Canada's Greatest Defender of Freedom of Speech Has Died

A Life of Sacrifice and Idealism

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

Douglas Christie

Though it could have been from an assassin's bullet or a terrorist's bomb so virulent and persistent were the threats against him, Catholic attorney Douglas "Doug" Christie, Canada's premier defender of the damned, the marginalized and the downtrodden, has died at the age of 66 from cancer, which he had been batling for approximately two years. He worked virtually up to the time of his death. He is survived by his magnificent wife, Keltie, who shared in his battle for freedom, and two lovely children who are pursuing law and engineering careers, respectively.

Christie stood up for mostly indigent Canadian "thought criminals" who were victims of censorship and prosecution directed by a government-backed, misnamed "Human Rights" cabal which seeks to protect Talmudist and Zionism from the same kind of scrutiny and skepticism which every other religion and ideology faces in the marketplace of ideas.

If the criminal and civil prosecution of heretical speech and press had been suffered by Zionists and rabbis  in Canada, the New York Times and Fox News would have been stuffed to the gills with regular reports and alarms. Instead, the whole sorry Orwellian ordeal of Canada's independent thinkers has been largely flushed down the memory hole by the U.S. corporate media, which are content to stigmatize and dismiss the dissidents Doug defended, as "anti-semites" and "Holocaust deniers," the better to deny their humanity in the name of human rights.

For truth seekers and lovers of liberty, the loss of Doug Christie is an incalculable one. His life of sacrifice and idealism is a shining paradigm. May he rest in peace. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. Their address is: Christie Family, Box 101, 255 Menzies Street,Victoria, BC V8V 2G6 Canada

Here is a tribute we published in 2011, when we first learned of his illness.

Battling Barrister: Canada’s Doug Christie

By Michael Hoffman | July 21, 2011

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. Zündel, Doug’s daily after-court briefings in the basement of Zündelhaus 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 Zündel 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.

+++

The Stone in the Synagogue's Shoe

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org
(French translation follows below)

 Bishop Williamson

Below we reprint a report detailing the pleasure the World Jewish Congress has derived from news of the dismissal of Bishop Richard Williamson from the SSPX priest's fraternity.

Pope Benedict XVI does not dare to intervene in Talmudic affairs, such as, for example, to publicly chastize Shas "spiritual leader" Rabbi Ovadia Yosef for calling for the extermination of the Palestinians. The Vatican has surrendered to Orthodox Judaism and only maintains sufficient disagreement to bolster the facade that it represents the Church of Jesus Christ on earth.

Meanwhile, the Zionists have no compunction against shaping and influencing the Catholic Church through their power over the western media, and the chutzpah which fuels their conviction that they have the right to sanctimoniously lecture the gentiles.

As the following declaration makes clear, Bishop Fellay has done the will of the Talmudists in expelling Bishop Williamson.

True, Mr. Ronald Lauder, the billionaire scion of the Estee Lauder cosmetics firm, and Ronald Reagan's former US Ambassador to Austria, is not yet satisfied. It seems that the SSPX has not done enough. This is consonant with the rabbinic ideology concerning the goyim -- the incomplete nature of the soul of the gentile renders the actions of the gentile incomplete even when, with the best of intentions, they bow to the synagogue in abject submission.

The goyim, the pope and Bishop Fellay included, lack that special soul with which morally and racially superior Judaic persons are endowed. If you don't believe it, observe the fate of the thousands of sub-Saharan African immigrants in the Israeli state who are bound for indefinite detention in concentration camps in the Negev, precisely due to their alleged inferiority to the Holy People. No western nation on earth could get away with such draconian barbarity without earning international opprobrium and sanctions, yet the concentration camps for Blacks in "Israel" is not an issue in America, for Obama or Romney, or the media. This is in keeping with the Talmudic dictum: one law for the "Holy People" and another for everyone else.

Bishop Fellay may speak of Bishop Williamson's "disobedience" to Fellay, but philosophically that claim is bankrupt, since Fellay himself continues to defy the pope by refusing to submit to the jurisdiction of the local ordinaries in the dioceses where SSPX churches, schools and seminaries are located. Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, taught that the salvation of souls, and not obedience to wayward authority, was the highest priority. Salvation of souls is Bishop Williamson's mandate. How then can Fellay, who is disobedient to the pope,  accuse Williamson of disobedience? The obedience issue is a smokescren which conceals a larger truth. This truth is most transparent in the German precincts of the SSPX.

Bishop Fellay is mirroring the idolatry and despotism of the German SSPX, which labors under Germany's  Muslim-like blasphemy laws, which protect the sacred relics of Holocaustianity from forensic examination, skepticism and ridicule. The means of this protection are Germany's dungeons, where heretics such as publisher Ernst Zundel, and erstwhile Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf, have rotted for years. Consequently, the SSPX conforms to the demands of the false religion of Holocaustianity, and does not contest the holocaustolatry of its relics, id est, the “gas chambers." Consequently, Bishop Williamson, who blasphemed those relics, represented what Mafiosi term, "pietra di la scarpa," the stone in the shoe. The stone had to be removed from the synagogue's shoe.

Lauder: Williamson dismissal from Pius Brotherhood "too little too late" and not credible

24 October 2012

The head of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Ronald S. Lauder, has welcomed the expulsion of Bishop Richard Williamson from the Catholic breakaway group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) but said it should have been done years ago and “it does nothing to restore the credibility of this organization”.

