PATRIOT LETTER: THE AUSCHWITZ SHOW — HAPPY BIRTHDAY PROFESSOR FAURISSON

Patriot Letter. Dated 1/26/05.

Archived by k0nsl.

 

Dear Fellow Patriot!

Today is Prof. Faurisson’s birthday and we conclude
our tribute to him with the final word by Dr. Fredrick
Toben.

It is a strange coincidence that the great scholar,
Prof. Faurisson, has his birthday the day before the
world puts on the show to celebrate the liberation of
Auschwitz.

This Patriot Letter is dedicated to refute these lies
and to Prof. Faurisson. It is the longest Patriot
Letter I have ever written, but it is so important and
worth every word. Pass it on far and wide:

THE AUSCHWITZ LIES

by Walter F. Mueller

“Auschwitz liberation”: usually the same show every
year. However, this year, it is bigger because for one
it’s the 60th anniversary, and second, the Jews so
badly need to remind the world that they are victims.
According to them, anti-Semitism has increased
throughout Europe, and Germany is on the way to
another “Nazitum.”

Every year, a net of lies is woven that spans
throughout the world. I wasn’t sure if I should write
about it again. However, Rush Limbaugh – or as my
brother calls him Rush Hashanah – announced that
tomorrow, in order to pay tribute to the Jews, he will
educate his audience that Reichs Chancellor Hitler was
never elected. I don’t need to dignify this with a
response.

So, tomorrow, leaders from around the world will
gather at the “Halloween site” of Jewish lies.
Auschwitz will be the place where politicians from
around the world will make sure that their re-election
funds are secured.

Auschwitz is still the biggest one of the lies when we
talk about concentration camps. Community News – in
2003 – published a four-part series “The Lies Of The
21st Century” by a German fellow who was there. His
name – Paul Krupp. His series became an instant hit
with out readers, since he provided rare, never before
published pictures of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen,
Dachau, Mauthausen, and Sachsenhausen.

Since then, Mr. Krupp vanished without a trace. It is
my contention that he did what he wanted to do, as
long as it was still safe.

Knight-Ridder News Service distributed an Auschwitz
piece, written my Raphael Medoff, Director of the
Wyman Institute. The Institute has quite a reputation
of keeping tabs on “holocaust deniers activities.” A
picture of “surviving”  children of Auschwitz
accompanied the article. I was actually surprised,
because the kids, 15 of them, looked like they just
came from a Smorgasbord Hometown Buffet. A couple of
them were even overweight!

For whatever reason, Auschwitz became the centerpiece
and showcase of the Jews. More than 600,000 tourists
visit it every year.

What was Auschwitz? It was a camp, no different than
the camps in the U.S., Britain, Russia, and elsewhere.
Auschwitz was a collective station for prisoners of
war, criminals, refugees, foreign workers, and enemies
of the state. It was a transit camp.

Many scholars have proven that there were no gas
chambers in Auschwitz. So, all the stories surrounding
Auschwitz and gas chambers were exposed as the biggest
hoax the world has ever seen.

Before January of 1945, Auschwitz inmates had a
choice, either to go West, with the Germans, or wait
for the Russians.

Eli Wiesel, holocaust-fraud-par-excellence, decided to
go “with the Nazi murderers rather to be liberated by
the Russians.”

Whatever is shown today to these hundreds of thousands
of tourists has been added on by the Russians during
the time Auschwitz was closed for ten years. After
major additions, it was opened to the public and soon
more than 4 million Jews were allegedly gassed in the
camp.

Over the years, the number of gassed Jews in Auschwitz
was reduced from 4 million to about 1.4 million, and
just recently the editor of  Der Spiegel, Fritjof
Meyer, reduced them to 350,000.

Daily life for the inmates in Auschwitz was swimming
and sunbathing beside the Auschwitz pool on Saturday
and Sunday afternoon. Now think about this, why would
the evil Nazis provide a swimming pool if they were
planning to kill them all? The vivid Jewish
imagination read like a Marvel Comic book:

Boys of young age survived the gas chambers six times

Holocaust survivors lived because they were hiding
underneath dead bodies

Eli Wiesel claims that geyser-like blood fountains
were squirting from the earth, because the ground was
trenched with Jewish blood

These stories read like Spiderman, The Hulk, Superman,
Elektra, and The Darkman. All the survivors must have
had special powers to survive the “gruesome tactics of
the Nazis” described by holocaust survivors eyewitness
accounts.

Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, both experts in
Chemistry, proved without the shadow of a doubt that
the gassings described by the holocaust survivors were
impossible.

“Margo and Todd’s” Auschwitz experience made them
volunteers for the Holocaust Museum. Logical thinking
has left their body. However, the saddest of them all
is the young generation. No more inquiries, no more
questions, no more investigating. Their minds warped
from Ritalin made them incapable of independent
thinking.

In Germany today, holocaust lies are cherished and
protected by law. While the truth is prosecuted and
imprisoned.

In that spirit, I always believed that we are among
the fortunate ones by being around scholars like Prof.
Faurisson, Dr. Toben, Fred Leuchter, Arthur Butz, Udo
Walendy, Juergen Graf, Germar Rudolf, and so many
more.

So, tomorrow, leaders from around the world will look
again at a fake gas chamber and morn, and yes, some
will even cry.

******

And now from the Adelaide Institute some more on the
Auschwitz Show:

[START]

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Auschwitz-Birkenau: Well-oiled Nazi death machine

By Karin Zeitvogel, Agence France-Presse

OSWIECIM, Poland: Between 1940 and 1945,
Auschwitz-Birkenau was built up by Poland’s Nazi
occupiers from a concentration camp for 10,000
prisoners to a slick machine of mass extermination
that took the lives of at least 1.1 million people.

Confined to 20 Polish army barrack buildings on the
outskirts of the southern Polish town of Oswiecim, the
camp was originally set up “to terrorize the Polish
people,” according to historian Miroslaw Obstar­czyck,
who is also curator at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum.

Jozef Paczynski, a Polish resistance fighter, arrived
at the camp on June 14, 1940, on the first transport
of prisoners. He was 19.

“The train went to a siding and stopped at a building
surrounded by barbed wire. The door opened and German
guards shouted ‘Raus! Schnell’ [Get out! quickly!],”
said Paczynski, now 85.

Even to their first batch of prisoners, the Nazis
showed a frightening, inhuman efficiency and eye for
detail that they were to hone over the years to ensure
their death camp ran as efficiently as possible.

“We were taken inside, lined up, counted and a German
officer told us, ‘this is not a sanatorium. This is a
German concentration camp where you will survive a
maximum of three months, six weeks if you’re a Jew or
a priest.’”

“We were taken to the basement and registered: name,
date of birth, but also how many gold teeth we had and
who in our family had died of what diseases,” he
recalled.

That information was to be used by the Nazis to
deliver false death certificates.

“If they killed you, your family would get a message
that you had died of a disease that runs in the
family,” Paczynski explained.

Starting in 1941, the Nazis began to further develop
their “zone of terror” to include the village of
Brze­zinka—Birkenau in German—three kilometers from
Auschwitz, and to fit out the extended camp with
purpose-built, interconnecting gas chambers and
crematoria.

“The Germans were always looking for the most
efficient way to kill the most people, the most
quickly,” said Paczynski.

Birkenau was fully operational in 1943, and it was
here that more than a million European Jews, some
20,000 gypsies and several hundred political prisoners
were killed, most of them as soon as they arrived.

They were shipped into the camp by train, which would
pass under a brick watchtower before coming to a stop
50 meters later.

SS soldiers would fling open the doors of the
train—often cattle-cars—ordering its human cargo off.

Next came the “selection,” with able-bodied men and
women ordered to one side, to work at the camp, and
the elderly, infirm and children to the other—to the
gas chambers which had been built immediately adjacent
to the railway siding.

Those not selected for instant death were sent to the
Sauna building, where they were registered before
being herded down a series of corridors to undress and
hand over their belongings, have their heads and body
parts shaved, be searched under the eyes of jeering SS
men, and then shower in icy or boiling water.

The belongings of Jewish inmates were disinfected and
shipped to Germany, as were entire heads of women’s
hair—used to make socks, netting, rope—gold teeth from
the deceased, even skeletons for scientific research.

Birkenau’s gas chambers worked with inhuman
efficiency.

Victims were herded off trains and into underground
“changing” rooms where men, women and children
stripped naked together.

