Michael Hoffman Answers Michael Matt’s Essay, “Holocaust Revisionism”
We Must Bear Witness Unto the Truth
Michael Hoffman
www.RevisionistHistory.org
Copyright ©2009
This essay has been translated into Italian and published here Note: The following is a rebuttal to Michael Matt’s essay “Holocaust Revisionism,” as it appeared on the website of his
Remnant newspaper on the morning of Feb. 13, (the anniversary of the Allied holocaust against the city of Dresden, Germany). In response to this rebuttal of ours, Mr. Matt may possibly amend, modify or otherwise alter his essay. Let it be known that this statement of ours is in reply to his original essay as
posted here and not any subsequently modified or altered one he may post as a result of the circulation of this writing of ours.
Michael Matt, editor of the leading traditional Catholic lay publication in the United States, with considerable influence among priests and laity of Bishop Williamson's Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has penned an essay attacking "Holocaust" revisionism using this writer's description of the case ("l’Affaire Williamson") as his own.
Mr. Matt is not an intellectual but rather a polemicist. He deals in emotion and what he imagines are axioms, and preaches to the choir. Matt does not make any effort at offering a survey of revisionism or exhibiting any knowledge of his subject. He obviously regards the normative
apparatus criticus of the western tradition of scholarship, wherein the arguments of one's adversary are fairly represented and only then criticized, as irrelevant. He traffics in slogans. He does not seek to educate but rather to confirm the preconceptions of his readers and arouse their disgust and indignation at revisionists in general and the besieged Bishop Richard Williamson in particular.
Hence, in dismissing gas chamber revisionism with a wave of his imperial hand, Mr. Matt is announcing that it is so far beneath contempt that there is no need to so much as read ten pages of the research of Arthur Butz PhD, Robert Faurisson PhD (severely beaten by Zionists), Henri Roques PhD, Carlo Mattogno, Paul Rassinier, Fred Leutcher, Germar Rudolf (PhD candidate), William Barton, M.D., David Irving, Jurgen Graf, Richard Widmann, Carlos Porter, Ingrid Weckert, Ditlieb Felderer, Walter Luftl, Paul Grubach, Thies Christophersen, Hans von der Heide, Samuel Crowell, Brian Renk, James J. Martin PhD, Siegfried Verbeke, David L. Hoggan, PhD, General Otto Ernst Remer, Leon Degrelle, David Cole, Wilhelm Staglich, PhD, Ivan Lagace, Francois Duprat (murdered by Zionists), Hans Schmidt, Udo Walendy, Pedro Varela, Ernst Zundel and dozens of other dissident scholars and researchers including a former Dow Chemical scientist, as well as journalists (Bradley Smith, Doug Collins, Mike Piper and this writer), and attorneys (Doug Christie, Barbara Kulaszka, Bruce Leichty and Jurgen Rieger).
Matt can't even spell Hitler's name correctly ("Adolph") and sums up the revisionism about which he knows nothing, as follows: "By citing his previous reliance on outdated 'research' from the 1980s, Williamson is acknowledging the possibility that he was deceived by a small but vocal clique of revisionists who make their living creating the impression that their research is beyond reproach (even if not recognized as such due to, you guessed it, yet another conspiracy). When his 'science' proves less than convincing, the revisionist cites the pervasive Christophobia of the day to try to garner emotional support for his theories."
This is to laugh.
Revisionists lose their living by doubting execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, they don't gain it. The leading revisionists have never resorted to anything so ridiculous as using the anti-Christian nature of western society as validation for their technical research. I challenge Mr. Matt to cite one example of such a case.
Neither do revisionists claim that their research is "beyond reproach," that kind of dogmatism is the domain of their opponents, who have canonized the official Allied/Zionist history of World War II and made it into the theological centerpiece of Newchurch, as the "
Shoah." This is risible for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that this history that must-not-be-doubted has been altered by the hoaxers themselves, innumerable times. Originally, it was infallibly proclaimed, based on "eyewitness testimony," that the Germans made soap from human fat, lampshades from human skin and that four million died in Auschwitz. It was originally alleged that Judaics were steamed to death and mass-electrocuted, and gassed in the camps in the old Reich, such as Dachau.