Lauder declared: “It’s good that the hatemonger and Holocaust denier Williamson has finally been sent into the wilderness, but this is a decision the SSPX leadership should have taken years ago, when the cleric openly denied the existence of gas chambers. It is too little too late. The reasons now given for Williamson’s dismissal do not mention the damage this man has caused by spreading invective against Jews and others, be it from the pulpit, via his weekly newsletter and in his statements to the media.”

In a 1989 speech at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, Williamson had claimed that “There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies”. In an interview with Swedish television conducted in Germany in late 2008, he reaffirmed his view.

The WJC president said that although not all members of the SSPX were anti-Semites like Williamson, the group had yet to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism in its ranks and part ways with those “who continue to regard the Jews as the embodiment of the anti-Christ.” Lauder thanked Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Kurt Koch, the Vatican official in charge of relations with the Jews, for their unequivocal condemnation of anti-Semitic tendencies in the church. “We know where the Vatican stands on this. What we don’t know is whether the SSPX leadership agrees with it. Until the Pius Brotherhood takes a clear stand they should not be readmitted into the fold of the Catholic Church,” Ronald Lauder pointed out.

The SSPX said in a statement issued on Wednesday: "Monseigneur Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the leadership and the government of the Saint Pius X Society over a period of several years and refusing to show respect and obedience deserved by his legitimate superiors, has been declared excluded."

The fraternity of traditionalists who broke away from the Vatican more than two decades ago over its reforms said the decision had been reached on 4 October 2013. Williamson was one of four bishops who were consecrated by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre in Econe, Switzerland, in 1988 against the orders of Pope John Paul II, who later excommunicated them. In January 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four.

“Thank Goodness the Williamson saga will soon be behind us, once the Regensburg court has decided on his conviction for Holocaust denial,” said Lauder.

For Further Research:

Oct. 23 column on the Expulsion of Bishop Williamson

Lu sur le site du révisionniste américain Michael Hoffman
(traduction TRES rapide):

La pierre dans la chaussure de la Synagogue

Ci-après on trouvera un article faisant état du plaisir éprouvé par le

Congrès juif mondial à l'annonce du renvoi de l'évêque Richard Williamson de

la Fraternité St Pie X [nous ne traduisons pas l'article en question: on le

trouvera sur le site indiqué ci-dessus]. 

   Le pape Benoît XVI n'ose pas intervenir dans les affaires talmudiques

comme, par exemple, réprimander publiquement le "chef spirituel" du Shass,

le rabbin Ovadia Yosef, quand ce dernier a appelé à l'extermination des

Palestiniens. Le Vatican a capitulé devant le judaïsme orthodoxe et

entretient juste ce qu'il faut de désaccord pour maintenir son apparence de

représentant de l'Eglise de Jésus-Christ sur la terre. 

   En revanche, les sionistes n'ont aucun scrupule à façonner et à

influencer l'Eglise catholique grâce au pouvoir qu'ils ont sur les médias

occidentaux et grâce à leur chutzpah [leur culot] qui fait d'eux des gens

persuadés d'avoir le droit de donner, mine de rien, des leçons aux gentils.

   Comme il appert dans les déclarations ci-dessous [voir le site], Mgr

Fellay a accompli la volonté des Talmudistes en excluant Mgr Williamson. 

   C'est vrai, Mr Ronald Lauder, rejeton milliardaire de la firme de

cosmétiques Estée Lauder et ancien ambassadeur américain de Ronald Reagan en Autriche, n'est pas encore satisfait. Il semble que la Fraternité n'en ait pas fait assez. C'est ce qui correspond à l'idéologie rabbinique relative

aux goyim : la nature incomplète de l'âme des gentils rend les actes de ces

gentils incomplets même si, avec les meilleures intentions du monde, ils

s'inclinent, dans une soumission abjecte, devant la synagogue. 

   Les goyim, le Pape et y compris Mgr Fellay sont dépourvus de cette âme

spéciale dont sont dotées les personnes juives moralement et racialement

supérieures. Si vous ne le croyez pas, voyez le sort des milliers d'immigrés

africains sub-sahariens qui, en Israël, sont condamnés à une détention sans

fin dans les camps de concentration du Negev, précisément du fait de leur

infériorité présumée par rapport au Peuple Saint. Face à une barbarie aussi

cruelle pas une nation occidentale sur terre ne pourrait s'en tirer sans

recueillir l'opprobre de toutes les nations et sans être l'objet de

sanctions, et pourtant ces camps de concentration pour Noirs en "Israël" ne

sont pas un problème en Amérique pour Obama ou pour Romney, ou pour les

médias, ce qui est en conformité avec le dicton talmudique: une loi pour le

"Peuple Saint" et une autre pour tous les autres. 

   Mgr Fellay peut bien parler de la "désobéissance" de Mgr Williamson,

mais philosophiquement cette allégation est nulle, puisque Fellay lui-même

continue à défier le Pape en refusant de se soumettre à la juridiction des

ordinaires locaux dans les diocèses où sont situés des églises, des écoles

et des séminaires de la Fraternité. Mgr Lefebvre, fondateur de la

Fraternité, a enseigné que la première des priorités était le salut des

âmes, et non pas l'obéissance à une autorité rebelle. Le salut des âmes, tel

est le mandat qu'a reçu Mgr Williamson. Mais alors comment Mgr Fellay, qui

désobéit au Pape, peut-il accuser Mgr Williamson de désobéissance? La

question de la désobéissance est un écran de fumée qui cache une vérité plus

grande. Cette vérité-là est plus que transparente dans les circonscriptions

allemandes de la Fraternité. 

