global disaster.
—–

The Holocaust Narrative: Politics Trumps Science   by Jim Fetzer

Screen Shot 2014-11-27 at 11.09.04 PMScreen Shot 2014-11-28 at 12.13.38 AM

“The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps”—Nicholas Kollerstrom

Breaking-the-Spell-front-cover

For more on the book, click BREAKING THE SPELL

The author of this refreshing scientific study of the Holocaust, Nicholas Kollerstrom, may be the most honorable man whom I have ever had the pleasure to know.

In response to PM David Cameron’s denunciation of 7/7 and 9/11 skeptics as on a par with ISIS, he went to Scotland Yard with a copy of Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) and turned himself in.

Scotland Yard declined the honor, but this act–which symbolically castrated the PM’s outrageous stance–was a striking illustration of his ability to tackle a problem by going right at it.

A distinguished historian of science with multiple degrees, including from Cambridge, he has published on 9/11 and especially 7/7, about which he appears to be the world’s leading expert.

When his attention turned to research on the use of Zykon B as a delousing agent in the labor camps run by the Germans during World War II, however, he was treated as an outcast.

He lost his position at University College London, which he had held for 15 years, where university officials did not bother to extend the opportunity of a rebuttal before they sacked him.

He and I both spoke at the recent conference, “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, where this book reports the results of the research for which he was banned. The book, a stunning historic expose, has just appeared. I endorse it with my highest recommendation.

The Holocaust – Myth and Reality

The situation is completely absurd. No subject generates responses as extreme and irrational as what has come to be known as “the Holocaust”. Unlike any other event in human history, including even the most sacred religious beliefs, for anyone to question, dispute or deny its occurrence qualifies as “a hate crime,” where Holocaust denial is even a prosecutable offense in certain jurisdictions. Unlike any other, this crime involves the expression of forbidden thoughts about a subject that has become taboo.

236-references-before-Nuremberg

The underlying desideratum is whether history is supposed to be accurate and true or, as Voltaire has put it, be merely “a pack of lies the living play upon the dead”. Just so we know what we are talking about: In its broadest outlines, “the Holocaust” can be defined by means of its three primary elements, which I shall designate here as hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3):

(h1) that Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews and succeeded by putting around 6,000,000 to death;

(h2) that many of those deaths were brought about by the use of cyanide gas in chambers for that purpose; and,

(h3) that the chemical agent that brought about those deaths was Zykon B, to which the victims were subjected.

The science of the Holocaust does not leave any room for doubt about (h2) and (h3), since laws of biochemistry and of materials science—laws which cannot be violated and cannot be changed—entail that the bodies of those who are put to death using cyanide turn pink, while the walls of chambers used for that purpose would turn blue. But none of the bodies from those camps has been reported to have been pink; and examination of the “gas chambers” has determined that none of them turned blue. Which means that (h2) and (h3) are not simply false but have been scientifically refuted.

Holocaust science “cut and dried”

As Nicholas Kollerstrom documents in this astonishing and brilliant book, the science of the Holocaust is this “cut and dried”. To the extent to which the Holocaust narrative depends on (h2) and (h3), therefore, it cannot be sustained. The questions that remain about (h1) are a bit more complex but appear to be equally contrived. There are more than 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews who are either in acute distress or about to be assailed in the newspapers of the world prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal— the first of which appeared in 1890. The number seems to have no basis in fact but to have theological origins—from a disputed passage in Leviticus—as to how many Jews must perish before they can return to “The Promised Land”.

Recently-released-records-ICRC

To the extent to which the number of Jews who died in the camps can be objectively determined, the most reliable numbers appear to come from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which visited the camps and kept meticulous records of the identities of those who died and their cause of death. Not one is reported to have been put to death in gas chambers, and the total it reported in 1993 for all of the camps was 296,081 combined. Even rounding up to an even 600,000 victims—gypsies, Jews and the mentally and physically infirm—the empirical evidence thus contradicts the contention that 6,000,000 Jews were put to death and thereby falsifies hypothesis (h1).

Counting deaths attributed to the Holocaust—apart from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross—turns out to be an exercise in “fuzzy math”, because none of them add up. As Faurisson observed during an interview on 13 December 2006, the Yad Vashem database was built up by “simple unverified declarations emanating from unverified sources and processed in such a way that one and the same person can be recorded as having died several times, even, it seems, as many as ten times”.[1] And even the most complete archives are not collated to make total numbers accessible but only individual cases—which appears an obvious measure to preserve the untestability of (h1), the hypothesis that 6,000,000 Jews had perished.

