View Full Version : Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
11-10-2005, 02:47 AM
THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
Editor's Note: From the sub-cellar of psychosis comes this report in the
Canadian media about the latest Zundel trial. Note that the prosecutor
(Grossmann) states that revisionists secretly believe that six million
"Jews" were gassed, but are too cowardly to say so. Revisionists have
the courage to risk everything to to publicly cast doubt on homicidal
gas chambers, but we are supposed to believe that they are too cowardly
to admit that they really believe in them! This is the logic of the Mad
Hatter, and Zundel is at the mercy of this mentality.
The virus of hate
Holocaust denier remains defiant, looks for recruits
Defense will paint him as a "prisoner of conscience"
Nov. 8, 2005 Toronto Star
MANNHEIM, GERMANY-Today, Germany puts on trial a high profile product of
its Nazi past. Yet it does so with little sense of drama.
Ernst Zundel, a German citizen who was a distasteful fixture in Montreal
and Toronto for 40 years, is charged with inciting hatred, denying the
Holocaust and dishonouring the dignity of Jews, living and dead.
Zundel is largely unknown in Germany and the media have so far ignored
"He doesn't have real influence on Germany's neo-Nazi scene," says
Manfred Murck, Hamburg deputy chief of the German intelligence service
that monitors extremist groups.
Yet behind the stone walls and barbed wire of this city's maximum
security prison, Zundel doesn't miss an opportunity to spread his
He avoids mingling with what he calls the "down-bred," multicultural
group of murderers and thieves he's been jailed with since being
deported from Canada eight months ago.
He prefers the company of the guards, describing their "humane"
behaviour as stirring warm feelings of belonging to the German "Volk,"
the sense of national identity that under Hitler became synonymous with
racial superiority - and mass murder.
Even his lawyer believes Zundel has little chance of avoiding jail under
Germany's strict laws. But while in custody awaiting trial, the
66-year-old revisionist remains defiant and on the lookout for recruits.
He seizes the chance when guards ask, as Zundel claimed in a recent
letter, "What is it that you know that is so feared by the system?"
"Then I let loose with pure Zundelism and watch my artillery barrage
land right on target in the depths of their souls - and I KNOW, Ingrid,
by their reaction that I have not lost the magic touch," he wrote to his
"It's an uplifting feeling for I know that the time will come when that
`KNOWING' will be treated like a national resource."
"To hell with the rest of the world," he added. "This is the new world
Even among diehard neo-Nazis, such comments are dismissed. Christian
Worch, a leading neo-Nazi organizer, says right-wing extremists are far
more preoccupied by immigration and unemployment than revising history,
especially when simply claiming the Holocaust is exaggerated can land
you in jail.
Worch, 49, who served five years for denying the Holocaust and waving
the swastika in public, says he asked neo-Nazi leaders whether
pro-Zundel demonstrations should be organized and got little more than a
From 1998 to 2003, 114 people in Germany were convicted of having made
statements that "approve, deny or minimize" crimes committed by Hitler's
regime, and are "liable to disturb the public peace."
Many had denied the Holocaust ever happened, or stated, for example,
that fewer than six million Jews were killed. The crime carries a
maximum penalty of five years. More than 1,400 others were convicted of
inciting "hatred against parts of the population."
In Canada, Zundel spent two years in jail on a federal security
certificate before federal court Judge Pierre Blais called him a "racist
hypocrite," a threat to Canadians, and threw him out of the country.
In Mannheim, it's Andreas Grossmann's job to keep him in jail as long as
As lead prosecutor in the case, Grossmann also wants to stop Zundel from
turning the trial into a platform for neo-Nazi propaganda. Zundel did
exactly that during Toronto court proceedings in the 1980s, which
resulted in the Supreme Court overturning a conviction for spreading
"It's perhaps better if no one talks about it," says Grossmann,
referring to media coverage the trial might receive.
Previous Holocaust deniers convicted in Mannheim include Fred Leuchter,
who presented a report at Zundel's second Toronto trial claiming the
Auschwitz death camp had no gas chambers. The report, flatly dismissed
by leading historians, has become gospel in the revisionist world.
Zundel is charged with statements contained on the "Zundelsite" website
and in biweekly "newsletters" he sends to followers. The indictment
includes his claims that most Jews in concentration camps died of
disease, that Hitler never ordered their extermination, and that a
"Holocaust lobby" has since "blackmailed" millions of dollars from the
Grossmann expects Zundel be jailed for three to five years. (That's funny - Grossman is in charge!/Draken)
"Not only are they liars and preachers of hate, they're also cowards,"
Grossmann says. "What they really believe is that the Holocaust
happened, that it was good, and that the only mistake is that they
didn't get them all. But they don't dare say that."
Zundel will appear before three judges and two jurors. Five days have
been set aside for the trial, but Grossmann expects Zundel's defence
team to drag it out as much as possible.
Zundel's lead lawyer, Jurgen Rieger, says his first motion will be to
replace all three "biased" judges. He'll describe Zundel as "a prisoner
of conscience," argue that the website is fully run by his Zundel's wife
and note that it's based in the U.S., where its content is protected by
freedom of speech laws.
Grossmann instead points to a court ruling that convicted German soccer
fans for giving Nazi salutes at a match in Poland, simply because the
images were broadcast on German TV.
Rieger acknowledges he has little chance of having top Holocaust deniers
accepted as expert witnesses. German law prevents a defence that tries
to prove the denier is right. (!!!/Draken)
Rieger was fined 3,600 euros for trying to use the tactic while
defending another client. Yet his team has sent Grossmann documents
making similar claims.
"If the lawyer stands up in court and says publicly that the Holocaust
did not happen, then I will have another case to prosecute," Grossmann
Germany's blanket ban on Holocaust denial is similar to laws in several
"There's a deep-seated fear here that if these hate messages are voiced,
some or many Germans might be attracted to them. I don't see that danger
at all, but this is an expression of the German trauma," says Winfried
Brugger, professor of constitutional law at the University of
"Every politician says we have a healthy, robust democracy in Germany,"
he adds. "But when it comes to right-wing radicalism most people think,
`Germany is frail and we are not 100 per cent sure that we won't again
fall into the Nazi trap.'"
Brugger says simple Holocaust denial should be protected as free speech.
Publicly confronting such lies "revitalizes" a truth that may otherwise
become a hollow mantra, he argues.
An April survey sponsored by the American Jewish Committee found a high
level of Holocaust awareness among Germans, including 77 per cent who
identified Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka as extermination camps.
"Germany has the lowest level of anti-Semitism in Europe," says Albert
Mayer, head of the Jewish Community of Berlin. "It's not paradise, but
it's a pretty good place to live."
Since 1989, Germany's Jewish community has grown from 27,000 to 200,000
- almost half of its pre-World War II level - largely through Russian
Other studies have found a German tendency to turn a blind eye to crimes
their parents or grandparents may have committed during the war. The
blame is invariably placed on abstract Nazis rather than real ones close
to home, causing analysts to warn that the lessons of history haven't
been fully learned.
Increasing concerns are the almost five million unemployed, the highest
since hard times propelled Hitler's National Socialists to power in
Direct parallels would be absurd, but neo-Nazis like Worch count on the
economic troubles to boost their support.
In September's national election, the neo-Nazi linked Nationalist Party
received 1.6 per cent of the vote. In eastern Germany last year, it
9.2 per cent of Saxony's ballots in regional elections.
"People denying the Holocaust are like a virus, a virus of pure
anti-Semitism. If we don't punish this crime, the virus can spread,"
11-10-2005, 03:16 AM
What a fucking joke. It's all a dream. I'm sure it's all a dream.
Wont the future generations be having a gigantic laugh at all this. The sheer stupidity of it all.
It's actually quite macabre.
And how long do the poor silly Jews and their hangers on think they can get away with it? It's really time for more Jews to point out the ridiculous nqature of it all.
I am a poor middle class who mixes in VERY wide circles and I can tell ya I have gotton at least 60 fellow average middle class people laughing at the holohoax. That is just the beginning.
Better start that war quick boys.
Time is running out.
11-10-2005, 10:51 AM
What the jew really fears is the truth. He needs government to make laws banning the truth so his con game can stand. Billions of dollars, more accurately trillions if you count materials along with the money that has been fraudulently extorted from the first world nations using the lie of the holocaust, has poured into Israel.
The notorious figure of 6 million jews exterminated has already dropped officially to less than a million and that figure is highly questionable, along with the term exterminated. To die in times of war as a result of that war is not extermination. Typhus in the camps was not a respector or persons, either.
The Zionists dealt with the German government to remove all jews who wanted to go to Palestine but those who did not were on their own.
Many of those who wanted no part of what was to become Israel went to England and filled the empty Liberty Ships returning to America after dropping off our soldiers to fight and die in the war.
Abba Eban stated that there were only approximately 600,000 jews in Europe at the time war broke out. The Nazis would have had to import jews in order for as many to die as claimed, which would mean you would have no "holocaust survivors." The fact that most jews were communists resulted in their being sent to the camps because Germany was fighting Communist Bolshevists in Russia.
Just as Freemasons do not recognize borders and loyalty to country over their fraternal oaths, neither do the jews. Their first and only loyalty is to themselves and, as such, represented a "fifth column" in Germany or any other place where they reside.
The United States placed Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWll because we were at war with Japan even though most were US citizens. They were no more gassed and killed than were the jews. They were deemed a risk to National Security. Right or wrong, it happened.
It is neither racist nor anti-semitic to look honestly at the facts of history as well as the situation that exists today. The finances of the world are in the hands of the jews, nationally and internationally. They can make or break any country on the face of the earth. All major media is under their control, either directly through ownership or indirectly through controlling advertising which finances it. No opinion contrary to the jews' interest gets out. They set the agenda and control the "debate."
They own the diamond and emerald cartels, they are over-represented in governments so no country is secure as a result of their dubious "loyalty" since their first loyalty is to Israel, which is to say, themselves. Kol Nidre absolves them of any oaths they have to take in order to operate within governments and makes those oaths null and void.
They are over-represented in institutions of higher learning where they are free to teach our progeny the tenants of Communism and multiculturalism which is guaranteed to destroy any country in which it is practiced. That is why the jew will tell you in a heartbeat that Israel is for the jews only. He does not practice what he preaches. It is only for the goy. What other country would be allowed to treat a captive people the way the Palestinians are treated today?