   Mgr Fellay reflète l'idolâtrie et le despotisme de la Fraternité

allemande, qui oeuvre péniblement sous la férule des lois allemandes sur le

blasphème analogues aux lois musulmanes, qui protègent les reliques sacrées

de l'Holocaustianisme contre tout examen médico-légal, tout scepticisme et

toute dérision. Les moyens d'une telle protection, ce sont les cachots

allemands, où des hérétiques comme l'éditeur Ernst Zündel et le chimiste,

ancien du Max Planck Institute, Germar Rudolf ont moisi pendant des années. 

En conséquence, la Fraternité se conforme aux exigences de la fausse

religion de l'Holocaustianisme et ne conteste pas l'idolâtrie de ses

reliques, c'est-à-dire les "chambres à gaz". En conséquence encore, Mgr

Williamson, qui avait blasphémé ces reliques, représentait ce que les gens

de la Mafia appellent "la pietra della scarpa", la pierre de la chaussure.

Cette pierre, il fallait l'enlever de la chaussure de la synagogue.

+ + +

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.

***

Rabbis Order the Pope to Condemn Bishop Williamson's Biblical Preaching

Editor's note: Bishop Richard Williamson's "Eleison Comments" column, grounded in Scripture and the position of the Catholic Church for one thousand nine hundred sixty-five years (until the Second Vatican Council), was published in On the Contrary on Oct. 14 ("How Can Pope Benedict Let Go of Ancient Truths?"). With the usual chutzpah, the Conference of European Rabbis is demanding today that the Catholic pope condemn a Catholic bishop for preaching Catholic truth.

When is the pope going to call on Judaics to condemn murderous, racist rabbis for preaching Talmudic lies?

 We support Bishop Williamson's right to publicly preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

_______________________

Pope called on to condemn bishop’s new anti-Semitic slur
October 19, 2011
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/19/3089896/controversial-catholic-bishop-makes-new-anti-semitic-remarks

Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt

BERLIN (Jewish Telegraph Agency) -- A group of European rabbis has called on the pope to condemn the latest anti-Semitic remarks by a Holocaust-denying Catholic bishop.

The Brussels-based Conference of European Rabbis slammed comments by Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson in which he allegedly blamed Jews for deicide. Williamson, a member of the radical Catholic Pius Brotherhood sect, reportedly made the comments in the latest issue of his newsletter, “The Eleison Comments." He has  been living in London.

“Comments like these take us back decades to the dark days before there was a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue between Jews and Roman Catholics,” conference President Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt of Moscow said in a statement issued Wednesday.

Goldschmidt called for the Church to "suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling anti-Semitism within their ranks."

In his newsletter, Williamson wrote that “only the Jews were the primary agents of the deicide because Pontius Pilate would never have condemned Jesus if the Jews had not asked for blood.”

Williamson was found guilty of Holocaust denial in Germany in 2010 and fined about $14,000. He has previously denied the existence of gas chambers and the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication against Williamson, but the Vatican also reportedly declared that "in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the Church, (he) will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted."

During meetings with Pope Benedict in Berlin last month, German Jewish leader Dieter Graumann said that one of the issues that troubled Jewish-Catholic relations was the Church's refusal to condemn Williamson.

In his statement Wednesday, Goldschmidt said the pope "has shown a commitment to fostering a spirit of positive dialogue with Jews both before and during his papacy. But he must clearly show that there is no room in the Catholic Church for purveyors of hate."

________

Bishop Williamson's website:
http://www.dinoscopus.org
 ________

***

Guilt by association: Zionist smear-media specialty

The Anatomy of Smears

Goldberg smears Mearsheimer through guilt-by-association with Gilad Atzmon

How Jesse Jackson was smeared through guilt-by-association with the Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan

Researched and compiled by Michael Hoffman 
www.revisionisthistory.org • Sept. 23, 2011

For the past two months, in between writing issue 58 of Revisionist History newsletter, I have been at work on a book that people have repeatedly asked me for since my 1100 page volume, Judaism Discovered, was published in 2008: a condensed summation of its research and thesis for the general reader, priced to sell in an affordable paperback. I did something like that in 2000 with a thin paperback entitled Judaism's Strange Gods that served as a groundwork for Judaism Discovered.

The new condensed book will take the form of a revived edition of Judaism's Strange Gods, though it will differ substantially from the 2000 edition, benefiting from my research into Judaism Discovered and subsequent material I have gathered since 2008. Judaism's Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded is now finished except for the index, which I am completing over this weekend. We will have details on a pre-publication sale offer in the near future.

In the midst of these publishing projects, it has been a while since I offered you a column. I thought I would give you a double-bonus and cram two columns into one.

The first is a hysterical libel of Gilad Atzmon, a Judaic who has written a new book (The Wandering Who?) that presses all the buttons on the aging propaganda machine that generates Jeffrey Goldberg's frenzied boilerplate ("self-hater, twisted and toxic hater, antisemitism, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial, grotesque medieval calumnies, conspiracy theories"). This is the Talmudic pilpul that passes for journalism and substitutes for a reasoned argument in Goldberg's mental shetl. He plays to the choir but, admittedly, his choir is large. He's a columnist for The Atlantic magazine and is interviewed by NPR in spite of the fact that Mr. Goldberg helped to lie America into the Iraq war, an apparent venial sin which hasn't dented his media cred. (I did an analysis of Goldberg's relationship with NPR; a video of my brief talk is on YouTube).