Holocaust story falsified

So, insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained. The question that therefore arises is how the Nuremberg Tribunal—widely cited as a paragon of intellectual integrity and of the application of moral principles to historical events—could possibly have produced such a highly misleading account of crucial events at the conclusion of World War II. The answer to this, I believe, has been provided by Robert Faurisson in his paper “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,” who explains the daunting task confronting the Allies to conceal or justify war crimes that they had committed in winning the war.[2]

Effects-of-Allied-Bombing

The Allies’ systematic and massive destruction of German cities not only brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians but also interdicted the railroad lines that would have re-supplied those camps, which were located near major industrial plants and whose inmates were providing labor to run them. It would have been poor business practice to exterminate the work force, but the large number of deaths from starvation because the Third Reich could not re-supply them provided an opportunity to deflect responsibility from the Allies onto Germany, which the Allies seized. A Hollywood director was brought in and shot 80,000 feet of film at the camps, where 6,000 feet (7.5% of the total) was used to shift the blame for those deaths onto Nazi Germany, which was an easy sell, all things considered.

As Kollerstrom explains, Zyklon B was used at the labor camps, not as a method of extermination but for the sake of maintaining hygiene among the inmates. Typhus and dysentery were omnipresent problems, where Zyklon B was applied in copious quantities—but as a disinfestant, not as an agent for bringing about the deaths of millions of inmates. And in response to the color pink-and-blue findings, an alternative explanation has been given that they were killed using diesel exhaust fumes, but unlike carbon monoxide, diesel exhaust fumes bring about nausea and severe headaches but usually do not bring about death by asphyxiation.

Classified British documents

Among the most valuable contributions of this study derives from Nick’s use of classified records acquired by British authorities, who were skeptical of claims that mass gassings were being carried out and had reports in hand of the use of Zyklon for the purpose of delousing the inmates, where infestations had become alarming. Many tons of Zyklon were consumed at Auschwitz-Birkenau from the summer of 1942 on, as Kollerstrom reports, which is easy to confirm because it soaked into the walls of the disinfestation chambers and is still there. His essays on the subject—“The Walls of Auschwitz”, “Leuchter Twenty Years On” and “The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Illusion”[3]—would become the cause of his removal from a post-doctoral post he had held for 15 years!

Piles-of-bodies1

As a professional philosopher of science, I appreciate Nick’s references to Sir Karl Popper, who advocated the method of falsificationism, whereby the truth of theories in science and in history can be tested by attempts to falsify them. When they resist our best efforts to refute them, then we have good reason to believe they might be true. But equally applicable here are the reflections of Imre Lakatos, who discussed research programs with hard cores of claims,[4] such as Newton’s laws of motion or, in the case we are considering, the above-mentioned hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3). When the defenders of these hypotheses are confronted by the risk of refutation, they can appeal to auxiliary hypotheses in an attempt to deflect the refuting data and thereby preserve their theory.

A stellar example arises in the context of the attempt to explain away why the number of those who died as substantiated by the meticulous records of the Red Cross supports the inference that less than 10% of the 6,000,000 claimed actually died from all causes—and none from death in gas chambers. To cope with that finding, the claim has been made that the records are incomplete because large numbers of Jews were taken directly to the gas chambers and never registered—not even by name. Not only are contentions of this kind unfalsifiable, untestable and hence unscientific, but they reflect the degenerating character of the Holocaust paradigm, which has spawned no new data or research that could possibly overcome the mountain of evidence against it.

Excluding falsifying data

Another method for immunizing a hypothesis from refutation is by the exclusion of falsifying data.[5] The defenders of hypotheses (h1)-(h3) have committed a mind-boggling example of fallacious science, which further manifests their commitment to a degenerating research program. When the Auschwitz museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls—due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds—but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them.[6]

They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation—that Zyklon B was only used for delousing—which would have remedied their lack of comprehension.[7] As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.[8]

Origin-of-the-myth-of-the-6000000-320x246

That Nicholas Kollerstrom was booted from his post at University College, London—and without any hearing or opportunity to present his defense, where the truth of his observations, one might have thought, would have made a difference—is one of a large number of indications that even our best academic institutions and societies are not capable of dealing objectively with the history of World War II. Indeed, it struck me like a bolt of lightning out of the blue when, during a talk by Gilad Atzmon in Madison, Wisconsin, about Jewish identity politics, I realized that the Holocaust mythology benefits Zionism and the government of Israel by playing, in the promotion of its political agenda, upon a Western sense of guilt for the death of 6,000,000 Jews during World War II.

