German Holocaust Survivor’s Christmas Memory

A German Holocaust Survivor’s 

Christmas Memory

Michael Hoffman’s Note: Ingrid Rimland, the wife of the late German revisionist Ernst Zündel, died at the age of 81 in October, after a brief illness. Though no one is permitted by the mass media to be termed a Holocaust Survivor™ unless they were a Judaic victim of the Third Reich, Ingrid was indeed a person who had survived a holocaust, having only barely escaped Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s attempt to enslave, extrude and exterminate ethnic Germans in the territory of the USSR. 

During the Second World War, Ingrid witnessed Germans in Russia rounded up and deported to Siberia, or killed. Born in the Soviet Union among the Mennonites from Germany who had resided there since the time of Catherine the Great, she was with her family as they fled Stalin’s holocaust, seeking safe haven in Germany, on a perilous western trek with little food or clothing, pursued by Communist troops.

The following brief remembrance demonstrates the indomitable, never-surrender spirit of these “Volksdeutsche.” May it serve to inspire our people to endure in the midst of the peculiar 21st century genocide which destroys us by psychological rather than military warfare, seeking to impose feelings of worthlessness and a mentality of spiritual suicide. 

Dr. Ingrid Rimland Zündel:

“A scene of many years ago, somewhere in Russia or Poland, is burned into my memory: a freezing, hungry Christmas on the trek, on rickety wagons pulled by exhausted horses that left their bloody footprints in the snow. We Volksdeutsche, thousands and thousands of us, were fleeing the murderous hordes of the Red Army. We stopped somewhere at night and there was nothing but ice and dark sky in the snow-laden forest. Many had died on the road. Many more would die on the road ahead. Only four in my family were still alive — my mother, my grandmother, my baby-sister and this writer, then seven years old.

“I lay curled up beneath snow-sodden blankets, sobbing my heart out. I watched as my grandmother climbed down from the wagon, tears freezing on her cheeks. She had nothing to give me but this — she broke off a twig from a fir tree, and with her trembling, frostbitten hands she put a match to it against the wind, and when it threw sparks she held it up to my nose with these words, “Sei still! Halt aus! So duftet Weihnachten im Vaterland’ (‘Be quiet! Endure! That is how Christmas smells in our homeland”).

Independent History and Research 

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816-0849

https://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com

________________________________

"Cartoon blasphemy” links

“Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own.”  — Jonathan Swift

"Cartoon blasphemy” links

Judaic Cartoonist Art Spiegelman told the Canadian Jewish News that those who write satires of Holocaustianity “deserve a bullet.”

•The French government limits freedom of speech almost as much as the terrorists: 

http://wpo.st/lW010   Rescind laws criminalizing “Holocaust denial” ! 

•Politically correct liberals beginning to turn against Charlie Hebdo:

They’re accusing Charlie Hebdo of being “all white people” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic” blah blah blah:

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/ 
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islamophobia/

•France has free speech which only Muslims violate? That’s a lie! Dieudonne and Robert Faurisson are banned in France. In France it’s illegal to publish doubts about gas chambers: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act

•Help this link go viral: hilarious Tales of the Holohoax satirical comic book:

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/TalesV2.pdf 

•The Charlie Hebdo front page we’d like to see:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=21ammh0&s=8#.VLLlaMa3CXw

•Two men in Britain were jailed for distributing Tales of the Holohoax gas chamber cartoons: 

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/02/tales-of-holohoax-and-denmarks-anti.html 

•Cartoon blasphemy of Holocaustianity is damned by the West:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/01/cartoon-blasphemy-of-holocaustianity.html

•January 7: An Anniversary shared by Ernst Zündel and Charlie Hebdo:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2015/01/massacre-in-paris-and-great-holocaust.html

•Cartoons satirizing barbaric rabbinic circumcision of infants — these cartoons were denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): 

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page13/page13.html 

•Cartoon about Israeli venality denounced as “anti-Semitic” and withdrawn by Australian newspaper: http://bit.ly/1x5XWTP  

Links are updated daily here: https://twitter.com/HoffmanMichaelA

Pass on this list of links to your own contacts! 

________________________________________ 

Massacre in Paris and Great Holocaust Trial Anniversary

30th Anniversary of The Great Holocaust Trial

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

On January 7, 1985 the seven week show trial of  German-Canadian dissident Ernst Zundel commenced in Toronto, Canada. The "Crown" prosecutor sought to have Zundel imprisoned for two years on a charge of disseminating "false news," a surrealistic "crime" in the eyes of the Queen of England (thank God for the American Revolution).