We also offer part one of a transcript of a speech by Louis Farrakhan. There is a connection: Mr. Farrakhan talks of how Jesse Jackson was smeared because of his relationship with Farrakhan, and Mr. Goldberg, in his Atlantic column, uses Mr. Atzmon (through no fault of the latter) in a guilt-by-assocation smear of Prof. John Mearsheimer, one of the most reputable and courageous critics of Israeli racism and state terror in American academia. It is Goldberg's task to libel and stigmatize Mearsheimer. Mr. Goldberg exploits Gilad Atzmon in order to achieve this, in the same way Farrakhan's relationship with Jesse Jackson was used to damage the reputation of Mr. Jackson.

Pilpulistic tactics are tiresome -- but dependable as clockwork -- and often highly effective in ostracizing and silencing peace makers and thinkers who are independent of the propaganda requirements of Zionism and Holocaustianity.

Jeffrey Goldberg himself endorses apologists for Israeli killers, denies the holocaust against the Palestinians and helped fake America into the Iraq war, but let's not confuse people with the facts. Goldberg's tantrum is worth studying as counterintelligence, a way to gauge the hallaf of one of yiddishkeit's leading inquisitors.

The following information is brought to you by the donors who support this service. Without their donations this service cannot continue. Consider joining other truth seekers by sending a donation today.

Best wishes in this Great Battle,
Michael Hoffman
Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

Smear #1

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist
By JEFFREY GOLDBERG

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of Atzmon's lunatic thoughts:

"I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity......The Holocaust  became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value." (End quote from Atzmon).

...Rather unbelievably (or believably, depending on where you sit)...The R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and co-author of "The Israel Lobby," John J. Mearsheimer...has written an endorsement of Atzmon's new book, "The Wandering Who?"...Mearsheimer is endorsing the writing of a man who espouses neo-Nazi views. In other words, he's not even bothering to make believe anymore -- he's moved from a self-described critic of Israel to a corrosive critic of Jewry itself. The blogger Adam Holland, like yours truly, didn't quite believe that Mearsheimer would endorse such a crude anti-Semite...

READ MORE OF GOLDBERG'S SCURRILOUS ATTACK ON ATZMON AND MEARSHEIMER HERE.

Smear #2

Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks of his relationship with Jesse Jackson and the Jews
Excerpted from NOI Research Group Weekly Report--Volume 2, Issue 37 (September, 2011)

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has been personally attacked for two decades by Caucasian Jews who have attempted to label him an “anti-Semite.” The charge is absurd and the accusers have been shown to be the biggest profiteers in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other crimes against Black humanity. But in this lecture by Min. Farrakhan at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 9, 1994, the Minister explained in detail the real issues behind the controversy between Blacks and Jews. Here is the first of a three-part transcript of that historic lecture.

[....] So I would like to address in my closing some solutions, and the Black–Jewish dialogue, if you will, and Farrakhan’s being embroiled in the middle of this kind of controversy. And you can take it or leave it. I have never been anti-Semitic; I’m not now. I have never been anti-Jewish, and I’m not now. But if I recognize something, and what I recognize is not in the best interest of Jews or Blacks, I have to speak against it. And those who fear paint me in all kinds of positions. But I’m here now to defend myself. I never started any conflict with Jewish people. Never! Never. I stum- bled into it. (Laughter.) ’Cause I did.

SUPPORT FOR JESSE JACKSON

I fell in love with Jesse Jackson, my brother, and Jesse told me he wanted to run to be president. He asked me for my help. I said, “Brother, I don’t know anything about politics.” He said, “Would you help me?” I said, “I’ll think about it and I’ll let you know.” We thought about it, we in the Nation of Islam, we talked about it, and we agreed that we would help Reverend Jackson. When Jesse Jackson gave up his position at PUSH to consider running for the nomination of his party for president, he made the announcement, everybody stood and applauded. Farrakhan sat and the tears rolled down my eyes because I knew that the Reverend Jackson was embarking on a course that could lead to his untimely death. Some people rejoice to see a man make that kind of move. Other people who understand what that move entails are deeply sensitive to the danger. I was deeply sensitive to the danger. I had never seen a dossier on anybody by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) until Jesse Jackson’s assistant, Reverend Barrow, showed me an ADL dossier on Reverend Jackson. And in their dossier, Reverend Jackson was an “anti- Semite.” I want you to listen to me. That dossier was put in the hands of media so that when Jesse would speak, they would raise questions out of that dossier to keep Jesse embroiled in a conflict with members of the Jewish community.

That raised money, but it also would be put in a context that would cut Jesse from support from the common Gentiles of this nation. In February of 1984, ten years ago, Reverend Jackson informed me that there were over 100 real threats on his life. He was told that by the FBI. He was frankly worried, and so was I. So at my convention — the convention of the Nation of Islam — I was introducing Reverend Jackson that year, and in my introduction if you read my words, if you’re a fair-minded person, you could never say that I was anti-Semitic. I appealed to the Jewish community and I said to them that whenever the interests of Jews and Blacks converged, Blacks and Jews always worked together. But when we come of age—meaning we mature, in our self-interest — we have to follow our self-interest, even if our self-interest causes us to be at variance with the interest of the Jewish community.

“RUIN JESSE”

I said, Reverend Jackson is our enlightened self-interest. I said, and the way you handle him can rupture Black–Jewish relations because 90 percent of the Black electorate was lining up behind Reverend Jackson, and members of the Jewish Defense League had interrupted Jesse Jackson’s announcement of his candidacy in Washington, D.C. I was present; I saw it. Then a full-page ad was taken out in the New York Times saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Because the chant among Black people was, “Run, Jesse, Run!”  And this group called Jews Against Jesse took out an ad saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Wait a minute. In a political campaign if you don’t like your candidate or the op-ponent, you defeat his program—you attack him intelligently. You put an ad in the paper —“Ruin”? What does the word “ruin” mean? Hmm?