Their goal is almost achieved, which is world domination. Their ideal population is represented by the UN's "brown man," no more blacks, no more yellow, red or white, just an amalgamation knowing no loyalty to a non-existant nation, living - or not - only to serve the jew. Books stating their aims exist but are in collections like the University of Texas were you cannot go unless you have special permission.
The goyim (non-jews) are by far too brainwashed and naive to see what is staring them in the face. By the time the truth dawns on them it will be too late. It may already be too late. It would require that all freedom-loving people, world wide, join together to fight the common enemy and I don't really see that happening.
11-10-2005, 11:12 AM
we're still differentiating between Jews and Zionists right? http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/hsugh.gif
11-10-2005, 12:06 PM
11-10-2005, 12:07 PM
Kol Nidre absolves them of any oaths they have to take in order to operate within governments and makes those oaths null and void.
Could you please elaborate on that, Barbara?
I believe I am aware of the concept, but many on this forum may not be.
11-10-2005, 01:30 PM
Their goal is almost achieved, which is world domination. Their ideal population is represented by the UN's "brown man," no more blacks, no more yellow, red or white, just an amalgamation knowing no loyalty to a non-existant nation, living - or not - only to serve the jew. Books stating their aims exist but are in collections like the University of Texas were you cannot go unless you have special permission.
Even with the propaganda arm of MTV, race mixing to such an extent would take hundreds of years, and as with the case of Brazil, you still have divisions among coloreds where lighter blacks discriminate against darker blacks, or in South Africa where mulattoes have sought self-determination apart from the black majority.
But I still wonder what would serve them better. A monolithic brown race of people who had no 'united front' that could present opposition to their One Worldism? Or forcibly integrating groups and for the most part maintaining their differences, using the classic Marxist pincer technique of tension from 'above and below'?
I lean more towards the second case. Why else would they be funding La Raza, and endorsing their 'cosmic race' theories, or the Nation of Islam? Or something I saw recently on campus, 'Dragon Seed' (a Chinese racialist group)? Without such cleavages in society, they lose their pretext for control.
11-10-2005, 01:33 PM
NOokay.. how about Old Testament practicing Jews, versus Talmudic Jews?
11-11-2005, 12:44 AM
<a href="http://www.rense.com/general68/man.htm">Account Of The First
Hearing Regional Court
By Markus Haverkamp
On Tuesday morning, roughly 80 supporters of Ernst Zündel and 35 representatives of the media met at the Regional Court Mannheim, a court notorious for its zeal and fervour in persecuting Revisionists. The atmosphere was extraordinarily pleasant, the supporters having come from as far as Canada, the UK, France and Switzerland. Following the usual security procedures by the police, who were very friendly indeed, the hearing began shortly after 09.00 when the judge, Dr. Meinerzhagen, his two colleagues and two jurors entered the courtroom. Ernst Zündel, wearing a blazer and tie, made a healthy and confident impression; he was represented by Miss Sylvia Stolz, whom Ernst Zündel had appointed as his mandatory lawyer, as well as Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Herbert Schaller (Austria) as his lawyers of choice. Miss Stolz' assistant was Horst Mahler. Ernst Zündel was thus represented by possibly the most experienced and highly qualified team of lawyers for dealing with Holocaust persecution and nationalism.
The judge opened the hearing by taking down Ernst Zündel's name, date of birth, profession and address. Having done so, Dr. Meinerzhagen proceeded to attack the defence team, by first reading out aloud Horst Mahler's prohibition to practice his profession that had been passed by the Local Court Tiergarten, and extensively quoting Herr Mahler's remarks on Revisionism, the Jewish Question and the status of the German Reich. He then demanded that Herr Mahler be relieved of his appointment as Miss Stolz' assistant. Sylvia Stolz pointed out that owing to the fact that Horst Mahler was not acting as a lawyer but merely as her assistant there were no grounds for dismissing Herr Mahler. The judge retorted that it would seem that Mahler's influence on the defence is considerable, to which Sylvia Stolz replied that it is alone her business which writings she makes use of in her defence and that this is her responsibility. Upon this, the judge threatened to have Herr Mahler removed by force and put into custody for a day.
The public shook their heads with disbelief at hearing this. At this point, Jürgen Rieger pointed out that such attacks against the defence had not even taken place in the Gulag. As Sylvia Stolz continued to be persistent in having Mahler as her assistant, the judge ordered the police to remove Mahler from the courtroom, at which point (the guards were already standing behind Horst Mahler) Miss Stolz stated that as it was her decision, not the court's, and that seeing as they were being coerced by force, she would herewith relieve Mahler from his duty as assistant. Mahler then took a seat in the public area. All this caused an uproar from the public provoking the judge to threaten to lock the public out.
Dr Meinerzhagen, however, was merely warming up.
The judge then read out the court decision from 07.11.05 where it was decided that the petition of the defence to have Zündel released from custody for the time being until the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether §130 Penal Code (Holocaust muzzle) is congruent with §5 Basic Law (freedom of opinion and speech) was refused. The judge then made it clear that all "incitement to hatred" by the defence would be vigorously suppressed and then stated that the defence was using terms and stating matters which where endangering the defence of being itself accused of violating §130 Penal Code. He here said that he would not listen to "pseudo-scientific views since the Holocaust is a historically ascertained fact" (this caused the public to roar with laughter).
Dr Meinerzhagen continued by saying that he was not sure that Sylvia Stolz is suited to being Ernst Zündel's mandatory lawyer as she was likely to make herself guilty of the violation of §130; furthermore, since Ernst Zündel was thus likely to lose his mandatory lawyer, which would slow the proceedings down, the status of Miss Stolz as his mandatory lawyer is to be revoked.
After Zündel made it clear that he wishes to be represented by Miss Stolz, the court took a break to deliberate on this issue. After its deliberation, the court revoked Miss Stolz' appointment as Ernst Zündel's mandatory lawyer. Dr Meinerzhagen then proceeded to say that Jürgen Rieger was not suited as the mandatory lawyer of the accused either, because it is known that Herr Rieger is of Revisionist opinion and it is to be feared that he would not be properly objective in the matter. The judge here cited examples from Jürgen Rieger's past - facts which he obtained by breaking the data protection laws as Rieger then pointed out.
Moving on to Dr. Schaller, the judge stated that he too was not suited to be Zündel's mandatory lawyer either, since owing to his old age it could not be guaranteed that Dr. Schaller would be up to the job. In his ensuing, powerful and brilliantly delivered statement, Jürgen Rieger drew the judge's attention to the fact that Konrad Adenauer had been well into his 70s when first elected as chancellor of Germany, this as well as many other statements again causing the public to voice their approval, giggle and laugh.
The purpose of the Judge was all to obvious: by eliminating Ernst Zündel's brilliant defence team he would be able to appoint a mandatory defence lawyer of his own choosing, one who would not make any petitions or place motions to hear evidence, but who would act in accordance with Dr. Meinerzhagen's designs. The defence, however, refused to be intimidated by these actions.
After having eliminated the possibility of Zündel having a mandatory lawyer of his preference, the judge asked how the matter was to be continued, to which the accused stated that he would dismiss his third lawyer of choice (Bock, not present at the hearing) and would take Sylvia Stolz, Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Schaller as lawyers of choice. (Note: In hearings before a regional court, German law requires that the accused have a mandatory lawyer; the accused may also have up to three lawyers of choice). Rieger then pointed [out] that such a decision ought to be left to the bar, and Miss Stolz added that since the court desires to have a mandatory lawyer who has Ernst Zündel's trust, the court ought to act accordingly, unless, of course, the court has other things in mind. At this juncture, the hearing was interrupted for 90 minutes to allow for lunch.
During the lunch break, the defence lawyers as well as the public prosecutor gave interviews to the media. During an interview with the latter, one of Zündel's supporters, Dirk Heuer, asked the public prosecutor in front of the cameras: "How can you sleep at night?" The police led him away on the spot.
After lunch, having again been through the security screening (the police officials becoming increasingly amicable), we returned to the courtroom. Jürgen Rieger then proceeded to read out a petition that the court is prejudiced. The eloquence and emotional power of Rieger's statements can only be hinted at. After Rieger finished, Sylvia Stolz made a statement, saying that the defence was being publicly threatened not to state anything forbidden by the court, and that this is an outrage and that such thoughts could only be the fruit of a sick mind. Miss Stolz then petitioned to exclude the public from further hearings on the grounds that the defence was being threatened by the court of being persecuted for violation of §130 Penal Code. (Note: This paragraph only comes into effect when the "crime" is perpetrated in public; by excluding the public, the defence would be able to voice "forbidden thoughts" without being liable for persecution). Sylvia Stolz continued by saying that should the court wish to have a public trial, the defence team would be in grave danger of persecution.
The court then decided to go into recession until Tuesday 15.11.05, 10.00.
On leaving the courtroom, the sympathy of the police who had been present throughout the hearing was extraordinary - expressions of support, pats on the back, etc.
All in all, the day was a huge success. Dr. Meinerzhagen clearly showed his prejudice and his will to destroy Ernst Zündel's defence as well as his will not to accept any evidence the defence lawyers might present in order to defend the accused. Furthermore, the judge clearly broke the most basic of judicial norms by publicly threatening the defence before they had even started defending the accused, as well as by forcing Horst Mahler to leave the floor and revoking Sylvia Stolz' appointment as mandatory defence lawyer. It was blatantly obvious that this was to be a show trial.
The defence team put up a brilliant fight; Jürgen Rieger with his powerful, witty comments and Sylvia Stolz with her quiet, calm and perfectly determined bearing. The two final petitions by the defence team were excellent strategic moves: a) the court will have to deal with the petition that it is prejudiced, i.e. it will have to analyse its actions and account for them, this being something the court dreads, and b) by petitioning to exclude the public, Miss Stolz gave the court a choice: to either exclude the public, in which case the court will be confronted with the evidence from Germar Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust" and Horst Mahler's "Motion to Hear Evidence on the Jewish Question", which would be devastating for the court, as well as creating waves both in the judicial world as well as in public (why the secret trial?), or, to include the public in which case the defence team would be tried itself for presenting its evidence nonetheless, causing both the public and the judicial world to ponder what is going on. Either way, the way things look it seems highly unlikely that the court can reach a decision that truly benefits its plans to lock Ernst Zündel up.
