Relieve the national deficit by imposing tariffs on foreign imports

The nuts and bolts reality of our trade policy versus the trade policy of the fastest-growing economies

by Joseph Korff

Jupiter, Florida

China, Brazil, India and South Korea have protectionist trade policies regarding imported manufactured goods, and we have a virtually open-door policy to manufactured imports.

In some instances the tariffs imposed on our manufactured products by foreign countries exceed the cost of labor and materials used to make the product. A $25,000 car exported to Brazil has about $21,000 of tariffs applied to it by Brazil; $20,000 of golf balls exported to Brazil is hit with a $17,000 tariff. A $25,000 car shipped to India will cost about $75,000 because of Indian tariffs and taxes.

There is no way America can compete when tariffs of this magnitude are imposed on our products, but the tariffs keep those nations' economies humming along and our trade deficits and debts to them piling up with no end in sight.

Their method is simple: exclude imports and grow domestic jobs. This reality gives our lawyer-based Senate and Congress fits and classically trained economists sleepless nights, but it made sense to the former president of Brazil, who at one time was a machinist.

An interesting side note is that Brazil partially funds its social-security system on import tariffs. America should learn from the Brazilians.

The time to start an intelligent conversation about tariffs is long overdue. We need to get beyond the conversation in which the second and usually last sentence is, "We don't want to start a trade war." We are in a trade war, but we aim our guns against ourselves.

***

Book review of “The Great Holocaust Trial"

Michael Hoffman’s Note: To the best of my knowledge there are only four significant revisionist journals remaining in the United States: Smith’s Report edited by Bradley Smith, Willis Carto’s The Barnes Review, our own Revisionist History bulletin, and Richard Widmann’s online magazine Inconvenient History. Of the four cited, only two, Smith’s Report and Inconvenient History are dedicated almost exclusively to World War Two revisionism. 

Inconvenient History has done some genuine spade work in the archives. I was most appreciative of their extensive study of the Goebbels diaries, thousands of pages of which have never been translated into English. Editor Richard Widmann is not only an expert on gas chamber revisionism he is a generous soul. When the biggest of all revisionist gas chamber controversies since the conference in Iran made international headlines, I was enlisted by the protagonist in the eye of the storm to assemble a revisionist brain trust to provide the latest revisionist research. I turned to Dr. Arthur R. Butz of Northwestern University, author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and to Mr. Widmann. Both rose to the occasion and Widmann in particular helped round up some of the latest and best research with which to arm our courageous brother-in-arms, who was being targeted throughout Europe and North America. We are too close to the event to name the principal, but when the history of 21st century revisionism is written, the assistance which Butz and Widmann contributed on an emergency basis will be worthy of laurels.

For now I will express my gratitude to Mr. Widmann and Martin Gunnels for the following review of the new edition of my book about Ernst Zundel. They are endeavoring to keep the memory of this extraordinary man and his struggle alive for the next generation. Were it not for them, my book and Zundel himself might be consigned to the memory hole. Mr. Gunnels is right to point out that at one time Ernst Zundel made revisionism a popular movement. As a result, it seemed that every year Willis Carto’s Institute for Historical Review (IHR) swelled with a larger mailing list, subscribers and blockbuster annual conferences in California featuring the leading lights of World War II revisionist scholarship. All that is no more. There have been achievements; the 2006 conference in Iran being the highlight. Revisionism is in a rebuilding phase now. Inconvenient History is at the core of that effort.

REVIEW

The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West's Most Sacred Relic

Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition

by Michael Hoffman, Independent History and Research, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 2010. 182pp.

Reviewed by Martin Gunnels | Inconvenient History (online magazine) | Summer 2011

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2011/volume_3/number_2/the_great_holocaust_trial.php

Sometimes it is easy for us to forget that, in the quite recent past, Holocaust revisionism was a thriving movement that exacted some pretty impressive concessions from mainstream historians. The 1970s and 80s witnessed the rise of revisionism as a vigorous network of activists from all walks of life, complete with filmmakers, military personnel, dramatists, clergymen, journalists, and university professors. During this period, revisionists succeeded in forcing mainstream Holocausters to distance themselves from many of their more ludicrous claims. Yet during the past fifteen or so years, revisionism has gone from being an exciting and formidable movement to a scattered, quiet, and frequently depressing jumble of independent publishing ventures that commands scant public attention.