The claim that someone is “anti-Semitic” or a “Holocaust denier” is taken to be the most severe form of ethical damnation possible in this time and age. But distinctions must be drawn between criticism of the acts and policies of the Israeli government and discounting the worth or value of human beings on the basis of their ethnic origins or religious orientation. Condemning the Israeli government for its vicious and unwarranted onslaught of the people of Gaza, for example, is not “anti-Semitic”. And if exposing the Holocaust narrative as political propaganda makes one a “Holocaust denier,” all of us who put truth before politics ought to wear that label as a badge of honor.

The ISIS fiasco

As an illustration of the depths of depravity of those who would uphold the myth, consider that, as an historian of science, Kollerstrom was invited to contribute three entries—including that on Sir Isaac Newton, which is the most important—to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (2007), which has more than 1550 entries by some 400 authors from 40 countries. Yet Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, a reviewer for Isis, the journal of America’s History of Science Society, recommended that the book be sent back to the publisher and pulped because Kollerstrom had been involved in research on the Holocaust! This was such an outrage that I wrote to the editorial board of Isis, which allowed a Letter to the Editor to appear.

BEAcover

Something is terribly wrong, when the world’s leading society on the history of science does no more to correct a grotesque abuse by one of its reviewers on a book that involved so many contributors and an enormous investment in time and money, where the moral issues are so blatant and obvious. It is ironic that the Nuremberg Tribunal would declare “collective punishment” a war crime. The Allies were responsible for the collective punishment of German civilians by their systematic bombing of German cities. Isis has committed a comparable intellectual crime by tolerating collective punishment of 400 scholars for the purported offenses of one. By acquiescing to its reviewer’s abuse, Isis has committed the fallacy of guilt by association and has displayed an appalling lack of journalistic ethics.

Nick Kollerstrom is the only party here who has displayed a commitment to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. His defense is very simple: the hypotheses on which the Holocaust narrative has been based are provably false and not even scientifically possible. I have written about this in my articlesThe War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career,”[9] ISIS trips, stumbles and falls,”[10] and discussed it during my presentation at the 2014 conference Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust,” at which Nick and I both spoke.[11]

But far better than reviewing them, read this brilliant study by the world’s leading iconoclast, Nick Kollerstrom, my dear friend, whom I admire beyond words as a splendid example of what historians should be doing in their professional work by getting history straight—lest Voltaire’s admonition continue to apply—including about the atrocities of World War II. There were real atrocities committed by all sides, just not the ones about which we have been told.

References

[1] “Interview with Professor Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com, December 13, 2006.

[2] Ibid., February 3, 2012.

[3] See Nick’s online papers at www.codoh.com/library/authors/1580/

[4] Imre Lakatos, Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970.

[5] Sir Karl Popper systematically investigated the diverse methods of immunizing theories in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co., London 1968, pp. 82-97.

[6] Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy ?ab?d?, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Vol. XXX (1994) pp. 17-27 (www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).

[7] They quoted but ignored a book which had exposed their fallacious approach (Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993; Engl.: G. Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010).

[8] See Germar Rudolf, “Polish Pseudo-Scientists,” in: G. Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 45-67.

[9] Veterans Today, February 4, 2012; www.veteranstoday.com.

[10] On my blog at www.jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, June 13, 2011.

[11] April 26, 2014; for details see www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/05/

——

James-H.-Fetzer

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality. McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone. The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).

 

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=332859

 

The Jewish Gas Chamber Hoax

jewish-gas-chamber-hoax-holocaust-medium

 

http://www.gaschamberhoax.com

Editor’s Note: One of the primary responsibilities of the alternative news media is to publish information that the mainstream media consistently conceals from the general public in order to keep the masses of listeners and viewers ignorant of historical events which, were the whole truth known, would radically alter peoples’ perception of world events. 

No greater hoax of the 20th century exists than that of the supposed “Jewish Holocaust of 6 Million Jews” in German labour camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka and numerous other camps where Jews and thousands of other non-Jews were sent to labour for the German war effort. 

This website, www.gaschamberhoax.com is one place where an impartial viewer can watch and listen to some of the accounts of supposed “survivors” of the “death camps” and what they purport to be evidence that Jews were actually gassed and burnt in ovens by the millions.

