Banned Books Week: No sympathy for books banned by Amazon

Banned Books Week official has no sympathy for revisionist books banned by Amazon

By Michael Hoffman • RevisionistHistory.org

In the wake of our article on “Books Banned by Banned Books Week”—concerning “Holocaust denial” volumes policed out of the banned category—we received an e-mail from James LaRue, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, which administers Banned Books Week. This organization appears to mainly promote the freedom to read proscribed books that don’t threaten the canon of Leftist ideology. Conservatives who are critical of publications that undermine traditional values are usually the villains in this rigged morality theatre. In the case at hand, revisionist authors who cast doubt on aspects of the Establishment’s hallowed historical dogmas, have virtually no presence in Banned Books Week. The American Library Association (ALA) and the American Booksellers Association are engaged in a cynical ruse, posing as champions of all banned books while almost exclusively promoting as banned those volumes which do not challenge the Leftist, or in this instance, the Zionist agenda.

In responding to this writer’s column, Mr. LaRue wrote, “Banned Books Week reports on challenges - attempts to remove or restrict access - to books held by publicly funded libraries and schools. Amazon, not publicly funded, not a library, falls completely outside of the scope of our work. Private businesses can carry, or not carry, any merchandise they choose to.”

If we understand Mr. LaRue correctly, he and the ALA have zero interest in banned books when they are suppressed by book stores as part of a commercial enterprise. LaRue’s insouciance with regard to the many dozens of revisionist books banned last February by Amazon.com at the behest of the World Jewish Congress, belies the public pose of the American Library Association and its “Freedom to Read Foundation” (FTRF), as expressed in 1970 by Judith Krug, in her articulation of its founding mandate: “To promote and protect freedom of speech and press...and...the public right to hear what is spoken and read what is written...”

Whether or not libraries and schools are the focus, for the “Office for Intellectual Freedom” and the “Freedom to Read Foundation” to be indifferent to the fate of any other banned book in any other setting other than libraries and schools, would probably be news to the majority of the public who are the intended audience for Banned Books Week, which in its 2017 advertising, depicted a clenched fist and the slogan, “Stand for the Banned.” Other catchphrases employed officially include, “Our Right to Read," "Stand for Intellectual Freedom,” and “Words Have Power: Read a Banned Book.” There are no “fine print” disclaimers accompanying these mantras, which are printed on bags, cups and bumperstickers sold by the ALA — stating that these noble sentiments apply only to books forbidden by public libraries and schools. 

The “Stand for the Banned” message is without qualification and is apt to beguile donors and supporters who have no inkling of how circumscribed and shuttered it actually is. They have no idea, for example, that the director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom engages in what might be characterized as unseemly gloating over the commercial suppression of demonized books.  In his e-mail, James LaRue wrote, “...you do not have the right to demand public or commercial platforms for them (your opinions). There is harsh competition in the marketplace of ideas. There are winners, and speaking of obsessive, willfully ignorant anti-Semitism, there are losers.”

(Note well his words about willful ignorance. We will return to them shortly).

An official of the American Library Association who oversees Banned Books Week offers no lament for the banned books that are “losers” in “the marketplace of ideas.” Once again we are in the realm of the surreal. How does such an attitude advance the ALA’s goals of “Intellectual Freedom” and its apothegm, “Stand for the Banned”? When it comes to the suppression of World War II revisionist histories the American Library Association is firmly seated. Rather than hewing to liberty in all instances and across all categories, the ALA is taking the side of those who would marginalize books branded with the pejorative “anti-Semitism” stigma, which in some cases is little more than a witch-hunting canard intended to smear heretical works authored by learned non-conformists who are seeking to compete for the attention of readers in the “marketplace of ideas.” 

We would have thought that an organization bearing the lofty title, “Office for Intellectual Freedom,” and whose slogan is “Words Have Power: Read a Banned Book,” would respond by stating that while Amazon’s ban on World War II revisionist books was outside the immediate purview of the ALA’s Banned Books Week, they unequivocally regret and protest Amazon’s censorship, while recognizing that commercial operations may do as they please in this regard. 

James LaRue

Commerce has not yet trumped ethics in America — or has it, as far as the nation’s teachers and librarians are concerned? LaRue’s snide satisfaction with Amazon’s suppression of authors too far out even for Banned Books Week, reflects the ALA’s Leftist predilection for masquerading as freedom-lovers the better to render invisible politically incorrect writers whose freedom to be read has been abridged not so much by the free market, as monopoly forces within that market. Given the opportunity to compete freely by enjoying wide access to the nation’s readers, and revisionist books would become best-sellers. This can’t be allowed and Mr. LaRue tells us why: “...the lack of commercial interest in ‘contrarian’ or ‘revisionist’ histories of the Holocaust reflects their flat out falsity, their lack of scholarly rigor, and the transparent bigotry that guides them.”

