Can anyone imagine anything so absurd? What if Catholic university theology departments created studies in “Immaculate Conception Denialism” and linked these to their law schools, as the University of Leicester is doing in England?

This is all about treating the natural human right of skepticism as an entymological pathology, as if it were an anomaly, when the authentic anomaly is the imposition of the dogma of Holocaustianity itself, the last truly believed religion in the otherwise agnostic West.

And what of the denial of the holocausts in Dresden, Nagasaki and Gaza? Will these be included or excluded from consideration in the study of “genocide denial”? If I were a betting man, I’d wager they will be excluded.

Certain types of “denial” are perpetrated by the very people seeking to establish an exclusive “Holocaust” mythos limited solely or mainly to the sufferings, both real and imagined, of Judaic persons during World War II, an exceptionalism familiar to students of the Talmud and its supremacist culture. Here’s the phantasmagoric press release:

Holocaust and genocide denial are phenomena whose consequences reach far beyond the expression of individual opinions. The views of David Irving, Nick Griffin or Bishop Richard Williamson tend to reach audiences that benefit from denialist arguments for specific political purposes, and the consequences of denialism are not confined to the immediate discourse.

Denialism also carries significance for more than one academic discipline. Historians are directly affected, as deniers frequently claim to carry out “revisionist” historical research against “orthodox” interpretations and thereby pose the question whether their conclusions merit or indeed require a reaction in serious academic debate.

To lawyers, denialism raises questions about the limits of freedom of speech – particularly when domestic laws are taken into account which prohibit certain forms of denialism.

To political scientists, sociologists or psychologists the motives of deniers and the repercussions of their statements are of particular importance.

There is therefore need for a contextual perspective of holocaust denial which fosters a better understanding of the perspectives of these disciplines. The School of Historical Studies (Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies) and the School of Law at Leicester University have established an interdisciplinary initiative to investigate denialism, but also other aspects relating to the Holocaust and to genocide.

This workshop is intended to be an initial meeting and appraisal of this field of research, but it will also facilitate the creation of a network of scholars and expert commentators who are interested in this field.

It will focus on questions such as:

How do we define Holocaust denial?

How can it be proven?

What are the intentions behind Holocaust denial?

What is the impact of laws against Holocaust denial?

Abstracts are invited from all disciplines and to all aspects of this field of research, to be submitted to Dr Olaf Jensen (oj6@le.ac.uk)

or Dr Paul Behrens (pk124@le.ac.uk)

Abstracts should be no longer than 1 A4 page.

Closing date for submission: 1 August 2010

Opole, Poland, June 16, 2010 — The body of a former Polish history professor, Dariusz Ratajczak, convicted by a Polish court in 2002 of claiming that mass gassings of human beings in Auschwitz-Birkenau was impossible, has been found dead in a shopping center parking lot in the western Polish city of Opole.

Prof. Ratajczak was suspended in April 1999 from his teaching post at Opole University’s Historical Institute after state prosecutors opened an investigation into the publication of his book Tematy niebezpieczne (“Dangerous Themes”).

“The body, which was severely decomposed, has been identified by Ratajczak’s family, so additional DNA tests will not have to be carried out,” says Lidia Sieradzka from the Prosecutor’s Office in Opole.   

Judging by the state of the body and recent high temperatures, the man has been dead for up to two weeks, say police. Security guards at the Karolinka shopping centre claim, however, that the historian’s Renault Kangoo was left at the car park on the same day, June 11, that it was discovered.   In the car police found documents which belonged to 48-year-old revisionist historian Ratajczak. Recordings from CCTV are being examined.

The cause of Ratajczak’s death remains uncertain. Police think it is unlikely that he was murdered because  it is alleged that no injuries were found on the body during the autopsy.    

Police established that the historian, who had problems finding employment in Poland, planned to go to Holland or Belgium to work in a company to do menial labor. For that purpose he acquired a Renault Kangoo automobile, in which his body was found stuffed between the front and rear seats. It is reported that he may have been living in his car. He worked at odd jobs for food.

 In 2000, Dariusz Ratajczak was fired from the University of Opole, where he worked for eleven years, and banned from teaching at other universities for three years after the publication of Tematy niebezpieczne, in which he claimed that it was not scientifically possible to kill millions of people in alleged Auschwitz death camp gas chambers.  

Earlier in 1999, a Polish court found Ratajczak guilty of “public denial” of German war crimes – which is against the law in Poland – but because the book was self-published with a print run of only 260 copies it was not thought to be able to create a “social annoyance” and he was not punished. In his defense, Prof. Ratajczak told the court that his book was merely a survey of many dissenting views on the “Holocaust,” including revisionist works by British historian David Irving and others. ”Holocaust denial” is a crime in Poland, Germany, Hungary, France, Switzerland and Austria.

Mr. Ratajczak is survived by a son and a daughter.  

Deckert, 70, former president of the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany), has already served five years in prison for revisionism. He will be the defendant in a new trial starting July 28.

His “crime” is having served as an editor of the German translation of Italian scholar Carlo Mattogno’s Auschwitz: La prima gasazione (“Auschwitz: the First Gassing”), even though on page 6 of the Mattogno book, Mr. Deckert stipulates that he does not share the theses and conclusions of the author.

Deckert believes that the evidence against him falls far short of demonstrating the legally required dissemination to the general public, but that the German authorities disregard legal niceties with dissidents like him.

This another outage that will most likely be largely ignored by the US media, including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times, as well as human rights and free speech organizations.

The hunting, hounding and jailing of heretics who dissent from the official Auschwitz liturgy proceeds apace largely in silence, shrouded in oblivion.

Israel’s ongoing conflict with Palestine, Iran’s opposition and antagonism to Israel, American support for Israel and its inseparable alignment with Tel Aviv, Barack Obama’s intentions of isolating Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel and Holocaust denial as a debate which was rejuvenated by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all the interlinked stories which are floating around the Middle East these days.

The equations of Middle East are determined upon these themes and numerous people, including the historians, journalists, diplomats, politicians, authors and even artists are entangled in this circle: the circle of solving the question of Middle East.

Middle East has been historically a region of incredible and astonishing incidents. It’s the region of Abrahamic religions, prophets, ancient civilizations, immeasurable natural resources, great men of history and unending conflicts over power, sovereignty, influence and wealth.

Michael A. Hoffman has joined us in an exclusive interview to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran-U.S. proxy war in the Middle East and Holocaust as a historical incidence and its connection to the current affairs in the Persian Gulf region.

Hoffman is an American journalist, novelist writer and historical revisionist who introduces himself as a conspiracy theorist…He doesn’t deny the incidence of Holocaust as a historical fact; however, he raises doubts regarding the extent and degree of it as described by the mainstream historians. Hoffman runs the website RevisionistHistory.org

Here is the  text of the interview with Michael A. Hoffman

Kourosh Ziabari: Iran is seemingly the most stringent enemy of Israel, having called for the demolition of the state of Israel on various occasions. On the other hand, everyone knows that Washington is the most fervent advocate and the closest ally of Tel Aviv, considering the security and “sovereignty” of Israel its priority of foreign policy. Is there any ideological affinity which makes the United States an unconditional superintendent of Israel? Does the White House believe in the mystical prophecy of extending Israeli borders from Nile to Euphrates?

Michael Hoffman: The White House at the policy level is not embracing a mystical vision of the Israeli imperium, rather President Obama and his inner circle are aware that the U.S. Congress is Israeli-occupied territory, along with the U.S. media, therefore they are driven to support the Israelis by the application of raw political and media power.

There is a deeper level of function behind the U.S. government however, which we call the “Cryptocracy” and which has a masonic orientation that came to the fore in the West during the Renaissance via the neo-Platonists within the Catholic Church, namely Ficino, Mirandola, Reuchlin, who were deeply imbued with the concepts of the rabbinic Kabbalah. In terms of the western secret societies, support for Zionism’s mystical pretensions is high and the support continues to be exerted covertly.

Ziabari:: Why has the state of Israel been practically and ideologically consecrated by the international community? IAEA is simply unable to inspect the nuclear facilities of Israel, despite the fact that the Federation of American Scientists and a number of other authentic sources have confirmed that Israel possess up to 200 nuclear warheads. Why the influential voices of human right don’t hold Israel accountable for the mass atrocities it committed during the Gaza massacre?

Hoffman: If you are referring to the European Union and the European segment of the UN Security Council, then it is clear that the Israeli hubris that Judaic life is worth more than the lives of non-Judaics, is their standard. Nothing like the terror bombing and atrocities which the Israelis perpetrated against Beirut in the summer of 1982, in Jenin in 2002, in Lebanon as a whole in 2006, and in Gaza in December 2008 through January 2009, would be tolerated for five minutes by the “international community” if these crimes had been committed against Judaic people. There would already be museums and movies graphically documenting the slaughter and sanctions and war crimes trials for the perpetrators.

Immediately after the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, Pope Benedict gave a university speech in which he indicted Islam for being violent. It was as though Gaza had never happened. The Vatican boasts of its ties to the Israeli rabbinate, the same rabbinate which encouraged the savagery in Gaza. These are symptoms of the infiltration of Talmudic standards into the West. Judaics are a higher sort of humanity. Muslims, Persians and Arabs are not completely human.

The new “weapons of mass destruction” accusations against Iran are only restrained by the fact that a similar hoax was only recently foisted on Iraq. Without the loss of credibility the U.S. suffered from its Big Lie about Iraqi weapons, it would have probably already led a naive American public into war on Iran.

Ziabari: Upon their inauguration, U.S. Presidents usually go to Israel and attend the AIPAC meetings punctually. What happens if a U.S. president refuses to do so and abandons support for Israel? Does the U.S. corporate system allow such an individual to qualify and become president?

Hoffman: If any president of the United States were to pass up paying obeisance to the Israeli lobby and its numerous front groups, he would be the target of relentless opprobrium in the media and very likely driven from office, unless he was an absolutely remarkable leader who called on God to assist him against the onslaught. Since God is all-powerful, a president who was doing the will of God could prevail against the Israeli lobby in America. But otherwise, that U.S. president would be defeated for reelection and might cause his party to be defeated in the Congressional and gubernatorial elections.

Ziabari: European states usually avow their commitment to freedom of speech, respect for humanity, democracy and liberty. They usually condemn the third world countries who imprison the journalists and academicians for expressing their viewpoints and ideas; however, there are a number of prominent people whom we know have been jailed for simply questioning holocaust and the credibility of its extent as being claimed. Is the Western world a realistically free society for miscellaneous voices and thoughts?

Hoffman: I am writing a book on freedom of conscience. One of the findings has been that during the European wars of religion when Protestants and Catholics murdered, censored and defamed one another, a martyr to freedom of conscience was only considered as such by Protestants if he or she was one of the Protestants; by the same standard, Catholics regarded a person who was censored or killed for their faith only a martyr if they were of the Catholic faith. This mentality of religious hatred which occluded objective judgment has a long history in the West. Even though the people of Europe, for example, are today mostly agnostic or atheist, they seem to have inherited this old criterion from the European wars of religion. Consequently, a Muslim who quits the faith and turns against it and is persecuted, is a martyr in the eyes of the West, but a Judaic who does the same with regard to Judaism is not a martyr but a psychologically troubled person, a “self-hating Jew.”

Intellectuals who challenge the claims of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau are not regarded as martyrs to freedom of conscience when they are arrested, fined, beaten or jailed. They are like Catholics in Anglican England or Huguenots in Catholic France; they are of the devil’s party and therefore freedom of speech does not apply to them; neither are they martyrs to freedom; only criminals.

In the United States freedom of speech is guaranteed in the public sphere by virtue of the Founding Fathers who forbade the fratricidal wars of religion on American soil and banned the establishment of a state religion. Without a heritage of religiously demonizing adversaries in the war of ideas, Americans refused to permit the jailing of heretics.

There have been some exceptions to this: President John Adams jailed Congressman Matthew Lyon for “sedition.” Abraham Lincoln jailed his opponents and closed newspapers. President Woodrow Wilson’s administration locked up war critics such as Eugene Debs. But the American people never approved of this repression, it was viewed as something foreign – the despotism of kings. George W. Bush tried to alter that perception after the 9/11 attacks, when he and Vice President Cheney attempted to enact king-like powers for the Executive branch of government. It remains to be seen if, in the name of “National Security,” Americans will surrender their birthright of freedom.

