Attempt to Censor Michael Hoffman on Twitter Fails

Attempt to Censor Michael Hoffman on Twitter Fails

Good news! As many of you know, our scholarship is repeatedly targeted for censorship and deplatforming online by the enemies of knowledge and freedom. 

With all the complaints about Twitter in this regard, let’s give Twitter credit for declining today to suppress our April 2 tweet or deplatform us, because we dared to publish an accurate citation from the Talmud.  

Today Twitter e-mailed us as follows:

“We have received a complaint regarding your account, @HoffmanMichaelA, for the following content.

Tweet ID: 1113143468514205696

Tweet Text: How much truth can you handle? 

TALMUDIC DOCTRINE “If a grown man has intercourse with a little girl less than three years old, all agree that it is not a significant sexual act…” 

“The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition,” Ketubot 11b, vol. 7 (NY: Random House, 1991), p. 145. #metoo

 We have investigated  the reported content and could not identify any violations of the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles18311) or applicable law. Accordingly, we have not taken any action at this time."

Sincerely,

Twitter 

(end quote from Twitter)

_____

Our enemies endeavor to instill in us despair, defeatism and paralysis, with the objective of removing us from the field of spiritual and intellectual battle. To succumb to this psychological warfare is a sin against the virtue of Hope. God is in charge, not the powers of darkness. If we have faith in Him, then we will sit tall in the saddle and continue to charge, trusting in His Sovereign Will.

_____

Michael Hoffman’s books are sold here, as well as at this link and here  

Michael's speech to the national convention of the Nation of Islam is online here

Donate to our Truth Mission here

______________

5 months in jail in Ireland for doubting “Holocaust"

In Ennis, County Clare:

Irishman sentenced to jail for being “offensive”

[Michael Hoffman’s Letter to the Editor follows this report]

The defendant offended against “the greatest crime perpetrated...in the history of mankind.” — Judge Patrick Durcan

Dermot Mulqueen

Man put axe through TV in town square in 'performance art piece' to further his claims Holocaust did not take place

By Gordon Deegan | Irish Independent | October 29, 2015

A judge has jailed a “Holocaust denier” for five months for using performance art in the public square in Ennis to further his claims that the Holocaust did not take place.

At Ennis District Court, Judge Patrick Durcan jailed 49-year old Dermot Mulqueen of Steele’s Terrace, Ennis for five months for the lunchtime public performance on January 23rd of this year where he put an axe through a TV at the Daniel O’Connell monument in Ennis town centre.

Judge Durcan jailed Mr Mulqueen for five months for breaching Section 9 of the Firearms Act and two months for breaching Section 6 of the Public Order Act.

Mr Mulqueen told the court that the performance art entitled ‘Liberation of the Mind’ was carried out to launch International Holocaust Hoax Day.

Prior to carrying out the performance in front a crowd of mainly teenagers in Ennis, Mr Mulqueen informed his Twitter followers what he was about to do.

In front of a crowd at the monument, Mr Mulqueen had erected a sign entitled ‘International Holocaust Hoax Day’.

Sentencing Mr Mulqueen, Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “may have a view and an interpretation of history, but it is an historical fact that the Holocaust was the greatest crime perpetrated against a section of mankind in the history of mankind”.

Judge Durcan said that by his actions, Mr Mulqueen "behaved in the most offensive way, not merely towards a particular section of society but towards society generally".

The judge said that Mr Mulqueen's behaviour on the day “would be regarded with abhorrence and repugnance by any reasonable minded human and by the vast, vast majority of people”.

Judge Durcan said that Mr Mulqueen “engaged in the most reckless behavior”.

He said: “Mr Mulqueen was reckless and offensive in the extreme. He was gratuitously insulting not merely to a section of society who we know were most directly affected by the Holocaust but he was gratuitously insulting to most reasonably minded men and women who maintain civic society.

The judge remarked: “I am only surprised that he has not been charged with other offenses."

He said: “I regard his behavior on this occasion as one of the most serious breaches of the Criminal Justice Public Order Act that I have come across."

Judge Durcan asked: "Does Mr Mulqueen have any comprehension of the huge sense of outrage and insult that his behaviour would cause to so many people?”

Solicitor for Mr Mulqueen, Patrick Moylan said that Mr Mulqueen “is not in any way racist and has no problem with the Jewish community. His views are based on something he has read and now believes and he created a work of art on the back of that."