If you ask veteran revisionists what led to this radical change of affairs, some would surely cite the retirement of Ernst Zündel. Since the later 1990s, when Ernst Zündel declared victory in the Holocaust battle and decided to devote his talents to matters less heretical, things have never been quite the same. Though we’ve had several successes since Zündel’s departure, the worldwide revisionist movement has undeniably lost a certain spark since his departure. By chronicling the charisma and creativity that Zündel showed during his long fight for historical truth, Michael Hoffman’s book—which has been updated to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of Zündel’s 1985 False News trial—provides a valuable glimpse into why it was so important for the Holocausters to muzzle this eccentric German-Canadian artist who had galvanized and electrified a movement.

The title of Hoffman’s book, then, is somewhat misleading. Although "The Great Holocaust Trial" does give an account of Zündel’s false news trials of ’85 and ’88, this is a book about Ernst Zündel and his decades-long struggle to defang the Holocaust golem. Hoffman begins by recounting Zündel’s birth and early life in the Black Forest—a region, as Hoffman is quick to point out, that has a long tradition of producing “indomitable warriors” that have repeatedly resisted the clutches of imperialism. Yet the Germans, who more than 2,000 years ago were able to beat back the world’s most formidable empire, seem to have little luck with the psychological brand of warfare that is waged so beautifully by the empires of today. Contemporary Germans, Hoffman suggests, worship their defeat and their bottomless guilt because they are a colonized people living in an occupied land. Thus as Hoffman points out, it is especially stupid for people to dismiss revisionism on the grounds that “the Germans” themselves vigorously protect the orthodox Holocaust narrative. Those who recite this cliché must pretend “as if the current crew of opportunists, whores, and nincompoops ruling Germany from the barrel of U.S. Occupation troops’ guns are somehow the legitimate spokesmen of the German people. They forget that the Communists and Zionists won the war and have imposed their political, military, academic, and journalistic worldview on the colonized Germans ever since” (29).

In 1957 Zündel left his conquered fatherland for Canada, where he and other German immigrants were subjected to a steady stream of anti-German propaganda about gas chambers, darkening heavens, willing executioners, and their bewildering complicity in the naughtiest crime the world has ever known. Right after Zündel stepped off the boat, he seems to have stepped into his ancestors’ jackboots in order to fend off the Holocausters’ virulent regime of “truth.” After handing out leaflets and giving lectures for several years, Zündel threw together a shoestring campaign for the leadership of Canada’s powerful Liberal Party. And though he was outspent by establishment gofers who easily won the election, Zündel came away with a different sort of victory: not only did he inject his name into virtually all Canadian households, but he also won the respect of the country’s German immigrants and anti-Communists.

But as Hoffman tells us: if you find yourself in good favor with German immigrants and anti-Communists, you’re certain to make some pretty powerful (and predictable) enemies. The Holocaust “survivor,” Sabina Citron, was among the boldest of these enemies. In a twist of irony that never seems to grow old, Ms. Citron incited much hatred upon herself and other Holocaust survivors by demanding that Zündel be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. Thus to save Citron from another Holocaust—this time wrought not by Europe’s largest and most technologically advanced state, but by hard-hatted Zündel and his tiny network of artists and auto-workers—Canada imprisoned and tried Zündel for publishing “false news,” whatever that is.

Hoffman’s humorous courtside account is filled with many bizarre persecution fantasies, which when taken together seem like a B-movie co-produced by Walt Disney, David Lynch, and Charles Manson. Hoffman cites one particularly creative “eyewitness,” Arnold Friedman, who claimed that “while in Auschwitz he saw ‘fourteen foot flames’ shooting out of the crematorium chimneys. He also gave sworn testimony that he was able to tell whether the Nazis were burning fat Jewish Hungarians or skinny Jewish poles by looking at the different colors of the smoke and flames coming out of the crematorium.” Another “eyewitness” Morris Hubert, a former inmate at Buchenwald, claimed that, “In the (Buchenwald) camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle. Every day they would throw a Jew in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick his bones.”