In Britain and Europe the slogan of the state church was “error has no rights.” They were certain that the state, either in the person of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the pope of Rome, the Bourbon kings of France, the Lutheran establishment in Germany or Calvin’s theocracy in Geneva, had the competence to legally decide and declare what thoughts were true and what was error. Though Europe today would scorn Calvin and the pope, many Europeans are dutiful sons and daughters of this dictatorship over the mind. Hence, when France and Germany declare that those skeptics who question the homicidal gas chambers have no rights, they are acting on behalf of a European religious mentality, as did their ancestors, only in the modern instance the mentality is not Catholicism or Calvinism, it is Holocaustianity.

One has only to look to Denmark where the artists who created the cartoons mocking Mohammed are protected and celebrated and even paid sums of money. Now compare this with the two men who are in jail in Britain for having distributed a cartoon satire of the gas chambers titled, Tales of the Holohoax. They are serving long prisons sentences. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Ziabari: What’s the main argumentation of Holocaust deniers such as Bishop Richard Williamson, Roger Garaudy and David Irving? What’s your personal opinion regarding the accuracy of the accounts of Holocaust? Is its extent being exaggerated unjustifiably? What about those who are alive today and we know them as Holocaust survivors who explain the stories of their family members being killed terribly in the bone-crushing machines? What about the pictures which portray heartrending scenes such as the concentration camps and mass cemeteries, like the one which shows former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Ed V. Izac inspecting the crematorium at Buchenwald concentration camp?

Hoffman: One cannot say “The Holocaust did not happen.” To affirm that highly ambiguous generalization is to fall into an epistemological trap. One must be specific about what it is that is to be challenged concerning a vast corpus of history. You will notice that Bishop Williamson did not fall into this trap and as a result the better and more careful journalists refer to him only as a “Holocaust minimizer,” not a “denier.” Williamson asserted that something like 300,000 Judaic people were massacred by the Nazis. This is a terrible crime even without it having been perpetrated by poison gas.

The word “Holocaust” can mean anything, from persecutions to horrendous gassings. The Nazis certainly did viciously persecute Judaic people and there were instances of brutal, Nazi-inspired riots and killings which qualify as a pogrom. Note well however that many nations throughout history have been subject to a pogrom. The “Holocaust” is supposed to be an unprecedented act of monstrosity; one without parallel in world history. This claim is usually based on the notion that millions of Judaics were “gassed” to death in places like Auschwitz-Birkenau.

If someone cannot in good conscience believe in the stories of mass murder by poison gas, that fact does not prevent us from affirming that very bad things befell Judaic people at the hands of the Nazis. Moreover, holocaust is defined as death by fire. Hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were burned alive, deliberately, on the orders of Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. Stalin also killed millions. They are all as bad as Hitler. I do not understand how Hitler occupies a special category of evil, except as a function of the Talmudic mentality of exaggeration and Judaic supremacy.

Unlike Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, Hitler killed the Holy People, therefore Hitler is supposed to be the most evil of all. Since I do not subscribe to the religion of Judaism with its megalomania, neither do I subscribe to this special view of Hitler. He was a criminal like the others.

Everyone who approaches this subject must think outside the “Holocaust” Newspeak that was artificially imposed, beginning in the 1970s, to sow precisely the kind of confusion which is exhibited when denial of the “Holocaust” is equated with denying that innocent Judaics died in large numbers during World War II. The constant question asked by Zionists, “How can you deny that the Holocaust happened when the Nazis wiped out my entire family?” is a function of Orwellian Newspeak. Please study George Orwell’s book, 1984 including the appendix, if you haven’t already.

I don’t “deny” the “Holocaust” because I don’t traffic in Newspeak. I doubt that millions of Judaics died in execution gas chambers. The science and technology ascribed to such a mass gassing operation is highly questionable. The homicidal gassing claims mostly rest on a small body of eyewitness “testimony” that was never subjected to cross-examination; and upon confessions from Nazi personnel extracted under torture and threat of execution.

I reported on the trial of Ernst Zundel in 1985 wherein “eyewitnesses” to supposed gassings, such as Rudolf Vrba and Arnold Friedman, recanted their testimony under cross-examination by Zundel’s defense lawyer, Doug Christie. There are two sides to every argument. Here, in this area, the defense side has almost never been heard. The post-war German government has been captured by Zionism, in certain respects to a greater extent than the US; Germany today is an arm of Zionism.

If a Zionist lost his entire family under the Nazis, then I am sorry for him or her; just as I am sorry for the Palestinians who have lost their entire families at the hands of Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin; and for the Iranians gassed to death by the military of Saddam Hussein at the behest of the administration of President Ronald Reagan. There should be no Talmudic hierarchy of victimhood. I reject that kind of sneaky racism put forth under cover of human rights “Holocaust” activism.

Ziabari: Is Israel employing the Holocaust as an instrument to obtain international recognition and reinforce its position in the region? Why do the European countries hold commemorations and special ceremonies to memorialize Holocaust victims? Why some fourteen countries have officially branded Holocaust denial a crime which can be followed by a judicial punishment?

Hoffman: Hitler is the real founder of the “state of Israel.” Without the sympathy engendered by his crimes against Judaic people – both real and imagined – the Palestinians would still occupy a majority of their land.

There is too much onus placed on what the Israelis exploit in this regard. The Muslims and Arabs have failed to build even one museum dedicated to the Israeli holocaust against Palestine and Lebanon. They should have preserved the El Khiam concentration camp that was operated by the Israeli proxies of the SLA in Lebanon, which was eventually liberated by Hizbollah. Muslim boys and girls must preserve their memories of the horrors visited upon them by the Zionists and compile them into diaries that will find publication. Ten percent of the population of the West Bank and Gaza should be trained and equipped to possess and use video cameras to record, secretly or otherwise, Israeli pogroms, shootings, bombings, harassment, racist invective. Video editing studios should be in place to collect and edit their time-coded footage.

Muslims, Persians and Arabs historically have had too much faith in the international community and the West generally as honest brokers and solvers of the crises facing the Middle East. Richard Goldstone’s report may never be acted upon. Let the Arabs compile their own war crimes books in English, and most especially build a world class holocaust museum of their own aimed at Zionist crimes. Such a museum would be the greatest weapon against Zionist violence, many more times powerful than any army or air force. The Israeli state is an artificial construct. It is dependent on the good will of the U.S. and the West and acutely sensitive to public relations.

On Friday, 16 April 2010, Pope Benedict XVI’s 83rd birthday, the trial against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) took place at the Local Court Regensburg, Germany. All in all roughly forty journalists arrived as well as twenty-odd supporters of Williamson, who had to make do being seated in the back row of the absolutely packed court room. Among the supporters were Lady Michèle Renouf, Günter Deckert and Ursula Haverbeck, as well as many other well known faces. Sadly, there were no members, followers or supporters of the SSPX present that could be identified as such.

After the usual security checks, which for a change were handled in a rather civilized manner, the trial started at 9.00 a.m. sharp. The dramatis personæ were: Judge Karin Frahm, a fairly pretty blonde, twenty-nine years of age (!); Senior State Prosecutor Edgar Zach, a grey-haired gentleman probably in his late fifties; and Matthias Loßmann, the defense attorney for Bishop Wiliamson, a fellow possibly in his mid-forties whose air and appearance were eerily reminiscent of a gravedigger. The minor parts were played by an all-female cast: a stenographer, an interpreter for English, and another for Swedish. Her Honor was seated in front of a strange yellowish backdrop, the kind familiar from modern Wagner productions. Seating and legroom were satisfactory, the acoustics excellent.

The proceedings began with an explanation by Herr Loßmann that Williamson would not be appearing since the SSPX had forbidden him from doing so. Next it was recorded that not one of the three Swedish witnesses had turned up, and that they had neither excused themselves nor given any reason for their absence. Herr Zach then began reading out the indictment. The contents were comprised of the usual stuff familiar to all: Williamson has denied and belittled the Holocaust, has done so aware of the fact that such heresy is a grievous violation of modern dogma, has furthermore committed this heinous act intentionally in a manner suited to disturb the public peace, and must therefore be dealt with accordingly. To his credit it must be said that the Prosecutor, Herr Zach, was calm, collected, read the indictment without any aggressive or hateful undertone, and made a generally polite impression.

In the scene that followed, Defense Attorney Herr Loßmann gave a fairly detailed account of what had transpired and how the various events had come about. The judge asked many a probing question, of which a few were simply superfluous. Some questions Herr Loßmann was unable to answer. But a great deal of these gaps were filled in later during an exciting scene in which  Loßmann’s witness, Maximilian Krah, the lawyer for the SSPX…took the stand.

All in all Herr Loßmann left a rather dubious impression: his account was repetitive, unstructured, and his idiom sloppy and unbefitting of his role.

Here now a summary of a few lesser scenes, in no particular order: The court ordered a viewing of the infamous final five minutes of an originally hour long interview, the very five minutes that got Bishop Williamson into this mess. Then the matter of the absent witnesses was taken up again: two documents were read out, one by the legal department of the Swedish television station SVT1 which stated that they would not help the court due to lack of trust in the German legal system, and the other by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, who wrote that they would not be rendering the court mutual judicial assistance since freedom of speech is guaranteed in Sweden but not so in Germany.

Furthermore, an article from a Swedish magazine, which had no real bearing on the case, was translated off the cuff fluently into high quality German… Plus, a segment of a German television program showing the interviewer of Williamson (Name: Ali Fagan; status: absent witness) made the comment that he would gladly stand as a witness in a German court of law, etc., etc. Another delightful scene starred the interpreter for English. Asked by Judge Frahm whether she could translate a letter extemporaneously or whether she needed time to prepare, this lady requested and was granted “five minutes,” whereupon she ambled over to her Swedish speaking colleague, chatted with her for fifteen minutes, went back to her seat and translated the text in one go. It was surreal. All these and the following scenes were interrupted by “five minute recesses” that were fifteen minutes long each. The trial lacked any real coherence, haphazardly jumping from one matter to the next, not even the many “five minute recesses” being synchronised to the action on stage. The only thing that kept everything together, were the endless, totally superfluous repetitions.

A real highlight was the act in which Herr Krah, whom we first encountered two paragraphs ago, was called as a witness for the defense. As lawyer for the SSPX, Herr Krah had a great deal of knowledge as to what had transpired having witnessed the events unfurl himself. Of this he gave an informative account. In answer to the judge’s questions, he drew a detailed picture of Williamson’s standard of living, describing not only his home but also which tube (subway train) to take in order to get there.

He then told of Williamson’s position within the fraternity, that the bishop wields little or no power in the SSPX, and that Richard Williamson is considered and considers himself “an eccentric Englishman”. Herr Krah went on to speak of the Bishop’s personality, characterising him as refined, polite, erudite, well-spoken, and an excellent teacher. He then informed the court that if the bishop questions the “Holocaust” he does so only because he is utterly convinced that his opinion represents the truth. The bishop, so he said, is absolutely bound to truthfulness and would never lie. As such Williamson is certainly convinced of what he had stated in that interview. The problem, according to Herr Krah, is that Williamson’s ability to perceive the truth is seriously impaired (“ein nachhaltig gestörtes Erkenntnisvermögen”).

As an example of this condition Herr Krah told the court that Bishop Williamson does not believe in the 9/11 story, and on having been asked by the judge continued by explaining to the court all about how some, if not many people doubt the veracity of the official 9/11 account. To summarise, Herr Krah…gave a heap of information…including details likely to harm the bishop….

Let us now turn to the final act of this tragicomedy. In the first scene Herr Zach gave his closing arguments. He stated that Bishop Williamson had known exactly what he was saying, knew full well that this is against the law in Germany, was counting on the fact that this interview would be made public, and that the bishop had by these means hoped to spread his twisted views on the “Holocaust.” Considering the fact that Williamson had done this intentionally, a fair sentence would be a fine of 12.000 Euros (i.e. $16,000).