Behind the Holocaust, by JB Campbell

BehindHoloJBcampbell

Behind the Holocaust, by JB Campbell

Posted on October 12, 2013
Sourced from Veterans Today

What was Hitler’s Unforgivable Sin?

Hitler resisted Judaism. When you’re a little kid in school or at the movies, resisting Judaism can be made to seem a very wicked thing. As an adult, you can be made to think that to resist Judaism is the very worst, the most dangerous thing. When you see what has happened to people who have resisted Judaism, well – you certainly don’t want that to happen to you.

Adolf Hitler was, is and will always be the most dangerous character in history due to his resistance against Judaism, combined with his eloquence in explaining why Judaism must be resisted.

Some of us “Jew-fighters” have a personal motto, delenda est judaica, or Judaism must be destroyed. Or, Defense Against Jewish Aggression. When we have studied the history of whatever period you care to name, or just looked at the news, true humans react with the natural urge to remove this cancer from society. The most astonishing example of the Jewish mentality was last year’s murderous assault against the humanitarians attempting to bring food, medicine and building materials to the people of Gaza. Jewish ways are repellant to the human mind and are not examined overmuch for that reason.

Judaism can be simply described as very bad behavior.

Hitler never attempted to destroy Judaism but rather to isolate it and perhaps remove its adherents from Europe. This followed attempts to train Jews to be productive human beings in places such as Dachau and Theresienstadt. As Evelyn Kaye writes in The Hole in the Sheet, orthodox Jews do not work. They are allergic to work, preferring instead to occupy themselves by reading the Talmud and arguing endlessly with other Jews about what they read. So this is a big problem with Jews, their refusal to work and produce something that is not based on ripping off and confounding their victims.

Hitler’s attempt to re-train Jews, which didn’t work, and then to remove Jews from Europe was a work in progress. Since the Khazars had infiltrated Europe from the east, his plan for relocation was to put them back in the Pale whence they came. This scheme depended upon the success of Operation Barbarossa, the great assault against the Soviet Union which was always the ultimate and stated objective of the National Socialists. Communism had to be destroyed so that Judaism could be re-confined to its traditional home in the Pale of Settlement. Hitler’s basic plan for Jews was somehow to confine and isolate them in a place in which they could be prevented from doing humanity more harm. This is a very difficult thing to do because there are so many aspects to Judaism, the most dangerous of which is banking, which is the main point of this piece.

Because now I’m seeing that the main purpose of keeping alive the Holocaust is to protect Jewish banking practices.

Before we get to that, let’s examine the Holocaust briefly. It’s a big subject but the whole subject is demolished by the videotaped visit to Auschwitz by a young American Jew named David Cole, which took place back in 1992. For example, a dozen years ago I was visited by a reporter named Dave Hendrix from the Dallas Morning News. He was interviewing me for a big story he was writing on the militia and the general resistance movement in America. He would spend four days interviewing me at my home in Carmel, California. When we were first introduced, no doubt knowing my attitude, he made a disclosure: “I must tell you before we begin, that I am a believer in the Holocaust.” I immediately responded, “Not a problem.” And nothing more was said about it for a day or so. On the second day, before he retired to his hotel, I asked if he would be willing to look at a film? He agreed. I showed him David Cole’s Visit to Auschwitz and when it was over said, “Well, there’s another viewpoint.” Dave, however, was speechless. He finally said, “That was devastating to everything I’ve ever believed.”

By the fourth day, I had persuaded Dave to drop the militia/resistance project and instead write a big piece on Oklahoma City, since my good friend Cheri Seymour had so much primary  information on the subject in her files. Reluctant at first to attack that subject, he eventually requested and got the green light from Dallas. This nearly got him killed. Dave met with Cheri and me a week or so later in Hermosa Beach and received his first load of documents from Cheri. He went back to his apartment and was felled by a severe heart attack. His wife was fortunately and unusually at home and got the EMT people there in time to save him, which he would not have been able to do for himself. When he finally recovered, the OKC story was canceled and Dave was made a story editor, never again to investigate and write as he had been doing for many years. When we met again, he said simply, “They got me. It was not a natural heart attack.”

faurisson2

Faurisson: “Show me a gas chamber! Draw for me a gas chamber!”

As you will see in the Cole video, the holy gas chamber is a fake. Which makes the entire Holocaust story a fake. You can study it for a day or for a lifetime and your conclusion will be the same. There was never a plan for exterminating Jews and there was never an instrument. As Professor Robert Faurisson has asked for years, “Show me a gas chamber. Draw for me a gas chamber.” It can’t be done because there was never such a thing.

