On the Condemnation of "Holocaust Denial"
What an Absurd Discourse! Its All About Monopolizing the Discussion by Shutting People Up. Questioning What Happened in the Past Should Not Be Treated as a Crime.
“We understand perfectly well that the Hitlerian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews and others. We understand many peoples, European Jews among them, experienced unfathomable tragedies in Europe during World War II. Nevertheless, to be clear, we no longer believe the German State pursued a plan to kill all Jews or used homicidal ‘gassing chambers’ for mass murder during the years of World War II.”
Committee For Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
Zionist broadcaster Piers Morgan has been identified by many as a prime purveyor of the dehumanizing language characterizing journalistic champions and apologists of the ongoing Israeli genocide that continues to expand in West Asia.
In the clip below, Morgan subjects the martyred British politician, Jeremy Corbyn, to his trade mark interrogation. Like many of Morgan’s guests, Corbyn was subjected to an indignant ultimatum demanding a yes or no answer to the question, “Is Hamas a terrorist group?”
This query has been fashioned into an initiation ritual where Morgan kicks off his interrogations of those that do not adhere to Zionist explanations of the genocide. The accelerating Israeli genocide has been made to seem normalized since it began over a year ago.
Morgan’s sparring with Jeremy Corbyn, the hugely popular former leader of the UK’s Labour Party, epitomized the crude media obfuscations meant to confuse and twist public perception of the twenty-first century’s most open-and-shut display of multi-faceted mass murder.
Jeremy Corbyn would have become the Prime Minister of Britain if it had not been for the police state sabotage of the remnants of our rotting democracies in the West. A very active branch of this police state was securely installed within the structures of the British Labour Party after Corbyn was elected Leader in 2015.
The result of this treasonous assault from above was exposed with the replacement of Corbyn by the Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer. In a bizarre election outcome in July of 2024, Starmer’s Labour Party expanded its number of seats in spite of a substantial reduction in the number of votes.
Now that Prime Minister Starmer has been equipped with the leverage of a large majority government, he can more fully devote himself to his assigned task. That task is to replicate the Labour Party brand created by Tony Blair under the auspices of the Australian-British media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch had talent scouted Blair as potential winner who could engineer the demise of the Labour Party’s radical trade unionist heritage. As British PM from 1997-2007, Blair surpassed Murdoch’s expectations by remaking Labour to adapt to the neoliberal political economy developed in the course of the Thatcher-Reagan era. Moreover, Blair effectively took on the role of a War on Terror leader who was often pictured at the side of US President George Bush.
Bush and Blair performed well in front of the cameras in the media circus of the 9/11 Wars stage managed by uber-Zionist, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch oversaw some key aspects of the Anglo-American partnership. Murdoch’s tasks included preparing the amplification of Islamophobic public opinion to clear the way for invasions of Muslim-majority countries to serve the political objectives of the Israeli government.
Murdoch expressed his pro-Israel agenda by highlighting in his media companies much fabricated imagery supporting the anti-Islam narratives integral to the 9/11 false flag. The 9/11 wars, including the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, emerged from the fiction that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the hit on the three WTC Towers and on the Pentagon.
Not only did Rupert Murdoch recruit and publicize Tony Blair to advance the Zionist thrust of the 9/11 power grab. Murdoch also set in motion the Talk TV phase of Piers Morgan career as a fervent Zionist huckster.
From October 2023 until now, Morgan has taken on the project of characterizing Israel’s genocide of mostly Palestinian civilians as a necessary response to Islamic terrorism. In so doing, Morgan is revisiting and reinforcing themes that were placed front and centre with the events of September 11, 2001.
The complex of assaults, invasions, and psychological operations encompassed by the symbolically-potent meme, “9/11,” have proven critical in the ebb and flow of history. One of the main outcomes of the 9/11 misrepresentations was the subsequent subordination of Anglo-America to the Likudnik agendas epitomized by the course of Benjamin Netanyahu’s iconographic political career.
The media empire created by now-elderly Murdoch draws on the energy of his prolifically empowered sons. Piers Morgan, the UK’s most notorious media controversialist, continues his sometimes bumpy career as a prominent Zionist mouthpiece in the Murdoch stable of media personalities.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/business/media/piers-morgan-rupert-murdoch-news-corp.html
Murdoch’s career has become emblematic of the rise of the Israel Lobby to pre-eminence in Britain. As a result, Murdoch and his alliances with the powerful figures and institutions, have become the subject of considerable research. For instance, the following video documents the findings of the erudite rapper and British broadcaster, Lowkey.
Lowkey explains to Danny Haiphong, an important figure in the English-language network of voices supportive of the Axis of Resistance, the many Jewish Zionist connections swirling in and around the career of Piers Morgan.
The Holocaust Religion
Professor David Miller and his two colleagues map out a similar picture of the real agenda of Piers Morgan on the Iranian broadcasting network, Press TV.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/11/25/715257/Stop-Zionist-Hate
Professor Miller was the key figure in a strategic professional episode in Britain arising from the fact that he had been wrongfully fired from the University of Bristol for his academic work that caused him to develop “anti-Zionist” interpretations and conclusions.
The ruling was based on the position of a Tribunal of Judges in the academic realm. They decided the University’s position in equating of Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism was ill-founded and wrong. This conclusion led the tribunal to rule that Prof. Miller had been wrongfully dismissed from his academic job.
This decision discredits a key aspect of the definitions of Anti-Semitism espoused by International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Unfortunately the expansive definitions of Anti-Semitism developed by the IHRA have been too widely and uncritically adopted by many Zionist-dominated schools, governments, unions and professional associations.
The broad influence of the definitions provided by International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance illustrates the preponderance of what has become the most heavily publicized chapter in the history of the Second World War. In the opinion of many, The Holocaust has given rise to something like a secular religion.
As Israel Shamir has observed,
“Christianity is not protected by law, and on the streets…. The Holocaust cult is strictly protected by law. Teachers are not allowed to take children to church, but attendance at the local Holocaust shrine is required by state curriculum.”
https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-magic-island/
In 2016 in Aletho News, Barbara McKenzie presents a very aggressive commentary entitled, “Holocaust Discourse and the Moral High Ground.” In her view those that mount and maintain the moral high ground are those that opt to engage in what she identifies as Holocaust Discourse.
Those who take part in bringing forward the critical substance integral to such discourse, once widely labelled as Holocaust revisionism, must face malicious attacks pointed at them from a variety of angles. Many such attacks are backed by law enforcement agencies engaged in what is often depicted in media, schools and government as a holy crusade against “Holocaust Denial.”
https://alethonews.com/2016/07/17/holocaust-discourse-and-the-moral-high-ground/
In her view the new Holocaust religion has become a bastion of intolerance pointed at shaming, silencing and destroying those labelled as Holocaust heretics. The stakes are very high. McKenzie reflects as follows on the importance for some Jews and many others of keeping to a very explicit and doctrinaire interpretation of The Holocaust in the forefront.
A multiplicity of episodes has been grouped together as a single event labelled as “The Holocaust.”
“Most Jews today are either atheists or shun the religion of Judaism. Therefore, the Jewish people had to adopt belief in the ‘Holocaust’ as their new religion. They have spread this religion all over the world. ‘Holocaust’ museums are the new houses of worship and are present in most major cities. The new religion has its commandments, its decrees, its prophets, its high priests, its circle of saints, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It knows neither mercy, nor forgiveness, nor clemency but only the duty of vengeance. The Holocaust religion is coherent enough to define the new ‘antichrists’ (the Deniers) and it is powerful enough to persecute them (Holocaust denial laws). “
Shepard describes the two major premises that must be embraced by all those people seeking to escape the ire and punishments of the seemingly omnipotent Holocaust police. These premises are
“It is an an indisputable fact that Adolf Hitler planned to exterminate the Jews of Europe, that he did so by gassing them with cyanide in specially constructed gas chambers, and that he was thus responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews.”
“People who question any of these premises, do so ONLY because they are neo-Nazis and white supremacists, who wish to conceal the crimes of the Nazis while at the same time sharing their ideology. They are ‘Holocaust deniers’, and all Holocaust deniers are of necessity antisemitic.”
Shepard continues.
“The immutability of these two premises leads to another, that anyone who questions any aspect of the Holocaust or who supports the right of others to question the Holocaust, is at best morally compromised, and probably downright evil, deserving responses ranging from suspicion, condemnation, vilification, isolation, hate mail, through to arrest and imprisonment, sometimes for many years. Those who accept unreservedly the two premises are automatically morally superior to anyone who smells a rat.”
Shepard’s interpretations takes us back full circle to Piers Morgan. In 2012 Morgan addressed The Holocaust with the same interrogation technique that indicated all right-thinking people must view Hamas as a terrorist organization. Shepard writes,
“In 2012 Piers Morgan interviewed the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and asked him about his attitude to the Holocaust. I say ‘asked’, but Morgan puts his own position very clearly.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad graduated from the Iran University of Science and Technology with a Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering. He became a College Professor and then Mayor of Tehran from 2003 to 2005. He was subsequently elected to the position of the President of Iran for the period from 2005 to 2013.
Ahmadinejad became the object of considerable derision when he presided over a conference in Tehran that brought together 67 presenters from 30 countries who were critical researchers on various aspects of The Holocaust. The two-day event in December of 2006 was entitled the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of The Holocaust.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki addressed those critical of the very idea of organizing such a conference. Mottaki explained there is
"no logical reason for opposing this conference. It is to create an atmosphere to raise various opinions about a historical issue. If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"
https://www.jpost.com/iranian-threat/news/israel-slams-iran-holocaust-conference
The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including its elected president, is a modern-day theocracy. Nevertheless, in this particular exchange between Piers Morgan and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former conducts himself more like a theocrat than a champion of the scientific method.
Like the rhetorical question asking whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, Morgan’s questions about The Holocaust were posed as assertions allowing only for a yes or no answer. Morgan returned again and again to variations of the question below.
“Do you believe the Holocaust happened because many Jews believe you do not…. It is indisputable that over 6 million Jews were annihilated by Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. The question is, do you dispute that 6 million Jews were killed?”
Ahmadinejad defended the imperatives of open-minded questioning and debate rooted in empirical evidence. He explained this approach was the key to achieving scientific means of unlocking the door to valid conclusions. Instead of submitting to Morgan’s yes-or-no ultimatums, the President of Iran answered the British broadcaster with a series of his own questions.
For instance Ahmadinejad asked, “Do you believe in freedom of thought and ideas… or no? He wondered, “Why has it been forbidden in Europe to conduct research on this topic? Why are researchers put in prison?”
Ahmadinejad was insistent that Morgan displayed a lack of discernment and respect for even-handed discussion. Instead of creating the conditions for poised and reciprocal dialogue, Morgan demanded answers for his questions in ways that conveyed a clear presumption that he was in possession of the sole correct answers.
The questions thrust forward bundles of so-called “indisputable” facts that supposedly cannot be denied and must all be simultaneously embraced without discrimination. In so doing, Morgan presented himself as an intolerant guardian of the Holocaust religion.
Morgan’s indignant defence of the righteousness of his cause amounted to a signal that he represented a society where freedom of thought, speech and conscience is under attack. Morgan’s conduct ironically left Ahmadinejad to defend the cause of reason and rationality integral to the heritage of the Enlightenment.
The term '“Holocaust Denial” was popularized by Holocaust Studies Professor Deborah Lipstadt.
The intent in imposing this category of supposed heresy, “Holocaust Denial,” is to shut down the normal professional operations of historical revision. Lipstadt’s body of work, including a volume devoted to evaluating the trial in Israel in 1961 of Adolph Eichmann, has been condemned by Paul Grubach as a low-level caricature of Zionist spin doctoring.
Grubach sees Lipstadt’s frequent resort to fraud and fabrication as a illustrative of self-justifying and flawed Zionist interpretations of Holocaust history.
Paul Grubach writes
“The influence of the Holocaust doctrine on post World War II thought and politics is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a fallacious ideology for which there is no credible evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age. Lipstadt’s book gives the reader a glimpse of how this all was accomplished.
https://codoh.com/library/document/jewish-conspiracy-theory-the-eichmann-testimony/
in Grubach’s view, Lipstadt’s quest to replace Holocaust revisionism with the thought-stopping absurdities permeating allegations of “Holocaust Denial,” is deeply reprehensible. Grubach’s essays have been published by the viciously-persecuted Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.
https://codoh.com/library/document/a-holocaust-revisionist-critique-of-the-thinking/
Revisionism treats the gathering of new historical evidence and ongoing alterations in historical interpretations as a normal aspect of a never-ending work-in-progress. The process of researching, imagining and explaining history is never done. It is never a completed job.
Any effort to freeze a particular historical interpretation as perfect and therefore timeless and inalterable, is bound to fail. New history is always being made and older history will always be subject to new questions that are asked of the past as the circumstances of life perpetually change.
As shall be addressed below, one such alteration took place following the events of October of 2023 when the Israeli Jews, the most well-publicized recipients of Holocaust incursions, entered the most horrific stage of their still-unfolding genocidal career.
While the IDF, backed by the US-based military-industrial complex, is at the forefront of the crimes against humanity, the general population of Jewish Israel have shown itself to be mostly supportive of the daily diet of mass murder. At the time of writing, this support extends to the genocidal atrocities being committed by the IDF in its invasion of Lebanon.
History can always be improved or brought to the service of addressing new areas of uncertainty, confusion and controversy. A variety of factors come into play like the discovery of new primary sources as a stimulus to revision. Similarly, it is entirely natural that when younger historians arrive in a field, they bring fresh energy to the formulation of interpretations flowing from their research.