Ernst had published a book by an English author, Did Six Million Really Die? The full resources of the government were brought to bear against him for the purpose of imprisoning him. Zionist JDL terrorists were stationed outside the courthouse with the intention of beating or perhaps even killing the defendant, his legal defense team (Doug Christie, Keltie Zubko and Prof. Robert Faurisson) and an American reporter who had arrived at Zundelhaus the night before and took up residence there for the duration of the trial (yours truly).

The media initially mocked Zundel as a nut case, predicting the Crown prosecution team with its millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars would easily rout and demolish Zundel.

As I sat in the press gallery next to Kirk Makin of the Toronto Globe and Mail, television reporter Claude Adams, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center's agent, Zundel's defense team scored a historic coup. The trial produced numerous newspaper headlines and opened several national evening television newscasts which turned Canada upside down (other media, such as the New York Times chose only to cover the first and last days of the trial, with no references to the historic revelations elicited by Christie and Faurisson).

Unfortunately the presiding judge, Hugh Locke, was among the most biased of magistrates (the German revisionists in the courtroom drew unflattering comparisons between Locke and Roland Freisler, Hitler's hanging judge). Zundel was found guilty of the false news charge, a verdict which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The saga of Ernst Zundel is told in my book The Great Holocaust Trial, which for a time was banned and seized by Canadian Customs and is now banned by Amazon. It was updated in 1995 to cover the arson of Zundel's house in Toronto, and again in 2010 to report the seven years he served in Canadian and German prisons (much of it in solitary confinement), on charges related to his Internet publishing, over which the government of Germany claims universal jurisdiction.

The Massacre in Paris

Charlie Hebdo editor Stéphane Charbonnier in 2012 with the front page of his newspaper mocking an Islamic fundamentalist and an Orthodox rabbi. He was murdered today in France.

Today, on the thirtieth anniversary of the trial, I am signing a contract with a publisher for the translation of my book into French. This signing is all the more poignant in that in Paris today it is reported that two police officers and ten staff members of the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo — which has printed not just criticism of Islamic fundamentalism, as the corporate media is reporting, but also revisionist material, including satire of rabbinic extremists — were massacred.

All World War II revisionists are subject to death threats and violence. Prof. Faurisson was nearly beaten to death by Zionists in 1989, and Francois Duprat, a French revisionist teacher was killed in a  bombing in 1978, which severely wounded his wife. In 1984 the Institute for Historical Review's book warehouse was torched and completely destroyed. In 1985 my wife, the mother of three young children at the time, was chased down State Street in Ithaca, New York by a Zionist mob. She saved herself from a beating only by jumping into a car and locking the doors. As noted, Zundel's house was burned with impunity in 1995. Prof. Arthur Butz, author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, has been regularly menaced by thugs at Northwestern University.

For naive and dull-witted persons "Islam" is a monolithic enemy of freedom that must be countered in alliance with the "noble" Israelis. People with a bit more sense —  and knowledge of the operations of the secret services —  understand that enemies of Zionism can be liquidated and sympathy for the Israeli state generated, via spectacular terror attacks perpetrated by  Sunni-Salafists who are clandestinely directed by Mossad, the CIA, MI6 and similar shadow agencies.

An offending issue of Charlie Hebdo, satirizing sacred cows —  “ intouchables” (untouchables) — a Muslim fundamentalist and an exponent of the Talmud. The caption has them both saying, “Must not laugh at us!”

The French publisher of The Great Holocaust Trial will be as much in peril as the Charlie Hebdo people. This is the perpetual price that is paid by those who speak truth to power, beginning with the God-man who first spoke it to the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago. Like the massacre in Paris of the Charlie Hebdo staff, which is being ascribed to Muslims alone, the crucifixion of Christ is nowadays blamed on the Romans alone. The French have a saying, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

For further research:

Zionist supremacists enjoy immunity from the mockery to which Muslim subordinates are subjected

_____________________________

Canada tosses out Internet ‘Hate Speech’ Law

If you want to give something back in return for this On the Contrary column, your donation will be greatly appreciated and helps to ensure the continuation of our service.