When something is ruined — that garment that you have on that you paid whatever you paid for it — if it is ruined, do you put it on again? To ruin Jesse was the aim of those who put that ad in the New York Times. No responsible Jewish organization condemned that ad. (Applause.) I want you to listen. Now I want you to hear Farrakhan. Since you heard so much about me, now hear me, and give me the same ear that you gave my detractors.

"IF ANY HARM COMES TO HIM, HE'LL BE THE LAST BLACK MAN THAT YOU'LL KILL."

When I spoke, Brother Yusuf Muhammad put my words on this campus in a flyer. Those were my exact words. If you’re sane and intelligent, there’s not one anti-Semitic statement or anti-Jewish statement there. I called on the Jews to sit down and talk with Reverend Jackson. “If you disagree with him,” I said, “we can stand to lose an election, but we cannot stand to lose Reverend Jackson.” I said, “If any harm comes to him, he’ll be the last Black man that you’ll kill.”

Wait, wait, wait, I didn’t finish, no, no— ’cause that’s an implied threat. I said, “We don’t carry weapons. We’re not allowed to carry as much as a pen knife,” I said, “But Almighty God has caused this son of ex-slaves to rise up to such a position, and God Himself will retaliate.”

This is a paraphrase of my actual words, which, they’re out here for you to read. The next day in New York the head of B’nai B’rith was on the radio, calling me “the new black Hitler.”

Let’s stop right there.

Now, I grew up in Roxbury. I went to the Sherwin School, and Boston Public Latin. Didn’t make it there. I graduated from Boston English. I went to Huntington Prep School. Go and search my record. I hardly ever had a fight in my whole life. I’ve never been arrested. All my friends, if you talk to them, they have nothing evil to say about me. I’ve never been a violence-prone individual; not then, not now. All human beings, however, are capable, if pushed to that extreme. I have never said privately to my children, or publicly, Jews should be exterminated. My sons and daughters have grown up in my house. They have never heard me speak of Jews or Italians or Hispanic people using slang terms like “spic” or “kike” or “wop.” I don’t talk like that because I know what it feels like to be called a “nigger” all my life. (Applause.)

 But anybody that knows me from my childhood knows I was a young man of principle and if you wanted a fight outta me, then the fight would never be on no stupid thing, it would always be over a violation of a principle. That’s my history.

"POPE PIUS XII LOOKED THE OTHER WAY" (AS 'JEWS' WERE PUT IN OVENS)

And to call me Hitler. Every young Jew in this audience, whose parents or grandparents went through the Holocaust. What does it mean to them when you say I am a Hitler? Every young Jew would hate that man and want him dead because nobody wants to see a Hitler come up again. What makes me a new black Hitler? We never put Jews in ovens. Not one Black person in this audience has put a Jew in an oven. Gentiles did. Pope Pius XII looked the other way. Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked the other way. (Applause.) You know it. Black people were your liberators from Auschwitz! The first ones in the death camps were Black people. (Applause.)

Now Farrakhan is upset. And shouldn’t I be? If somebody called you a Hitler, wouldn’t you be upset? But why did you call me Hitler? Because of my skill as an orator. Unmatched— no vanity, no vanity, no vanity, no ego. God has given me that gift. I move people. I move people not because I move people. I move people because I am an instrument that communicates to the nth degree to human beings and their pain. I don’t need notes. I speak from the soul, and my speech is like music. Even though it may be uncomfortable some of the passages are so beautiful, because I’m not a hater. I’m passionate over the suffering of my people in particular, but human beings in general.

"HITLER WAS A GENIUS"

So I was inflamed, and I...said, “So here come the Jews now, calling me Hitler.” I said, “Well, that’s a good name.” I said Hitler was no good for me but he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat in World War I. Hitler, with his magnificent oratory, made a people with his philosophy and ideology of Aryan supremacy. He made a people in Germany, and it took the whole western world united to defeat [him]. A nation of only 17 million people had the whole world shake with their genius. Hitler was a genius. The West had deciphered his codes and they let whole towns be bombed so that Hitler would not know that they knew. They knew his commands through his generals. As his generals got it, they got it. And even with that, it took the combined might of all of Europe and America to defeat that man.

I said he was a great man, but he was wickedly great. And I am not wrong. That’s your English language. In the Oxford Dictionary, there are four pages on the word great. Only one of them, one line, says great in a way that it means something laudatory. All the rest is talking about magnitude, significance, impact. The man was great, but he was wicked. I can’t approve of another man putting human beings in ovens—men, women, children. I’m a father. I’m a grandfather. I love my children, and when I look at Jewish children and Palestinian children growing the way they’re growing, to kill each other down the road — I’m hoping that some way we can break that chain. And I know that the only thing that will break it is truth and justice.

But because Zionists saw a threat in Reverend Jackson’s appeal, since Reverend Jackson had embraced Arafat, several years before Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Jackson was hated for embracing Arafat, and since it was feared that Reverend Jackson, if given a platform, could disturb the delicate balance between the Blacks who were all pro-Israel to turn Black people maybe to a pro-Palestinian stance, then to that degree it was in the Zionists’ self-interest to destroy the candidacy of Reverend Jackson by any means necessary. And so, they, when I said Hitler was great, headline came up in the New York Post: “Jackson Pal Hails Hitler.”