This embarrassing kind of eyewitness testimony was not at all what Sabina Citron had in mind. As Hoffman writes, “Now the Jewish lobby was getting panicky. Their entire cult was being revealed for the cheap media hoax that it was: A fraud built on ‘testimonies’ and ‘confessions’ and movies, books and articles based on the confessions and the testimonies.” Although the Holocausters thought they would have a quick, effortless victory against the dissident publisher and his demonic legion of hate, the trial became uglier and uglier for Citron and Co. as the weeks dragged on. In fact, Hoffman shows that, during Zündel’s 1988 appeal trial, not a single Holocaust survivor agreed to take the stand for the prosecution. They, along with the prosecution’s premier expert, Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, refused to be re-interrogated about what we all know is “the best-documented event in history.”

As we all know, Zündel was convicted in both trials, but in 1992 the false news laws under which he was prosecuted were overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. A few years later, Zündel moved to Tennessee with his wife, US citizen Ingrid Rimland, only to be kidnapped on erroneous immigration charges in 2003 and hustled into Canada. After sitting in solitary confinement for two years, Zündel was packed off to Germany where he was again tried and imprisoned for publishing texts that threatened the insecure regimes of America and Canada as well as Germany. At the end of his book, Hoffman traces all of these circumstances in detail in a handy timeline of revisionism during the 1990s and 2000s. Readers can finish the book, then, by tracing the reverberations of Zündel’s sacrifice for historical truth.

I highly recommend Hoffman’s book, because it offers an honest and balanced account of the tragedy of Ernst Zündel. Hoffman faults Zündel for several things, including his stubbornly outspoken Hitlerism, while nevertheless portraying Zündel as a generous, courageous, and highly talented leader. Also useful about the "Great Holocaust Trial" are the new appendices, which include essays by Hoffman, Fred Leuchter, and Zündel himself. All in all, Hoffman’s book is a valuable contribution to a distinct and important kind of revisionism—a highly personal literature by revisionists about revisionists—that puts a human face on a community that has for too long suffered under the shameless squawking of Commissarettes like Sabina Citron.

"The Great Holocaust Trial" is available for $19.95 plus $3.50 shipping in the U.S. 

Shipping to Canada is $8. Shipping overseas is $10. Order from Independent History and Research, Box 849 Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA. 

Or from Amazon.com

http://tinyurl.com/3nskmkd

***

Republican Party of the rich plunged us into deficits before Obama

Borrowing and spending the GOP way

The big deficit facing the U.S. is mostly Republican in origin, the Congressional Budget Office says. The Bush tax cuts alone have added $3 trillion in red ink, yet the party wants to double down on its failed policy.

By Mike Lofgren | Los Angeles Times | June 26, 2011 (Excerpt)

President Obama's fiscal policies are a mess. Whatever one thinks of the need for stimulus in a severe recession, it is obvious that running trillion-dollar deficits for years on end is unsustainable. Moreover, his proposals are dishonest. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that his proposed 2012 budget underestimates spending while overestimating revenues.

Sadly, the Republicans have offered no viable alternative.

The failure of our leaders to offer realistic budget proposals was a major reason I decided to retire after 28 years in Congress, most of them as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees. My party talks a good game, railing about the immorality of passing debt on to our children. But the same Congressional Budget Office that punctured Obama's budget also concluded that the major policies that swung the budget from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001 to the present 10-year deficit of $6.2 trillion were Republican in origin.

Consider the two signature GOP policies of George W. Bush's presidency: the wars and the tax cuts. Including debt service costs, Bush's wars have cost about $1.7 trillion to date. Additionally, as part of being "a nation at war," the Pentagon has spent about $1 trillion more than was expected in the last decade on things other than direct war costs, which has been a bonanza for military contractors but a disaster for the federal budget. And finally, there has been another trillion dollars spent domestically in response to 9/11, including spending on such things as establishing the Homeland Security Department and increasing the budgets for the State Department and the Veterans Administration.

The Bush tax cuts have added another $3 trillion in red ink. While Republican leaders wail that Americans — particularly their rich contributors — are overtaxed, the facts say otherwise: U.S. taxpayers, particularly the wealthiest, pay far less in taxes than they would in most other developed countries. Today, the 400 wealthiest Americans have as much wealth as the bottom 125 million. The GOP insists that those wealthy people use their money to create jobs, and that taxing them more heavily would ultimately hurt the economy. But, if that's so, why was the rate of job creation in the decade after the Bush tax cuts the poorest in any decade since before World War II?