Garda Michael Daniels said that Mr Mulqueen was taking photos of what the accused called ‘a conceptual work of art’ and uploading the photos on to his Twitter and Facebook accounts while at the monument.

Garda Daniels said that local Gardai were monitoring the event through CCTV and moved in to arrest Mr Mulqueen after he smashed the TV with the axe.

Mr Moylan said that his client “was taken aback” to be arrested in the first place. He said that his client is single with no children, has no previous convictions and is currently on social welfare after previously working in Dublin as a taxi-driver.

In his statement to Gardai, Mr Mulqueen said: “I found out that the Holocaust was a hoax in August 2013 after coming across a video by David Cole on Auschwitz on YouTube.”

Mr Mulqueen told Gardai: “I am not a racist but I have found out that the Holocaust was a hoax and I wanted to highlight this so that other people would realize this.”

He said that “people are not aware that Jews declared war first on Germany in 1933” and that putting the axe through the TV was an act against “Zionist Holocaust brainwashing.”

He said: “I had no intention to harm any member of the public.” He confirmed to Gardai that he was not on any medication or suffering from any mental illness.

Mr Mulqueen said that the Nazis had no plans to exterminate the Jews but had a territorial final solution to move the Jews from German held territory “and I have problems with this Holocaust religion.”

In evidence, Mr Mulqueen told Judge Durcan: “I never realized you could get arrested for swinging any axe into your own TV.”

Mr Mulqueen said that the YouTube video he watched show that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were actually a bomb shelter converted into a gas chamber after WWII.

Under cross examination from Insp. Tom Kennedy, Mr Mulqueen said: “I wasn’t breaking the law - I was breaking a taboo. There was nothing threatening about what I did.”

Asked by Insp. Kennedy did he realize how his “performance” would be so offensive in his claim that the Holocaust was a hoax, Mr Mulqueen replied: “There is a whole industry out there that have made a fortune out of putting forward the Holocaust hoax. The legal profession has made a fortune  and it it offensive to all the people on the gravy train. The Germans never had a extermination final solution - they had a territorial final solution.”

In response to a plea by Mr Moylan to suspend the jail term, Judge Durcan refused by virtue of Mr. Mulqueen’s behavior.

After imposing sentence, Mr Mulqueen was released on bail pending his appeal to the circuit court.

_____________

Letter to the editor 

Irish Independent 

News of the sentence of Dermot Mulqueen to five months imprisonment for smashing a television in the public square in County Clare has reached us in the United States.

This surrealistic jail sentence belongs in a novel by Franz Kafka or George Orwell; not in Irish jurisprudence. 

It seems that presiding Judge Patrick Durcan based his ruling entirely on the principle that the defendant gave “offense.” The Irish people are allegedly so utterly offended by Mr. Mulqueen’s blasphemous action and speech concerning facets of World War II history, that he is to be confined in jail for five months.

Is the prevention of “giving offense” the foundation of truth-seeking? It seems to be more in line with the stifling conformity of Stalinist and Islamic-fundamentalist societies, where protest and satire are heavily repressed.

With all the hubbub in Irish media now about the alleged thought control and censorship of the Catholic Church of the past, how is it that the heresy-hunt continues in the present, only this time in the secular sphere, and waged by the government itself?

Shall Irish Zionists be imprisoned for giving offense due to negative characterizations of Palestinians, or has a special category of the offended been created for what the judge in this case hyperbolically termed, “the greatest crime perpetrated...in the history of mankind”? 

It seems that formerly protected sacred Catholic dogma has been replaced with newly protected sacred World War II dogma. What does it say about the merits of any dogma when it requires the protection of the state in order to maintain its cachet? 

Perhaps some day soon the Irish will purge themselves of the need to erect any doctrine maintained by the state, and instead tolerate all dissidents whose “offensive” behavior may actually lead humanity to an encounter with uncomfortable thoughts and new perspectives which advance knowledge and which government-enforced conformity can only suffocate. 

Is there to be freedom only for daring to mock and satirize Catholic Christianity, while satire directed at Holocaustianity results in freethinkers being imprisoned by judges who have a religious-like awe for disputed aspects of secular history? 