They then packed into a second underground chamber
that they had been told was a shower, which the Nazis
filled with Zyklon B gas.

Only five to seven kilograms of Zykon-B are required
to kill 2,000 people. From 1943, when Birkenau began
operations, until the camp was liberated on January
27, 1945, 20,000 kilograms of Zyklon B gas were used
in its gas chambers.

The corpses were taken by special lifts to the
crematorium above the gas chamber, where they were
again searched for hidden valuables and gold teeth
were extracted.

“Everything was reused. It was mass murder and
organized plunder,” said Obstarczyck.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/jan/25/yehey/opinion/20050125opi5.html

==

… when the world remembers the millions who died in
the Nazi extermination camps. … and children, would
strip off and walk through that door into the gas
chamber. …

Thursday January 27 is Holocaust Memorial Day when
the world remembers the millions who died in the Nazi
extermination camps. This year is somewhat different,
as it also commemorates the 60th anniversary of the
liberation of Auschwitz. More than any other death
camp, Auschwitz symbolises the horror of the
Holocaust.

The southern Polish town of Oswiecim is rather
nondescript. It has houses, a railway and some
factories but when it’s given its German name –
Auschwitz – it takes on a much greater significance.

Auschwitz survivor Ernest Levy said: “One simply
doesn’t want to believe it that things like that are
happening, it’s possible. You don’t want to believe
it, like my late father who perished in Birkenau
always said “It will be all right, just one more
dance, we will move”. But we didn’t move and we got
caught in the tragedy.”

Despite the Nazis attempts to completely destroy them
by gassing and burning, their traces remain. This is
human hair. Some plaits remain in place. It was used
to make carpets and nets. There are shoes, personal
items. Other remains like so much of Auschwitz are
beyond words.

The prisoners were brought into an open courtyard.
Nazis were stationed all along the roof. They would
tell the prisoners that they were going to be showered
and disinfected, before getting a hot meal and then
being taken to the work camp for processing. In a
further deceit, they would pick out individuals and
ask what trade they did. Supposing someone said they
were a shoemaker, they would be told we need
shoemakers in the camp, come and report to us after
you’ve showered and eaten. Thus reassured, the
prisoners, men, women and children, would strip off
and walk through that door into the gas chamber.
Lethal Zyklon B crystals were poured into the chamber.
The dying was neither quick nor quiet.

Sixty years ago that immediate suffering ended when
Soviet troops liberated the camp. This week many will
return to Auschwitz to commemorate that event.

http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_2_2&newsid=6463&newsType=n1_3

[END]

[START]

The attached Washington Post article on the Yad Vashem
database was published in today’s Chicago Tribune. It
lets slip another of those case of Jews assuming a
relative was killed in the Holocaust though in fact he
lived for many years after the war.

=====

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0501250009jan25,1,6224750.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed

Who were the Holocaust victims?

Database hopes to document lives of the dead

By Bill Broadway

The Washington Post

January 25, 2005

The lives of thousands of Holocaust victims are coming
to light in a new database that allows anyone with an
Internet connection to research the fate of family
members and friends sent to Nazi death camps.

More than 3 million names are included in the digital
archive, which was launched by Yad Vashem, the
Holocaust center in Jerusalem. The ultimate goal is to
have most or all of the estimated 6 million Jews who
were executed, Avner Shalev, chairman of Yad Vashem’s
directorate, said in a telephone interview from
Israel.

Until now, family members and friends who contributed
the names of victims did so by submitting forms called
testimonies and mailing or delivering them to Yad
Vashem, which has collected biographies, journals,
photographs, letters and other documents since the
1950s.

Details on database

With the introduction of the $22 million database,
contributors can sit down at a computer, type the
address www.yadvashem.org  into a Web browser, enter
the database and click on “submit new pages of
testimony.”

Up comes a form for the victim’s name or names, place
of birth, profession, wartime “travails” (deportation,
ghetto, camp, death march, hiding, escape,
resistance), approximate age at death and other
details.

Those looking for people already on the list use the
search engine to comb through millions of pages of
information by entering the person’s first or last
name, including hundreds of variants: birth date,
country of residence, names of other family members
and the submitter’s name.

Each of the testimonies “stands in lieu of a tombstone
that doesn’t exist,” said Sallyann Sack, a Bethesda,
Md., psychologist who founded the Jewish Genealogy
Society of Greater Washington 24 years ago and is
editor of Avotaynu, an international journal of Jewish
genealogy.

Sack said it is the equivalent of giving an identity
to thousands of men, women and children who died
nameless, often placed in mass graves, or no graves at
all.

Two-thirds of the names were obtained from testimonies
submitted to Yad Vashem since the 1950s, most of them
scanned into computers and digitally categorized over
six months in 1999, Shalev said.

The remaining 1 million names were gleaned from other
computerized lists, including deportation, camp and
ghetto records.

When possible, biographical information is
cross-checked with other documents, including ship
registries and postwar accounts written by survivors,
Shalev said.

The database, which can be accessed in English or
Hebrew and is free of charge, is unprecedented in
scope and availability of information, said Barbara
Vines Little, president of the Arlington, Va.-based
National Genealogical Society.

Onboard early

One of the early users was Jerry Zeisler, a
50-year-old business consultant from Leesburg, Va.,
who logged on within hours of the launch Nov. 22 to
search for members of his mother’s family. He and his
sister, Bonnie Frederics of Tucson, Ariz., worked
simultaneously while e-mailing each other.

Among the testimonies they found were those of Zlata
Adelson, a great-grandmother of theirs who was born in
Butrimantz (Butrimonys), Lithuania, in 1879, and
Benzion Adelson, her son born in 1911. Zeisler and
Frederics knew that Zlata and Benzion had died in 1941
because they were listed in a postwar account of the
Jews of Butrimantz — one of many such books, called
yizkor, written by survivors who wanted to chronicle
the lives of those who had died.

They also hit upon a surprise: The person who
submitted the victims’ names, in 1955, was Reuven
Adelson, another son whom surviving family members
assumed had died in the Shoah with his mother and
brother. Reuven was pictured with Benzion in the
yizkor book but was not among those listed as killed
in 1941.

According to the database, Reuven had left Lithuania
in 1939, apparently for Palestine. So Zeisler and
Frederics got in touch with Elizabeth Levy, a
genealogist they met on another Web site who lives in
Israel. Levy called the Edelsons listed in the
telephone white pages, and one turned out to be
Reuven’s widow, who told her she has three grown
children and a grandchild in Israel.

Reuven died in 1975 in an automobile accident, never
having again seen his sister — Zeisler’s grandmother
— and other family members who immigrated to the
United States, despite having made efforts to do so.

[END]

[START]

another fucking liar.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=15108590%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=brit-who-broke-in-to-auschwitz-name_page.html

[END]

FRITZ on the same issue:

[START]

Walter,

you probably saw this in todays news already.  I
personally found it noteworthy that the report states:
“In Auschwitz up to 1.5 million human beings were
done away with by the Nazis.” (my translation.)  Mind
you, up to one and a half million “Menschen”, that’s
all inclusive, not Jews only!  There was no word of
any one having been gassed either!  It shows that we
are making progress, even though the headline still
calls it murder.  But here we could easily also
paraphrase “Crocodile Dundee” and say: “At Auschwitz,
that was not murder, now Dresden, Nagasaki and
Hiroshima…”

From what I learned and from what I know is that
Auschwitz was a work camp.  It never was a
“Vernichtungslager” (extermination camp).  People died
there, just as they did at Bergen Belsen and at
Dachau, due to lack of food and medicine, from disease
and the ravages of war, and this happened mostly
during the closing days of the war.  It was never part
of any plan to make these people die wholesale.  The
opposite was true.  Germany suffered from a lack of
workers and everything possible was done to keep those
workers productive and healthy.  And when the Russians
advance got too close, the inmates of these camps and
their families were put on trains and transported
west!

What took place during those closing months of the war
could just as easily be blamed on the allies as on any
one else.  But there is no doubt in my mind that the
deaths at Dresden had been calculated and that they
were indeed cold blooded murder!