This process is essential to the healthy revision of older interpretations and the introductions of new ways of conceiving of the past. This process of interpreting the past will inescapably affect the unfolding of the present and the charting of possible courses into the future. Our understanding of the past carries crucial implications that help to explain why it is that the Israel Lobby has gone to such great lengths to assert monopoly control over the interpretation of The Holocaust.
The enormous influence of the Israel Lobby was clearly a factor in excluding The Holocaust from the normal processes of revising history based on the principles of merit. The Holocaust has become the primary basis of a powerful proprietary claim over who can and should interpret the event. The proprietary claim merges with the treatment of The Holocaust as a religious narrative essential to the maintenance of Israel’s political personality and status.
Representatives of many countries, religions and ethnic groups would like very much to exercise some sort of monopoly control over how the world views their past, but especially certain strategic elements of their past. So far, however, this imperative has only been granted to only one constituency best represented by those acting on behalf of the Israel Lobby.
The handover to a privileged group of the legal authority to enforce a particular group’s interpretation of the past bears resemblance to the handover to private interests by sovereign countries of the right to create new money. Both processes cripple the principle of equality before the law.
Subject to harsh recriminations are those who attempt forms of historical revision that do not conform with the religious, political and commercial imperatives of what has sometimes been labelled by Norman Finkelstein and others as The Holocaust Industry.
Some of the most determined revisionists of The Holocaust like Robert Faurisson, have been subjected to violent attacks, loss of employment and prolonged incarceration for doing the work of historical interpretation. In the eyes of some like Barbara McKenzie, this level of commitment amounts to taking the moral high ground on many issues including free speech. For others like Deborah Lipstadt, this activity makes Holocaust Deniers of researchers who dissent from religious orthodoxy on The Holocaust.
There is no credible historical definition of Holocaust Denial. It is a subjective term that can be called upon by any self-selected guardians of the orthodox religion of Holocaustianity. The role of the stigmatized phrase, “Holocaust Denier,” has been to stifle vital discussion and debate as well as to to shut down the natural processes of historical revisionism when it comes to the most controversial facets of World War II history.
Lipstadt’s academic field of Holocaust Studies should encompass perspectives conducted by a wide array of experts in many field. What is the justification for transferring disagreements over historical interpretation to courts rather than dealing with interpretive contentions through literary interactions and open debate in public forums?
What kind of statement is made when a self-trained historian as accomplished and outspoken as David Irving is forced into prison in 2005 in Austria for developing and sometimes revising his scholarly interpretations dealing with the broad outlines and significant details of what transpired in the course of the Second World War?
The arrest of Irving was probably a factor in the decision by the Islamic Republic of Iran to host a conference on the repression in the West of open debate on The Holocaust.
The guardians of Holocaust Studies have conveyed to the public that The Holocaust is to be conceived as a single topic rather than a complex of events and circumstances that unfolded in different ways in many different places. There were many camps, most of them involving inmates of various backgrounds pressed to provide slave labour in the production of military armaments.
One of the core discussions in Holocaust Studies would eschew censorship and embrace the need to rationally assess competing contentions concerning the assertion that a heavily industrialized assembly line of mass murder of Jews was imposed on top of this wartime system of forced enslavement.
Complexity and nuance is being pushed aside so that “The Holocaust”can be reduced to a single option calling for a thumbs up or thumbs down vote. What an absurdity! What a dumbed down approach to such an important issue! What a demeaning way to denigrate such a significant set of issues and questions that deserve dignified consideration as part of humanity’s crucial civilizational discourse.
Holocaust orthodoxy is enforced by thought police especially in media, the universities, and governments. The upper echelons of these thought police operate through the Israel Lobby including agencies such as the Anti-Defamation League in the USA and B’nai Brith Canada in my own country. Prominent among the Zionist thought police is broadcaster Piers Morgan with his yes-or-no approach to those he invites to discuss subjects such as The Holocaust and the so-called “war” in Gaza.
Toxifying The Mental Atmosphere
When does a genocide become a holocaust or a Holocaust? When does a Holocaust become The Holocaust? By calling an event “The Holocaust,” is the implication that the assault on Jews by the German National Socialist government of Adolph Hitler is the pre-eminent genocide that has ever taken place? Isn’t it problematic to establish a hierarchy of genocides? If such calculations have been made, what are the criteria? Who are the judges?
Is the implication that a singular event labeled The Holocaust is meant to be understood as the worst crime in all of recorded history? Are the genocidal aggressions targeting, for instance, gypsies, communists and homosexuals along with Jewish people meant to be considered as part of The Holocaust?
If comparisons are to be made, what is the relationship between The Holocaust and the horrific ongoing episode of the many-faceted genocide underway in Gaza and the West Bank? What are the implications of the reality that the country said to be born from the ashes of The Holocaust has become the polity delivering a broad array of atrocities all directed at committing genocidal extermination of the Palestinians?
All indicators point to the reality that the vast majority of Jewish Israelis stand firmly behind the IDF’s many-faceted genocidal incursions in Gaza, in the West Bank, and now to some degree in Lebanon too. Could it be that this widespread popular embrace in Israel of a truly ruthless genocide still gathering momentum, forms an indicator that something has gone terribly wrong? Could it be that this something involves how The Holocaust is being interpreted in the formal and informal education of Israeli Jews?
Have the people of the world been allowed wide access to accurate histories of the genesis of the Israeli state such as the account authored by Stefan Moore. In Consortium News Moore entitles his essay “The Treachery of the Nazi-Zionist Alliance.” How many Jews and others have been misled by well-orchestrated Zionist propaganda misrepresenting Israel’s genesis in the years before 1948?
As shall be explained below, Tony Greenstein has a lot to say about this topic of Nazi-Zionist interactions in his recent book published in 2022. Entitled Zionism During The Holocaust: The Weaponization of Memory in the Service of the State and Nation, the publication appeared just prior to the October 7 (10/7) false flag.
Following the model of the 9/11 false flag, this manipulated 10/7 event created the engineered pretext for the Israeli genocide still underway in Gaza and the West Bank while it is just beginning in Lebanon.
The 9/11 prototype created the toxified mental atmosphere wherein Muslims, Arabs, Persians, and especially Palestinians were demonized and dehumanized as terrorists. On the basis of this form of demonization, it is made to seem acceptable to indiscriminately murder, torture, and incarcerate them with impunity.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/netanyahu-pretends-dumb-not/5864129
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-genocidal-state-of-israel-let-it-happen-or-make-it-happen/5841956
https://www.globalresearch.ca/mysteries-october-7-trigger-gaza-massacre/5843631
https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-holocaust-trauma-myth/45376
The influential role of Holocaust education delivered to Jews especially in Israel is emphasized in various segments of the documentary film, Defamation.
Could it be that Holocaust education has so solidified the perception among Jewish Israelis that they are history’s ultimate victims? Does this understanding lead to the sense that the suffering and mass murder of all other groups, including the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories controlled by Israel, are of secondary importance.
https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/mind-and-spirit/article-776686
The whole elaborate complex of Zionist-directed Holocaust education seems to be falling into disarray following the initiation of the genocidal assault directed mostly at destroying the lives as well as the life support systems of Palestinian civilians.
Signs of trouble began to show up in the Israel education system with the decision to drop Holocaust education from the curriculum of Israeli High Schools. In January of 2024 The Jerusalem Post reported,
According to the Ministry, the decision to remove Holocaust education from the curriculum came after many requests from both parents and professionals who had claimed that the study of the Holocaust following the October 7 massacre could lead to emotional and mental difficulty among students.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-784077
A similar sign of trouble brewing turned up also in an appeal to the officers in charge of Yad Vashem, Israel’s main Holocaust Museum. Yad Vashem can be pictured as the Vatican of the religion of Holocaustianity. It was reported that
“A group of researchers studying the Holocaust called on the leadership of Yad Vashem, Israel's official Holocaust memorial body, to condemn language in Israeli discourse that they say can be construed to be calling for genocide in Gaza against Palestinians.”
Many observers have commented on the zealous and very vocal embrace of the genocidal elimination of Palestinians especially among the Israeli leadership. As has been well explained by the South African officials who prepared the case against Israel for violating the UN’s Genocide Convention, many voices from throughout the entire Israeli society have been very explicit in their incitement of genocide.
Also covered in The Jerusalem Post were indications of trouble breaking out in some of the 180 schools in England and Scotland receiving Holocaust education from The Anne Frank Trust. The Trust’s CEO, Tim Robertson, explained some of the Holocaust programs were being “postponed because of local community tensions.”
Robertson tried to end on a note of optimism explaining a change in emphasis in the telling of the Anne Frank story. This oft’ told story is based on a famous diary whose authenticity has been challenged by Robert Faurisson among others.
“Robertson said that they have had to provide extra training for staff to deal with the new situation following October 7, including more focus on Anne’s sister Margot’s dream to make aliyah [migrate to Israel] and how her best friend Hannah Goslar rebuilt her life in Israel after surviving Bergen-Belsen.
He told The Jewish Chronicle “Holocaust Memorial Day is an invaluable catalyst for uniting people and places in commemorating the Holocaust and other genocides. The surge in anti-Jewish hatred since October 7 may pose a threat to this unity, but it also redoubles our motivation to honor the Six Million and build a world free from antisemitism.”
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-783831
Trading of Favours Between Zionists and National Socialists
The impoverishment of the hard-line policing approach to Holocaust Studies adopted by the likes of Prof. Deborah Lipstadt is becoming increasingly conspicuous. The narrowness of this parochial approach is being exposed in a number of ways, including by the appearance of critical studies, many by Jewish scholars. One such scholar is Tony Greenstein.
Greenstein’s Zionism During The Holocaust embodies a classical display of the merits of historical revisionism. Greenstein is a communist, a pro-Palestinian activist, and a critic of reactionary fascism in all its manifestation including many elements of the Zionist movement. Greenstein adds his voice to those that have investigated interactions between the Zionist component of international Jewry and the National Socialist German Workers Party of Adolph Hitler.
The major vehicle of this collaboration was an agreement between the National Socialists and the German Zionists to collaborate in a project to facilitate the migration of German Jews to Palestine. Part of the agreement allowed for the Jewish migrants to keep much of their capital to be used in purchasing German products for their settlement enterprises in the area of the British Mandate in Palestine.
Greenstein presents from his own perspective material covered by other researchers who have studied the Transfer Agreement— the Ha’ avara agreement— that came into force in 1933 and continued until 1941. Another Jewish Marxist, Lenny Brenner, covered the same topics as part of his pioneering study of Zionism in the Age of Dictators. (1983)
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/agedict/index.htm
Brenner also published a more comprehensive volume entitled 51 Documents on Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.
https://www.amazon.ca/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569804338
The issue of collaboration between the German government of Adolph Hitler and Zionists also comes up in the writings of Mark Weber, Ron Unz and Edward Black.
https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__zionism-and-the-third-reich/
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/
https://www.amazon.ca/Transfer-Agreement-Dramatic-Between-Palestine/dp/0914153137
The topic of Zionist-National Socialist relations spilled over into MSM commentary in 2016 as Ken Livingston, a persecuted Labour Party colleague of Jeremy Corbyn as well as the Mayor of London from 2000-2008, made reference to the Zionist role in the negotiation and implementation of the Transfer Agreement. Not surprisingly Livingston met an unfriendly response from Zionist gatekeepers when he referred to Hitler’s engaged relationship with Zionism.
In his study of the Zionist/National Socialist collaboration in Germany, Greenstein emphasized the commonalities in the Blood and Soil philosophy of both groups. Greenstein also highlighted his view of the rapport between fellow fascists.
Of course the fascistic character on the Zionist side was not entirely uniform. Generally speaking, however, Zionism was and is a far right movement in the political spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum were Communists and Bolsheviks where many atheistic Jews thrived. I am not the first to observe the propensity for merger in the zone where far left and far right join together a paradigm that more resembles a circle than a straight line.
Moreover, the socialist aspect of Hitler’s German workers party provided an ideological context for some Zionists who sought to integrate socialism with fascism. While Zionists were collaborating with the German fascists, many Jews from Europe and North America were fighting the fascists in Spain
The Zionists and the National Socialists found they could be useful to one another as they traded favours. In a recent essay in Consortium News, Stefan Moore observed
“The Nazis gave the Zionists preferential treatment in almost every sphere. They were the only non-Nazi group allowed to wear their own uniforms, fly their own flag and espouse a separate political philosophy up to 1939. While the German Ministry of Propaganda banned all newspapers published by the Communists, Social Democrats, trade unions and other progressive organizations, the Zionist paper, the Judische Rundschau, was allowed to publish its propaganda unhindered from 1933 to 1939.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/06/24/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/
Some of this trading of favours held dire consequences for Jews in Europe who were not fascistic Zionists.
In Greenstein’s view, both the Zionists and the National Socialists embraced enthusiastically the concept of race. They sought to establish communities in areas where everyone shared a similar gene pool. One aspect of this orientation was an abhorrence to intermarriage, a principle embraced officially by the Zionist Federation in Germany.
In a memo to the National Socialist government recorded in Lucy Dawidowicz’s A Holocaust Reader, the Germany’s Zionist Federation made the following statement:
“Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities…because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group.”
Cited in
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/06/24/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/
This eugenic approach to race and reproduction, sometimes referred to as “racial hygiene” in that era, resulted in the Zionists’ easy acceptance of the Nuremberg Race Laws adopted by the Hitler government in 1935.
This Zionist embrace of National Socialist approaches to so-called racial hygiene underpinned the comment of Chaim Weizmann, who along with David Ben Gurion, was one of the prime architects of the Jewish state.
In 1937 Weizmann explained how he pictured Israel as the site reserved for ideal embodiments of Jewish superiority. He made it clear he viewed the other Jews in Europe as unworthy and expendable.