________________

Canada tosses out Section 13 — Internet 'Hate Speech' law

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Both of the following reports from the establishment media in Canada are defective. They omit the role of lawyer Doug Christie in battling for free speech in Canada for more than 25 years. This is an enormous omission in that British Columbia's Christie, together with Ontario attorney Barbara Kulaszka and independent activists Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire, have fought most assiduously for the civil liberties of Canadians. Christie has been constantly harassed and threatened, and pilloried in the media. While the media prefer to showcase as Canada's principal poster-boy for Internet freedom,  Ezra Levant, who publicized Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons, the main victims of this Zionist "Section 13" law have been "Holocaust" revisionist Ernst Zundel, Marc Lemire, Terry Tremaine, Heritage Front, Catholic Insight Magazine and Canadian Liberty Net, in addition to hundreds of thousands of Canadian Internet users who have been intimidated by the Stalinist "Section 13" of Canada's "human rights" law. 

A couple of caveats: with Section 13 gone, the Canadian Criminal Code itself continues to provide for up to two years in jail for "spreading hate against identifiable groups" (with the exception of identifiable German, Palestinian and Christian groups who can be hated to the full measure of Zionist fury without fear of prosecution). The difference between Section 13 prosecution and prosecution under the Criminal Code is that under the latter, prosecution must be initiated by a provincial attorney general, whereas under the now defunct Section 13, the "Human Rights" commissars themselves could begin a prosecution on flimsy grounds and in hearings in which truth was not a defense (!).

Second, Haroon Siddiqui of The Star, who is, unfortunately, in favor of censorship, nonetheless has some sobering words for those now conferring on Canada's hypocritical neocon Conservative politicians, laurel wreaths of freedom for having eliminating Section 13: "Those hailing the death of Section 13 as a victory for free speech include many of the same people who routinely muzzle those whose views they do not like. They delayed the entry of Al Jazeera English (television) to Canada. They pressure universities to shut down the annual Apartheid Week that highlights the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. The Harperites cancelled federal grants to Kairos, the ecumenical Christian aid group, as well as to the Canadian Arab Federation and Palestine House, because they would not toe Ottawa's (Zionist) foreign policy line..."

Furthermore, wherever lawyers are steeped in conformity to the legal standards of the British Commonwealth of Nations, freedom of speech is abridged. Here in the U.S. a New Zealand-trained attorney has written a book, The Harm in Hate Speech,  published by Harvard University and endorsed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, which insinuates that opponents of Talmudism and Zionism should be prosecuted in the U.S. and speech should be regulated. A characteristic of the rabbinic/Talmudic mentality is the delegitimization of opposition. Radical contradiction is not tolerated by Talmudic rabbis and their epigones (though the appearance of dissent is essential to the p.r. image of their tyranny). 


At present the First Amendment is unassailable, but let U.S. intelligence stage another 9/11 type of "terrorist outrage," and the resulting panic and stampede of fear may very well result in "national security" abridgements to our Bill of Rights, such as were in place after America's entry into the First and Second World Wars; and since the "War on Terror" is perpetual, any such limitations would likely be permanent. The Harm in Hate Speech helps to prepare the path to the overthrow of our God-given rights. 

By all means let us lift a glass to the Canadians who may now use the Internet with less fear, but at the same time we must remain vigilant concerning the threat to our own precious rights in these United States. 

Conservatives strike blow for freedom

Tories yank Section 13 of human rights act like noxious weed

By Ezra Levant | Winnipeg Sun

To understand how Canada got an Internet censorship law, also known as Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, you must go back in time to 1913. That’s when John Ross Taylor was born in Toronto. Something about Taylor just wasn’t right. In his 20s, as the world lurched towards the Second World War, Taylor openly sided with the Nazis. He was interned during the war. After the war, despite the absolute repudiation of Nazism, Taylor didn’t give up hope. He continued to call for Canadians to throw off our liberal democracy in favour of dictatorship. And, of course, he seasoned that with a dose of anti-Semitism and anti-black racism, too.

It was pitiful: He’d print up some pamphlets, climb to the top of an office tower, and dump them off the roof, like confetti, hoping that would foment a revolution. What a deluded loser. But Taylor was never violent. If you turn the sound off when watching reels of him on the news, you’d mistake him for a banker — always dressed in a three-piece suit, the kind of thing you’d expect from the grandson of a Toronto alderman. But he just wanted an all-white Reich here in Canada.

Obviously this bothered right-minded people after the war, especially Jews in Canada, many of whom were survivors of the Holocaust. Canada’s Official Jews — the bosses of the now-defunct Canadian Jewish Congress — pressed their friends in the Liberal Party for laws banning Taylor’s anti-Semitic rants. And in 1966, a committee appointed by the justice minister proposed new laws to ban hateful speech. The Cohen Commission specifically mentioned Taylor by name as a rationale.