There you have it. With regard to banned books judged by the Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom to be false, lacking in “scholarly rigor” and suffused with “transparent bigotry,” it is neither reprehensible nor an occasion for protest when earth’s largest bookstore forbids their sale. Somehow this dictum of the Inquisition (that “error” has no rights), looks a tad contradictory and at cross-purposes with the official freedom philosophy sold to the public by Banned Books Week and its virtue-signaling sponsors.  

In light of Mr. LaRue’s remark about “willful ignorance,” we contacted him concerning which revisionist books he had read that caused him to assess them so caustically. Surely he was not “willfully ignorant” of their contents? We asked him: “With regard to your assessment of the whole corpus of WWII revisionist historiography in terms of ‘...their flat out falsity, their lack of scholarly rigor, and the transparent bigotry...’ have you ever actually read a book by one of the leading writers in the genre, such as Arthur R. Butz, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson or Germar Rudolf? If so, which one(s)? If not, I include a link to a pdf. file containing the complete text of Mr. Rudolf’s banned book, should you wish to undertake the obligation of perusing what you have so severely reproved: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf.”

Mr. LaRue did not scruple to reply.

(LaRue would allow us to publish his remarks only if we printed them in full, and we do so herein: “First, I have never spoken with the author of this article. I don't know who the ‘we’ is he refers to - unless it was the woman who last week demanded of one of my staff to know my ‘ethnic background,’ complained about a picture of a dreadlocked black man on the American library Association website, then made childish and incoherent remarks about Jews on Twitter. If she is aligned with your cause, she is not a credible investigator or representative. Second, as we make clear on our website and in press releases, Banned Books Week reports on challenges - attempts to remove or restrict access - to books held by publicly funded libraries and schools. Amazon, not publicly funded, not a library, falls completely outside of the scope of our work. Private businesses can carry, or not carry, any merchandise they choose to. To describe this as some kind of conspiracy on the part of the Left is...novel. Third, the lack of commercial interest in  ‘contrarian’ or ‘revisionist’ histories of the Holocaust reflects their flat out falsity, their lack of scholarly rigor, and the transparent bigotry that guides them. But the idea of conspiracies may be more comforting to you. Fourth, you have the right to your opinions. But you do not have the right to demand public or commercial platforms for them. There is harsh competition in the marketplace of ideas. There are winners, and speaking of obsessive, willfully ignorant anti-Semitism, there are losers.” James LaRue ALA / FTRF, October 7, 2017).

Historian Michael Hoffman’s most recent book is The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.

______________

Ernst Zündel: A Lover, not a Hater

Ernst Zündel: A Lover, not a Hater

“Je suis le bouc.”  L.-F. Céline

By Michael Hoffman

www.RevisionistHistory.org

Ernst Zündel (above, right), with his attorney, Dr. Herbert Schaller, March 1, 2010, just moments after he emerged from Mannheim prison for the first time in five years.

Ernst Zündel died of heart failure on August 5 at his ancestral home in the Black Forest region of southwestern Germany, near Pforzheim, one day before the anniversary of the atomic holocaust in the city of Hiroshima, Japan. He was 78. He passed away seven years and five months after having served seven years in confinement in Canadian and German prisons for thought crimes committed as a publisher, broadcaster and protestor. To make the inquisition against this German human rights activist palatable to the public, his “crime” is monotonously described as “inciting hatred for years with anti-Semitic activities.”

In America the yahoos are stirred to outrage by the spectre of Islamic “Sharia law” coming to Mayberry, while they are oblivious to the Talmudic law and psychology which suffuses the U.S.A. Talmudic halacha is a two-tiered legal system: one law for the Holy People and another for everyone else. Thus it is written in Sanhedrin 57a, “Regarding bloodshed, the following distinction applies: if a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew he is exempt from punishment.” 

By the same logic, if a Judaic incites hatred of Germans it is not a crime, it is a well-deserved act of retribution. Zündel spent his life fighting this corrupt double-standard. He did so not for philosophical or ideological reasons. Rather, he believed that relentless anti-German hate propaganda was a kind of psychological warfare and mental genocide which internally colonized the souls of the German people, radically reducing their self-worth and causing them to engage in self-destructive and suicidal behavior. 