Weizmann would become the first President of Israel. He explained
Quote in Ben Hecht, Child of the Century, p. 498, cited in
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/06/24/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/
One way of seeing the mass murder currently underway in Gaza and the West Bank is as an outgrowth of eugenic racialist conceptions of Jewish supremacism adopted by Israel’s Zionist founders.
With reference to the similar views of Gideon Levy, Greenstein emphasizes that what is happening in Gaza is not seen in Jewish Israel as an aberration cutting against the lessons of Auschwitz. Rather the genocide and forced expulsions presently on full public display especially in Gaza expose the underlying nature of Holocaust education.
As part of this education, many thousands of Israeli students annually are taken to Poland to visit Auschwitz where they are encouraged to think of themselves in ways that divorce them from any sense of the consequences of how the Israeli state conducts itself in its home region. They are encouraged instead to see themselves as the perpetual targets of irrational Anti-Semitic hatred harboured irrationally by Goys who are thought to dislike Jews simply because they are Jews.
https://www.jta.org/2019/04/22/culture/is-goy-a-slur
As illustrated near the beginning of the following video clip in the statement by Israeli politician Naftali Bennet, the lessons derived from Auschwitz contribute to the perception by some in Jewish Israel, that Palestinians can best be pictured as modern-day Nazis.
Tony Greenstein, the featured speaker in the video, emphasizes that Bennet’s comment depicting contemporary Palestinians to Nazi’s is not unusual. It has deep roots in the day-to-day education of Israeli Jews. Greenstein goes into explain,
The Holocaust is [widely taken as] a warning of the dangers of fascism and racism. We draw the universal conclusion that it must never happen again. Never Again! But for the Zionists, Never Again doesn’t mean Never Again for everyone but Never Again for the Jews. Therefore anything is justified in order to justify the Israeli state…. The Holocaust is rarely seen as the product of fascism. It is thought to be simply the result of an irrational hatred of Jews as Jews.
Alliances Between Segregationists
Comparisons can be helpful in illuminating larger patterns including the synergistic impetus of Blood and Soil that runs through many nationalist movements. One such example involved the pan-African politics of Marcus Garvey.
In the early decades of the twentieth century, Garvey’s United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) had 4 million members. The transnational movement can be viewed as an important part of the worldwide liberation struggle of Black people. Under the guidance of Garvey, the movement fixed on the prospect of a mass return of the Black people to Africa, and to Liberia specifically.
Just as the segregationist approach created some common ground between the movements seeking to establish a Jewish state in Palestine and the quest for Germanic ethnic purity in Europe’s heartland, so Garvey’s movement adopted its own racialist concepts in the process of opposing racial oppression.
Garvey tended to create political alliances with, for instance, the organizers of the KKK, the founder, John Powell, of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs, as well as Ernest Cox, author of White America.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/02/qhdd-m02.html
This shared adhesion to segregationalist politics is a reoccurring phenomenon. This pattern of interaction helps explain, for instance, the close alliance that developed in the 1980s between apartheid South Africa and the apartheid regime of Israel. This alliance developed into a partnership expressed in shared research and development of various kinds of weaponry including in the realm of nuclear technology.
This shared history became very relevant when post-apartheid South Africa charged the Israeli government with violating the UN’s Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice.
The well-documented co-operation between the German Zionists with the German National Socialist government in facilitating the growth of Jewish settlements in Palestine in the 1930s, helped point the course of history in the Holy Land almost a century later towards the current genocidal debacle. This genocide in the land of Jewish-controlled Israel has important roots in Nazi history but not in the ways that have been described in the deification of Holocaust orthodoxy.
Tony Greenstein leaves no doubt that the Zionist movement immediately recognized in the coming to power of National Socialist governance in Germany the potential to realize their goal of transforming Palestine into the site of a sovereign Jewish nationality. With Hitler in power it seemed that the ingredients of character and circumstance were in place to be manipulated and drawn upon to realize the founding of Israel.
With David Ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann in the lead, the Zionists acted on this understanding decisively. One marker of this determination to achieve their goal was that by 1942, the Zionist leadership was already putting in place the elements of what would become the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum, otherwise know as the World Holocaust Remembrance Center. Some powerful Zionists, it seems, developed a habit of discussing The Holocaust before it happened.
https://www.yadvashem.org/articles/academic/in-blessed-memory-of-a-dream.html
Greenstein often refers to Yad Vashem as the main site where the Zionist-sanctioned narrative of Israel as the outgrowth of Holocaust history was formulated, codified and put on public display.
Again and again Greenstein underlines that the Zionists had no interest in helping Jews escape the horrors facing them throughout Europe. There sole priority was to channel one way or another the migration of fit, intelligent and prosperous Jews into Palestine.
In this observation Greenstein echoes the formative work of Walter Laqueur. In 1972 in his pioneering survey history of Zionism, Laqueur asserted that apart from their preoccupation with securing the conditions for a Jewish state, the Zionists failed to provide “any serious attempt to help the Jews in their hour of mortal danger.”
Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: Schocken, 1976), p. 559
As Stefan Moore explained in June of 2024 in Consortium News, “What was left out of the Zionist project was the fate of the vast majority of European Jews who were being marginalized, attacked and murdered.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/06/24/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/
The Anti-Nazi Boycott by Judea and the Transfer Agreement Between Ben-Gurion and Hitler
One of the main outlines in the core contentions of the Second World War came into focus almost immediately as the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, took control of the German government as confirmed in the federal election on March 5 of 1933.
By March 24 a powerful coalition of Jewish organizations and influential individuals initiated large gatherings, protests, written declaration aimed primarily at boycotting the importation of German product. Very quickly the prohibition, especially in the international consumption of German exports, proved quite effective.
Then the Zionist Association of Germany rode to the rescue to help the National Socialist government fend off the boycott. The Ha’avara Agreement opened the way to the migration of prosperous German Jews. This Transfer Agreement included innovative provision that helped Hitler revive the German economy. This government his government built up quite quickly from the depths to which it fell during the era of the Weimar Republic.
Was the original boycott, alleging extensive Nazi crimes against German Jews before the National Socialist regime had had enough time to get into gear, a psychological operation? Was this psy op aimed at creating the conditions that caused Hitler and his ministers to provide a seat at the table for the Zionist Federation of Germany.
The Zionists in Germany worked with fellow Zionists in other countries to help remove the sting from the Jewish movement to boycott Germany. In this fashion the Zionist leadership ingratiated their group in the opinion of Hitler and his ministers.
The German government’s main official delegated to deal with the Zionists was Adolf Eichmann, SS Lieutenant Colonel and the head of the Jewish Office of Gestapo. Eichmann devoted himself to learning Hebrew and Yiddish. He travelled to Palestine in 1937 to develop his own perspectives on what his Zionist associates were promoting.
The Jewish call for a boycott of the the German economy as the National Socialists came to power forms an ironic aspect of the history of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement aimed at putting pressure on Israel to stop its crimes against the Palestinians.
The famous headline proclaiming the boycott announced,
JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY
The term “Judea” was redefined further down the front page of the London-based Daily Express in a subheading proclaiming,
“The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany”
As suggested above, the biblical term “Israel” can be conceptualized and used in a variety of ways and to describe various groups. As I see it, the wording anticipates the vanquishment of Germany on the way to creating an Israel meant to unify and represent all the Jews of the World.
Flash forward to the Second World War that took place from 1939-1945. The core dynamic of this worldwide conflict might be pictured as an outgrowth of “Judea’s” declaration of war on the German Nazis. With it allies, much of Judea emerged in 1945 with the victorious parties in WWII. The way was clear to push forward the Zionist plan to create the state of Israel on the Holy Land of Palestine then subject to the British mandate.
Of course “Judea” had no formal army like that of Germany, Italy and Japan on the Axis side. On the other side of WWII were many armies, all representing the allied “united nations” under the top leadership of Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Was “Judea” really on one side of the conflict? Or had Zionist Jews brought about the conditions to create Israel by playing important roles on both sides of WWII.
Samuel Untermeyer was a main promoter and organizer of “Judea’s” call for a boycott of Hitlerian Germany initiated in March of 1933. He was the child of Jewish German immigrants who had amassed a fortune as a New York-based lawyer who, according to Maidhc Ó Cathail in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, was a very important, participant in the Zionist cause.
Untermyer’s Zionist projects included funding and helping to direct the development of the Scofield Bible first published in 1909. Cyrus Scofield authored elaborate notes situated between the columns of the biblical text. The notes encouraging Christians to embrace the Chosen people and not criticize Israel. The roots of the Christian Zionist movement went back to the writings of John Nelson Darby earlier in the 1800s.
The Scofield Bible proved instrumental in giving rise to the populist cult of Christian Zionism that currently claims tens of millions of adherents in the United States. Christian Zionism forms the basis of the most lucrative and politicized branch of US Christianity. Several tens of millions of Christian Zionists currently back the violent military aggressions of the Israeli government as if the mass murder of Palestinians and now Lebanese people as well, is nothing but innocent “self-defence.”
Untermyer’s role in sponsoring the production of the Scofield Bible is one of many episodes that often involved him in many intrigues like the founding of the US Federal Reserve as well as the establishment and implementation of Income Tax Act in 1913.
Untermyer was involved in President Woodrow Wilson’s decision to join the First World War. Politically Untermyer, the creator of a world- famous garden at his estate in Yonkers New York, was most often in the progressive camp playing a significant role in the genesis of the American Federation of Labor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Untermyer
Untermyer was the key conceiver, organizer and funder of the Jewish campaign to boycott the economy of Germany especially by refusing to purchase German export products. When the Hitler government took power from the Weimar Republic, Germany had to import about 30% of the food its people needed. Thus the boycott campaign was aimed at causing mass starvation by obstructing the primary means of obtaining foreign currency.
The financial viability of Germany was ruthlessly mauled by the unprecedented mass of debt heaped on the country by the vengeful victors of WWI. The debt to foreign powers was created in the name of requiring the German government to pay reparations for all damages claimed by WWI’s winners.
The deep and obvious economic injustices inflicted on Germany in 1919 by the authors of Versaille Treaty, became a significant factor that fuelled the rise of Adolph Hitler. Hitler’s primary goal was the stop the spread of Soviet-style Bolshevism into Germany.
Untermyer’s organization shifted its names from The American League for the Defense of Human Rights to the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League. As part of his campaign he attempted to engage the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, in the Boycott of Germany. The League of Nations granted to Great Britain in 1922 a mandate to govern Palestine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Sectarian_Anti-Nazi_League
https://historicist.info/untermyer/how-does-samuel-untermeyer-fit-into-the-scheme/
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/unt.htm
There were many reverberations from the launch of the campaign on March 23, 1933 only days after Hitler’s National Socialist Party won the federal election in Germany. On March 27 the Zionist Federation of Germany was drawn into the process in ways that would help defang the effectiveness of the boycott movement.
https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/the-jewish-declaration-of-war-on-germany/
The development, however, lay in the future. In late March of 1933 the prospects of restoring the Germany economy seemed remote especially when Unyermyer’s boycott initiative throughout “Judea” was quickly adopted by many of influential Jewish business people outside Germany.
In New York the Jewish War Veterans Association kicked off the Anti-Hitler boycott on 23 March by mounting a huge demonstration while “others hemmed and hawed on the sidelines”
The Zionist organization in Germany made it clear that its leadership preferred to work with the German government rather than join forces with “Judea’s” attack on the embattled government of Adolph Hitler. Because of this rapprochement between the Nazis and the German Zionists, the boycott movement would lose some of its sting although although Untermyer continued to actively lead and promote the Anti-Nazi League until 1938.
Once the German Zionists and the Hitler government were talking, they soon decided to cooperate together in creating a system for Jewish emigration to Palestine. This arrangement was known as the Ha’avara Agreement in Hebrew and the Transfer Agreement in English, The deal amounted to a compromise consistent with the mutual aims of racialist exclusivity espoused by both the National Socialists and the Zionists of Europe including Germany.
The developing sphere of shared interest between National Socialists and Zionist Jews, who were then a small minority within the overall Jewish population at the time, continued to unfold. As the Ha-avara Agreement reached fruition, the Hitler government was put in a better position to pull off the economic miracle that very quickly put huge numbers of Germany people and their institutions back on their feet financially.
There were more elements than meet the eye that enabled many Jewish emigrants from Germany to immigrate into Palestine and achieve success in many new enterprises. Of major importance in the Ha’avera Agreement were provisions enabling settlers in Palestine to have access to some portion of their wealth so long as they used the funds to purchase German manufactured goods.
This arrangement proved very beneficial for the Zionist cause in Palestine as well as for the prosperity of German business and industry. The deal created a new market for German goods in Palestine and also in the larger Middle East region. The Ha’avara Agreement established a a system of franchises that could be extended and exploited for the benefit of all the license holders throughout the proliferating trade networks connecting Germany with the Middle East
The joint authors of the web site, PalestineRemembered, have developed a rich resource of information and interpretation under the title, “Facts about the Haavara (Transfer) Agreement between Ben-Gurion & Hitler (1933 - late 39).”
https://www.palestineremembered.com/FactsAboutHaavara.html
In trying to outline the broader significance of the Ha’avara Agreement, the co-authors explained.
“Contrary to the conventional wisdom, it seems that it was Haavara & Nazis' financing that laid down the foundation for the Jewish state; not the British or donations from Jews around the world. It seems that the British provided the legal framework plus protection, but the financing & the know-how that built the foundation of the state was imported from Nazi Germany.”
See also
Jewish Victims of Zionism
The links connecting those that embraced the most fascistic extremes of Zionism with National Socialist Germany are substantial. Much Zionist propaganda tries to downplay the role of Nazi Germany in the founding of the Israeli state. It is acknowledged that extremist Zionist groups like Irgun and Lehi, the notorious gang started by Avraham Stern, embraced violent fascistic principles that drew them to the Nazi side in WWII.