Using this harmless buffoon as an excuse, they recommended infringing on freedom of speech for all Canadians. “There is an evident distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ public discussion, and the state has as great an obligation to discourage the latter as it has to maintain the former,” they wrote. So in 1977, Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Section 13 made it illegal to publish anything “… likely to expose a person … to hatred or contempt.”

Well, around that time, telephone answering machines were all the rage. And Taylor, now a senior citizen, saw this as his magic weapon for convincing Canadians to go fascist. He would stand around street corners in Toronto, handing out cards inviting people to get a racist message by calling his answering machine. Seriously.

Taylor was charged — and convicted — of having a mean answering machine message. He appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court — which heard the case in 1990, when he was 80. They ruled against him, four to three.

Gentle reader, do you think after such a stubborn life Taylor complied and unplugged his answering machine? He did not. And thus he served nine months in jail — more than most Canadian rapists do.

For more than 30 years, Section 13 had a 100% conviction rate for the thought crime of hurting someone’s feelings. What an abusive law. What an un-Canadian law. What a ridiculous law in the age of the Internet. Last week that law was pulled out, like a noxious weed. In 20 years time, I predict it will be regarded as one of the Conservatives’ greatest legacies: Freedom.

Section 13: How the battle for free speech was won 

Charlie Gillis on five years, two tribunals, a raft of secret hearings, a Supreme Court challenge and a turning point

By Charlie Gillis, Maclean’s magazine, June 19, 2012  

For all the passion it stirred, you’d think it would get a noisier send-off. An ovation, maybe. Or tears.  Instead, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act slipped quietly beneath the waves last week during a night-time sitting of the House of Commons—victim of a private member’s bill and a trailer load of toxic publicity. Brian Storseth, Conservative MP for Westlock-St. Paul, had glanced anxiously around the chamber as his kill bill went through its third reading. “The benches weren’t full,” he recalls. “That always makes for a bit of extra heart pumping.”

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson had voiced support for the legislation. So had the Prime Minister. The result, then, was never in doubt: at 9:35 p.m. on June 6, by a vote of 153-136,  Parliament got Canada’s human rights bureaucrats out of the business of policing speech on the Internet. There was a scattering of applause, and handshakes for Storseth (the bill requires the rubber stamp of Senate approval). “To be honest, it’s all a blur,” says the three-term MP, laughing. But if the passage of Bill C-304 represents a fundamental shift in Canadian culture, you’d never have known it that night. Members dealt with a few housekeeping matters, then waded through a supply bill. Finally, one by one, they trickled out into the cool Ottawa night.

The effect of killing Section 13 will be debated for years among anti-racist groups and civil libertarians. But it is undoubtedly a turning point. Since 1999, Canadians who felt aggrieved by material transmitted online have been encouraged to seek redress under federal human rights law, which targeted material “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on grounds of discrimination like race, religion or sexual orientation. Storseth’s bill repeals the provision outright, leaving the Criminal Code as the primary bulwark against the dissemination of hate propaganda by electronic means.

With it will go one of the most divisive disputes to grip the country since the introduction of the Charter of Rights itself—a contest of values that over the past five years has pitted Canadians’ desire to protect minorities from discrimination against the bedrock principle of free speech. Mainstream media outlets, most notably Maclean’s, have been hauled before commissions to answer for their published content. The commissions themselves have come under fire for allowing their processes to be used as a bludgeon against legitimate expression, tailored as they are to encourage complainants to come forward. Meantime, a Saskatchewan law similar to Section 13 has become the subject of a Supreme Court challenge that could invalidate hate-speech provisions in most provincial human rights codes. By year’s end, it is conceivable that no human rights commission in the country will be in the business of adjudicating published material.

Is Canada ready for this brave new world of unfettered expression? There was no shortage of critics last week predicting a flood of online hate now that the legislation is gone. “It leaves a huge gap,”says Darren Lund, a University of Calgary professor and human rights activist. “There are so many hate sites right now on the Internet, and I think some reasonable monitoring of the hatred they’re spewing fits with the Canadian ethos of living harmoniously in a democracy.”

The question, of course, is what constitutes “reasonable” and, on that, our values appear to be shifting. The story of Section 13’s demise is in part one of evolving opinion among interest groups, politicians and institutions who were appalled by the spectre of rights commissions being used as instruments of press control, worried that it would make free-speech martyrs out of basement-dwelling hate-mongers. “We recognized the inevitable,” says Marvin Kurz, national legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, the Jewish organization that once regarded the legislation as its best weapon against neo-Nazi hate propaganda. “We saw that public respect for Section 13 had ebbed, to the point that even our own people no longer supported it. For a law like that to work, it has to be supported by the people.”