Like a drunk swearing off hooch for the hundredth time, Republicans are now trying to show they are serious about controlling the deficit by saying they won't raise the debt ceiling unless they get through some of their cost-saving projects, like privatizing Medicare. Meanwhile, they want revenue increases "off the table," even though, at 14.8% of GDP, revenues are at their lowest level in 60 years. And the budget passed by the Republican-controlled House further cuts taxes on the wealthy, a fact it glosses over with optimistic growth forecasts.

Raising the debt ceiling isn't, as the GOP tries to say, Congress giving itself permission to continue excessive spending: It's something that's necessary to pay for past congressional decisions on taxes and spending, and those decisions were made primarily when Republicans were in charge.

...Polarization based on juvenile talk radio sloganeering is dragging this country to the cliff's edge. If neither the Democrats nor the party I have served for three decades is willing to act like adults, perhaps it's time for a party that is willing to step into the void.

Mike Lofgren retired as a congressional staffer on June 17.

***

Talmudic circumcision rite exposed in graphic California comic book

Read an excerpt from the comic online here, along with an afterword by Michael Hoffman

A statement released on June 3 by the San Francisco office of the Anti-Defamation League called the comic "grotesque" as well as "disrespectful and deeply offensive.”

***

Wilders acquitted of hate speech in Holland and Zionists are worried

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Dutch politician Geert Wilders is an agent of Israeli war Zionism. He supports Judaism 99.9% of the time. However, because he does not support shechita (Talmudic ritual slaughter of animals), he is being criticized by his halachic handlers, who demand 100% obedience from their golem.

Moreover, Mr. Wilders, who publicly expresses hatred for Islam and Muslims, was acquitted last week in Amsterdam of hate speech charges. The Zionists are pleased their agent is free to agitate on their behalf but worry about the precedent for free speech which his acquittal represents: "After the verdict in the Wilders case, many ...statements comparing the...Talmud to Mein Kampf, and claims that Judaism is a sick religion, cannot be legally challenged."

*******

WILDERS, ISRAEL AND THE JEWS

Op-ed: Acquittal of 'anti-Muslim' politician could have problematic consequences for Jews

by Manfred Gerstenfeld | http://www.ynetnews.com | June 26, 2011

Last week, Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, was cleared by an Amsterdam Court of all charges of insulting Muslims and inciting hatred and discrimination against them. The trial of the only internationally known Dutch politician drew major media attention in many countries. The verdict is generally being hailed as a triumph for almost unbridled free speech. Concerning Israel, the Jews and what may be said about them in The Netherlands, this judgment could invite very problematic consequences.

The developments in the court case were bizarre. The public prosecution had concluded years ago that Wilders should not be prosecuted. The Amsterdam Court, however, forced the prosecution to charge Wilders. This started a three-year procedure. The first round ended abruptly in October 2010. Then judges of the Amsterdam Court deposed their colleagues sitting on the Wilders case, because they had shown bias against him. Thus, a new court had to start the hearings from the beginning in February. The public prosecution requested Wilders' acquittal as it had also done in the first round.

The charges included a long list of statements by Wilders, one of which was: "The Koran is the Mein Kampf of a religion which aims to eliminate others and which calls the others - the non-Muslims - unreligious dogs." On another occasion he had said: "The core of the problem is fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed, as written down in the Islamic Mein Kampf, the Koran."

Regarding Muslims, Wilders had said inter alia: "Close the borders. No more Muslims should be let into the country, many Muslims should leave the Netherlands and criminal Muslims should lose their Dutch nationality."

The court found that while Wilders may have on occasion spoken in a hurtful and coarse way, he should be able to propagate his views as part of public political debate. After the verdict, Muslim and other organizations announced that they want to take the issue up with the United Nations Human Rights Council. In the meantime, Wilders continues to receive many death threats, mainly from Muslims, and must be heavily guarded.

One has to analyze Wilders' policies separately from the way he expresses them. He has been a pioneer in pointing out that the greatest threat to humanity comes out of the Islamic world. This goes far beyond the more than hundred million adherents of Bin Laden's worldview, suicide and other bombers, as well as the many crimes against humanity in countries such as Yemen, Syria, Libya and so on. However, to consider all Muslims as a global threat is an unfounded and populist generalization.

Anti-Semitic talkbacks

Wilders has been a consistent defender of Israel. The Freedom Party supports the Dutch minority government of Liberals and Christian Democrats from the outside. This government has, as part of its official program, the improvement of Dutch-Israeli relations. Wilders plays an important role in making sure that this is indeed the case.  