Now it was time for the summation of the defense. Herr Loßmann proceeded to recapitulate the entire story as it had slowly unravelled before our eyes through a profusion of irrelevant repetitions, tedious tangents, and futile five-minute recesses. In short: On occasion of the ordination of a Swedish deacon who had converted from Protestantism not merely to Catholicism, but to one of its most traditional branches (which caused a stir in Sweden), a Swedish camera crew went to Zaitzkofen, near Regensburg, and asked the ordaining bishop, Richard Williamson, for an interview which he granted them. They spoke about religious matters for over fifty minutes, and then, once they had gained the bishop’s trust, suddenly asked him about a comment he had made about the “Holocaust” twenty years ago in Canada. The interviewer, Ali Fagan, described this question as “a shot from the hip”, and the evidence clearly showed that the interviewer had deliberately set a trap for the bishop. After Williamson had answered the question in depth, he pointed out to the interviewer that such comments are illegal in Germany and asked him not to publicze them.

The Swedish television station STV1 then approached the leading German magazine Der Spiegel with this story, which the Spiegel proceeded to publish three days before the interview was to be aired on Swedish television. As soon as the SSPX had gotten wind of this they had their lawyer, Herr Krah, get in touch with Williamson, the latter asking that the interview not be broadcast, something that was realistically not going to happen, and insisting that this interview not be made available over the internet.

When Matthias Krah contacted Bishop Williamson, he was immediately aware of the gravity of the situation saying something along the lines of “typical journalists, you can’t trust them.” STV1 nonetheless made the final five minutes of the interview available on their website, from where it was downloaded onto YouTube and went viral. By itself this was all fairly inconsequential, for who had ever heard of the SSPX, or Bishop Richard Williamson for that matter? Unfortunately, however, this was exactly the moment the Vatican welcomed the SSPX back into the fold of the Church, and to the viciously anti-ecclesiastical, i.e. Zionist, press, the idea of a “Holocaust” heretic having his excommunication revoked must have been… (highly offensive). As such the matter was blown out of all proportion, causing desired damage to the Church. All this, Loßmann argued, was not the bishop’s fault. In fact Williamson is simply a victim of foul play, and must therefore be acquitted.

The court took a thirty minute recess, during which Her Honor decided on the verdict, the grounds for which were eight pages long. The court reconvened at 3.00 p.m. for the final scene, and Judge Frahm read out the verdict: guilty, fine: 10.000 Euros, i.e. $13,500. She gave the following reasons for the verdict: Williamson had denied the “Holocaust,” and though he may be convinced that it had not taken place, this is irrelevant since history has shown the “Holocaust” to have taken place, and furthermore even the highest courts have knowledge of this subject. Richard Williamson was also aware of the fact that his opinion would reach the public, but had nonetheless continued to express it. His crime was therefore a deliberate action. The fact that the interview had gone viral on YouTube was ignored since this was certainly not the bishop’s fault and went against his express wish.

However, §130 Penal Code stipulates that “incitement of the People” (Volksverhetzung) is only established if the crime is perpetrated publicly and is intended to disturb the public peace. However, nowhere does the law stipulate that the public in question must be German! By having the interview broadcast in Sweden, millions of Swedes could see it. Ergo, these masses of people could then, feasibly, contact their friends and relatives in Germany and thus supposedly endanger the German public peace. Therefore, the bishop was found guilty and fined 10,000 Euros – and that’s the end of that.

…The defense counsel defended neither his client nor truth but merely the SSPX….

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 11:12 a.m. ET BERLIN (AP via The NY Times) — A German court convicted ultraconservative British Bishop Richard Williamson on Friday of denying the Holocaust in a television interview. A court in the Bavarian city of Regensburg found Williamson guilty of incitement for saying in a 2008 interview with Swedish television that he did not believe Jews were killed in gas chambers during World War II. The court ordered Williamson to pay a fine of Euro10,000 ($13,544).

The Roman Catholic bishop was barred by his order from attending Friday’s proceedings or making statements to the media. His lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told The Associated Press after the court ruling that Williamson has yet to decide whether he would appeal. Denying the Holocaust is a criminal offense in Germany.

The court ordered a fine of euro12,000 for Williamson last year, without a trial. But the bishop appealed, forcing his case to be tried publicly. Lossmann said that Williamson had explicitly asked the Swedish television crew conducting the interview not to broadcast it in Germany.

In issuing her ruling, Judge Karin Frahm said the bishop could not have expected that the clip would show up on YouTube and be seen directly in Germany, and that led her to reduce the fine, court spokesman Bernhard Schneider told the AP. The journalists who conducted the interview ignored a court order to attend the trial, Lossmann said, leaving the judge to rely on written statements as testimony. ”That does not do a case like this justice,” Lossmann said.

The interview was conducted near Regensburg and was granted shortly before Williamson’s excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, along with that of three other bishops from the anti-modernization movement of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors said in a statement it welcomed the ruling as ”a symbol of modern German determination to prohibit the dissemination of Holocaust denial on its soil.”
The U.S.-based group’s vice president, Elan Steinberg, called Williamson’s remarks vile and craven and called upon his order and the Vatican to cut all ties with him.

The lifting of Williamson’s excommunication sparked outrage among Jewish groups and in Israel. The Vatican’s handling of the affair prompted criticism from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Six million Jews were killed during the Nazi Holocaust, many of them murdered in gas chambers. Williamson lives in Britain. (End quote for the AP)

(AP) – April 15, 2010 – BERLIN — A lawyer says an ultraconservative British bishop has been silenced by his Catholic order before a court hearing regarding a denial of the Holocaust.

Matthias Lossmann told The Associated Press that his client, Bishop Richard Williamson, who resides in England, has been told not appear at the Regensburg court for Friday’s hearing and to refrain from interviews and Internet activities.

Lossmann said a letter on behalf of the Switzerland-based general secretary of the Society of St. Pius X, Christian Thouvenot, advises the bishop to shut down his blog and his Web site.

Friday’s hearing regards Williamson’s appeal of a fine he was given by a German court in 2009 for incitement, in connection with an interview with Swedish TV in 2008 during which he questioned that Jews died during the Holocaust. (End quote)

HOFFMAN’S COMMENT: Bishop Williamson has no web site, just a blog which is available only by e-mail subscription. He had no intention of attending the show trial in Regensburg, so one must wonder what is the point of the claim that his order, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has banned him from doing so. He has also been under a gag order from the SSPX for some time.

Several months ago Bishop Williamson was offered a deal by the German prosecutor for avoiding prison — if he would apologize to the Zionist community and pay a large fine. He refused both demands.

Speaking for myself and not Bishop Williamson, I observe that while he is housed and fed at the SSPX house in London and treated decently by the priests with whom he resides, he has been almost completely abandoned by his fellow bishops and priests worldwide, who will not even offer public prayers on his behalf. In last Sunday’s bulletin of the SSPX chapel in northern Idaho there was an appeal for prayers for Pope Benedict XVI who, it was said, was under “media attack.” Needless to say, there was no appeal for prayers for Williamson. Such cold-hearted mercilessness is purely rabbinic in spirit.

Despite denials by the hierarchy of the SSPX, it is rather easy to see that the false religion of Holocaustianity has infiltrated its ranks just as it has infiltrated the Vatican. Bishop Williamson would not be in any hot water with the Catholic Church if he had denied that Mohammed had flown to heaven from Al Quds, or doubted that Mormon founder Joseph Smith found the golden plates on Hill Cumorah. Williamson has been made a leper for casting doubt on a doctrine which both the Vatican and the SSPX hold sacred, the new creed of Holocaustianity.

What is sacred both to modern Catholicism and the “traditional Catholic” SSPX is the gas chamber idol of Auschwitz, about which Pope Pius XII, in the whole of his long reign as pontiff, expressed not one single word, most likely because he knew, through Vatican intelligence, that the Germans did not operate any such monstrosity.

Meanwhile the allegedly “traditional” SSPX has adopted the Auschwitz idol of Newchurch and proclaimed it a horrifying, if not unforgivable sin, for Williamson to blaspheme this holy gas chamber relic of Holocaustianity.

Bishop Williamson’s statements about execution gas chambers can only be a grave transgression in the moral and spiritual realm if the SSPX believes in Holocaustianity which, patently, they do, since they are persecuting their own bishop for having doubted it.

Here we witness a startling transformation in the priestly fraternity founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, akin to the astonishing alchemical spectacle of witnessing Pope John Paul II enter a synagogue and encourage the assembled Pharisees to continue in their Talmudic faith, an accursed act of betrayal which his successor has repeated three times (Matthew 26:34) in less than five years.

The ancient occult mandate for the alchemical processing of the Church is being fulfilled on schedule, before our very eyes, both within the Vatican and within its one-time traditional opposition, where doubting the lies about gas chamber extermination in Auschwitz is now a mortal sin and a cause for the public humiliation, silencing and exile of one of the bishops Msgr. Lefebvre consecrated.

For this reason alone, Richard Williamson has been expelled as seminary rector, abandoned in all but the necessities of life, and prosecuted in Germany, for the greater glory of the abominable Auschwitz idol which has replaced Calvary as the most sacred suffering in all of history. Bishop Williamson is a martyr to the defense of Our Lord’s Passion and Crucifixion against its substitution by the Auschwitz shoah-business. God help all those who have failed to lift even a finger in his defense.

Let is be noted for the record, that by an act of God, today the air space over Britain has been closed, so that even if Bishop Williamson submitted to the order from the German inquisitor, he could not comply.

Last week I sent a letter to every Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) priory in the United States, as well as to a few additional SSPX locations in the U.S., including to Rev. Fr. Le Roux at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, and to a few SSPX chapels in Canada.

 The purpose of that letter was rather simple: to remind (or inform) the SSPX clergy of Bishop Richard Williamson‘s “Holocaust Heretic” show trial apparently set to begin on April 16 in Germany, and to request that they do whatever they could reasonably do to “to bring about a special novena for Bishop Williamson.” (A “novena” is a Catholic term for nine prayers of supplication to God for a special favor or intention, usually offered over a period of nine successive days -Ed.)  

I noted that neither my letter nor the favor requested for Bishop Williamson was known to His Excellency, much less solicited by him. Likewise, Bishop Williamson has no fore knowledge of this letter, although I will be sending him a blind copy of same (just as I sent him a copy of my aforementioned letter).

As I stated in my above referenced letter, I have been a regular attendee of SSPX chapels throughout the United States for the last thirteen years. I, along with my wife, have received great spiritual benefits from our attendance at the SSPX chapels and going to the superb Ignatian Retreats. We shall be forever grateful for all this. At the present time we have  no plans of discontinuing our attendance at the SSPX chapels. (We are presently registered attendees at Our Lady Immaculate in the Chicago area.) 

Nevertheless, I would be less than honest if I did not admit to having become utterly appalled at witnessing the ongoing treatment that Bp. Williamson has received at the hands of the SSPX Superior General and certain other SSPX clergy as a result of a few comments he made on one occasion concerning an event in history which is commonly referred to as the “Holocaust.”  The shameless and uncharitable treatment that he received speaks much more about the ones giving it than the one receiving it.

I don’t have an ax to grind here. At the same time I do not take lightly what I say here. I have invested heavily in the SSPX and I don’t like to see its integrity compromised in any way. I believe that when one of its four bishops is repeatedly ridiculed by certain of his fellow clergy in the SSPX and stigmatized and treated as some sort of pariah/marginalized outcast this should be a real cause of concern for all those who love all the good the SSPX has done, but equally abhor any scandal it may fall prey to. By scandal I mean real scandal as opposed to false scandal.

Allow me to review just a small portion of the aforementioned treatment which is of public record, keeping in mind that this may well be the tip of the iceberg compared to what has been stated or done behind the scenes:

 Bp. Fellay, the youngest of the SSPX bishops, has derogatorily referred to Bp. Williamson, the oldest of the SSPX bishops, like unto “uranium.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,675163,00.html. (See http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2010/02/der-spiegel-real-story.html for the real story concerning lies told about Bishop Williamson by Der Spiegel’s reporters in the preceding linked article.)

Bp. Fellay has also derisively compared Bp. Williamson to a “grenade (and this in immediate response to novus ordo priest Fr. Thomas Rosica who was interviewing Bp. Fellay and who had just got finished mocking Bp. Williamson by referring to him as a “loose canon.” ( http://saltandlighttv.org/blog/?p=5071).

 To make matters worse, a link to this interview is actually highlighted on the homepage of the United States District of the SSPX at www.sspx.org:
S+LT CANADIAN CATHOLIC TV INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP FELLAY Interview by Fr. Thomas Rosica on June 24, 2009. [S+TL link].