Fritz

Dienstag 25. Januar 2005, 17:48 Uhr
Deutschland und Europa gedenken der Ermordeten von
Auschwitz

Berlin (dpa) – Zum 60. Jahrestag der Befreiung des
Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz hat Bundeskanzler Gerhard
Schröder dem Rechtsextremismus den Kampf angesagt. Es
sei die Pflicht aller Demokraten, der Hetze der
Neonazis entschieden entgegenzutreten, sagte Schröder
in Berlin. Auch der Europarat gedachte der Auschwitz-
Opfer. Ratspräsident René van der Linden warnte
ebenfalls vor neuem Antisemitismus. In Auschwitz
brachten die Nazis bis zu 1,5 Millionen Menschen um.
Am 27. Januar 1945 befreite die Rote Armee das Lager.

[END]

*******************************************************

And here is the final tribute to Prof. Robert
Faurisson:

[START]

The Man, the Scientist, and his Method of ‘Exactitude’
By Dr. Fredrick Töben

Introduction

When I was asked to contribute towards the Robert
Faurisson Festschrift, I recalled my own student days
during the 1970s in Germany where I had regularly come
across such publications. The German word Schrift
means writing or a piece of correspondence. The word
Fest has become part of the English language, and few
English speakers would not have heard of the
Oktoberfest where festivity and celebration goes
hand-in-hand with inebriation, a celebration, a
commemoration of life in its totality.

However, a Festschrift attempts to balance both the
inevitable passionate life-affirming Dionysian
intoxication with the Apollonian sense for order and
beauty. It is hoped that a picture of Robert
Faurisson, the object of this written exercise, will
emerge and be transported beyond the temptations of
despair, the doom and gloom that so easily befalls
revisionists. There are men and women who for decades
have been in this struggle against historical
falsifications and who justifiably may feel somewhat
despondent about not achieving that final victory in
their lifetime. It is hoped that the following will
clarify what kind of victory can be expected, and that
the battle cry will rise towards an affirmation of
love of life that transcends resignation and defeat.

Hence, the other meaning of the word fest comes to
mind: to be firm, hard, solid, unwavering, to hold on
to one’s belief in face of adversity, persecution, in
defeat even. How appropriate this sense of the word is
when writing about Robert Faurisson will, I hope,
become clear in my following reflections.

I well remember meeting Robert Faurisson personally
for the first time in 1997 when, before my first trip
to the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, my
niece and I briefly stopped in Paris, there to meet
Serge Thion and Robert’s sister, Yvonne Schleiter.
Having made our first acquaintance with the two
pillars that have been towering giants of support for
Faurisson, we then journeyed on by train to Vichy to
meet the man himself.

Before taking us on a tour of his home town, Robert
invited us for lunch. As we entered the restaurant
surprisingly he excused himself and asked us to wait
inside the entrance. Where was he off to? Surely, I
thought, this is some strange French mannerism
befitting an absent-minded professor who had been
struck by some thought that propelled him to leave us
standing near the doorway.

Surely, I thought, this is an example of French
rationalism that is good on presenting analytic word
pictures, an approach Ingrid Zündel would refer to as
producing “itsy-bitsy, picky-picky news.” Rationalism
on its own, like British empiricism on its own, has
problems offering us a synthetic whole. In contrast,
German idealism enables us to extricate ourselves from
this swamp of particulars and to develop a holistic
worldview where the practical (body) and theoretical
(mind) are synthesized, united into a somewhat
consistent whole.

My example of the dinner table is instructive here.
While, for example, English and German tables have
side plates for bread, the French dispense with such
and place the bread – the French rolls – on the
tablecloth next to the main plate. The bread crumbs
are free to fall anywhere. Yvonne Schleiter showed me
how in cultured households the bread crumb problem is
solved: a little ornate brush scoop, often gold
enameled, cleans it all. So, the rationalist mindset
is here concretized, as it moves from bread to
breadcrumb removal, but cannot synthesize and think of
a side plate that would also solve the problem of
bread crumb practicality (empiricism) and neatness
(idealism).

My musings passed the time as we stood there in the
restaurant waiting for Robert’s return. A few minutes
later a smiling Robert emerged from somewhere within
the body of the filled restaurant saying: “It’s
alright to eat here. The toilets are clean.”

Exactitude
I was impressed by this incident because it indicated
to me that Robert Faurisson had achieved a balance
between mind and body where neither the intellectual
nor bodily functions are separated. This balance is
sadly lacking within some of those who call themselves
intellectuals. It was clear to me that Robert
Faurisson demanded standards of physical cleanliness.
I already knew that he demanded mental cleanliness
where accuracy and precision guarded against
committing errors, where exactitude is the guiding
principle that seeks out fact and truth.

These two words are so maligned in current academic
endeavors, more so in various legal spheres were
matters ‘Holocaust’ are litigated. In Australia , in
Europe , in Canada , in particular, truth is no
defence in legal proceedings, and a reference to
factual events emerging out of scientific research is
irrelevant. Such is the state of mind that with brutal
legal force attempts to uphold a lie.

I thus had no difficulty in wholeheartedly embracing
Faurisson’s approach to the ‘Holocaust.’ The German
word Gründlichkeit comes to mind that describes the
process Faurisson himself called ‘exactitude.’ Or, as
Faurisson puts it:

“Sometimes also I would say in French that what I was
seeking was ‘la vérité mais au sens de vérité
verifiable.’ A play on words difficult to render in
English.” (Faurisson to Countess, Sept.  28, 2003)

Robert Countess prefers ‘exactitude’ over the use of
‘revisionism,’ as the latter has too much baggage
attached to it. For example, the Communist/Marxist
ideology branded and vilified any dissenter a
‘revisionist,’ and this was then enough for a
dissenter to be sent to the GULag. My preference is
still for ‘revisionism’ because it is merely a method,
an heuristic principle used by any thinking person who
attempts to construct/create a world view that is not
merely derivative and copied.

Faurisson, the man, attempts to lead by example, and
hence his love of tennis and skiing where, if one
wishes to achieve a certain standard of proficiency in
these sports, body and mind need to work together as
one.

In earlier years of our association, Faurisson had
once chastised me for a certain slackness that he
noted in my approach to collecting newspaper articles.
I must admit that although I have a solid
German-Austrian heritage, my having lived for over 50
years in Australia has rubbed off on me. As my English
professor at Stuttgart University , Dr. Lothar Fietz,
reminded me, in Australia we are rather pastoral, and
without too many intellectual structures in the mind!
That was the perception of a cultured German who
generalized from having met a person who had been
raised on a farm in Australia , and concluded
therefrom that all Australians are like that. The fact
is that most Australians are urban, not necessarily
urbane, dwellers.

Once I had sent Faurisson an item quoting the source
but forgetting to cite the date. I was informed in no
uncertain terms that I was wasting his time, and mine.
It didn’t happen again because even then I noticed
impatience in Faurisson’s voice. I tried to
rationalize this away by thinking how wearisome it
must be for Faurisson to welcome newcomers to the
field of revisionism. Those few individuals in the
world who develop a moral cause to embrace ‘Holocaust’
revisionism become anxious newcomers whose only formal
qualifications for this particular field of enquiry
are an innate sense of truth and justice.

The ‘Holocaust’ Lie
This impatience with individuals who do not measure up
to his set standards befell others who have sent
Faurisson items.

Emphasizing the word ‘Holocaust’ is a Faurisson habit
that I have adopted so as to indicate that, when we
speak of the alleged German-Jewish holocaust, this
event is not a given, not a factuality, not an
historically undisputed fact. Far from it, because it
also indicates that, what has been claimed to be a
unique historical event, the ‘Holocaust’ is anything
but unique. Perhaps as a hoax, yes!

In 1994, I entered the Australian revisionist scene on
a full-time basis where John Bennett had reigned
supreme. He had been there in California with
Faurisson, Butz, Zündel, Smith, and others, when in
1979 Willis Carto founded the Institute for Historical
Review. Bennett, ever the lawyer, has been playing it
safe, claiming that “the extent of the Holocaust has
been exaggerated.” He would not go beyond that point,
which at that time was considered serious enough for
him to be defamed and vilified in the media, in
particular in the Jewish press.

