Repression in Germany-Germar Rudolf

1/5

2/5

3/5

4/5

5/5

David Cole and Bradley Smith on Phil Donahue 1994

Revised Sun Feb 15 13:36:04 EST 2009

This multi-part video was removed by YouTube once, allegedly for "Terms of use violation". It has since been restored by Fredrick Toben. The program is well worth watching because it demonstrates the extent to which emotion and irrationality can prevail over reason and objective evidence. It also exposes how the mainstream media manipulates such discussions in order to promote such collective delusions as "The Holocaust" and the 9/11 official conspiracy theory.

Holocaust Revisionists Bradley Smith and David Cole on the Phil Donahue Show 1994

I know there will be plenty of you who will want to argue and debate on the topic this clip deals with. I would suggest that you take the debate into the forums of the Real Open-Debate on the Holocaust website:

http://www.rodoh.us/

There you will be able to read the various conflicting arguments on this topic and contribute your own arguments to the debate. You also won't have the word limits you have when posting comments on youtube.

nineeleven.co.uk: Where Banishment is an Honour

It will be helpful for the reader to gain some understanding as to who Gerald Bostock is in order to understand why I chose this as my nom de plume.

Really don't mind if you sit this one out
My word's but a whisper
Your deafness a shout
I may make you feel
But I can't make you think

This author was recently blocked from posting to and reading 9/11, the bigger picture and the quest for truth: The British (UK) 9/11 Truth Campaign portal, website and forums. Apparently this was for posting the following quoted text [Original found here]:

At the risk of being accused of discussing a forbidden topic by discussing the forbidding of the topic, I wish to share some observations about the recent change in policy on this forum. A review of recent posts should reveal what that policy change was.

I have to say that the very idea that some topics are too controversial for honest and sincere adults to discuss in public is arrogant, elitist, condescending and illiberal. One of the primary motives that drives me to participate in the 9/11 Truth movement is to oppose regimes that would impose restrictions on the free discussion of relevant information. I do not fear having my ideas and perceptions challenged. I believe that the Truth is stronger than lies. Indeed, that axiom is the unspoken foundation of Anglo-American civilization.

I know that I have been forbidden from speaking the Truth as I know it on this forum. This is a Truth that I sincerely believe is relevant to the stated mission of this forum. By forbidding this discussion the cognizant authorities are implicitly saying that I am wrong. In order for me to be wrong I must be either misinformed (unsound premises), logically in error (invalid argument) or simply lying.

Regarding the first two possibilities, I welcome the opportunity to be corrected. I am human and therefore can err. I do not wish to be mistaken or misinformed. To deny me that opportunity for correction is to deny me the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions. A state of ignorance and error is clearly hazardous to my well-being. Denying me this opportunity for correction is therefore a means of doing harm to me.

Regarding the last of the above listed possibilities, to wit, that I might be intentionally lying, that I take to be a serious charge against which I have a right to defend myself. To be accused of lying is harmful to a person's reputation and therefore his wellbeing.

To assert that a particular belief is incorrect implies that any person who professes that belief suffers from one or more of the above stated faults. It therefore does not matter that my actual identity is not known to the public. The harm resulting from denying me the freedom to honestly discuss the offending topic is done to all who share my beliefs.

Forbidding the honest discussion of a relevant topic is the quintessential act of intellectual tyranny. It is clear that several regular and sincere participants in this forum share my belief that the forbidden topic is relevant, and they also share my opinions regarding the facts involved.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Note that the post was originally to a newly created thread entitled Protecting me from dangerous ideas, but was moved by the moderator to the thread entitled No Holocaust discussion on this site. That was, however, my penultimate post. My final post was in the thread Jewish group applauds web censorship as follows:

ian neal wrote:

If you read the rules of this site you would know that hate speech is banned on this site

So when it is said, as the article does

“Clearly a line has to be drawn between freedom of speech, voicing of differing opinions – and material that just incites racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence. When that line is crossed, that material ought not to be freely available to all who log onto the web.”