The show trial continues on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 at the Regional Court Mannheim, 10.00. [I believe it is 9:00 o'clock, as previously announced.]
11-11-2005, 03:53 AM
<a href="http://germarrudolf.com/persecute/asylum.html">Political Asylum for Germar Rudolf?</a>
For years the U.S. State Deportment has been claiming in its worldwide review of human rights that there are no reports of political prisoners in Germany (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/). Well, off the top of my head here are a few individuals I know personally, all of them political prisoners of Germany at some point during the last ten years, sentenced to prison terms for their peacefully expressed political or historical views: Fredrick Toben, Udo Walendy, Hans Schmidt, Fred Leuchter, Günter Deckert, Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, Ernst-Günther Kögel, Erhard Kemper.
Since 1993 the German government tries to force Germar Rudolf to believe in the official version of German history with all measures of persecution by prosecution. To find relief from this persecution, Germar Rudolf applied for political asylum in the United States in late 2000. His case will soon be heard by a U.S. Federal Court. It could prove to be a landmark case when it comes to the question whether or not Germany and other European countries should be allowed to put people in prison merely for their unpopular scholarly views on history or politics.
Because the U.S. State Department does not recognize Germany as a persecuting country, and because the INS cannot overrule State Department policies, it had to turn down Rudolf’s application. Even though this negative decision was expected, when turning down Rudolf’s application for political asylum, the INS also decided – and the INS Board of Appeals agreed – that
Rudolf’s application for political asylum was frivolous.
As a result of this, the INS ordered that Rudolf is subject to involuntary departure, meaning that he will be sent back to Germany in handcuffs; that he will be banned from the USA for a lifetime, meaning that he will never be able to return to the US; and that there is no remedy to change this, meaning that not even his marriage to a U.S. citizen and having a child with her can avert that deportation and banning.
This decision will be brought to a Federal Court for appeal. The reasons for appeal are, i.a.:
The harshest accusation the INS can make against an asylum seeker is that he filed a frivolous application. The harshest penalty the INS can hand down on an immigrant is involuntary departure, banning for a lifetime, and no remedy. In other words: under immigration law Rudolf was accused of the most severe crime he could possibly commit, and he was punished with the hardest penalty possible. The problem with this verdict is the following.
A frivolous application is defined by case law as an application either not back-up with any evidence for persecution or by committing treacherous acts against the INS during the asylum proceedings, like lying to the INS judge, forging evidence, manipulating witnesses, and the like.
Because of the severity of the consequences of filing a frivolous application, the immigration judge must notify the defendant (=immigrant) during the hearing that he considers categorizing his application frivolous, and the Judge also has to inform the defendant what the evidence is upon which he bases his assumption, so that the defendant can defend himself against this most severe accusation.
This decision of "frivolousness" was made without any notice, warning, or opportunity to clear up any discrepancies. This was in violation of Immigration Service regulations and rulings by various Federal Courts, which require that there be sufficient opportunity for the applicant to account for all discrepancies. This decision also openly contradicts the comments of the Immigration Judge during the hearing. He confirmed not only the seriousness of Rudolf's application (Transcript of Hearing, p. 209), but also that the record of evidence was extensive both in scope and scale (Transcript, pp. 18, 22, 25, 29, 149, 163, 208, 222, 312). As a reason for calling Rudolf's application "frivolous", the Judge mentioned two items to support his claim:
A letter Rudolf wrote back in 1994 to his godmother, in which he had denied to have used the pen name "Ernst Gauss". Of course, this proves only that he had lied to a relative some ten years ago, but not to the immigration judge. To the contrary: both during his German trial back in 1995 and in his application form for political asylum, Rudolf admitted to have used this pen name. If the fact that a person once in his life has lied to a relative is sufficient reason to deny political asylum, then the institution of political asylum would cease to exist, as it can be safely assumed that every human being at some point in his/her life has lied to a relative. It may also be pointed out that the immigration judge's claim, this lie would shed bad light onto Rudolf, is also false. After all, Rudolf had a good reason to deny the use of this pen name back in 1994, because at that time his scientific revisionist anthology "Dissecting the Holocaust" (German edition) was yet to appear, so he needed the secrecy of his pen name to protect himself from political persecution.
The immigration judge argued that Rudolf tried to hide the truth from him about his close relationship to the German rightwing extremist Otto Ernst Remer in a similar way as Rudolf tried to hide it from the German court back in 1995. As proof the judge indicated that Rudolf had not mentioned in his application form for political asylum that he had temporarily resided with Remer after he had fled to Spain. In his application form, Rudolf only mentioned “with various friends and in holiday apartments.” That Rudolf indeed resided at Remer's place can be seen from a newspaper article that Rudolf himself submitted to the court as evidence for his persecution. However, the article referred to by the judge only mentions that Rudolf "stayed with Remer." This is already a distortion by a journalist whose only interest was to link Rudolf to alleged Nazis. The article does not mention how long and for what purpose Rudolf stayed at Remer's residence. As a matter of fact, Remer's apartment served only as a meeting point with other individuals upon Rudolf's arrival in Spain. This point was chosen because Rudolf knew where Remer lived, since during his trial in Germany back in 1995, the entire German court had traveled to Spain to interrogate Remer as a witness. When Rudolf left Germany in March 1996, he was neither told who he would meet in Spain nor where he would be temporarily lodged. This was a security measure to prevent the German authorities to find Rudolf. Rudolf was actually lodged some 50 miles west of Remer's residence in a holyday apartment of a Spaniard whose name he cannot recall (which is why he did not give names) and later in the residence of an old German war veteran. Both locations were in the Spanish town of Estepona, which Rudolf indicated on his application form. (He does not remember the exact street addresses, though). Remer, however, lived in Marbella. So even the immigration judge could have concluded from these facts that Rudolf's temporary dwelling in Spain was not linked to Remer. Apart from that: the application form for asylum asks for “residences”, which are permanent dwellings. Neither of the locations where Rudolf resided during his short stay in Spain fulfills that criterion, since Rudolf never had any of his property with him in Spain, but merely luggage as one carries during a journey or vacation. Rudolf had no residence in Spain, only temporary lodgings comparable to hotels. And having stayed at Remer's residence for several hours while passing through certainly does not fulfill the criterion of a residence either.
During the hearing of his asylum case, Rudolf's short presence in Spain was not mentioned by anyone. Rudolf therefore had no chance to refute this false claim that suddenly appeared in the written verdict. These underhanded methods are comparable to the German court, which back in 1995 tried to prove in a similar mendacious way that Rudolf had allegedly tried to hide his close relationship to Remer.
The Federal Court will have to decide whether it is legal to sentence defendants for crimes they were not accused of during the hearing, and for which there is no evidence. Under normal circumstances, of course, such a verdict by any court, INS or otherwise, would never be upheld by a Federal Court. However, since Rudolf is the world’s leading publisher of Holocaust revisionist material, and he is increasingly successful in rallying renowned historians from all over the world behind him, not only the US government, but also the German and the Israeli governments will exert all the power they have to see to it that Germar Rudolf will not be able to enjoy civil rights as they are granted to any decent U.S. citizen, and for which the U.S. once claimed to have gone to war against Germany.
There are, of course, other interesting aspects to this case. For example the question whether Germany should be allowed to deny “thought crime” defendants to introduce any evidence deemed to support their dissenting views, and to even punish defence lawyers should they dare to introduce such evidence.
Imagine a U.S. judge would deny a defence lawyer to introduce evidence to prove that the crime his defendant is accuse of did not occur in the first place. Imagine the same judge would turn against that lawyer for that and put him on trial. That would cause an outrage, of course. But in Germany it is common practice demanded by Germany’s Supreme Court.
The INS, in it wisdom, thinks that it found a way out of that by arguing that even U.S. laws have rules where evidence can be rejected due to the question to be proven by it being “self-evident”. In the written verdict, the INS judge related the example of a defendant on trial for a DUI offense. If a forensic analysis of the defendants blood resulted in the fact that he was driving a car under the influence of illegal amounts of alcohol, then the judge would rightly reject any witness statement offered by the defense to the contrary.
The problem is, of course, that the INS turned the facts of Rudolf’s case upside down. To stick with the INS judge‘s example: Rudolf WAS the forensic expert testifying in court that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol (here he testified that his analysis show that the gas chambers were not under the influence of poison gas). But instead of granting his testimony, the German judges reject him, put him on trial for defaming all witnesses who did or would testify otherwise, and also put lawyers on trial, who want to introduce forensic evidence (like Rudolf’s testimony).
Imagine such a surreal situation! Imagine an expert testifying in court about the fatherhood of a defendant, based upon DNS analysis, would be thrown in jail because his testimony contradicts that of some “eyewitnesses”, and thus tainting their reputation!
Hence, should the Federal Court dealing with Rudolf’s case uphold the verdict of the INS court, then due process for immigrants and maybe even for US citizens would be a matter of the past:
defendants can be sentenced for crimes they were never accused of and for which there is no evidence
forensic expert witnesses can be put on trial because their testimony is an insult to eyewitnesses who disagree.
You think that will never happen! Well, you better watch your back, because when the Holocaust taboo is involved, water runs up the hill!
The human rights experts from Amnesty International have already made up their minds: Since “Holocaust denial” indirectly amounts to accusing Jewish eyewitnesses of having lied, it is a form of incitement to hatred. Therefore, in the minds of AI, forensic experts coming to different conclusions than eyewitnesses do indeed belong in jail.
Welcome to the New World Order!
11-13-2005, 05:01 AM
<a href="http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=81682">The Holocaust Heresy Trial of Ernst Zündel Begins in Germany</a>
American Free Press
The first day of the trial of Ernst Zündel revealed that the German court proceedings are being tightly controlled in order to prevent any evidence from being presented that might challenge the state supported Jewish Holocaust dogma.
MANNHEIM, Germany – The long awaited trial of Holocaust heretic Ernst Zündel, which began here in a dismal fortress-like concrete courthouse on November 8, offers only the slightest appearance of modern jurisprudence.
More than anything else, what occurred during the first day of the Zündel trial was reminiscent of the heresy trial of Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, which was held in the nearby town of Worms in 1521.