 (Fr. Rosica writes a regular column for the Zionist and semi-pornographic rag otherwise know as The Toronto Star. See http://www.saltandlighttv.org/about_family_rosica.html. In one of his articles he actually repeats the official 9-11 conspiracy as a given matter of fact truth — that 9-11 was carried out by those Muslims — remember the ones who could barely fly a Piper Cub!)

Before David Irving’s failed libel case against author Deborah Lipstadt a decade ago – she accused him of Holocaust denial – Raul Hilberg, Holocaust scholar and author of The Destruction of the European Jews, was asked by DD Guttenplan why the arithmetic of mass murder remains so important.

“There is,” said Hilberg, “if you don’t want to surrender to nihilism entirely, the matter of a record. Does the record matter? In my judgment it is not discussable, it is not arguable.”

I mention Hilberg because of the final unravelling of another of Irving’s poisonous “facts”: the claim in Irving’s 1963 book The Destruction of Dresden that 135,000 people died in the firebombing of the German city.

In truth, Irving’s Dresden numbers have long been under assault. They were challenged at the Lipstadt trial by the historian Richard Evans, who later accused Irving of “consistent” and “deliberate” falsification. Other historians have concluded over the years that the death toll was much lower.

Now, in what seems likely to be the last word on the matter, a German historical commission set up to examine the precise numbers of those who died has reported. After five years’ work it has established that the toll was around 25,000… a shocking number, but – without diminishing the scale of the death – of quite a different order.

Why this matters so long after the event is not simply because it undermines those on the far right who seek to establish a moral equality between the crimes of Nazi Germany and “Allied crimes”, but also because of Hilberg’s wider point over the “sanctity of facts”. Because the numbers really do matter.

Holocaust deniers like to play with the numbers. Those who seek to deny the genocidal massacre at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war also seek to diminish both the absolute total or redefine the nature of those killed to combatants from civilian men and boys. A similar process has been attempted over Rwandan genocide. And the number who died during the war in Iraq has been one of the fiercest areas of contention. Indeed, it remains disgraceful that we have no accurate count of Iraqi casualties, while we have recorded every dead and injured US and British soldier.

And why this matters is because an accurate accounting – whether of the deaths in Darfur, Dresden or Dachau – supplies real meaning to the narrative of memory and history. It allows us to accurately define events; make comparative judgments both morally and politically, to understand the intention behind acts and the weight of suffering.

None of which means that Dresden was not a terrible act in a terrible war. It does not even mean that it was not a crime, although that remains the subject of continuing historical dispute. But if it was a crime, it was one on a far smaller scale than claimed by the likes of Irving. The truth, to paraphrase, will always set us free.

Michael Hoffman’s note: Mr. Zundel is under a gag and his freedom of speech severely curtailed, so it is not accurate to say he is “free.” He has, rather, been released from a German dungeon. By “coincidence,” today just happens to be the last day of the Talmudic festival of revenge known as Purim, which ends tonight at sundown.

Ernst Zundel was freed today after serving five years in a German prison for denying the Holocaust. Zundel told reporters he did not know whether he would try to return to Canada. “I’m back out after seven years, three weeks, three prisons and three countries,” said Zundel, 70. A crowd of some 20 supporters clapped and shouted “bravo” as Zundel emerged from the prison in Mannheim shortly after 8 a. m. Some handed him flowers as he passed through the prison’s steel gates.

Zundel was extradited from Canada to face the German charges of inciting hatred for years of anti-Semitic activities, including contributing to a website devoted to denying the Holocaust — a crime in Germany. The Amerian website’s accessibility in Germany made it possible for German prosecutors to charge him with 14 counts. Zundel and his supporters had argued he was exercising his right to free speech.

On Monday he gave no details about his future plans, saying only that he wanted to improve his health and would return to his home region in the Black Forest. “Having spent the last seven years in a ‘chicken coop,’ I’ve gained a lot of weight. I have to lose that. I have to get checked out in a hospital,” Zundel said, though did not indicate that he was ill.

Asked if the Holocaust happened, he replied, “It’s kind of a sad situation; there’s a lot to say. I’ll certainly be careful not to offend anyone and their draconian laws,” he said.

Born in the Black Forest of Germany in 1939, Zundel emigrated to Canada in 1958 and resided in Toronto and Montreal until 2001. Zundel lived in Canada for four decades, making frequent court appearances to argue for the freedom to express his views in books and pamphlets and on a website. Despite his long stay in Canada, he was not able to convert his landed immigrant status into citizenship. Officials twice rejected his attempts to obtain citizenship and he moved to Pigeon Forge, Tenn., until being deported to Canada in 2003 for alleged immigration violations.

In February 2005, Federal Court of Canada Justice Pierre Blais ruled that Zundel’s activities were not only a threat to national security, but “the international community of nations” as well, clearing the way for his deportation to Germany. Zundel spent the last two years of his time in Canada in solitary confinement in a Toronto jail under anti-terrorism legislation.

He was immediately arrested upon arrival in his birth country in 2005 and held without bail because German authorities considered him a flight risk. In 2007, a German court convicted Zundel of 14 counts of incitement of racial hatred and sentenced him to five years in prison, the maximum allowed under German law for denying the Holocaust. In several European countries, including Germany, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Spain and France, Holocaust denial is a specific criminal offense. In Canada, Holocaust denial can be prosecuted as a hate crime.

MORRISTOWN, Tenn. — On a quiet street in this little town in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains lives a family of refugees who were granted asylum in the United States because they feared persecution in their home country. The reason for that fear has rarely, if ever, been the basis of an asylum case. The parents, Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, want to home-school their five children, ranging in age from 2 to 12, a practice illegal in their native land, Germany. Among European countries, Germany is nearly alone in requiring, and enforcing, attendance of children at an officially recognized school. The school can be private or religious, but it must be a school. Exceptions can be made for health reasons but not for principled objections. But the Romeikes, who are devout Christians, said they wanted their children to learn in a different environment.

Mr. Romeike (pronounced ro-MY-kuh), 38, a soft-spoken piano teacher whose young children greet strangers at the front door with a startlingly grown-up politeness, said the unruly behavior of students that was allowed by many teachers had kept his children from learning. The stories in German readers, in which devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heroes, set bad examples, he said. “I don’t expect the school to teach about the Bible,” he said, but “part of education should be character-building.” In Germany, he said, home-schoolers are seen as “fundamentalist religious nuts who don’t want their children to get to know what is going on in the world, who want to protect them from everything.”

“In fact,” he said, sitting on his sofa as his three older children wrote in workbooks at the dining table, “I want my children to learn the truth and to learn about what’s going on in the world so that they can deal with it.”

The reasoning behind the German law, cited by officials and in court cases, is to foster social integration, ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call “parallel societies.” “We have had this legal basis ever since the state was founded,” said Thomas Hilsenbeck, a spokesman for the Ministry for Culture, Youth and Sport in the Romeikes’ state, Baden-Württemberg. “This is broadly accepted among the general public.”

The family has been here for some time, having left Germany in 2008. But it was not until Jan. 26 that a federal immigration judge in Memphis granted them political asylum, ruling that they had a reasonable fear of persecution for their beliefs if they returned. In a harshly worded decision, the judge, Lawrence O. Burman, denounced the German policy, calling it “utterly repellent to everything we believe as Americans,” and expressed shock at the heavy fines and other penalties the government has levied on home-schooling parents, including taking custody of their children. Describing home-schoolers as a distinct group of people who have a “principled opposition to government policy,” he ruled that the Romeikes would face persecution both because of their religious beliefs and because they were “members of a particular social group,” two standards for granting asylum.

“It is definitely new,” said Prof. Philip G. Schrag, the director of Georgetown Law School’s asylum law program, who added that he had never heard of such a case. “What’s novel about the argument is the nature of the social group.” But, he said, given the severity of the penalties that German home-schoolers potentially face, the judge’s decision “does not seem far outside the margin.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has appealed the decision, Mr. Romeike’s lawyer said Friday. A spokesman for the agency declined to comment, citing the litigation.

The Romeikes had never heard of home schooling when they set out to find an alternative to the local public school in Germany, where their two oldest children — now 11 and 12 — were having trouble with rowdy classmates. The nearby private and religious schools, Mr. Romeike said, were just as bad or even worse. Then a woman in their church mentioned that some families, though none in the church itself, had taken their children out of school altogether. “She knew a family, but she didn’t want to mention their name because it wasn’t legal,” Mr. Romeike said. Months of research followed: the Romeikes read articles, sat in on court cases and talked to other home-schoolers in Germany. Eventually they decided to give it a try. Working with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school — one not recognized by the German government — they expected to be punished with moderate fines and otherwise left alone. But they soon discovered differently, he said, facing fines eventually totaling over $11,000, threats that they would lose custody of their children and, one morning, a visit by the police, who took the children to school in a police van.

Those were among the fines and potential penalties that Judge Burman said rose to the level of persecution. Mr. Romeike began looking to other countries, but his inability to speak anything other than German or English limited his options. Then, at a conference for home-schoolers in 2007, he saw Mike Donnelly, a lawyer for the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Virginia-based advocacy organization Long before the Romeikes had begun their fight, lawyers at the association had been discussing the situation in Germany. They had tried litigating cases one by one, usually unsuccessfully. In 2006, after the European Court of Human Rights declined to hear a petition by home-schooling parents that had failed in German courts, lawyers at the association decided to add a political line of attack to the legal one, both to raise awareness of the German policies and to find some broader solution to the issue. At a brainstorming session, one of the lawyers, Jim Mason, came up with the idea of petitioning for political asylum.

“I don’t know German law or German courts,” Mr. Mason said, “but I do know American courts.” Another German home-schooling family had already moved to Morristown, so the Romeikes sold many of their belongings, including their grand piano, and came here too. The court battle lasted over a year, and while the Romeikes’ lawyers said they had expected to succeed, they were surprised by the vigor of the judge’s opinion. So was the German government. “We’re all surprised because we consider the German educational system as very excellent,” said Lutz Hermann Görgens, the German consul general in Atlanta. He defended Germany’s policy on the grounds of fostering the ability “to peacefully interact with different values and different religions.” Mr. Romeike said he would like to return to Germany if the laws became more amenable to home schooling. There is still hope, he said, though the political landscape does not look too promising right now. In the meantime, he added, “it’s a good learning experience.” Victor Homola contributed reporting from Berlin.

Michael Hoffman’s Afterword: Note that President Obama’s Immigration department is appealing against the judge’s wise ruling. The U.S. government wants to force this family to return to Germany, where they may lose custody of their children.

Last year I asked the Cranbrook Public Library to remove a book from their shelves. Its simple exterior made it easy to overlook, a reader browsing through the non-fiction section would hardly notice the slim green paperback wedged between the heavy history books. I couldn’t miss it however, having already heard and read about it. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, it screamed; author Arthur. R Butz. Published by the Noontide Press, a branch of the Institute for Historical Review, Butz’s book denies the Holocaust and genocide of millions of Jews. It was the ultimate irony that I should find this book in a government building; the same government that had prosecuted James Keegstra and Ernst Zundel (Both Holocaust deniers) for racial defamation and spreading hate against the Jewish people.

Every high school student in the province of British Columbia is required to pass Social Studies 11 to receive a high school diploma. Within this course the Second World War and the Holocaust are covered extensively, we are taught of Jewish Persecution, of Kristallnacht, of gas chambers, of killing spurred by hate and intolerance. One of the course goals for Social Studies 11 is to “demonstrate respect for human equality and cultural diversity”, how can this be achieved when a book denying the suffering of millions is being promoted by our public library?

I know many people would argue that “both sides have to be represented in any issue,” I know this because it has been said to me before. After filling out an extensive form explaining why the book should be removed from the library, I was confident that my reasons would be understood and the book removed.

Finding a year later that the book had still not been taken out of the library catalogue was a shock, and I expressed this to one of the librarians. She told me that there had been several complaints about the book, but that every view had to be shown of history. This is the danger of Butz’s book, hiding behind a guise of scholarly intentions the book does not appear anti-Semitic on the surface.

Reading Butz’s claims that gas chambers never existed at Auschwitz, that six million Jews did not die but were merely relocated, and that the Holocaust is a mass conspiracy perpetrated by the Jewish people to create the state of Israel, demonstrates otherwise; but may not appear so to the impressionable mind of a teenager.

Particularly if the book is in the history section of a library, being in an academic institution is an act of legitimizing Butz’s hateful ideas. The truth is there is no grey area when it comes to the Holocaust, or any genocide. Hate is a part of humanity, and to deny the suffering of the Jewish people can only promise to continue the bloody cycle of persecution.

