Friday, April 30, 2010

The Accounts of Two Witnesses at the Bishop Williamson Trial

The reader is invited to read two summary accounts of the trial of Bishop Williamson, April 16, in Regensburg, Germany. An independent writer and reporter, Gunter Deckert, (not an SSPX member), provides us with his description and impressions of the event. Deckert sat in the courtroom and witnessed all that happened. His summary can be found on a number of websites. So also, another individual, Marcus Haverkamp, was there. I know little about him. He wrote up another eye witness summary of the Williamson trial, which is posted immediately after Deckert's. His account is also posted on other websites....

Der Ketzer-Prozess gegen Bischof Richard Williamson
The Heresy Trial of Bishop Richard Williamson

By Günter Deckert

Translated by J M Damon

The County Court is in the same courthouse as the District Court, connected to the jail for suspects who are under investigatory arrest.

At the entrance to the courthouse, security is the same as that of the Mannheim Heresy Trials {the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz and others} with magnetic archways and searches of pockets, purses, briefcases, etc., like at the airports.

Only two officials are on duty, a man and woman, and the searches are somewhat lackadaisical.
There is another security check as we enter the main courtroom, again a male-female team.
The representatives of the Establishment media are not searched, however.

There is room in the courtroom for only 19 visitors, in the very back. The rest of the space is reserved for the Establishment media. As the trial gets under way there are several empty seats in the media section and visitors are allowed to take them.

Around 90 persons are present in the courtroom including 35 visitors, interns and trainees.
Present are Lady Michelle Renouf from London, Frau Ursula Haverbeck, Markus Haverkamp, Andreas K. from Berlin and Gerd W. from Zossen / Brandenburg, another a victim of Section 130 {the section of the German Penal Code dealing with “Incitement of the Masses.”} There are no other prominent persons to be seen; if anyone is here from the Munich branch of the NPD (National Party) or NATIONAL-ZEITUNG (its newspaper) I do not see them. There is only one bailiff and he is unarmed.

There is a partition between the section for visitors and media and the Prosecutor’s staff, who are sitting on the right, and the Defense, sitting on the left. The table for the witnesses is between the other two. Two court translators, one English and one for Swedish, are sitting near the partition.

There is only one judge, an attractive blond woman in her thirties who speaks with a Bavarian accent. She is sitting on an elevated podium.

Proceedings begin a little after 9 O’clock. Even though it is known that Bishop Williamson is not coming, media interest is high – even the Südwestrundfunk (Southwestern Broadcasting Corporation) has come from Mainz, both radio and TV. After a few minutes of filming and photographing the media leave, except for a few newspaper reporters.

Judge Karin Frahm (this is not a Bavarian name!) (ed. note: What kind of a name is it, then?) opens the proceedings and invites a bearded, grey haired senior prosecutor to read the rather short indictment. The attorney, who appears to be in his late 50s, informs the Court that three Swedish journalists who were involved in Bishop Williamson’s interview and broadcast were summoned as witnesses but have not responded.

Bishop Williamson’s attorney, Matthias Lossmann of Coburg in Upper Franconia, states that his client would have gladly come but his ecclesiastical order, the Pius Brethren (ed. note: Why SSPX is translated as "Pius Brethren, I haven't a clue), did not give him leave. Judge Frahm declares that the trial can proceed without the accused, and Attorney Lossmann reads a statement of the bishop to the effect that the bishop feels he has been betrayed by Swedish television. Lossmann says his client clearly gave the Swedish reporters to understand that part of their discussion (the part concerning “Holocaust”) should not be broadcast, on account of the proscription expressing such opinions under German law.

The interview, which lasted a little over an hour, had concerned questions of religion, dogma and the Church (1).

FOOTNOTE 1: Bishop Williamson had come to Zaitzhofen, where there is seminar for priests of the Pius Brethren, for the consecration of a Swedish convert from the state church. The leadership of the seminar had allowed Swedish TV to cover the event.

At the very end of the discussion, “out of a clear blue sky,” the interviewer, Ali Fagan (ed. note: definitely not a Swedish name), a BEUTE-SCHWEDE (? “predatory Swede”?) suddenly brought up remarks that Bishop Williamson had made to a Canadian newspaper more than 20 years ago. The reporter had obviously investigated Williamson very closely. Fagan’s questions about Williamson’s past remarks developed into questions and answers, in English, on the subject of “Holocaust,” “Gas Chambers,” “Third Reich,” “Adolf Hitler,” etc.

Attorney Lossmann states that in addition to presenting Williamson’s statement, he intends to call Attorney M. Krah of Dresden as a witness. Krah is the confidential attorney of the Pius Brotherhood in Germany, who recently took over the Williamson case. (ed. note: Krah is no friend of Bp. Williamson, believe me) The judge then asks several questions for the record.

After this, the Court views the broadcasts of Williamson’s statements on Swedish state television as well as re-broadcasts on German television. The complaint against the bishop had been filed by an official in the Criminal Police Department acting on behalf of the Regensburg District Attorney. The visitors are unable to follow all of this because of technical problems – there is no TV screen on the wall. The interpreter translates the English text of the interview word for word.

(As the Jewish media master Michel Friedman cynically remarked in Issue 16 of ZEIT Magazine: “You can say anything you want in Germany, but you must be prepared to pay consequences.”) (ed. note: Apparently a gratuitous parenthetical remark by Deckert)

“Defense Attorney” Lossmann then states his own opinion. He is careful to make perfectly clear that he believes in “the historical actuality of Holocaust” and that he wholeheartedly approves of Section 130 of the Penal Code and believes that it must be retained. His tactic is obviously to cover his derriere while raising doubt as to whether Williamson’s remarks are punishable, due to the unique circumstances surrounding this particular case.

The Swedish reporters have submitted written statements to the effect that they had no agreement with Williamson regarding parts of the interview that should not be broadcast.
Thus it is their word against his.

The fact is significant, and mentioned even in the “Establishment” media’s coverage, that the Swedish government and Swedish TV are refusing to assist the Regensburg prosecutor because this trial violates Swedish concepts of freedom of speech and opinion.

Then there is a prolonged procedural back-and-forth argument between the Defense, the Court and the Prosecution as to whether these written explanations should be included as evidence.
The judge rules that the material is includable.

There have been numerous short breaks; now the judge calls a longer intermission at 11:10.
Afterwards Attorney Maximilian Krah, a witness for the Defense, is called to the stand.
He is a civil rather than criminal attorney from Dresden but not a Saxon.

He describes in detail how he became involved on the evening of 19 Jan. 2009, after reading about the incident in SPIEGEL. He was authorized by Father Franz Schmidtberger, the leader of the German Pious Brethren, as well as the central office in Switzerland. He says he immediately attempted to contact Williamson, who was still in Argentina. Finally, after considerable difficulty, he was able to get in touch. Williamson immediately understood what was happening and remarked, “Well, that’s just the way journalists are.”

Attorney Krah says that it was immediately clear to him that the TV broadcast could not be intercepted and so he concentrated on reaching an understanding with the Swedes to avoid a posting on the Internet site of the Swedish TV station. His attempt was unsuccessful, however.
Then he requested an injunction with the District Court at Nuremberg/Fürth, which was successful.

Basically the key sentence of the ruling stated:
If there is no intent (in this case, no agreement!), then criminal prosecution is not called for, and there is no need for prompt action. That is why he did not seek legal recourse (lodge an appeal.)
Because of his heavy workload he recommended Attorney Lossmann.

Judge Frahm has a great many questions for the witness, such as: How did Bishop Williamson react? Was he surprised? What did he want to have done? Krah says it is very clear that the Bishop did everything he could to avoid the broadcast, which happened in spite of his request at the end of the interview. The judge’s questions become quite specific when she asks about the inner life of the Brethren. She asks how many priests there are worldwide. Krah answers around 600, or 700 including those on the periphery. How many are there in Germany? - About 25. And how many active followers are there? Krah says there are around 600,000, mostly in France, Switzerland (the French part) and the USA. And what was Williamson’s position at the time of the “offense?” Krah answers that he was the head of a seminary in Argentina.

Surprisingly, and in my opinion pointlessly, Krah blurts out that Williamson is considered marginal within the Brethren. (ed. note: I think it is safe to say at this point that lawyer Krah reflected the attitude of Society's main leadership towards Bp. Williamson, and that the remark was not meant in any way to be pointless or gratuitous) He is a genteel and cultivated but eccentric outsider who radiates great personal charm. Krah says the leaders of the order have ambiguous feelings about him.

FOOTNOTE 2: My impression is that it was Krah’s mission to “talk up” the Brethren and “talk down” Bishop Williamson. (ed. note: Exactly!) This became even more clear during the intermission when he repeatedly exclaimed to Lady Renouf: “This is not their case!” meaning that the Brethren are not involved here, or do not want to be involved.

Both the judge and head prosecutor conducted themselves in compliance with the System.
The question of whether the existing law is legitimate is never asked. The question of whether the judge believes in her own verdicts is another matter. If one wants to enjoy a career and live in peace in Germany, one cannot behave any other way. The judge and prosecutor have “done their jobs” and kept up appearances in “saving our democracy.” We have to consider that very few individuals have the courage to resist “the throne” (established authority)!
There are very few heroes in our time.

I personally doubt that Bishop Williamson’s defending attorney has done him any favors, however. I shall try to find out what his political orientation is. It would be pointless to attempt an appeal and change of verdict in Williamson’s favor under the present “BRDDR” regime. If the attorneys favor an appeal, it will be for the sake of their fees. If Bishop Williamson should appeal, it would be for the sake of publicizing Jewish “Holocaust” dogma and “grabbing it by the throat.”