I agree

And if you don't, you are on the wrong site. If I were you I would rush off and find a corner of cyber space that still allows the incitement of "racial hatred, religious intolerance and violence" and get busy while you still can.

Do you agree with this statement by Hillary Clinton?

To deny the Holocaust places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. It is an insult not only to the memory of the millions of Jews who suffered and died in the Shoah, but also to the troops of the United States and its allies who, in the fight to liberate Europe from Nazism, bore witness to the reality of the Holocaust.

In addition to Gerald Bostock, other user names I used on nineeleven.co.uk were Alulim, Usama bin Laden and Hetware. Several of my most important posts relative to the dispute have been removed after persisting for days, weeks or even months.

Nil conscire sibi

Ernst Zundel interviews Prof. Roger Dommergue in France.

A Jew defends Hitler - part 1 of 3

A Jew defends Hitler - part 2 of 3

A Jew defends Hitler - part 3 of 3

This is a quite extraordinary dialog which is well worth hearing. We do not support all of Prof. Dommergue's views, but we certainly support his right to express them. We also believe that he is sufficiently informed to be taken seriously.

Message to the German Embassy Regarding the Imprisonment of Germar Rudolf

I am confident that any informed and intelligent German citizen knows that Germar Rudolf is in prison for speaking the Truth as he knows it. His research is of the highest scholarly and scientific standards. His conclusions are arrived at through valid reasoning on the basis of sound premises. In other words, I have concluded that Germar Rudolf is in prison for being intelligent, truthful, right and patriotic.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 19 clearly states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

By imprisoning Germar Rudolf, the German government is clearly guilty of a blatant and egregious violation of human rights in both the letter and the spirit of the law.

During the Cold War I served two years in Germany as a soldier in the United States Army. I did so with pride in the conviction that I was defending the German people against exactly the evil that is being wrought upon the good and honest Germar Rudolf. As I have demonstrated by this service, I would willingly bear arms against a government which conducts its affairs as does the current German government. I do not say this despite my German-American heritage dating to 1776, I say this because of my heritage.

In the off chance that this missive might be perceived as undiplomatic, I will say that I am speaking the Truth without pretense. If you want affected "diplomacy", talk to Heinz Alfred Kissinger.

Confessions of a German Crimethinker

Zionist Minitrue Persecutes Crimethinker Dr. Fredrick Toben

Holocaust denier called to account

Jeremy Roberts | February 28, 2008

HOLOCAUST denier Fredrick Toben faced accusations of criminal contempt of court yesterday after he claimed the Federal Court was part of worldwide conspiracy against him.
The call to lay criminal charge against Dr Toben came from counsel for Australian Jewish leader Jeremy Jones, in a long running Federal Court case aimed at removing Holocaust-denial material from Dr Toben's Adelaide Institute website.

In a document lodged with the Federal Court yesterday, Dr Toben, 62, claimed the court was a part of a plan to silence his controversial views on the Holocaust.

"This matter before the Federal Court of Australia is a Jewish conspiratorial matter designed to protect an historical lie," Dr Toben says, in notice of motion filed yesterday.

Going further, Dr Toben identifies two Jewish judges, Federal Court Justice Alan Goldberg and NSW Supreme Court Justice Stephen Rothman, and questions the integrity of the courts.

"Both (judges) have been heavily involved in propagating the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah, gives rise for concern that any kind of justice can emerge from proceedings that directly impact on a contentious interpretation of an historical event," he says.

Counsel for Mr Jones, Robin Margo SC, told the court that Dr Toben's comments were so serious as to attract a criminal action.

"This matter has passed from a civil contempt proceeding to serious criminal contempt," Mr Margo said.

Mr Margo told Justice Michael Moore, sitting in Sydney, that after six years of litigation from Mr Jones, it was time for criminal action to be taken by the court against Dr Toben.

"There must come a point in which a private litigant doesn't have to keep pushing the barrow for ever," Mr Margo said.

German-born Australian, Mr Toben, 62, spent seven months in a German prison in 1999 for breaching Holocaust denial laws on his website.