Faurisson went beyond this pussy-footing approach, and
gained prominence by claiming that “the ‘Holocaust’ is
a lie!” He formulated his uncompromising stance thus:

“Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber! Stop giving me
words. Stop showing me a building, a door, a wall or,
sometimes, only hair or shoes. I need a full picture
of one of those fantastic chemical slaughterhouses. I
need a physical representation of the extraordinary
weapon of an unprecedented crime. If you dare to say
that what tourists are shown in some camps is, or was,
such a gas chamber, come on and say it…”

I liked this approach, this clearly expressed attitude
of mind that demanded proof of what was being claimed.
On Faurisson’s part there was no awe, no deferential
stance, and no acceptance of the message that Jews
were indeed the victims of a massive injustice of
oppression and murder, a most heinous crime. Ever the
analyst, the scientist who brushed aside biased
emotional subjectivity, Faurisson still passionately
asks for proof that would substantiate claims made
about an alleged horrendous event. It did not win
Faurisson any prize for popularity. But his moral and
intellectual integrity is intact!

During the 1980s and early 1990s, I continued to
interact with both individuals who ‘believed’ in the
‘Holocaust’ and with those who had the courage to
question aspects of it. I then realized that I was
hitting the so-called establishment brick wall where
Jewish academics, such as Melbourne ’s Dr. Paul
Gardner, invited me to stop questioning the factuality
of the ‘Holocaust’ because “it did happen.” In various
published letters-to-the-editor in our local
newspaper, Gardner et al. wished to suppress an open
debate on the issue. Sydney ’s Professor Konrad Kwiet,
another one of Australia ’s ‘Holocaust’ experts,
advised me that this “thing is bigger than both of us,
so let it be.”

Yet, I also now knew Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Ernst
Zündel, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Professor Dr. Arthur
Butz, and Adelaide locals such as Werner Fischer and
Christopher Steele, who vigorously presented
convincing arguments against the view that this
‘Holocaust’ topic was off-limits, beyond open
discussion.

In 1983, The League of Rights mounted a successful
challenge against the ‘Holocaust’ lobby by staging in
Adelaide an exhibition at the Constitutional Museum .
It was a brilliantly conceived plan to stage such a
public exhibition, which visually illustrated the
skepticism about the orthodox version of the
‘Holocaust.’ The curator of the museum refused to be
intimidated by the objections to the exhibition, and
so for one month the whole argument against the
homicidal gassing story was aired in Adelaide .

Werner Fischer, that unapologetic member of the former
SS, had sown the seeds that sprang from Arthur Butz’s
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The pleasure for
many then to meet Butz in person in Adelaide attending
Adelaide Institute’s 1998 International Revisionist
Symposium was immense.

All the more disappointing, of course, that Robert
Faurisson could not make it to Australia for that
conference on account of his numerous ‘convictions’
against him in France for claiming that this whole
‘Holocaust’ business is one big lie.

Asking Questions
It is against this background of revisionist warriors
that legitimizes my personal questioning of the
orthodox ‘Holocaust’ view. Why should I not continue
to question the factuality and the veracity of the
claims made by some alleged ‘survivor’? Why should my
mental processes be switched off, and why should my
mind by-pass ‘Holocaust’ matters when on a daily basis
through all media outlets we are saturated with
one-sided atrocity stories about the ‘Holocaust’?

Worse still, why pull back from investigating physical
structures, analyzing and testing survivor claims,
when all I am given as a reason to desist is that
there is no debate about the ‘Holocaust.’ That’s
blocking open enquiry, something I find quite
disagreeable because by depriving my mind of vital
information there is thus no possibility of my
reaching a balanced view of an extremely contentious
historical matter.

During the early 1990s, as the revisionist argument
became more well known through the uncensored
Internet, the countering argument used was that
“everyone believes in it”, and that “denying the
Holocaust is like believing the moon is made of cheese
or believing in a flat earth theory.” Faurisson called
such responses ‘not serious,’ and he implored
revisionists to be serious and not get lost in ‘busy
work.’

This flat-earth statement was Professor Deborah
Lipstadt’s favorite response whenever she had to
deflect difficult questions. However, an academic who
does not offer reasons for an expressed view on
matters withdraws from an open discussion on a
contentious historical issue, thereby adopting an
absolutist attitude and interpretation of an event
that is far from settled. My experience tells me that
there is a raging ‘Holocaust’ debate, and the
existence of the revisionist movement attests to that,
and to much more. One significant example of character
assassination and of an academic witch-trial comes
from New Zealand . Academic Dr Joel Hayward fell foul
of the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ lobby because of his 1993 MA
thesis wherein he claims the revisionist argument
stands up to intellectual and academic rigour. In
2000, after the Irving-Lipstadt London defamation
trial, Hayward recanted, claiming that new evidence
emerging from that trial convinced him that he had
“stuffed up” in his MA conclusion. To date he, like
Lipstadt, have not delivered the goods on the
Faurisson challenge: “Show me or draw me the homicidal
gas chambers!” Any academic is free to change his
views on matters, especially if new information has
become available to him. However, there is such a
thing as intellectual integrity, and any change of
view needs to be rationally justified with evidence
provided of the material that led to a change of view.
Although I have asked Hayward for such material on
which his change of mind is based, it has not been
forthcoming. Need I wonder why?

Overcoming censorship
The main public media outlets monopolize the flow of
information to the extent that revisionism and
revisionists had great difficulty getting their
arguments aired in public. Thus, all the more
importance fell on individual revisionists to keep the
momentum going. Robert Faurisson is one such
individual who has the courage to swim against the
stream of popular opinion.

Faurisson’s greatest exposure in the world press
occurred during the Zündel Toronto trials of 1985 and
1988, where he and others conceived the plan that
resulted in Fred Leuchter producing his sensational
forensic reports about the Auschwitz crematoria, among
others.

Further, the advent of the Internet enabled somewhat
isolated revisionists to communicate world-wide in an
instant and independent of any form of censorship. The
moral well-being of revisionists has certainly been
enhanced by this new medium that permits anyone to ask
difficult questions and to oppose those individuals
whose sole task, so it seems, is to block open
enquiry.

In 1974, philosopher Karl Popper related to me how
this blocking mechanism had been used on him by Ludwig
Wittgenstein at Cambridge where Wittgenstein had
invited Popper as a guest speaker to a seminar.
Wittgenstein introduced Popper to the audience by
stating that, according to his philosophy of language,
all that is needed to solve problems is correct
language use. Popper responded by saying that first we
need to accept that there are problems that need to be
solved. He thus asked Wittgenstein what happens to
moral problems in language analysis. Wittgenstein
responded, “There are no moral problems!” because
correct language analysis eliminates them.
Wittgenstein picked up a fire poker and waved it at
Popper who responded:

“What about the moral problem when a host threatens
his visitor with a fire poker?”

It is not quite clear what happened, but Popper
informed me that Wittgenstein stormed out the room.
During the early 1990s, a Wittgenstein devotee, Dr.
Graeme Marshall of Melbourne University ’s philosophy
department, advised me that the whole incident was not
as dramatic as Popper makes out it was. Of course,
what happened in this incident is significant, because
Popper brought back the moral imperative as a
legitimate adjunct of scientific enquiry, if not
itself the object of study and reflection.

Faurisson’s scientific ideal of an open enquiry is
augmented by his principle of ‘exactitude,’ that
dialectically-tinged rational and restless approach,
which will not tolerate inexactness, fabrications, and
outright lying, far less any form of censorship in
matters ‘Holocaust.’ It does not please those who wish
to censor any public debate on the topic, and all the
more surprising it was for me to learn that even
self-confessed skeptics, such as America ’s Michael
Shermer, are believers when it comes to matters
‘Holocaust.’

Australia’s leading self-proclaimed atheist and
some-time Marxist, broadcaster Philip Adams, is a
‘Holocaust’ believer, and like organized skeptics the
world over, Adams has opted to embrace the concept
‘Holocaust denialism’ as a term that appears
effectively to deflect any critical analysis of the
issue, even when the absurdity of claims made does not
stand up to any critical analysis.

The question needs to be asked: What right have I to
make such pronouncements, such statements about
individuals who uphold the orthodox view of the
‘Holocaust’? I respond stating that my tertiary
training rests, among other things, on a study and
comparison of Karl Popper’s theory of falsification
and C.S. Peirce’s principle of fallibilism. This alone
eminently qualifies me to study any aspect of the
‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy. Briefly, C. S. Peirce developed
the logical form of abduction thus making scientific
hypothesizing a formal matter. This also enabled
Peirce to deny intuition on which Cartesianism-French
Rationalism (innate ideas) and British Empiricism
(sense data) based their dyadic, subject-object,
theory of cognition.

No Holes, No Holocaust
And so to assist me in my personal quest to clarify
the issues that arise out of this ‘Holocaust’
controversy, out of this gross distortion of world
history, I adopted Faurisson’s concise formulations:
“No Holes, No Holocaust” and “The Holocaust is a lie.”