Two days after the Irish Independent reported Mulqueen’s conviction, your paper published an essay, “The menace of censorship still surrounds sexuality.” I quote, “It is 55 years since (Edna) O’Brien published The Country Girls....O’Brien’s literary debut challenged the sexual and social repression of 1950s Ireland. For daring to speak the truth to that culture of fear and repression, much of it aligned to the then omnipresence of the Catholic Church, The Country Girls was banned by the Irish Censorship Board and copies burned by her local church.” 

Can Irish society be so blind as to issue encomiums for O’Brien’s right to offend conservatives, while handing down a jail sentence to Mulqueen for “daring to speak” what he believes is true? Who has the authority to sit in judgment and decide which controversial (“offensive”) expression is deserving of protection or imprisonment? 

There should either be freedom of speech for all or freedom for none. The conviction of “Holocaust” heretic Dermot Mulqueen ought to be quickly overturned in the spirit of Irish independence of mind.

Michael Hoffman

Box 849 • Coeur d’Alene, Idaho USA

_________________

Mr. Hoffman is an independent scholar. His writing is made possible by donations from readers and the sale of his books, pamphlets, newsletters, CDs and DVDs.

_________________

www.revisionisthistory.org

Uncensored German TV interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

ZDF television: You know as well as I do that Israel threatens with an attack on Iran if the matter of the nuclear program cannot be solved any other way.

Ahmadinejad: Do the Zionists show clarity and transparency in their nuclear issue? They have more than 250 nuclear warheads. Isn't that a problem, if they are so equipped?

ZDF television: Israel does not belong to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it doesn't have a contractual obligation to disclose it. Iran does have this obligation.

Ahmadinejad: That means everyone who's not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is free to do whatever they want?

ZDF television: It appears so.

Ahmadinejad: That means if someone is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty they may be disenfranchised? And the Zionists may threaten the country -- a member country of the IAEA? 

In principle, we are against this nuclear bomb. That is an inhuman weapon, from our point of view. And immoral. Those that have such weapons are not in the situation to use them. The time of the atom bomb was brought to an end with the end of the Second World War, and it was simply buried. Were the Zionists able to do anything about the Hamas or the Hizbollah with their weapons? Or did these weapons save the Soviet Union?...

The atom bomb belongs to the previous century. Those that search for something like that have stayed behind -- stayed behind in history and in terms of humanity and policy. 

But my question is, why do the Zionists simply have the right to threaten all other people, that is my question. Is there an unwritten law that elevates the Zionists above all international regulations and laws and decrees -- to enforce their rights even toward the American people, even with violence? And do the same in Europe and in Iran? Kill, terrorize, destroy? Do they have that right? 

Why do the European Nations support the Zionists blindly? Why must this capital and money of the peoples of Europe be spent for the Zionists, and used even for the production of weapons? 

Iran is not an artificial country, it is not an occupied country, we are not a regime of occupation. Iran had 7,000, 10,000 years of history and civilization, it is an autonomous country.

ZDF television: Israel an artificial country?

Ahmadinejad: Of course -- you know it, and the others know it too. How did this nation, this regime come to be? It was a colonial endeavor, created by a lie....They have invented a story with the title ‘holocaust' and the damage, the cost for that, had to be paid by the Palestinians.’''

IN GERMAN: 42 minute uncensored ZDF television interview with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

An outraged, Zionist-approved German-Iranian scholar, Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh, told the mass circulation German newspaper Bild on Sunday March 25, 2012, that “Ahmadinejad was able to present himself as a quite friendly head of state who presented Iran as the victim of an indiscriminate use of Israeli state power. The interview was celebrated as a great success in Iran and an unbelievable prize win for Ahmadinejad, and this was made possible by a broadcast from our publicly funded television!” he said.

German TV broadcasts Iranian Holocaust denial 

By Benjamin Weinthal, Jerusalem Post, March 26, 2012

BERLIN – German Iranians and German Jews on Sunday criticized ZDF (Second German Television) for broadcasting without objection an interview in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust.... The Holocaust is “a lie of Israel” that allows the Jewish state to hurt the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad said in the ZDF interview broadcasted last week.

 Claus Kleber, a brand name journalist for ZDF, a tax-payer funded, public station, aired the 45-minute interview on the popular news channel.