His lifelong campaign to counter anti-German hatred and Talmudic bigotry has been transformed through the alchemy of media falsification into itself an act of hate, and it is at this omega point that Ernst’s persona has been frozen by the Establishment. “He was a hater!” That’s all we’re supposed to know, or need to know, about his life and work.

Having emigrated to Canada as a young man of 19, he became a sought-after graphic artist, working for national magazines. That he was a public relations genius is indisputable. In the 1960s he began placing advertisements in comic books, urging freedom for imprisoned Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, and for a volume about “Nazi UFOs,” the latter a publicity stunt intended to build the revisionist history mailing list he was gradually compiling. By the late 1970s, when the Newspeak distortion of the word “holocaust” began to be appropriated by the Zionist lobby and applied exclusively to the sufferings (both real and imagined) of Judaic people in World War II, Ernst began his counter-offensive, making contact with the academics and historians in the  burgeoning revisionist history movement that was questioning the “Holocaust” liturgy. 

By 1983 his mass mailings had become so extensive that the powerful Zionist lobby in Canada persuaded the government to ban Zündel from using the mail. He was forced to publish from a Buffalo, New York-area post office, hundreds of miles from his base in Toronto. For publishing doubts about the existence of execution gassing facilities in concentration camps, he was indicted for distributing “false news.” He went to court in Toronto in January, 1985, in what would become known as “The Great Holocaust Trial,” having assembled a stellar legal and history research team led by Doug Christie, who was at that time an obscure, upstart attorney from British Columbia, and Dr. Robert Faurisson, a French academic with a vast command of World War II revisionist history.

Zündel’s own World War II-generation of Germans rallied around him. The large Victorian “Zündelhaus” in Toronto was filled with German people acting as defense witnesses in the trial and assistants in various capacities. There were also non-Germans across the spectrum, including Judaics such as the brilliant and eccentric Ditlieb Felderer, the inaugural forensic investigator and photographer of the Auschwitz-Birkenau slave labor camp. 

Ernst was not a provincial German. He was cosmopolitan and sophisticated, with broad tastes and sympathies. He forged alliances with everyone from Judaics disgruntled with the Israeli state and Judaism, to the former Attorney General of Massachusetts who would call Ernst in the middle of the night during the 1985 trial and offer him legal advice.

In the course of the 1985 trial the Crown prosecution called many “unimpeachable Holocaust survivor eyewitnesses” to the stand, in order to send Zündel to prison. Under cross-examination, each one was reduced to a quivering pile of fantastic or contradictory testimony that was essentially worthless. Rudolf Vrba, one of the first “major witnesses” to the alleged homicidal gas chambers, who was regarded as a pillar of “Holocaust” survivor testimony, was made to concede under oath that his book, I Cannot Forgive, could not stand up in court and was only an “artistic picture” of Auschwitz. Because of the embarrassing revelations elicited from these witnesses, no “Holocaust survivors” were called to testify in defense of Deborah Lipstadt in the course of David Irving’s libel suit against her (a fact noted by the actor playing the part of her barrister Anthony Julius, in the 2016 Hollywood movie, “Denial”). 

The most eminent “Holocaust” historian of the 1980s was Dr. Raul Hilberg. During the Great Holocaust Trial he was compelled to admit on the witness stand that there was no scientific evidence of homicidal gassings. “I’m at a loss” were the shocking words this “leading Holocaust scholar” uttered when asked by Christie to cite such evidence.

Ernst’s initial conviction on the ridiculous 1985 false news charge was overturned on appeal to the Ontario Court, citing presiding Judge Hugh Locke’s overwhelming bias toward the defendant.

Zündel was tried yet again in 1988; that trial is noteworthy for having produced engineer Fred Leuchter’s unprecedented Leuchter Report on the impossibility of mass chemical poison gassings in the facilities he personally studied and sampled in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Ernst published many tens of thousands of copies of Leutcher Report for circulation world-wide.

On more than one occasion we have referred to Ernst as the-man-who-was-perpetually-on-trial. He underwent court appearances over the ban on his using the Canadian mails, his two trials, the appeals, his immigration case in the U.S. and his trial in Germany, which led to his lengthiest imprisonment. The word “martyr” is derived from a Greek word for a defendant in court. The connotation is of a man or woman willing to defy authorities formally, and face to face. This was Ernst’s destiny.

On August 27, 1992, in a historic decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which was a landmark victory for every Canadian’s civil liberties, the “false news” portion of the Canadian criminal code was overturned thanks to the appeal argued by Ernst’s legal team. 