He represented himself yesterday in Adelaide, connected to the Sydney court by video link, responding to a civil contempt of court complaint by Mr Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

Mr Jones is attempting to have Dr Toben honour a court undertaking, made in November last year, to remove references to Holocaust denial material on his website.

Mr Jones also wants Dr Toben to re-issue his apology, made last November, for breaching the terms of the 2002 decision by Justice Catherine Branson to remove the Holocaust-denial material.
Justice Moore adjourned the case to a date in April, ahead of a possible hearing in June.

Documentary: NY Times 1933 Headlines "Judea Declares War on Germany"

This documentary presents a very unconventional view of the events commonly known as The Holocaust. We have not verified every one of Dr. Toben's claims, but we know of no factual errors therein, and do have corroboration for much of the material.

The 9/11 Truth(sic) Police vs. 9/11 Truth

The following is from a 9/11 mailing list.

---

ATTN: Dr. Legge, Dr. Jones and Kevin Ryan, I apologize for the distraction. I believe this is something worthy of your valuable time.

... Jews ... Jews ... Protocols of Zion .... Jews did 9/11 ... - Col. Jenny Sparks

Jews control the media. - Victoria Ashley

On Thursday 06 December 2007 17:42, [ID omitted] wrote:

In a message dated 12/5/2007 10:26:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [STH] writes:

After having spent considerable time collecting my resources and formatting a somewhat complex layout, I attempted to preview it, only to learn that my access had been denied to the parent resource. That caused me to loose all of my work.

Their high-handed behavior is outrageous. And they do this anonymously?

I'll give Victoria Ashely credit for identifying herself with her treachery. She has, however, said much behind my back. One truly outlandish and mind-bending example is on this page which was linked in my previous message.

Reply to Libel Posted on 911blogger

What ever happened with the right to face one's accusers ??? This is just hateful.

Being hateful to me is something I can live with. I'm accustomed to it. But you have identified much of what I find offensive about their behavior. Indeed, they conduct themselves in a way which is contrary to the principles and values which I am defending through my 9/11 Truth efforts. Dr. Jones encourages us to "rally around the Constitution", to which I will add: it is not the letter of the law, but rather the Spirit of the Law that matters.

Why would anyone want to be part of such a group ??

For me, it is because there are people who participate in these forums whom I respect, and with whom I wish to carry on a public dialog. Indeed, I have the sense that it may well be the objective of people such as Mr. Jenny Sparks to isolate the leaders from those who are capable of providing valuable input. IOW, it may be artful subterfuge.

It is mind-boggling that "Col. Jenny Sparks" is accorded anything but contempt. I smelled a rat the first time I saw his nym and googled for it. I've been online in unmoderated newsgroups going on two decades. I know a potty-mouthed troll when I see one.

I recall many years ago, before the WWW explosion, someone posted information challenging the orthodox interpretation of "The Holocaust". At the time I had no doubts about the accepted history. I was fully indoctrinated. I was offended by what he was saying, as were others in the forum.

One day someone posted the man's home address and directions to his house, starting from the USHMM, and encouraged all Jews to get a baseball bat and pay him a visit. I am sorry to say that my immediate reaction was not utter indignation at and condemnation of the threat. I did, however, condemn the threat when asked directly if I though it was right.

(The art of gentle persuasion used to to sustain the historical orthodoxy: Revisionist Historian Suffers Savage Beating )

Before I was banned from the STJ911 forum for my honesty, I suggested that participants not be overly enthusiastic in condemning "Holocaust Deniers" for our unorthodox views of history, since 9/11 researchers might find themselves in the same boat. I believe that was the first of my three transgressions which resulted in my banishment. Be that as it may, I was accused of threatening people with violence by issuing that warning (or some similar nonsense). As absurd as this may seem, it should be verifiable by anyone who has access to the STJ forum.

So here is the situation from my perspective. I am an American[*], and therefore believe that a person should seek the truth and speak the truth as he or she knows it. A person should not be ostracized for the honest expression of his or her opinions or beliefs.