This is not a freedom of speech issue; people have to right to believe whatever they wish, even if it is hateful and racist. However, the library is not required to endorse their views by carrying their books.
The Public Library is funded by taxpayers’ money, by allowing Butz’s book to remain we are not only giving it the facade of a valid academic resource, but we are also paying to spread the hateful ideologies of Holocaust deniers. Our library is not the only one housing Butz’s book; it is available at three other libraries in British Columbia through inter-library loan, including a college library. In a time where our country’s leaders preach equality and tolerance, I find it extremely disturbing that money meant for education of such values is being spent on blemishing our reputation as a culturally diverse and accepting society.

In a strange twist of fate, Butz’s book has gone missing from our library, but remains in the catalogue. I can only hope that another Cranbrook citizen felt the same way that I do, and took matters into their own hands.

However, as the book is still in the catalogue it may once again reappear on our library shelves in the future. I ask Cranbrook citizens to not sit idly by, in remaining passive; we become part of the problem. For the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust and for those who survived it, I urge every concerned reader to file a complaint to the library regarding Arthur R. Butz’s Hoax Of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry.

According to the Cranbrook Public Library’s Chief Librarian Ursula Brigl, anyone can submit a Request for Reconsideration of a Title at the library. Brigl looks at the request, researches if the same situation has come up at other libraries and gathers information on what was done in those cases. She said she wants to make sure she gives sound reasons that have been thoroughly considered based on all the best information when she makes her decision.

Brigl said sometimes it can take awhile for information she requests from other libraries to get to her and the research can take months, even a year. Brigl said she takes every Request for Reconsideration of a Title very seriously and in order to make the best decision she does extensive research. After she has finished her report on the request Brigl presents it to the Library Board, along with the original Request for Reconsideration of a Title so they can see what the original request was. She then makes her recommendation and the board makes its decision.

Brigl said titles that go missing are assessed according to their circulation and currency. She said generally if the item was published in the last 10 years and its circulation shows people were looking at it on a regular basis it will be replaced. If it is an older title that wasn’t circulating much then they wouldn’t replace it because there isn’t a demand for the title.

One grows weary of pointing to the disparity between how “Holocaust” revisionists and Muslim haters are treated in the media and the courts both legal and of public opinion. Kurt Westergaard, the artist who drew the anti-Mohammed cartoon in Denmark is a hero of the European Union. His “freedom of expression” is jealously guarded, and used as a pedagogic tool for hammering Muslims concerning the glories of modern Western human rights’ standards. When Muslims respond that the Danish cartoon was bigoted and racist, they are dismissed as backward peasants from Neanderthal societies who have yet to learn the rudiments of Enlightenment tolerance.

Meanwhile, revisionist expression concerning Talmudic Judaism or the alleged execution gas chambers of Auschwitz is another matter entirely. In the latter case, the “racist” pejorative is gleefully pinned on revisionists by the media and the courts, thereby acting as a solvent for weakening any claims to apply the western heritage of freedom of the press to revisionist writers or satirists.

Hence, Simon Sheppard, who received a lengthy prison sentence in part for distributing in England this writer’s satirical comic book Tales of the Holohoax is described by all British media, from the snooty BBC to the proletarian “Sun” newspaper, as a “racist.”

The unjust assignment of this pejorative is the impregnable wall that has been erected to isolate Mr. Sheppard’s case from that of the anti-Muslim Danish cartoonists, and causes him to forfeit the civil liberties protections of Europe’s supposed guardians of freedom against Islamic fundamentalism. The possibility that Europe might need to be guarded against the racist tyranny of fundamentalist Orthodox Judaism is policed out of consideration.

What precisely is there that is “racist” about the Tales of the Holohoax cartoons? The media do not scruple to attempt an analysis because they are under no pressure or obligation to do so. Satire is only a noble weapon when it is used against “demon Islam,” while Judaism and Holocaustianity are sacred dogmas in Europe. Satirizing these sacred cows is a “disgusting hate crime.”

Westergaard is portrayed as a defiant saint, while Mr. Sheppard and his partner in “criminal” satire, Stephen Whittle (they are known collectively as the “Heretical Two”), are less than zero in the eyes of the Western gatekeepers of morality and history – “race hate criminals” – in the purple prose of the BBC. The fact that these two have been stigmatized as “racist” is sufficient to render the stigma a reality, even when the facts bear witness to the contrary.

The “revisionist community,” with some notable exceptions (Lady Michelle Renouf, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Willis Carto, Herman Otten) is reluctant to mention Tales of the Holohoax in connection with the plight of the “Heretical Two.” The publication itself and the heretics who circulated it would now be a cause célébre if the current “revisionist community” had any of the public relations instincts of Ernst Zundel.

In the 2009 Christmas list of imprisoned revisionists and their jailhouse mailing addresses circulated around the Internet and published in certain revisionist newsletters, under the names Sheppard and Whittle the reason given for their incarceration was an oddly generic one: “sought asylum in the U.S.” But the reason they were asylum seekers was noticeably absent. By this omission, reference to Tales  of the Holohoax and its author were sent down the memory hole — by revisionists themselves.

I have seen no sustained analogy by revisionists concerning this writer or Mr. Sheppard, and Mr.Westergaard. And since it has been decided that Tales of the Holohoax shouldn’t be mentioned or discussed by revisionists, no parallels are drawn between this writer’s satirical gas chamber cartoons and the anti-Muslim ones in Denmark. A magnificent opportunity is thereby lost.

Culpability for this loss also rests with the Muslim and Arab media who have failed to compare the two sets of cartoons and the fate of the distributors.

No European has gone to jail for satirizing Islam or its prophet. On the contrary, the defiance of the Danish cartoonists is celebrated, rewarded and protected, while Sheppard rots in a British prison for distributing a satire that pokes fun at Talmudic tall tales recycled for modern consumption during and after World War II.

A RACIST man has lost his appeal against the UK’s first conviction for inciting racial hatred online. But the Court of Appeal in London did reduce Stephen Whittle’s sentence of two years and four months by six months.

Another man, Simon Sheppard, who was also convicted of inciting racial hatred, had his term of four years and ten months cut by a year.

Whittle, 42, and Sheppard, 52, were jailed at Leeds Crown Court in July last year after they were charged, under the Public Order Act, with publishing racially inflammatory material, distributing racially inflammatory material and possessing racially inflammatory material with a view to distribution.

Whittle, from Preston, was found guilty of five offences and Sheppard, of Selby, North Yorkshire, was found guilty of 16. During their first trial in 2008, they skipped bail and fled to California, where they sought asylum claiming they were being persecuted for their right-wing views, but were deported. The police investigation began after a complaint about a leaflet called “Tales of the Holohoax”, which was pushed through the door of a Blackpool synagogue and traced back to a post office box in Hull registered to Sheppard.

Published material found later included images of murdered Jews alongside cartoons and articles ridiculing ethnic groups. At the appeal, Sheppard’s counsel, Adrian Davies, challenged the convictions on the grounds of jurisdiction, the meaning of “publication” and whether the material on the internet was “written material” within the meaning of the Act. He said the articles complained of were posted on a website in California where there was no doubt that they were “entirely lawful and enjoyed the highest degree of constitutional protection under the laws of the United States.”  There was no evidence that anyone in England and Wales, except for the police officer, who the Crown did not rely on as a member of the public under the Act, had ever read any of them. “Despite this, Mr Sheppard has been sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment than Abu Hamza,” he told Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice Penry-Davey and Mr Justice Cranston.

Giving their ruling, Lord Justice Scott Baker said the trial judge was right to hold that he had jurisdiction to try the pair because a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England. He said the judge had also correctly addressed the issue of publication – the material in the case was available to the public despite the fact that the evidence went no further than establishing that one police constable downloaded it. And the words “written material” in the Act were sufficiently wide to include articles in electronic form. On the question of sentence, he noted that the judge had said he had rarely seen or read material that was so abusive and insulting in its content towards racial groups in this country. (End quote)

Editor’s Note: There are several outright lies in this article from Der Spiegel (below). Bishop Williamson is not ill. He does not employ Orwellian “Holocaust” Newspeak and therefore does not “deny the Holocaust,” but rather the homicidal gas chamber allegation and the Kabbalistic casualty figure of six million. He did not, in Quebec (or anywhere else), call Auschwitz itself an invention, and he did not give the recent interview to French television in a room at SSPX headquarters in London.

Nevertheless, we are circulating this report because Der Spiegel is Germany’s mass market magazine and Bishop Williamson goes on trial (presumably in absentia) in Germany in April for his thought crimes. Consequently, it is important to assess what the Zionist-German media are telling the masses.

In the eyes of millions of people around the world, Bishop Williamson is an inspiring and distinguished figure, rather than an “embarrassment.” The embarrassment to Catholics is Pope Benedict XVI, who delivers soothing shibboleths to synagogue Pharisees while helping their “Shoah” theology gain firm purchase inside the Church; and certain leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) who have betrayed Bishop Williamson, and their own founder, the late Archbishop Lefebvre, by rendering Williamson’s dissenting opinion about secular WWII history, grounds for negating the episcopal role for which Lefebvre consecrated him.

Bishop Williamson’s transgression is to have refused to propitiate the idol of “Holocaustianity,” which has surpassed Calvary in sacred status and on the scale of cosmic suffering. If he would only bow to this golden calf, he would regain his former responsibilities. Because he refuses this temptation, his usefulness to the SSPX is “lost,” according to the order’s superior.

Controversial Bishop Richard Williamson continues in his denial of the Holocaust, embarrassing both the Society of St. Pius to which he belongs and the Vatican. But the SSPX is becoming increasingly powerful despite the controversy and is attracting more and more supporters.

Richard Williamson’s complaints begin when he looks out the window of his office in Saint George’s House, the London headquarters of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Just past the garden, at the base of a small hill in verdant Wimbledon Park, are a pond, golf course, croquet club and, most famously, the tennis courts.

The old man at the window likes tennis, which he admiringly calls the “greatest spectacle,” a game that involves “one spirit, one will.” In tennis, he says, it’s as if two gladiators were fighting each other, “just without bloodshed.”

But Williamson would not be true to form if he didn’t smell damnation in even the noblest of spectacles. The outfits worn by female tennis players, the bishop says indignantly, “hardly reach past the middles of their thighs.” Williamson has noticed female fans wearing even shorter skirts. “Aren’t there are any men left who tell their daughters, sisters, wives or mothers that this sort of outfit is only meant for the eyes of their own husbands?”

The world has become a smaller place for the notorious bishop. Since he denied the existence of the Holocaust on television more than a year ago, causing serious problems for Pope Benedict XVI and almost triggering a revolt against Rome by the Catholic faithful, the ultra-conservative SSPX has kept him in virtual quarantine at its Wimbledon headquarters. Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX, likens Williamson to uranium: “It’s dangerous when you have it,” he says, but you can’t “simply leave it by the side of the road.”

‘A Huge Lie’
Fellay knows what he is talking about. Williamson has no intention of revising his views on the gas chambers. When Nazi hunter Beate Klarsfeld sent him a book about the history of the Holocaust last year, he set it aside, unread. “The fact is that the 6 million people who were supposedly gassed represent a huge lie,” he wrote recently to his fellow members of the SSPX, noting that “a completely new world order was built” on this “fact.” The Jews, he added, “became ersatz saviors thanks to the concentration camps.”

Williamson, after refusing to pay a fine of €12,000 ($16,800), faces charges of inciting racial hatred in a trial in the southern German city of Regensburg set to begin on April 16. Although it is unclear whether he will appear at the trial in person, the bishop has already assembled a legal team that includes German lawyer Matthias Lossmann and the British attorney who once represented former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in his fight against extradition.

Both the obstinate bishop’s refusal to abandon his preposterous Holocaust theories and the trial in Regensburg are as embarrassing to the SSPX as they are to the Vatican, which is currently in direct talks with the fundamentalists. During the monthly meetings, three theologians from the SSPX sit, almost as they were participating in another Vatican council, across from three papal theologians in the Palace of the Holy Office, which is home to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is adjacent to St. Peter’s Basilica. This is as close to the Vatican as it gets. Left-leaning and liberal theologians like Hans Küng have spent their lives dreaming in vain of such an encounter.