Reasons to doubt
Bishop Williamson and hundreds of thousands of other skeptics, dissidents and independent thinkers doubt the homicidal gassings in Auschwitz-Birkenau for two main reasons (there are many others):
1. The Auschwitz-Birkenau gassings as variously described over the years in the accounts-that-must-not-be-doubted (poison gas emanating from showers; later changed to trap door on roofs and then to pillars with holes) are technically impossible and lacking in scientific evidence. The supposed, ultimate technical rebuttal to revisionist arguments was written by Jean-Claude Pressac, "Technique and Operations of the Gas Chambers." This is the book that Bishop Williamson has been confronted with in order to persuade him to recant his views. Here we have another joke. Without denying that the Nazis killed innocent people and that such killing is a crime (no revisionist doubts this), Pressac toward the end of his life regarded the official accounts of the stories of Auschwitz deaths by gas as "doomed," hopelessly tainted by having been of Soviet Communist provenance:
"...the communists' grip on the main organs of command in the camps, the setting up after the liberation of associations under their control and the establishment for fifty years of a 'peoples' democratic' history of the camps have introduced the virus of antifascist cant. Approximation, exaggeration, omission and lying characterise the majority of the accounts of that period. The unanimous and irrevocable discredit in which the communist writings are held can only rub off on a concentration camp experience tainted by their ideas and annihilate it. - Can things be put back on an even keel? It is too late. An overall rectification is humanly and materially impossible. Any historical change brings on a depreciation of this set memory presented as definitive. However, new documents will inevitably spring forth and will disrupt the official certainties more and more. The current form, although triumphant, of the presentation of the camp universe is doomed. What will be salvaged of it? Little....all the less so when the pain endured has subsequently been exploited and turned into benefits: decorations, pensions, positions, political influence. One cannot be both victim and privileged, with a turn at being executioner as well. - Of all these facts, terrible because having caused the death of women, children and old people, only the established ones will survive. The others are bound for the rubbish bins of History" (p. 651-652).
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF050615.html
2. The second reason we doubt is much simpler to state. I will draw on a truism, as stated by Charles W. Elliott, "Despotism in Church and State needs a rigid censorship, for whatever cannot bear examination and discussion must be sustained by force..."
"Whatever cannot bear...examination" must be suppressed by the government and by pundits like Matt who serve the official organs of conformity, whose job it is to discredit revisionism without examining it, by means of ignorant generalizations and outright misrepresentation, bordering on false witness.
Mr. Matt writes, "...holocaust denial, in addition to doing grave injustice to the Jewish victims of Hitler's maniacal ethnic cleansing, has proven itself a most effective battering ram against the Church, as well.....the Holocaust denier might as well be in the employ of the harshest critics of the Catholic Church, so useful is he to their cause célèbre. In his corner of cyberspace he does the bidding of secularist puppeteers, dangling from strings he doesn’t even see. He seems to fancy himself the only one in the room with the 'courage' to say what needs to be said. But whatever intentions he may have to defend 'the truth,' his bloviating requires little courage and is easily manipulated into damning evidence for the prosecution in the case against the Church."
Dear Mr. Matt, where did you pick up this term "holocaust denial" which you use so blithely? Surely not from "puppeteers," since you are, unlike the rest of us, obviously immune to manipulation. However, it is interesting to note that you incorporate into your writing the Orwellian neologism coined by Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, who dared not take the stand and be cross-examined by David Irving at his "Holocaust" trial in London. Lipstadt has denied the Allied holocaust in Dresden which incinerated tens of thousands of German civilians on Ash Wednesday, sixty-four years ago. The vast majority of Zionists like Lipstadt also deny the Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians.