It would be helpful to demonstrate how undemocratic our little present day Germany is, “the freest state that ever existed on German soil” according to the present propaganda. The fine is of course purely symbolic since it cannot be collected in England. Nothing can happen to Williamson as long as he stays in England, even if the “BRDDR” issues an international warrant for his arrest.

Krah goes on to say that there are four bishops among the Brethren (SSPX) whose position is not comparable to that of a bishop in the Catholic Church, and furthermore Williamson is not a member of the General Assembly. He is more like a “traveling representative for the consecration of priests,” a kind of independent agent. (ed. note: Like, he was never really one of us)

The judge then wants to know about Bishop Williamson’s financial situation. Krah replies that when he is traveling, he receives a travel allowance as well as re-imbursement for expenses and spending money of 250 Euros per month. In addition he receives room and board. He says that Williamson is not a wealthy man but neither does he have to beg in the streets. Then Judge Frahm asks whether Williamson has access to the assets of the Pius Brethren and Krah answers with an emphatic “No!” After that, the judge has no more questions.

Additional Observation

Despite the persecution and pervasive judicial terror directed against Revisionist researchers and experts, the Enlightenment insistence on empirical evidence cannot be reversed.
Even Zionist Inquisitor Friedman has to admit: “The older I get, the more I doubt that legalistic measures really help combat Revisionism. At any rate, the number of Holocaust Deniers has not grown smaller, and we must consider that.” Michel Friedman of the Jewish Central Committee as quoted in ZENIT, Issue No. 16, 2010.

Attorney Lossmann then continues questioning his witnesses. He asks whether Williamson is inclined to believe in conspiracy theories as “Wikipedia” suggests. Krah replies that yes, Williamson has peculiar views concerning the “Holocaust” story, and he always says what he believes to be true. He is confident in his opinion, as is shown in his conversation. He is very concerned about the truth. Krah says that Williamson’s problem is with acknowledging official truth; the bishop’s problem is a defective ability to perceive it.

There is a brief intermission, then the proceedings continue. The subject is now a report on Ali Fagan in a leading Swedish newspaper. Lossmann says the report was initiated by Italian newspapers who perceive that the Williamson trial is a plot against the German pope. Lossmann insists on a translation of this report on Fagan, saying the whole affair is comparable to Washington’s “Watergate.” He observes that the proceedings against Bishop Williamson have not only gained Fagan a great deal of publicity, they have made him rich.

After another brief intermission, the head prosecutor begins speaking. Predictably, he has no doubts about the validity of the trial. He has no doubts that the conditions of Section 130 (“Incitement of the Masses”) have been met, and a crime has been committed against the public. He says Germany’s peace has been disturbed and the bishop has acted with BEDINGTEM VORSATZ or intent, since he realized and accepted that the interview would be broadcast. He says it was Williamson’s goal to publicize his proscribed views among the people. He says that people like Williamson have a “pathological compulsion” to spread false and unlawful opinions, therefore he is guilty on all points. On the basis of the bishop’s income of 3000 Euros per month (!?) he calls for a sentence of four months’ incarceration at 120 Euros per day. He says this is appropriate in view of Williamson’s position within the Brethren, even though it is his first offense.

In his summarization, in which he pleads for acquittal, Attorney Lossmann disputes the state attorney’s demand. As for Williamson’s income, he points out that it should be set at a maximum of 1000 Euros and in case of a guilty verdict would call for 30 to 60 days in jail, certainly less than 90. He says that in view of the circumstances, which have become clear in the taking of evidence, acquittal is the proper verdict. He says that Bishop Williamson’s conduct was unbecoming to be sure, but he simply acted in a naive manner. He says that Williamson had been misled and waylaid, but he had made every attempt to limit the damage he caused. He says there can be no question of the bishop’s “accepting the consequences.” He points out that, had it not been for the overall situation concerning the Pius Brethrens’ readmittance into the Catholic Church, the media would not have played up the incident. (ed. note: Lossmann pleas leniency, the kind of defense that would be normally used in trying to mitigate the sentence of a confessed ax murderer.)

Lossmann concludes with the opinion of a professor of law who was quoted in SPIEGEL as saying that if Bishop Williamson did not intend for his views on “Holocaust” to be broadcast, he could not be punished. He emphasizes that Williamson obviously lacked this intent; he was not aware the Swedish journalists would broadcast his remarks until they had done so.
Therefore he should be acquitted.

Shortly after 1 O’clock the judge calls a 30-minute intermission and retires to consider her verdict. She returns after 45 minutes and everyone stands to hear the verdict “in the name of the People.” Which people, one wonders. She finds Williamson guilty and sentences him to 100 days in jail at 100 Euros per day, 20 days less than what was demanded by the state attorney.
She takes a half hour to explain her verdict and agrees with every point of the state’s attorney, emphasizing that “Holocaust is an acknowledged fact” and the number of Jewish victims “established by the highest court.” Needless to say, she does not bother to give her sources for this “acknowledged fact.” Perhaps she will give them in her written verdict.

The courtroom gradually empties. Attorney Lossmann is the only one who is surrounded by the reporters. They ask if there will be an appeal. He replies that Bishop Williamson must make that decision. Presumably the State might appeal the verdict, since it considers the sentence too lenient.

Now read Markus Haverkamp's summary of the same event:

The Trial of the Bishop who wasn’t there

A Tragicomedy in a Few Acts and Many, Many Scenes

On Friday, 16 April 2010, Pope Benedict XVI 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. Amongst the supporters were Lady Michèle Renouf (ed. note: An historical revisionist advising Bp. Williamson, I believe, whose association with HE aroused sharp vocal criticism from Bp. Fellay ), Günter Deckert (ed. note: whose account appears above and with whom obviously Haverkamp is acquainted at some level. Deckert must be well known.) 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 civilised manner, the trial started at 09.00 a.m. sharp. The dramatis personæ were: Judge Karin Frahm, a fairly pretty blonde, allegedly twenty-nine years of age (!); Senior State Prosecutor Edgar Zach, a grey-haired gentleman probably in his late fifties; and Defence Counsel Matthias Loßmann, a bloke 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 Honour 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. (ed. note: Wouldn't one think that the presence of these three "Swedish TV journalists" should have been an absolute requirement in order for the prosecution to makes it case? That without them, it was nearly impossible, even under German law, for justice to have been done?) 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 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, 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, and lawyer for the SSPX, Maximilian Krah – a smarmy Nick Griffin effigy – 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 – that was really cool. Plus, a segment of a German television programme showing the interviewer of Williamson (Name: Ali Fagan; Status: absent witness) make 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. It was weird.

A real highlight was the act in which Herr Krah, whom we first encountered two paragraphs ago, was called as a witness for the defence. 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 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 then 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 was nothing short of a waffling windbag basking in the cold glow of that yellowy neo-Wagnerian backdrop. He gave a heap of information that nobody really cared about, including details likely to harm the bishop. But he enjoyed himself, and that is probably what mattered most.

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. 10.500 GBP or 16.000 USD).

Now it was time for the summation of the defence. 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 publicise them. The Swedish television station STV1 then approached the leading German news 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. Jewish, press, the idea of a Holocaust heretic having his excommunication revoked must have been like curry to a pisshead. 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 Honour decided on the verdict, the grounds for which were eight pages long. The court reconvened at 03.00 p.m. for the final scene, and Judge Frahm read out the verdict: guilty, fine: 10.000 Euros, i.e. 9.000 GBP or 13.500 USD. 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 given if the crime is perpetrated publicly and is suited to disturb the public peace. But: nowhere does it say that the public must be a German public! By having the interview broadcast in Sweden, millions of Swedes could see it. These then could feasibly contact their friends and relatives in Germany and thus endanger the German public peace. Therefore, the bishop is to be found guilty and fined 10.000 Euros. – And that’s the end of that.

Finally, it must be said that this trial was of no value to the struggle for freedom whatsoever, since the defence counsel defended neither his client nor truth but merely the SSPX. (ed. note: Both Deckert and Haverkamp made essentially the same observations) Then, the idea of having an allegedly twenty-nine year old female judge is, considering that judges ought to be male and at least forty years of age, a total joke, a joke topped only by the ridiculous (if talmudically exquisite) argumentation of the lady. At the end of the day, this trial showed us what happens when the System is left to itself, without anybody struggling against it. And as Michèle Renouf pointed out: “by reducing the fine they reduced the bishop.”

Markus Haverkamp

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Since the Genie is Out of the Bottle..

We can not go back and undo what has been done. The genie is out of the bottle and will never be put back in. Might as well hunker down and deal with it: A bishop of the Roman Catholic Church finally spoke out about a couple of popular history's 'sacred cows,' the first and only member of the Catholic hierarchy, to my knowledge, to have ever done so in the post-war period.
Since that fateful interview in January of 2009, there have been embarrassed disclaimers, expressions of outrage, charges of "grave indiscretion," profuse apologies, recriminations, published "position" statements, a careful avoidance of certain "questions of history," and a general distancing from the bishop who dared to take up some of those questions. Undoubtedly, he has had to make a number of visits to the woodshed for such temerity.