 Dieter Graumann, head of Germany’s 105,000 member Jewish community, told the Bild am Sonntag paper that ZDF provided Ahmadinejad a platform to spread his “poison.” “I am very disappointed that a respected German journalist, and on top of that, a public station, allowed the most brazen remarks from notorious Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad to remain unchallenged,” Graumann said. Cleber said he did not contradict Ahmadinejad because he did not want to give him the opportunity to “fully spread his rubbish,” according to a statement cited in the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel.

 Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, but Iranian diplomats and politicians have denied the Shoah at state-funded events in Germany. German authorities chose not to purse violations of the country’s Holocaust denial law in 2008 against senior Iranian politician Mohammad Larijani for denying the Holocaust at a German Foreign Ministry event in Berlin. A year later, his brother, Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, issued statements containing elements of Holocaust denial at the annual Munich Security Conference, saying his country has “different perspectives on the Holocaust.”

 While Germany enforces its anti-Holocaust denial law against neo-Nazis, the authorities fail to apply it to Iranian officials.

Wahdat-Hagh, who has written extensively about human-rights violations in Iran and Islamic-animated anti-Semitism, is the author of a new book, The Islamist Totalitarianism. Omid Nouripour, a Bundestag deputy for the Green Party who was born in Tehran, told Bild that the interview represents a “moral failure” of Claus Kleber. “Kleber did not cover the bloody repression of the protests against the regime in Iran. "That is a big journalistic mistake because the human rights question cannot be separated from the nuclear weapons questions,” Nouripour said. Iran's president ended the interview saying, "We very much like Germany. We like you very much [Mr. Kleber].”

***

Michael Hoffman notes: Israeli officials regularly travel to Germany and the U.S. and are routinely interviewed on mass media television without being challenged about Israeli apartheid walls and assassination of Iranian scientists, Talmudic racism, homicidal, gentile-hating rabbis, the Israeli nuclear weapons monopoly, or their denial of the Israeli holocaust against Lebanon and Palestine.

The Israelis, backed by Saudi Arabia and the Republican Party in the USA, are seeking war with Iran in order to silence radical Iranian dissent from the sacred Zionist gas chamber propaganda by which counterfeit “Israel" justifies its ongoing terrorism against Lebanon and Palestine.

With this uncensored television broadcast, which could not be shown on PBS or any other major TV network in America, some members of the German establishment are sending a welcome message of defiance to their quondam Israeli overseers who have for decades viciously and collectively branded the German people with the Mark of Cain. At last some elite Germans are beginning to defend their God-given dignity, in this case by nationally showcasing President Ahmadinejad’s remarks without censorship or rancor.

***

Death threat e-mailed to Hoffman

"We will be paying you a little visit next month, to offer you your very own circumcision, from the neck down"

While death threats are routine, I thought I would share this particularly egregious one for my own protection. It arrived several hours after I had sent a courteous e-mail questioning a column on the Talmud written by University of Haifa Prof. Steven Plaut (I sent my questions via e-mail to Plaut and his publisher, the Brooklyn-based "Jewish Press").

I am not making any connection between the threatening e-mail I received (see below) and Prof. Plaut or the "Jewish Press." I am only stating a fact concerning the sequence of the e-mail I have sent and received. 

To the best of my knowledge, I have not received a communication by e-mail or any other means, from Plaut or "Jewish Press."

Caveat: the following threatening e-mail contains exceedingly vulgar language.

--Michael Hoffman

________________________

On Aug 19, 2011, at 8:14, cracker basher (crackerbasher@gmail.com) wrote:

Hoffman you pathetic little Nazi.

We just wanted to congratulate all you little Nazis and subliterate crackers for doing so much for the world!  You are doing great work.  Just imagine being able to use crayons to turn out such deep thoughts and even getting the spelling in a few words correct as you drool over a computer keypad!   And let's not have any more of using those crayons as suppositories – you need them for important thinking!

Yes, you Nazi crackers are amazing. You refuse to get a junior high school equivalency.  Your biggest problem in life is that you have never had sex, and never even found anyone willing to spend the night with you long enough to give you gonorrhea!

You hate all dem Joos because your penis is so tiny.  You march about shouting Nazi slogans to cover up the fact that your mother abandoned you back there with the barnyard animals when she ran off with that nice Nigerian fellow, leaving you in the trailer park.