Now Farrakhan is the whipping boy. They’re beating the hell out of me to get to Jesse. After a while Jesse can’t take it anymore. He repudiates Farrakhan, leaving me out there now by myself. It’s all right though. It’s all right. I didn’t come in the world with no twin. (Applause.) I don’t need an army behind me to stand up for what I believe. I was made that way and as long as God is with me, then I’m never alone. So now I’m out there. I refused to divide the Black people who were behind Jesse, who loved Farrakhan. I refused to speak evil against my brother because he had repudiated me. This is history. And when I learned that the (U.S.) Senate had condemned me and repudiated me, a vote of 95 to nothin.’ A white Senate. No Black people in it. “Representative” government had repudiated me, for allegedly calling Judaism a gutter religion, which I never did.

I am a man that is not afraid to tell you that I said that, ’cause anything that I say,I back it up. And if I can’t back it up with truth, I’ll apologize to you, for so stating or being in error. I think that’s the proper thing to do. But I never said that. And you know what’s worse? It’s ten years now. And every time they write about Farrakhan, [it’s]: “the man that called Hitler great and Judaism a gutter religion.” That’s the way they put me before you.

Well, since [they believe] Black folk are natural liars and cowards, then my saying, “I didn’t say that; here’s what I said and here’s what I meant”— oh, that don’t mean anything to you. So you never took what I said to have any weight at all, because what you say is the truth, and whatever a Black man says in defense of himself he’s only trying to get out from what his own mouth has spoken. You don’t know me, but you’re getting acquainted with me. I think you know now, you’ll have to kill me to get me to back down from truth, and I’m telling you today at Amherst, Don’t even think about it! (Applause.)

"THE MEDIA CAN'T BREAK ME"

For 10 years, I’ve been in this struggle. For 10 years, I have tried to sit down and dialogue with the Anti- Defamation League. For 10 years, I’ve asked them, “Let’s sit down and talk.” That’s the civilized thing to do. When people have a genuine disagreement, sit down and talk about it. They re- fuse. Rabbis come to my door, sit at my table, we have dinner, we talk candidly and frankly, we embrace each other. But the Rabbis have no power with these organizations that are politically inspired Zionist organizations. They don’t have any power. So even though we come to some agreement, the ADL has never agreed to sit down with me. Fine. I ain’t beggin’ you to sit down. I think it’s intelligent, because you don’t want it to go too far. You don’t want it to get that far, if you got sense. You thought that when the media attacked me, Farrakhan was going to dry up and blow away? Not this one. You can blow away them others, but not this one. Because the media didn’t make me, I’m not a creature of the media. So since the media didn’t create me, the media can’t break me. I guess you’ve learned that by now. The more you attack me, the bigger God makes me grow. (Applause)

And you haven’t learned your lesson yet, but I thank you, media — you really are wonderful. No, I’m serious — I’m not being facetious — they’re really wonderful. No, you really are; I respect you to the highest. Whatever you say to me is all right. You can cuss me out, line by line, word by word, and that’s what you do. But my teacher taught me, “Son, every knock is a boost.” So here we are now. Police all around — SWAT team, bomb squad, mounted police; Farrakhan gotta bring 100 security people. For what? For what? Because one Black man stood up to speak truth as he understood it and wouldn’t back down. And some of those in positions of power in the Jewish community feel that Black folks should back down, feel that we should bend and bow and scrape and scratch. You still bugged out over that Hamitic thing. Ham don’t have no relationship to me. (Applause.)

I am not one of the sons of Noah. I was before Noah. I was before Abraham. I was before Adam. Now, don’t give me no Johnny-come-lately as my father, because I know the history now. And if you scratch me—not scratch me—I mean push me, I’ll be glad to tell you not only where I’m from, but where you’re from too. (Applause.) [To be continued]

LOUIS FARRAKHAN will speak October 9, 2011 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Philadelphia Convention Center. Tickets are $20. All races and religions are invited. Doors open at 12 p.m. Program starts at 2 pm. (www.noi.org) There will also be a presentation from 1 - 3 p.m. in Room 108 of the Convention Center by the Historical Research Group of the Nation of Islam, authors of the books The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 1 (on the slave trade) and volume 2 (on Judaic influence in the American South after the War Between the States).

***

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. 

***

Bishop Richard Williamson goes on trial in Germany July 4

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

Bishop Richard Williamson's Dinoscopus Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyrie eleison.
+Richard Williamson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

2700 people killed in Auschwitz gas chambers in 24 hours

Holocaust survivor shares story at genocide symposium

by Liz Barry (lbarry@newsadvance.com) 

The News and Advance (Lynchburg, Virginia) |  Feb. 16, 2011

Irving Roth speaking to law students Feb. 16 at Liberty University’s law school symposium on genocide and religious persecution.

From the podium at (the late Rev. Jerry Falwell’s) Liberty University, Holocaust survivor Irving Roth — who narrowly escaped death at Auschwitz and Buchenwald — rolled up his shirt sleeve to show the numbers tattooed on his left forearm.

“The denial of the Holocaust is not simply denying the Holocaust. It’s a tool to denigrate the Jews. It’s a tool of anti-Semitism …” said Roth, a native of Czechoslovakia. “That’s why I come to you and tell you about it. I lived through this.”

Roth spoke to a packed audience Wednesday night during a symposium on genocide and religious persecution at Liberty’s law school. His firsthand account, which wove together humor and bone-chilling accounts of life at the death camps, ended with a standing ovation from the audience.

The goal of the two-day symposium was to raise awareness in Lynchburg of past and present genocides, said law school dean Mathew Staver. Roth was among about a dozen speakers from academia, nonprofits and the government who took on the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda and other conflicts.

Roth’s story chronicled the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the horrors of the Holocaust that killed his brother, grandparents and millions of other Jews.