Like Luther, Zündel is on trial for his heretical writings and beliefs. While Luther was tried by Emperor Charles the Fifth, 484 years ago, at the Diet of Worms for heresy because of his denial of Roman Catholic doctrine, the charges against Zündel amount to modern day heresy for holding opinions contrary to the state-supported dogma of the Jewish Holocaust.
The Holocaust has, in effect, become the state church in Germany and other European nations. While there is no protection of traditional church doctrine, it is punishable by law in Germany, and other European states, to even question the Zionist version of the Holocaust, an historical event which allegedly occurred in Europe 60-65 years ago.
"The Zionists want to impose the religion of the alleged 'Holocaust' of the Jews on the whole world," the renowned French Holocaust heretic Robert Faurisson said in an interview on November 2. "It is normal that Jews and Zionists should seek to foist such an imposture on us, for it is the sword and the shield of the Jews in general and of the Jewish State in particular."
"The Jews' power stems directly from the Western world's near-total belief in the phenomenal lie of the 'Holocaust," Faurisson said. "You needn't look any further.
"The Jews do not tolerate any questioning of the 'Holocaust,'" Faurisson told the Mehr News Agency of Iran. "Against the revisionists they use physical violence and judicial repression because, on the level of historical and scientific argumentation, they have been defeated hands down by the revisionists. We have been able to expose their lies, one by one. Therefore Jews and Zionists seek refuge in violence and intimidation. They treat revisionists like Palestinians."
The first day of the Zündel trial did indeed resemble an Israeli court judging a Palestinian. The court was adjourned before the charges against Zündel could even be read. Presiding Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen and state prosecutor Andreas Grossmann appeared to have come prepared with one strategy in mind: to dismiss Zündel's powerful defense team and replace it with a malleable court-appointed attorney.
After reading a 7-page litany of complaints against Zündel and his legal counsel Horst Mahler, Meinerzhagen ordered Mahler to leave the defense team's table on grounds that he is no longer permitted to practice law in Germany. Mahler was disbarred in March 2004 for holding unlawful opinions about the Holocaust.
Judge Meinerzhagen threatened to have Mahler thrown into jail if he did not leave the table.
Finally, at 11:09 a.m., surrounded by three green-clad policemen, and heeding the suggestion of defense team member Dr. Herbert Schaller of Austria, Mahler left the defense table and took a seat in the first row of public seating.
The courtroom was packed with some 130 supporters of Zündel and members of the press. As defense attorneys Sylvia Stolz and Jürgen Rieger protested the court's bias and abuse of power there were several rounds of applause that caused Meinerzhagen to completely lose his composure.
Stolz stood her ground and insisted that Mahler was her assistant. Meinerzhagen then dismissed her of her duties although she is Zündel's state-appointed public defender.
At this point, Jürgen Rieger applied for a Gefangenheitsantrag, a motion requesting the judge to recuse himself for obvious bias against Mahler and Stolz.
Thr Gefangenheitsantrag petition will be considered by the Mannheim district court and the decision handed down on November 15.
Rieger told the court that its actions threatening the Zündel defense team were worse than those of the Soviet Gulag system. Rieger said that the defense lawyers were threatened that if they presented evidence they would be punished.
"Little Germany is the most oppressive country in Europe," Rieger said later when asked by American Free Press about his comparison with the Soviet court system.
"It is like the Middle Ages when witches were burned at the stake," he said. "Only today we don't burn Holocaust heretics – we just throw them in jail."
Zündel has spent more than two and a half years in jail waiting for his trial since he was arrested in his home in Tennessee on February 5, 2003. Two weeks later he was deported to Canada, where he has held permanent resident status, and there he spent the next two years in solitary confinement in the Toronto West Detention Centre, on the pretext that he was a threat to national security. Zündel is married to Ingrid Rimland, an American citizen.
This reporter sat directly in front of the judge in the first row and could see that he seemed seething with anger and suffering from undue stress. Prosecutor Grossmann, sitting across from Zündel and his four lawyers, spent much of the time examining and chewing his nails.
In the court of Meinerzhagen and Grossmann, who both appear to be devoted disciples of the Holocaust, it appears highly unlikely that any evidence will be presented that will challenge the state-supported Holocaust doctrine.
This is because a German law, Paragraph 130 of the penal code, prevents any public discussion that questions the veracity of the accepted version of the Holocaust, which is itself not at all clear. For this reason, there appear to be two options: to have an open trial in which no evidence is heard or to have a secret trial in which the evidence is not made public.
"WE CAN ONLY WIN"
Zündel and his defense team were beaming as the court adjourned until November 15. At an open press conference at Mannheim's Hotel Wartburg, the defense team took questions and explained their position in English and German.
"We can only win," Mahler said, adding that there will either be an open trial or a closed trial with evidence.
Rieger said the court can "kick us out," referring to the defense team. This is certainly what the judge seems to be trying to do.
Stolz, who is being advised by Mahler, said the court has only two possibilities. The first option would be for the court to dismiss the defense petition to close the court and hear evidence, in which case the court would stay open and the defense would request evidence to be presented. This would expose the "ridiculous" predicament the German law presents for the court, Stolz said.
The second option is that the judge would decide to lock out the press and the public and the Zündel trial would become a secret trial in which evidence could be presented.
American Free Press was the only press outlet that attended the defense team's conference. The rest of the press had already gone home to file critical stories meant to minimize the importance of the trial and marginalize Zündel's supporters.
The Bild tabloid, the semi-pornographic propaganda outlet of Axel Springer which was heavily funded by the CIA in the 1940's, for example, in a very limited article tried to discredit Zündel's many supporters by describing them as being foreigners or Germans who were outlandishly dressed in traditional clothes.
As the crowd of supporters waited to pass the security check point outside the courtroom, an unidentified young man with a Jewish skull cap repeatedly filmed the crowd. Photographed and asked by AFP who he was filming for, the camera man would only say "no comment," but said he was Israeli.
Later, he and another skull-cap clad man who had been in the court room attended the press conference with what appeared to be a group of local supporters of Zündel. However, why this group would put up such a charade and film the crowd of supporters is not at all clear.
11-15-2005, 02:24 PM
THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
November 15, 2005
Editor's Note: Ernst Zundel has been corresponding with this writer
throughout his unjust imprisonment in Canada and the United States. His
latest letter contains observations both profound and mundane. But even
the prosaic details are worth publishing because they hammer home the
daily reality of a man imprisoned solely for his beliefs, or perhaps I
should say, for what he does not believe.
The media describe him as a "white supremacist," but who is kidding
whom? At Zundelhaus in Toronto his friends and neighbors, accountants
and collaborators were of all races. His most recent Canadian lawyer was
of Asian descent. He could never abide the KKK or Aryan Nations. No,
Ernst Zundel has not spent the last few years of his life in Canadian
and German dungeons because he execrates black or brown people. The
System doesn't care about blacks, except as tokens and as a stick with
which to beat and control the white working class, especially in the
American South. How many black people are in the Washington D.C. press
corps covering the White House and Congress, or on staff at the New York
Recent polls indicate that more than 70% of American blacks think the US
should withdraw from Iraq and rebuild America instead. Blacks are not so
naive as whites when it comes to paying into and obeying the six-pointed
star-System. Orthodox rabbis are anti-black racists in the tradition of
their esteemed legal codifier Moses Maimonides (cf. his "Guide of the
Perplexed" in the Shlomo Pines translation), except in so far as they
can twist poor black resentment into a divide-and-conquer weapon for
humiliating and degrading poor whites, while upper caste whites pose as
"civil rights sympathizers" (from the safe distance of their suburbs and
Zundel has been jailed for one reason alone, and it is important that we
keep the public on point here. He is in jail and on trial because in
good conscience he doubts the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Being
pro or anti Hitler is not germane because Zundel is himself a holocaust
survivor! When he was a toddler his mother dragged him under a table in
their Black Forest home as the horrific sights and sounds of firebombs
dropped by the noble terrorists of the British and American armed forces
incinerated Zundel's native town of Pforzheim. Trauma like that is not
expunged with opprobrium about neo-Nazism. We might all be neo-Nazis if
we had endured the terror which the German civilians experienced during
and even after the war, when more German civilians were killed than
during the conflict, in "peacetime," through deliberate starvation
imposed by Allied and yes, American leaders. This was from the summer of
1945 through the early summer of 1947, before the "Marshall Plan."
Amnesia has been induced concerning the conditions in post-war,
pre-Marshall Plan Germany. James Bacque has written the corrective in
his vital history book, "Other Losses."
I wrote for the old "Spotlight" newspaper and reported from the press
gallery at Ernst's first inquisition in Toronto in 1985. My book, "The
Great Holocaust Trial" is the only revisionist account of that epic. I
regret that I do not have the means to be with Ernst again for his third
trial (actually fourth, if we count the Orwellian 1983 hearing that
ended in the revocation of his right to receive mail!). Even if I ran
the risk in Germany of having the handcuffs slapped on my own wrists,
for the same thought crime for which Ernst is being star-chambered, it
would be worth it. But my home in the alpine region of northern Idaho is
not unlike Germany, and it is not difficult from these environs to be
with Ernst in spirit.
Letter from Ernst Zundel 31. October 05
JVA Mannheim Herzogenrieder Str. 111 68169 Mannheim (Germany)
Michael Hoffman II Box 849 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
Dear Mike! Today is "Reformatious Tag" --Martin Luther Day! The day when
in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door --where I
wanted to attach Fred Leuchter's Report (on Auschwitz) on the same date
in 1989 --only to find that the Communists' had sheethed the entire
church door in a thick sheet of steel, artificially aged to look as old
as the rest of the church structure. There was no way one could even
drive a nail in that door. Obviously I was not the first man to have had
"a repeat performance," a latter day Luther act in mind!
Thus, instead, I posted myself in front of the door, and held up the
reports as my French television crew set up their cameras and a British
photographer who toured Germany with me, went into action. So I had the
last laugh. I was reaching millions at an instant, certainly faster than
if I had merely nailed those reports to that church door.
All kinds of Germans have over the years mentioned that there was a
"Luther-like" quality about me. I always thought it had to do with my
girth, and my "balding pate." Some thought it also had something to do
with the content of my message. If one looks at it critically there are
indeed similarities. We challenge the orthodoxy of our day and we want
to clean up the act of those who were straying from the truth,
embellishing or importing material which never belonged in the
transmitted version of the old faith.