But all that aside, maybe it's about time that we, particularly traditional Catholics, start dealing with 'facts on the ground,' as best they can be understood. Maybe these issues have been forced upon us. Troublesome questions about the Jewish Shoah will just not go away. They seem to resist being simply chucked down history's memory hole. Bishop Williamson gave old Shoah issues new life. He may regret having done so. But sorry, it's too late. The cat is out of the bag.
I went back and dug out an essay I wrote four years ago about the infamous Auschwitz/Birkenau complex. I dusted it off a bit and gave it a little sprucing up here and there. That somewhat revised essay is reproduced below.
By way of introduction: At the Nuremburg MilitaryTribunals in 1945 and '46, the alleged Auschwitz "death camp" became the focus of a great deal of attention. The Soviets charged that the plant had been the scene of the industrialized extermination of "four million" people, mostly Jews; and that, futhermore, this mass killing had been carried out, for the most part, in putative "gas chambers." I'm not a credentialed revisionist scholar by any stretch of the imagination- just an amateur looking for answers . But I do think there is enough available evidence now, accumulated over 60+ years, to equip even the average layman like myself with sufficient understanding about what actually occurred at the Auschwitz/Birkenau facility, and what, essentially, the camp was used for.
(On a slightly different subject: Link to for a detailed summary of Bp Williamson's trial in Germany, April 16)

Auschwitz For Dummies
by T. Hollingsworth

We have learned to pronounce the word by first emitting a low, guttural ‘OWWSHH.’ The more menacing the inflection, the better. This is followed phonetically by a great hissing sound, WITZZZ, accompanied, perhaps, by a few involuntary globs of spittle. ‘ AUSCHWITZ ’ is a frightening word, full of dreadful evil.

Holocaust propagandists, slavishly abetted by much of the world media and the movie and entertainment industry, have done quite a number on the general public, (us dummies), in the intervening sixty years separating us from the close of World War II. It’s a fact, after decades of relentless conditioning, there can be nothing quite as horrible in the mind of the average ‘Joe,’ no, nothing, quite as terrifying and diabolical as the word ‘ AUSCHWITZ .’

Auschwitz was a town located near the prewar German-Polish border in Eastern Upper Silesia . It was founded by Germans in the year1270. From 1795 to 1918 Auschwitz was in the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The Auschwitz main camp was built in 1916 by the Austrians. It was a transit camp for seasonal farm workers who lived there between assignments. Auschwitz was chosen as the site of the farm labor camp because it was the largest railroad hub in Europe . Every railroad line in Europe went through Auschwitz . The farm laborers could travel from Auschwitz to anywhere in Europe to harvest the crops on the large estates.

After the First World War, in 1919, When Poland became a country again, the Poles changed the name to Oswiecim . At that time the Auschwitz , (or Oswiecim), main camp was turned into an army base for Polish soldiers. They built the original building, where the infamous “Krema I” was located, and used it as an ammunition storehouse.

When Germany defeated Poland in 1939, they took back the part of Poland that they believed was rightfully theirs because they had been in control of this territory for years, and they had built all the cities there. The Germans changed the name ‘Oswiecim’ back to Auschwitz. In 1940, they established a suburban work/detention facility there, or, if you like, a ‘concentration camp.’ It was known thereafter as Konzentrationslager Auschwitz, and was to become the most infamous of all Nazi detention camps, the one, putatively, most deliberately destructive of human life.

So, Auschwitz has a long history. It did not spring up overnight. Banish any notion that Auschwitz was some remote, mist shrouded outback, located in a stark and eerie Transylvanian-type setting which the Nazis chose to carry off their horrible extermination designs away from the eyes of the world. That popular image violates the truth. Auschwitz was, and had been for many decades, a major railroad transit center and agro business hub. (See Auschwitz 1270 to Present, coauthored by Robert Jan van Pelt Deborah Dwork, 1996)

For years the world was told that four million inmates, (of whom, it is claimed, 2.7 to 3.0 million were Jewish), perished in that one concentration camp alone, victims of a deliberate program of extermination. Most of these poor souls, we understand, were done away with in a relatively short period of time, roughly between early 1942 and late 1944.

The “four million” victims figure can probably be attributed to a single Soviet document, of which the Nuremberg tribunal took “judicial notice,” meaning, simply, the court recognized from the beginning of its deliberations, without the need for supporting evidence, that 4.0 million exterminated individuals was an indisputable fact. The Soviets claimed that 10,000 victims were gassed daily until the figure reached 4.0 million. U.S. and British prosecutors could have dispatched forensic experts to Auschwitz to check and verify these claims. But they did not do so, for whatever reasons. The German defenders at Nuremberg were prevented from sending their own forensic team to the camp, since it lay in the Soviet zone.

The “confession” of Rudolph Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz did much, also, to boost exterminationist claims. He appeared before the International Military Tribunal on April 15, 1946 as a defense witness for Ernst Kaltenbrunner, former head of the Gestapo, who was also in charge of the concentration camp system. Kaltenbrunner requested that Höss appear before the court on his behalf in order to testify that the former had never visited the Auschwitz complex.

In a sworn written statement Commandant Höss said that he had personally received an order from Heinrich Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at that center alone 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 by means of “gas chambers.”

In his essay entitled How the British obtained the confessions of Rudolph Höss, Frenchman Dr. Robert Faurisson, a professor of literature, and among the most famous of contemporary revisionists, challenges those figures. He claims that they are “false,” charging, furthermore, that Höss’ so-called “confessions” had been extorted from him by torture. Indeed, Höss himself had accused his British interrogators, a number of whom were Jewish, of that very thing. “At my first interrogation,” he wrote, “evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the (horse) whip were too much for me.” Höss was to receive even rougher treatment on several other occasions. But as it was his word against that of the conquerors of the Reich, this allegation was ignored, or at least not taken seriously.

It wasn’t until 1983 that the Auschwitz Commandant’s words were corroborated. That corroboration came from statements contained in a book published in that year entitled Legions of Death by Rupert Butler, a veteran writer of three other books in the same genre. Mr. Rupert’s book pretty much let the cat out of the bag.

At the beginning of his work, Butler expresses gratitude to, among other institutions and individuals, a certain Bernard Clarke who, history informs us, was the British officer who captured Commandant Höss in March of 1946. Clarke explains quite unremorsefully, as recorded in the book, that “it took three days of torture” to obtain “a coherent statement, (i.e. confession)” from Höss. Dr. Faurisson notes that this “confession would shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz .” He was most certainly right! As Commandant Höss said himself in now well documented remarks: "Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not."

By this admission from one of Höss’ chief interrogators, Faurisson declares triumphantly that the “establishment historians” were wrong when they disputed that Höss had been tortured and had confessed under duress. After the publication of Rupert Butler's book, it was no longer possible for them to contest the fact.

Some sets of numbers were even more stupefying than the incredible “four million.” promulgated at Nuremberg. Producers of a 1955 French film documentary, entitled Nuit et Brouillard (Night and Fog), placed the figure at a mind boggling 9,000,000 persons exterminated, mostly Jews, of course. Happily, 13 years or so later, in 1968, historian Olga Wormser-Migot offered at least one seemingly mitigating concession. This one time advisor to the creators of Night and Fog admitted in her own book that Auschwitz I, the main camp in that wartime industrial complex, was “without a gas chamber.” (Le Système concentrationnaire nazi [p. 157]) That little factoid, however, did not invade world consciousness until a number of years later.

The 4,000,000 figure held up pretty well until about 1990. Enter then the clamorous and persistent claims of historical revisionism. These claims finally began to take their toll. To compound the problem for the cause of exterminationism, the Soviets, in 1989, released Auschwitz “death camp” records to the Red Cross. These records would prove to be very damaging to the almost universally accepted exterminationist legend; but more on them below.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau monument up until at least 1990 had inscribed upon it the “four million” figure in nineteen different languages. This number, as we said, was never seriously disputed in the forty some-odd years following the war. Suddenly though, in the light of more compelling data, that monstrous seven digiter, etched in stone over several post-war decades, began to crumble. The new findings reset the slain totals at 1,500,000. After an additional five years of foot dragging in 1995, this new number was duly inscribed on a new set of plates.

One of my sources, a person who has visited and researched a number of the German concentration camp sites, informs me that Lech Walesa, then Polish Solidarity leader, and later elected president of Poland may have suggested the new 1.5 million figure. He may have pulled it out of a hat for all we know. What is certain though is this. An alleged 4.0 million victims slain could no longer survive unchallenged. Accumulating evidence demanded that the number be reduced dramatically.

Dr. Franciszek Piper, Polish historian and curator, and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum, confirms the new 1.5 million total. For him it represents a satisfactory maximum. And he might not even complain too strenuously were that figure reduced another 400,000 to 1.1 million persons “gassed.”

The new findings did not at all deter the French exterminationists. They very deliberately forced through an anti-revisionist provision in that same year, 1990, making it punishable by law in France to challenge the scope of “crimes against humanity” as described and evaluated by the Nuremberg tribunal 45 years earlier.

Exterminationists were not about to give in to lighter projections. They can’t afford to! Their macabre universe of death has vastly shrunk in the decades following the end of the war. It will in time, I feel, as the truth comes out, become a mere point of ‘singularity.’

To drive home the fact of a shrinking "Holocaust" universe, I cite the much respected head of the Institute of Contemporary History, Dr. Martin Broszat, the man who, by the way, first published the “confession” of Rudolph Höss. He had to tell his amazed countrymen that there had never been mass gassings in the entire Old Reich (Germany’s 1937 borders). In a letter dated August 19, 1960 he writes: "Neither in Dachau , nor in Bergen-Belsen , nor in Buchenwald , were Jews or other inmates gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never completed and put into operation.”

This is not good news for the Holocaustians. They have had to retreat into what Dr. Broszat described as “a small number of selected places, especially in occupied Poland , including Auschwitz and Birkenau but not Majdanek.” In light of these disclosures it becomes absolutely tactically essential that the extermination figures at Auschwitz/Birkenau remain as bloated as possible. There are not many other potential “death camps” left, if any, in wartime German-occupied Europe for which exterminationists dare make similar claims.

By the way Dr. Broszat is not alone. Fifteen years later no less a world figure than the famed “Nazi Hunter” Simon Wiesenthal also admitted that "there were no extermination camps on German soil" in a letter to the editor of Books and Bookmen, page 5, April 1975. He reconfirmed his earlier statement in a letter to the editor published on page 14 of the European Stars and Stripes dated 24 January 1993 .