There is less inclination to acknowledge the importance of German fascism in the genesis of the Likud Party which draws on the fascistic heritage of the ironically named Revisionist Zionism. Revisionist Zionism runs from Ze’ev Jabotinsky to Menachem Begin to Ariel Sharon to the continuity linking father and son in the current Netanyahu dynasty.
The National Socialist heritage of Likud as epitomized by the career of the Nazi, Yitzhak Shamir, as a two-term Israeli Prime Minister.
The research of communists Lenny Brenner and, more recently, Tony Greenstein necessitates a deeper public assessment of the central role both before and after 1948 of Zionist intrigue in Israel’s history. These authors and others have ascribed to Zionist collaborators major crimes of commission and omission that enabled Nazis to round up Jews and police them in camps. Many of the so-called Kapos policing the camps are said to have been Zionists.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/kapo-trials-how-israel-judged-jewish-collaborators
Tony Greenstein has devoted much effort to explaining the back stories said to culminate in the delivery of hundreds of thousands of Jews in Hungary to Auschwitz in 1944. After the Hungarian government recoiled from German military defeat in the Soviet Union, German forces occupied Hungary in 1944.
This alteration resulted in the deeper infusion of some Zionist Jews directly into the Nazi government of Hungary. This development became a factor in a cynical negotiation highlighting the extent of the collaboration between elite Zionists and governing officials throughout German-occupied Europe.
The secret deal involved the exit from Hungary of the so-called Kastner train to carry to neutral Switzerland, about 1,400 passengers including many elite Zionists comprised partly of family member and friends of the main negotiator of the deal. The other side of the arrangement was to promise similar treatment to hundreds of thousands of other Jews in Hungary who were essentially tricked and carried away to Auschwitz to meet dark fates.
Some of the scandal came to light in the trial of Rudolf Kastner that took place in Israel in 1954-55. Kastner was convicted. But then in 1958 the Supreme Court of Israel overturned the ruling of the lower court.
As Tony Greenstein sees it, the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 was in some respects a response to the scandal generated by the original trial of Kastner. As Paul Grubach understands it, the career of Gestapo officer Eichmann is a flash point “for those who have transformed the Holocaust into a sacred religion.”
https://codoh.com/library/document/jewish-conspiracy-theory-the-eichmann-testimony/
As for me, I suspect part of the motivation to hunt down Eichmann in Argentina and then try him, convict him, and execute him in Israel for Holocaust crimes, was partly because he knew too much about Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.
Hannah Arendt reported for the New York Times on the Eichmann Trial creating the basis of a very controversial “Report,” Eichmann in Jerusalem. It first appeared in 1963. Arendt created something of a furor by associating the word “banality” with the Nazi atrocities against Jewish people.
The ensuing controversies would arouse many heartfelt reflections including contemplation of the ironies brought about by the transformation in 1947-48. The founding of Israel marked the transition from an era when stateless Jews inhabited Europe to an era when many Palestinians were rendered stateless refugees in their own ancestral lands.
Adolf Eichmann was chosen by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to be presented to the world as the prime symbolic embodiment of the full array of Nazi crimes pointed against Jews. There was no thought of delivering Eichmann to the United Nations to try him for violating the Genocide Convention and committing Crimes against Humanity. Who could have predicted in the era of the Eichmann trial that all the talk then directed at “final solutions” and “finishing the job” would come to the fore in a very different way in 2023-2024?
The US government played a major role in helping to deliver the establishment of a Jewish state as if this authority was one of the prizes won by the the victorious side in WWII. Urged on by Zionist Jews, US officials helped push through a majority vote by the nascent UN General Assembly. The result was the passage of a problematic resolution meant to afford some semblance of international legitimacy to the new Jewish polity in Palestine.
Along with the establishment of Israel came the enactment by the UN General Assembly of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Genocide Convention clearly announced the UN’s embrace of the “Never Again” ideal with respect to Israel and presumably with respect to the rest of the world as well.
Now the unfolding history of Israel has led to the ruling by the UN’s International Court of Justice stating that the government of the Jewish state must stand trial for the crime of violating the Genocide Convention. The Israel government so far has shown nothing but contempt for judiciary of the UN and for the provisions of international criminal and humanitarian law. This charge and the devastating character of the facts behind it put the core polity at the heart of Zionism’s international network in an unprecedented position in the community of nations.
The country that is widely understood to be the main geopolitical entity to emerge from the The Holocaust is now the world’s most high-profile perpetrator of genocide…. a horrific genocide that many describe as a holocaust in its own right. Is the Gaza holocaust meant to be understood as a lesser genocide than The Holocaust?
The creation of Israel was one of the major outcomes realized by the expenditure of much political capital gained by the victors of WWII and especially by the USA. Indeed, given the role of Great Britain in declaring in 1917 that Palestine should become “a national home for the Jewish people,” Israel is one of the primary outgrowths of the Anglo-American Empire.
In the process of creating and backing Israel, both Britain and the USA became pre-eminent Zionist polities in their own right.
Those that made in March of 1933 a declaration of “economic and financial war” on Nazi Germany, basically at the very moment of its inception, might be credited with helping to realize the goal of conquering their foe.
The establishment of a Jewish state sent out a powerful signal that, according to the Daily Express’s publishers, “the whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting.”
The creation of Israel after the Second World War as a territorially-based nationality, came about through a complex of procedures including a Zionist crime spree that is now coming to a head? It can be said that the first victims of Zionism are Jews themselves who even now continue to be subjected to grave danger on account of the actions and ideas of the psychopathic Israeli government.
Condemning BDS Supporters, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 Truthers, and Those Attending the New Horizon “Monsters Ball”
The boycott conceived by Paul Untermyer and executed in the name of “Judea” found its mirror image in 2005 with the formulation and implementation of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS) This BDS movement is aimed at penalizing Israel for its infractions of law, human rights and common decency in its treatment of Palestinians.
The allegations made against Israel by the participants and advocates of the BDS movement are much like the charges pressed by the Anti-Nazi League against Germany for its alleged treatment of Jews.
The BDS movement draws on the philosophy and spirit the boycott directed at the South African government when it was run before 1994 by a White minority regime on the basis of a colour-coded system of apartheid. The current Israel and the former South Africa are often grouped as apartheid regimes.
Israel’s onslaught of murder against Palestinians and now Lebanese people has become far more extreme than the apartheid practised by the former South African government. The government of the White minority population never came anywhere near to the style of indiscriminate mass murder done by the Israeli government. South Africa’s regime of White minority rule never carpet bombed the Bantusans.
https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
The BDS movement coalesced in 2005 on the first anniversary of a significant ruling by the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ). This ruling defined as illegal, the Apartheid Wall built in Israel’s Occupied Territory in the West Bank. Almost two decades later in 2024, the ICJ would identify in law the Israeli appropriation of the Occupied Territories in the West Bank and of East Jerusalem. Gaza was also characterized by the UN judges as having been stolen from the native Palestinians.
The building of the Wall was commenced shortly after the events of September 11, 2001. The timing of this construction was not coincidental. The imposition of the Wall to create a formidable barrier between the stateless Palestinians and the Jewish settlers of the West Bank was a preprepared initiative.
Like many other acts that probably would not have been publicly acceptable in normal times, the construction of the Apartheid Wall commenced in the aftermath of the 9/11 false flag operation. This relegation of West Bank Palestinians to territory behind a cement shield, was meant to exhibit the principle that supposedly civilized Jews require protection from savage natives. This bastion of separation was quite consistent with the dominant paradigm of the Global War on Terror.
The public was led to believe that US-led initiative was aimed at expunging “terror” in all its many forms the world. The real objective, however, had more to do with deliberately polluting the mental atmosphere by means of poisonous forms of psychological warfare. One of the aims was to encourage the public to distrust and fear all Muslims and Arabs, but especially the Palestinians, as natural-born terrorists.
Zionist opposition to the expression of the kind of analysis I am developing here, regularly calls forth accusations of “Anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust Denial” as part of onslaughts of recriminations. The purpose of these recriminations is to stifle criticism of the Jewish state and especially its ruthless treatment of Palestinians under Israel’s control.
The label of “Holocaust Denier” is grouped in with a variety of allegations, including the characterization of anyone involved with promoting the BDS movement as a hater of Jews. The Zionist hostility to the BDS movement has gotten to the point where laws have been passed in many jurisdictions in the US and UK imposing punishments on anyone supporting the BDS movement.
This pattern extends to some people and companies seeking jobs and business in the public sector. The long and short of it is that the Israel Lobby has gone far in persuading its puppet politicians to criminalize the whole BDS movement.
My introduction to this kind of heavily-publicized Zionist smear campaign came at the conclusion of a conference I attended in Tehran in 2014. How I got there is a story in itself that I’ll bypass for the moment. As we shall see, the conference was characterized by Zionist critics as a gathering hosting many Holocaust Deniers and Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorists.
Sponsored by New Horizon, an Iranian NGO specializing in transnational communications, the event was entitled the 2nd International Conference of Independent Thinkers. About 60 Western dissidents from North America and Europe were invited to attend.
Among those I encountered in Tehran was Wayne Madsen. Like many of those I met at the conference, Madsen is a skilled and well-known investigative journalist. Others in attendance like Code Pink’s iconographic feminist, Medea Benjamin, were high-profile activists expert at gaining media attention.
I was invited to Tehran with the understanding I would make a presentation in a session devoted to the 9/11 controversy. I witnessed many impressive presentations such as that of the Church of England clergyman, Rev. Stephen Sizer. An author of two books on Christian Zionism, Rev. Sizer lectured on his area of expertise.
I have written about the effort of the Board of Deputies of British Jews to ruin Rev. Sizer’s career when he returned home from Iran. My research led me to see how deeply the Israel First Zionist lobby in UK has infiltrated the Church of England.
https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2015/02/01/another-martyr-for-911-truth/
Reverend Sizer also related news about what he had learned about the treatment of Christian communities in Iran.
The New Horizon conference was the subject of a detailed report by Memri, an Internet venue integral to the Israel Lobby. Memri describes itself as “a Monitor of Jihad and Terrorism Threats.” Memri’s account of the Tehran conference pictures “Holocaust Deniers”and supporters of the BDS Movement as part of “Jihad and Terrorism Threats.”
On the flight back home from Tehran to Lethbridge Alberta, I looked at a lot of different newspapers and noticed in many of them reports describing the same press conference offering an account of the New Horizon Conference I had just attended.
The news conference had taken place in New York City. The main spokesman in the news conference was Abraham Foxman, National Director of the the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). In 2014 I had vaguely heard of Foxman and the ADL, but as a newcomer to this kind of discourse I had no real concept of how expansive was the reach of this man and the organization he leads
In his speech Mr. Foxman asserted, “Participation by an international assortment of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites is de rigueur for these types of events. A disturbing new element in this anti-Jewish gathering is the appearance on the guest list of a few high visibility U.S. antiwar and anti-Israel activists who claim their positions are not motivated by anti-Semitism.”
As in the wording of Abe Foxman’s speech, the headline of the ADL Press Release highlighted the damning presence of “Holocaust Deniers.”
In later googling the New Horizon conference I found a description of it published by a venue calling itself the World Jewish Daily. The WJD characterized the New Horizon conference as a “Monsters’ Ball,” a gathering of “Antisemites, Holocaust deniers, and assorted psychopaths.”
The imagery of the burning Israeli flag was inserted to deceive readers. Nothing like a burning of the Israeli or US flags happened in or around the New Horizon conference. Indeed, all the elements of this WJD are based on fraud meant to manufacture contempt for an informative and well organized event.
At this gathering many speakers persecuted in their own Western countries were provided with a protected podium where free expression was welcomed. In the course of experiencing the kind of openness, I became more conscious of all the pressure on us to self-censor at home. In venues of public discourse in North America, Zionist perspectives are so prevalent they are made to seem almost invisible.
The headline of another report on the conference equated Holocaust Deniers with “9/11 Truthers.” I have no problem with being labelled a 9/11 Truther. Its better than being called a 9/11 liar like most in the media and academia figures still are.
For other reports on the conference, both positive and negative, see
https://dissidentvoice.org/2014/10/new-horizon-conference-meeting-of-minds-in-tehran/
https://www.foiaresearch.net/event/new-horizon-conference
https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2014/10/14/dr-gareth-porter-and-911-truth-in-tehran/
As I returned to Alberta Canada I faced my own individual smear in a post on a Zionist web site entitled BLAZINGCATFUR. Although a picture of Ezra Levant appeared on the post, no named individual took responsibility for the following:
I kept a paper copy of the October 2014 post which is, I believe, no longer on-line. While the contents were pretty much aligned with other characterizations of the New Horizon event, I took note of the observation that I was the “poster boy for academic tenure.” While the comment seemed inexplicable at the time, future events proved it to be prophetic.
Sure enough in October of 2016 this tenured, senior full professor, who had then been teaching at the University of Lethbridge for 26 years, was instantly pulled away in mid-term from my teaching responsibilities, from my academic post and from my pay. The administrating simply pretended that the termination of the institution of tenure had already happened.
The University of Lethbridge ignored all due process as called for by my Faculty Association’s collective agreement with the Board of Governors. The Board and the U of Lethbridge President, Mike Mahon, blatantly ignored the existing rules acting as if the intervention was some sort of emergency measure.