German broadcasters today make a big deal out of the fact that the
humble monk did not start out wanting to divide the faith. He was
horrified at the thought and uneasy when he began to realize how events
had gotten away from him. Like all historical events and figures, there
is the "public persona" that has been handed down, most likely very
different from the real person, as it is with Christ in many versions.
Lucky for the world, all kinds of Luther's notes, diaries and especially
letters to friends and contemporaries have survived to this day. Today
(on the anniversary) some were published in newspapers and broadcast on
radio, with Luther scholars illuminating facets of of Luther's
personality and ideas. It is fascinating to see these Germans wrestle
with this figure in their history. I was surprised that no one mentioned
his "Anti-Semitism." Not once did I hear it come up; which surprised me,
because the media here rarely miss an opportunity to dirty its own nest.
One thing knocked me for a loop! Mike, you won't believe this! The
radio-reporting team asked some local high school kids, girls and boys,
what they knew about Luther. The ignorance was palpable, it made
geniuses out of American high school juniors (in comparison). It was a
kind of Jerry Springer version of radio. One German girl actually said,
"Oh, Martin Luther, he freed the negroes in 1517." Imagine where the
mind of that girl was! Only one young man could give a thumbnail sketch,
had the date right and the points of the 95 theses, and even gave an
outline of what Luther wanted to accomplish. So the dumbing down is not
an American or a Canadian phenomenon only!
The other day I heard a radio interviewer talk to a popular television
talk show host about one of the most embarrassing moments on his show.
He said it was when he asked a famous German singer of pop songs, whose
specialty was Hawaiian music and who had had several mega hits, where
Hawaii was--the host showed the singer a map of the world and asked him
to point out where Hawaii was. The guy embarrassed himself and the host
by always looking for it in the Caribbean! This in the 21st century with
the History Channel and several TVs in the house! Sad, more than sad.
People keep asking me why I have no television in my prison cell. When I
tell them it interferes with my writing and thinking, they look at me
wide-eyed. One morning they spotted me as I was exercising in the yard,
asking if I had meant what I said. They told me that they could not live
without their TVs. They confessed to me how they had suffered in their
cells before they obtained a TV, that the solitude nearly drove them
crazy. I spent about ten to fifteen minutes explaining to them that the
first television broadcasts took place during the 1936 Olympics in Nazi
Germany, and that the German Army had a television network extending
over Europe. The broadcasts were seen as far away as Paris, where the
broadcasts were seen in German army hospitals to help them stay
connected to home, and to take their minds off their wounds. This was
1940-1945. German Army TV network!...I told (the youths imprisoned with
me here) about the dangers as well as the very good educational tool
that television can be. Mike, you should have seen these young men's
eyes lighting up. A new world had opened up for them. German society,
like much of American society, has simply abandoned their young people
to the eagerly waiting druggies and dope-pushers, pimps and white
How many relatively young people are in here for violent crimes
committed while drunk! There was one good-looking young man--he looked
15, but turned out to be 18. He had damaged about a dozen cars, ripped
off aerials and rearview mirrors, because he had had a fight with his
girlfriend, thus venting his spleen and rage on the cars. The judge took
a dim view of this irresponsible behavior and practiced a bit of tough
love, and sent him to the slammer for six months. Of course this boy
hated the loss of his freedoms and was remorseful. I spent a few days
shielding him from the corruption of the druggies, until he was shipped
to a place for young offenders.
Now quickly to my "living conditions." I have a reasonably nice cell in
this 100-year-old fortress-like sandstone prison, which looks quite a
bit like Alcatraz. The staff is all German. They are mostly 20 to 30
years younger than I am. Imagine Mike, I am one of the most unusual
prisoners in here because I am the only "political" prisoner. All the
others are accused murderers, rapists, thieves, drug pushers, drug
takers; people who have wounded others in fights, usually with knives.
There are between 60-70 different personalities here in this prison.
Germans are in a distinct minority, maybe 15%. Sometimes only 10%. Many
(inmates) are Turkish, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Rumanians. Relatively
few black prisoners and even fewer Asians -- one Chinese, two
Vietnamese, a few Indians and so far I have met three Jews. I think they
are Germans pretending to be Jews because there are then certain levers
they can apply to get a single cell more quickly, etc.
The staff are pretty humane, actually even kind and considerate, within
the limits of their rules and regulations. There is a prison store, like
a small shopping center with carts, where twice a month we can purchase
things with our own money. This is one heck of a good invention because
all of the tobacco addicts and the soft drink and milk addicts can buy
themselves their stuff. I have seen people (here) buy junk food like
chips, colas, chocolates that would put a trailer park Mom in curlers to
For me it is "heaven in hell." I can buy all kinds of fruits and
vegetables and slowly I am recovering my health. The (prison) diet
(itself) is radically different in here than in Canadian prison. I have
seen no hamburgers, not a single french fry in 8 months. In Canada and
the U.S. it was almost daily fare. We have an immersion heater to brew
our own tea or coffee. There is one warm meal a day. The rest is bread
(German rye), cheese and jam for breakfast.
11-17-2005, 09:04 AM
THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
Historian Irving Arrested in Austria
First they came for Zundel, then Germar and now Irving...no it's not a
dream, it's a New World Order reality.
Too bad so many are in a Right-wing/Left-wing playpen where this
Orwellian repression is studiously ignored in favor of the latest
tempest in a teapot.
Revisionists have for years been trying to make the point to our
brethren at large that the failure to defend the rights of homicidal gas
chamber skeptics will inevitably result in the abridgement of everyone's
rights in obeisance to the savage god of the Holohoax.
Let's see now, there's a Max Planck chemist behind bars in Germany and
now a British historian behind bars in Austria. Can it still be business
as usual for paleo-conservatives and anti-Zionist Leftists whose silence
thus far, concerning Zundel and Rudolf, has been deafening? What good is
a movement that is too cowed to dare to issue thunderous protests,
convene conferences and publish exposes of this wicked tyranny?
IRVING CHARGED WITH DENYING HOLOCAUST
British Historian David Irving Arrested in Austria on Charges of Denying
The Associated Press
VIENNA, Austria Nov 17, 2005 British historian David Irving has been
arrested on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust, the
Interior Ministry said Thursday.
Irving was arrested in Styria province, said police Maj. Rudolf Golia,
an Interior Ministry spokesman. He was transferred to a prison in Graz.
Irving was detained on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws that
make Holocaust denial a crime, Golia said.
Irving in the past has faced allegations of spreading anti-Semitic and
racist ideas. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including "Hitler's
War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
He remained in custody Thursday, the Austria Press Agency said. Calls to
the Graz court went unanswered late Thursday afternoon.
11-17-2005, 09:33 AM
I have to admit this entire Holocaust denial persecution is spinning completely out of control...if the international Jewish community has any remaining objectivity on the issue, they need to deescalate and defuse this situation immediately, otherwise it will only fan the proverbial flames of anti-Semitism.
Denying Judaism's opponents the same civil liberties and freedom of expression that resulted in the first Holocaust is a hypocritical and counterproductive approach, no matter how serious the threat is perceived.
11-17-2005, 09:46 AM
THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
Nov. 16, 2005
FIRST THEY CAME FOR GERMAR RUDOLF...
by Michael A. Hoffman II
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (United Kingdom)
I feel most upset by seeing the outrages against free expression and
individual liberty currently being ramped up by the US and German
states, whilst unable to affect this in any way. Despite an abundance of
news, data and even media, there is little or no strategy for fighting
and winning the battle. Other than a few stupid/dangerous reactionary
poseurs on the right, I see no evidence of the needed revolutionary
ideology/ strategy that is needed right now.
I see the current holocaust trials as a crucial point in the impending
global zionist state, also an indication that the credibility of the
holocaust doctrine...My particular interest and sympathy has long been
with the Palestinian Arabs...and this sympathy for them is shared with
many other white (in my case English) liberals... Thereby a moral
'bridge' (or 'bridgehead') exists between the European intellectual and
this Arab nation. I contend that this 'bridge' portending the awakening
of the hugely powerful and capable white Europeans is viewed by our
would-be totalitarian masters as potentially the greatest danger to its
Therefore, their aim is to destroy such bridges, via the strategy of
always portraying the participants in this ideological, territorial and
racial struggle in terms of religion: Islamic, to Europeans an alien
creed. Unfortunately this tack (West vs. Islam) has predictably, proven
an irresistible snare to both religious and secular leaders and
thinkers, despite evidence to the contrary.
The current Ernst Zundel-Germar Rudolf-Nick Griffin witch trials offer
opportunities for linkage to the worldwide defense of the individual vs
the Zionist steamroller. Toward this I propose urgent action: Well
written articles on Zundel/ zionist etc to Arabist/Muslim' sites.
Similar ones to indymedia - leftist/ anarchist sites. Scathing
articles, mocking German and US law to German and European media.
Best regards in comradeship --John Bayldon
Dear Mr. Bayldon
I agree about the dearth of a revolutionary strategy. Here in the U.S. I
have recently had confirmation of how utterly reactionary and beholden
are even anti-Zionist conservatives to the speak with a forked tongue
strategy of Pat Buchanan, who has been revealed to be a gate-keeper for
the System and who continues to lead his lemmings into defending
Bush--with qualifications, of course!
While we must speak the truth with sophistication and panache, it is the
truth and the truth alone which must be articulated and nothing short of
it. Buchanan is a loser because he thinks his potential recruits cannot
handle all of the truth and that it is necessary to compromise from time
to time with certain falsehoods which have been heavily drummed into our
people, especially on the Right. This is all the Cryptocracy requires of
Mr. Buchanan: his undoubted intellectual and rhetorical gifts are
hostage to a self-defeating paradigm.
How unlike the Judaic strategy is this! The Judaics consistently forge
ahead with the most radical beliefs in their arsenal and they support
the radicals in their midst to the hilt and without compromise. What
Buchanan and the circle around him forget is that we want only the best
people in our ranks. Buchanan brigades are not composed of people
willing to expose Judaism or homicidal gas chambers. They are peopled by
those who are willing to suffer the prize indignity of having to seize
on what is good in Judaism and to do this they forge an alliance, for
example, with anti-Zionist followers of the Talmud.
These are the Neturei Karta -- Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism.