We know all about your Momma and how her abandoning you there in the trailer park turned you into cracker trash.  But other trailer park scum have learned to read, so why couldn't you?  Is it because of your complex concerning your little tiny penis?  But you know, your momma is way ahead of you. She appreciates a good circumcision!  She was saying just last week how much she enjoyed a circumcised penis slipping in and out of her ass.  Circumcised ones tickle her, she says.  She gives little squeals of delight.  She says she likes it especially when a circumcized penis massages her belly button. From her inside.

Speaking of circumcision, we will be paying you a little visit next month, to offer you your very own circumcision, from the neck down.  So keep a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree, since your Nazi penis is not large enough to hold one up.  Meanwhile, you can try to work on your multiplication tables, for some day you might be able to get one of those cherished minimum wage jobs and get off welfare at last!

Until them you can Sieg Heil your way around the trailer park, push your supermarket cart about, and ask people for some spare change.  The future is bright.  Remember that finishing junior high school can sometimes propel you all the way to a job at Walmart and to indoor plumbing!   You have heard about that, right?  It is what other folks use instead of the trailer park outhouse where you do all that important thinking of yours.

[End quote]

***

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

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

New book debunking extermination “gas chambers"

Samuel Crowell's magnum opus, The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes is now in print

Read a recent interview with Mr. Crowell here

***

Michael Hoffman on Twitter

After declaring for some time that e-mail, a website and three blogs are sufficient presence on the Internet, I have caved in and joined Twitter, in part inspired by how it is being used by the people of Tunisia, Egypt and China to gain their freedom.

Twitter contact for Michael Hoffman:

@HoffmanMichaelA

If you don’t know how to use Twitter, learn more at http://twitter.com/

***

Hoffman’s YouTube video banned in Germany

On January 21 we received the following e-mail from a resident of Germany: 

"On YouTube your video 'Academic Freedom and Holocaust Denial Newspeak' has recently been blocked in Germany (your other three videos are still available for viewing).”

A Talk by Michael Hoffman - View it on YouTube (unless you live in Germany)

Academic Freedom and Holocaust Denial Newspeak

Hoffman analyzes the thoughtless acceptance of the Newspeak "Holocaust denial" phrase as a universal description of dissenters who dare to question Allied and Zionist dogma. He points to the hypocrisy of approved "holocaust denial " by Zionist professors who deny the 1945 Allied holocaust in Dresden, Germany or the Israeli genocide in Gaza — "denials" which are not a subject of academic controversy or media reproach and do not threaten the university employment or credentials of the deniers. 

***

Revisionist historian Michael Hoffman's work is supported solely by donations and the sale of his books, newsletters and broadcasts 

***

Meditation on a photo of Ernst Zundel after he emerged from prison

by Michael Hoffman 

A critic has made a negative remark about the photograph of Auschwitz gas chamber skeptic Ernst Zundel (above, on the right), and his attorney, Dr. Herbert Schaller, taken on March 1, moments after Zundel emerged from Mannheim prison for the first time in five years.

We believe it is a beautiful photo, a truly heart warming picture. It is evidence, by way of a photograph, that Ernst will not bow to adversity, he will not whine, he will not show pain, but rather, in his smiling countenance one sees the joy of life. This is a testimony to his spirit, after seven years' incarceration, including two in solitary confinement in Canada. Let us also not forget that as a child he survived the Allied firebombing holocaust against his hometown of Pforzheim; consequently, on top of it all, he is a holocaust survivor. I have seen a similar serenity and nobility in Japanese survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki holocausts.

This is a stunning contrast to the behavior and attitudes of many (though not all) of those poster soul-survivors of the Auschwitz slave labor camp, who, more than sixty years later, still pose with long faces, perpetually moaning, groaning, wailing, hectoring, spewing hatred and pointing fingers of accusation, while churning out a deluge of newspaper and magazine articles, books, novels, television shows and films constituting a new level of institutionalized vengeance, which has been weaved into the very fabric of the post-Christian West.

I say post-Christian, but we are even heedless of William Shakespeare. Surely Portia's famous speech to Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" (Act 4, scene 1), is now discredited by the mandarins of mediocrity. Yet, in Portia's words we have our culture's most eloquent reply to the perpetual Purim cry for vengeance under the rubric of justice. Here Shakespeare, as usual, put his finger on the heart of the matter: the vast chasm separating Judaism from the ante-Auschwitz West is their enshrinement of revenge and our obligation to mercy.