There is the matter of the Six Million. As we in the anti-Jewish movement well know, the Jews were claiming years before, during and after the First World War that six million Jews had been exterminated by the Germans. Of course, no one took this seriously. By 1943, American Jews were once again claiming that six million Jews were in danger of annihilation or had in fact been annihilated, years before the same wild claim would start up again around 1960. Now, why is this?

We now know that the insane Jewish liars are guided in this by a mystical attachment to the number six, as seen with their national symbol, the six-pointed star. Six, or six hundred, or six thousand, or six hundred thousand, or six million Jews must be removed before the messiah returns or Israel reappears or whatever. It’s not important to us, just that this is a magic number to them. And they should be wholly burnt in ovens. Hence, Holocaust (wholly burnt).  Read: Jewish History and the Scriptual Orgin of the 6 Million Dollar Number.

The six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis depended in large part (66%) on Auschwitz, where four million of them were infamously done to death. Thanks to Ernst Zundel and the International Red Cross, Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 released to the Red Cross the captured death records from Auschwitz. The forty-six volumes cover the period of 1941 to ’43 and record about 69,000 deaths, mainly from disease or natural causes. The IRC had investigated all the German and Polish camps during and after the war and estimated about 200,000 deaths, some of them Jewish. When the US Army liberated Dachau, for example, of the 32,000 inmates, about 1,200 were Jews. Jewish representation was so tiny during WWII as to be insignificant, except in their minds. In their minds, the 60 million actual deaths of real people were insignificant, not worthy of consideration.  Read:  Long-Hidden Death Certificates Discredit Extermination Claims.

We can read and read and the more we read the bigger the swindle is revealed. That’s why the main thing is to watch David Cole’s video and not get too wrapped up in the Holocaust, one way or the other. But we should understand the real purpose of Holocaust indoctrination, which I now believe is this: our money.

Our money is our lifeblood. Without money, of course, we die as individuals. Without a proper money system, society dies, which is pretty much what is happening to our society now. This is due to the Jewish money system imposed on us by the aliens who own the private money-making company they call the Federal Reserve System.

We are today witnessing the dangers of precious metals. The only metals that are precious to me are steel, lead and brass. Gold and silver, while intoxicating in their wonderfulness, are just as dangerous and volatile as liquid intoxicants and just as likely to make you lose your wits – and your fortune. There is nothing righteous or magical or even necessary about a nation’s currency being “backed” by gold or silver. This was proved by Adolf Hitler during the 1930s. It was proved so conclusively that the Jews want to make sure that it’s never tried again. The best way to ensure this is to associate debt-free currency with mass murder!

For some reason, the Jews of the world wanted to destroy Germany.

We can probably never understand their insane drive to do this but the facts cannot be denied. They also wanted to destroy the Russian ruling class and the Russian people, as we saw happen following their takeover of Russia in 1917. And we see that they apparently wanted to destroy the American people from an early time, dating at least since 1913.

The destruction of the Russians, Germans and Europeans in general depended on their takeover of the American banking system in 1913, because it was followed closely by the totalitarian devastation that began in 1914 with the assassination of the Austrian archduke by Gavrilo Princip.

Henry Ford Sr.  copy

World War I ended in 1918 and this began Germany’s great misery. They were blamed by the victors for starting the war and were forced to pay “reparations” that became so extreme by  the early 1920s that their money became worthless. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death because of the money and because of a blockade by England and America to prevent food from getting in. A food convoy was organized by Henry Ford, Herbert Hoover and Norway’s Vidkun Quisling to rescue the starving people of Germany and others in Europe. Quisling’s name has been turned into a dirty word by the Jews and is misused today by people who should know better. He was a great humanitarian and took Germany’s side against the forces of Judaism and Bolshevism for over twenty years.

Adolf Hitler, like Franklin Roosevelt, came to power democratically in January, 1933, in the depths of the world depression. Both Germany and America were starving because of the actions of the Federal Reserve System, now twenty years old. They were starving because the Fed had “deflated” the money supply, withdrew currency from circulation and refused to issue new currency. Credit to farmers and businesses and individuals was denied for no particular reason. Roosevelt outlawed gold and began its confiscation in April, with punishment of ten years in prison and ten thousand dollars in fines. Once he got all of our gold, which was then priced at about twenty dollars an ounce, he raised the price to thirty-two dollars. That made it the biggest, boldest swindle up until that time. Of course, the Federal Reserve System swindlers got the gold – and the massive increase in value.