When this action happened I had been subjected for about a month to a very intense smear campaign in the media directed by B’nai Brith Canada, an extension of the US-based Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. The campaign was initiated with a computer hack followed by the Internet equivalent of a Zionist lynching. Then lo and behold, I became “the poster boy” for the end of academic tenure. The prophecy from 2014 had come true!
https://www.winterwatch.net/2016/10/hes-back-jewish-terrorist-joshua-goldberg/
The Self-Declared Enemies of Hate Speech Are Expert at Pointing Hate Speech at Their Enemies
After settling back into my routine in Canada it became increasing clear to me that I was onto an important topic in exploring the continuities linking the treatment of Indigenous people in the westward expansion of the USA to the founding, expansion and consolidation of the Israeli state from 1948 until the present.
My visit to the New Horizon conference helped me to ascertain with more clarity the distinctions between the sublime and the ridiculous in responses to my work. I had seen the ADL throw around very carelessly and maliciously, terms like Holocaust Denier, 9/11 Truther, and Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist. The ADL regularly defames its targets without accountability. It does so most often without any concern for backing up with evidence its slurs and condemnations.
Moreover, parts of the Israel Lobby are well integrated into agencies of law enforcement like the FBI in the USA or the RCMP as well as Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Canada. Some agents of the Israel Lobby help the police and intelligence services with spying. Organizations like B’nai Brith Canada can call on their friends in law enforcement to do their bidding.
Having attuned myself to the tactics of the ADL along with its attending agencies, I was better able to evaluate the logistics of the infowars engulfing us. The defamatory procedures of the ADL are accompanied by the activities of many related organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Society and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.
The repertoire of Zionist insults and means of inflicting defamatory harm keeps growing. The same people that have sought protection by firing off onslaughts of weaponized terms like Holocaust Denier, Conspiracy Theorist, and Anti-Semite keep adding to their invasive vocabulary.
These days those styled as Holocaust Deniers are being repurposed as, for instance, “insurrectionists,” “accelerationists,” and “White supremacists.” With no evidence, people like the Alberta branch of the Truckers protest are described in Zionist media outlets as “neo-Nazi militias.”
More and more, those seeking justice and freedom as self-determining groups and individuals, risk accusations of being designated as “terrorists.” These accusations come from some of the most terrifying coalitions of coercive power acting in our midst.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/treating-truckers-their-supporters-terrorists/5775591
Like the term, “Holocaust Denier,” the word “terrorism” is very open-ended and subjective. Both accusations lend themselves well to the process of discrediting political opponents to undermine their effectiveness or to remove them from social circulation.
To be defined as a terrorist in today’s society is to be deprived of all protections of law. The same corrupting process associated with the abuse of the term, “terrorist,” is being expanded as elected officials embed into legislation more and more weaponized language lifted from their own political propaganda.
Some have reason to be distrustful of the Canadian government’s still-ongoing efforts to criminalize the Freedom Convoy critics starting in the winter of 2022 and continuing yet. Some recognize this reflection in Canada of the same onerous precedents being established by the lengthy incarceration of many participants set up for cruel and unusual punishment for taking part in the January 6 demonstrations at the US Capitol.
https://www.amazon.ca/Unjustified-Freedom-Convoy-Emergencies-Inquiry/dp/1998365026
Like the term, “terrorism,” the term “hate speech” has taken on a huge role in our society as a conceptual platform on which to base many coercive laws and policies covering a wide array of supposed infractions. Like the term, “Holocaust Denier," the term “hate speech” is rarely defined. Moreover those caught in the web of recriminations are rarely given a realistic chance to appeal censorship and deplatforming by the likes of Facebook, YouTube or Twitter.
The machinations of the Lords of the Internet give us cause for fear. The Lords of the worldwide web are deeply integrated with the Lords of finance and warfare. Their constant incursion on our inherent rights, freedoms and liberties must be resisted. We the people must push back hard.
There is no denying the Zionist character of the self-serving assault on “hate speech” as a ploy to silence many groups. The deployment of the imagery of fighting “hate speech” was basically invented and developed by the ADL as a ploy to implement censorship done nowadays mostly to control the Internet’s content.
The globalist agenda right now is to capture the Internet and make it a device to institute enslavement rather than to promote liberation through free inquiry and debate. Working consistently to find the truth helps to make people free.
Significantly, the very agencies that proclaim the goal of vanquishing so-called hate speech, frequently display a cynical expertise in instigating hatred. The ploy of feigning hostility to expressions of alleged hatred is frequently a sign of having much to hide. Accusations of hate speech are often meant to discredit those that have exposed the accusers’ crimes.
These days allegations of Holocaust Denial are sometimes presented as hate speech. Why is it hateful for anyone to attempt to dig into the historical record to develop independently one’s own interpretations of what happened in the past?
The Holocaust, Palestinians, Native Americans, Zionists and Academic Freedom
Allegations of hate speech or Holocaust Denial are creating forums for the distillation and proliferation of the Ridiculous. Alternatively the pursuit of the Sublime requires steadfast persistence in keeping an eye on the proverbial prize. For me this persistence entails continuing investigations to explain the transformations brought about by the Global War on Terror. This War on Terror both accelerated and intensified trajectories in imperial history much older than the events of 9/11.
Moreover the many outcomes emerging from the specious interpretation of the events of 9/11 pointed the way to a very dangerous future. Looking back I had premonitions of where things were headed when I was first in Tehran in 2014. Looking out at the world from there, I wondered if the conflict between Israel and Iran would become the core of the primal conflict to decide the fate of the world.
The War on Terror cuts across a swath of history that links the purpose of the events of 9/11 with those of 10/7. Both were engineered episodes meant to invoke hysteria by highlighting the overhyped menace of Islamic terrorism. Both were instigated in order to justify ambitious military campaigns led by the Zionist leadership of Israel and the United States.
The Israeli-inspired war on terror emerges from an extension of US Indian wars that became the model for aggressions against the Palestinians. These aggressions have been especially ruthless when doled out by the wannabe cowboys among the messianic Jewish settlers illegally inhabiting the West Bank.
The study of the connections between Palestinians and the US Indian wars has attracted the attention of Drs. Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita. In his analysis of the connection, Dr. Finkelstein highlights the displacement of the Cherokee people from Georgia. In his essay published in Palestinian Studies in the summer of 1995, Dr. Finkelstein compares the plight of the Palestinians to the US displacement of the Cherokee in the genesis of the Trail of Tears.
Should there be a law to punish those who deny the genocidal character of the Trail of Tears? Should there be a law to punish those who deny the genocidal character of onslaught on the Indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere that began in 1492 and that never really ended?
https://www.sci-hub.ru/10.2307/2537756
https://www.islam-radio.net/historia/zionism/NatAmFTP.html
Dr. Steven Salaita has come both to personify and express the overlap in the history of the genocides directed at Native Americans and Palestinians.
In his 2016 book, Inter/Nationalism: Decolonizing Native America and Palestine, Dr. Salaita highlights the commonalities between the policies enforced by US President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s and the ideology of the fascist hardliner, Ze’ev Jabotinsky.
Jabotinsky is the acknowledged founder of “Revisionist Zionism” whose ruthless character is currently on public display in the onslaught of mass murder being implemented by the Netanyahu government. The current PM’s father was Jabotinsky’s secretary.
The Netanyahu government is carrying out policies consistent with Jabotinsky’s analysis as well as the messianic convictions driven by the marriage of Zionist racism with the exclusivist form of Jewish religion espoused by Rabbi Meir Kahane.
In his famous essay of 1923, Jabotinsky made repeated references to Native Americans including Sioux and Aztecs. From these and other examples, Jabotinsky generalized that no colonized group can ever resolve itself to accept that its underlying ownership of native land can be stripped from beneath its feet. These reflections caused Jabotinsky to indicate that the envisaged Jewish state in Palestine must develop behind some sort of “Iron Wall.”
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
The necessary protective barrier might be perceived in todays terms as the Apartheid Wall in the West Bank. Or the “Iron Wall” might take the form of “Jewish bayonets.”
This approach to coercive colonization of territory was expressed by the actions of the Armed Forces of the United States. The US Army was ordered by President Jackson to force Native Americans, and most prominently the Cherokee in Georgia, to relocate.
All Indian people east of the Mississippi were ordered to vacate the region and to migrate to land West of the Mississippi River. Many Native people in the USA chose instead to migrate to Canada.
Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita have both been at the centre of very famous episodes that dramatically demonstrate the dearth of effective protections for academic freedom and meritocracy. The other side of this phenomenon is that faculty positions at universities are becoming patronage honey pots.
These honey pots of patronage are made to appear like academic posts. In fact many of these posts have become part of a system of rewards to be passed back and forth between like-minded political cronies. More and more our universities are institutions where the imprimatur of science and “truth” can be purchased by the right people for the right price.
Dr. Salaita was in the midst of stepping into his new position as a tenured faculty member in the American Indian Studies Department at the University of Illinois on the Urbana-Champaign campus. Then the carefully-prepared academic innovation all came crashing down on Aug, 1 2014. Chancellor Phyllis Wise wrote a letter to tell Dr. Salaita that his faculty appointment had been withdrawn. Dr. Salaita had been fired.
The appointment and subsequent termination of Dr. Salaita’s employment aroused much righteous indignation expressed by a large array of students, senior academics and cultural commentators.
The Notice of Dr. Salaita’s Vancouver Presentations at UBC and at Simon Fraser University
The leadership the American Association of University Teachers, the AAUT, intervened in court on behalf of Dr. Salaita. The AAUP sought to counter Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s August 1, 2014 decision to terminate the faculty appointment of Professor Salaita. The AAUP explained to the judge in the case that
“the academic community cannot condone an appointment procedure which enables a university to offer a professor a position during normal appointment ‘season’ and then, after he has accepted the position, to cut him adrift without warning or hearings.”
https://ncac.org/news/blog/untangling-the-steven-salaita-case
In examining the case it is apparent that agents of rich donors with strong ties to the Israel Lobby persuaded Chancellor Wise to do what she was expected to do.
Dr. Salaita’s appointment represented a strategic academic decision that Palestinian Studies and Native American Studies should be thoughtfully integrated to advance network building among practitioners of indigenous scholarship. This networking among scholars could have taken further some of the pioneering work of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, an organization that emerged in 1974 from an initiative by the National Indian Brotherhood in Canada.
Chancellor Wise claimed she was acting in response to many tweets sent out by Dr. Salaita in the summer of 2014 in response to the IDF’s “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. This phrase refers to periodic attacks on people and infrastructure in the notorious open-air Gaza prison. Dr. Salaita’s tweets were cited as the rationale to remove Dr. Salaita from his job before he had even met his students.
The unusual firing rightfully ignited a fire storm of controversy.
Unfortunately the matter ended with a payout to Dr. Salaita rather than an effective defence of academic freedom. The effect of the de-platforming of Dr. Salaita from his academic post in American Indian Studies definitely blocked a major initiative with broad implications.
If Dr. Salaita had been allowed to continue his work within the framework of Indian Studies, he probably would have continued to highlight the important place of Palestinians in the larger context of Indigenous scholarship. What might have been the role of Dr. Salaita in illuminating the significance of the current partnership between the US and Israeli settler states? Both polities have committed genocide to remove Indigenous peoples in order to clear the way for infusions of migrants.
The Israel Lobby together with rich Zionist donors played a significant role in the assault on academic freedom that was integral to the process of denying Drs. Finkelstein and Salaita secure faculty positions in their areas of expertise.
The Israel Lobby in many countries has become one of the primary enemies of native rights as well as of academic freedom. The hostility towards the principles of academic freedom on the part of the Israel Lobby and of international Zionism is often motivated by the effort to prevent open inquiry, open debate and merit-based publication. The aim is to shut down open debate on The Holocaust as well as on the Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
The Israel Lobby has long been deeply engaged in attempting to sideline unwanted information and interpretations by blocking certain conferences, faculty hires, publications, tenure proceedings, research grants, academic awards and more. A good example of this phenomenon is outlined by Law Professor Susan G. Drummond in her book, Unthinkable Thoughts: Academic Freedom and the One-State Model for Israel and Palestine (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2013).
The volume describes the machinations of a number of Zionist organizations together with the Zionist government of Canada led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The object of all this lobbying was to prevent from happening a conference at Toronto’s Glendon College, part of York University. The conference did take place in 2009. The allegation of many seeking to cancel the conference, was that any serious academic discussion of one-party alternative to the current status quo, would not be fair to Israeli Jews.
One of the reoccurring strategies in the quest to discredit the organizers and proponents of the conference, was to label several of those academic figures invited to the Glendon College event as Holocaust Deniers. Lawyers were hired by some of those seeking to defend themselves from what were demonstrated to be spurious accusations.
The charge of denying The Holocaust tends to be taken seriously in some circles inhabited by people who should know better. The term Holocaust Deniers carries a legalistic tone causing people to imagine judges banging down a gavel and uttering the term “guilty.” Most people who have been tagged with the Holocaust Denier label have never been accused, charged or convicted in any court. Nevertheless once the ominous term term shows up beside a name, the term attached to the name tends to be uncritically reproduced.
While allegations of Holocaust Denial can often be cast about like cheap confetti, when applied in certain contexts, the term is taken seriously. According to Ron Unz, Nick Kollerstrom estimated in 2018 that “many thousands of individuals are currently serving time across Europe for Holocaust Denial.”
In Germany lawyers go to jail for defending those accused of Holocaust Denial. This propensity makes it difficult for the accused to hire competent legal defenders. It is illegal for lawyers to properly represent their clients because it is forbidden to bring forward any argument said to deny Holocaust orthodoxy.
The concept of “judicial notice” is invoked because the facts of The Holocaust are deemed to be “so well-known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted.” No written records are made in Germany of Holocaust trials.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
Michael Hoffman explains how in 2017 Jeff Bezos at Amazon was persuaded by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and World Jewish Congress to remove from its data base hundreds of book titles. The authors of the banned books offered a great variety of perspectives on many of aspects of the singular event described as The Holocaust.