Suddenly, the eminent Australian ‘Holocaust’ scholar,
John Bennett, became irrelevant in the Australian
media, and I became the most notorious Australian
‘Holocaust’ denier. I must have done something right,
because Faurisson’s statement that the whole
‘Holocaust’ enterprise is a lie propelled me into the
public battle for truth and justice. The result of all
this is that I now operate under a gag-order imposed
by the Federal Court of Australia on September 17,
2002, and confirmed on appeal on June 27, 2003. I am
now not permitted to dispute the six million alleged
Jewish deaths, the existence of the homicidal gas
chambers, or to doubt the ‘Holocaust’ itself. Thanks
for that present, Robert!

In 1994, when a group of individuals formed the
Adelaide Institute, Faurisson was there for us in the
background, as were Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich and Professor
Dr. Arthur Butz with their respective publications,
Der Auschwitz Mythos and The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century. Ernst Zündel was also there powering away
from Toronto at the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy and having
victoriously survived the 1985 and 1988 Toronto
‘Holocaust’ trials, at the same time increasing his
media outreach programs by flooding the world with
revisionist material. Zündel’s 1992 victory against
the ‘Holocaust’ liars occurred when Canada ’s Supreme
Court struck out a law, under which he had been
persecuted since 1985. When he left Canada to live
with his wife Ingrid in Tennessee , USA , little did
we then anticipate Zündel would again face the wrath
of Canada ’s Jewish-inspired judiciary. In January
2003 I visited Ernst and Ingrid Zündel at their home,
and seven days later, on February 5, he was arrested
at his home, then deported from the US to Toronto,
Canada, where he has been in a detention center ever
since. But that is another story.

When Professor Deborah Lipstadt visited Australia in
1994, she proved to be quite a sensation, claiming on
ABC TV’s Lateline that Jean-Claude Pressac had proved
in his 1989 book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of
the Gas Chambers that crematorium II at Auschwitz II
(Birkenau) had a ventilation system that explained how
the Zyklon B was extracted after the gassings took
place. My associates and I were mortified, but then
calmed ourselves by adhering to our own principles of
seeking the truth of an allegation. Were this 1994
Lipstadt revelation factually true that the gas
chamber’s existence had been proven as a physical
fact, then we would simply have to publicize this
facts, that indeed Auschwitz did have homicidal gas
chambers that operated and killed millions of people.

Together with Adelaide Institute’s then South
Australian Associate, David Brockschmidt, I traveled
to Melbourne personally to meet and to hear Professor
Lipstadt address this issue. She advised us that the
blueprints of the homicidal gas chambers are there in
Pressac’s book and that the matter is now closed. She
signed her book with “May Truth Prevail!” Later,
together with Adelaide Institute’s assistant director,
Geoff Muirden, I viewed the Pressac book at the
University of Melbourne ’s library where a copy was
kept under lock and key. The book did not convince me
of anything at all. It was not enough merely to look
at such plans because they did not out of themselves
reveal anything at all, certainly not that homicidal
gas chambers had existed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. And
that is where Faurisson’s approach comes in handy: a
plan should not need an extensive commentary to prove
what it is supposed to represent. That’s Faurisson’s
meaning of the term ‘busy work’!

As regards the Lipstadt claims, Faurisson calmed our
frayed nerves by advising that the story keeps on
changing, that Pressac is not to be trusted as he
knows him quite well, and that the fellow is in league
with the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ promoters of France ,
Serge and Beate Klarsfeld, who funded the Pressac
enterprise.

In April 1999, I met Pressac, who passed away in
September 2003, and he modified his claims somewhat,
stating that Topf & Söhne who built the cremation
ovens for Auschwitz had the capacity also to build
homicidal gas chambers. After all, the firm was a
world leader in grain drying techniques and in
crematoria designs. No wonder that after the war the
firm lost that position because of the induced
‘Holocaust’ guilt that paralyses normal healthy human
activities and then twists them into perversions of
submissive slave-like behavior, from which unhealthy
mental attitudes flow. That alone justifies for anyone
actively to oppose anything that the ‘Holocaust’ lobby
promotes. The pathetic German slave-like adherence to
this ‘Holocaust’ dogma, as legally reinforced through
German penal law paragraph 130 et al., is having
tragic consequences, as Günter Deckert, Germar Rudolf,
Udo Walendy, Hans Schmidt, et al, know so well. The
English edition of The Rudolf Report appeared in 2003,
and to date its 1993 forensic results stand firm.

Pressac said to me he never claimed that gassings
occurred, but rather that it was possible for gassings
to have occurred at Auschwitz . A Jewish group in
Italy was working on a CD that simulated that
possibility. To date I have not heard what success
this group achieved. At the time of my visiting
Pressac on March 31, 1999 , this Jewish Italian group
had reached the point of walking through the
undressing chamber at crematorium II and was standing
in front of the actual alleged homicidal gas chamber.
I don’t know whether they ever got inside or not.

Pressac also informed me that he had to think about
surviving in France . What bothered Pressac was that
Klarsfeld had become so aggressive towards him –
symbolically spitting at him through the telephone
just because he would not endorse Klarsfeld’s six
million Jewish deaths claim and Klarsfeld was angry at
Pressac’s own ‘Holocaust’ definition. Pressac
maintained that a “massive massacre” took place but
not a ‘Holocaust,’ and one should get away from using
that term when speaking about this period of history.

I also had the distinct feeling that Pressac was
rather sad at having lost Faurisson as a contact point
within the revisionist scene, and so he was happy that
at least Carlo Mattogno remained on speaking terms
with him.

De-Commissioning Crematorium I
Two years later a newcomer to the ‘Holocaust’ scene,
Robert Jan van Pelt, together with Deborah Dwork,
published a book: Auschwitz : From 1270 to the
Present. Much to my delight I noted at pages 363f. it
is admitted that crematorium I at Auschwitz-Stammlager
had been de-commis­sioned, i.e., the alleged homicidal
gas chamber shown had been ‘re-constructed’ after the
war, and that a mortuary was turned into an air raid
shelter but never into a homicidal gas chamber. Dwork
and van Pelt explain it almost in poetic language when
they talk about crematorium I ‘symbolically’
representing what happened at crematorium II in
Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Pressac informed me that he is angry with van Pelt and
Dwork because in writing their book they based it on
Pressac’s own research. They, in effect, ‘stole’ his
work, so Pressac claimed.

It took another seven years for the Auschwitz Museum
publicly to admit that crematorium I was indeed a
‘re-construction’, which its administrators did on the
museum’s website in 2003.

Vichy
And while the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy whittles away its
own foundations, it is Robert Faurisson et al. who
continue to face the French legal system that prevents
anyone from questioning any of the 1945-46 Nuremberg
Military Tribunal’s legal findings. It is not easy for
a devoted husband, father, and grandfather to endure
such burdens alone, isolated in Vichy . Thanks to the
advances in communication technology, especially the
Internet, Faurisson is not alone anymore.

As stated above, in 1998 we had Robert Faurisson
attend per video Adelaide Institute’s 1998
International Revisionist Symposium. In this video,
Faurisson elaborated how Vichy is not Vichy but
Vichy-Auschwitz, so according to Serge and Beate
Klarsfeld in a two-volumed book of that same title
dealing with so-called ‘Holocaust’ denial, wherein the
claim is made that Marshall Pétan, who resided during
the war in Vichy , had sent Jews to their death at
Auschwitz .

Faurisson takes us on a video tour of Vichy and
explains how the history of his city has been
falsified. He visits three sites within a radius of a
few hundred meters and explains how the factual things
that happened there are now presented from a distorted
Jewish view of local history, and Faurisson reminds us
it is forbidden to speak the truth in France about
such historical events.

1.  World War One Memorial: “Every war is butchery,”
Faurisson says, “and it is good for the victor and bad
for the vanquished. 20 years after the end of World
War One, The Munich Agreement was signed by Adolf
Hitler for Germany , Benito Mussolini for Italy ,
Edouard Deladier for France, and Neville Chamberlain
for the United Kingdom . Today we are told this
agreement is a disgrace – but was it? After the World
War One butchery, was it a disgrace trying to avoid
another war?”