Hitler came to power over a bankrupt and starving country with unemployment at roughly 50%! The Americans had stolen all Germany’s gold by the early ‘20s, so there was no basis for a monetary system other than to keep borrowing from the Jewish crooks on Wall Street that had given Germany the Young Plan and the Dawes Plan of perpetual indebtedness to private bankers masquerading as the “central bank.” What to do?

Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht issued debt-free currency based on Lincoln’s debt-free currency. What they did led to the swift regeneration of the German economy and the world’s greatest prosperity of the working class, while the rest of the world stayed mired in the Great Depression being run by the sadistic central bankers. This was the worst possible crime and had to be punished by the most terrible war in human history, including fire-bombings of entire cities and deliberate mass starvations of millions following the war. Our nuclear bombs would have dropped on Germans but they weren’t ready in time, so they were dropped on Germany’s allies who were trying to surrender.

GermanyMust PerishNewHeader 700 copy

In this nauseating little book, Kaufman suggested that every German male be castrated. Time Magazine’s response? — “A sensational idea!”

Please refer to Theodore Kaufman’s charming little book, Germany Must Perish, which was the basis of the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, executed mercilessly by Dwight David Eisenhower, which resulted in the starvation deaths of millions of Germans.

Ellen Brown and Bill Still have provided us with debt-free currency plans that will deliver us from the Federal Reserve racketeers and eliminate our indebtedness to the pinstriped scum-rats in less than one year, based on the Hitler model, which they don’t want to say. John F. Kennedy declared war on the Fed racketeers by issuing four billion dollars in debt-free US Notes in April of his last year on earth. Abraham Lincoln first issued debt-free currency when the bankers whom he’d approached for war loans wanted 34% in interest. He only survived a few days longer than his war for crimes against the bankers.

So let’s understand what’s behind the Holocaust. Why don’t Brown and Still, both monetary geniuses, want to credit Hitler and Schacht with the secret to economic prosperity in the face of total meltdown? Why, because of the Holocaust! The greatest economic miracle in history occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who ignored the central bankers intent on raping the world, seizing real property, through high interest and deflation. The Russians have recently confirmed suspicions that the American legend of the Depression (“As bad as it was – nobody starved.”) is a lie. Russian investigators have revealed that millions of Americans actually died of starvation and exposure during the years 1929 to 1941 but their deaths were written off to natural causes.

As Hitler remarked in his declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, he had delivered Germany from the doubly devastating conditions of the Versailles Treaty and the general world Depression by 1935 while Roosevelt kept mighty America in abject misery with his Federal Reserve starvation policies right to the present time (December, 1941). He stole all the people’s gold and then increased its value by 60%. And he refused to do what Lincoln had done before him and what Kennedy would do after him: he refused to issue debt-free currency  and rescue the American people from aggravated poverty, degradation and death by starvation.

How could that be? How could Hitler state such a thing? Because it was true. It was simple and it was true. The secret to general and permanent prosperity is for the government of any country to issue debt-free currency in amounts necessary for commerce and growth. That is what the founders had in mind with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. We should read that over from time to time. Clause 5 says that the “Congress shall have power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Clause 6 is even better: “Congress shall have the power To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”

FED_dees

AMERICA IN CHAINS

You can see where this puts the owners of the counterfeiting company called the Federal Reserve System.

The proposed punishment for counterfeiting was execution by hanging.

Anyway, let us recognize the Holocaust for what it is, a device to make the idea of debt-free currency repellent to our minds, because anyone who would do it really just wants to gas the Jews.

—–

Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger by Kevin Barrett

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/22/holocaust-history-denial-a-clear-and-present-danger/

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 12.03.52 PM

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 12.03.36 PM Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 12.03.20 PM
Monday, April 22nd, 2013
Holocaust History Denial: A Clear and Present Danger

by Kevin Barrett

I used to believe in “the Holocaust.”

Not as a religion – I’ve never been to any of the museum-temples or made a pilgrimage to Auschwitz or pored over the sacred texts. And I never was stupid or crazy enough to accept the Holocaust as a valid excuse for the Zionist theft of Palestine.  (If the Holocaust had anything to do with Israel, then Israel would have been established in Germany – not Palestine.)

In short, I believed in “the Holocaust” as history, because I assumed that 99% of Western academic historians can’t be wrong.