Some folks like to offend. Ezra Levant knew he would stir anger, for instance, when in 2006 he published the notorious Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in his now-defunct magazine, the Western Standard. Yet even Canada’s leading right-wing gadfly—hungry to get his Calgary-based biweekly some attention—never imagined his decision would land him before a provincial human rights bureaucrat, with the looming threat of hefty financial penalties. Syed Soharwardy, a Calgary imam, complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, claiming the illustrations were an affront to the dignity of all Canadian Muslims. Two years later, Levant sat, scarlet with anger, at a pro forma interview as Shirlene McGovern, an investigator with the commission, blandly asked his “intent and purpose” in publishing the images.

Levant had demanded the right to video-record the proceedings, and the resulting footage became a YouTube sensation. Hunching over a conference table, he unleashed a rant that began with him proclaiming the right to “publish what the hell we want, no matter what the hell you think,” and ended with him inviting McGovern to assume the worst about his intentions. “I published the cartoons in the most unreasonable manner. Whatever offends you, I reserve the right to publish, for whatever offensive reason I want. I reserve the right to publish the cartoons for exactly the reason they complain about.”

If there was a watershed moment in the debate, this was it. Levant’s interview (or, as he put it, “interrogation”) became a top 10 hit on YouTube, sparking unaccustomed conversation about the chilling effect of Islamic sensitivities on public discourse. By then, Maclean’s was facing similar complaints over 18 separate articles, including a book excerpt in which columnist Mark Steyn argued high birth rates and the spread of radical ideology in Muslim countries represent a threat to Western values and ways of life.

To maximize publicity—or to raise its chance of winning—the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) complained not just to the federal commission but to those in Ontario and B.C. as well. The Ontario commission ruled it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint; the Canadian commission dismissed the case without referring the matter to a tribunal. But the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal went ahead with a hearing, combing the content of Steyn’s excerpt for offending material, judging the articles fit for public consumption but chiding Steyn for trying to “rally public opinion by exaggeration and causing the reader to fear Muslims.”

The CIC claimed moral victory. “We are delighted the tribunal has discredited the content of the articles that Maclean’s and Mark Steyn have been publishing,” said lawyer Faisal Joseph. But few others were cheering. Even long-time believers in Section 13 were astounded by the spectacle of a state tribunal reviewing a newsmagazine’s content, while questions of fairness abounded. With no evidence of intent, and without proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, critics noted, the tribunal was clearly prepared to brand someone a racist—one of the most reviled labels in Canadian society. “This is a serious business,” Wayne Sumner, a University of Toronto philosophy professor who has studied hate speech, told Maclean’s in 2008. “The proper place for it is in a criminal court, not a human rights tribunal.”

More troubling signs would later emerge, as the procedures and practices of human rights panels came under scrutiny. It turned out that one man, a former commission employee, had been lodging practically all of the Section 13 complaints investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. For a time, Richard Warman had been acting as an investigator while complaints he’d made were before the commission. Officials’ insistence that Warman never wore both hats on the same file was less than reassuring.

Small wonder, then, that Storseth’s bill struck a chord, gaining support from unexpected quarters. B’nai Brith, which had used Section 13 to shut down the website of notorious hate-monger Ernst Zundel, got behind the legislation. “The whole Maclean’s-Mark Steyn fiasco was one of the spurs,” says Kurz, the group’s lawyer. So did the Toronto Star, a normally staunch supporter of state protections for minorities. “Most Canadians have no sympathy for hate-mongers,” the left-leaning paper said last December in an editorial. “But an unwarranted, creeping chill is being cast over free speech, absent any real problem.”

That broad-based backing might explain the muted political response to last week’s vote—a nominally free one which nevertheless split down party lines. While the opposition NDP lamented the end of a tool that helped shut down hate sites, the Liberals let the vote pass with no comment, as did most interest groups representing the country’s minorities. “The only guys I see speaking up for it are a couple of white lawyers who might profit from it,” Levant crowed earlier this week. “It is one of the great pleasures of my life to see the tide turn on this issue, and to know that I played a small role in it.”

Still, the section had its fans, many of whom now wonder what the future holds for the remaining patchwork of provincial human rights law meant to combat hate. In Alberta, Premier Alison Redford is on record saying that province’s provision, Section 3, should be repealed. In Saskatchewan, the government is awaiting a Supreme Court decision in the case of William Whatcott, an anti-gay activist sanctioned for distributing handbills labelling homosexuals as “sodomites” seeking to socialize children into accepting their lifestyle. Incendiary as Whatcott’s rhetoric was, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suggested during a hearing last winter that he might not have known he was running afoul of Saskatchewan’s vaguely worded rights code. “An ordinary Lutheran pastor should be able to look at the act,” she said, “and without being a Supreme Court scholar, be able to know whether he can say this or that.”