There was a price to be paid for these successes, however. The Talmud is a book which has made a religion out of revenge. William Shakespeare had Portia finger it when she told Shylock in The Merchant of Venice that contrary to Shylock’s call for “justice,” the Christian posits mercy, because none of us can withstand God’s justice. The problem in making that type of argument is that the religion of revenge entails self-worship, and part of its megalomania rests upon giving God orders (cf. Bava Metzia 59b). Therefore, revenge, not mercy, is the order of the day for the Talmudists. Consequently, in 1989 Prof. Faurisson was horribly beaten by thugs linked to Betar, a French Zionist terror group. No one was prosecuted. On May 7, 1995 Ernst Zündel’s Victorian home and headquarters in Toronto was destroyed by arsonists. The police barely bothered to investigate. No one was prosecuted.

In February, 2003 Ernst was living peacefully in Tennessee with his German-American wife, Ingrid Rimland, when he was arrested for “violations of U.S. immigration regulations.” He was jailed for two weeks and subsequently deported to Canada, where he had “landed immigrant” status. Labeled a terrorist in a secret Canadian star chamber court, the man who had never even had a speeding ticket and consistently preached non-violence, was incarcerated for two years on a “Security certificate,” under abominable conditions of solitary confinement, while fed wretched food, observed 24 hours a day with lights never turned off, denied proper writing and reading materials, and confined in a remote, high security facility.

He was deported to Germany in 2005 where, a few weeks short of his 66th birthday he began serving five years in Mannheim prison for publishing questions about gas chambers in books and other media, including online on his internationally-renowned “Zundelsite” web page.

Upon his release in 2010 he lived quietly in a home in Germany that had been in his family for hundreds of years. Without complaint he cheerfully set to work personally clearing brush and trees and making repairs to the ancient homestead. He never whined. He had not been raised in a culture where, “Oh, how I suffered!” was a standard of self-definition. He didn’t moan about his fate. He was a German of the old school, for whom the words inculcated from youth, Lerne leiden ohne zu klagen (“Learn to suffer without complaining”), were ringing in his ears until the day he died.

Prior to 2017, Ernst applied for an immigrant visa so that he could reside with his wife in Tennessee. Last spring, less than a week before his 78th birthday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ruled on his application, as follows:

“[I]n 2007 the Applicant was convicted in Germany of 14 counts of incitement to hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of five years in prison. And though a waiver of inadmissibility was possible — because of extreme hardship to Zundel’s elderly wife — the office concluded that there was good reason to deny the waiver: The negative factors in the Applicant’s case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. The record shows that the Applicant is a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record indicates further that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews. Furthermore, the Applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions.” 

“...these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews.” This is a terrible lie, backed by no documentation. We should not be surprised. We were forewarned 2,000 years ago about “children of hell” (Matthew 23:15) whose patriarch was “the father of lies” (John 8:44). If Jesus were alive today, he too would be serving time in Canadian and German dungeons and banned from the United States by Homeland Security.

If you are a German of Ernst’s generation then you have heard of, or read, Karl May, the novelist who celebrated the American Indian. In Canada Ernst hosted a parade of German combat veterans of World War II, from privates to officers. Having read the novels of Karl May, often among the first requests these men would make was, “Will you to take me to meet the Indians?” There are photos of these old soldiers shaking hands and riding horses with the indigenous people of Canada, with Zundel accompanying them. 

The Indians of North America are reputed to ask a question before they make any momentous decision: how will this affect the next seven generations? The question the Indians would pose if they were Germans — how will the admission of millions of hostile alien immigrants affect our children for the next seven generations?— is left unasked by 21st Germans, a majority of whom continue to support Angela Merkel, their posterity’s executioner, because she is good at managing the nation’s money.

Zündel was as much a holocaust survivor as anyone. In February, 1945 when he was not quite six-years-of-age, he heard the roar of the 367 bombers of Britain’s Royal Air Force, as its thundering fire bombs incinerated the German civilians of the nearby city of Pforzheim. He, his mother and siblings shook with fear, sheltering under a table during this holocaust, which we are not allowed to call by that name.

Every day it seems there is something else we are not allowed to say or think, and this is what we should expect ever more of, in a world of illusion that calls Ernst Zündel, “a hater.” He has been made a scapegoat by people who are themselves guilty of undying hatred. 

We have known few men who have loved our people and our civilization more than he did. It is not an exaggeration to say that he gave his life for love of them.

Copyright©2017 Independent History and Research

Michael Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic [published in French in 2016 as Le Grand Procés de L’Holocauste: L’Extraordinaire Aventure d’Ernst Zündel].