I assumed that about six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in concentration camps, mostly in gas chambers, as part of a pre-planned effort to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As far as I knew, all of the reputable historians believed this. The handful of dissenters, I assumed, were cranks of one sort or another. And though I had met many Muslim academic colleagues who were Holocaust skeptics, I thought they were probably biased due to their anti-Zionism.

Then in 2006, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, I was attacked on Wikipedia as a “holocaust denier.” In fact, I was a well-known skeptic about 9/11 – not the Holocaust. I knew next to nothing about the controversies surrounding the alleged gas chambers. Wikipedia claimed I was a supporter of David Irving, Mark Green, and Ernst Zundel. In fact, I had never heard of Green, and barely even knew the names of Irving and Zundel.  (I had spent most of the 1990s reading every French literary classic for my French Literature MA, then learning Arabic and studying Islam and Morocco for my Ph.D. while supporting my wife and two small children, so I wasn’t really paying attention to Holocaust-controversy news.)

I tried to correct the erroneous information – which came from some crank’s personal website, and had never been checked, much less corroborated – along with the dozens of other derogatory factual errors, on my Wikipedia page. The corrections would always be removed, and the lies, reinstated, by the next day. Sometimes it happened in a matter of hours.

This was enough to make me slightly paranoid.

But as the hippies used to say, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

Somebody was trying to frame me as a “Holocaust denier” – presumably to damage my credibility on 9/11. Why would they do that?

By 2010 or so, I finally got around to reading a few books about the Holocaust controversies. The first book I read was Denying History by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. It had been recommended as the best introduction to why the Holocaust deniers are wrong.

Denying History blew my mind – but not in the way its authors presumably intended. It consists mostly of weak ad-hominem attacks against “Holocaust deniers.” Its arguments about the actual issues – the questions of pre-planned total extermination, cyanide gas chambers, and six million Jewish victims (or was that six million total victims?) – were not nearly as strong as I had expected. In fact, they were surprisingly flimsy.

Shermer and Grobman admit that the keepers of the Auschwitz memorial suddenly decided, one day in 1989, to reduce the number of victims of that notorious camp from 4 million to “about one and one half million.” That is a lot of victims to vanish so suddenly.

Shermer and Grobman claim that the suddenly-missing 2 1/2 million Auschwitz victims somehow magically re-appeared on the Eastern Front, where they turned out to have been shot down by German firing squads. This maneuver preserves the seemingly magical “six million” figure. But it raises some obvious questions about the reliability of the death counts. First, isn’t the mathematics of “subtract-two-and-one-half-million here, add two-and-one-half-million there” just a bit too convenient?  Second, what about the forensic evidence? How can the remains of 2 1/2 million human cadavers have suddenly moved from Auschwitz to the Eastern Front? And third – if the orthodox Holocaust historians were that wrong about Auschwitz prior to 1989, what else might they be wrong about?

Shermer and Grobman downplay the issue of forensic evidence – because, it seems, there really isn’t a whole lot. Millions of people seem to have vanished without a trace. Instead, orthodox Holocaust historians rely on eyewitness accounts, not forensics, to establish the existence of mass-execution cyanide gas chambers and six million dead bodies. They say the bodies and skeletons were almost completely burned, so little or nothing remained. No point in looking for millions of bodies, you won’t find nearly enough.

On that point, the skeptics and the orthodox historians agree.

Denying History raised questions in my mind about the truth of what I had previously believed. It also, paradoxically, evoked my sympathy for the people the authors wanted me to despise. Just about all of them seemed like reasonably nice people. David Irving, Shermer and Grobman admitted, was a highly-qualified and accomplished historian who had suffered greatly, and even been imprisoned, for his sincerely-held scholarly opinions. David Cole, a young Jewish man led to “Holocaust denial” by his penchant for truth, had won a debate against the pro-Orthodoxy forces, including Shermer himself, on the Phil Donahue Show. The only way the forces of orthodoxy could win their debate with David Cole, it turned out, was by issuing death threats to terrify him into recanting.

Shermer and Grobham made me like David Cole, feel sorry for him, and despise the JDL terrorists who threatened to kill him if he didn’t pretend to agree with them.

Since Shermer and Grobman were such poor defenders of orthodoxy, I turned to Deborah Lipstadt, who had won a libel suit filed against her by David Irving. I assumed that anyone who could beat Irving in a history debate must have a rock-solid command of the facts. Her book Denying the Holocaust, I assumed, would put the deniers’ arguments to rest.