There are some very important reasons why exterminationists want to keep the “death camp” totals as high as possible. Militant Jewry needs a ‘Holocaust’ to elicit worldwide sympathy in order to fully carry out its Zionist dreams and ambitions. Robert Goldman, a Jew, made a startling admission in 1997. “Without the Holocaust,” he said, “there would be no Jewish state.” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 December 1997 , p. 9)

Without a terrible Nazi-inpired “Holocaust” of gigantic, death-dealing proportions, there no longer remains any justification for German war reparations to Israel. Nahum Goldman, long time chairman of the Jewish World Congress, made no secret of it. He wrote in 1978: “Without the German reparations that started coming during it first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure. All the trains are German, and the same goes for electrical installation and a great deal of Israel ’s industry.” (Dad juedische Paradox, Europaeishe Verlangsanstalt, 1978, p. 171)

In other words, without outside assistance, particularly from Germany , the parasitic Zionist state would not have been viable.

As an example of German “reparation” largess let me cite one instance. In 1999, Germany provided Israel with ultra-modern submarines which can carry nuclear missiles. The Israelis did not have to pay a penny for them. Just another act of atonement for the Jewish “Holocaust,” you see.

But let’s get back to the continuing saga of dwindling death toll statistics: French pharmacist, Jean-Claude Pressac (deceased now, I believe), promoted by the international media as the expert on technical questions surrounding Auschwitz, recognized Holocaust apologist, has in recent years become even more conciliatory about Auschwitz “extermination” totals. His research estimates pared the number down from the new1990 benchmark of 1.5 million perished souls to between 775,000 and 800,000 victims. That was 1993. A year later this same Claude Pressac had cut the totals down even more to between 630,000 and 710,000 victims of gassing, of whom, naturally, the lion’s share were Jews.

In 1989, just before the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Soviet authorities, (as mentioned above), released Auschwitz camp death records to the world. These records reveal sub totals that make even Pressac’s numbers seem awfully large. They were confiscated when Red Army forces captured Auschwitz in January 1945. The Soviets had them archived away for over 40 years. 46 volumes of death certificates, covering the years 1941, 1942, and 1943, (but not 1944) record the deaths of 69,000 Auschwitz inmates.

Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review remarks that deaths “were carefully recorded by camp authorities ‘in dozens of camp registry volumes” Weber continues: “Each certificate meticulously records numerous revealing details, including the deceased person's full name, profession and religion, date and place of birth, pre-Auschwitz residence, parents' names, time of death, and cause of death as determined by a camp physician.” Meticulous record keeping is a typically German trait. The New York Times reported on these same records in March of 1991. The Times story indicates that 73,137 persons, from all causes, died at Auschwitz . Of these 73,137 deceased, 38,031 were Jews. In this same NYT report, we learn, (though not from sources released by the Soviets), that the total of all persons who died in the entire German prison camp system from 1935 to 1945 were 403,713. (ed. Note: New York Times reported figures, in fact, make Bp. Williamson’s estimates appear to be much to high) I think that most will agree that those are not exactly ‘Holocaust’-like numbers, at least in the classic sense of the word.

The Times article places the Auschwitz death toll at a number 14,137 inmates higher than the one released by the Soviets in 1989. It may have been that in the intervening two years from 1989 to 1991 more records were found, and a more accurate count was arrived at. I really don’t know. But the point to be made is this: 1) These records reveal totals hundreds of thousands of victim fewer than even the lowest estimates made by Pressac and others. 2) The greatly reduced figures include death from all causes, not just alleged “gassing” victims.

Exterminationists suffered another setback from a major French weekly, L’Express. That paper carried a piece in January, 1995 by Journalist and historian Eric Conan. (Conan is described, by the way, as “a dedicated anti-revisionist.”) Be that as it may, his article probably put the final nail in the coffin of any remaining Auschwitz I ‘death camp’ notions. Conan acknowledged that “everything is false” about the Auschwitz main camp “gas chamber,” or Krema I, as it is known. He affirmed that this perceived house of horrors, which for decades had been shown to tens of thousands of tourists, and passed off as at least one of the primary extermination facilities, was, indeed, a post-war reconstruction, a fake. What the millions of tourists visit is a “krema” built in 1948 under the auspices of the Polish communist government. (Historian Olga Wormser-Migot, cited above, could probably have told us that back in 1968.)

Auschwitz Memorial officials were left with a little egg on their faces. One staff member, Krystyna Oleksy, of the Museum directors’ office, decided that discretion was the better part of valor. She put it this way: "For the time being we are going to leave it, (i.e. the “gas chamber”) in the present state, and not give any specifics to the visitors. It is too complicated. We'll see later on."

Lest there be any doubt about the veracity of this reconstructed “gas chamber” assertion, we are compelled to cite a videotaped interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Auschwitz Museum curator and director, already mentioned above. This now famous 1992 interview, as published in The Spotlight (news organ of the Liberty Lobby) in January of 1993, should lay all doubts to rest. Dr. Piper admitted on tape that the alleged “homicidal gas chamber” at the Auschwitz main camp was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union, apparently on direct orders from Josef Stalin.

The maker of this video interview, a young Jew named David Cole, disappeared from the revisionist landscape in 1994. He apparently succumbed to serious threats on his life by the Jewish Defense League, who were none to happy with the quest for truth by a celebrated correligionist. (Ed. Note: Cole’s visit to Auschwitz and video presentation is available online)

In May of 2002, a major German media outlet dealt yet another body blow to the over-inflated exterminationist totals for gassed persons. Fritjof Meyer, a leading journalist, writing for the left-wing Der Spiegel, whittled down Claude Pressac’s already greatly reduced totals to an even skimpier net, (relatively speaking), of 510, 000 victims, 356,000 of whom were Jews. Der Spiegel is no friend of historical revisionism either, it must be added.

Dr. Faurisson has always declared, citing the original plans from the Auschwitz Museum files, that the alleged “gas chamber” was nothing more or less than a room with a single entrance where dead bodies awaiting cremation were stored. So don’t expect even Meyer’s new “extermination” numbers to stand the test of time. They will surely be readjusted downward in the future as it becomes more impossible to sustain the “gas chamber” myth.

It should be mentioned here that in 1989 Dr. Faurisson was set upon by a gang of young Jewish toughs in Vichy , France as he walked his dogs. They half killed him. He spent a good deal of time in the hospital recovering from his injuries. He had already been physically attacked on seven or eight other occasions.

Most Holocaust historians are agreed that the killing agent of choice, to which most Auschwitz “extermination” deaths are attributed, is the extremely lethal pesticide called Zyklon B. Revisionist historians maintain that the product was never used for anything other than its advertised purpose, viz. to kill pests. The disease typhus was killing off hundreds and thousands of camp inmates. Nazi authorities sought to stem the rising death toll. So, Zyklon B gas was used to treat clothes, bedding and mattresses to rid them of typhus-carrying lice.

Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s head of the Schutzstaffel (SS), which administered the camp system, feared the typhus epidemic as much as anybody else. On December 28, 1942, he ordered that “the death rate in the camps must be reduced at all costs.” (from The Final Solution by Gerald Reitlinger, Jewish historian). Himmler’s chief inspector of the camps, Richard Glucks, answered less than a month later: “Every means will be used to lower the death rates.” (Nuremberg Trial Document No. 1523) Indeed, the death rate was lowered by almost six percentage points between July 1942 and June 1943. Hardly the kind of anxious concern over the preservation of life one might expect from two SS officials dedicated to the goal of human extermination!

Zyklon B was manufactured in the form of small pellets, soaked in liquid hydrocyanic acid (prussic acid). The bluish crystal pellets came packaged in canisters. They were allegedly poured through specially prepared holes in the roof of a “gas chamber.” The holes were allegedly fitted with wire mesh tubes which descended several feet into the chamber. Long, wire-meshed, sleeve-like pellet retrieval baskets were, allegedly, inserted into the tubes. When, under properly induced conditions, hydrocyanide gas had been released into the death chamber, these baskets could be withdrawn, the spent pellets extracted, and then sent back to the factory and recharged, as it were. Which brings up another vital topic for purposes of this discussion- the alleged “holes” in the alleged “gas chamber” roofs. All the popular images presented to the mind by classic ‘Holocaust’ iconography rise or fall, based upon the existence or non-existence of the “holes.” As Dr. Robert Faurisson has repeated many times: No holes, no Holocaust!

From this layman’s perspective, things are not looking very good for the existence of “holes.” There are precious few of them, if any, to observe. But again, as Brian Renck has written in an article entitled Convergence or Divergence: “The holes are…central to the accusation that victims were murdered by gas in a cellar of Crematorium (crematory facility or Krema) II in 1943 and 1944.”

Indeed, they are. Guards didn’t just throw cans of prussic acid into a chamber packed with naked victims, then slam the door and run. Safe to say, exterminationists are in unanimous agreement that “holes” in the roof were the means of introducing the death-dealing substance. That is their story and they’re sticking with it.

Professor Robert Jan van Pelt certainly believes it! Prof. van Pelt is an interesting character, in my mind anyway, more noteworthy for recorded remarks made seemingly against his own interests. (More below) He is a Professor of Cultural History at the University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada, a native of Holland, Jewish on his mother’s side, and a prodigious writer about Auschwitz., Prof. van Pelt, according to Brian Renck, is considered the historical establishment’s leading expert on the design and function of the Auschwitz crematoria.

Since Krema I, discovered now to be a post-war fabrication, has lost much of its luster for purposes of promoting Holocaustian mythology, it would appear that Krema II, lying some three kilometers (two miles) directly west of Auschwitz I at the Birkenau industrial complex, has now become the center of the exterminationist universe, and the primary focus of attention.