Even if the provincial statutes survive, notes Lund, the Calgary professor, they are aimed only at printed material; only the federal act empowered commissions to crack down online, where most of today’s hate propaganda is spread. That leaves web-promulgated hate under the exclusive domain of the criminal justice system, where the standards of proof are much higher, and convictions rarer. To even lay a charge, says Stephen Camp, president of the Alberta Hate Crime Committee and a former commander of the Edmonton police hate crime unit, officers must be able to show the material was wilfully promoted; that it targeted an identifiable group; that it met the common-law test of a hate material—and all beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, a lot of complainants will go away dissatisfied.

The rest, presumably, will fall to civil society, which is arguably where the onus belonged to start with. 

For decades, interfaith groups and non-religious organizations have been promoting tolerance. In recent years they’ve been complemented by hard-core activists who patrol the Internet, ferreting out hate sites and gathering information for the benefit of police. One such organization, the Anti-Racist Canada Collective, told Maclean’s it would keep up its efforts despite the loss of Section 13. “There is an irony, in that its absence might actually make it easier for us to collect intelligence,” a spokesman said in an email. “Online haters may become less reticent about posting their real views.”

That’s not much comfort to groups seeking to silence speech that merely offends. But as the battles of the past five years ease into perspective, even they are reconsidering their positions. Not long after Syed Soharwardy filed his complaint against Levant, for instance, the Calgary imam found himself on the receiving end of his own human rights complaint—from a group of women who claimed they’d been prevented from speaking and subjected to abusive language during a meeting at his mosque.

Experiencing the human rights ordeal from the other side was an eye-opener, he later acknowledged, telling Maclean’s: “I am now quite certain that the best way is for the parties to have dialogue. We need to be able to listen to each other. Human rights commissions should be there, but they are for questions of housing and employment and access to the workplace—not for disputes that are about freedom of speech.” (End quote from Maclean’s). 

Have you read Judaism’s Strange Gods?

Please tell others about our work and website: www.revisionisthistory.org

***

Great Holocaust Trial Defense Attorney Doug Christie is Ailing

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Battling Barrister: Canada’s Doug Christie

According to his wife, Keltie writing in her June, 2011 Friends of Freedom newsletter, 65-year-old Canadian Attorney Douglas Christie, the fearless barrister who so ably defended Ernst Zundel in two historic thought crime trials in Toronto in 1985 and 1988, has “prostate cancer of an aggressive grade that has already spread locally outside the prostate.”

Doug is one of the finest men and purest souls it has been my privilege to know. He went far beyond being Ernst’s attorney. He became his friend and a defender of the German people as a whole. In the course of the two trials he had to absorb thousands of facts, hundreds of books and dozens of maps, models and diagrams in order to defend Ernst to the best of his ability. He spent hours in court and then hours at night and on weekends studying with the Zundel defense team, led by Dr. Robert Faurisson of France. A lesser man would have been broken by the stress and the media libel. Doug relished the challenge and stepped into history’s spotlight chasing destiny.

With the brilliant and thorough organization so typical of Mr. Zundel, Doug’s daily after-court briefings in the basement of Zundelhaus were preserved on video. I have included highlights of those briefings in my documentary film, “The Great Holocaust Trial,” (not to be confused with the book of the same name).

After the Zundel trials, Doug continued his career as “the Clarence Darrow of Canada,” although he stands head-and-shoulders above Darrow, who in some respects was an opportunist (Darrow’s finest hour was his defense of Bill Heywood and the IWW in Idaho in 1907; his nadir was the 1924 Leopold-Loeb case).

Mr. Christie went on to represent dissidents, the marginal and the nearly defenseless. Among his most spectacular victories was the 1990 acquittal of Hungarian-Canadian restauranteur Imre Finta, who had been arrested on trumped-up war crimes’ charges. Doug was ably assisted in the Finta case by the equally courageous attorney Barbara Kulaszka.

Christie defended newspaperman Doug Collins, a heroic British-Canadian soldier who escaped ten times from German POW camps in World War II. Mr. Collins testified for and wrote columns on behalf of Mr. Zundel. Those columns led to his prosecution. Christie has also defended high school history teacher Paul Fromm, English anti-Talmud campaigner Lady Jane Birdwood, Internet activist Bernard Klatt, Marc Lemire, and dozens of other indigent and media-libeled victims of the new inquisition.