He recalled the day, at age 9, when a police officer barred him from playing soccer at his favorite park. The officer pointed to a new sign that read, “Jews and dogs are forbidden to enter,” he said. He recalled the moment, five years later, when he was delivered to Auschwitz in a train packed with 3,000 Jews. “I’m a 14-year-old. I don’t know where I am. All I know is I am some place which is not good,” Roth said.

Of the 3,000 people who arrived with Roth, all but 300 were killed in gas chambers within 24 hours of arriving at Auschwitz, he said. Roth was among the few who were assigned to work in the death camp. By the time Roth was rescued by American soldiers, he had been transferred to the German concentration camp Buchenwald and weighed roughly 75 pounds.

By what Roth calls “one of many miracles,” his parents survived the war by hiding with a Christian family in Budapest. Despite grave risk to her family, a Christian woman with a husband serving in the armed forces of Nazi Hungary took Roth’s parents in and protected them until the war’s end, he said. At the end of his story, Roth urged the audience to emulate the woman who saved his parents.

“My parents survived. Why?” he said. “Because somebody cared. Someone look at two people whose death were imminent and said ‘I need to interfere’ . . . She said, ‘I do not stand by and do nothing. I’ll stand up and be counted.’”

(Emphasis supplied)

***

VIDEO: Talmudic Mentality in the History of World War II

Hoffman analyzes the propaganda system’s presentation of the religion of Holcaustianity as objective history, in terms of its function as the expression of the Talmudic mentality, and the dual standards which this mentality imposes on the genocide debate, with certain prerogatives and immunities reserved solely for a privileged few, denominated by Hoffman as the "Master Race of Holy People." Hoffman's point of departure is a Zionist protest over the appearance of Dr. Norman Finkelstein at Rutgers University in November, 2010.

***

Despite war crimes, the West always supports "Israel"

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy provides insight into the kind of inevitable, blank-check support Israeli war criminals receive from the "Holocaust" humanism hawkers in Europe and the United States. The "Holocaust" or "Shoah" is the means by which Israeli war crimes are absolved, thereby guaranteeing more atrocities against Palestinian civilians and more occupation and destruction of their infrastructure. The Talmudic moral superiority of Israelis places them beyond the normal penalties and punishments to which Nazi, Serb and Darfur war criminals are subjected. 

As the religion of Orthodox Judaism secretly teaches, Judaics are a special class, possessed of special immunities based on their alleged sacred ethnicity. The recent pontificating against Bishop Richard Williamson - the moral high ground, the posturing, the pompous denunciations in the name of highest human values - can be seen for what it really is: the gaseous discharge of slavish supporters of Ku Klux Judaism, i.e. the unwritten doctrine that upholds the Israeli "right" to kill Palestinians with impunity based on Judaic racial prestige and past victimization of Judaics. The "Holocaust" is a subsidiary of Ku Klux Judaism.

It's more than merely insane, it's downright criminal, even as Max Hastings in the New York Review of Books, and others like him, continue to wring their hands over the "collective guilt" of the ghostly World War II-era Germans. Meanwhile, the guilt, "collective" or otherwise of the Israelis of our time, who are killing people now, is never addressed by war crimes prosecution, papal anathema or international boycott and divestment. The "Holocaust" and its slogan of "Never Again" is not used to halt the ongoing Israeli holocaust against the Palestinians, but rather, the "Holocaust" cult functions as an accessory of that mass murder.

Conformists cannot comprehend how some of us dare to opt out of Holocaustianity, charging us with moral turpitude and inhuman indifference for rejecting its claims to progressive humanism and exalted ethics. We cannot accept it because we know it to be the mask by which Israeli terrorists shed innocent blood and then emerge from the carnage to take their place on the stage of the "Holocaust" memorial, lecturing the German people and Bishop Williamson on "Never Again."

--Michael Hoffman

Has Anyone asked why the Swedes hate us?

By Gideon Levy | Haaretz | March 13, 2009

Was it a coincidence? The day after Israel's Davis Cup tennis match in Sweden, played in a practically empty arena this week, a brief item appeared on the Haaretz Web site: Historians have discovered that Sweden, former tennis superpower, aided the Nazi war machine by extending credit to German industrial plants.

Coincidence or not, neutral in 1941 or not, 68 years later, public opinion in Sweden is definitely not neutral: Thousands demonstrated there against Israel, which was forced to wield its racket like a leper, with no audience in attendance. Did anyone in Israel even ask why it was considered a pariah in Sweden? No one dared question whether the war in the Gaza Strip was worth the price we're paying now, from Ankara to Malmo. It's enough to recall that the Swedes were always against us. The fact that there were times when they were awash in love for Israel was erased from our consciousness.

The world is always against us, period. But the world is not against us - to the contrary: The truth is that there is no other nation toward which the world is so forgiving, even today. Yes, today. Granted, world public opinion is very critical, sometimes in a way that's unique to Israel, but most governments (except Venezuela and Turkey, but including Egypt and Sweden) are far from being in sync with the public opinion in their countries. The official world continues to be sympathetic to Israel, regardless of its actions. The rise of Hamas, the increase in hatred for Islam in the West, the American hegemony - all this helps in strengthening the support, and we know how to make the very most of it.

What's the difference between national tennis player Andy Ram and national tennis player Thomas Johansson? Johansson and his angry fans saw real pictures from Gaza; Ram and his complacent fans never did. Had Ram seen them, maybe he, too, would demonstrate. But he, like most Israelis, was spared this discomfort, thanks to the gung-ho Israeli press. Can we and Ram really criticize those who were horrified by the pictures from the war? Can we reproach those who dare to protest against the people responsible for those scenes? Are we demanding that the world remain silent once again?