Note Prof. van Pelt’s emotional assessment of Krema II: “Crematorium II (Krema II) is the most lethal building of Auschwitz . In the 2,500 square feet of this one room, more people lost their lives than any other place on this planet. 500,000 people were killed (here). If you would draw a map of human suffering, if you created a geography of atrocity, this would be the absolute center.”

Yet van Pelt was forced to acknowledge that the means whereby that huge number of people were gassed has presently evaporated. The professor was called as an “expert” on behalf of the defense in the now famous libel suit in Britain brought against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 2000 by historian David Irving. During the trial van Pelt admitted that no holes were visible in the collapsed roof of Krema II. He admitted, furthermore, that the wire-mesh columns, used allegedly to conduct Zyklon B pellets into the death chamber, are also missing. In his expert report he wrote:

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab." (“Small holes,” by the way, is van Pelt’s characterization of them.) “The wire mesh columns,” he continues, “had been totally dismantled after the cessation of gassings and before the demolition of the crematoria, and no remains were found.” How van Pelt knows for a fact that the columns were “totally dismantled” is anybody’s guess. There is, to my knowledge, no existing written or "eyewitness" documentation in support of that claim.

Hon. Mr. Justice Charles Gray, who presided at the trial, reinforced van Pelt’s remarks, declaring: "Van Pelt conceded in one of his supplementary reports that there is no sign of the holes."

To go along with van Pelt and Justice Gray’s remarks, we insert one additional note. In the late 1970s, when Auschwitz was administered by Poland 's Communist government, the Swede Ditlieb Felderer took hundreds of photographs of the remains of the Auschwitz crematoria ruins, and noted the seeming absence of holes for introducing Zyklon B, as described in "eyewitness" testimony.

As to the size of any alleged holes- van Pelt claims they were small, which may help to explain, from his point of view anyway, why they are undetectable now. However, there are military aerial photographs which seem to show holes in the crematoria roof. But relative to the adjacent roof dimensions, as photographed from the air, these alleged holes would have to have been around ten feet in diameter. Such is not likely, leading experts to conclude that the photos were altered.

Exterminationists get around this no-holes problem by advancing variants of the following argument: The four rooftop holes, (actually squares), were simply plugged with concrete. That’s right. Wooden (plywood?) forms were anchored in place on the interior ceiling side of the roof. Concrete was poured into the holes flush to the existing exterior roof surface. Apparently, they got it to match the surrounding concrete perfectly in color and texture so that no sign of it would ever be detected thereafter.

One particularly detested enemy of the Holocaustians is a gentleman named Fred A. Leuchter. Mr. Leuchter, an engineer, was acknowledged at one time to be America’s leading specialist on the design and fabrication of homicidal gas chambers and other equipment used for the execution of convicted criminals. He has been written up in a number of well known journals and periodicals. State governments acknowledged his expertise and used his services. He even appeared once on the Phil Donahue Show. But “powerful special interest groups,” for reasons described below, launched a vicious campaign of slander and vilification and succeeded in destroying Leuchter’s career.

Mr. Leuchter testified as an expert witness for the defense in the Canadian trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel in 1988. (Ed note: See a three 10 minute video summaries of that trial featuring Ernst Zundel and Fred Leuchter: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 ) Canadian officials had charged Zündel with publishing false news about the “Holocaust.” The man was convicted of similar ‘crime’ in 1985 in Canada, but was eventually released on a technicality. This time, however, he was convicted and sentenced to a nine month prison term.

Mr. Zündel was jailed once again in early 2003 by the Canadian government. No specific charges have been filed against him, simply that he might present a “security risk” to the nation. Zündel has been sitting in solitary confinement ever since, awaiting possible deportation to his native Germany where questioning the “Holocaust” is punishable by law. Similar “Holocaust” laws are on the books in Switzerland, France and other European countries. (Ed. Note: Zundel was finally extradited to Germany to stand trial. He spent five years I prison there, and has only recently been released)

We get some fascinating insights from a report compiled by Mr. Leuchter, which was used by the defense in Ernst Zündel’s 1988 trial. It is entitled Inside the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers.’ Leuchter was commissioned to travel with a team of experts to Poland in early 1988 in order to undertake a physical inspection and forensic analysis of alleged execution gas chambers at Auschwitz.

He took along the necessary tools of his trade, concealing them from communist authorities in the lining of his valise. Upon arrival in Poland, he focused particular attention on the crematories II, III, IV and V, located at the Birkenau complex, i.e. Auschwitz II. Leuchter made scale drawings of the facilities, took numerous samples, and documented all of his activities with videos and still photos.

“At crematory II,” he writes, “I descended into the depths of the alleged gas chamber, a wet, dank subterranean place not visited by man in almost 50 years..” Here he took sample scrapings from the interior walls, did measurements and made other observations which might help him in determining how the facility had been used.

Mr. Leuchter and his team of assistants had to be very careful that they were not discovered, and their real purposes divulged. In the end, though, the team managed to get away from Poland undetected with twenty pounds of forbidden samples in Leuchter’s suitcase.

Leuchter delivered his forensic samples to a university test laboratory in Massachusetts on March 3, 1988. Chemical analysis of his samples revealed categorically that none of the facilities at Auschwitz/Birkenau “could have supported, or in fact did support, multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas.”
He calculated, based upon “very generous maximum usage rates” for all the alleged Nazi gas chambers everywhere, that “it would have required sixty-eight (68) years to execute the alleged number of six millions of persons.

Mr. Leucther made numerous other observations which put the lie to any claims that these facilities were used to gas victims. He noted, for example, that none of the rooms was “sealed or gasketed.” There was no provision to prevent condensation of gas on the interior walls, floors or ceilings; no method to “exhaust the air-gas mixture” from the buildings; no sign of a mechanism designed to “introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chamber;” no “explosion-proof lighting;” and no attempt to prevent gas from entering the (adjacent) crematories, “even though the gas is highly explosive.”

Elsewhere Leuchter makes mention that there was no evidence of a “heating system” in the morgue interior. Zyklon B pellets must be heated to at least 78 degrees before they can release lethal gas.

Furthermore, Leuchter reports, no attempt was made to protect “operating personnel” or “non-participating persons” from exposure to the gas. No exhaust stacks ever existed. In short, from close observation he concluded that no provisions were made “to effect any amount of safe handling” for this extremely dangerous and lethal gas. What is more, the chambers were too small to accommodate “more than a small fraction of the alleged numbers (gassed).” “Plain and simple,” Leuchter reported, “these facilities could not have operated as execution gas chambers.”

At this juncture, we ought to insert a few more sentences from Robert Faurisson, commenting on the popularly accepted notions of “gas chamber” operations at the Auschwitz II facility:

“(I)n the case of Auschwitz II or Birkenau, one could bring 2,000 people into a room measuring 210 square meters in area, and then in this highly crowded situation throw in the very strong pesticide Zyklon B, and then immediately after the deaths of the victims let a work crew without any gas masks enter the room in order to take out the bodies which had been thoroughly saturated with cyanide.

Dr. Faurisson noted that the poisonous residue effects of Zyklon B gas could not be removed from a room even with a “strong ventilator.” Only “natural aeration” over a period of 24 hours would render the area safe enough to enter.

This historical revisionist declares unapologetically that these so-called “gas chambers” were nothing but “simple” mortuaries, built underground to protect them from the heat. He points to a single door, serving “as both an entrance and an exit.” Reasonable people will agree that one small door would hardly have sufficed to serve as an entrance for great numbers of victims at a time, who, upon being gassed en masse, would be evacuated one at a time through that same door just minutes later, dumped one by one into a service elevator, and hauled up to ground level to be burned in an adjacent krema. Totally unworkable and absurd!

This is not to suggest that crematoria were not used to burn bodies and reduce them to ashes. They were! As Dr. Faurisson points out: “Concerning the crematoria of Auschwitz, there is just as there is generally for the entire camp an overabundance of documents and invoices down to the last penny.”

As for the “gas chambers,” however, he continues: “..there is nothing: no contract for construction, not even a study, nor an order for materials, nor a plan, nor an invoice, nor even a photograph. In a hundred war crimes trials, nothing of the sort was ever produced.”

“Gas chambers” are in extremely short supply at Auschwitz , non-existent, it appears. Many of us ‘dummies’ go through life probably oblivious to half the things going on around us at any given time. But, if the Holocaustian “gas chamber” scenario is true, then German army officer Thies Christophersen takes the meaning of obliviousness to unprecedented new levels. This German officer, wounded in battle on the war front, was thereafter reassigned to work at the Auschwitz camp complex. In his memoir published in 1973, entitled Die Auschwits-Lüge (The Auschwitz Lie) he states categorically the following: “During the time I was in Auschwitz , I did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings.” Elsewhere he testifies: “I was in Auschwitz and I can assure you that there was no ‘gas chamber’ there.”

Christophersen’s testimony has echoes of the same kind of ignorance expressed by such powerful bodies as the International Red Cross and the Vatican . The IRC prepared a three volume report in 1948 on all of the wartime German camps. There is not a mention of “gas chambers” on any of its 1600 pages. The Church in particular was reputed to be on the cutting edge of most of what was happening in wartime Poland. Both of these great institutions claimed they knew nothing about any “gas chambers” throughout the entire course of the war.