In his essay entitled American Pravda: Holocaust Denial, Ron Unz indicates that fully thousands of such books were removed from the Amazon system.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
This purge of controversial books from Amazon’s system can be considered as the digital equivalence to a book burning ritual. A similar digital attack on free expression was embodied in a similar process applied to the embrace of mass censorship by the big Internet search engine companies. The vandalizing of the Internet has been growing ever since.
In his essay Michael Hoffman reflects on the irony of how the organizers of “Banned Books Week” avoided any mention of the banning of what were indiscriminately described as “Holocaust-Denying Books.” Apparently Google failed to mention that “Holocaust Denial” was the inaugural victim of the company’s rigged search engine.
https://www.unz.com/article/books-banned-by-banned-books-week/
Seeing the People and the Organizations Behind the Slurs Aimed at “Holocaust Deniers”
Ron Unz has contributed the following observation in his American Pravda essay on Holocaust Denial.
In exploring the history of Holocaust Denial, I have noticed this same sort of recurrent pattern, most typically involving individuals rather than institutions. Someone highly-regarded and fully mainstream decides to investigate the controversial topic, and soon comes to conclusions that sharply deviate from the official narrative of the last two generations. For various reasons, those views become public, and he is immediately demonized by the Jewish-dominated media as a horrible extremist, perhaps mentally-deranged, while being relentlessly hounded by a ravenous pack of fanatic Jewish-activists. This usually brings about the destruction of his career.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/
The repetition of the same script engulfed many previously-successful individuals including Arthur R. Butz, a tenured Professor of Electrical Engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois. In 1972 he saw a pamphlet that caused him to look into the genocide of Jews in Europe more closely. In 1976 he published the original text of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry.
The full text is available here
https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_r_butz__the-hoax-of-the-twentieth-century/
The publication started to create a furor after a review of it was published in the New York Times in 1977. Lucy S. Davidowisz explained in a Commentary article in 1980 that Jewish donors to Northwestern U. and Jewish activists more generally tried to get Butz fired.
In those days however, the institution of tenure was still strong enough to protect the Holocaust heretics from being professionally destroyed. Davidowisz is the author of The Holocaust and the Historians (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983). Butz’s volume continues to be widely read and viewed as something of a classic in the genre.
One of the core issues debated by those who question the official narrative of the holocaust is the question of whether or not gas chambers and crematoria were used at Auschwitz and other locations to industrialize the mass murder of Jews. Fred Leuchter contributed to the debate. At Ernst Zundel’s behest, Leuchter agreed to study the reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz.
At the time Leuchter was one of the premier experts in the United States in the use of gas chambers for executing convicted criminals. Among the things Leuchter looked for, were chemical residues on the walls. He also devoted study to the ventilation system which has drawn much skeptical attention over the years.
The result of Leuchter’s investigation was his judgment that the locations studied “could not have then been, or now be, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.”
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-leuchter-reports/
Leuchter’s business suffered significantly from the smear campaign directed his way after the publication of his report.
In 1991 Germar Rudolf, while employed by the The Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, picked up the study that Leuchter had initiated. His various reports formed the basis of The Chemistry of Auschwitz. In 1995 a German court sentenced Rudolf to 14 months in prison for his revisionist writing. Rudolf went into exile but was deported back to Germany in 2005. He was sentenced to 44 months in jail, this time for his writing of three of his so-called Holocaust Handbooks.
As far as I can see Germar Rudolf is a talented researcher and author who can sometimes be eccentric. He also brings entrepreneurial qualities to his organizational work. As a prolific critique of the official Holocaust narrative, Rudolf has published a number of books, some of them in the language of hard science and some of them more sociological in character.
Rudolf joined forces in 1998 with the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) after the death in 1996 of CODOH’s founder, Bradley Smith. Under the umbrella of his company , Castle Hill, Rudolf brought together several hundred revisionist titles, some of them in his mother tongue of German.
click here to see a partial list
Rudolf’s business model was overturned when Amazon erased from its inventory and web site the large assortment of texts banished to oblivion based on the usual spate of accusations condemning “Holocaust Denial.”
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book-author/germar-rudolf/
A Zionist Jew from Los Angeles, David Cole was a very unusual Holocaust revisionist in the period between 1990 and 1995. Cole became fascinated with the Zionist Holocaust narrative which he started to debunk on his own. Cole’s interest was fed by his careful study of the flood of reportage emerging from Holocaust trials based on the charge that Zundel has circulated “False News.” The trial’s took place in my home town of Toronto Ontario.
I remember ignoring the trials when they were taking place. I heard from the media that Zundel was a Holocaust Denier, a neo-Nazi, an Anti-Semite and a Conspiracy Theorist. In my naivite I accepted the media’s characterizations as gospel. The descriptions disseminated by the robotic talking heads were enough to keep me away from the trials and unaware of what was really going on.
In 1985 and 1988 Ernst Zundel assembled a Team of experts to defend him from the charge brought initially by the Holocaust Remembrance Association. These Toronto trials, sometimes described as “The Great Holocaust Trial,” became major landmarks in Holocaust litigation.
The charges against Zundel had much to do with his success in stimulating a very vigorous Holocaust revision movement in the 1980s. Zundel’s success in arousing so much interest especially in WWII history resulted in a subsequent clamp down that still continues.
Below are two very significant video recordings that are important primary sources of history. Both videos record exchanges between an alert Ernst Zundel and David Cole then in his early 20s. The two of them had arranged to meet at Auschwitz in Poland. In the first video Cole gives Zundel a very significant tour where he discusses his initial study of the Auschwitz-Birkenau site. The young Cole clearly impressed Zundel with the thoughtfulness of his analysis.
When Cole met up with Zundel, Cole had already been studying ground zero of the holocaust for 5 days. In the period Cole had already met with the chief history official and other employees involved in interpreting the site for tourists touring the facilities.
https://www.altcensored.com/watch?v=g4zU6E2hUh0
In the second video Zundel and Cole engage in conversation. Clearly in Zundel’s mind he sees this exchange is a step along the way to German-Jewish reconciliation.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VypYueBgkFzm/
In his book review in Occidental Observer of David Coles Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of Holocaust History”Blows the Lid Off Hollywood’s Secret Right-Wing Underground, Francis Carr Begbie observes
Cole says he is a pro-Zionist who supports Israel but has a low opinion of secular Jews who, while nominally foregoing their Jewish religion, have replaced it with the secular religion of the Holocaust “for which no amount of revision or criticism was tolerable.” By contrast he had far less of a problem with orthodox Jews than secular ones because their religious vision does not depend on the Holocaust.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/23/the-strange-history-of-david-cole/
Cole was confronted in the mid-1990s by a gang that called themselves members of the Jewish Defence League founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane. The Kahanists reportedly beat him and put a price on his head. Cole managed to escape and dropped his identity as a Holocaust revisionist and a buddy of Ernst Zundel. According to his own account in Republican Party Animal, Cole was subsequently able to earn some money by hiring himself out to Jewish producers who made Holocaust movies in Hollywood.
It seems there is no end to the surprising experiences of the large numbers of people who have been contemptuously dismissed as Holocaust Deniers. One of them is Professor Nick Kollerstrom. Dr. Kollerstrom taught for eleven years as a historian of science on the staff of University College on London. An expert on the eccentricities of Isaac Newton, Dr. Kollerstrom has sometimes been adventurous in his choice of topics.
In 2008 Kollerstrom was unceremoniously dumped from his academic job when he published Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust: Myth and Reality. Some of the usual suspects were anxious to see Kollerstrom destroyed professionally.
Kollerstrom brought new evidence to his subject including the contents of the Auschwitz death books released by Gorbachev as the Cold War came to an end. This primary source indicated that the Jewish fatalities were much lower than the widely-publicized total.
As they strolled through Auschwitz the question of the number of fatalities came up in the discussion between David Cole and Ernst Zundel.
In 1990 two years before the visit of Cole and Zundel to Auschwitz, the number on official plaques of those killed at the notorious camp went from 4 million to 1 million. This dramatic reduction affected not-a-bit the 6 million total Jewish casualty figure that has long been treated by the Israel Lobby as a primary criteria in the decision of who is or is not a Holocaust Denier.
Cole had talked to Franciszek Piper, then the manager of historical department at Auschwitz, about the mathematics used by “the executionists.” Cole could not make sense of Piper’s explanation. Cole frequently referred in this video to those on either side of the contention in which he was involved, as “executionists” and “revisionists.” Cole and Zundel counted as revisionists whereas Lipstadt and Netanyahu would count as executionists.
What happened to the 3 million dead people eliminated in the Auschwitz death statistics? It seems the executionists have some explaining to do about what happened in the past and is happening now.
Ernst Zundel, Robert Faurisson, Michael Hoffman, and the Right to Doubt Orthodoxy
Ernst Zundel was able to travel to Auschwitz in Poland after the convictions emanating from his Toronto trials were removed in 1992 by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. The “False News” law used to convict Zundel was overturned as unconstitutional.
The cleansing away of his criminal record for spreading “false news” enabled Zundel to accept Cole’s invitation to meet at Auschwitz. The German government made this possible by quickly delivering to him a passport based on his German citizenship.
The Canadian government never responded positively to Zundel’s many applications for Canadian citizenship. This refusal to grant citizenship was in spite of Zundel’s clean criminal record before his “false news” interlude, his reputation as a pacifist, his very successful business career in Canada, and even his well-received campaign in 1968 against Pierre Trudeau and others for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Canadian government treated Zundel in an especially atrocious manner from 2003 until 2005 when its officials abused the new post-9/11 terrorist legislation to falsely designate him as “a national security threat.”
Zundel was jailed in Toronto for two years. Most of that time he was in solitary confinement. While incarcerated without trial, Zundel was not able to see, let alone challenge in court, the supposed evidence used to jail him. In the process of going through this indignity Zundel was sometimes defamed in the media as a dangerous “terrorist." All these interventions were pushed forward without regard for due process.
In 1995 Zundel’s Toronto home, with its large and irreplaceable library, had been burned down by hostile arsonists never charged with any crime. During his trials in Toronto, members of the Jewish Defence League attempted regularly to violently assault Zundel and his entourage outside the court building.
In 2005 Zundel was suddenly deported to Germany where he was charged and then sentenced for hate-related crimes. Mark Weber has recounted some of the details of this period when Zundel faced multiple arbitrary detentions and was whisked from jurisdiction to jurisdiction contrary to well-established conventions. In the midst of Zundel’s ordeal Mark Weber observed,
“Zundel is in prison not because his views are unpopular, or because he’s a “security risk.” He’s in prison because Jewish groups want him there. He’s a prisoner because he promotes views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests.”
https://www.islam-radio.net/zundels/prison.htm
It seems that the most active era in the history of Holocaust revision extended from Butz to Faurisson to Zundel. When Zundel got into court in 1985 he had assembled around him him many talented researchers, pundits and authors including David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Doug Christie, Michael Hoffman, and Zundels wife, Ingrid Rimland.
There does not seem to be much dialogue linking the discussion in and around the Zundel Trial to the discussion involving Tony Greenstein’s book, Zionism During the Holocaust.
https://www.amazon.ca/Zionism-During-Holocaust-weaponisation-service/dp/1803693045
Greenstein’s book generated spirited and broadranging commentaries especially at web sites such as Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada. The book and the attention it spawned highlighted the clash of competing agendas, ideologies, and priorities between different factions of Jews.
Presumably Holocaust revisionism has plenty of room for the perspectives of Jewish communist critics of the zealotry of Zionists and their propensity to sacrifice the lives and interests of many Jews who did not share their fascistic and nationalist preoccupations. This discussion, however, might best be framed within a more wide-ranging and inclusive conversation.
In his lively critique of Deborah Lipstadt, Paul Grubach included a precise account of what he sees as the primary topics of Holocaust revisionism. Grubach writes,
Since the early 1990s, this pro-Zionist academic [Lipstadt] who delights in her Jewish identity has been recognized as the most prominent opponent of “Holocaust denial,” a pejorative term meant to demonize Holocaust revisionism, the historical movement contending there was no Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews during the Second World War, the “Nazi gas chambers” never existed, and the claim of six million murdered Jews is a gross exaggeration.
https://codoh.com/library/document/jewish-conspiracy-theory-the-eichmann-testimony/
My attention is caught by the statement above about the absence of a systematic plan to kill Jews or to kill ALL Jews. This observation might be viewed in the context of the similar statement by CODOH introducing this essay. CODOH acknowledges that “the Hitlerian regime was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews… sometimes imposing “unfathomable tragedies.”
I believe the comments by Grubach and CODOH involve the lack of a plan, not the absence of hostility. The controversy involves the interpretation of primary sources. In particular, there seems to be no document where Hitler or his ministers lay out in writing the basis for what is often described as “the final solution.”
As I see it, the trial in 1985 of Ernst Zundel was an extraordinary event. With all its problems and inadequacies, Michael Hoffman was well justified to label this event '“The Great Holocaust Trial.” This description forms the title of Hoffman’s short book about the event. Efforts to ban and repress this book can be seen as a testimony to the importance of the publication and, more importantly, to the events it describes.
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/on-the-censorship-of-michael-hoffmans-books-by-amazon/
To say Hoffman admires Zundel would be an understatement. In the introduction to The Great Holocaust Trial Hoffman writes,
“Ernst Zundel is for the West what Alexander Solzhenitsyn is for the East: a crusader who, through the power of his underground, dissident press (Samisdat) is helping to turn the tide for humanity.”
Michael A. Hoffman II, The Great Holocaust Trial (Torrance Calfornia: Institute for Historical Review, 1985) p. 9
What follows is in the following video is a discussion between Ernst Zundel and Michael Hoffman reflecting on the significance and implications of the 1985 trial.
https://altcensored.com/watch?v=b9x2XF1DTpY
In his tribute to Robert Faurisson shortly after his death, Michael Hoffman has left us an poignant literary record worthy of a remarkable scholar and man. Professor Faurisson faced many attacks for persisting with his insistence on following his sequence of research topics to their logical conclusion no matter how unpopular or no matter how menacing to vested interests.
The focus of the essay is Faurisson, the envoy of hard truths. The essay includes a lively section on The Great Holocaust Trial of 1985. As a witness and chronicler of the trial, Hoffman is well placed to explain Faurisson central role in it. As Hoffman saw it, “the Zundel Trial remained Faurisson’s finest hour.” At the Toronto Trail of 1985 Faurisson found the conditions where he could stand up to “the brutal Zionist war on free thinking.”
From Stormfront, 4 October, 2018
Tributes to Professor Robert Faurisson
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1261228/
“Robert Faurisson, Demonized Skeptic who Battled for the Right to Doubt”
By Michael A. Hoffman
Published: 2018-10-24
French Professor Robert Faurisson died of heart failure at his longtime home in Vichy, France on October 21. His life was like something out of Alfred Jarry by way of André Breton, a surreal circus in which clowns and stage magicians, barkers, burlesquers and fire-eaters incessantly circled and mobbed the one sane person under the Big Top.
Faurisson’s sanity was an expression of his conscience, and though an atheist, the historical parallels are unmistakable: Thomas More refusing on principle King Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Boleyn; Martin Luther rejecting submission to the commands of Emperor Charles V: “Here I stand. I can do no other.” Faurisson could do no other. Compromise and surrender were not in his DNA. Above all, he admired men and women who would not recant their doubts in the face of the loss of good name, bank account, career, freedom, and life itself.
Those who sneer at the professor for his “unforgivable” doubts about the existence of the holy execution gas chamber relic in Auschwitz seldom deny that, with the exception of death, he suffered all of the other penalties for the “crime” of his skepticism. His enemies say that he merited those severities. They honor skepticism toward the dogmas they despise, and despise skepticism toward the dogmas they honor. They have made a great saint of out Galileo and an evil cretin out of Faurisson. One need not be an “anti-Semite” to note the bankruptcy of this double standard.
Faurisson’s Inspiration: Paul Rassinier
In the media’s search for the roots of Faurisson’s supposed “anti-semitism” and “neo-Nazism” (because no one can doubt The Holy Truth except from anything other than impure motives), the name Paul Rassinier is seldom permitted to intrude on the cartoon-like demonization process. It was Rassinier who was Faurisson’s spiritual and intellectual mentor. A member of the anti-Nazi French resistance, Rassinier was arrested by the Nazis, brutalized and interned in the Buchenwald concentration camp. After the war, he served briefly in the French National Assembly. In the 1950s, he was deeply disturbed by what he regarded as unconscionable exaggerations of Nazi crimes, including claims of mass death by poison gas. He expressed his views in The Lie of Ulysses: A Glance at the Literature of Concentration Camp Inmates (1950), and The Drama of the European Jews (1964), among other works.
Faurisson's study of Rassinier’s work led him to a passionate interest in his doubts and questions. To explain away this freethinking curiosity and healthy skepticism in terms of the pathology of Jew-hate is a cheap and pathetic trick. In the 1960s, Rassinier admonished Faurisson, who was a dedicated amateur athlete, “Stop the tennis and the skiing and get to work.” And work he did, un travail de bénédictin, inspiring people on the Left and Right of all races and religions, from Henri Rocques and Roger Garaudy to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Dieudonné M’bala M’bala.
After obtaining his doctorate from the Sorbonne, Robert served as Professor of French Literature at the University of Lyon, where he taught classes on the 19th century symbolist poets such as Arthur Rimbaud, authenticated disputed texts, and became an authority on the misanthropic, 20th century dystopian novelist Louis-Ferdinand Céline.
Céline’s friend and factotum, Albert Paraz, the chemical engineer turned writer, penned an introduction to Rassinier’s Ulysses, which led Robert in 1980 to turn to a cache of Céline’s letters published by the distinguished Gallimard Press in Paris as Lettres á Albert Paraz. In one of these, reproduced on p. 276 of the book, Céline wrote the following: “(Rassinier) tends to cast doubt on the magical gas chamber. That’s quite something!”
This is a seemingly minor observation, but Robert never forgot it and repeated it in one form or another throughout his life. Céline remains a towering presence in French literature, and his early intuition that there was some fabulous superstition at the heart of the homicidal gas chamber allegations led Faurisson to the actual gas chamber at San Quentin Prison in California, where he contrasted the monumental gassing apparatus there, with its massive, submarine-like door and extraordinary, hours-long measures for safely decontaminating the chamber, with the alleged gassing facility explained as having been in operation in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Robert considered the explanation for the supposed homicidal gas chambers in Poland as “magical.” Céline’s witticism became part of his lexicon.
Faurisson entered the national scene in France 1978 after its leading newspaper, Le Monde, published his incendiary essay, “The Problem of the Gas Chambers, or the Rumor of Auschwitz.” In the United States this would be the equivalent of publication in the New York Times. Faurisson’s fate was sealed henceforth. He would either become the Doubting Thomas of Europe, or he would collapse and recant under the immense pressure and strain of the savage reaction of enraged true believers. As we know, he compounded his “heresy” further in the coming years and pressed onward with virile indifference toward the harassment and torment with which he was afflicted.
Faurisson and the Left
Though it is said by the fake news purveyors that he found a home on the extreme Right (the New York Times of Oct. 22, 2018, writes, “His notoriety only grew through an endless cycle of articles in the far-right press”), Faurisson was promoted and published by a minority of notable Leftists as well, including Pierre Guillaume and Serge Thion, who welcomed his scholarship. Faurisson’s 1980 volume, Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l'historie: la question des chambres de gaz, with a preface by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Noam Chomsky, was issued by the Marxist publishing house La Vieille Taupe.
Why this support from some on the Left? They reasoned that the homicidal-gas-chamber genocide narrative serves to forever place every crime of capitalism in a trivialized and subordinate category. “No matter how many civilians the U.S. government killed in Iraq it can’t compare to what the Germans did to the Jews,” is the cliché. Certain Leftists consider the inculcation of this mindset a tactic for the perpetual minimization of the crimes of all other forces, in particular plutocracies and oligarchies. If the gas chambers said to have been used to execute a million human beings in Auschwitz were an imposture, then some on the Left believed it was necessary to say so.
Another of Robert’s friends and colleagues was Judaic-Austrian Ditlieb Felderer, an eccentric though brilliant forensic researcher who had been a refugee as a child in the Second World War. After obtaining residency in Sweden, Felderer as an adult converted to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He became a top researcher for them and was dispatched to study the Auschwitz-Birkenau Camp, where Witnesses had been interned. He made more than a dozen trips, beginning in 1978, and took thousands of rare color photos of the museum’s “exhibits,” where he discovered to his shock that many were fake. Felderer shared his research with Faurisson. (Felderer was excommunicated by the Witnesses for publishing his findings).
Attempting to force Faurisson into a political category to which he did not subscribe or belong is a way of falsifying the reality that he, like Felderer, was a pursuer of truth wherever it leads, and however it may surprise or appall. Unjustly assigning to him a devotion to “far-Right” ideology is intended to buttress the propaganda that he had ulterior “Fascist” or “anti-Semitic” motives. This device was employed at its most asinine level on October 22, 2018, by one Ethan Epstein, associate editor of the neocon-Republican newspaper,The Weekly Standard, wherein Epstein hallucinated the following: “Faurisson took the usual Holocaust denial line: it never happened, but it should have. One of the ironies of Holocaust denial is that it is an allegedly ‘objective’ historical inquiry, yet is embraced exclusively by those with an animus towards Jews. That suggests that Holocaust deniers are fully aware that they are lying.”
Mr. Epstein puts forth enormities that we must accept on his authority: Prof. Faurisson believed Judaic people should have been exterminated. Everyone who denies that they were exterminated has “an animus toward Jews” and is “fully aware” that they were exterminated. This is the patter of a carnival buffoon.
Zündel Trial, 1985: Confuting the “Eyewitnesses” and the “Expert”
Beginning in 1983, German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel came under intense pressure from the government of Canada for claiming that the crimes of the Nazis had been distorted out of all proportion to reality. In that year his right to mail literature was suspended by the government. (He was forced to travel hundreds of miles from Toronto to Niagara Falls, New York to avail himself of a post office.)
In 1984, the government of Canada announced that Zündel would be prosecuted for “spreading false news” for having published the booklet Did Six Million Really Die? All the resources of the state were employed to assemble a formidable prosecution team consisting of “Holocaust survivor eyewitnesses,” and “one of the world’s leading experts on the Holocaust,” Dr. Raul Hiberg, author of the three volume The Destruction of the European Jews. The intent was to have Zündel imprisoned for two years.
The smart money put odds on Zündel being found guilty in a matter of days, his defense disgraced and debunked. After all, like the implanted meme says, “How can you deny the Holocaust?”
But that’s the wrong question to ask. Whether or not the fact of the mass murder of Judaic persons by the Nazis qualifies as planet earth’s only officially certified Holocaust™ is not the issue; it is rather a linguistic diversion—the product of the minting of an Orwellian neologism. The Soviets, Maoists, Protestants, Catholics, African animists, Aztecs, Conquistadors, Ottoman Turks and Americans in Iraq have all committed mass murder. The revisionist skeptic in actuality poses this question: was the murder of Judaics an unprecedented, mass chemical-industrial extermination employing poison gas?
If the answer is no, then there is very little that is unique about Nazi mass murder. It is of the same barbarity as Soviet and Maoist massacres. Faurisson devoted his life to this question on scientific and technical grounds, while doubting the official story, beginning with many of the principal fables upheld at the Nuremberg trials.
The odds-makers had it backwards. The 1985 Zündel trial turned out to be an extraordinary overthrow of the pompous assumptions of the disciples of the Nazi-gas-chamber extermination dogma. The “eyewitnesses,” under expert cross-examination by Doug Christie, powered by Faurisson’s intricate knowledge and command of the facts, admitted that they had not seen what they had claimed to have seen. They confessed in court they had only heard rumors and seen nothing approaching a gassing. This was an astounding turnabout.
The chief witness for the prosecution, Prof. Hilberg, that giant of Holocaustianity, found himself debating Prof. Faurisson, through defense attorney Christie’s Faurisson-informed cross-examination. Robert sat at the defense table, regularly providing Christie with texts and documents which reduced Hilberg, the “authority” whose knowledge could not be questioned, to a quivering pile of self-contradictory nonsense, and simultaneous startling revelations (there is “no scientific evidence for the gassings” was one of his confessions).
This writer reported the trial from the press gallery. The contest was one for the history books: the first debate on the homicidal gas chambers between a revisionist professor and a “Holocaust” professor, wherein the latter was defeated by the former, lending weight to the probability that the gassings’ imposture maintains credibility only in a vacuum where no contradictions, challenges or cross-examinations are permitted.
Faurisson was a man of the Enlightenment. He was no “hater.” While at Zündelhaus I remember sharing a snack with him and a couple of World-War-II German army veterans. Robert was talking, and he paused to try and recall the name of Julius Streicher, the Nazi-era publisher in Germany of the infamous Jew-hating newspaper Der Stürmer. He asked us, “Who was that man who wrote those disgusting things about the Jews?” There was no one at the table he was trying to impress or needing to deceive, just one American revisionist and two combat vets of the German military. He was at his ease.
If it had been his custom to disparage Judaic people, he would have expressed it on that occasion as a matter of habit, or one of the other times I conversed with him or overheard his conversation out of camera and microphone range. On the contrary, this was the humane tenor of Robert’s private chats. The primitive antediluvians consumed by hatred for him made themselves believe that his soul was as shriveled as their own. They were wrong.
The 1985 Zündel trial will remain Robert Faurisson’s finest hour. He paid dearly for it. In 1989, at age 60, he was assaulted in a park near his home by what the New York Times on Oct. 22 described as “the Sons of Jewish Memory.” The Times reports without elaboration that he was “beaten.” In truth, Faurisson was severely beaten about the face and required reconstructive surgery. His attackers were not prosecuted. As soon as he was fully recovered, he was back on the barricades—becoming the Kafkaesque Man—always on trial, repeatedly prosecuted in dozens of cases in France for committing thought crimes and sacrilege against The Holy People (“offending the memory” etc.).
He recounted to me his time in jail only in terms of the kindness and courtesy shown to him by his French-Muslim guards. He was more often fined than jailed. The financial toll was considerable. His life was in many respects impossible. Insults to his faithful wife, her expulsion from her Catholic choir, the reputational damage to his children and siblings—it was unending. Of course he became unemployable as a professor.
France’s “Faurisson Law”
In 1990, with him in mind, the French National Assembly passed the Faurisson law, otherwise known as the Fabius-Gayssot Act, criminalizing the expression of public doubts about the execution-gas-chamber claims. Here was a national law specifically legislated to gag one man!
After Robert was removed from his university professorship due to the enactment of Fabius-Gayssot, he challenged the legislation as a violation of his right to freedom of speech under the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” The “Human Rights Committee” upheld his condemnation, however, while the French courts ruled that the Gayssot Act was constitutional. This from a nation that had criminalized Calvinist and Huguenot theology in the 16th and 17th centuries, and then turned around and made Catholic theology a capital offense in the late 18th century. It seems that in France the inquisitor’s ignominy is ineradicable. No wonder then that, when Muslims are sanctimoniously lectured about their “misplaced” rage over blasphemy against Mohammed, they respond by wanting to know how it is that Faurisson’s “blasphemy” of the gas chambers is illegal in France while attacks on their Prophet are protected speech.
L’Affaire Garaudy/Abbé Pierre
By December of 1995, Faurisson’s research had become the basis for the celebrated French intellectual Roger Garaudy’s 1995 book Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne (“The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics”; caveat: the second edition, published in March, 1996 is self-censored). Garaudy feared citing Faurisson by name as the source for major portions of his book. This tactic did him little good. It was obvious to the enemies of freedom that Garaudy’s source was Faurisson’s published work. The Zionists and their media were exceedingly alarmed by this development, given Garaudy’s standing in French letters. He became the target of the usual libel and harassment. Their panic grew when an illustrious Catholic joined the fray.
In early 1996, the elderly Abbé Pierre, founder of the acclaimed philanthropic “Emmaus movement” and among the most heralded and esteemed of Catholics in France, boldly came to Garaudy’s defense. It was a remarkable moment. This monk dared to say that the number of deaths at Auschwitz had been exaggerated, and that there should be debate on the question of the existence of Nazi homicidal gas chambers. Abbé Pierre informed the publication La Croix: “No longer to be able to speak a word about Jewish affairs across the millennia without being called an anti-Semite is intolerable.” In the newspaper Liberation he was quoted as saying that, after he had offered support for Garaudy’s position, he had seen at the Brussels airport people coming spontaneously to meet and encourage him; he stated that these people told him: “Thank you for having the courage to challenge a taboo.” He added that he hoped, “People will no longer let themselves be called anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic for saying that a Jew is singing out of tune!”
Alas, his bravado was met with such a hurricane of hysteria that it wasn’t long before Abbé Pierre was compelled to leave France and go into hiding in an Italian monastery. He declared to the newspaper Corriere della Serra,“The Church of France has...intervened so as to silence me through the pressure of the media, motivated by an international Zionist lobby.” A lynch mob atmosphere led to Abbé Pierre eventually requesting mercy by taking back his words and asking to be free from relentless harassment. He wrote:
“Anxious to Live the Truth, free of any duress, seeing my words relating to the works of Roger Garaudy, especially the book Les Mythes fondateurs de la politique israélienne... I have decided to retract my words, referring the matter entirely to the opinions of the Church experts; and, asking pardon of those whom I may have offended, I wish to leave it to God to be sole judge of the rectitude of everyone’s intentions.”
Dr. Faurisson had been engaged with the storm of controversy swirling around Garaudy and the Abbé from early 1996, when Garaudy’s publisher had privately entreated him for documents and other evidence whereby Garaudy, whose contingency planning prior to publication of his book had been inadequate at best, could defend his thesis.
It is worth quoting at some length Robert’s analysis of the affair, beginning with the sorry spectacle of the Abbé’s capitulation:
“He thus retracted his words. He confessed his sins. He begged the world’s pardon and went to the point of describing himself as being ‘free of any duress.’... Later, he would say to Professor Léon Schwartzenberg: ‘I ask your pardon’ (Le Figaro, August 22, 1996). Later still he would choose a means typical of the media to try to obtain the pardon of the Jews and a return to grace with the press. In the issue of Faits & Documents (Facts and Documents]) of October 15, Emmanuel Ratier wrote: ‘Abbé Pierre has truly made his teshuva (Jewish penitence) regarding his support for Roger Garaudy.’
...The Garaudy/Abbé Pierre affair has created the usual witch-hunt climate maintained by the media in general and the newspaper Le Monde in particular. Over the past several months, all sorts of other ‘affairs’ of the same kind have followed on the heels of one another in France, in which the victims have been suspected of having committed the mortal sin of revisionism. Let us cite, by way of example, the case of Olivier Pernet, Professor of Philosophy in Lyon, that of Marc Sautet, a promoter of philosophy cafés, that of Raymond Boudon and Bernard Bourgeois, members of the French Society of Philosophy, that of Noelle Schulman, teacher of physical chemistry at a college in the Yvelines...
Nevertheless, on September 2nd and 3rd, Le Nouveau Quotidien (de Lausanne), published a well-informed study of revisionism in the light of the Garaudy and Abbé Pierre cause célèbre. The author J. Baynac confirmed that the revisionists, whom he called ‘negationists,’ had plenty of reason to rejoice over this scandal which had ‘changed the atmosphere in their favor.’ He noted that, as for the adversaries of the revisionists, ‘disarray has given over to consternation’... and that, since the beginning of ‘the Faurisson affair’ in 1978-1979, historians had preferred to opt out: they ‘have scattered.’
...Baynac considered that, in order to prove the existence of the Nazi gas chambers, they had depended too heavily on witnesses, something which was ‘ascientific.’ As for scientific proof, he recalled the statement by Jewish-American historian Arno Mayer in 1988: ‘Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.’ Then, going even further, he said that it was necessary to have the frankness to recognize that on the matter of documents, traces, or other material evidence proving the existence of the said gas chambers, there was quite simply... nothing!”
Concerning Garaudy and Abbé Pierre, Faurisson, a seasoned veteran of the brutal Zionist war on free thinking, added this trenchant and indeed profound observation:
“Two octogenarians who believed that they knew about life and men, discovered suddenly with the surprise of children that their past existence had actually been, on the whole, rather easy. Both of them over the space of a few days had had to withstand an exceptional trial: that which Jewish organizations inflict as a matter of course on individuals who have the misfortune of provoking their wrath. There is in this, on the part of these organizations, neither plot nor conspiracy, but something in the order of ancestral reflex. The media, which are devoted to them and would have to pay dearly were they to do anything contrary to their wishes, know how to mobilize against the ‘anti-Semites,’ which is to say against persons who, with some exceptions, do not hate the Jews, but are hated by them.”
Faurisson and Revisionism in Iran
A decade later, in December, 2006, Prof. Faurisson’s research had obtained so great a reception in the Islamic Republic of Iran that a World-War-II revisionist history symposium was hosted by that nation, led by Robert. It was a great success and made headlines around the world. In 2012, Faurisson achieved the unimaginable, being the first revisionist historian ever to be honored by a head of state, when Mahmoud Ahmedinjad, the President of Iran, conferred upon him a medal for his “courage, resistance and fighting spirit.” More recently Dr. Faurisson was discovered by a new generation of the young French avant-garde, among them internationally known African-French satirist and comedian, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala.
French people are sometimes viewed as complicated, difficult, humorless and prolix. But when the peculiar genius of the French manifests, it does so in a spectacular burst of defiant individualism personified by men I have dubbed the “The Four Musketeers” of the modern age: Antonin Artaud, L.F. Céline, Marcel Lefebvre and Robert Faurisson.
There is a streak in the French national character that caused Le Monde to prominently publish Faurisson’s doubts in 1978, something that would have been nearly impossible in the New York Times, or any other major American newspaper. Robert garnered allies from elite ranks of French society: the aforementioned Pierre Guillaume and Serge Thion, and Henri Rocques, whose PhD dissertation at the University of Nantes in 1985 challenged the claims of gas chambers in Belzec; Bernard Notin, Prof. of Economics at the University of Lyon; this writer’s French publisher, Jean Plantin, and others who shall for the present remain anonymous. Despite draconian laws, revisionism in France (prejudicially termed “negationisme”) has what Thomas Molnar termed “sociological presence,” perhaps more so than in any other country, including Britain and America. Faurisson did not achieve this alone, but it would not have been possible without him. Moreover, throughout the world the scholars and activists he has influenced and inspired are innumerable.
While in full command of his mind and body, for the better part of Robert’s last days on earth he was visiting his birthplace in Shepperton, England, where he gave a speech amid some seventy friends and well-wishers, after which he returned to his home in France, where he died peacefully and painlessly. What a tribute to him from that God in whom he did not believe.
Robert Faurisson, 1929-2018. Requiescat in pace. You may visit Prof. Faurisson blog here
Michael Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic, which was banned by Amazon on August 13.
This article was first published at www.RevisionistHistory.org
Codoh.com |
Back to Tony Hall
Conclusions
The contrast between the style of Piers Morgan and the styles of Robert Faurisson and Michael Hoffman’ forms a striking contrast…. from the ridiculous to the sublime.
In guiding us through the twists and turns of his unusual career, Hoffman presents a scholarly tour de force illuminating much about the scope, the nuances and complexity of Holocaust Studies especially in Europe. Hoffman brought to life the Demonized Skeptic who showed grace under fire in his Battle for the Right to Doubt.”
Faurisson was prolific. learned, and a very adept team player.
https://www.unz.com/publication/jhr/author/robert_faurisson/
Faurisson’s work with Zundel and especially with Zundle’s lawyer, Doug Christie, has become legendary. As Hoffman notes, Faurisson had was able to coach Christie by feeding him a constant stream of relevant information to help him see beneath surface appearances in the conduct of his cross-examinations.
This cross-examination stung and rattled Raul Hillberg, the author of The Destruction of the European Jews that first appeared in 1961.
Hillberg was rendered so embarrassed by his weak showing that he opted not to take part in Zundel’s 1988 trial. A similar process exposed the exaggerations and fabrications of the well known Auschwitz inmate and eye witness, Rudolf Vrba. Vrba had famously escaped Auschwitz.
The Zundel proceedings ironically gave the accused a very public platform to put Holocaust orthodoxy on trial in ways that have not happened before of since. Many of the rules were altered in Holocaust litigation so that no repeats of anything like the Zundel trials would ever happen again. One of the lessons learned on the executionist side is to avoid putting eye-witnesses on the stand to be subjected to cross-examination.
This rule was followed in the Irving versus Lipstadt and Penguin Books case that went to court in 2000. Historian David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel arguing that the Holocaust Studies Professor had unfairly defamed him as a Holocaust Denier. Irving argued his massive book sales on aspects of WWII history had dropped significantly since his work had been demeaned in Lipstadt’s book, Denying the Holocaust. This text first appeared in 1993.
Not only was the decision made on the plaintiff’s side to avoid putting eye-witnesses on the stand. It was decided that Lipstadt herself would not testify. A number of rich and famous backers showed up to fund the defence of Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Among them was Steven Spielberg, Edgar Bronfman and Leslie Wexner, the original funder of Mossad’s Jeffrey Epstein blackmail operation. (See here)
David Irving, a veteran of Ernst Zundel’s defence team, lost the case. All the ingredients were in place for a Hollywood style Holocaust movie which was projected onto screens in movie theatres in 2016.
I recall attending Denial with Monika Schafer in Jasper National Park in 2016 shortly after I had been suspended from my academic position. One of the pieces of evidence used against me was a film on which Monika and I and Monika’s brother, Alfred, had worked on earlier in the summer of 2016.
Monika had invited me to accompany her on a visit to her brother in Tutzing near Munich. Monika and I got to know each other when we cooperated in organizing a discussion on 9/11 in Jasper. In our discussions Monika introduced me to the subject of Ernst Zundel. I recall seeing a documentary film about him entitled, Germany Off Your Knees.
I could not find any reference to this film on the Internet when I checked moments ago. What I saw in the movie years ago, it made a lasting positive impact on me. The more research I did on Ernst Zundel, the more I found him to be a thoughtful and knowledgable interpreter of many topics that were previously unknown to me.
One morning I was invited by the siblings to address on camera the question, Do You Believe in Open Debate on the Holocaust? The answer seemed to me like a no brainer. As a tenured university professor I took it as a professional responsibility to defend the principles of academic freedom and to defend open debate on all subjects including The Holocaust.
So I looked into the lens and made an extemporaneous statement that would turn out to be more consequential than I could have imagined at the time. The video keeps getting banned but then it turns up in other occasions.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/itUgmI34Lfcn/
I believe this short film has been banned in Germany and probably other jurisdictions as well. The co-presenters, Alfred and Monika Schafer, have since our filming both done jail time in Germany for various infractions related to Holocaust Denial.
I could not have guessed how readily my call for open debate on the holocaust could be turned into the charge that labelled me as a Holocaust Denier. When it comes to this subject, questions, debates and independent research are apparently discouraged. What is preferred, it seems, is a thumbs up yes offering unqualified consent to the authorized narrative embraced by Yad Vashem.
In mid-September of 2016 I became aware of I was the target of a vile media attack co-ordinated by B’nai Brith Canada. The campaign embodied a marriage of what I did say in the video and words that I did not say. The words I did not say were planted on me in a Facebook scam. Here is my account of how the smear campaign developed and what came out of it.
What Further Genocides and Holocausts Are Being Prepared for Us?
After 26 years of service I was in 2017 a tenured Full Professor.
In 2016 it seemed quite easy to come up with an explanation of why I believed in open debate on the holocaust. Back then I had never given much thought to what it would mean to be publicly labelled as a Holocaust Denier. Then it happened to me.
In the last eight years I have thought about the subject quite a lot and looked into it through independent research. If you’ve made it this far, you’ll see I have given myself ample space to reflect on the weird discourse generated by a weird configuration of agendas and interests.
Is a stark choice between denial or consent to frame almost every issue in the future? Is “The Holocaust: Yes Or No,” a precedent for much more of the same to come?
“ Complexity and nuance is being pushed aside so that “The Holocaust”can be reduced to a single option calling for a thumbs up or thumbs down vote. What an absurdity.”
As George Bush, Jr. famously stated, “ you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists”.
It’s that simple. NOT!!
According to Dr. Fauci, when asked for more information about the inconsistencies in the Covid “narrative “, his response was simply: “ the science is settled”. End of discussion.
Sound familiar??
Sycophants continue another day.
Heroes detect the lies in the relentless bombardment of false narratives designed to confuse us, divide us, and distract us from focusing on the real enemy (the oligarchs who pull the strings).
Heroes continue to stand for what is right because they can do nothing else, no matter the relentless attacks from the powerful and their brainwashed/controlled minions.
Thank you for being a hero Tony, and for writing about other heroes who have continued to stand strong against Zionism and evil despite relentless attacks.