The Freedom Party has, together with two small Christian parties, taken a lead role in the fight against anti-Semitism. With regard to physical and verbal attacks on recognizable Jews in The Netherlands, Muslims and in particular youngsters of Moroccan origin, have a disproportionately large share in these crimes, compared to their size in the population.

The Freedom Party's spokesman on anti-Semitism issues Joram van Klaveren, is making consistent efforts to convince the government to pay for the security of Jewish institutions. Financing their own security is a heavy burden for the small organized Jewish community, which numbers about 8,000 members.

The Freedom Party, however, plays a very negative role in the current debate on a private bill introduced by the Party for the Animals to prohibit religious slaughter without stunning an animal first. Initially, Wilders' party's support for the bill was seen as part of its anti-Islam policies. In the interim, it has been found that the percentage of Dutch Muslims who are not willing to eat Halal meat from stunned animals is very small.

The Freedom Party has supported this prohibition enthusiastically, knowing full well that orthodox Jews will be its main victims. In the parliamentary debate, its spokesman Dion Graus has called religious slaughter "ritual torture." He also stated that his party is not against Muslims, as the proposed prohibition also hurts Jews. Thus once again, Jews have become an instrument in Dutch politics.

When analyzing what consequences the Amsterdam court decision may have for Jews and Israel, one needs to be informed about Dutch anti-Israeli propaganda, which has succeeded in convincing more than 38% of the Dutch population that Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians. This information was found in a major poll undertaken by the University of Bielefeld in Germany. Anti-Israeli inciters regularly publish in most leading Dutch media.

The religious slaughter debate has unleashed a sewer of anti-Semitic talkbacks in several mainstream Dutch papers. After the verdict in the Wilders case, many of these as well as statements comparing the Torah and Talmud to Mein Kampf, and claims that Judaism is a sick religion, cannot be legally challenged.

Manfred Gerstenfeld is the author of 20 books. Last year, his book in Dutch,"The Decay: Jews in a Rudderless Netherlands, sparked a major debate in the Netherlands.

(END QUOTE FROM THE ISRAELI YNET NEWS)

*******

Bishop Richard Williamson goes on trial in Germany July 4

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who resides in London, England, is scheduled, on July 4, to have his appeal heard in Germany concerning his heresy trial. He is appealing the charge that he cast doubt on the modern West's most sacred relic, the alleged engine of destruction in Auschwitz. The following is from his weekly e-mail column. It appears below in English and in German and French translation.

Bishop Richard Williamson's Dinoscopus Column

ELEISON  COMMENTS  CCVI  (June 25, 2011):  CHOOSING  LAWYERS

These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.

In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.

So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discrete" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.

As for my changing lawyers four times, the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.

However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.

Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.                                                  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

Dinoscopus is always sent free of charge, courtesy of True Restoration Press:
truerestoration@gmail.com

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

ELEISON  KOMMENTARE  CCVI. (25. Juni 2011): ANWALTSWAHL    

Die Eleison Kommentare" berichten normalerweise nicht von persönlichen Dingen. Doch kurz vor dem Berufungsverfahren ihres Autors in Deutschland (am 4. Juli 2011) zirkuliert eine Unwahrheit, welche korrigiert werden muß, auch, um ungerechtfertigte Ängste zu zerstreuen. Diese Unwahrheit lautet, daß ich meine Verteidigung gegen den vom deutschen Staat erhobenen Vorwurf der ,,Volksverhetzung" darauf aufbauen möchte, was in der umstrittensten Zeit der jüngeren deutschen Geschichte tatsächlich oder nicht passiert ist.    

Von dem Moment an, da ich wußte, daß ich für meine englischsprachigen Bemerkungen gegenüber den schwedischen Journalisten im November 2008 vom deutschen Staat wegen ,,Volksverhetzung" angeklagt werden könnte, wußte ich tatsächlich auch, daß ich bei einer Wiederholung meiner Aussagen vor einem deutschen Gericht riskieren würde, sofort ins Gefängnis geworfen zu werden. Das ist der gegenwärtige Zustand des deutschen Rechts. Doch wenn ich es vermeiden kann, würde ich natürlich lieber nicht mit Leibketten geschmückt werden.     Deswegen wurde mir von Anfang an geraten, mich auf der Grundlage zu verteidigen, daß meine Aussagen selbstverständlich nicht für ein deutsches Publikum bestimmt waren und damit auch nicht vom deutschen Recht berührt werden. Soviel ist schon anhand der letzten Minute des bekannten Youtube-Videos offenkundig, welches die letzten paar Minuten meines einstündigen Interviews mit den Schweden zeigt. Darüber hinaus bat ich nach diesen Bemerkungen und bei abgeschalteter Kamera die Schweden ernstlich, diesen letzten Teil des Interviews nur auf, "diskrete" Weise zu verwenden.