The 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council, also known as Vatican II, whose reforms helped to modernize the Catholic Church, is high up on the agenda of the members of the SSPX, who want to see it reversed as much as possible. For them, ecumenism is the stuff of the devil, the recognition of Judaism is a source of contention and the modern form of the liturgy is an impossible act of assimilation to the zeitgeist.

Their goal is to be recognized in Rome again after 22 years. The Vatican also wants to put an end to the division within the Church. But Williamson, who has been a thorn in the side of those seeking rapprochement, isn’t going away.

If a fundamentalist bishop like Williamson were to become unaffiliated, he would have the potential to divide the church once again. He could consecrate new priests at any time or establish his own, even more radical movement. This would be inconvenient for both Benedict and the SSPX, which is why Williamson is being tolerated.

‘These Men Are Rats’
Williamson’s refuge is a small guest room on Arthur Road in southern London, where he has a view of Centre Court at Wimbledon. The room is in a plain-looking, newer building, adorned only with two columns flanking the front door. A sign at the entrance to a chapel in the garden calls upon the faithful to pray during the SSPX’s upcoming “Rosary Crusade.” Father Lindström, a gaunt Swede, ensures that only the right people are allowed to visit Williamson.

The bishop has a reputation for being unpredictable. Sometimes he gives the staff instructions to tell visitors that he is not home, but on one occasion he sat down next to a Christmas tree for an interview with a video blogger. An interview with SPIEGEL, which had been scheduled for some time, happened to fall on a bad day. Williamson was only willing to appear on a stair landing, and even then, all that was visible of him were one of his arms and his hand wearing his bishop’s ring. His voice was easy to recognize, but he refused to speak directly with his interviewers, leaving Lindström to run up and down the stairs, delivering the questions and answers.

Later, Williamson decided to continue the interview with SPIEGEL by e-mail — even though he was only in the next room. The visit had made him very angry. “We are at war,” he raged, “and you are on the wrong side.” German liberal intellectuals are as distasteful to him as short skirts on the tennis court. “These men are, at least objectively, rats,” he wrote in a reference to SPIEGEL journalists.

Heresies and Errors

There is a strict regimen at the London headquarters of the Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X, as the SSPX is called in Latin: wake up at 6:00 a.m., first prayers at 6:30, mass at 7:15, lunch at 12:45 p.m., rosary at 6:30, evening prayers at 9:00.

To the right of the entrance is the library, which has a separate cupboard for banned books. Guarded by two statues, one of Jesus and one of the Virgin Mary, a sign clearly identifies the dangerous publications in the cabinet as “Heresies/Errors.” On the top shelf is a book by the liberal German theologian Karl Rahner, a key influence on the Second Vatican Council, and next to it is a book that, though considered an authority by more than a billion Catholics, is far too modern for the SSPX: the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Williamson lives on the second floor. This is where the bishop, who likes to perform lieder by Robert Schumann, removes his heavy bishop’s ring and plays works by German composers on the piano. “Music,” he says, “is an expression of harmony or disharmony in human souls.”

He also spends much of his time surfing the Internet, where he has loyal fans. There are 520 people registered as friends on his Facebook page, and hundreds read his columns on the Web, which he writes under the pen name “Dinoscopus” — a made-up word derived from dinosaur and episcopus (the Latin word for bishop). He cultivates his image as a reactionary and as keeper of the pure faith. Living in a large city is harmful, he recently pontificated while glancing at the tennis courts. It gets in the way of and destroys marriages, he said, turns young men into “washcloths” that are “washed out by liberalism,” so much so that “their common sense is diluted.”

Williamson is a sophisticated man who delivers powerful sermons. He is a literary scholar with a Cambridge degree who speaks perfect French, German and Spanish. He is also vain, appreciating refined manners and expensive clothes, and he forgets the world around him when he plays Beethoven. And he is someone who believes that no Jews were killed in the Third Reich’s gas chambers.

‘We Have Lost One of Our Four Bishops’

Bishop Fellay, Williamson’s superior, looks distressed as he sits in his office at Schwandegg Palace in Menzingen, Switzerland. He fervently hopes “that Williamson doesn’t explode.” The palace offers a sweeping view of Alpine foothills in the canton of Zug, where the old spa town sits atop a 900-meter (2,950-foot) mountain. The voices of oblates, devout lay women who help the priests run the household, can be heard in the hallways.

“We have lost one of our four bishops,” says Fellay. “We can’t use him for anything anymore.” He is struggling with himself and history, trying to find the right words and the appropriate amount of distance to the matter. He finds the whole thing “incredibly unpleasant,” and says that he had believed that “the bishop had understood things better in the meantime.” But unfortunately Williamson did not understand. Fellay says that his personal belief is that the Holocaust is “obviously” a fact.

But not all of his brothers are willing to agree. Shortly after the Williamson scandal broke in early 2009, an Italian priest, Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, speculated that the gas chambers may have been used merely “for disinfection,” and that Erich Priebke, a former captain in the SS who was involved in and later convicted of the shootings of hundreds of civilians in Italy, was in fact not an executioner. This too was “unpleasant” for the SSPX leadership.

On the other hand, the whole debate has had its advantages. Because of Williamson, the SSPX has acquired a level of notoriety unprecedented since its establishment in 1969 by the renegade French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Ultra-conservatives have always loved the Pius Brothers, and now they are becoming heroes of the right-wing, anti-modernist movement. What should a superior general like Fellay do about this?

Appealing to Extremists
“We have an appeal for extremists, who we don’t even want,” says Fellay, for whom questions of faith are ultimately the most important issues. One of those questions of faith revolves around who should have the say in religious matters in Switzerland: the church, with its beautiful churches and bell towers, or the mosques, with their minarets? This is why Fellay has fueled the recent debate in Switzerland over banning minarets. In fact, he welcomed the debate, because, as he says, Islam is “aggressive in general.”

On the other hand, the Pius disciples are perfectly calm and understanding when it comes to the mendacious and hate-filled speech coming from their own ranks. None of Williamson’s colleagues get upset when the bishop writes disparagingly about women in his blog, calling them “less than zeroes” and insisting that they are “under the power of the man.” “He should be your master,” he writes.

The Catholic brothers in Stuttgart showed their aggressive side against gays by staging a protest against the city’s Christopher Street Day parade, which celebrates gay pride. The priests held up signs that read “Save Children from Perversion,” and one of them condemned the event as “moral pollution.” He neglected to mention his fellow SSPX member’s denial of the Holocaust.

‘Fever in the Body of the Church’

To avoid misunderstandings, the ultra-conservatives have even hired their own PR specialist, Rudolph Lobmeyr, who once worked for the Austrian national public broadcaster ORF in Vienna, to explain the benefits of the Pius campaign to the public. “Fabric-softener faith is no longer wanted,” he says. He insists that people are looking for decisive leadership and want to be able to divide the world into good and evil — just as the SSPX does when it rages against gays, women and journalists. “It’s a reflection of the desires of many people, and it’s the secret to the society’s growing popularity,” Lobmeyr says.

“We are merely the thermometer indicating the fever in the body of the church,” says SSPX leader Bishop Fellay. The society claims to have 600,000 supporters. It maintains six seminaries, 14 districts, 161 priories and 725 mass centers and is active in 1,000 locations worldwide. The society is growing in the United States, Asia and Africa.

It was this potential that the pope had in mind when he lifted the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops last year. Benedict is a traditionalist and, like the Pius Brothers, he loves the Latin mass, shares their ideas about morality and sometimes despairs of modern society, which could turn a sentence Williamson uttered on a Swedish television program into a global scandal.

Fellay reports triumphantly that the pope himself — in keeping with the SSPX’s demands — apparently no longer places communion wafers into the hands of the faithful, but directly into their mouths. For Fellay, this represents yet another success in the battle against the modern church.

Growing Congregation
It is noon in the more than 700-year-old church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris, which has been occupied by the SSPX since 1977. All masses here are mumbled in accordance with the Latin ritual, accompanied by Gregorian chants, with the priest turning his back on the congregation — all standard practices for centuries, until the Second Vatican Council destroyed the traditions. A noticeably large number of young people are kneeling on the cold stone floor, and the air is heavy with incense smoke.

The Paris branch of the SSPX has noticed a sharp increase in church attendance since the beginning of last year. The priests have had to increase their weekly supply of communion wafers by 300 wafers, so that there will be enough to place on the tongues of the faithful. Perhaps the Holocaust scandal was responsible for the rise in attendance, or perhaps the new additions to the flock were encouraged by the pope’s lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops — or perhaps both factors played a role.

France is the society’s stronghold. It now has 100,000 supporters there, and 4,000 children attend its schools. Traditionalists see the movement as the future of Catholicism.

Strange Ideas
Niklaus Pfluger has just returned from mass at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet. In the hierarchy of the order, the Swiss priest is second only to Bishop Fellay. When Williamson shocked the church a year ago by denying the Holocaust in an interview, Fellay immediately sent Pfluger to Argentina, where Williamson was staying at the time, to stop the renegade bishop from talking to the media.

Pfluger is still puzzled about the motives of his fellow SSPX member. Sitting in the Bistrot Saint Honoré in Paris, over a plate of mussels and a glass of 2002 Ladoix 1er Cru, he attempts to piece together an explanation. Williamson, he says, happens to be a first-class provocateur and has always had strange ideas. Right away on Sept. 11, 2001, he claimed that the US government had staged the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. He also claims that it wasn’t Japan but the White House that ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor, in an effort to draw the Americans into World War II.

During a sermon in the Canadian province of Quebec in April 1989, Williamson said that the Jews had invented Auschwitz as a way to derive certain benefits. Someone filed a criminal complaint against him, and Williamson has done his best to avoid Quebec ever since.

“He is actually an artist and not a scholar,” says Pfluger. “He gets an idea into his head, becomes fixated on it and exaggerates. But he doesn’t study the documents.” He calls Williamson a “ticking time bomb” for his organization, but he also points out that the bishop has many merits, and that he shouldn’t be “exiled to the Moon.”

Unpredictable Behavior
Pfluger is also concerned about the health of the 69-year-old bishop, who has apparently had Parkinson’s disease for several years. Could this explain his moody, unpredictable behavior? Pfluger and his fellow Pius Brothers have often been irritated by the emails they receive on a regular basis from London. In a recent email, Williamson wrote that “1.3 million deported people” were not gassed in the Treblinka, Majdanek, Belzec and Sobibor concentration camps, but were simply transported to the part of the Soviet Union that was occupied by Germany. Ridiculous rumors to the contrary, Williamson added, should be ignored.

The society is also aware of Williamson’s contacts with Ingrid Rimland, the wife of Ernst Zündel, who is currently in a German prison after having been convicted of incitement to Holocaust denial. Rimland continues to disseminate her husband’s theories.

The bishop is also in touch via email with Swiss Holocaust denier Jürgen Graf, who is being sought by German, French and Swiss authorities. Graf believes that the idea of extermination camps was a Jewish invention. He plans to publish a new book about the Sobibor extermination camp, where about 250,000 Jews were killed in the gas chambers, entitled “Sobibor. Myth and Reality.” Graf says that he hopes Williamson will “write an introduction” to his book.

The priests paid particular attention when Williamson, at the beginning of the year, described his sojourn in London as an “unplanned but pleasant sabbatical.” It sounded as if he had had enough of the tennis skirts at Wimbledon, and was ready to start speaking out in public again.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,675163-3,00.html

Be aware that the US Department of State has partnered with the Israeli government and various thought police NGOs to “monitor” exposure of the truth about Judaism and Zionism online. Both the Israeli government and elite Zionists around the world advocate Internet censorship of World War II revisionism (“Holocaust denial”).  Elie Wiesel recently urged the government of Hungary to improve its image by jailing revisionist historians. Germany, the close ally of the US and the Israelis, jails revisionists and censors the Internet. The US is complicit in the German repression. Obama has met with German jailer Angela Merkel and praised her “democratic values.”

Google acts as the enforcement arm of the religion of Holocaustianity, protecting it from scrutiny, skepticism and exposure. We are reproducing here correspondence from Google related to Google Inc.’s 2006 censorship of two of our revisionist videos from the Internet. What does Mrs. Clinton have to say about Google’s censorship?

Google has been notified that your videos violate our Program Policies
The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message.