The March 19, 2003 , invasion of Iraq comes to
mind and how the French Foreign Minister gave a
spirited reason why France should not join the
Anglo-American-Zionist-Forces, the ‘coalition of the
willing.’ Perhaps the French foreign minister is all
too conversant with history and specifically with
Robert Faurisson’s claims about the Hitler WMDs – the
homicidal gas chambers –  that have not been found
though the believers have had over sixty years to look
for them.

2.  Casino: On July 10, 1940 , 569 members of
Parliament gave powers to Marshall Pétan, 20
abstentions, and 80 against. Today there is one plaque
that states that 80 members of Parliament who voted
against Pétan saved the honor of the French people!

“DANS CETTE SALLE LE 10 JUILLET 1940
80 parlementaires ont par leur vote affirmé leur
attachement à la

République, leur amour de la liberté et leur foi dans
la victoire.

Ainsi s’acheva la IIIe République”

What is not stated on the plaque is that 60 countries
– including the USA and the Soviet Union – sent
ambassadors to Vichy , France .

3.  Hotel du Parc: There is no sign that Marshall
Pétan lived there in simple style until August 17,
1944 , when he was arrested by the Germans and taken
to Germany . The little space where he lived is closed
and no visit is possible. During the 1960s, a man was
arrested for placing a little poster there saying that
Marshall Pétan lived there 1940-44. Now there is a
plaque placed by Klarsfeld:

“This is the place where Pétan decided to send the
Jews to their death at Auschwitz.”

So, Faurisson concludes: “Vichy-Auschwitz.”

In September 1989, Robert Faurisson was bashed in the
park by three young Jewish thugs. A young man fishing
at the nearby river heard the cries and saved
Faurisson. Later the young man said he was sorry that
he saved Faurisson.

It is comforting to know that the French lobby, which
for decades has had Faurisson firmly in its sight, is
doomed to failure, though that is not for lack of
trying. Yet Faurisson’s knowledge, his meticulousness,
his impressive archive about matters ‘Holocaust’
remains unchallenged by anything offered by those who
uphold the ‘Holocaust’ dogma.

French Academics Capitulate
For example in 1979, a group of academics moved
against Robert’s sometime lonely fight against the
propagation of lies surrounding the ‘Holocaust,’ in
particular the existence of homicidal gas chambers at
Auschwitz. In the renowned Paris newspaper, Le Monde,
P. Vidal-Naquet, Léon Poliakov, and 32 academics
proclaimed on February 21, 1979:

“One may not ask how, technically, such a mass murder
was possible. It was technically possible since it
took place. Such is the obligatory starting point
required for any historical enquiry into this subject.
This truth we simply want to bring back into memory:
there is not, and there may not be, any debate on the
existence of the gas chambers.”

In this instance one may safely refer to philosopher
Arthur Schopenhauer’s (1788-1860) much-quoted words
that shed light on where the ‘Holocaust’ orthodoxy
finds itself:

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is
ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally
it is accepted as self-evident.”

The fact that French academics have (again) adopted
such a dead-end position to historical enquiry is
shameful for a nation that prides itself in carrying
on the Cartesian tradition. I place the word ‘again’
in parenthesis because what these French academics
express is perhaps a variant of how René Descartes
(1596-1650) reacted when he felt the pressure to
conform. Although known as the founder of modern
thought, Descartes withdrew his 1634 completed major
work Le Monde from publication. Galileo Galilee
(1564-1642) had just been condemned for his works that
supported the Copernican heliocentric model of the
solar system as did Le Monde, and so Descartes played
it safe.

Robert Faurisson has not compromised his stance
against the pressure exerted upon him by Jews in
France , far from it. He continues to oppose
superstition and champions rationality because he has
fully embraced Voltaire’s tradition of challenging
orthodox opinions. Like Voltaire, Faurisson does not
bemoan his persecution.

For revisionists who still fear the prospects of legal
and social persecution at the hands of academics,
political authorities, and the media it may comfort to
know that Voltaire (1694-1778) spent eleven months in
the infamous Bastille, exile in Holland, England,
Prussia, finally to settle in Switzerland because his
home country France would not have him.

One may well conclude that Voltaire’s reluctance in
accepting hypotheses and theories without any
empirical input stems from his time spent in England .
There John Locke (1632-1704) and Isaac Newton
(1642-1727) were firing up the empirical minds of
those who wished to learn more about the physical
world, about the universe. They in turn were
influenced by Johannes Keppler (1571-1630) who
utilized Tycho Brahe’s (1546-1601) astronomical
calculations and found planetary motion was
elliptical, unlike Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) who
still adhered to the dogma of circularity of planetary
motion.

Likewise with Robert Faurisson’s background and
experience. He can claim half British parentage with a
Scottish mother, and so knows full-well the value of
empirical investigations. At the end of the 1970s, it
was his fingers that ran over the internal structure
of the cremation ovens in crematorium I to discover
there simply was no soot remnant. This physical test,
among other things, led him to conclude that what had
been sold as an authentic cremation oven was in fact a
post-World War Two reconstruction.

Two decades later, at his 2000 London defamation trial
against Professor Deborah Lipstadt, David Irving
“tried to bring up the rebuilding of Krema I, and
Judge Gray said ‘we are not interested here in what
happened after the war’, which rather stumped me and I
dropped the subject.” ( Irving in an email to Töben
dated October 26, 2003 )

Busy Work and Definite Results
Faurisson always advises newcomers to revisionism to
remain simple and not to get lost in busy work, as was
the case with Charles Provan. At the 13th IHR
Revisionist Conference, revisionists were surprised to
learn that the Auschwitz Museum had given Provan
permission to make a detailed study of crematorium
II’s roof, the object of Faurisson’s “No Holes, No
Holocaust”. Of course, Provan’s detailed study remains
just that, busy work, and his conclusion, that
gassings occurred there, remains irrelevant.

It has not replaced the pioneering Leuchter work or
Germar Rudolf’s The Rudolf Report. Nor has it been
embraced by the upholders of the ‘Holocaust’
orthodoxy, who all too often have had to disown works
that claim to support the gassing lie, such as
Australia’s Donald Watt’s 1995 Stoker. Published by
Simon & Schuster, it is sub-titled: The Story Of An
Australian Soldier Who Survived Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The ploy to sell such nonsense as fact, as an
historically accurate autobiography, badly misfired.
On the back cover one sentence illustrates how the
‘Holocaust’ lobby, through its feverish mind,
attempted to hood-wink the world:

“Only now, 50 years after the end of World War II, has
Don Watt managed to come to terms with his war-time
experiences – an ordeal that he had mentioned to
no-one, not even his immediate family – and reveal the
full story.”

Adelaide Institute was there ready to refute the
book’s factual content as a fabrication and this may
have caused orthodox ‘Holocaust’ historians to disown
Watt even before any criticism emerged from the
non-‘Holocaust’ believers. Thanks to Faurisson and his
methodological approach to the topic, we were able to
stand firm and claim the book is pure fiction. It
reminded us so much of Schindler’s List that 1994 film
based on the novel Schindler’s Ark, written by
Australian Thomas Keneally. Initially it too was sold
as historical fact until proven to be fiction. The
fact that the film was screened on prime time
commercial television in Australia without any
commercial breaks at all raised concerns as to what
its function was in indoctrinating gullible minds with
historical propaganda and outright lies. Many who
viewed the film did not immediately recognize the
German hatred that dripped from it.

The fact that Fritjof Meyer has now de-commissioned
Auschwitz-Birkenau as a homicidal gas chamber site, as
did van Pelt in 1996 with Auschwitz-Stammlager,
highlights the irrelevance of so much of what
Faurisson recognized as mere busy work. Meyer
published his sensational claims in the May 2002
edition of the magazine Osteuropa. Relocating the
homicidal gas chambers, the actual murder weapon –
Faurisson calls it a huge chemical slaughterhouse –
outside of the Auschwitz concentration camp perimeters
into two (entirely fictional) farm houses and reducing
the total number of gassed to around 350,000 Jewish
deaths is a worry for the orthodox ‘Holocaust’
historians.