___________________

'Tis the Season — to Remember

By Michael Hoffman

www.RevisionistHistory.org

This is the season of joy and this writer is more hopeful about the future than many of my colleagues in the revisionist world. Yet, when I  meditate on our shortcomings dark clouds can gather. One of these is our amnesia about our own recent history and our apathy about memorializing it. Vicki Weaver and her young son were killed by Federal agents in 1992 at Ruby Ridge, here in Idaho. There is no statue to the victims or any memorial of any kind. Had she been a Leftist or a Zionist her supporters would have cared enough to be sure her murder and that of her child were not forgotten. What about us?

The most intrepid, effective and selfless civil libertarian lawyer of the past thirty years was the Canadian Doug Christie (1946-2013), who wore himself out flying from one end of his huge native land to the other, defending in court Ernst Zündel, Imre Finta and dozens of other dissidents, many of them indigent. He deserves a biography, a memorial and a North American scholarship in his name to encourage law students to emulate his example.

Years ago I thought of creating and publishing an annual calendar that would document all of the heretofore unsung outrages and injustices—  as well as the victories and the struggles and important dates in revisionist history — which folks like the Weavers, attorneys like Christie, and writers and activists in our ranks such as Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and David Irving, have undergone. My all-consuming vocation writing books has precluded my participation in this educational and inspirational project. Surely there is someone else who can do it —  and do it well?

One of the anniversaries that should be memorialized, December 6, 2006, has arrived. Historian David Irving was arrested by Austrian police in the autumn of 2005 . His thought crime was a speech he gave years before in Austria, based on his history books. He remained in prison until his show trial in Vienna on Feb. 20, 2006, where he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. After having been in solitary confinement for more than a year, he was released on probation; that was ten years ago today, Dec. 6, 2006.

Sewer covers were off and the pound-of-flesh gang was in full dudgeon: "I am sorry that he did not serve out his full term, and I hope he will remain in Austria and not return to the United Kingdom, where he will not be welcome.” — Lord Janner, World Jewish Congress and Commonwealth Jewish Council, Dec. 20, 2006

"It is unfortunate that...the Austrian court saw fit to reduce Irving’s sentence to probation...” — Iris Rosenberg, Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. Many other rabbis and Zionists around the world expressed similar merciless, inquisitorial sentiments toward the historian.

A timeline is here. ’Tis the season to remember!

David Irving's remarks:

"We are approaching Christmas and a date almost more important: December 6 is the tenth anniversary of the date when five wise Viennese judges sitting in the Austrian Court of Appeal ordered my immediate release from prison: I had been ambushed in Vienna and held for over a year in solitary confinement for “Wiederbetätigung,” a mysterious political offense created by Stalinist courts in 1945; I was accused of trying, with my famous biographies, to “reactivate” the German Nazi party.  The decision rescued me, and I was able to get back to England and my little girl, and resume writing Real History. 

"The following day saw the unleashing of a Press campaign against the judges who ordered my release. Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, who a year earlier had told the press it was wrong to lock me up, announced to the US newspapers straight-faced that it was now totally wrong to release me. As you know, some people are hard to satisfy! My daughters are now all grown up, and Lipstadt has written a movie, which is as truthful as only Hollywood movies can be, funded by millions of Hollywood dollars, attacking me. It has been going around since September. Its very first scene is a lie."

_______________________

If you wish to see these columns continue, purchase a book, newsletter, CD or DVD — or send a donation. Your support is vital to our Truth Mission. Thank you.

_______________________

"Cartoon blasphemy” links

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

"Cartoon blasphemy” links

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

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

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

•Politically correct liberals beginning to turn against Charlie Hebdo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•Cartoon blasphemy of Holocaustianity is damned by the West:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass on this list of links to your own contacts! 

________________________________________ 

Massacre in Paris and Great Holocaust Trial Anniversary

30th Anniversary of The Great Holocaust Trial

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Massacre in Paris

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

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

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

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

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

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

For further research:

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

_____________________________

French police search historian’s house

Police search Professor Faurisson’s house  

On the evening of Wednesday, November 19, 2014, two police officers from the nearby city of Clermont-Ferrand, one of whom a commander, went to the home of Professor Faurisson in Vichy in order to conduct a search: they were looking to seize a computer and certain documents. They found neither the computer nor the documents.