The demonstrators in Stockholm waved banners against violence and racism. It may be okay to ask why they waved them only against us, as there are some other racist and violent places in the world, but it is not okay to question the right to do so in general. Was there really no violence in Gaza, and is there no racism in Israel? If we were Swedes, wouldn't we protest against the pointless killing and destruction wrought by Israel?

But we needn't get too worked up over the fury of public opinion in Sweden; its right-wing government is much less agitated, like all the other European governments. One need only recall the surreal scene at the height of the brutal assault on Gaza, when the heads of the European Union came to Israel and dined with the prime minister in a show of unilateral support for the side wreaking the killing and destruction. They didn't give a thought to visiting Gaza, and uttered nary a word of criticism against Israel. That is official Europe.

Now, as a new government is about to be formed, there is concern that Israel will pay a price in the international arena for its composition. Not to worry: Everything will be just dandy. The world will accept Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel's No. 1 statesman, Avigdor Lieberman as its No. 1 diplomat and Moshe Ya'alon as its No. 1 soldier. Lieberman's belligerent statements and the Israel Defense Forces' violent actions in the territories under former chief of staff Ya'alon will not present any obstacles. The world will accept them, too.

Furthermore, the growing concern that the new U.S. administration may be about to change the rules of the game vis-a-vis Israel could also prove to be unfounded: Barack Obama's new America has already pledged to clean up after Israel, as usual. The $900 million the administration has pledged to contribute to rebuild Gaza - without a word of criticism about who caused the destruction there, as if it were a natural disaster and not the work of an unrestrained army, particularly in light of America's current economic state - is a bad sign for anyone hoping for change. Israel wrecked Gaza with U.S. weapons, and America and Europe step in to fix things, not for the first time or for the last.

As the saying goes around here, what was is what will be: Israel will continue to destroy, and America will continue to mop up after it, without a word. A bad sign? Yes, for anyone who thinks that change will only come from the outside or, in other words, only from America.

Note how the upcoming Durban II conference on racism is also being thwarted, because of the fear that it will harshly criticize Israel. Does anyone know of any other country that can win such sweeping international backing? But we always complain: The whole world is against us. It's good for shoring up national unity and for squeezing out more and more support in the world.

The bleak prophecies about a change in America's attitude toward Israel are as old as the country itself. Whenever there's a change of administration in the U.S., anxiety spikes. But from president to president, our strength only grows: When George W. Bush was elected, we were told to be wary of the Texan, a friend of the Arabs and of oil. And what did we get? Never was there a president more "sympathetic to Israel," who gave it such a blank check for all its settlements, targeted assassinations and occupation activities. Obama is scary, too: He's already talking with Iran and with the Taliban. Most likely, fears surrounding this will also prove to be overblown, once he gets around to dealing with Israel.

International interest in Israel is completely disproportionate. Last week, every taxi driver in Bursa, Turkey could recite by heart the names of Lieberman, Tzipi Livni, Netanyahu - and also Avi Mizrahi, the major general who had criticized their country. Every little flutter of coalition action in Israel immediately makes headlines; the world does not focus as much attention on the internal politics of any other country. Only Israel. Whether it's good or bad for the Jews, it's hard to put one's finger on the roots of this phenomenon.

For decades now, the world has been buying the Zionist narrative almost in full. The occupation and settlements have been going on for more than 40 years with no serious impediment. Except for some international grumblings and resolutions no one has any serious intention of implementing, Israel continues to belong to the camp of the "good guys"; the Arabs are the "bad guys." The new atmosphere in the West against Islam is reinforcing this trend and Israel is benefiting yet again. Criticism of the media in the West from Israel's supporters is also quite excessive.

A Swedish journalist was recently laid off from her newspaper because she sided with the Palestinian position in the conflict. It's hard to imagine her editors acting the same way if it were a Jewish reporter who had written in support of Israel.

When I was interviewed once by a reporter from the France 1 channel, a commercial channel, at the doorway of a house in Gaza - where the army had killed the only daughter of a paralyzed mother - and I said that it was these sorts of moments that made me feel ashamed to be an Israeli, my words were not broadcast. The reporter phoned me the next day and told me his editors had decided not to include the quote, for fear of viewer response. When I once published an article in the German paper Die Welt, which is part of the publishing group of Axel Springer, where all writers had to sign a pledge that they would never cast doubt on the State of Israel's right to exist, the editor told me: "If this critical article about the occupation had been written by a German journalist, we would not have published it."

Despite mounting criticism of Israel, Europe is still very cautious. With Europe's Holocaust guilt, its anxiety in the face of Islam and its readiness to blindly follow the United States anywhere, Israel still enjoys preferential status in the world. Very preferential.

But perhaps this will not always be the case. Perhaps the worse our actions become, the harsher the criticism will be. Meanwhile, two pointless wars in two years were not enough to achieve this. Maybe the time will indeed come when the world will get fed up with this aggression and violence of ours, which endanger world peace, and will say at long last: No more occupation, no more wars perpetrated by Israel for which the world has to pay. Perhaps when Israel's dream team of Netanyahu-Lieberman-Ya'alon faces the American dream team of Obama-Clinton, conservatives versus liberals, warmongers versus seekers of negotiation - something will happen then.

In the meantime, let us remember: Israel beat Sweden 3-2 in tennis and justice prevailed once again.

Care to submit a comment on this column? Be sure to read our guidelines before doing so. Thank you!