The Zionist lobby has had Mr. Christie in its sights for more than a quarter-century, but his record for probity was so impeccable they could find no pretext by which they could disbar or financially cripple him until 2007, when they were able to exploit a minor procedural technicality related to a law pertaining to “subpoena for documents.” The Law Society of masonic Canada ruled that this most honorable of all Canadian lawyers, in “improperly” processing the documents had been “dishonorable.” He was fined $20,000. He could not be disbarred on that basis alone however, and he continued his law practice.

Doug has given his life to the nearly thankless task of fighting for the free speech rights of everyone from Native Canadian David Ahenakew to a coterie of Christians, Germans, East Europeans, revisionists, skeptics and individualists who refused to be commissared. He has continued to press for justice in the case of Jeff Hughes, a confused and possibly mentally ill unarmed skinhead who was shot to death in 2009 by Canada’s “Mounties” for no discernible reason other than his politics. A case like this does nothing to burnish Christie’s career or fill his wallet. At the risk of sounding maudlin, Doug did it out of love for the memory of this young man who he met once and only briefly at the George Orwell Awards Dinner, which he and his wife host annually in British Columbia. Doug Christie is a traditional Catholic who cares more about living the Gospel than talking about it. The cause of justice for Jeff Hughes is but one example of his Christ-like conduct.

While I do not speak for or represent Ernst Zündel, I will venture to say that if he were not under a de facto gag order in Germany and barred from traveling in the US and Canada, he would use that organizational genius of his to put together an international testimonial dinner for Doug which would be attended by hundreds. There is no one like Ernst on the scene today, but that is no excuse for us to fail to express our gratitude to Mr. Christie for his life of sacrifice and idealism.

Copyright©2011. All Rights Reserved

(Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic).

***

Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah

Anti-goyimism in all its multifaceted ugliness and racist evil

www.revisionisthistory.org

Dear Michael,

Apart from you, I know few in this world who would appreciate the irony of my pastor's Sunday sermon yesterday.

His text was Luke 11:37-54, Luke's account of our Lord's excoriation of the lawyers, scribes and Pharisees.  The title of his sermon is referenced in the subject line.  The main point is that we all need to beware of being Pharisees, of course.

In one of the high points of the sermon, he warned that all the world religions and "isms"--all except Christianity--that lead to Pharisee-ism.  Of course, Islam and Buddhism were mentioned. Hinduism and even Roman Catholicism were mentioned.  In fact, I can't think of a major world philosophy or religion that was not mentioned except for one: Judaism!  The very heirs of the Pharisees according to their own literature! Yet like most Christians in our day, it is as if Judaism and Pharisees do not even exist, as if they disappeared in the first century.   But they do exist and they are as strong and corrupt as ever, per our Lord's prophecy in Matthew 12:43-45.

Need Americans, need Christians know about them? Might it have something to do with our culture, our churches, our nation?  I think so.

Thus, I was reminded to encourage you in your latest endeavor to start the center for the study of anti-goyism (The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism).  I tremble to think that the skill of the lawyers, scribes and Pharisees for stoking hatred of disciples of Christ among the goy to accomplish their purposes indirectly is coming to a head more and more each and every day.  We feel it, the hatred of our culture.  The source needs to be exposed.

I plan to bring the Jewish Encyclopedia reference to the attention of my pastor.  Do you have the exact reference, where Judaism today is said to be descended from the Pharisees of old?

Sincerely,
Ryan G.

Hoffman Replies

Dear Ryan

All of the technical information and citations from Judaic texts on the admission by the rabbinic powers that Orthodox Judaism is the continuation of Pharisaism will be found in the second edition of Judaism Discovered, which I am toiling on at present, in the hope that we will have the funds to publish it in September.

The only reason that the overwhelming and incessant detestation of goyim that is intrinsic to Orthodox Judaism is not better known, is due to the interdiction and suppression of this fact by the media, as for example by the Right wing empire headed by Rupert Murdoch.

(An article today in the Zionist press frets that if Murdoch falls, their propaganda reach will be diminished [“Amid Murdoch Scandal, Some Fear Pro-Israel Media Voice Will Be Muted,” http://www.forward.com/articles/140053/]. As usual, these fears are overblown since the whole of the western media with a few exceptions, are 98% kosher in their spin).

Every now and then a bit of intelligence leaks through the cracks, however. Here is one such instance:

The Limits of Multi-Culturalism
By Christina Patterson
 The Independent (UK)  28 July 2010

“...When I moved to Stamford Hill (a heavily Judaic area of London, England), 12 years ago, I didn't realize that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention.