The Strasbourg office of the LICRA (“international league against racism and anti-semitism”) had requested the local public prosecutor to take action against the appearance, on an “Unofficial Blog” of professor Faurisson, of two articles about the wartime camp of Natzweiler-Struthof in Alsace: 

“It is time to have done with the Struthof ‘gas chamber’ and its 86 ‘victims’”

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/2013/05/il-est-temps-den-finir-avec-la-chambre.html

“Note on the alleged Struthof gas chamber”

http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.fr/2013/08/note-sur-la-pretendue-chambre-gaz.html

Declaring its lack of jurisdiction, the Strasbourg prosecutor’s office had referred the case to that in the small town of Cusset on the outskirts of Vichy, where an investigating magistrate had, in turn, ordered the aforementioned Clermont-Ferrand police commander to investigate.

French law authorises searches only between 6am and 9pm (however, if a search has begun at 8.45pm it may continue beyond 9pm). But the professor – whose case is decidedly a particular one – can also see the BAC (anti-violent crime section) suddenly appear at his house in the middle of the night. This has happened twice, while thus far there have been a total of five searches.

This November 19 the commander, upon taking leave, said that his present “visit” would be followed by other “visits”.

The professor’s wife, aged 82 and with a heart condition, finds it quite hard to bear this state of things. She worries about the health of her husband, nearly 86, recently a heart attack victim himself and also victim, over the years, of ten physical assaults (none of which has ever given rise to a serious search for the attackers). In particular, she was disturbed at seeing one of her grandsons, a 22 year-old student staying at the house that day, having to undergo questioning, show his own computer and sign a statement. That said, the two officers assigned to this job were of irreproachable conduct from beginning to end.

_______

Heidegger's ghost continues to haunt the Zionists

Contents

1. 69th Anniversary of the Allied holocaust in Dresden

2. Martin Heidegger's Ghost Continues to Haunt the Zionists

THIS DAY IN HISTORY: Today, Feb. 14, is the 69th anniversary of the Allied fire bombing holocaust against the art city of Dresden, Germany, where upwards of 100,000 civilians were incinerated, and the priceless art treasures of the historic city were forever obliterated. The Hollywood movie “Monuments Men” is brimming with self-righteous portrayals of American soldiers as the saviors of art works stolen by the “evil Germans.” Hollywood puts a higher price on aesthetic artifacts than on human life, in that the incinerated civilians of all the major cities of Germany do not register on the conscience of the producers of this pompous “Monuments Men.” Even if we limit concern to aesthetics alone, the savage carpet-bombing of these mostly medieval German cities wiped out a fairy tale architecture of awesome beauty. The saturation incendiary bombing by the RAF and the US Army Air Force was one of the most barbarian assaults in the history of the West. Because the victims were the “wicked” German people however, this holocaust is barely a blip on the moral outrage screen of our patrician “Good War” enthusiasts. In terms of art, what the Allies destroyed in Dresden alone, surpasses by a factor of a thousand what the Nazis appropriated. —Michael Hoffman

Martin Heidegger’s Ghost Continues to Haunt the Zionists

By Michael Hoffman

Copyright©2014 
www.revisionisthistory.org

Martin Heidegger is a far more complex philosopher than the following hysterical screed from the Jewish Daily Forward (see below) lets on. Most subversive of the profile in the Judaic publication is the fact that Heidegger was the disciple of the pro-Christian Judaic thinker Edmund Husserl; and Heidegger’s long-time lover was the Judaic author Hannah Arendt, whose book on Adolf Eichmann created a bitter controversy when she argued that the Nazi officer did not represent any special category of evil, a point that would be impossible for any major intellectual to make today, assuming they cared about their career and reputation.

We disagree with Heidegger on certain points, including his derogatory attitude toward the Old Testament and his mistaken notion that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic peoples were of Semitic ethnicity, a staple fiction of the Nazi weltanschaung (it is more likely that it was the ten tribes of Israel that went north to found Europe itself: — cf. Steven M. Collins, Israel’s Tribes Today). 

Heidegger’s appeal to an irrational typology as an antidote to the sordid materialism of the modern world, is born of völkisch ethics divorced from the laws of the Bible, which Howard B. Rand, in his indispensable Digest of Divine Law, enumerates; and which formed the very root of the early American Republic and the enormously attractive freedom and order it engendered. Völkisch values can indeed be an asset, when they comprise a natural law adjunct of the revealed Christian religion. The novels of Fyodor Dostoyevsky are a prime example of the proper application of the volkstum spirit (in the Anglo-Saxon sphere this translates as the spirit and values of the yeomanry. Absent Martin Luther’s antinomianism, the Anglo-Saxon yeomanry more often than not were steeped in a Biblical ethic, as evidenced by the people of the thirteen colonies of British America).