Wenigstens das müßten sie zugeben, wenn sie aussagen würden - doch können sie nicht gezwungen werden, nach Deutschland zu kommen, und daher lehnen sie ein Erscheinen ab.

Über meine wechselnden Anwälte: Ursprünglich vertraute der Bruderschafts-Generalobere meine Verteidigung dem Bruderschafts-Anwalt Maximilian Krah an, welcher sich entschied, Matthias Loßmann zu engagieren. Dieser ist Mitglied der ( leider ) antikatholischen Partei,Die Grünen" und verrichtete die Arbeit zwar gewissenhaft, war aber vom Fall vielleicht nicht allzu sehr begeistert. Über Freunde entdeckte ich den Anwalt Wolfram Nahrath, welcher die Verteidigung solch heikler Fälle begeistert und sehr erfolgreich vornimmt. Doch Loßmann wollte mit Nahrath nicht zusammenarbeiten, und weil ich in meinem Dilemma nur die beste Rechtsverteidigung suchte, wechselte ich von Loßmann zu Nahrath.    

Als jedoch der Generalobere von seinen Beratern über Nahraths politische Stellung informiert wurde, befahl er mir, wieder jemand anderen zu finden - sicherlich im guten Glauben daran, daß jede öffentliche Verbindung zwischen der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. und einem ,,extrem Rechten" abträglich wäre. Also billigte der Generalobere den älteren und ehrenvollen Dr. Norbert Wingerter, welcher ein konservativer ,,Novus Ordo"-Katholik ist. Doch anscheinend ist Wingerter unwissentlich die Quelle für die eingangs erwähnte, zirkulierende Unwahrheit. Ich weiß nicht warum, aber er scheint unter dem falschen Eindruck zu stehen, daß ich vor Gericht auf dem Wahrheits- oder Unwahrheitsgehalt der erwähnten Episode in der deutschen Geschichte beharren wollte. Gluecklicherweise hatte der Generalobere bereits einen weiteren Anwalt erlaubt, welcher nunmehr gut versteht, wie ich vor Gericht verteidigt werden will.

Liebe Leser, wenn Sie denken, daß bei dem Ganzen die Interessen Gottes in irgendeiner Weise auf dem Spiel stehen (nicht jeder denkt dies), so bitte ich für meinen neuen Anwalt um ein Gebet zwischen jetzt und den 4. Juli 2011. Dieser Anwalt hat seit vielen Monaten hart an diesem Fall gearbeitet, aber riskiert dabei, unter heftigen Druck zu geraten durch antikatholische Beteiligte und ihre mächtigen Knechte.                               

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson          
************************************************************

COMMENTAIRE  ELEISON  (25 juin, 2011):  UN  CHOIX  D'AVOCATS  

Ce « Commentaire » ne s'occupe pas normalement de questions propres à son auteur, mais à la veille de son Appel qui doit s'entendre en Allemagne le 4 juillet, une contre-vérité circule qui a besoin d'être corrigée pour entre autres choses apaiser des anxiétés sans fondement. La contre-vérité, c'est que pour me défendre contre l'accusation d' « incitation raciale » que me porte l'Etat allemand, je veux que le tribunal examine la vérité ou fausseté historique de ce qui s'est passé dans cet épisode le plus controversé de toute l'histoire récente de l'Allemagne.  

De fait, dès le moment où j'ai su que l'on pourrait m'accuser en Allemagne d'avoir commis, par certains propos que j'avais tenus aux journalistes suédois en novembre de 2008, cette  « incitation raciale », je me suis rendu compte aussi que si je tenais devant un tribunal allemand des propos pareils, je courrais le risque de me faire jeter séance tenante en prison. Tel est l'état actuel des lois allemandes et des tribunaux allemands. Or, je ne tiens pas spécialement à me faire orner de chaines, si je peux l'éviter.  