According to our policy, we are removing the following videos:

World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan
Deborah Lipstadt, “Amalek” and David Irving

To review our Program Policies please visit:
http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=27737&topic=1490

If you believe this removal was done in error, please respond to this
email. (End quote)

Feb. 22, 2006

***

The Google corporation defines “Holocaust” revisionism as “hate speech,” and on that basis withdrew the Lipstadt and Provan videos from broadcast. The censored Lipstadt video demonstrated how “Holocaust” High Priestess Lipstadt had labeled historian David Irving “Amalek,” which is incitement that could possibly lead to his death. The censored Charles Provan video consisted of an interview with a researcher who believes in the gas chambers and differs with mainstream historians only on certain details. Hence, even belief in the gas chambers, when it is not total belief, in every single detail of the “Holocaust” story, now constitutes “hate speech.” If this is not totalitarianism, what is?  Google initially approved these two videos and broadcast them for approximately one month. The videos were removed only due to outside pressure.

Deborah Lipstadt has publicly labeled my “Amalek” video about her, “revolting.”

In 2006 in the Washington Post, William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz chastised the American media for having failed to publish the cartoons against Muhammad which first appeared in Denmark: “…radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists…”

Radical Judaics are also winning a war of intimidation. They have cowed Google into censoring a video critical of Deborah Lipstadt, and another video which maintains that the execution gas chambers existed, but that they were operated mainly by Judaics. Are “intimidation” and “capitulation” only wrong when they emanate from Islamic coercion? What about Judaic intimidation of the media? It must be at a higher level of power and control, because unlike the Islamic version, Judaic intimidation is not publicized in the US media. It is perpetrated largely without the knowledge of the public.

FROM: GOOGLE VIDEO SUPPORT

To: Michael A. Hoffman II

Date: Wed Feb 22, 2006 08:00:17 PM PST

Subject: Re: [#47515979] Re: Google Video Policy Violation

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your email. We received complaints that your content violates our posted policy against hate speech.

Because the videos appear to promote Holocaust Revisionism, in violation of our policy against hate speech, we have removed the videos.

We appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely, The Google Video Team  (end quote)

Today the New York Times made reference to denying “the scope of the Holocaust.” I predict that soon we will have a category for those who deny the dimensions of the “Holocaust.”

General Eisenhower, Winston Churchill and Charles DeGaulle were all deniers, because in their published memoirs, collectively totaling 7,500 pages, they never mentioned gas chambers or a “Holocaust” – not once! Neither did Pope Pius XII. Why then are we obligated to believe in an alleged event (extermination in “gas chambers”) which these top World War II leaders did not even regard as worthy of mention? How can a binding obligation be imposed on us when Churchill, Eisenhower, DeGaulle and Pope Pius XII did not accept such an obligation? Is the obligation somehow retroactive?

From the N.Y. Times, Dec. 23, 2009:

“The decision by Benedict — a German who was an unwilling member of the Hitler Youth — to move Pius closer to sainthood was the latest in a series of controversies. It comes less than a year after he revoked the excommunication of a schismatic bishop who had denied the scope of the Holocaust, an act that caused the pope and the Vatican to issue a series of extensive clarifications…the Vatican hoped the pope’s expected visit to the Rome synagogue next month would ‘reaffirm’ ties between the two religions.”

When Raymonde Fiol was 6 years old, she was smuggled out of a Nazi internment camp “under the noses of the Germans.” The young Jewish girl hid with a French family for the duration of World War II. Holocaust survivors such as Fiol are volunteering to speak to students at local schools “because we can show them what really happened.”

Her resolve to do so is fueled by the recent uproar caused by a Clark County School District gym teacher, who is accused of telling students the Holocaust did not occur.

“We’re outraged,” said Fiol, 73, the president of Holocaust Survivors of Southern Nevada. The group has about 300 members, half of whom are survivors of the genocide. Their spouses also are members.

“This is an affront to us all,” Fiol said. The names of Fiol’s parents, David and Liba Nathanson, are engraved on a memorial in Bulson, a French village northeast of Reims where they worked as forced laborers until they were deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, where they were killed.

The survivors’ group once had a “speakers bureau that went into the schools,” Fiol said. “However, I think it fell apart. I’m going to try and resurrect it. That’s my intent because these schools really need it.”

Lori Sublette, a gym teacher at the Northwest Career and Technology Academy, a magnet high school, is accused by students of denying the Holocaust in class in November. The 51-year-old teacher is on leave with pay as the district investigates.

In the wake of the controversy, Michael Rodriguez, a district spokesman, said Northwest is considering several options, including inviting guest speakers to special assemblies to teach students about the Holocaust.

Several students from Northwest, on Tropical Parkway near Durango Drive, have sent e-mails to the Review-Journal, saying that stories about the teacher’s Holocaust denial have been overblown and that Sublette is entitled to her opinions and freedom of speech.

A call to Sublette’s home was not returned Tuesday. She previously has refused to answer questions. Under district policy, teachers are not supposed to speak on topics outside their expertise.

Some students worry that Sublette might be fired. “This is America, and she has the right to express her opinion. While a classroom might not be the right place to do that, she still should not be penalized for it,” one student said in an e-mail. He requested anonymity. T

he same student disputed the perception that the teacher’s comments helped create a poisonous atmosphere at the school. “Mrs. Sublette never said anything threatening … towards Jewish people or anyone, she just stated her disbelief in the matter. That was all, nothing threatening or bigoted in that, right?”

Another student, who said he is Jewish, said he never felt “singled out” in Sublette’s gym class. He said his religion is so well-known at Northwest that many of his peers simply call him “Jew.”

Also at Northwest, Clark County school police are investigating a threatening text message received by a different Jewish student. The text mentions cutting the throats of “slut(t)y Jews.” The writer claimed to be related to Adolf Hitler. School police Lt. Ken Young said he did not want to rush to conclusions about the nature of the crime, saying, “We don’t have enough information at this point to substantiate it as a hate crime.”

What is not in doubt is the Holocaust survivors’ contempt for the thinking that Holocaust denial can be defended as “opinion.” “This is not opinion,” Fiol said. “This is an outright lie. You don’t fabricate it. Tell it to the 6 million people who died. Oh, no. It didn’t happen. How can she even think of saying that? That’s definitely anti-Semitic, it’s anti-Gypsy, it’s anti-homosexual; it’s anti-everything. I’m sorry. It’s not an opinion.”

The evidence, she said, is overwhelming. “All the German records have been opened,” Fiol said. “The Germans kept a lot of records. They wrote it. It was in their handwriting how many people they slaughtered.”

Edwin Black, the New York Times bestselling author of “Nazi Nexus” and other books on the Holocaust, said the Holocaust was different from earlier acts of genocide because it was “industrialized.”

The Nazis took advantage of technology to track and identify Jews, confiscate their assets and ship them to death camps. So Black was astounded to hear comments about Holocaust denial from a teacher at a technology academy.

One student said Sublette told her class that the Nazis did not have the technology to carry out the Holocaust. “One of two factors is at play: extreme ignorance or extreme bigotry,” Black said. “Neither one has a place in a technologic school.”

Contact reporter James Haug at jhaug@reviewjournal.com or 702-374-7917

A Northwest Career and Technical Academy teacher is accused of denying the Holocaust happened and telling students that the Nazis lacked the technology to kill so many Jews, one senior said.

Jewish students said the teacher’s comments have circulated widely and have created a poisonous atmosphere at the public school, which has led other students to make anti-Semitic jokes and threats against them.

One such threat is being investigated by Clark County School District police as a possible hate crime, district officials and involved students and parents confirmed on Thursday.

The investigation involves a text message sent to multiple students that said: “Men are supposed to act like men and not be pansy asses … only girls are allowed to be that way you slut(t)y Jews … Please feel free to (forward message) or I will slit your throats personally … And yes I’m related to Hitler.”

Lori Sublette, the teacher accused of denying the Holocaust, has not apologized to students for her comments, said 17-year-old Katie Piranio, a student in Sublette’s “advocacy class,” a weekly course intended to prepare teens for life after high school.

When the Review-Journal reached Sublette on Thursday and asked if she had denied the Holocaust happened, the teacher did not answer the question. ”I would have to talk to my principal (Frank Pesce),” Sublette said. “I’m not in the position to respond to anything like this.”

District spokesman Michael Rodriguez said disciplinary action is being taken against the teacher but would not provide details, saying the issue is a “personnel matter.”

Outraged parents are criticizing both school and district officials for what they view as a “cowardly” and blasé response to the incident at the campus on West Tropical Parkway, near Durango Drive.

Piranio said the teacher originally made the comments on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. Students were discussing ways to decorate the classroom door for a holiday contest.

The discussion went off on a tangent when a student brought up the Holocaust. The World War II genocide is estimated to have killed more than 6 million European Jews and millions of Gypsies, homosexuals and other religious and ethnic minorities.

Students said Sublette disputed much of what is known about the Holocaust. ”It was ridiculous what she was saying,” Piranio said. “I was afraid to challenge her, because she was so into what she was saying.”

Piranio said Sublette told students that history textbooks have inaccurate information and Holocaust photographs were doctored or distorted. She also said Sublette said in class that some Holocaust photographs were actually taken during an earlier time period in Russia.

After Piranio’s father complained to school officials, Sublette called him to apologize, but only for giving her “opinion” in class, Katie Piranio said.

As a matter of district policy, teachers are not supposed to speak about subjects outside their expertise. Sublette is a full-time gym teacher with a bachelor’s degree in kinesiology from the University of Washington and a master’s degree from Arizona’s Grand Canyon University, according to the school’s Web site. Sublette was in her classroom when the Review-Journal called her Thursday. Students said she is still teaching.

While one parent said he did not think the school was trying to “pooh-pooh” the issue, others were outraged. ”Let’s wake up,” said Ilana Levinsky, whose daughter is in Sublette’s gym class. “I don’t think she needs to be teaching. The last thing we need is another (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad teaching in the Clark County school system,” said Levinsky, referring to the Iranian president who disputes the Holocaust happened.

Phyllis Friedman, regional director for the Anti-Defamation League of Nevada, said Las Vegas is home to many Holocaust survivors and their children. Friedman said the city has a progressive reputation in educating the public about the genocide. Friedman was unaware of the allegations against the Northwest Career and Technical Academy teacher until Thursday. ”I hope to all get-out it’s not true,” she said. “Unfortunately, Holocaust deniers are out there, much to my amazement.”

Contact reporter James Haug at jhaug@reviewjournal.com or 702-374-7917.

Editor’s Note: “Holocaust denial” (note the strongly religious-heresy connotation, i.e. denial of an infallible truth), is an all-consuming obsession with Judaism and Zionism’s thought cops. The crime of “denial” is a function of the religion of Holocaustianity itself, which serves as a rationale for the abridgment of freedom of speech. Israeli law Professor Amnon Rubinstein announces (he does not attempt to argue or persuade) that doubting what Zionists and rabbis decree to be true (“The Holocaust” in all its myriad claims and manifestations) is outside the protected perimeters of freedom of speech. The title of his essay, “Freedom of expression belongs to professors and students alike” is therefore, the usual Pharisee malarky and hypocrisy.

These imperial Israeli personalities are not above a little “Holocaust denial” of their own, however. Rubinstein, for example, casually dismisses the Israeli holocaust in Jenin as “a famously imaginary massacre,” while the inventor of the “Holocaust denial” taxonomy itself, Deborah Lipstadt, is on record denying the Allied holocaust in Dresden, Germany. But that’s okay. Rubinstein and Lipstadt are members of the Holy People and as such, they have the sovereign right to deny holocausts against Germans and Palestinians; but don’t you get it into your noodle to doubt claims of gas chamber mass murder in Auschwitz. If you can grasp and submit to that logic, you’re well on your way to rabbinic ordination. –Michael Hoffman

According to a recent report in Ha’aretz, students at Tel Aviv University are complaining bitterly about leftist professors. The students are said to be hurt by the professors’ positions, “but are afraid to express contrary views, lest this harm their grades.”

So wrote Prof. Nira Hativa, head of the university’s center for advancement of teaching. She added that in many end-of-year feedback forms, students complained about professors who “attack the state of Israel, the IDF, the Zionist movement and even worse than that.”

She also added that the complaints allege that “Leftist professors, as distinct from rightist ones, feel absolutely free to express their political views, even when there is no relevance whatsoever to the subject they teach.”

The head of the university’s student union tells of similar student complaints, and the talkbacks to this news item – whatever their credibility – also told about students who are afraid to argue with such professors.