German antinomianism of the type promoted in Germany by the NSDAP is a legacy of Luther’s over-reaction against the attempt on the part of anti-usury crusaders (who were initially inspired by Luther’s own polemic against usury!), to reinvigorate Mosaic proscriptions against the Money Power (cf. this writer’s “Martin Luther and Zinskauf: The German Reformation in the Context of the Struggle Over Usury,” Revisionist History no. 65).

For all that, we cannot help but admire the fact that Heidegger, who was the most eminent existential philosopher of the 20th century, never completely repented or recanted his advocacy of German independence from the degenerate modern zeitgeist. His defiance continues to bug the traditional enemies of Truth to no end. They ceaselessly argue that all who dissent from the tenets of Holocaustianity and Israeli claims to an exclusive right to racial-nationalist chauvinism in the wake of Auschwitz, are “crackpot pseudo-intellectuals.” Yet even the most rabid detractor of Martin Heidegger could not credibly stake a claim to such a charge concerning the author of the magisterial Being and Time (1927); ergo, they must batter his prestige and blacken his name in other, underhanded ways, as they have attempted to do with Chaucer, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Dickens, Ezra Pound, Paul de Man, and all luminaries of our civilization who are denounced as “antisemitic” moral lepers by the self-appointed superiors not only of mankind, but above God himself (cf. BT Bava Metzia 59B).

We also note that in the midst of the latest howls against Heidegger, up pops the pioneering homicidal gas chamber skeptic Robert Faurisson, long consigned to the rubbish heap of history by the usual suspects, but who will not go gently into their dark night. From the disciples of Heidegger to a French-African satirist of international prominence (Dieudonne), Dr. Faurisson continues to electrify those who dare to question the consensus, and reject the legends to which the Establishment has conferred its supposed infallible imprimatur. 

Martin Heidegger's Black Notebooks Reignite Charges of Anti-Semitism

Philosopher Was Compromised By Involvement With Nazis

By Robert Zaretsky

The Jewish Daily Forward | February 14, 2014

On this side of the Atlantic, the imminent publication in Germany of Martin Heidegger’s “Black Notebooks” (“Schwarzen Hefte”) has caused few if any ripples. For better or worse, the philosopher who theorized about “absence from the world” has been largely absent from our world.

Yet in Europe, a surf-like pounding in newspapers and magazines has accompanied the debate over the book’s significance. Several phrases leaked from the book have reintroduced some of the great questions about Heidegger: Namely, was he anti-Semitic and, if so, was his existential philosophy fatally compromised?

Oddly, the waves of controversy have crashed with greater fury in France than Heidegger’s native Germany, not to mention the Anglo-American world. Of course, this in part reflects the waning, but still important role intellectuals play in French cultural and political life. This interest in turn inevitably spills into the national press, whose front pages have carried numerous interviews and columns on the controversy, leading one literary critic, Eric Aeschimann, to announce the arrival of the “new Heidegger Affair.”

As Aeschimann’s phrase implies, there have been older Heidegger affairs — in fact, there has been a series, which tend to erupt every decade or so. The first dates from the immediate postwar period when France, scarcely liberated from one German occupation, threw open its doors to a new and different occupation. This was not a military occupation but an intellectual one whose phenomenal nature, in every sense of the term, still stuns unsuspecting students of the era.

Rather than launching Stukas and Panzers, the new invasion employed the obscurely portentous language of German phenomenology to pound the French, or at least a good number of intellectuals, into submission. Of course, the strategist behind this campaign was none other than Heidegger. In 1946, a denazification committee at the University of Freiburg, reviewing Heidegger’s decision to join the Nazi Party, and his activities as the university’s rector between 1933-1934, decided to ban him from teaching. Perhaps the most damning witness was the philosopher Karl Jaspers, who had reluctantly concluded that his former friend’s manner of thinking was “unfree, dictatorial and incapable of communication.” (One wonders if, as he wrote this letter, Jaspers recalled the conversation he had with Heidegger soon after Hitler came to power. When Jaspers demanded to know how someone as “uneducated” as Hitler could rule Germany, Heidegger replied: “It’s not a question of education; just look at his marvelous hands”).

Yet, it was the hand offered by the French philosopher Jean Beaufret that pulled Heidegger from the professional exile imposed by the Freiburg committee. Shortly after Jean-Paul Sartre, whose own thought was inspired by Heidegger’s work, gave his celebrated public talk “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Beaufret contacted Heidegger for his reaction. While Heidegger replied that Sartre had completely misunderstood his writings, this was less important than the public’s misunderstanding of Beaufret’s motivations. 

