The Definitive Source For News On Jews

We are pleased to announce a very fine response to our “On the Contrary” opinion poll on Ernst Zundel.

A total of 824 persons voted in the course of four days. An overwhelming majority voted in support of Ernst.

That’s nearly eight hundred votes in the space of just few days, with no publicity other than what we ourselves generated in “The Hoffman Wire” (our e-mail service that transmits our columns via electronic mail*), at our website and on this, our “On the Contrary” blog, where the poll was conducted.

Other than a couple of Hoffman Wire readers who spread the word via private e-mail, the poll was not publicized by any other group, and yet with our limited resources almost 800 people took the time to visit our blog and vote to show their support for Mr. Zundel. If our poll is any representative sample of worldwide sentiment, then Ernst Zundel has not only not been forgotten, he is lionized.

We thank everyone who participated. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that we are seeking to raise the funds needed to reprint my long out of print 1985 book, The Great Holocaust Trial, about the first of the two show trials the government of Canada prosecuted against Ernst, both of which he won on appeal. Naturally I am biased in favor of the first trial because I reported it from the press gallery and it is one of the few instances on record of “Holocaust survivors” and “homicidal gas chamber eyewitnesses” being cross-examined by a defense attorney – and not just any attorney – rather by the skilled and relentless Doug Christie, backed by the brilliant research of revisionist historian Dr. Robert Faurisson.

The last resort of every Auschwitz execution gas chamber zealot is the familiar shibboleth, “We have eyewitnesses!” This is supposed to represent the final coffin in the nail of revisionist doubts. Alas, poor mythomaniacs, you can never be the same after what the Zundel defense team did to you 25 years ago, from January through March, 1985. As G.K. Chesterton observed, “A lie is only young once,” which makes the Auschwitz execution gas chamber lie as old as sin.

In the course of the Great Holocaust Trial, the testimony of the key witness of the famous War Refugee Board, Rudolf Vrba, was shredded, along with that of former Auschwitz inmate Arnold Friedman and others. Famed holohoax historian Prof. Raul Hilberg was left a pile of quivering jello as he replied, when asked by Mr. Christie to furnish even one scientific report proving mass murder by gassings, “I’m at a loss.”

Bringing The Great Holocaust Trial book back into print on the 25th anniversary of the trial and in the year Mr. Zundel valiantly emerged from his German-Zionist dungeon – with his head high and a smiling countenance – will be a resounding refutation of the notion of foolish advocates of tyranny, that revisionism is in retreat.

Revisionism is fueled and strengthened by heroism in the face of enormous odds and martyrdom in the face of demands to recant and capitulate. Ernst was not killed by the fanatic partisans of the cult of Holocaustianity, but many a lesser man’s mind and spirit would have been broken by the years in prison, including two in solitary confinement in a Canadian dungeon. Seven years of his life were lost, and for what offense? The “crime” of daring to doubt an edifice that cannot endure doubts. Truth does not require dungeons to protect its credibility, only a lie so immense.

Congratulations to you, Ernst Zundel. Almost 800 percipients of our little Internet presence, 96% of all who responded, have rightly declared you a hero and a martyr to the cause of Freedom of Speech. How many opinion polls achieve such unanimity? It is almost unheard of.

The French writer Louis-Ferdinand Celine said, “The elite are an example or they are nothing.”

Zundel is an example!

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)

Yesterday we posted the link to the video of a recent interview Bishop Williamson gave in French to Pierre Panet,  a former candidate for the European elections on the pro-Palestinian ticket of the black revisionist, Dieudonne M’bala M’bala. (Dieudonne was fined the equivalent of $30,000 by a French court for giving a public platform to Prof. Robert Faurisson, a leading World War II revisionist historian). Here follows a transcript of the Panet-Williamson interview translated into English.


Panet: My Lord, hello. Thank you for having accepted this interview. You haven’t done many interviews since February 24 2009 when you had to leave Argentina speedily. How are you doing?

Williamson: I’m doing well, thank you. This is an unexpected sabbatical year, but it’s rather agreeable.

Panet: When did you learn to speak French so well?

Williamson: Since my childhood, well good schools in England were still good schools, and the first foreign language we learned was French.

Panet: And you taught French also?

Williamson: Yes, I did. Yes.

Panet: Can you tell us about the case that is currently being made against you by the courts of Regensburg?

Williamson: It is for Volksverhetzung “racial excitement” because I put into question the 6 million Jews and to question that in Germany is a crime according to German law. Therefore they attack me.

Panet: How are you exercising your ministry at the moment?

Williamson: In sleeping and eating and also I do a blog every week which keeps me occupied with translations, but not much else for the moment. It’s rest.

Panet: Can you give me the link/reference for your blog?

Williamson: You have to access it by http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/ and dinoscopus is half-dinosaur and half-bishop in Latin. Scopus is the second half of “episcopus” and dino the first half of “dinosaur.” So Dinoscopus. But then after one must obtain a password to get on it because we didn’t want it to be public.

Panet: Thank you. Now some questions about current affairs. Some questions about the Middle East. There are some Christians in the Middle East. How do you analyze their situation in relation to resistance groups in Israel such as Hamas or Hezbollah?

Williamson: I know nothing about the relationship between the Christians in the Middle East and these groups of the Arab resistance. All that I know is that there are fewer and fewer Christians in the Holy Land because they are chased out. They do not want them in the Holy Land, therefore out. There are no doubt many ways in which to make pressure, and they leave.

Panet: Does the dialogue between Christians and Muslims seem to you as difficult to establish?