Let us translate that slogan into plain English: Committed haters of
Jesus Christ United Against Zionism. There, I think weve broken the
spell and demonstrated the depth of depravity intrinsic to any alliance
or dealings with this group which is a very high-level Kabbalistic
vehicle for infiltrating the paleo-conservative Right and the
anti-Zionist Left. It was the late, great Israel Shahak who pointed out
that when the Neturei Karta wish to swear a curse on someone such as
Yassir Arafat, they would call him Jesus Arafat. This is the recondite
side of these Torah True Jews (full disclosure: Talmud True Khazars).
Those paleo-conservatives who will have little or nothing to say in
protest of the deportation of gas chamber skeptic Germar Rudolf (see
yesterdays Hoffman Wire: revisionisthistory.org/revisionist18.html),
for fear it will discredit them in the eyes of the Talk Radio drones,
are of no value to us. They are dead weight and we ought to cut them off
without regret. That was the whole point of the Third Party movement, to
get free of the Republican toxin.
One problem in the US is that with the demise of Spotlight newspaper and
the decline of the Institute for Historical Review we have lacked the
national organs of publicity and the tightly organized societies for
meetings and membership whereby we might canalize radical and
revolutionary thinking that will brook no compromise with wicked tyrants
like Skull and Bones Bush and his neo-con cabal.
As to the American Left, it too has considerable defects and I am not
only alluding to the Zionist Left that is in charge of the mainstream US
peace movement, or the Zionist Democrat party which was a partner with
Bush in the Weapons of Mass Destruction charlantry, and whose candidate
for president in 2004 was Bushs lodge brother at Yale.
I am also referring to the Green Party, to Counterpunch, to the
Buddhists around the Dalai Lama who are sitting still while the Tibetan
leader bestows the Light of Truth award on Elie Wiesel, a propagandist
for Israeli war crimes who has written that every Jew must preserve
within himself a healthy zone of hate for the German and what persists
in the German. These Leftists are just as anxious about being
discredited by exposing their audience to radical revisionist truth as
are the paleo-conservatives.
As for the Arabs and Muslims in the US and Europe, they have some
enormous issues with which to grapple. These stem in part from the
abysmal failure of the fabulously wealthy oil sheikdoms who are rich
beyond the dreams of Midas, to purchase radio and TV stations and major
newspapers in the US, Canada and Europe, through naturalized or native
born agents. Al-Jazeera is one bright spot, but their report yesterday
on Germars deportation, was skimpy and inadequate.
In certain ways Islamic fundamentalists are symbiotic partners with the
Israelis. Like the Judaics, they wish to impose their religion on the
West, which has already been accomplished in the Judaic case through the
Holocaust cult, which is essentially the religion of Judaism tailored
for gentile consumption. When the president of Iran is so daft as to
publicly call for wiping out Israel, he might as well be on the
payroll of Ariel Sharon. When a descendant of Vincent Van Gogh is
stabbed to death in Holland because he has allegedly blasphemed
Mohammed, the Muslim wielding the knife has just put a big smile on the
kisser of rabbis worldwide.
The Islamic fight against blasphemy is a medieval residue in a
post-Enlightenment world. It can only make Islam appear more and more
retrogade and from the caves. I do not counsel Muslims to give up
defending the rights of their religion. I only ask that they do so with
tactics tailored to the European citadels of intellect, not the
mountains of Afghanistan. Given these circumstances, every time Mohammed
is blasphemed by some Dutch film producer trying to win brownie points
with the Khazars, Muslims should blaspheme the Auschwitz gas chambers!
It is monkey-wrench thinking like this that is the ticket to a
breakthrough in the war of ideas.
By the same token, every time Jesus Christ is blasphemed by the media
magnates of New York and Hollywood, our pundits should poke fun at the
holy Auschwitz gas chamber relics in the American tradition of Mark
Twain and Ambrose Bierce. But no leader in the paleo-conservative Right
would dare do such a thing. Highly effective, liberating,
turn-the-tables thinking is anathema to them. Their strategy is to sneak
up on the System, win the affection of millionaires who would be
threatened by radical tactics, and then gain the allegiance of the
American people. These tactics have been tried and have failed for fifty
years. The hour is too late.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has empowered King George to arrest
any American citizen on any pretext and imprison him or her
indefinitely, without trial. I could vanish into a gulag tomorrow on a
phony charge that I have ties to terrorists. Youd never see me again.
There would be no Writ of Habeas Corpus for me. No right to confront my
accusers, view the evidence against me and have my day in court. Our
immemorial common law rights have been overthrown by conservative
courts and a conservative president. If this be not grounds for
revolution, then what is? If not now, when? The legal framework of a
Soviet America is in place. Take a good long look at Michael Chertoff.
Then take a peek at the photos of Lenins Cheka commissars, circa 1918.
The resemblance is haunting. Same personnel, different century.
If US intelligence can pull of another 9/11 terror attack on American
soil, using another pack of mule-headed Islamic fundamentalist patsies,
then people like this writer will indeed begin to disappear into newly
constructed Gitmo type camps and Bush and his Democan/Republicract
successor can lock this country down the way Lenin did to Russia in the
With the freedom we still have available to us today, we must shake off
the deadly torpor of the Buchanan Brigades and the Cockburn Corps and
speak the unvarnished truth with every spiritual and intellectual
resource available, in the tradition of Charles Lindbergh and Charles
Coughlin, beginning with vigorous protest and publicity for Germar
Rudolf, a martyr to freedom of speech and inquiry on the level of
Servetus and Zenger.
First they came for Germar Rudolf, but I did nothing because I was not
a doubter of the gas chambers....Then they came for Michael A. Hoffman
II, but I did nothing because I was not opposed to Judaism...Then
they came for me and there was no one left to protest!
Will the preceding be the epitaph written on the tomb of American
I personally would withhold every dollar of contribution and every
breath of allegiance from all those across the political spectrum, from
Patrick J. Buchanan to Alexander Cockburn -- from whomever fails to lift
their pen or their voice on behalf of this beautiful soul Germar Rudolf,
who is suffering now in a dungeon in Germany for fulfilling the highest
aspirations of western civilization: to follow the truth wherever it may
O Tempora! O Mores!
11-17-2005, 11:39 AM
Freeman, I will stand in the Dock any day with Zundel, Rudolf and Irving and proclaim that there never was a FIRST holocaust.
What is becoming clear is why the jew has been hated down through history and kicked out of every country in which he gained numbers and positions of power and authority.
Even the Egyptians called them sagaz eber - the cutthroats from across the river.
Face it, you gotta be doing something wrong for the whole world to hate your ass.
Draken, many thanks, my friend, for the regular updating. I check your thread first for the latest. You are a Magyar Prince of the first order. May all our efforts bear good fruit.
Mentioning Zundel, Rudolf and Irving, could it be that we have the "three witness" at the ready on the world stage? They can certainly give testimony regarding the Beast.
Just some food for thought.
11-17-2005, 05:25 PM
The whole thing is so bizarre i'd rather comment in depth on shape shifting lizards.
I cannot for the life of me get my head around it.
Would ANYONE in their right mind, think that by arresting people for their views and statements on a historical subject, think that will stifle debate when it obviously does the exact opposite?
There is only one conclusion. And it seems the most logical. "They" want to foment anti-semitism as MUCH as possible. Just from the economic point of view. With the wealthier Jews leaving Israel for safe havens in the South (Oz, South America) and possible wealthy Jews simply staying away out of good taste...it seems obvious the Zionist movement will beneift from the "persecution" if it can provoke enough hate that immigration of the more well to do (rather than those poor Russian "scum Jews") into Israel increases.
11-17-2005, 06:52 PM
There is only one conclusion. And it seems the most logical. "They" want to foment anti-semitism as MUCH as possible.
Yeah, pretty much a fait accompli.
Whether to encourage immigration to Israel or just to heighten global tensions remains to be seen.
Remember, even the Protocols stipulate that Jews are disposable commodities in this conspiracy.
11-17-2005, 08:01 PM
Freeman, to absolve the average jew of the guilt of Zionist jews, it follows logically that the average German should be absolved of any guilt of the Nazi Germans.
The Nazi Germans are guilty of waging war to protect ethnic Germans in the Danzig Corridor and to throw off atheistic Communism on their eastern border.
What are the Zionists guilty of? They have declared war on the whole world. Their plan is to conquor it all, killing 2/3rds of the world's population in the process.
Jews say Germans should have known what was going on in the camps. History has already proven that NOTHING was going on in the camps but work.
It was the fetid imagination and lying tongue of the jew who created the myth of the holocaust and the Germans have paid the price for their lies for 60 years. What of their guilt? Those "survivors" and those who have made fortunes many times over as a result of these lies, what of their guilt?
What of the jewish sahanim? (Sorry, don't have time to check spelling) What is their part but aiding and abetting the Zionists in their dirty work at the hands of the Mossad?
What of the citizens of Israel who are living in a land stolen by the Zionists while they massacre the indiginous population of Palestinians? Settlers are just as murderous as the IDF. They have received stolen merchandise and murdered to keep it. What of their guilt?
Where are the thousands of freedom loving jews while their Zionist henchmen try three men for telling the truth about history? Where is their indignation? These three innocent men are just the latest. Many naturalized U.S. citizens have been stripped of teir citizenship and shipped to either Germany or Israel for "war crimes."
Today's IDF makes Hitler's Brown Shirts and SS look like choir boys. Hell, throw the US and the British in that pot, too. They are all guilty of war crimes worse than Germany. The only innocent ones, at the end of the day, ARE the Germans.
11-18-2005, 01:16 AM
In my opinion, the question of Sayanim is key in this discussion because it could be <a href="http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg1999/zg9907/990723.html">any person who is 100% Jewish, not necessarily an Israeli citizen who lives abroad</a>.
Well, that really does not narrow it down, does it?
I heard a story recently concerning a family friend who said that she had a Mossad agent living in her flat for a couple of days, while this agent was on a mission!
If every Jewish person who has relatives in Israel is a possible Sayan operative, how can I tell a Sayan operative from an innocent, honest Jew?
"People make the mistake of thinking the Mossad is at a disadvantage by not having stations in obvious target countries. The United States, for example, has a station in Moscow and the Russians have stations in Washington and New York. But Israel doesn't have a station in Damascus. They don't understand that the Mossad regards the whole world outside Israel as a target, including Europe and the United States..."