Please explain how revisionists, being unable in their conscience to commit to tales of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, are "doing grave injustice to the Jewish victims of Hitler's maniacal ethnic cleansing"? Do you, Mr. Matt, mean to suggest that if we were to give our assent to what we believe to be a lie, we would be thereby performing an act of justice and charity on behalf of Judaic people? It is not an act of justice or charity to lie for anyone, Judaic or gentile.
In his next section, Mr. Matt does a little "bloviating" of his own, suggesting that the revisionist "Holocaust denier” is "in the employ of the harshest critics of the Catholic Church, so useful is he to their cause célèbre...easily manipulated into damning evidence for the prosecution in the case against the Church."
It seems that Mr. Matt is saying that for the Catholic revisionist to confront a hoax in which Zionists and rabbis have invested so much of their prestige and staked so much of their claim to moral superiority and entitlement -- to challenge this hoax on the world stage damns the Catholic Church in the eyes of the media, in the familiar process of trial-by-media. Matt’s supposition is false. The issue does not concern “looking good” in the eyes of the world media. According to Jesus Christ, we can expect to be hated by the world, and by extension its media, because in our vocation as followers of Christ we are bound to utter truths that infuriate the world-system, which is precisely what Bishop Williamson has done. To suggest that this vocation puts revisionists in the "employ" of the enemies of Christ is a logical fallacy and a calumny.
Futhermore, Mr. Matt declares of the revisionist, "In his corner of cyberspace he does the bidding of secularist puppeteers, dangling from strings he doesn’t even see."
Since Bishop Williamson is not a cyberspace activist, publishing only a weekly column in a blog, one might suppose that Mr. Matt has someone like this writer in mind, in which case I would say that far from directing my steps, the "secularist puppeteers" have obstructed my every move. For example, my book on the rabbinic religion,
Judaism Discovered is the only book on the subject ever to be banned by Amazon.com in the history of that company. Last week Amazon completely removed the book from its listings; even used copies cannot be sold through Amazon. Moreover, I was fired from my job as a reporter in New York for producing a documentary on Zionism. My wife was chased down a street by a Zionist mob after my "World War II Revisionists" television series was broadcast. In 1984 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the one-time leading publisher of revisionist books, was torched by arsonists and its half-million dollar book-inventory destroyed.
In 1995 the home of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel was burned to the ground by arsonists. Zundel was put on trial in Canada twice for his publishing activities. The Canadian Northwest Mounted Police seized copies of Dr. Butz's book,
The Hoax of the Twnetieth Century from libraries in Canada. This writer's account of Zundel's legal ordeal,
The Great Holocaust Trial was regularly seized and burned by Canadian Customs. Zionist terror groups have atttacked IHR staff members, threatened the life of Dr. Arthur Butz at Northwestern University. They have severely beaten Dr. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon, and car-bombed revisionist Francois Duprat. Advertisements for revisionist speeches and books are routinely obstructed and suppressed, and lectures by revisionists at hotels are terminated by the political and economic intervention of powerful elites.
Historian David Irving, with whom I disagree on any number of points, and who is arguably the greatest living authority on the life of the evil dictator Adolf Hitler, served more than a year in prison in Austria for his views. Revisionist Friedrich Toben was taken off a plane in London in handcuffs on an arrest warrant issued for him in Germany for the “crime” of his revisionist cyberspace activism. Dozens of revisionists have been fired from their teaching jobs. Some are living as fugitives because their native European countries seek to jail them.
In what alternative reality does Michael Matt inhabit that causes him to claim that revisionists work for some enigmatic conspiracy of Establishment "puppeteers"? If the Establishment could jail us all, it would. Bishop Williamson alone is being investigated for criminal prosecution in three countries.
With regard to discredit, is there any shame or discredit that ought to be attached to the Zionist power that has visited this disgraceful repression and terror on revisionists? Do you, Michael Matt, scruple to attach any stigma whatsoever to this tyranny in terms of it being "damning evidence for the prosecution case" against Judaism and Zionism? Or is it all a one-way street in which we are always on the defensive, fretting about our image in the media, while the Zionists and rabbis are always the aggrieved parties to whom we must forever offer supplication and reparation? I was under the impression that Jesus Christ gave us the power to be sons of God. Isn’t that what it says in the “Last Gospel” of the Tridentine Mass? We demean our patrimony when we quake in anxiety over how the Vatican and the media are portraying our stand for truth. This emasculated weakness is what is the disgrace, not the manly valor of “Richard the Lionheart” Williamson.
Mr Matt states of the revisionist, "He seems to fancy himself the only one in the room with the 'courage' to say what needs to be said....his bloviating requires little courage..."
Mr Matt, how dare you? Particularly in light of the somewhat less than courageous manner in which you declined to publicize and advocate in your newspaper for your colleague, Catholic Navy Lt. John Sharpe, who is being railroaded by the US government for having publishing anti-Zionist books.
In the purple prose that mars his writing, Matt fumes: "...with fanatical fixation, the holocaust denier still insists that the Jews...are exaggerating the number of their dead...Is it so surprising that Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities, singled out solely because they were Jewish, would take issue with those who would attempt to diminish the number of their dead?"
It is a commonplace of history that in every war atrocity propaganda is employed and exaggeration is a centerpiece of that propaganda. In the case of virtually every conflict except World War II, the record is corrected after the embers of bellicose passion have cooled. But according to Matt, it is a case of "fanatical fixation" to challenge the Six Million icon, or to note that in Auschwitz the plaque that was formerly displayed to Pope John Paul II as noting four million deaths has been quietly altered to a figure far lower. The Israelis contest every Palestinian claim of a war crime and cast doubt on nearly every Palestinian casualty figure, but I have not yet read where Mr. Matt has suggested that the Zionists thus engaged are "diminishing" the Palestinians, or that the Palestinians are right to "take issue" with Zionist revisionism.
This controversy is something more than certain Judaics merely "taking issue" with revisionists, however. They persuade governments in Europe and Canada to lock us up. They persuade the US government to deport revisionists to certain imprisonment. They are implicated in censorship, blacklisting, termination of employment and yes, physical attacks and terrorism against revisionists. To describe these acts with the euphemism "taking issue" is a whitewash.
Matt writes: "Must survivors of the holocaust (and their children) be expected to agonize over the possibility that that number might be a wee bit high?"
Notice his
reductio ad absurdum: "Holocaust" revisionism is a teapot-tempest over little more than a casualty number that is "a wee bit high."
Mr. Matt states: "...the revisionist would still have his few admirers assume the preposterous attitude of the crepe hanger, quibbling over the number of dead Jews attributable to Hitler. Please!"
Matt dismisses the revisionists and a Cambridge-educated intellectual like Bishop Williamson who is impressed with their arguments, by reducing the whole of the corpus of revisionist technical and documentary critique of Auschwitz execution gassings as "quibbling over the number of dead Jews."
This sort of prestidigitation will convince Mr. Matt's hardcore “Remnant” newspaper loyalists, but I doubt it will deceive the thinkers in his audience. The struggle between World War II revisionists and the rabbis and Zionists, is not so much about number-crunching casualty figures, but with central Christian issues such as the bearing of false witness, the tendency that Judaism has had to brand Christians and gentiles with the Mark of Cain, and the usefulness of the gas chamber tale for blackmailing the world for financial gain and political capital in the Middle East.
What is more, "The Holocaust" in its manifestation as the rabbinic "Shoah" mystification, incorporated into the Catholic Church by the current and previous Roman pontiff, and made a litmus test for ecclesiastical office, represents nothing less than the derogation of Calvary as the central ontological reality of martyrdom, in favor of Auschwitz. By way of proof we have only to point to the fact that no one goes to jail for denying Chris's death on the Cross or His Resurrection from the dead. Only the West’s most sacred icon, Holocaustolatry, is so protected.
Mr. Matt, who inherited his editor's post upon the death of his much-respected father, is clearly in over his head. He even absolves the majority of right-wing Judaics from involvement in the gigantic machinery of the "Holocaust” industry that runs the gamut from Steven Spielberg's cinematic 'shoah' business, to the New York Times (which Joe Sobran dubbed "Holocaust Weekly News"), to the Republican Neocon types who howl for Bishop Williamson's head with nearly unanimous fury.
In Mr. Matt’s fertile imagination, the international campaign against Bishop Williamson and revisionism is really just a minority Left-wing phenomenon: "Certainly, there are some far-Left Jewish organizations that attempt to use the Holocaust to undermine Catholic Tradition and Scripture. But the majority of Jewish people want no part of this..."
Matt returns again to his conspiracy theory that revisionists are secretly in league with the ADL: “Courageous’ Holocaust denial by even a lone Catholic on the fringe, who thumps his cyber-chest in front of his cyber-fans, is something that Abe Foxman, on the Christophobic fringe, will take to the bank every time, thank you very much."
The ADL, through its paid spy, Roy Bullock, worked assiduously to destroy revisionist groups in California and throughout the U.S. According to documents in a court case brought against the ADL, the group turned Bullock's intelligence on revisionists over to the Israeli government for purposes of harassment and surveillance. But don't let the facts interfere with Mr. Matt's fantasy of a symbiotic relationship between the ADL and revisionists. Matt's phantasmagoria pays dividends of its own: if Bishop Williamson is a just useful idiot for the ADL, Mr. Matt is free from any duty incumbent on him to investigate the revisionist scholarship that led the bishop to his skepticism.
In a healthier and happier time, this would be the normal response of journalists and academics, to entertain both sides of the debate and determine, through reading and study of revisionist books and documents, whether there is any merit to Bishop Williamson's doubts. This is what St. Robert Bellarmine did in debating the Anglicans and making himself one of their most formidable adversaries: he became an expert on their teachings. Had he only preached to the choir, and spewed purple prose about "fanatically fixated" Protestants, he would have done little more than give Catholics a straw man to knock down. Instead, his fair-minded study of Protestantism won him the grudging admiration of even Protestant partisans such as the learned Anglican controversialist William Whitaker.
Mr. Matt writes: "This bickering between Catholic and Jewish fringe elements actually impedes the missionary mandate of Our Lord, which is why the Devil loves to keep it going. But neither Catholics nor Jews should allow themselves to become the ‘useful idiots’ of self-promoting controversialists who would drag us all into a fight that has nothing to do with who and what we are. We must all rise above the bickering and move on."
Here again is the intimation that revisionists are pursuing their investigations for venal motives, in this case "self-promotion." In other words, were it not for our doubts about the execution gas chambers in Auschwitz, we would be obscure and hollow little men forced to enviously watch from the sidelines as brilliants minds like Michael Matt presided over a salubrious and thriving Catholic intellectual culture. Mr. Matt cannot countenance the possibility that some of us had lucrative careers before we encountered revisionism and have gained nothing from the controversy materially; quite the opposite. For Matt, the titantic struggle between the truth about Auschwitz and rabbinic, Zionist and Soviet lies concerning it, is just "bickering" on the part of "fringe elements."
Moreover he says that standing against what revisionists believe to be lies emanating from the Father of Lies, "impedes the missionary mandate of Our Lord.” Which "Lord" is Mr. Matt invoking, Lord Buddha? As a Christian revisionist, this writer follows the mandate of the Lord Jesus Christ who was hunted, hounded and stoned by the Pharisees, whose modern heirs, Rabbi Jacob Neusner concedes, are the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism.
Mr. Matt says: "But let us be clear about one thing: There is nothing—I repeat, nothing—traditionally Catholic about Holocaust denial. To my knowledge, Bishop Williamson is the first and only traditional Catholic spokesman to give these conspiracy theorists a second thought."
Once again Mr. Matt displays his ignorance and, I am sorry to say his laziness. It takes very little effort to discover the extent of Catholic involvement in World War II revisionism. One of the most famous monks in France, Abbe Pierre, renowned for his humanitarian work, made national headlines in the French media for weeks with his support for revisionism. One leading revisionist scientist was for a time attending an SSPX parish. Ernst Zundel's defense attorney Doug Christie is a traditional Catholic. This writer is personally acquainted with dozens of Catholics who are revisionists.
Mr. Matt: "And, according to the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Bishop Williamson was ordered by Superior General Bishop Fellay to 'correct this nonsense' as soon as he saw the now-infamous interview. 'It should not have needed a papal demand to do so,' Fellay said. Exactly right! This 'nonsense' cannot be attributed to either the Holy Father or tradition-minded Catholics—no matter how hard the media try to make it stick."
Why is it "nonsense," Mr. Matt and Bishop Fellay? Because the mob says so? Simon Wiesenthal? Yad Vashem? Majority rule? The consensus -- what? How is the documentary record established and truth or falsity in wartime discovered? History itself teaches that majorities are often wrong and smug assumptions are often overthrown with the passage of time. For those of us who take the divine obligation not to bear false witness seriously, doubting death by gassing in Auschwitz is the only option our conscience will let us choose. It is a denial of our humanity, our intellect and our Christianity to simply shout "Nonsense!" at us. This is especially true when those doing the shouting are nearly illiterate on the subject.
Moreover, while Mr. Matt and Bishop Fellay have every right to strongly disagree with Bishop Williamson, by what standard of Catholic civilization and decorum do they heap abuse upon him and scream "Nonsense" at him? The more he is belittled and insulted by his own Catholic colleagues, the more the sharks are emboldened to prey upon him.
Furthermore, the almost ritual denunciation of Williamson for having honest doubts about a particular chapter of secular history, renders guilty by association the thousands of Catholics he has taught from the pulpit and the hundreds of seminarians he has instructed around the world. And what of the men he has ordained to the priesthood, to what extent will they be forced to share in the opprobrium so viciously heaped upon Bishop Williamson? The bishop has been thrown to the wolves by his own people. If there is any spectacle the ADL relishes, it is the sight of a shepherd of Christ demeaned and discarded "for fear of the Jews."
Matt concludes his essay with a sentimental story about a plane flight to Europe which he says featured a quasi-pornograhic film as part of the in-flight entertainment. While most Christians on the jet were allegedly oblivious to the offensive movie, Mr. Matt reports that after he protested to the airliner's crew, a Judaic man with a young son who Matt had observed praying , approached him and thanked him for fighting against the borderline pornographic film: "He shook my hand, and I his. For a long moment we looked into each other’s eyes...As I walked back to my seat I couldn’t help but wonder how God viewed the scene on that airliner: 300 ‘Christian’ passengers enjoying the ‘entertainment’ on a flight to Rome without batting an eye, while the ‘Christ-Killer’ and his son stood in silent protest, praying!"
What is this anecdote supposed to signify? That Judaism is somehow morally superior to lukewarm Christianity in these decaying times? The people on the plane who did not protest were Christians in name only. Jesus said He would "spew" such people out. As for the Judaic father, should we accept his action at face value, and if so, what does it reveal? That followers of Judaism are sexually conservative?
If the Judaic man Mr. Matt encountered on the jet trip was a Hasidic man, there is a good chance that he had fellatio performed on him as a baby. I am sorry to have to soil the eyes of readers by stating this fact, but sometimes the sword of truth is the only means for cutting through layers of illusion. In the traditional Talmudic rite of the
bris (circumcision), the "mohel" places the baby boy's sexual organ in his mouth. Hence, every Hasidic male infant has the status of a molested boy. The media rightly exposed the one-tenth of one percent of Catholic clergy who molested children, what do they have to say about a religion that institutionalizes the molestation of baby boys? This act of "
metzitzah b'peh" has been supported by New York Mayor Bloomberg and the Catholic director of the New York State Department of Health (see
Judaism Discovered, pp. 678-683).
In Matt's
Remnant newspaper and website he is prone to publish stories of "good" Orthodox rabbis who supposedly oppose homosexuality and abortion. I'm not aware of Mr. Matt publishing similar stories about “good” Muslim clerics who oppose abortion and homosexuality. I also wonder if Mr. Matt would have been as deeply moved if it had been a conservative Muslim father who had thanked him aboard the jet for opposing the lewd movie. I'd like to give Mr. Matt the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he would have been equally moved. In which case I must ask, would it have been right to draw from this particular instance some positive conclusion about Islam generally?
In fact, Judaism permits abortion and homosexuality and evidence for my allegation is in my book. Mr. Matt is very naive when it comes to the history of World War II and the true nature of Orthodox Judaism, yet he nevertheless feels qualified to pontificate at length on these subjects. He is undoubtedly influential among SSPX Catholics in America and the English-speaking world. His website and newspaper are widely read by Bishop Williamson's fellow priests in the U.S.
Mr. Matt's essay, "Holocaust Revisionism" is another cross for Bishop Williamson to bear. It will add to the ignorance, confusion and detestation aimed at revisionists. It will give aid and comfort to the rabbinic agents in the Vatican determined to punish the bishop while permitting the infiltration of the rabbinic "Shoah" doctrine into the bosom of the Church. It will further sunder the SSPX itself, because it will do nothing to persuade the sizable number of SSPX Catholics, who, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself, are intensely suspicious of the Vatican's newchurch theology, of which Holocaustianity is a keystone.
Contrary to Michael Matt's jaundiced and unfair portrayal of World War II revisionists, we are a diverse fraternity -- numbering among us those who think the Third Reich has been maligned, to many others, like this writer, who believe that Adolf Hitler was a mass murderer, a dictator and one of history's prize fools. I can honor Maximilian Kolbe and other saintly Catholics killed by the Nazis, many of whom, like Kolbe, were determined foes of Judaism, while feeling no need whatsoever to believe a lie about millions killed in poison gas chambers in Auschwitz. The Zionists and the rabbinate have focused their hoax on Auschwitz and this too is where many revisionists have chosen to take their stand.
As someone who is reasonably literate on the subject of Judaism, I know that it is a religion that counsels, permits and encourages lying and deceit. I have made the case for my evaluation in this regard in
Judaism Discovered. My Lord Jesus Christ made an even better case for it in St. John 8.
Is it just a coincidence that people shackled to a religious heritage consisting of 2000 years of prevarication, deception and fraud, have made an accusation against the German people (not just Hitler and the Nazis), of a killing factory powered by poison gas? This “factory” has been challenged by those scientists and technicians with the courage (sorry, Mr. Matt), to risk their careers and their freedom to declare that the execution gas story is technically impossible. Other researchers and journalists, including this writer have been present when "eyewitnesses," who, on the few occasions they have been cross-examined, have recanted their claims.
Revisionists do not believe it is a coincidence that certain people who are a product of a culture and a religion that condones lying have retailed a fantastic tale of mass murder by poison gas.
Revisionists are are not lesser human beings or lesser Christians than Michael Matt or Bishop Fellay. We are not an "embarrassment," any more than Jesus Christ was an embarrassment to those who loved truth. He too generated a "scandal" in the eyes of the respectable religious figures of his day.
Bishop Williamson has not been "deceived by a small but vocal clique." We have no intention to deceive anyone. We have always called for and welcomed free, fair and open debate. It is our enemies who scorn debate and whose only "answer" to our research and our doubts is to defame and calumniate us in the media, and, where possible, lock us in the same dungeons that have imprisoned Frederick Toben, Hans Schmidt, Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf and many other revisionist dissidents.
Revisionism is not a dogma, it is an epistemology. We will continue to utilize this marvelous tool of historical discovery, despite persecution from narrow-minded bigots within and outside the Church. By the grace of God, we will remain faithful to the mission of Jesus Christ, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth" (John 18:37).
***