“I didn't realize that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs and parking restrictions were for people who hadn't been chosen by God.

“And while none of this is a source of anything much more than irritation, when I see an eight-year-old boy recoiling from a normal-looking woman (because, presumably, he has been taught that she is dirty or dangerous, or, heaven forbid, dripping with menstrual blood) it makes me sad.”

Christina Patterson doesn’t know that all female gentiles without exception are regarded in Orthodox Judaism as “menstrual filth, slaves, heathen and whores.” This disgusting litany is expressed by the alphabetic abbreviation NShGZ (“Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah”). You can’t get this information into the western media. They will print anything derogatory about Islam, both real and imagined, but they protect Judaism to the utmost of their ability.

If we had total Talmudic law supremacy in the West -- and we have not yet reached that point since people like this writer are not yet dead or in the gulag -- then even Israeli allies and friends of the Talmud among the goyim, i.e. even the “righteous gentiles” would be killed whenever a Zionist felt the need. I give evidence for this fact from their own texts in the new edition of Judaism Discovered.

The rabbinic texts also speak of the necessity to collectively inflict violence from time to time on the goyim, without regard to the innocent. In this way it is said that the goyim are spiritually corrected! A contemporary Zionist made the statement in a rabbinic periodical that Germans are peaceable today only because the “evil of the German people” was “bombed out of them” in World War II. 600,000 civilians were thereby “spiritually corrected.”

Even those who consider themselves experts in this field are unaware that Allied policy in the 1940s and the 21st century was and is driven by rabbinic injunction. Historians may puzzle forever over the doctrine of collective punishment. If they can’t trace its roots to the rabbinic texts, they will never have the ultimate key to the justification of mass murder of civilian populations, whether in the war on Baghdad that began on Purim, 2003, or the Ash Wednesday holocaust in Dresden in 1945.

In consideration of this reality, it seems to me that the lack of a formal institute for the study of anti-goyimism in all its multifaceted ugliness and racist evil, is a scandal. I soldier on in the fulfillment of this goal in spite of the fact that almost no one in what I gingerly refer to as “our ranks” has publicized it, with the exception of Jeff Rense and Deanna Spingola; any more than anyone other than Richard Widmann and the aforementioned Rense and Spingola has publicized or offered for sale the reprinted edition of the book The Great Holocaust Trial.

Meanwhile, Charles, a colleague in Florida, this week forwarded a letter circulating among young people in Europe which asks, what, if anything, has Ernst Zundel accomplished? This is an astonishingly ignorant question made possible by the fact that the story of Zundel’s heroic struggle is lost on the younger generation. Contrary to those omniscient futurists who have declared that the printed page is dead and the Internet alone is sufficient to educate the masses, there is no substitute for a book like The Great Holocaust Trial in bringing the Zundel saga to the next generation.

Furthermore, in spite of selling, with nearly no sustained advertising, nearly 4,000 copies of Judaism Discovered in hardcover in less than three years, the book received exactly one libelous review in the pages of a Catholic magazine. No other publication on earth could see fit to pay heed and review what was a publishing phenomenon in revisionist studies. It’s a bad joke.

The extent of the boycott in “our ranks” against almost anything I write or propose is so intense there is almost no point in pursuing the argument. All I can do is work harder than ever and hope and pray that with God miraculously sustaining my writing, some visionary millionaire will someday step forward to say, let’s give your books the funding and publicity they deserve, and let’s build The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism. Until then I labor in the trenches, the beneficiary of encouragement and donations from “regular Joes” like Ryan G.

I am a fighter. I don’t know any other way to live. I can’t quit, retire or take a vacation. My inner being won’t allow it. I live by the Gospel and the words of Edmond Rostand in Cyrano de Bergerac, “The enemy has us surrounded. We shall not let him escape.”

The Great Holocaust Trial
http://tinyurl.com/3kwablo

Revisionist History Newsletter: “Criminalizing Doubt”
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/

“A Study of Judaism: Live from San Jose Slideshow” (DVD)
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/hoffmans-revisionist-history-store-dvds.html

TWITTER: http://twitter.com/#!/HoffmanMichaelA

E-MAIL: hoffman[at]revisionisthistory.org

PURCHASE a revisionist history book, newsletter, CD or DVD:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page7/page7.html

DONATE: http://tinyurl.com/4hwh7dz

PUBLICIZE our website: www.revisionisthistory.org

Michael Hoffman is the founder of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism 

On the Contrary is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA 

Copyright ©2011

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

***