("By Way of Deception" was published by the Toronto Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd., in 1990. The excerpt above comes from page 87)
11-18-2005, 02:02 AM
<a href="http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/nov16-05.html">MISTRIAL DECLARED IN CASE OF ERNST ZUNDEL</a>
NOVEMBER 15, 2005. In what appears to be something out of a surreal dream, the German trial of Ernst Zundel has been temporarily ended because all his lawyers could not get one of their many motions accepted by the court judge.
I guess there is a German rule that says: defense lawyers have to produce a semblance of competence by making at least one motion stand up. I don't really know. Anyway, Zundel has a new lawyer, and the trial may re-open in February.
The charge? Denial of the Holocaust. Or something like that. In Canada, during his three trials, Zundel was charged with threatening national security. Threatening how? By denying the accepted story, in certain respects, of the Holocaust.
After perusing a number of articles about Zundel on the rense.com site, I presume that Zundel is a very unpopular man because he is stating that the Nazi extermination of Jews during WW2 has been grossly exaggerated, in terms of actual numbers of Jews killed.
So far, I find no evidence that Zundel has committed a crime against any person or piece of property, in the usual sense of crime. Nor do I find any direct inciting to violence on the part of Zundel.
In other words, he is being held in prison (as he was in Canada) because he expresses certain thoughts.
Of course, in several European countries, Holocaust denial is itself a crime.
There are a couple of issues here. One is, can your words be taken by other people as reason for THEM to commit a violent crime? As far as I'm concerned, there are nutcases and morons running around from the Arctic Circle to Tierra Del Fuego who will, on the slightest provocation, steal property and commit assault.
One only has to look at the laws in the US to see that indirect participation in a "crime" is a growing trend. For example, a person can be found innocent of robbery but found guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery.
"We talked about it, we planned it, but then we got cold feet."
"Who cares? Guilty of conspiracy. This court is adjourned."
Note that Zundel is not being charged with conspiracy. I'm merely pointing out that INDIRECT labels can be extended in all sorts of directions.
In fact, as political correctness spreads like ink on a blotter all over the planet, people are warned that the slightest off-center remark might damage another person within hearing distance for life.
Then comes the issue of Zundel's accuracy in his written and spoken comments about the Holocaust. Is he right? Is he wrong? Is he really trying to deceive? Is he saying what he says because, in his heart, he is a racist or an anti-Semite?
The circular argument goes this way: since Zundel obviously knows what he is saying is false, he must have another strategy; he must be trying to float a lie for an ulterior motive.
Well, if it is now the law to make an examination of someone's heart and soul in judging criminal innocence or guilt, we can hang it up and move to another planet.
By any rational standard, who the hell cares what Zundel is saying, in so far as his innocence or guilt is concerned? He's saying it. He has the right to say it. He can say it from now until the cows come home.
In my experience, it is the incredibly shallow and inexperienced and desperate people who try to divine other citizens' ulterior motives at the drop of a hat and pin all sorts of labels on them, over and over.
I'm reminded of the many painstaking domeheads, back in the day, who would take the work of a famous artist and apply their own version of psychoanalytic theory to his work and, in the process, try to reduce that artist to ashes.
Now, it may be that Zundel has actually done things I don't know about. So far, I haven't found anything that really surprises me. I'm willing to be shown---but as far as I can tell, the man is being prosecuted for stating what he believes to be facts.
It also appears that his defense team in Germany is not permitted to offer evidence that Zundel's version of the Holocaust is accurate.
"You're being prosecuted for saying X. And we will not allow proof that X is true. The crime is saying X. Shut up."
Here I'm reminded of US trials in which federal prosecutors try to ramrod a defendant who has sold medicines not approved by the FDA. In court, when the defendant's lawyers move to introduce evidence that the medicine in question actually cures disease, the judge refuses to allow such presentation.
"We're not here to determine whether the defendant is a hero in healing people. We only want to know whether he sold a substance to treat a disease, and whether the FDA has approved this substance. If the FDA has not certified it as safe and effective, the defendant is guilty as hell."
It also reminds me of US Supreme Court Justice Scalia's famous remark: the revelation of new exculpatory evidence is not sufficient to warrant a re-trial for a person who is currently serving time in prison for having committed a crime. New trials are only granted when it's shown that the previous trial was, procedurally speaking, deeply flawed. In other words, who cares whether the convicted person is really guilty?
Do Zundel's statements about the Holocaust offend many people? Of course. Is that a crime? No. Does the principle of free speech exceed the fact that people are offended? Yes.
What about 9/11? What about the justification for waging war in Vietnam and Iraq? What about claiming that AIDS is not a contagious germ-driven disease? What about people who claim that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen? What about people who say Bill Clinton sold out America by letting military-tech secrets flow from here to China, in exchange for a few dollars placed in his re-election campaign fund? What about people who say we never went to the moon? What about people who say that George Bush has the intellect of a chimp?
In these and hundreds of other situations, it is quite possible to make statements that will offend others deeply. Shall we put a censor to work scrubbing all these statements out of existence? Shall we hold show trials and put people in jail?
On the road to freedom, we say that potential victims of others' speech are going to have to suck it up and get past all that. It may not be nice, but that's the way things work. On the road to tyranny, we say that anything you might say that will cause a person emotional distress is illegal and you will be punished severely for it, by the legal system, backed up by official guns and official prison bars.
I know which way I'm going. If Zundel has done nothing other than revise, downward, accepted estimates of the Holocaust, if he has done nothing other than claim he knows who is protecting the official scenario, then let him out of jail. Let him go and let him live his life. Stop trying to put him on trial.
What about people who claim there was tremendous black African participation in selling fellow Africans to the American slavemasters, who then brought those slaves to this country? That picture contradicts the official scenario. Why aren't those Holocaust deniers being arrested and tried and placed in prisons?
And by the way, wasn't there a US court case about a year ago in which---to the consternation of many---it was ruled that a media news outlet (FOX) could lie with impunity? Could escape even a judgment in a civil suit?
So even if Zundel is intentionally lying through his teeth, so what? Does he have fewer rights than FOX or CNN?
See, at the end of the day, accuracy and truth don't matter at all, when it comes to speech. Now if you tell a number of lies aimed at a particular and specific person or group, with the idea of injuring their reputations, then that is actionable in a suit. But Zundel is not being sued. If he were, he could introduce evidence to support his statements as being true. He is being tried on criminal charges by the German State, and if he is found guilty, he can be sentenced to a jail term. It's a whole different animal.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
11-18-2005, 03:01 AM
<a href="http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/nov15-05-law-student.html">Law Student in England: "Zundel Trial In Germany -- A Farce!"</a>
November 15, 2005
1 It seems relevant to start by mentioning two fundamental maxims of justice: Nemo iudex in causa sua ('no man should be judge in his own cause') & audi alteram partem ('hear the other side', ie that both sides should be given a fair hearing). It seems to me that the judge is biased. He is not willing to hear what the defence has to say. Instead he wants to 'shut them up'. And he clearly considers the Prosecution's cause as his own. He thus has a 'stake' in the trial, an interest in Ernst Zundel being found guilty.
He is therefore inherently biased.
By Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms every person has a right to a fair trial. The Federal Republic of Germany is a signatory to the Convention and is therefore obliged to abide by it.
Art 6 states that:
ARTICLE 6 1 In the determination of [...] any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: [...] ? (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing [...]; ? (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
I have underlined the relevant phrases. The right to a fair trial in section 1 of Art 6 is an 'absolute right', meaning that no matter what the circumstances everyone has a right to a fair trial (whereas s. 3 is a 'relative right', meaning that it may be limited if it be legitimate to do so in the circumstances). It has been stated above that the judge in the Zundel case is biased in the sense that the court was not an 'independent and impartial tribunal'. It is further submitted that the result of this would be that Zundel would not get a 'fair and public hearing' within Art 6(1). The court is therefore in breach of its obligations under Art 6(1). I suspect that Mr. Zundel's legal team would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg if all else fails. Moreover, it is noted that by Art 6(3)(c) Herr Zundel has a right to choose his own legal team. This is not within the jurisdiction of the German court. This is also true in relation to leading counsel's assistant. The court is therefore ultra vires (beyond its powers) and its ruling on the matter is null and void. I suspect that also in this regard Ernst Zundel's legal team will seek to appeal to the higher courts, and, failing this, to the Court in Strasburg.
4 On a different note, there is a problem if Ernst Zundel's defence would be in breach of §130 of the Penal Code by defending their client to the best of their ability because advocates are obliged by their professional codes to defend their clients fearlessly and to the best of their ability. More importantly, if certain kinds of evidence cannot be admitted in court due to a general prohibition against displaying such material in public, how can the accused have a fair trial?
5 Judges are not, it is submitted, competent to rule on what is historical fact. If the judge in question wished to establish an historical fact (whatever that is) the proper way to go about it, in my opinion, would have been to call expert evidence. I say in my opinion, but I do think that any person with sound judgment would adopt the same opinion on this matter. This attitude of the judge also reveals his prejudice against the defence.
6 I can think of no good reason why Ernst Zundel should be kept in custody while an important question of law is being decided in the Constitutional Court. The case will surely take a very long time, perhaps more than a year. The court would need to have very good reasons to justify keeping an accused person (cf. Art 6(2), above: everyone is innocent until proven guilty) in custody for a substantial length of time. For example, the court would have to hear evidence that Mr. Zundel is very likely to flee Germany. Not just that he might, but that he is very likely to. However, it seems to me that the Regional Court decided the matter simply on a whim. This, again, is contrary to the Convention (see Art 5).
7 In conclusion, I would say that the trial of Ernst Zundel is an absolute outrage. Whether one sympathizes with his views or not, it is most unsatisfactory that a person is denied his right to a fair trial because of his beliefs. If this is truly the state of affairs in Germany, then hypocrisy and, indeed, tyranny must have gained the upper hand in that so-called democratic republic. I am absolutely outraged about this. Next time a German politician speaks of democracy and human rights, please ask him to ditch the rhetoric and, ahem, shove it up his a**.