As I turned the pages of Denying the Holocaust, my astonishment gradually turned to fury. The book has nothing to do with history. It is one long hysterical polemic in favor of the author’s utterly unexamined a priori belief system. Lipstadt’s book consists of 100% emotion, zero percent rational-empirical argument about historical fact. It is basically an endless chain of mindless ad-hominem insults against the “holocaust deniers.”

If this was the best the defenders of Holocaust orthodoxy could do, maybe they didn’t have quite the airtight argument that I had assumed.

At this point, my faith in Holocaust orthodoxy was somewhat shaken.

Then one of my 9/11-skeptic acquaintances told me I should read Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides by Thomas Dalton. I did – and found it was far better than the books by Shermer/Grobman and Lipstadt. Of course, it wasn’t really as neutral as the title sounded. Dalton obviously believed the holocaust skeptics had a better case than the keepers of orthodoxy. But at least he did try to elucidate the historical arguments, point by point. Though he did not convince me that the Holocaust skeptics were right, he successfully argued that the Holocaust controversy was a legitimate topic of historical debate.

I invited Dalton to join me on the radio to debate two defenders of orthodoxy, Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis, on my radio show. (Read about the show here, and listen at http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-042410.mp3 ).

Then I met Nick Kollerstrom, author of the best book on 7/7, Terror on the Tube. Dr. Kollerstrom, a Ph.D. History of Science chemistry specialist, was expelled from his teaching post at University College of London simply for publishing a scholarly article evaluating the chemical evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers during World War II. Those who expelled him threw in gratuitous insults, but refused to make any effort to dispute the facts as laid out in the offending article.

I got to know Nick, rambled all over London with him, and found I liked him and respected his intellect. His views were legitimate scholarly interpretations, not bigotry.

These experiences have led me to conclude that the problem isn’t Holocaust denial – it’s Holocaust history denial (HHD). People like Deborah Lipstadt, and the other keepers of Holocaust orthodoxy, irrationally deny that the Holocaust is history, and therefore open to free and fearless rational-empirical debate. For them, the Holocaust is emotion-saturated sacred myth, not history.

Western culture – not just a few keepers of orthodoxy – is suffering from HHD. Everywhere you go, it is denied that the Holocaust is just one unfortunate historical episode among others, and that the data can be interpreted and reinterpreted in a wide variety of ways. The sacred shibboleths – six million dead, cyanide gas chambers, and a pre-planned total extermination – are the new holy trinity. Anybody who doubts them isn’t just another revisionist historian, but a heretic.

And the heretics are sent to prison, or have their careers destroyed, simply for writing or speaking about their interpretations of historical data.

Nick Kollerstrom tells me that many thousands of people have been prosecuted, in Germany alone, under the “political correctness” laws. How can anyone possibly be a historian in a society that imprisons people for expressing their interpretations of history?

Holocaust history denial is a clear and present danger. The Western tradition of freedom of inquiry is under threat. Ever since Socrates founded philosophy, acerbic skepticism about “public myths” has been central to Western thought. Today, it can get you thrown in prison or ejected from your job.

It’s time to meet the threat of Holocaust history denial head-on. Let’s re-historicize the Holocaust, and put an end to the Holocaust Religion!

I propose that America’s top fraud investigators should be immediately assigned to the Holocaust survivors’ fraud beat. The recent discover of $42 million in phony “survivor” claims is undoubtedly only the tip of the iceberg; billions more are there for the taking. The money recovered from the “no business like Shoah business” shysters should be applied to the endowment of Holocaust Revisionism chairs in a dozen or so of our leading universities. There, the world’s top Holocaust revisionists should be turned loose to develop their very best historical arguments. A lively scholarly historical debate between the revisionists and the defenders of orthodoxy would ensue.

Who would win the debate? I have no idea. Maybe, with the debate reinvigorated, the orthodox camp would find the motivation to go out and look for the long-lost forensic evidence, including the ruins of actual mass-human-extermination gas chambers and the remains of millions of victims’ bodies. Or maybe the revisionists, given a modicum of legitimacy and funding, would definitively prove their case.

Either way, history – and the Western tradition of freedom of inquiry – would be the real winners.

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

GuenterDeckerHeader copy

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Guenter Deckert1 copy

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”,  Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012  was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

 

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM

CarloM300

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide.  At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example  the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert  wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly  presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung,  a Jew, by someone or another   (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag  12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court”  the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of  “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a  fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first  principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail   circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt  Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote  that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.  

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court”  I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of  the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken.  I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged.  The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not 

My motion of  January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct.  I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

[Read more…]