As the Heidegger scholar Richard Wolin notes, Beaufret, who had fought with the Resistance, soon gravitated towards the dark planet of Holocaust denial. In a letter he wrote to the notorious negationist Robert Faurisson, Beaufret reassured him that he, like Faurisson, had “traveled the same path” and had been “considered suspect for having expressed the same doubts” about the gas chambers. In the same letter, Beaufret congratulated himself for having shared his views with Faurisson, and never committing them to paper. The same cannot be said for his work on behalf of Heidegger: Beaufret morphed into a veritable public relations firm for the Nazi thinker, serving as his privileged interlocutor and interpreter in France. 

While Sartre soon distanced himself from Heidegger’s writings, other and younger postwar intellectuals like Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault were drawn to them; they became the darling of self-described revolutionaries on the left rather than reactionaries on the right. For good reason, Heidegger chuckled that when the French talk philosophy, they think in German.

Only toward the end of the century did French intellectuals begin to grasp how odd a bedfellow Heidegger truly was. They had applauded his critique of modernity and man’s alienation from a world dominated by science and technology, but only later became appalled by his embrace of irrationality and scorn for the humanist tradition. In 1987, a former student of Heidegger’s, Victor Farias, published a book whose title — “Heidegger et le nazisme” — reflected the damning contents within. Based on thorough archival research, Farias revealed that Heidegger’s decision to join the Nazi Party was not, as his defenders claimed, opportunistic, but instead principled. 

More intriguingly, Farias claimed that Heidegger quit his position as rector at Freiburg just a year after he was named not because, as Heidegger later claimed, he was shocked to learn the true nature of the Nazi agenda. Instead, Farias argues, Heidegger stepped down when he realized that the original purity of the Nazi agenda had been diluted for political reasons.

The book sparked a firestorm in France. Francois Fédier, who had picked up the torch from the recently deceased Beaufret, flew to Heidegger’s defense, while others like Jacques Derrida flew in a different direction, conceding Heidegger’s philosophical affinities to Nazism but insisting that only those steeped in his writings can take the true measure of this thought. (Not only did this, in Derrida’s eyes, disqualify Farias, but also reviewers like me.) Yet others like André Glucksmann, while they found Farias’s analysis wanting, agreed that the value of Heidegger’s thought, and not just his politics, was deeply suspect.

The controversy, which revealed that a growing number of French philosophers were no longer thinking in German, was repeated nearly a decade later with the publication of Emmanuel Faye’s “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.” Faye offered a more refined and rich reading of Heidegger’s thought than did Farias, but one even more damning. He traced the connections between the völkisch themes in both Heidegger and Nazi ideology and the shared conviction that only a return to a presumably earlier and more authentic existence can save us from the spiritual wasteland wrought by modernity. 

Nothing short of a revolution, both for the individual and for society, could make an adequate clearing in the world to allow for being to, well, once again become. Heidegger, concluded Faye, understood that this revolution was garbed in the brown uniforms of Nazi Storm Troopers.

Blasted by Fédier and his followers in 2005, Faye — in a recent essay for Le Monde — reminds his readers of what Farias and other researchers long ago documented: Heidegger was anti-Semitic. In a letter to a colleague in 1935, he deplored the presence of “Jewish and half-Jewish students” in his classes, and in his seminars declared that “Semitic nomads” were impervious to the German spirit, which moreover was threatened by what he called the process of “Jewification.”

Warning that we cannot judge the “Black Notebooks” until they are published, Faye nevertheless notes that the published excerpts blacken the already dark portrait of Heidegger. In these fragments, Heidegger refers to a “world Jewry” with a “pronounced talent for calculation.” Such a people, for Heidegger, are ontologically challenged: Unlike the German nation, Jews will always be “uprooted from Being-in-the World.” In a word, the Jew is persona non grata not just in Hitler’s world, but in Heidegger’s world as well.***

“Will there be anything new in the “Black Notebooks?” scholars have been asking. While we wait to answer this question, we might also ask if there will be a truly new perspective adopted by Heidegger’s stalwart defenders in France.

Robert Zaretsky is a professor of history at The Honors College at the University of Houston and is the author of “A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning” (Harvard University Press).

Read more at: http://forward.com/articles/192664/martin-heideggers-black-notebooks-reignite-charges/

***Prof. Zaretsky seems to forget that the Palestinian is "persona non grata" in the Orthodox rabbinic world. 

_________________

For further Research:

http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/hoffmans-revisionist-history-store.html

This blog is reader-funded. Keep us writing, researching and publishing — send a donation today!

_________________