Although the world media has not run the Fritjof Meyer
concessions, revisionists have done their best to
disseminate the news. As Faurisson stated to Ingrid
Zündel in an email of October 2, 2003 :

“In fact, the revisionist community reacted quickly
and strongly to F. Meyer’s article as published in
Osteuropa of May 2002. First the exchange of emails
and letters was abundant; to take only one personal
example, I sent Ernst [Zündel] a letter about it on
August 14, 2002. Then many articles were published.
Nation-Europa published three articles in September
2002, November-December 2002, and January 2003. Mark
Weber published an article in The Journal of
Historical Review dated May-August 2002 (in fact
November). Germar Rudolf mentioned or commented the F.
Meyer story in three articles (Robert Faurisson,
Germar Rudolf, C. Mattogno) under the general title of
‘The Dwindling Death Toll’ in The Revisionist of
February 2003 [and in Vierteljahreshefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung of December 2002]. Quite a few
other revisionists, like Fredrick Töben, Bob Countess,
Serge Thion, or semi-revisionists like David Irving
discussed the matter on the Web or elsewhere.”

This huge concession to the revisionists made by
Fritjof Meyer can be likened to the concession made by
Dr Martin Broszat, of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte
in Munich, exactly 42 years earlier. In a letter to
the German newspaper Die Zeit, Broszat stated that in
the Dachau concentration camp near Munich no-one was
gassed, something that contradicted what had become
‘common knowledge’ amongst historians, but to this day
is not known by the general public. In 2003, Dachau
received a multi-million Euro face-lift that also saw
the removal of the nonsensical sign, which stated that
a certain room was a gas chamber but that it had never
been used as such. How this new ‘investment’ in
Dachau’s refurbishment will influence the general
‘Holocaust’ industry in Germany needs to be carefully
watched.

Lex Faurissonia
The claim that Dachau had a gas chamber derives from a
film shown during the 1945-46 Nuremberg International
Military Tribunal trial. It was an American
‘propaganda’ film that showed a man standing in the
alleged gas chamber, relating his story. This was
admitted as evidence, and to this day stands as an
historical ‘fact’ protected by French law.

Slowly, albeit too slowly, the orthodox ‘Holocaust’
historians have been forced to admit that their
original ‘Holocaust’ story is not based on physical
facts, that it is in Faurisson’s words an outright
‘lie’ protected by law. Faurisson could not accept
that this period of history be excised from rational
thought and that it be replaced by the superstition of
the ‘Holy Writ of Nuremberg’. At the 1985 Toronto
Zündel trial, well-known ‘Holocaust’ historian Raul
Hilberg attempted to explain how such a massive
enterprise of killing millions of people – without a
Hitler order, without a plan and budget, without a
murder weapon – could be executed by claiming it was
done by an “incredible meeting of minds.”

Faurisson agrees that it is incredible and
unbelievable, and that is why he refuses to believe in
the ‘Holocaust.’ He continues his fight against
superstition and against the French Jewish community
that continues to incite against him. On July 14,
1990, the French parliament enacted the Fabius-Gayssot
law on the pretext to stem the rising tide of racism
and anti-Semitism. It outlaws contesting the Nuremberg
trial’s ‘crimes against humanity,’ and the law is now
commonly referred to as Lex Faurissonia. Nonchalantly
Faurisson relates how one may receive a one month or a
one year jail term, or a 300,000 F fine, then smiles
and adds: “So, be careful in France .”

The Future
That the revisionist enterprise will never end is a
given fact, because any thinking person is a
revisionist. A pre-requisite for any effective
thinking activity is a free flow of information. Any
censorship of such a flow of information will
automatically have a stifling effect upon the brain’s
development. The problem faced by revisionists is the
inordinate efforts undertaken by the upholders of the
‘Holocaust’ lie to stifle any open debate on the
topic.

Civil libertarians often quote Voltaire in order to
overcome blatant censorship and free speech
restrictions:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it”.

This now famous quote has itself been subjected to
scrutiny, and Robert Faurisson points out in his
Foreword to my book Where Truth Is No Defence, I Want
To Break Free, 2001:

“In reality, a London author called Stephen G
Tallentyre (real name Evelyn B Hall) in The Friends of
Voltaire (1906) wrote on the subject of the attitude
taken by Voltaire in case of an intense disagreement
with an adversary: ‘I disapprove of what you say but I
will defend to the death your right to say it was his
attitude now’.”

Faurisson says that the future of revisionism is
clear:

“We shall never win because Voltaire never won his
battle against superstition because it is a
never-ending fight between reason and faith. However,
if we never win, then also we never lose, and that is
the real adventure – a dangerous intellectual
adventure – especially in France, Germany, Austria,
Switzerland, Canada, etc.”

In another email to Ingrid Zündel of October 21, 2003
, Robert Faurisson clarifies his viewpoint on how
revisionists are fighting an up-hill battle:

“Dear Ingrid,

You might be interested in reading the above article
that a Sven Felix Kellerhof published on 28 August
2002 […] in Die Welt with the title: ‘Linksliberaler
Kronzeuge für Holocaust-Leugner’ [liberal crown
witness for Holocaust deniers].

You will see that, if that date is correct, already
more than a year ago, Kellerhof had been stating that
revisionists were trying to ‘push’ Fritjof Mayer’s
article (as published in the May 2002 issue of
Osteuropa).

There you have one more evidence that, as I told you,
we revisionists quickly reacted to that article of F.
Mayer. Now, even if a mainstream newspaper had not
mentioned it, it would not have been our fault. I
could give you so many examples of discoveries that we
made, that we published and that the mainstream media
did not mention for years and years. Was it our fault?
To take but one example, what I said in 1978 about the
hoax of the so-called ‘gas chamber’ in Auschwitz I was
finally admitted by an orthodox historian in a
mainstream publication only in 1995. I had to wait 17
years and, during those 17 years, I kept repeating
myself again and again on the issue. Now see: the
essay of that orthodox historian was hardly noticed!
That’s our fate. ‘Habent sua fata libelli’: our
writings, as well as our desperate actions, have their
own destiny.

Do you realize that in fact Paul Rassinier who died in
1967 had already said EVERYTHING of the essentials? Is
it his fault if, for nearly half a century after his
death, he is still so unsuccessful with the mainstream
media? And what about Ernst? Is it surprising that we
cannot swim up the Niagara Falls ?

Best wishes. RF”

In an earlier email of October 11, 2003 , Faurisson’s
gloomy prediction emerges:

“I am fighting day and night for revisionism though
revisionism is collapsing. Yvonne, Jean Plantin, and
Vincent Reynouard are doing the same in France .

In Switzerland , Louis-René Berclaz, Philippe
Brennenstuhl, and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz are doing the
same. The three of them received recently a prison
sentence. Amaudruz, 83, who already was in prison for
3 months, will go back to prison for 3 months again.
Plantin is supposed to go to prison and Reynouard also
perhaps. And what about Rudolf, Weber, Graf, Mattogno,
Zündel, etc.?

Now I must admit that, if you make the total of the
people fighting for revisionism all over the world,
that total nowadays is ridiculous. That’s why I say
that revisionism is collapsing. I gave my reasons why
and I am not going to repeat myself.

Best wishes. RF”

The powerful Jewish lobby in France is doing what its
counterparts in other countries are doing – attempting
to implement world-wide legal gag orders that endeavor
to stifle open debate on the ‘Holocaust.’ Although
effective in many European countries, in Canada , and
in Australia , it has not yet had total world-wide
success. For example in South Africa in 2002, a Muslim
community radio station, Radio 786, succeeded in
fending off a charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘Holocaust
denial-hate speech’ leveled against it for having
broadcast a talk by a London-based Muslim cleric who
stated that the six million Jewish deaths claim is an
exaggeration and that there were no homicidal gas
chambers.

The above case from South Africa also indicates how
fear is lost when information increases our stock of
knowledge. The impetus from South Africa is a hopeful
signal that the battle will be fought in our law
courts, but not only there. The fight is on at all
levels of human cultural endeavor.

Conclusion
Befitting the whole ‘Holocaust’ controversy a new
impetus for action has arisen in the country that is
allegedly responsible for perpetrating this ‘massive
massacre’ upon the Jewish peoples – Germany . Horst
Mahler has taken the action one stage further by
forming an association of those individuals who have
been charged with ‘Holocaust denial’ and have been
sentenced by a legal system to prison terms, as I and
others were in Germany, to a fine as is the case in
France, or to non-criminal sentence such as a
gag-order as in my case in Australia.