Over the years, the so-called ‘Jewish Holocaust’ has taken on quasi-religious dimensions. It is “a holy mystery,” says Elie Wiesel, “the secret of which is limited to the circle of the priesthood of survivors.” (The Holocaust, Peter Novick,)

“Six Million” supposedly exterminated Jews take on an absurdly Apocalyptic aspect for ‘true believers’ like Simon Wiesenthal: “When each of us comes before the Six Million, we will be asked what we did with our lives…” (Simon Wiesenthal in Response, Vol 20, No. 1)

French Zionist propagandist Claude Lanzmann, producer of the film Shoa, envisioned the new Auschwitz 'religion' threatening to totter ancient Christianity upon its very “foundations.” Because even Christ’s sufferings, reasons Lanzmann, as agonizing as they were, can not be compared to the exponentially greater sufferings of the Jews at Auschwitz . So, Lanzmann concludes, “Christ is false, and salvation will not come from him… Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ.” (Les modernes, Paris, Dec. 1993, p. 132,133)

These are the rantings of a religious fanatic, not to mention, a dedicated anti-Christian. Such a one, if indeed he represents the thinking of the majority of present day exterminationists, would not and could not know or accept the truth about Auschwitz, even if it sat on his lap!

That tens of thousands of untimely deaths from all causes occurred in Nazi concentration camps between 1935 and 1945 cannot be disputed. That Jews, relative to the total Jewish population of Europe at that time, comprised a disproportionate number of inmate deaths from all causes is probably also indisputable. But I have concluded, from the best data I can find anyway, that a systematic, Nazi-sponsored program of extermination, mainly by “gassing,” wiped out five to six million Jews over roughly a two or three year period, is a huge lie. It is sheer and utter baloney! If human extermination in this context can be said to have occurred, it was an unconscious and indeliberate program carried out by the lowly Typhus-carrying louse; and, secondarily, by hunger, disease and neglect in the last months of the war, when camp personnel were forced to flee the Soviet army's advance from the east. By that time the Auschwitz camp's operational infrastructure had totally collapsed, and the remaining abandoned inmates started dying like flies.

Note to SSPX Leaders:

If SSPX leadership can take comfort in little or nothing regarding the Williamson affair, they may at least find some solace and salvaging of reputation by simply recognizing that this senior Society bishop was probably right. I mean, if love covers a multitude of sins, can not truth, in like manner, cover one or two "indiscretions?"

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

A Jew Who Speaks Out

Gilad Atzmon is not your ordinary locksteppping Jew. This British citizen is a professional musician and writer, but more than that, he is a truth teller, and, I imagine, pays a heavy price among his own for his refreshing candor, coming as it does from such an unlikely source. Read his bio under the heading Early Life on Wikepedia. It begins thus:

"Atzmon was born a secular Jew in Tel Aviv, and trained at the Rubin Academy of Music in Jerusalem.[8] His service as a paramedic in the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon caused him to reach the conclusion that "I was part of a colonial state, the result of plundering and ethnic cleansing."[1][3]......"

In one of Atzmon's latest article, entitled The Boomerang Effect , he let's the British have it, as it touches mandatory, government-sponsored Holocaust education in that country. The opening lines read as follows:

"In case you didn’t know, in Britain the Holocaust is part of the National Curriculum. Thanks to the ‘The Holocaust Educational Trust’ our children are guaranteed to learn how bad the Nazis were. This is probably much easier for our kids to acknowledge than to look into the ways in which the embarrassing legacy of the British Empire reverberates throughout almost every contemporary disastrous conflict on this planet..."

Go to the link provided above for the rest of the story..

Thursday, April 8, 2010

The Attacks on Pope Benedict

Thursday, April 08, 2010
The Attacks on Pope Benedict - a Conspiracy of Man - or God?
by Michael Hoffman

Over the centuries many sorts of masquers have bored deep into the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these have even occupied the papal throne; others were content to be the power behind that throne.

King Henry VIII first received the theological justification for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from the Neoplatonic brotherhood inside the Vatican; out of said fraternity would emerge Dr. John Dee, the Protestant magician who, using the Hermetic and Kabbalistic cunning of the Roman Catholic magician Marsilio Ficino, furnished William Cecil with the mind control keys and mass persuasion techniques that gained him the rule of England through a reanimated goddess Isis who is known to history as Queen Elizabeth I.

Very few believing Catholics ever glimpse this hidden reality, and when they are so privileged as to gain a fleeting vision of it, they run from it, so threatening is it to the papal Caesarism to which they kowtow like the pagan subjects of Kubla Khan. Jesus Christ did not come to institute slavish and cowering obedience to mere men, however elaborately costumed or adored. He came to save souls, which is the highest law, a law recognized by only a few churchmen, such as the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who defied Popes Paul VI and John Paul II for that very reason.

Behind the scenes of the competing Catholic and Protestant churches exists a golden thread, a rainbow bridge if you will, that unites initiates in both camps who, believing they possess godlike powers derived from the secret gnosis of the Corpus Heremeticum, are above the morality they publicly preach, beyond good and evil, and united in processing humankind toward a "higher" destiny without the knowledge or consent of those being processed. This is the age-old mandate of the pagan-occult imperium.

Shortly before the latest uproar over pederasty within the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican exorcist announced that the devil was active in the Vatican, even at the highest levels. Prior to this not exactly unexpected revelation, Pope Benedict XVI completed the third of his pilgrimages to the Synagogue, the latest, on Jan. 17, at Rome itself, where this papal Judas gave every encouragement to the assembled Pharisees.

Most recently he has appointed a member of the secret society of Opus Dei to head the powerful diocese of Los Angeles, California, after child-molestation enabler and obstructor of justice Cardinal Roger Mahony retires next year with his pension intact and full church honors accorded to this patron of pederasty.

Certain Catholic automatons have marched forth, decrying a purported "media conspiracy" of "gossip" against the pope. But are the troubles that have befallen this pope a conspiracy of man, or a curse of God?

How long do the vassals of Rome imagine that God will be mocked by popes who make common cause with the ideological and spiritual descendants of those who stoned, laid hands upon and conspired in the murder of His Divine Son?

Pope John Paul II, the modern champion of the Synagogue and the first pope in history to enter its precincts as a supplicant, spent the final years of his pontificate as a hunchback, drooling spittle onto his breast. Unless he repents and makes reparation, Pope Benedict XVI can no more escape the wrath of God than did his predecessor.

If Benedict is besieged now, it may be payback for his treason to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding his provisional revival of the old Latin Mass, which he has integrated into a neo-Catholic hybrid Church of Holocaustianity, whereby Auschwitz is rendered more sacred by far than Calvary, a revolutionary betrayal made tolerable now that it is accompanied by Tridentine incense and Gregorian chant.

Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus.

Copyright ©2010 by

Hoffman is the author of seven books of history and literature, including Judaism Discovered. He edits Revisionist History, a newsletter published six times a year. The latest issue, on "The Money Power," is available for purchase online.


Posted by Michael Hoffman at 4/08/2010 12:46:00 PM
Labels: Cardinal Roger Mahony, Corpus Hermeticum, Marsilio Ficino, Opus Dei, pagan imperium, papal Caesarism, pederasty, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, synagogue, Tridentine Mass

Thursday, April 1, 2010

What Is the “Federal Republic” of Germany?

I came across the following speech recently. It was made in July of 2002, as can best be determined, by a German named Klaus Weichhaus, a journalist and author, whose credentials I can not vouch for, but whose points seem, nevertheless, to be pretty well taken.

In view of the upcoming trial of Bishop Richard Williamson, scheduled to begin April 16, 2010 in Regensburg Germany, it might help the reader to better understand the real nature of the German “Federal Republic,” (certainly as Mr. Weichhaus views it anyway,). I am inclined to believe him. He describes the sinister political milieu in which, I feel, His Excellency would be immersed, were he to submit to the German federal court summons. Bp. Williamson would have, in the scenario Mr. Weichhaus describes, about as much chance of getting a fair trial in Germany, as a snowball’s chance of surviving in hell.

To properly appreciate the contemporary German state, and to better understand the manner in which the German people (volk) are governed, a number of all but forgotten historical items need to be rehashed. After the defeat and devastation of Germany during WWII, the “Allies” created a new “political caste,” basically a foreign entity, i.e. a relatively small group of “plutocrats” and “money mongers,” many of them U.S.-based, Weichhaus says, who took full advantage of a soundly defeated and humiliated Germany. This new caste has conducted an ongoing plundering of the German nation during the sixty some odd years of post-war “occupation.” Yes, I say, “occupation,” because as Mr. Weichhaus affirms, the German Federal Republic is “a provisional occupation government created by our enemies.” It is, he adds, an “exploitative political entity in which we carry out certain empty ritual, but in which it is impossible for us to really live and exist politically.”

Of course, one can easily surmise the fate awaiting His Excellency were he to hand himself over to this powerful band of “plutocrats,” as Weichhaus describes them. For, as they are the de facto enemies of the German volk in general, one can easily conclude that they are also enemies of The Christian religion, and of our Holy Faith in particular.

Let Mr. Weichhaus spell it out for the reader. As the speech is rather long, I include only those portions which I consider might be of immediate interest to the reader. To view the full address in English go to:


Rede anläßlich der Leipziger Montagsdemo
Speech Given at Leipzig Demonstration

By Klaus Weichhaus

Translated by J M Damon
The original is posted in German on several websites including


Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Klaus Weichhaus.
I am a journalist born in Ketzin, Brandenburg in 1948. Today I would like to discuss some long overlooked truths with you. These are truths that, although unknown to the general public, have been uttered by many courageous Germans, of whom thousands have been incarcerated and continue to be incarcerated…

Today I would like to speak to you about a very ominous situation, about truths that have been uttered by many courageous Germans who are mostly unknown to the public.
Many thousands of these courageous Germans have been incarcerated or are presently incarcerated. I should mention that my topic makes it necessary for the powers-that-be to gather evidence of what I am saying, and this explains the tape recorders being used by several brave protectors of our so-called constitution, to whom I extend cordial greetings.