Williamson: There are two questions here. There is the question of peoples and the question of religions. On a question of peoples, good sense suffices for living together, doesn’t it? On the question of religions, for a Catholic who takes seriously the Catholic faith, it’s the only religion which is completely true. All other religions are more or less true, more or less false. Therefore on the religious plane there can be no agreement. It is not possible. But always, in the many of the countries of the Middle East, Christians and Muslims have lived together in peace for centuries because of the force of things. Each recognised that he would not convert the other, therefore we lived together.

There was a cohabition/co-existence. From time to time this was disrupted by a war. Now it is quite disrupted in all the Middle East and has been since 1947 one might say and we don’t know how it will end.

Panet: Now a question about Iran. What should a real Christian do in the face of all this Eastern current—the so-called Christian-Jewish-Lay—which advocates confrontation?

Williamson: The whole question is to know whether a war against Iran would be a Just War and for a Catholic according to the classic principles (and known for centuries) of the Catholic doctrine of Just War. Would it be just to attack Iran? I do not believe that it would be just to attack Iran, according to that Catholic doctrine.

Panet: The state of Israel: Does it have religious or political legitimacy?

Williamson: The question is obviously delicate. Let us say that many people believe it is legitmate. This does not necessarily mean that it is.

Panet: Three questions on faith. Should we not consider the New Testament in being in rupture from the Old Testament and among other things do you believe in the existence of a Chosen People?

Williamson: Well, those are two questions. Firstly, is there rupture between the chrysalis and the butterfly?

Panet: No.

Williamson: Well, that is the exact relationship between the Old Testament and the New. Because St Augustin says the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old becomes clear in the New. [Williamson then quotes the Latin] Yes, that’s the Latin. It is one of those lapidary statements that St Augustine makes which says a lot in a few words.

Panet: What about the Chosen People?

Williamson: There was a Chosen People. The Old Testament had its chosen people. It was the Hebrews and in the moment of Our Lord’s death on the Cross, the Chosen People are no longer chosen according to the flesh or the physical descendents from Abraham… It becomes as St Paul explains clearly in his epistles… the Chosen People are chosen by the faith and descendents from Abraham is through the faith. This means all Catholics and all the Jews who believe and all non-Jews who believe. There are no longer Jews-elect and non-Jews-non-elect, it’s Jew and non-Jew elect if he has the Faith. Everything depends on a faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Panet: How do you consider faith and reason? The distinction that Kant makes between the “noumenon”a nd the “phenomenon.”

Williamson: Imagine an enormous F with a tiny R pressed against the foot of the F. That is faith and reason. Faith infinitely surpasses reason, therefore the supernatural exceeds the natural. Nature is this poor little world that surrounds us with creatures, the sky, the stars, the mountains, the tigers, man. That’s nature. The supernatural: it’s all heaven, it’s all God. The supernatural is infinitely more than the natural. Reason gives us a natural access to nature which is valid in and of itself and neither misunderstood, nor stamped on, nor crushed by the supernatural. [He quotes from Aquinas] Gratia non tollit naturam. Grace does not crush nature. Grace is celebrated by nature. It’s God who has created nature so that man can arrive in heaven. Therefore it is not possible to have a war between grace and nature. It does not stand up. God created both. Equally reason faith, it is God who gives us both our reason and the gift of faith. The two are not contradicting each other. Good reason is perfectly aligned with real faith and it is only false reason which is not aligned with faith and false faith which is not aligned with reason. But the two in themselves are perfectly aligned.

Panet: How do you argue that one can intellectually conceive God but not feel his profound existence? It’s my body. Intellectually I can conceive God.

Williamson: Religion is not a question of feeling. It’s a question of intelligence and will. You have just said that your intelligence can conceive God, therefore your intelligence is the most important part. The feelings/emotions will follow at the end. You are perfectly entitled to say: ‘Lord I do not feel you in anything. I understand with my intelligence that you exist and that you are listening and I pray to you, without feeling it, but I pray.’

Panet: What about “noumenon” and “phenomenon”?

Williamson: The distinction that Kant makes is very dangerous because he concludes that we can only know appearances. Beyond that we cannot know anything. It’s the destruction of reason, theology, the destruction of knowledge and the destruction of the human spirit. And that is the disaster that surrounds us the whole world over. Kant: he’s a criminal of the first order. A criminal.

Panet: But he finds faith again?

Williamson: No, no, no, no, no. Listen. What I want exists. I want God. Therefore God exists. Does that seem good to you?

Panet: Yes

Williamson: Well, no. It is not the desire which creates the reality. You wish for a million euros in your pocket? Do you have them? No. They are not real. Just because I want God doesn’t mean he’s real. I want Father Christmas, that doesn’t mean he exists.

Panet: I’ll think it over.

Williamson: Place some confidence in your intelligence and don’t let it rot by the [word missing…I couldn’t hear it] of Kant.

Panet: And what do you know of the latest between the negotiations between the Fraternity [Society of St Pius X] and the Vatican?

Williamson: I think it will finish by becoming a dialogue of the deaf, because of two things. One: The two positions in themselves are irreconcilable. For example 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 it’s irreconcilable. Therefore of three things, one: either they say 2+2=4 , renounce reality and say 2+2=5 –that is to say the Fraternity would abandon the truth that God forbids us to do or that those who say that 2+2=5 convert and return to the truth or the two come half-way, that means everyone decides that 2+2=4 ½ . It’s wrong. Therefore, either the Fraternity betrays itself or Rome converts, or it is a dialogue of the deaf.

Panet: Still on questions of faith: Did Judas lose the pardon of God?

Williamson: He refused the forgiveness of God.

Panet: Do you mean if he had asked for it he would have received it?

Williamson: Absolutely. With repentance. If he had repented and thrown himself at the foot of the Cross, Our Lord would have forgiven him. Absolutely.

Panet: My last question: I believe that you admire Beethoven a great deal? Which is your favourite work, which touches your heart the most?

Williamson: The Third Symphony. The first movement of the Eroica.