Zundel's merciless persecutors have learned nothing from history. In their hubris, in their certainty that they will prevail and control and edit the future, they believe they can demonize, imprison and torment prisoners of conscience with impunity. The Romans imagined this about the early Christians, the French Catholics about the Huguenot, the German Lutherans about the Anabaptists, the New England Puritans about the Quakers, the Anglicans about their recusant Catholic countrymen, and the Soviets about the Eastern Orthodox. Yet, in each case history teaches that in time, the severely oppressed dissidents emerged stronger than ever.

This too is the destiny of World War II revisionists, though today, in the midst of intense persecution and witch-hunting, it is a future difficult for many to envision. In this sense, Ernst Zundel, even at age 70, is not a man of the past, but of the future.

©2010 All Rights Reserved

***

"Jewish" Committee Demands Censorship of Books and Jailing of Freethinkers

Editor's Note: The main engine of censorship in the western world and the most insidious force behind the criminal prosecution of freethinkers today, is not the Catholic Church or the right wing, it is Zionism and Judaism, ever seeking to protect its most cherished myths from scientific and historiographic scrutiny.

If this blog was authored in Germany, the American 'Jewish' Committee would attempt to have this writer jailed for producing it.

The tyranny is compounded by the extent to which Zionist journalists, editors and media executives in the United States ignore the kosher dictatorship over the mind of man. The Inquisition is alive and well in Germany and other "Jewish" Committee satraps, but you'd never know it if you relied exclusively on NPR and the establishment media for your news.

By the way, AP's description of two revisionist volumes as "far-right" is a lie in the case of at least one author. Books by Germar Rudolf, a former PhD. candidate in chemistry at the Max Planck Institute, are scientific studies without political content. But it is important to the Associated Press to stigmatize such research as "far right." (The term "far Zionist" is not one we have seen from AP).

Jewish group files complaint against German Amazon

Associated Press via Haaretz | July 24, 2009

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) in Berlin filed a complaint Friday (July 24) asking prosecutors to investigate Amazon.de to see if it has broken German laws against Holocaust denial by selling far-right books.

"We must not allow the laws against denying the Holocaust and hate against minorities in Germany to be eroded through the proliferation of online companies," said AJC-Berlin director Deidre Berger in a statement.

Christine Hoeger, a spokeswoman for Amazon.de, said in an e-mailed response to AP that the company would check the list of books outlined by the AJC once it receives it, to see if the books conflict with Amazon's eligibility requirements. She said, for example, Amazon does not sell books on a federal list of material considered harmful to minors, or books that courts have banned.

"Should Amazon - or any other dealer - decide which books German readers should be able to read?" she wrote in the e-mail.

"Amazon is a dealer, not a regulatory institution, and we are of the opinion that the content of media can and should not be evaluated by private businesses that have no expertise or competence in this area."

Amazon.de is the German arm of Seattle-based online retailer Amazon.com Inc.

The books cited by the AJC, such as The Auschwitz Myth by Wilhelm Staeglich and a volume by convicted Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf, were available for sale on Amazon.de Friday afternoon.

Denial of the Nazi Holocaust is a crime in Germany, punishable by a possible five years in prison.

AJC member Benjamin Schoeler, reached by telephone, said the goal of the complaint, however, is to get Amazon.de to evaluate the books they sell, and pull ones that promote Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism.

Though the books cited by the AJC are all available via second-party sellers through Amazon.de's Marketplace, Schoeler said buyers order and pay for the books through Amazon.de. "We see the firm as responsible for what they are selling," he said.

Hoeger said the company had refused to sell some books that did not fit its content criteria for their views on Nazism, but said they used the highest degree of caution and wanted to ensure that other titles that are worthy of discussion were available.

"We see it as one of our most important tasks as a bookseller to offer our customers access to the widest choice possible," she said. "Therefore our customers will also find titles in the future in which troublesome content regarding the Nazis is found - as they will find an extensive selection of titles in which the Nazis are sharply criticized and condemned."

Schoeler also conceded that even if banned on the German site, the books could be purchased elsewhere - like in the U.S. via Amazon.com - but said nothing could be done to stop that. It is legal to purchase such books in the U.S., but it is not here, he maintained.

The complaint was faxed Friday to prosecutors in Munich, where Amazon-Germany is based.

There was nobody available at the prosecutors' office to comment on the case, but such complaints usually take at least weeks to be evaluated before a decision is made whether to open an investigation.

(Emphasis supplied)

***