This news item did not surprise me. A small group of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel faculty members has turned Tel Aviv University into a podium from which to broadcast their political propaganda.

Two notable instances: a group of 30 professors signed a pro-Iranian petition last year warning against Israeli and American designs and “adventurism” against the Islamic Republic, without even mentioning its president’s threat to wipe Israel off the map and his Holocaust-denying outbursts.

The second example was a conference held by the Tel Aviv Law School in which the subject was the alleged mistreatment of “political prisoners” (i.e. convicted Palestinian terrorists) that invited, as guest speaker, a released prisoner sentenced to 27 years in jail for throwing a bomb into a Jewish civilian bus.

This is not academic freedom. This is using academic podiums to deliver Israel-bashing propaganda. When I taught at Columbia University, I could see how TAU guest professors would stoke the flames of anti-Israel rhetoric; one of them insisted that the university show the film Jenin, Jenin, which charges Israel with perpetrating a famously imaginary massacre.

The usual defense of these TAU excesses is that all professors are entitled to academic freedom. This is inherently true in principle. Academic freedom, a special niche of the freedom of speech principle enshrined in Israeli law, should incorporate marginal and iconoclastic views. This is especially true in a society like Israel which suffers from a constant state of emergency and stress.

But academic freedom, like all human rights, is not unlimited. Austrian and German courts rightly decided that Holocaust denial is not protected speech; Jean Paul Sartre went further, believing that all anti-Semitic expressions are unprotected by the right to freedom of speech.


A call to boycott Israel, such as was made by a lecturer at Ben-Gurion University’s political science department, is certainly unprotected, in a similar way to the Supreme Court’s ruling that a party which seeks the destruction of Israel cannot run in the Knesset elections.

But there is one further point: academics cannot seek shelter behind their much-touted freedom, while denying the students’ right to express their own opinions. If what is alleged in Ha’aretz is true, then these TAU professors are violating the law. Article 5 of the Student’s Rights Law states this explicitly: “Every student has the freedom to express his views and opinions as to the contents of the syllabus and the values incorporated therein.” In other words, the students, too, have a measure of academic freedom. If the allegations made by the students – probably mainly in TAU’s social sciences departments – are true, the university is violating the students’ lawful rights. (End quote; emphasis supplied)

The writer is a professor of law at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, a former education minister and Knesset member, as well as the recipient of the 2006 Israel Prize in Law.

*******

Editor’s Note: The U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI), led by Mr. Eli Rosenbaum, is a taxpayer-funded agency of the Federal government which never arrests or prosecutes Judaic Communist or Israeli war criminals. It is solely constituted as an extension of Israeli Talmudic vengeance against accused Nazis. This is an unconstitutional use of Federal power and a flagrant example of the manipulation of Big Government to serve the interests of a foreign power, but you won’t hear a peep of protest from the Sarah Palins on the Right wing about it. What scares the yarmulkes off the OSI witch-hunters is that the previously sound-asleep goyim of Eastern Europe, who were on the receiving end of the loving caresses of the Judiac Communist war criminals who ruled over them for decades, are starting to demand equal justice, always an affront to the Talmudic mentality. –Michael Hoffman

European anti-Semites are pushing a new line “more pernicious than Holocaust denial” to denigrate the murder of six million Jews, warns veteran Nazi hunter Efraim Zuroff. Particularly in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, prominent politicians are trying to persuade the European Union’s parliament to formally equate Nazi and Communist crimes as equally horrendous genocides.


The not so subtle subtext of this proposal is to point to persecutions by “Jewish Communists” of the patriotic citizens of the three countries during the post-war Soviet domination of the Baltic and East European countries.

A major goal of this campaign is to minimize or rationalize the active collaboration with the Nazis by the police and militia of the Baltic states in the killing of Jews, Zuroff said. Zuroff, who has been tracking down Nazis for 30 years as the point man for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, looked back last week on his triumphs and failures at a press conference and public talk at the Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance, and in a new book, Last Chance: One Man’s Quest to Bring Nazi Criminals to Justice (2009, Palgrave MacMillan).

During his talk surveying the high and low points of his career, Zuroff, a native New Yorker who heads the Wiesenthal Center’s Jerusalem office, opened with some “good news.” During the last two months, four men on his list of the top 10 living men accused of Nazi war crimes have been extradited or readied for trial. They are former concentration camp guard John (Ivan) Demjanjuk; Sandor Kepiro, a former Hungarian policeman accused of participation in the Novi Sad massacre of 4,000 Serbs, Jews and Romas; Charles Zentai , a former Hungarian soldier who allegedly beat an 18-year old Jew to death for not wearing a yellow star; and Heinrich Boere, a leader of a Dutch SS death squad.

Since 2001, there have been 82 successful prosecutions of war criminals, but 702 cases are still on file and time is running out, Zuroff, 61, said. “I expect to continue my work for another three or four years, by which time the last of the war criminals will be gone,” he said. During a separate news conference, Zuroff made public a Wiesenthal Center study ranking more than 30 countries on their willingness and efforts to go after surviving Nazi war criminals. The best showing was by the United States, which has been responsible for 37 of the 82 successful legal actions worldwide against accused war criminals. Much of the credit goes to the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations, whose director, Eli Rosenbaum, participated in the news conference.

In addition to the prosecutions, federal authorities have prevented more than 180 persons implicated in war crimes from entering the United States. Rosenbaum said that “It’s precisely because we have been proactive and so tenacious in pursuing these cases over decades that you see fewer now.” High marks for continued active prosecutions went to former Axis partners Germany and Italy. Poland has also been cooperative, but the kudos ended there. Countries taking little or no action include Norway and Sweden, which cited their statues of limitation as barriers to continued prosecution. Other countries remained largely passive, lacking either the political will or know-how to launch investigations, Zuroff said. These countries include Australia, Austria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuanian and the Ukraine. Asked to name his most successful and most frustrating cases during his Nazi hunting career, Zuroff named Kepiro in the former category and Dr. Aribert Heim in the latter. Kepiro, one of the alleged organizers of the Novi Sad massacre, was tracked down by Zuroff and his allies along a circuitous trail, running from Argentina to Scotland to Hungary. Heim, though not as well known as his fellow physician and SS officer Dr. Josef Mengele, was just as sadistic in his medical experiments and was nicknamed “Dr. Death” by inmates of the Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria. Heim, an Austrian himself, was the top target of “Operation Last Chance,” with rewards totaling about $450,000 on his head and the target of police inquiries in 22 countries. After an intensive four-year hunt for Heim by Zuroff, the New York Times reported that Heim had found ultimate refuge in Cairo, had converted to Islam, and died in 1992. (End quote; emphasis supplied)

*******

Editor’s Note: There is no U.S. “State Department special envoy to monitor and combat” anti-Christianism, anti-Germanism or anti-Palestinianism. Only so-called “anti-semitism” enjoys this unique protective “monitoring” (i.e. surveillance and spying) function of the Federal government. Partisan politicos please note: long before President Obama engaged this “special envoy”, the State Department under Republican George W. Bush had it fully–and rabidly–implemented. Let’s see what that great Jeffersonian Glenn Beck has to say about this outrageous violation of Jefferson’s separation of Church and State doctrine, which went up in smoke many years ago – to be specific – on the day Ronald Reagan dedicated the synagogue disguised as the U.S. Holocaust Museum on priceless taxpayer-owned real estate in Washington D.C. –Michael Hoffman

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Hannah Rosenthal knows her new position fighting anti-Semitism will include responding to anti-Jewish attacks and rhetoric, but she also figures to be heavily involved in outreach, too. “I expect there will be some reactive things when hate rears its ugly head,” said Rosenthal, who started work Monday as the State Department’s new special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism.

“But I see some of this as proactive, being an ambassador and educator to organizations, to activists, to people in various parts of the world, on the importance of viewing anti-Semitism as a human rights issue.”

Acknowledging it may sound a little “hokey,” she said it’s about “participating in some strategies that will build tolerance and make the world a better place.” Following a stint in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, Rosenthal served from 2000 to 2005 as executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), an umbrella group comprised of the major synagogue movements, national organizations and local Jewish communities across North America. Most recently she was the vice president for community relations for the not-for-profit WPS Health Insurance Co. in Madison, Wisc.

Rosenthal, 58, a former rabbinical student, is the daughter of a rabbi who was the only member of his family to survive the Holocaust. She says she comes from a family that “believed in relationship building and that the worst danger Jews face is isolation,” so her personal and professional lives have been devoted to “enlarging the tent and enlarging the table.” Conservative bloggers have criticized the nomination, noting that Rosenthal served on the advisory board of J Street, an organization that has called repeatedly for robust debate about Israel-Palestinian issues while backing U.S. pressure on Israel and the Palestinians in pursuit of a two-state solution, criticizing Israel’s invasion of Gaza and opposing new anti-Iranian sanctions at this time. Critics also point to an opinion piece that she wrote in The New York Jewish Week in which she asserted that pro-Israel events were being “dominated by narrow, ultra-conservative views of what it means to be pro-Israel.” Conservative bloggers also noted that Abraham Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, issued an open letter criticizing Rosenthal’s claims. Foxman could not be reached for comment — his office said he was on a plane. But the ADL did issue a statement quoting Foxman as saying that “this appointment signals the continued seriousness of America’s resolve to fight anti-Semitism.” Rosenthal said that she has served as a member of J Street’s advisory council because “there’s genuine concern about how we proceed in the Middle East and I happen to believe that the status quo is unacceptable.” She believes that some of the controversy over J Street can be attributed to generational issues. “If the older generation doesn’t look to the younger generation for ideas and support,” she said, “we’re going to be isolated and so will Israel.” Rosenthal said the Middle East will be one of the areas with which she’ll be dealing in her new job. “Some of the criticism Israel sees and its isolation in the United Nations clearly comes from a place of anti-Semtism, but not all of it does,” she said. “We need to call out anti-Semitism when it’s there.”

Rosenthal said she also is concerned about the increase in Holocaust denial around the world, especially from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as reports of recent upsurges in anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Holocaust denial “is despicable,” she said. “Anyone who denies the Holocaust happened must be confronted immediately.”

Rosenthal said she didn’t seek the anti-Semitism position — she actually was advocating for someone else in the role — when Obama administration official Michael Posner suggested she might be the right person for the job. Rosenthal knew Posner, now the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, from her time at JCPA. “I was comfortable in Madison, Wisc.,” she said. “But he was very insistent.” Rabbi Steve Gutow, who succeeded Rosenthal at the helm of JCPA and has known her since the early 1990s, said he thinks Rosenthal is “ideal for this position” because not only is she a committed Jew, but she has a talent for “seeing under the surface” and a “disarming way about her.” Rosenthal has that “sort of let’s have a conversation” type of personality, Gutow said, in which she can sit down with those who claim they are not anti-Semitic and “help them be able to see it.” Rosenthal’s predecessor in the anti-Semitism post, Gregg Rickman, said he doesn’t know Rosenthal, but “I don’t doubt for one second her qualifications and think she’ll do a marvelous job.” Rickman said he hopes she will pay particular attention to venues such as the U.N. Human Rights Council, which he said is dedicated to solely going after Israel, and Arab countries, where bias against Jews is often cloaked in clever language. “If she’s unequivocal” on that, he said, “she’ll be very successful.” (End quote; emphasis supplied)

November 19, 2009 SYDNEY, Australia (JTA) — A Holocaust denier released from an Australian jail after publishing material offensive to Jews says he is “unbroken” and “unrepentant.” Dr. Fredrick Toben, the founder of the Adelaide Institute, emerged from three months in a South Australia prison on Nov. 12.
The Federal Court had found him in breach of a 2002 court order to remove all offensive material from his institute’s Web site.

Toben’s site this week carried a message saying that he is “unbroken and unrepentant,” and appears “refreshed and relaxed” after his “little holiday.”

The site features three links to video clips on YouTube during which Toben, 65, vows to continue his work “demolishing the Holocaust.”

 It also carries a banner saying that “The days are numbered for the greatest lie in the history of mankind.”

Toben also spent two months in Wandsworth Prison last year as German authorities tried unsuccessfully to extradite him on a European Arrest Warrant for publishing Holocaust denial material — a crime in Germany. Toben was arrested at Heathrow Airport on his way to Dubai from America.

He had spent several months in prison in Germany in 1999 for denying the Holocaust.