Alors dès le début de l'« affaire Williamson » j'ai suivi le conseil de me faire défendre en faisant valoir que ces propos ne visaient aucun auditoire allemand, et donc la loi en question ne s'appliquait pas à mon cas. Ceci est évident si l'on regarde la dernière minute de l'extrait du film de l'interview faite par les Suédois qui est devenu célèbre sur YouTube. De plus, tout de suite après que la caméra eut cessé de tourner, je les ai abordés directement pour leur demander très sérieusement d'être « discrets » dans l'usage qu'ils feraient de cette dernière partie de l'interview. S'ils venaient à témoigner en Allemagne ils devraient admettre tout cela. Dans la mesure où on ne peut pas les y forcer, ils refusent de se rendre en Allemagne.  

Et pourquoi ai-je changé si souvent d'avocat?  A l'origine le Supérieur Général de la Fraternité St Pie X a confié ma défense à l'avocat de la Maison Généralice, Me Maximilian Krah, qui a choisi à son tour un membre du parti anticatholique - hélas -- des « Verts » pour le remplacer, Me Lossmann. Celui-ci s'est acquitté de sa tâche consciencieusement mais peut-etre sans trop d'enthousiasme. Grâce à des amis, j'ai repéré un avocat enthousiaste et habitué à gagner des cas si délicats, Me Nahrath, mais Me Lossmann n'a pas voulu collaborer avec lui. Dans le besoin pressant d'un bon avocat, j'ai donné mandat à Me Nahrath. Mais dès que le Supérieur Général eut été renseigné par ses adjoints de la position politique de Me Nahrath, il m'a ordonné de trouver encore quelqu'un d'autre. Sans doute croyait-il de bonne foi que toute association publique avec un «extrémiste de droite» ferait du tort à la Fraternité. Il a approuvé l'avocat suivant, l'honorable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, catholique conservateur de l'Eglise officielle. Etant sous la fausse impression, je ne sais comment, que je voulais engager le tribunal dans la question de la vérité ou fausseté de ces événements controversés de l'histoire allemande, c'est le Dr. Wingerter qui serait à la source, sans s'en rendre compte, de la contre-vérité qui circule. Heureusement le Supérieur Général avait déjà approuvé un cinquième avocat qui comprenait bien comment je voulais me faire defendre.  

Chers lecteurs, si vous pensez que dans cet Appel il y va de quelque façon que ce soit des intérêts de Dieu - pas tous ne le pensent - dites d'ici le 4 juillet une prière pour mon avocat actuel qui travaille dur sur le cas depuis plusieurs mois, mais qui risque d'avoir à affronter une pression forte de la part de puissants eennemis de la Foi, et de leurs serviteurs.  

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

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

Bow to their "Holocaust" idol -- or go to jail!

 In Revisionist History newsletter no. 57 (June 2011), Michael Hoffman demolishes Genocide Denials and the Law, a new book from Oxford University Press promoting the jailing of men and women who cannot find it in their conscience to bow to the Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber idol.

Genocide Denials and the Law is intended to serve as an inquisitor's manual, providing the definitive legal rationale for jailing modern-day heretics in the dungeons of Europe by first dehumanizing them as "deniers."

It consists of contributions from numerous legal scholars and law professors including Thomas Hochmann of the University of Paris, Robert A. Kahn of the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota), Law Prof. Lawrence Douglas of Amherst, Laurent Pech, Professor of European Union Law at the National University of Ireland, and others. The book targets Robert Faurisson, John Demjanjuk, Ernst Zündel, Roger Garaudy, Günter Deckart, Pedro Varela, Fred Leuchter, David Irving and revisionists as a whole. Grand Inquisitor Hochmann wants the alleged "bad faith and hateful intent" of the revisionist defendant to play a role at his sentencing: "The state of mind of the denier can thus be considered during sentencing, as an observation of the widespread moral presumption that a lie deserves a harsher punishment than a mistake."

This is a cruel and vindictive book that relishes the thought of making those who doubt the sacred idols of Holocaustianity suffer imprisonment. It is a disgraceful work, and as such it requires an answer. Veteran revisionist writer Michael Hoffman, author of The Great Holocaust Trial, analyzes the Talmudic hypocrisy, megalomania and mythomania of "Genocide Denials and the Law" to devastating effect. He tears off the facade to reveal the squalid totalitarian philosophy at its core: what I believe is undoubtedly true. If you doubt my sacred belief then you must be punished by long confinement in a European prison.