Student of Law,
11-18-2005, 11:34 AM
Bush Adminstration Press Release on Germar Rudolf
THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
EDITOR's NOTE: Here is official US government crowing over the
deportation of former Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf back to Germany
to be jailed for his scientific findings. In fact, he was escorted in
Germany by US agents.The tenor of this report shows full support for
Germany's suppression of Rudolf's rights of free of speech and press and
puts the word scientific in quotes when referring to Rudolf's chemical
research. Once again, "your" US government is keelhauling a heroic
carrier of civilization back into the waiting arms of the beast. Heads
up to Muslims: this is the sort of "democracy" Bush has in store for
your country: one nation under Judaism. Remember the name of Germar
Rudolf the next time Bush lectures you on freedom, and invoke his name
at US-staged public forums in the Middle East at every opportunity.
ICE DEPORTS "HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST" TO GERMANY
November 15, 2005
11-18-2005, 02:15 PM
The Times November 15, 2005
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1872400,00.html">Menuhin's son forced to resign over 'anti-Semitic' interviews</a>
From Roger Boyes in Berlin
THE son of the violinist and humanist Yehudi Menuhin has been ousted as head of the German branch of his father’s foundation because of his extreme right-wing views.
Gerard Menuhin, 57, caused uproar by suggesting that Germany was being blackmailed by an international Jewish conspiracy preying on the country’s war guilt. He was forced to resign as chairman of the Yehudi Menuhin Foundation (YMF) in Germany, which was established to encourage the musical talent of young immigrants.
“It was a logical and comprehensible decision in this re-educated land,” Mr Menuhin, an Old Etonion who lives in Switzerland and Britain, said. “But I’m not going to change my opinions because of it.”
Mr Menuhin is one of two sons of the violinist with his second wife, the British dancer Diana Rosamond Gould, and he has taken over a number of family responsibilities. Apart from his chairmanship of the YMF in Dusseldorf, he sits on the board of the Menuhin Festival in Gstaad.
Until now his political views have barely registered with the outside world even though he has a regular column in the Munich-based ultra-nationalist National Zeitung. One of his more vitriolic columns condemned Jewish “souvenir hunters” who gather evidence in Germany to help them to lodge financial claims for wartime persecution.[Question is, is it true?/Draken]
“Apart from a few curious comments about America, we weren’t really aware of his politics,” Winfried Kneip, YMF’s chief executive, said.
Mr Menuhin outed himself as a clear sympathiser with the neo-Nazi cause in two published interviews this month. In Deutsche Stimme, voice of the National Party of Germany, he used classical anti-Semitic language while still staying within the boundaries of German law.
“An international lobby of influential people and organisations is trying to keep the Germans under pressure,” he said. “Some nations — mainly America, but other Europeans, too — are profiting from an obedient Germany.”
It was unfair, he said, that Germany should continue to be punished for its Nazi past. “The main tool of this endless blackmail was supplied by the Germans themselves, although the tainted period of 12 years really was only 12 years in over 2,000 years of immaculate development.”
The Menuhin family is descended from Russian Jews, and Baron Menuhin of Stoke d’Abernon, who became a life peer in 1993, was regarded as a great humanist who worked to bring communities together. Hence the shock that his son should let himself be fêted by German parties that stir up sentiment against foreigners and often glorify the Nazis.["Shocking, isn't it, to refuse to swallow the Communist propaganda?/Draken]
In an interview with the National Zeitung, organ of the German Peoples’ Union, Mr Menuhin called on Germans to stop paying taxes and thus protest at the outflow of German funds to the European Union.
“People cannot be eternally exploited in this way,” he said, “as long as there is a budget deficit, no German public money should flow abroad.”
Mr Menuhin, who describes himself as a film producer and writer, is something of a maverick within the family. “He was the least musically gifted,” a family friend said, “and he suffered from that emotionally.”[Yeah, yeah, we get it. The only weapon there is left, short of arrest, is a simple ad hominem./Draken]
[b]There has, in fact, been a history of family sympathy for German nationalists. Mr Menuhin’s grandfather, Moshe, was a determined anti-Zionist and expounded his views in the National Zeitung; he was arts editor from 1968 to 1970 although he was aware of its extreme German nationalism. He left the job only because the paper was not anti-Zionist enough.[My GOD, really?! Sympathy? How horrible!]
Lord Menuhin earned applause from German Nationalists when he played with the conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler[One of the most brilliant conductors ever./Draken], who had been a Nazi supporter. But Lord Menuhin’s point was to demonstrate that music can heal wounds. German nationalists, however, regarded the gesture as being something more, a sign of understanding for those who believed in national socialism.
That, and the dedication of some concerts to the plight of German refugees from the East, gave the Menuhin family some standing among German rightwingers. Although Lord Menuhin had humanitarian motives, Gerard appears to have interpreted his father’s gestures as a family blessing for his nationalist opinions.
The Yehudi Menuhin Foundation in Germany was set up by the violinist shortly before his death in Berlin in 1999. Its brief is “to use art to teach peaceful coexistence to children in social crisis areas with high immigrant populations”.
HOW DISCORD WAS SOWN
On a Jewish conspiracy:
“An international lobby of influential people and organisations is trying to keep the Germans under pressure . . .”
“Some nations — mainly America, but Europeans too — are profiting from an obedient Germany . . . Those claiming to speak in the name of (Holocaust) victims have better networks than those representing other groups of survivors. Just think of the survivors of murdered Cambodians, American Indians or the Armenians. I am not the only Jew who thinks in this way . . .”
On the need for a greater role for the far Right:
“The radical parties have to speak a clear language, offer alternatives, especially now that the parties of the centre are virtually indistinguishable and lack courage or solutions . . .”
On the EU:
“The European Union has swollen to gigantic proportions — a monster that is swallowing vast sums, most of which are paid for by Germany”
Read this <a href="http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=2018">short open letter from one Jew to another</a>.
One Jew to Another
R. D. Polacco de Menasce France 6-27-4
My Dear Sir,
I do think that no Jew will ever dare to tell you the truth.
I am probably the only Jew left who can tell it to you.
I have learnt that you are still chasing very old persons who had responsibilities in the Nazi regime. Sixty years after! People who are eighty-five years old! How shameful!
Do you know one ethnicity who did such a thing in the course of the History of Mankind? You are the very symbol of Talmudic hysterical neverending hatred.
This is the more egregious as the Nazi regime gave work, sane economy and balance to a whole country, whereas today, everything (when I mention everything, I mean absolutely all) is both Jewish and entirely rotten.
Jewish Capitalism has collapsed the world into all forms of pollutions. Jewish Marxism has slaughtered 200,000,000 people.[I'm revising my figures - 200.000.000. That's 200 million./Draken]
To crown it all, everybody knows that there were not 6,000,000 Jews (a country the size of Switzerland) in occupied Europe in 1941 (The American Jewish Year book, mentions 3,300,000 Jews and from that date (1941) on, we all fled to the Free Zone or to Spain towards England). And it is only one million Jews whom Hitler wanted to exchange for trucks at the period of the so-called Shoah. Besides we know that Zyklon B cannot gas 1000 or 2000 people at one time (see M.Roubeix, chief executive of the factory of Saint Avold producing cyanide acid) in gas chambers which have strictly never found norms.
I suppose you would rather have a Jewish USA government enshrined in Jewish finance, pinching petrol in Iraq, spreading Jewish one-worldism, Jewish pornography, Jewish press, Jewish puppets in all governments, than the cleanness of the Nazi regime which made a miracle out of the Jewish rot of the Versailles treaty - the negotiators of which were the Warburg brothers, and that of the Weimar Republic.
You are 95 years of age: if you are not insane what will you tell the Lord when you soon appear if front of Him?
I do wonder.
R. D. Polacco de Menasce
(Docteur de l'universite de Paris These de morpho-psycho-endocrinologie - Ret.)
Comment: Last week this fraudulent Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal was given an honorary knighthood. Under oath and in books he has contradicted himself and spread vile falsehoods about alleged German atrocities. However he at times told the truth, as in 1975 and again in 1993 when he publicly acknowledged "there were no extermination camps on German soil" (S. Wiesenthal, Sails of Hope), thereby conceding the claims made at the Nuremberg Tribunal and elsewhere that Buchenwald, Dachau and other camps in Germany proper were "extermination camps" are untrue.
Also see: Simon Wiesenthal: Fraudulent Nazi Hunter
11-18-2005, 02:30 PM
My dear Draken, knowing what you do about our situation with illegal aliens here in the United States, were you careful not to fall off your chair laughing when you read this?
“ICE is focused on protecting America and promoting public safety by ensuring that fugitive aliens are removed from the United States as expeditiously as possible,” said Deborah Achim, field officer director for Chicago’s detention and removal program. “We are restoring integrity to the immigration system by finding and removing individuals ordered deported by federal immigration judges.”
We can count our blessings on the below paragraph; it names his book and gives a short synopsis of it's contents. Notice, too, the numbers are down to "deaths of thousands of jews," The "millions" figure is being abandoned like the smelly stuff it is.
Rudolf, a former chemist from Stuttgart and author of “Dissecting the Holocaust,” was sentenced by the German government to 14 months in prison for publishing a “scientific” report refuting the deaths of thousands of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Rudolf tested bricks in the gas chambers for traces of Zyklon B, deadly cyanide used to kill Jews during the Holocaust. His report claimed that because he did not find evidence of Zyklon B on the sampled bricks it was unlikely that the mass gassings of Jews occurred at Auschwitz.
I have serious doubts about any notice being sent to Rudolf, like none was sent to Zundel. That is a very handy excuse that they have used to absurdity, as in the Randy Weaver case and others. Had he ever been sent such a notice, he would not have walked into the Chicago office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He would have avoided them like the plague.
Being an honest man, he wanted to do things the proper and legal way. They use our very nature against us.
Rudolf was ordered to present himself to the Chicago ICE office for deportation April 7, but he defied the order and remained in the U.S. as a fugitive alien. On Oct. 19 he appeared at the Chicago office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to apply for a green card based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. A records check revealed his outstanding order of deportation and he was immediately taken into federal custody.
My best suggestion to ICE to earn their pay would be to take fleets of buses with armed guards and shackles and go through every major city and town in the whole of the United States, rounding up the millions of illegal aliens that can be easily found there.
For the money spent deporting Rudolf, we could be free of at least a million third world illegal aliens.
Neither you nor I, my friend, will hold our breath until that happens.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.