Instead of writing a conclusion to my deliberations on
Robert Faurisson, it is perhaps more interesting to
let Robert speak for himself. He has summed up the
Revisionist situation in a form that has made him one
of the world’s most eminent revisionists. The
following is his response to what Horst Mahler is
attempting to do from within the heartland where
‘Holocaust’ hysteria still flourishes, Germany :

“Robert FAURISSON

2 October 2003

Letter to Horst Mahler

[Professor Robert Faurisson, born in 1929, lectured in
modern and contemporary French literature at the
Sorbonne and the University of Lyon , specializing at
the latter in the ‘Analysis of texts and documents
(literature, history, media)’.

In the 1970s, he demonstrated the radical
impossibility, on physical and chemical grounds, of
the existence and operation of the alleged Nazi gas
chambers. He was the first in the world to publish the
plans of the buildings at Auschwitz abusively
presented still today as having served for putting
inmates to death by gassing.

In 1988, thanks to an investigation commissioned by
the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, the professor’s
findings were confirmed by the American Fred Leuchter,
designer of the gas chambers used in several United
States prisons and author of a report on the alleged
gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek. In the early
1990s, the conclusions of the famous ‘Leuchter Report’
were, in turn, confirmed by the German chemist Germar
Rudolf, a graduate of the Max Planck Institute, as
well as by the Austrian chemists Walter Lüftl,
president of the board of engineers of Austria, and
Wolfgang Fröhlich, a specialist in disinfection gas
chambers.

As a consequence of their findings, Robert Faurisson,
Ernst Zündel, Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolf, Walter
Lüftl and Wolfgang Fröhlich have all paid a
substantial toll to the prevailing judicial and
extra-judicial repression. Like a number of other
‘revisionists’ they have, according to circumstances,
had the experience of seeing their careers ruined, of
being physically assaulted and injured, convicted in
the law courts, fined, imprisoned, exiled. At present,
Wolfgang Fröhlich is in jail in Vienna and Ernst
Zündel is being held in Toronto in a high-security
cell, in judicial and physical conditions worthy of ‘
Guantanamo Bay ’.]

Dear Herr Mahler,

As soon as I learned of the existence of your ‘League
for the Rehabilitation of Persons Persecuted for
Disputing the Holocaust ‘ (Verein für Rehabilitierung
der wegen Bestreitens des Holocaust Verfolgten) I
applied for membership and sent you a financial
contribution.

Your initiative is ingenious, and I wish it every
success. I urge all revisionists to support this
undertaking.

You have invited me to your first meeting, which will
take place on November 9. The date is well chosen, for
it marks the anniversary of the fall of a tyranny that
one might have thought would last forever. The place,
Vlotho on the Weser river, is equally well chosen, for
it is associated with the name of our friend Udo
Walendy, who has fought so hard and so long for the
reestablishment of historical truth and, at the same
time, for the cause of his German fatherland.

I would love to attend this meeting, but I think that
the German police might immediately arrest me there.
Anyway, I have too much work to do, and cannot go on
vacation, even if it were to be spent in a German
prison.

With regard to freedom of historical research, I have
no confidence in the French police or the French
administration of justice. I have even less confidence
in the German police and administration of justice.
Frankly speaking, nowadays there is no country in the
world that offers a safe haven for revisionists. Even
China , Japan and Russia serve Mammon or else fear
him, and so serve him. The United States of America,
in spite of its First Amendment, as well as Canada,
have just recently shown, in the cruel treatment of
Ernst Zündel, to what depths of iniquity they can
descend to please Mammon. Ernst Zündel is a heroic
figure of the German nation, an exceptional man whom
one cannot fail to admire when one really knows him.

In 1999, I published in French a four-volume work of
more than two thousand pages, consisting of some of my
writings of 1974-1998. It commences with an ‘In
Memoriam’ note in which I mention, among the dead,
Franz Scheidl, Helmut Diwald and Reinhold Elstner.
With regard to the last named, I recall that on April
15, 1995 , he committed suicide in Munich by burning
himself to protest the ‘ Niagara of lies’ against his
people. The final words in that ‘In Memoriam’ note are
these:

‘May [my book] also be read as a homage for the true
suffering of all victims of the 1939-1945 war,
regardless of whether the victims belonged to the camp
of the victors, who are praised to the skies, or to
that of the defeated, whom have been humiliated and
insulted ceaselessly for nearly half a century.’

Remember that these words are from 1998. During the
past five years the situation has only worsened. The
Niagara of lies has broadened and strengthened. We do
not have the right to fold our arms and quietly
contemplate the extent of the damage caused. We must
act and react.

That is what you are trying to do.

Along with everyone else, I do not know how successful
this effort might be, but I want to join with you in
it, regardless of whatever differences of opinion or
outlook there may be among those of us who fight for a
common cause.

In December 1980, I summarized the result of my
historical research in one sentence of 60 French
words. Before pronouncing that sentence on Europe 1
radio, I gave this warning: ‘Caution! None of these
words has been inspired by political sympathy or
antipathy.’ Here is the sentence:

‘The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged
genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same
historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic
financial-political swindle, the principal
beneficiaries of which are the State of Israel and
international Zionism, and whose principal victims are
the German people – but not their leaders – and the
entire Palestinian people.’

In my view, that sentence, now 23 years old, requires
no changes.

I have been accused of being anti-Jewish. In reality I
wish the Jews no harm. What I demand is the right to
speak of the Jews just as freely as I speak, for
example, of the Germans. And I ask that the Jews be
deprived of the right to harm me, whether physically
(between 1978 and 1993, I was attacked ten times by
Jews), or by means of a special law that they finally
got enacted on July 13, 1990, and which in France is
known as the ‘Fabius-Gayssot Law’, the ‘Faurisson
Law’, or the ‘Anti-revisionist Law’.

It is outrageous that out of the billions of events
that constitute the history of mankind, one single
event, called by Jews the ‘Holocaust’ or the ‘Shoah’,
must not be questioned – on pain of imprisonment,
fines, orders to pay damages and the costs of
publications of judgments, the exclusion from one’s
profession, and so forth. This is an enormous special
privilege, and we demand the abolition of that
privilege.

This is a goal that is plain, clear and of narrow
scope.

Revisionism, in my view, is not, and must not be, a
matter of ideology, but instead one of method by which
to attain the greatest degree of exactitude.

What I seek is historical exactitude and, thus, the
abolition of anything that obstructs the free striving
towards that exactitude.

My best wishes are with you.

Professor (ret.) Robert FAURISSON”

My best wishes are with you.

[Professor (ret.) Robert FAURISSON
Adelaide , 9 November 2003

[END]

*******************************************************

BOOKS FOR SALE:

AVAILABLE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY NEWS LIBRARY:

* RICHARD ODORFER – THE SOUL OF GERMANY – HARD COVER
WITH GOLD IMPRINT – $30.00 (INCLUDING SHIPPING)

* UDO WALENDY – FORGED WAR CRIMES MALIGN THE GERMAN
NATION – $12.00 (INCLUDING SHIPPING)

* CHRISTINE B. MILLER – REALITY CHECK – SOFT COVER –
$10.00 (SHIPPING INCLUDED)

* WALTER F. MUELLER – REVISIONIST RESOURCE GUIDE –
$8.00 (SHIPPING INCLUDED)

* ERNST ZUNDEL – SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT – LETTERS
FROM CELL #7 – SOFT COVER – $6.00 (SHIPPING INCLUDED)

* JOHN RAWLINGS/MICHAEL PASSMORE (GERMAN TRANSLATION
GUENTHER DECKERT) – THE POSTAL HISTORY OF THE
NUEREMBERG RALLIES – SOFT COVER – BLACK/WHITE &
COLOR(COFFEE TABLE SIZE) – $ 35.00 (SHIPPING INCLUDED)

* SPECIAL EDITION – THE POSTAL HISTORY OF THE
NUREMBERG RALLIES (THE HOFFMANN RALLY CARDS) – SOFT
COVER – COLOR – $ 12.00 (SHIPPING INCLUDED)

* DER DEUTSCHE ADERLASS – BY DR. CLAUS NORDBRUCH –
SOFT COVER – IN GERMAN LANGUAGE – $ 25.00 (SHIPPING
INCLUDED)

To order, please send a check or money order to:

Community News
PO Box 191677
Sacramento, CA 95819

or e-mail us and we will send you an e-mail bill
through PayPal.

 

Walter F. Mueller
“The truth is back in business”

The “Patriot Letter” is a free news service of
Community News, a monthly publication with a
circulation of 20,000. To subscribe to Community News
please e-mail for more information.

One Comment

  1. Does your blog have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to send you an e-mail. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *