Thursday, November 01, 2012

Interview with Zionist agent Maximilian Krah

(Krah is the attorney for the Society of Saint Pius X as administered by Bishop Bernard Fellay)


Editor's Note: Bishop Fellay is the prelate who expelled Bishop Richard Williamson from the SSPX. Maximilian Krah is the attorney who was assigned by Fellay to "defend" Bishop Williamson against prosecution in Germany for blaspheming the sacred relics of the religion of Holocaustianity, which is illegal in the German state. In the course of "defending" Williamson Krah actually attacked and insulted him in front of the German court.

Krah is an associate of the murderous Israeli army and has attended an Israeli army training event as a "tourist" as well as a fund-raiser for Tel Aviv University. He assures the interviewer that this all very innocent on his part.

Krah claims that Williamson was given Pressac's report on the alleged homicidal gas chambers to study "for a year" but he "failed" to do so. What actually transpired was that Bishop Williamson made contact with a revisionist researcher after a worldwide explosion of media venom was directed at him after he granted, on German soil, an interview with a Swedish television station. In the course of the interview he did not "deny the 'Holocaust." He questioned the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

As the media lynch mob grew in intensity, Bishop Williamson wanted to have access to the latest revisionist research on the subject of the gas chambers. The revisionist researcher he contacted in turn organized an international team of researchers and historians, led by an American editor (who I do not have permission to name), other youthful revisionist historians, as well as the eminent Dr. Arthur Butz and Dr. Robert Faurisson.

Bishop Williamson carefully studied the documents and texts these scholars kindly made available to him. These included large portions of the Pressac material, because Pressac, toward the end of his life, threw up his hands in frustration and disgust over trying to scientifically prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers. Yet Mr. Krah is either too ignorant or too duplicitous to acknowledge Pressac's failure and instead invokes Pressac as a means of discrediting Williamson's skepticism toward the gas chamber dogma.

Why didn't Krah and Fellay study the books of Faurisson, Butz, Samuel Crowell, Carlo Mattogno, Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter? Why was the burden of reading  and study on Williamson alone? Why does the Catholic Church sanctify and unquestioningly uphold secular consensus history that has no bearing on the Faith of Jesus Christ? Indeed, some would say that Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event of western history. In Europe there are no laws against blaspheming Jesus Christ or denying His resurrection. Only the relics of Holocaustianity are protected from scrutiny in Europe by the threat of criminal prosecution. Holocaustianity is the de facto civil religion of Europe; the last truly believed religion in that otherwise largely agnostic continent. 

In the interview Krah claims that the Israeli Zionists are the defenders of Christian shrines in the Holy Land. Krah makes no mention of the Israeli attacks on the Church of the Nativity during the Israeli holocaust in Jenin, during which the Church of the Nativity was shot up by Israeli soldiers and others churches bombed. He makes no mention of the large number of Palestinian Christians who have been driven out of Palestine or murdered by the Israelis. He makes no mention of the constant vandalism and assaults on Christian Churches by Talmudic terrorists. He makes no mention of the fact that Christian missionary activity is banned in the Israeli state. Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the land of Christ is forbidden by the Israelis, but Krah praises them. He writes, "And there is also a rising group of so-called Hebrew Catholics, who are converted Israeli Citizens."

Really, Mr. Krah? Who converted them and where were they converted? Where do they reside in the Israeli state and where is there home church in the Israeli state? 

Has Mr. Krah bothered to ask native Palestinian Christians who they would rather be ruled by -- fellow Palestinians or Israelis? The Palestinians have no voice in Krah's obsequiously Zionist narrative. 

In Maximillian Krah we have a very serious and committed Zionist agent operating inside the highest levels of the SSPX, by Bishop Fellay's mandate.

The following interview with Mr. Krah was published in The Remnant newspaperThe Remnant's senior adviser is Mr. Christopher Ferrara who has excoriated Bishop Williamson. It seems that Mr. Ferrara knows for a fact that large numbers of people were gassed to death in Auschwitz. He also knows for a fact that it was Arab terrorists from the caves of Afghanistan who brought down the World Trade Center, and Building Seven of the WTC.  Using the publishing facilities of the Remnant, Mr. Ferrara has heaped abuse and contempt on Bishop Williamson for doubting execution gas chambers and believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be counter-cultural; a pilgrim church in the midst of worldly people and their lies and hoaxes. Yet we observe in both the Vatican and the SSPX an imprimatur extended to establishment propaganda which is made holy and incumbent upon Catholics to believe, on pain of expulsion. This is truly a perversion of everything for which Jesus Christ stood. The fact that Bishop Bernard Fellay has Zionist agent Krah installed in the inner circle of the SSPX tells us all we need to know about Fellay and the current direction of his "traditional Catholic" SSPX.  --Michael Hoffman  www.revisionisthistory.org


[The following is an excerpt from Krah's interview with The Remnant newspaper]

Maximilian Krah: First, regarding the Williamson case. It is obvious to me that the statement he made concerning the Holocaust is historically wrong, and he is not open to arguments of historical facts. But, as a lawyer, it was clear to me that he did not violate the German law because, in the moment he made his statement, his wrong statement, he had no idea that the interview would be broadcasted in Germany. This is the whole reason why I believe he is not guilty of having violated the German law. I am not a criminal lawyer, so I had to find one for him. And in such a case I would always highly recommend to take a criminal lawyer, who was under no circumstances linked with, in any way, pro-Nazi movements. To explain, the neo-Nazi movement in Germany is extremely small. It is maybe 1% of the population. It is absolutely small, and you usually don't want to be linked with those persons, because they are exactly the persons you don't want your kids to play with.

And so, to make his defense as successful as possible, I highly recommended him to choose an attorney which was more to the left side so that he can focus on the legal aspects, and was completely free of any political implications in his case. I explained it to him and I introduced Lossmann to him. Lossmann is a widely accepted criminal lawyer, who publishes in research journals on criminal law. He is not as left as the rumors have presented him, because even the Greens [the Green Party], has two wings. And he is definitely not from the left wing of the party. He is, I would say, comparable to an East Coast Liberal. That means he is definitely not a Communist or anything like that. He is just a liberal citizen, interested in the fine arts, and maybe in the fine wine. I introduced both to each other. I explained the reason why I think we needed a more liberal person, than I am myself, and most of my colleagues, with whom I usually cooperate. The Bishop absolutely was fine. Lossmann was doing a great job, and then Bishop Williamson decided, without any explanation, to choose a different attorney…

Robert J. Siscoe:…So when you initially presented Bishop Williamson with your recommendation, and the reasoning for your recommendation, he agreed?

Krah: I explained everything and made it transparent. And he understood and agreed.

Siscoe: And then he at some point changed attorneys?

Krah: Yes, and he changed to a completely unacceptable person, and he got a warning from the General House [of the SSPX] and changed lawyers once again. Now he has chosen, once again, a completely un-political lawyer, who by the way is the president of the Association for Pop Music. He is doing a brilliant job, just as Lossmann did. They argue exactly the same way. They don't argue in any way politically or historically. They say "look this is the law. This is what he has done. He had no idea at the time he gave the interview that it could be broadcasted in Germany, so the case will not have a successful prosecution". And it is the same argumentation, and the same style of defending. It is a deduction to the legal problems, and does not involve bringing the historical and political matters into the court room. And this is the only chance he has. This is what Lossmann did, and this is what Edgar Weiler is now doing. And in the middle, he had, for I guess one week, another approach, and I'm sure this other approach would have led to a catastrophe.

Siscoe: Can you explain your involvement with the Society when "the Williamson affair" first broke? What was the Society facing in Germany, and what did you do to assist the SSPX in this matter?

Krah: The interview was broadcast at the same time that the Pope lifted the so-called excommunications against the Bishops of the SSPX, including Bishop Williamson. So the headlines in Germany were "Pope rehabilitates holocaust-denier", and the SSPX became seen as a neo-Nazi-group in the masquerade of religion. The Chancellor herself expressed her misunderstanding about the Papal decision in favor of Bishop Williamson. The German District made plenty of public declarations, expressing that Bishop Williamson is in no way speaking for the SSPX and pointing out that the SSPX has absolutely no acceptance for anti-Semitism and such wrong ideas on history. But no one believed it, because no one trusted them. Many of the Faithful, and even some priests, began to get nervous, and demanded clear action against Bishop Williamson. Some even began attending the Fraternity of Saint Peter or Motu Proprio masses.

In this serious situation, I was asked if I could help quiet things down by using my network of associates, and especially my connection into the media. Like in all countries, only a few media outlets have national impact. The Church's correspondent scene is very small, about 10 journalists for the whole of Germany. Most of them are aligned with the Novus Ordo, which means they are incurably hostile against the SSPX. One of the rare exceptions is Peter Wensierski of Der Spiegel – ("The Mirror”) – who is really independent, which also means he is equally distant, some say equally hostile, to everybody. But as he is equal toward everyone, he was honest enough to state that the SSPX might be ultra-conservative, old-fashioned, etc., but they are certainly not Nazis. He is tough, but he is fair. Whatever one thinks of the SSPX, they are not even close to fascism or the Nazis. And since Der Spiegel is the "must-read" of the whole German elite, within two weeks the other media accepted the distinction of: the position of the SSPX, and the opinion of the one bishop. It could be seen in the wording of the headlines: Whilst before there was written about "these holocaust-deniers", then it was distinguished between the "conservative group SSPX" and "the Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson". We had just one shot, and it hit. Clearly a sign of grace. I sometimes wonder myself how we succeeded.

Siscoe: But this wasn’t the end of it.

Krah: No, it was just a step. But it brought us back on track. It gave us credibility. We then communicated that the Superior General has given Bishop Williamson one year to study the facts and ordered him to read a book on the issue, written by Jean-Claude Pressac, who himself had doubts about the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz and later changed his mind after he started to look into the facts. This gave us a one year respite, and the media stopped it´s attacks, waiting for the year to pass by. Bishop Williamson did not read the book. So when the year was over, we had to explain it. We just chose to be honest and transparent. We showed the efforts taken by the SSPX, but we also conceded that there was no influence on the Bishop, who has started to go his own way, unfortunately. In the end, we were able to successfully communicate that the SSPX in no way shared these views of Bishop Williamson.****

Siscoe: How were you able to influence the media?

Krah: By plenty of behind-the-scene talks. I went to many distinguished journalists and explained to them the SSPX, its mission, its history. Most of them were completely unaware. Look, for us all of these issues are very present; we live them, and are familiar with them. But for outsiders, the SSPX is something unknown; at least it was so in 2009. For a liberal journalist, who is not practicing religion at all, the idea of saying Mass in an ancient language like Latin is somehow curious. You have to explain it to him in a way he can understand. You have to convince, instead of judge. This is what I did and what I still do. And as I am far away from every kind of political extremism, and always have been, they considered me to be trustworthy, which allowed me to influence them in favor of the SSPX. This is something I would like to point out in general; we should always take in consideration the background and the thinking of our counterparts. Most people are not hostile. They are just uninformed. Instead of judging them, we should explain our views. In most cases we will see an acceptance, and in some cases, even support.

Siscoe: If you don't mind my asking, what impact did "the Williamson affair" have on the current developments concerning Bishop Williamson?

Krah: I am not involved in these current events. As far as I know, the 2009 affair is unrelated to the current threat of expulsion. Look, the affair of 2009 was settled with the final article in "Der Spiegel" early in 2010. Since that time, the public has distinguished between the official position of the SSPX and the private opinion of Bishop Williamson. What has happened since then is that Bishop Williamson has openly undermined authority and hierarchy, which has caused division within the SSPX. This is an internal affair, for which my advice is neither required nor requested. This is the core business of the superiors. I am used to mediate between the SSPX and different sorts of secular players: judges, journalists, politicians, state officials, bankers. But I have no share in internal affairs. Here I am an ordinary faithful like all others. And I´m happy with that.

Siscoe: There is another rumor claiming that you were fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Can you fill us in on that?

Krah: Yes, of course. I have a lot of friends, including many who are not Catholic. And I have Jewish friends, which I appreciate very much. They are wonderful people, and there is absolutely no reason for me to hide them, or to take their friendship into question. So, with that said, I have no understanding for these accusations or insinuations. They are my friends, and they can trust me as I trust them. I was in New York one evening when I received a phone call asking if I had plans for the night, which I hadn't. But my friend had one, and we went to a reception in a gallery in Chelsea, and there were plenty of people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, from different countries, and it was hosted by the American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and of course they took pictures [chuckle], and they posted them on the internet, and this gave those people reason enough to attack me without asking me what happened. It was just a nice evening, a gathering, in New York City. I´d attend it again, even if I knew about the rumors it caused.

Siscoe: To clarify, you are not a member of The American Friends of Tel Aviv University, and you did not organize this event?

Krah: No, to both questions.

Siscoe: There is another picture online as well that has caused some controversy. It shows you attending an IDF military camp recruitment event. Can you explain?

Krah: Yes, it was not a recruitment event. One of my friends got married in the Negev Desert, and he invited friends from all over the world, including my wife and me. He generously arranged a tour, which included both the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem and a visit into a military camp, so we could have a personal impression of what the Israeli army is doing. It was, you could say, a tourist tour, on the way from Jerusalem to the Negev Desert, and included a luncheon. We were able to visit them and talk to them, in order to get a personal impression of the military. And as far as I know, it is widely common for groups that visit the State of Israel to arrange these kinds of tours. I received an e-mail from a member of the city council in Dresden, who told me that he himself had taken part in similar events. So, for me it was an interesting invitation. And as I was a German soldier for one year after High School, I enjoyed the opportunity to see how things are done in the IDF.

Maybe a word about… it is common to read things on the internet about the State of Israel. Let's bring it back to history. In the middle ages, Christianity made several Crusades to the Holy Land for one reason: to get the holy places open so we would have access to them for Pilgrimages. We have, currently, more Pilgrimages to the Holy Land than ever in the past. We had more in 2012 than in 2011, and more in 2011 than in 2010, and in 2010 we had more than ever since. That means, the holy places are open; they get protected. They are safe, and there is money invested. And the Catholic Church gets tax benefits by the Israeli government in that country. I don't know anybody who believes that, if this country was under Islamic rule, we would have nearly as many Pilgrims there, and free access. And even the Pilgrim groups from the SSPX Germany, that go from Jerusalem and Nazareth to Bethlehem, always stay in a hotel on the other side of the wall – the Israeli side. If you just see facts and reality, than we have to say it is hard to attack those authorities that provide open access to those holy places. This is what I say: just calm down and judge by facts. We have to see the facts as they are, and we have to see that there are plenty of people living there. They have police, everything is organized, and they do not harm the Christians there. And there is also a rising group of so-called Hebrew Catholics, who are converted Israeli Citizens. We have none of those in the Islamic countries. I only can warn all those Christians who are so opposite, or hostile against the Israeli State, what would happen if that State would disappear. We would have a lot of problems with our holy places. And what would happen to the Christians in that country if we had a change on the political landscape? And so I have absolutely no problem to say that I have a positive attitude towards the state of Israel. The world is not perfect. It never has been. There are wars always. There is a state of imperfection. And if we see this, if we see the reality, we can say it could be much worse. And this should lead us to a more distinguished position towards the political situation in the Holy Land.

***

4 comments:

Jason said...

Whatever protection Christian Holy sites receive is purely from the Grace of God, not any particular government, Israeli or otherwise. My take on this point by Krah is that it's a passive-agressive threat to anyone that doesn't toe the Zionist line - support us or watch your Holy places be destroyed. Well, the sites certainly haven't survived multiple centuries due to the supposed protection of a state that hasn't even existed for one.

Floreat said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224830/Holocaust-denier-David-Irving-allowed-Germany--thanks-EU-rules-allow-free-movement.html

Bp Williamson's friends seem to be changing their opinions.

...David Irving used his one-day trial to say he had since changed his mind about the Nazi extermination programme and that he now accepted there was a plot to kill the Jews of Europe.

'I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,' he told the court in the Austrian capital. 'I admit that in 1989 I had denied that Nazi Germany had killed millions of Jews.
'This is what I then believed, until I later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust.

I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now.

'The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.'

Paul said...

Only one person changed his opinion, and he's notoriously unreliable!

Henry said...

Floreat:

Irving's comment pre-dates Williamson's TV interview by 2 or 3 years.

David Irving owes the Jews circa £3 million in legal costs and interest..In real terms this means the Jews own the man.

In the 39 years prior to the Lipstadt/Penguin trial Irving published 29 books, but in the 12 years since his self-inflicted defeat he's managed to publish NONE!

It'll be interesting to see if Irving's long threatened book about Himmler serves to identify that man's murderer or merely confirms Himmler as the driving force behind the 'Holocaust' which Irving now accepts.