You too, ladies and gentlemen – and not just the government snoops – are certain to learn some interesting facts this evening. For the sake of exactness I shall stick close to the written speech I have prepared. As Klaus Bednarz, editor and moderator of the political TV magazine MONITOR recently remarked on the Johannes Kerner show: “...and all this is merely the tip of the iceberg! The public does not realize what a pestiferous swamp our government and political caste have become. This is my conviction after more than thirty years’ experience as a journalist.”

History clearly shows that the victorious Allies created this “political caste” to which
Bednarz refers following the total devastation of Germany during World War II. It consisted of German collaborators who facilitated the Allied plundering of our country during the postwar period, in violation of all international law. These German collaborators helped our enemies steal 108,000 square kilometers of our territory east of the Oder/Neisse Line, and they also helped create and administer a notorious occupation “TREUHANDANSTALT” (trust agency), likewise in violation of international law.

These are just two examples of the countless crimes they have committed against Germany.
In 1949 these collaborationist politicians, who swore to selflessly serve the interest of their fellow Germans, were commissioned to govern what was left of the Reich. Needless to say, they (i.e. this Allies-created “collaborationist” political caste) served their own interests instead. In order to facilitate the brainwashing or “re-education” of us Germans, which the Allies had begun as soon as the War began, they dictated the following exclusion in Article 139 of the new GRUNDGESETZ (Basic Law): “The laws and regulations formulated for Germany’s liberation from militarism and National Socialism are not affected by any provisions of the Basic Law.” This exempted them from having to observe whatever restrictions and safeguards were associated with the laws they pretended to be passing for our benefit.

Although it is unnoticed by most Germans, Article 139 is one of the principal measures by which the Allies turned our one-time “Nation of Thinkers and Poets” into the complex-ridden and identity-less society of Fatherland deniers that we know today. Most of us are completely ignorant of what has happened to us.

Article 139 provides real insight into the fact that the Federal Republic is a provisional occupation government created by our enemies. It is an exploitative political entity in which we carry out certain empty rituals but in which it is impossible for us to really live and exist politically. By “living,” my friends, I mean something very different from what we are presently experiencing. The Federal Republic is not Germany, not our Fatherland!
To overthrow this sham government is neither unconstitutional nor a threat to the State, but rather our responsibility as patriotic Germans, even under the Basic Law!....

Here is what the politicians promised us in Article 146 of Basic Law in 1949:
"This Basic Law, which will apply to the entire German nation after attainment of unity and freedom throughout Germany, will become invalid as soon as a genuine constitution goes into effect, a constitution that has been written and approved by the German nation in a free plebiscite." ….

The United Nations has acknowledged the right of self-determination as the foundation of
international law. The UN Charter names self-determination as its “goal” In Article 1 Section 2, and in Article 55 it refers to self-determination as its basis. Since 19 December 1966, Article 1 Section 1 of the UN pact on civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights has provided that every nation has the right to self-determination. This right guarantees that each nation shall freely decide its own political status and determine its own economic, social and cultural development. The same guarantee is found in the Declaration of the UN General Assembly dated 24 Oct 1970 concerning international law, as well as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)…

The sad reality is that all the protectors of vested interests who are trying to make us believe they are concerned about our welfare are themselves puppets of the moneyed power mongers. They are lying when they refer to the “sovereignty” of the Federal Republic, as they well know. They are willing collaborators with the enemy in a war that still has not ended.

It is significant and consequential that the Basic Law was not written and adopted by the German people in May 1949, but rather by a so-called Parlamentarischer Rat (parliamentary committee.) This committee had a gravely undemocratic flaw, however: it had nothing to do with the German people, since it was not written in constitutional convention and not approved by the citizenry. Its fifty members comprised a group of intimidated and personally ambitious functionaries commissioned by the American occupation power to act in the name of the German people. They delivered what was expected of them: a Basic Law dictated by the victors FOR the people but not OF or BY the people of Germany. {It should be pointed out that Carlo Schmid, the expert on international law who chaired the committee, carefully explained that the Basic Law was not a constitution. He called it an “Ordnungsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschung” (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule), which is a diplomatic formulation for “puppet regime.” It is very clear that since the defeat of Germany in 1945 and inception of the “Basic Law” in 1949, Germany has not been a sovereign state. (emphasis added)

The Federal Republic

As we have seen, the so-called Federal Republic of Germany is not a sovereign State.
It remains what its architects, the victors of World War II, intended it to be: a provisional occupation government. Let us rummage a bit in our real but not-so-politically-correct history. We’ll begin with our Basic Law – what is “Basic Law” actually? Article 43 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare defines it as follows: “Basic Law is law created to establish law and order in an occupied country.” (Emphasis added) What!! Occupied Country!?

The key to understanding our present impasse is to be found in an international agreement commonly called the “Two Plus Four Treaty” that accompanied the merging of the occupation governments of what were called “West Germany” and “East Germany” during the Cold War. It is formally called the EXCHANGE OF NOTES CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE CONVENTION ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE THREE POWERS AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY OF 26 MAY 1952 AND THE CONVENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF MATTERS ARISING OUT OF THE WAR AND OCCUPATION OF 26 MAY 1952, DATED IN BONN 27 SEPTEMBER AND 28 SEPTEMBER 1990.
{It is posted on the Internet at {}. It specifies a long list of provisions of the Agreement of 1952 that are not affected by the Agreement of 12 September 1990, which provided for the merging of the so-called Federal and Democratic Republics of Germany. .. (ed. Note: Provisions herein omitted here, but available in full speech)
We are particularly concerned with Article 1 of Chapter Nine, which includes the phrase “Subject to the provisions for establishment of a peace settlement with Germany....”
Here it is in black and white, my friends - how plain does it have to be? The German Chancellor knows perfectly well that Germany still has no peace treaty with the USA. The German Chancellor understands perfectly well that the USA reserves the right to resume attacking Germany without bothering to declare war. The present Chancellor understands perfectly that she, like all her predecessors, continues to be subject to the dictates of the USA. She understands also that the US President, or more precisely the moneyed power mongers behind him, has the power over the German Chancellor. (emphasis added)

The story gets even more interesting. Article 2 of the above mentioned Exchange of Notes states that in German law, all rights and obligations based on legislative, judicial or executive measures of the occupation government remain in effect regardless of whether they are in accord with “other rights and obligations.” (Ed. Note: i.e. What the right hand gives, the left hand takes away) It is clear that the laws and directives of the USA and its allies still override the laws and directives of the allegedly sovereign Federal Republic. This international “Catch 22” brings to mind Zbiegniew Brzezinski’s book THE GRAND CHESSBOARD. In that book Brzezinski categorically states that the Germans are “obligatory vassals of the USA.”(emphasis added) When in a speech in Vienna he applied this thesis to Austria as well, the Austrian foreign minister gently interrupted him, saying “But Mr. Brzezinski, we are supposed to be partners.” Brzezinski responded, “All right then, you are PARTNERS who are obligated to pay tribute!”

Let us go even father back in history, to 1945. In those days some particularly clever American Jews published the occupation guidebook WHAT TO DO WITH GERMANY. 1945. DISTRIBUTED BY SPECIAL SERVICE DIVISION, ARMY SERVICE FORCES, U.S. ARMY. The directive was based on a book of the same title by Louis Nizer, which was published in 1944 and is posted on the Internet at {Nizer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer from New York with close ties to the White House, was a colleague of Theodore Kaufmann, author of GERMANY MUST PERISH, and of Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury and the author of the Morgenthau Plan. In a version of “Hard Cop – Soft Cop” Nizer argued that instead of de-industrializing Germany and reducing its population through starvation and sterilization, the USA should benevolently lobotomize the Germans culturally, educationally and psychologically.}

Let me quote from the official DIRECTIVES FOR RE-EDUCATION of 1945:
“Re-education will be compulsory for young and old alike, and must not be restricted to the classroom. We should employ the great power of conviction that goes with dramatic presentation in its service - movies can be used to greatest effect here. We should employ the greatest authors, producers and stars under the auspices of an “International University” to dramatize the limitless evils of Nazism, and contrast these evils with the simple beauty of a Germany that is no longer obsessed with marching and shooting. These movies will have the mission of creating an appealing picture of democracy. In addition, radio broadcasts will be used to penetrate German homes with formal lectures and informal discussions.

German authors, dramatists and publishers should be subjected to constant examination through this “International University” as well, since they are all educators. Undemocratic publications must of course be suppressed from the beginning. Only after German thinking has been strengthened in the new democratic ideals should we allow opposing views, when we are confident that the Nazi virus has been eliminated. This way, we will gain immunity for the future. The re-education process must penetrate all of German society. During their leisure time, the working classes should also receive simple lessons in democracy. Summer outings and popular educational events can help accomplish this.

Many German prisoners of war will remain in Russia after the war is over - not voluntarily, of course, but because Russia needs their labor. This is completely legal and it lessens the danger that returning prisoners might form the nucleus of a new national movement. Even if we do not wish to keep German prisoners after the War, we should send them to Russia.

The “International University” provides the best vehicle for monitoring and controlling the details of the German educational system, including schools, lesson plans, selection of teachers and textbooks - in short, all pedagogical institutions and materials. In addition, we need a “High Command” for our re-education offensive. Particularly gifted German students should be given opportunity to further their education in our schools; they should then return to Germany as teachers and found a new democratic tradition that combines a sense of international citizenship. Whenever possible, their professors should be liberal and democratic. The intervention of “foreigners” could have an agitating effect and it must be kept to a minimum, but should not cause us to lose control.

Every imaginable kind of democratic influence should be employed in the service of re-education. This calls for the efforts of churches, movies, theatre and radio as well as the press and labor unions. Re-education should take the place of military service. Every German should be required to participate, just as they were formerly conscripted.