Persons who are not especially concerned with or engaged by the controversy over Nazi execution gas chambers should nonetheless pay close attention to this subject: the totalitarian manipulation represented by the various laws and tactics used to distort, dehumanize and criminalize World War II revisionism have created a precedent and a template for future use against other types of marginalized dissenters.

Two ways to order this issue of Revisionist History no. 57:

"Criminalizing Doubt: 'Holocaust Denialism' in International Law" by Michael Hoffman

1. Subscribe here and we'll start your subscription with this issue.

2. Send a U.S. check, U.S. money order or cash (sent at your risk) for this issue alone.
$7.00 in the U.S. $8.00 to Canada. $9.00 to Europe, Australia, Japan etc. U.S. funds, U.S. bank only.

As a bonus, this issue of Revisionist History also contains articles on brain damage incurred from antidepressant medications; the most recent Demjanjuk trial; the "raid" on Osama bin Laden, and more. Don't miss out. Order today!

Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA 

***

Bachmann, Beck and Palin increase their support for Israeli aggression

It took Republican congresswoman and Tea Party icon Michele Bachmann less than 24 hours after President Obama's Middle East address to launch an attack on him. On May 19, 150,000 residents in Iowa and South Carolina received robo-calls from Bachmann, accusing Obama of not standing up for Israel...

Within the Tea Party, Bachmann is at the forefront of those making Israel a key part of her agenda. In her speech at the high-profile Faith & Freedom Conference held in Washington in early June, Bachmann termed Obama's call for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on Israel's 1967 boundaries and mutually agreed land swaps "shocking." She followed up by buying ads on Jewish websites reiterating this message.

Bachmann is not alone. Attacks on Obama's Israel policy have come from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, known as the Tea Party's biggest draw.

Pundit Glenn Beck, a vocal critic of the Obama presidency, has been devoting much of his airtime lately to the issue of Israel. He recently announced plans to hold a "Restoring Courage" rally August 20 in Jerusalem. At this gathering, modeled on his rally last summer that called for patriotic unity in Washington, Beck intends to call for Americans to "courageously stand with Israel."

These voices currently appear to be dominating discourse on Israel within the Tea Party, overshadowing the more isolationist views of such Israel critics as Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, a declared 2012 presidential candidate....

Source: Nathan Guttman, Forward newspaper (New York) June 14, 2011

***

Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government Tracks “Deniers"

"Measuring Holocaust Denial in the United States”

(online here)

by Scott Darnell, Master's Degree Thesis, Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government

This thesis is written like a CIA action report, with calls for more surveillance and even a "rapid response team." There is a surfeit of graphs and statistics.

Mr. Darnell's thesis (submitted to Aleisa Fishman, PhD. and Rebekah Sobel, PhD.) appears to be a prelude to a groundwork for criminalizing heretics in America who doubt the holy Auschwitz homicidal gas chamber relic.

Of course, the author would not describe his inquisition in those terms. Rather he frames it in the pseudo-scientific taxonomy of “antisemitism," along with lurid references to skinheads, klansmen and vandalism.

The heroes of Darnell's master's thesis are the Stalinist thought police of the Zionist ADL, and the spies employed by Zionist Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who, in 2003, had Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore expelled from the court for advocating the Ten Commandments.

***

Time to tell the truth about who the children of Abraham really are

New Trifold Flyer by Michael Hoffman Available For Mass Distribution:

"Did God promise to Abraham to curse those who do not support Judaism and the Israeli state?”

***

The Midnight Ride of Sarah Palin

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Last week in Boston Sarah Palin stated of American patriot Paul Revere, "He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Revere didn't warn the British. He warned his fellow Americans.

He arranged for lanterns to be hung from the Old North Church in Boston to notify American patriots by which direction the British were coming. One if by land, two if by sea. So there were lanterns, but no bells.

Every time Governor Palin flubs a line she defends herself by claiming it's due not to her illiteracy, but rather to a "gotcha question." We are dealing with a paranoid prima donna as dumb as those bells she thinks were ringing during Revere's ride.

The problem is, George W. Bush was dopey too, and a whole slew of Americans were refreshed by the sight of a boob who was as big an ignoramus as they were.

Lesson: Mrs. Palin could be elected to the presidency on the basis that her dim-wit endears her to her Republican constituency.

***