The task has fallen to us of protecting world peace and freedom. This is the freedom that was born on Mount Sinai, lay in its cradle in Bethlehem, spent its early youth in England and whose stern schoolmaster was France. It is the freedom that spent its early manhood in the United States, the freedom that is destined to spread all over the world – if we do our duty.”
(Ed. Note: One may question Weichhaus’ personal historical veiw, but it is difficult to dispute the authenticity and clear meaning of the document he cites above.)

The chief editor of the “New York World,” prominent Jewish journalist Walter Lippmann, was quoted in DIE WELT on 20 November 1982 as follows: “A war can only be considered won when its territory is occupied by its enemy, its leaders convicted of war crimes trials by military tribunals and its people subjected to a program of re-education. One obvious means to the end of re-education is planting the victor’s point of view and depiction of history and point of view in the brain of the vanquished. In this regard, it is of decisive importance to implant the victor’s moral categories of war propaganda in the consciousness of the defeated nation. Not until the victor’s propaganda has entered the history books of the vanquished and is believed by the next generation can we consider re-education as truly successful.” (Ed. Note: Not only has the “victor’s propaganda” entered the history books, it message repeated ad nauseum down through the years, IMHO, has contributed directly to our good bishop’ present troubles. For all intents and purposes, that very effective propaganda campaign of “re-education” has turned even the leadership of his own apostolate into his virtual enemies)…

Just a few months after the War began, the US War Department began training large numbers of specialists for the lavishly funded German Re-education Program. Camp Ritchie in the state of Maryland was designated as “Military Intelligence Training Center.” The trainees had to speak German, be familiar with German history, and be willing to participate in rewriting German history. Thus the Americans began their program of de-Nazification very early in the War. Given our present knowledge, we can say that at this time Washington was preparing to convert postwar Germany into a self-service emporium for the moneyed power mongers in the United States. The seeds of self-destruction were already planted so that in our time, Germans young and old would reflexively scream “Down with Germany!”…

In the book by Helen Lombard, “While they Fought,” (1947), the showing of one such movie, (i.e. an example of propaganda films described in material omitted) is described on page 313. Lombard writes:
“Shortly after the occupation of Germany by American troops, the Information Branch of
the US Army began producing indoctrination films for American soldiers in Germany.
Although they were not intended for distribution in the USA, one of these films was shown after a party in honor of an undersecretary in the War Department named Patterson and his wife. The propaganda film presented the Germans as having started both the First and Second World Wars. A man’s voice accompanied the film admonishing the troops to hate all Germans young and old and then stated: ‘Of course, the German people will have to be re-educated. They will have to be taught how to live in a democracy. But this will be done by one of our allies.’”
The film did not say who this ally was.

Today we know that toward the end of the War an “Israeli Legion” officially fought on the side of the Allies and that many of the “education commissars” were Jews wearing American uniforms. The dinner party watching this film, which consisted primarily of officials from the War Department, and other government agencies “applauded enthusiastically.” That party is described in greater detail in my book DAS VERBREITEN FALSCHER REALITÄTEN ALS MACHTFAKTOR (Disseminating False Information as a Power Factor) which is available from

As part of the “de-Nazification” program, German prisoners of war were compelled to sign a sworn statement. However, around a million of them who had been alive at the end of the War were unable to fill out these forms. It was because they were dead. They had been murdered by Allied soldiers after the War had ended. On the orders of General Eisenhower and in violation of the Geneva Convention, which the Germans strictly observed in their treatment of captured Americans, these German POWs were interned during the cold wet summer of 1945 in open fields with no food or shelter. They were allowed to starve as their bodies sank in the bottomless mud of the vast Rhine meadows such as Remagen, to name just one of Eisenhower’s notorious death camps. (Ed. Note: I hate to say it, as one growing up in the “I like Ike” era. But I think this account has some legs.)

In Summary

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic that was adopted on 23 May 1949 was created as a temporary and provisional document. In a ruling dated 12 October 1987, the BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT (“Federal Constitutional Court”) very specifically states this. Document Az:2 BvR, page 8, reads:

“...The Parliamentary Committee did not intend for the Basic Law to serve as the basis of a new State. Rather, it was intended as a document that would create order during a transitional period, (Emphasis added) until such time as ‘Unification, Self-determination and Freedom’ should be achieved in Germany.” Thus reads the Preamble to the Basic Law. Alas, that blessed state of “Unification, Self-determination and Freedom” has still not arrived in Germany.

(One court document read):
“...1. The Court remains of the opinion (see Opinion BVerfG 1956-08-17, 1BvB 2/51, BVerGE 5, 85 <126>) that the German Reich survived the military collapse of 1945 and has never ceased to exist, either through capitulation or through the foreign exercise of power in Germany by the Allies or through any subsequent event. Legally, the Reich continues to possess legitimacy even though it is incapable of carrying out its state functions. Thus the Federal Republic cannot be considered a legitimate heir or successor to the Reich.”(Emphasis added) This reaffirms precisely that we Germans do have a valid and legitimate Constitution, namely that of the German Reich in the version of 1919….

Our enemies’ manipulation of our minds, the reality of which I have tried to demonstrate to you, attempts to bully and intimidate the German nation and make Germans appear small and malicious before the entire world. There is no reason why the Federal Republic should have so many debts - certainly not in such an immense sum as FOUR TRILLION Euros!

It is quite clear that all Germans who are German in the sense of Article 116 of the Basic Law that was forced upon us by our enemies, are not responsible for these monstrous debts, since we were born too late. The Basic Law precisely identifies those responsible for the debts and reparations: “In the sense of this Basic Law, the designation ‘German’ applies to anyone who possessed German citizenship, or was married to a German, or was a descendant of a citizen of the Reich residing in the territories of the Reich as of 31 December 1937.” (Ed. Note: In other words, the Basic Law clearly states that no German born after 1937 is responsible for war debts and reparations)

We Germans have had it constantly hammered into our heads that we are a nation of murderers, criminals and outlaws! (Ed. Note: I am almost 73 years old. In my own experience, the foregoing statement is absolutely true . This kind of propaganda was pounded relentlessly into my head as a child). For over 60 years our politicians have been telling us over and over again that we have a "notorious past." They repeat this phrase like a prayer wheel whenever it is time to pay out more billions for alleged "crimes against humanity."

We awful Germans, who started the War and caused mankind so much misery and suffering! Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, to whom the Jewish World Congress awarded an honorary degree from the University of Haifa, declared at the JWC banquet in New York on 11 September 2002: “To this very day, it is incredibly difficult for us Germans to live with our country’s moral and historical guilt for Shoa. This is true even for us of the younger generation, who have to accept our national heritage.” The German politicians appointed to rule over us are obviously responsible for the present disorders. It is very clear that they encourage chaos and the dissolution of our culture and traditional values. For them, chaos means money. It means money for the 20 percent of the population who are growing wealthier every day because 80 percent are growing poorer!

What can we do? Is there a way out of our misery? Can the middle class – indeed, mankind be saved? We, the German Volk, have justice and the law on our side! We have the Basic Law, International Law, the United Nations and the International Court on our side, yet we still hesitate. As Jürgen Möllemann expressed it, “Some of us have their pants so full that they see nothing but brown, everywhere they look.” Why have we Germans, the onetime “Nation of Thinkers and Poets,” allowed our enemies to (this) do to us? I often think of a witticism made by a German South African who remarked during my lecture in Port Elisabeth: “The sun is smiling upon South Africa but the whole world is laughing at Germany!” Only the entire German nation as a whole can change the situation. We must finally recognize that as long as the many individuals and groups do not stick together, we will always be a ball that is kicked about by the powerful few. The countless citizen and activist organizations marching separately will never bring about change.
…. I advise you to say loudly and clearly to these representatives of the federal nod (meaning unclear) state parliaments that were not elected by the people / as well as to all party bigwigs: NOW WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH! WE ARE FED UP! WE WANT TO DETERMINE OUR OWN FUTURE! WE WANT A CONSTITUTION AND WE WANT IT NOW! I urge you to accept the invitation to these demonstrations taking place in Leipzig every Monday. See to it that our demands continue thundering from the throats of a hundred thousand of our countrymen!

The present time is propitious for our effort to take back our country. Today, not even the most politically correct television news program is able to continue broadcasting rosy financial reports. They no longer deny that the critical tax structure for financing the federal, state and local government is collapsing. Our accumulated debts have reached the unpayable amount of over five trillion Euros, and they are increasing by over three thousand Euros PER SECOND. In states like Brandenburg the interest on the debt is increasing by thirty percent every twelve months. All in all, Germany is paying over a quarter of a billion Euros EVERY DAY, in interest alone.

Our falling tax receipts barely cover interest payments plus salaries of government workers. Very soon these receipts will not even cover that, my friends, and then our hour will come. The regime will no longer (be) able to pay its debts – it will simply be bankrupt! That time is obviously very near, and so it is now necessary to make plans for the period following the collapse.

When the collapse comes (because of the accumulation of 5 trillion dollars of debt), all of yesterday’s lies will become today’s realty. One of the principal lies of the politicians is that Germany is a sovereign state. The truth obviously is that Germany is still occupied by its World War II enemy. Therefore we demand a peace treaty between all combatants. We also demand the convening of a national convention to write a constitution that shall be adopted by our people in a free plebiscite, as provided by in Article 146 of our Basic Law.

Everyone must participate and help spread the news of our movement, since the moneyed power mongers who own the media do not support a peace treaty. Keep in mind that at the beginning of every revolution, even a peaceful revolution such as ours, only a few individuals were involved. But these were always the best! We must have the best because, in the stirring words of Pierre Bourdieu at the Gare de Lyon in 1995: “We can combat the international technocracy only by challenging them in those fields where they have the advantage. In the field of scientific economics, we must oppose their deformed system with an economics that shows respect for human beings and human realities.”