Before I realized 9/11 was an inside job, I had been reassessing my understanding of "The Holocaust". It was a similar experience to that of realizing 9/11 was an inside job - though far more emotionally and intellectually difficult.

I am now in a situation in which I have proclaimed my "Holocaust" heresy and am therefore attacked and ostracized by the self-appointed guardians of the 9/11 Truth movement. The libelous claim from the likes of Jenny Sparks and Victoria Ashley is that I am intentionally trying to discredit or disrupt the 9/11 truth movement by mixing it with "Holocaust Denial". This accusation is typically included in a list with UFO researchers, no-planers, Apollo Moon-landing skeptics, DEW promoters, etc. Indeed this intellectual bigotry was explicitly codified in the Victronix Liar's Paradox:Reject efforts to mix holocaust discussions with 9/11/01. But let's look at her own web site:
http://www.911review.com/denial/holocaust.html [**]

That, however, is not enough for them. Even if I avoid the topic, the very fact that I am a "Holocaust" Heretic is used to exclude me from 9/11 forums. "Haeresis est maxima, holocaustum non credere". (My response: Dark Ages)

In conclusion, here's what we have: Anybody who has honestly examined "The Holocaust" will conclude that what is alleged to have happened did not happen. So a rational, intelligent person who has investigated this extremely important issue will conclude that "Holocaust Deniers" are correct. A person of good conscience will say as much, and will therefore become a "Holocaust Denier". It follows that any person conscientious enough to investigate the facts behind one of the most consequential claims in history, intelligent enough to evaluate the available evidence, and honest enough to speak the Truth about what he finds, is (according to the 9/11 Truth(sic) Police) disqualified from the 9/11 Truth movement.

---

[*] 1774:Susanna and Friend [Quaker] Elizabeth Robinson from Great Britain travel to New England to preach the Truth and seek new Friends. "At diverse meetings previous to the breaking forth of the American war, she had, in an aweful manner, to proclaim the approach of a stormy day, which would shake the sandy foundations of men, and many of the formal professors of our Society should be blown away."

Susanna was the wife of Joseph and the mother of Robert who was the father of George, the father of Robert, the father of Joseph, the father of Seth, the father of James Sr., the father of James Jr. who is my father. My grandma started the American Revolution!


[**]Hey Vic, Hetfield's from the Bay Area, isn't he? One can only imagine if he had someone specific in mind:



Holier than thou

No more!
The crap rolls out your mouth again
Haven't changed, your brain is still gelatin
Little whispers circle around your head
Why don't you worry about yourself instead?

Who are you? where ya been? where ya from?
Gossip burning on the tip of your tongue
You lie so much you believe yourself
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

Before you judge me take a look at you
Can't you find something better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

It's not who you are it's who you know
Others lives are the basis of your own
Burn your bridges build them back with wealth
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

Yeah who the hell are you?
Hey you!

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

Not!

Germar Rudolf imprisoned for Holocaust Heresy

33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
~KJV

digg story

---

German Holocaust Denier Imprisoned for Inciting Racial Hatred

A German court sentenced Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf to two and a half years in prison for inciting racial hatred in publications and Web sites which "systematically" called into question the Nazi genocide.

The court in Mannheim in southern Germany on Thursday found that Rudolf, 42, had contested the murder of six million Jews in Europe during World War II in propaganda on the Internet and in various publications.

Rudolf, a trained chemist who once worked at the renowned Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, described the Holocaust as "a gigantic fraud" during his trial. He published pseudo-scientific claims that it was impossible that Zyklon-B poison was used in the gas chambers at the Nazis' Auschwitz death camp.

He also said that he had found no evidence that the gas chambers used to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews ever existed.

Deportation after escape to US

Rudolf fled from Germany to the United States in 1995 after a court handed him a suspended sentence of 14 months for whipping up anti-Semitic sentiment.

He applied for political asylum in the US in 2000, but was rejected. He was deported in 2005 to serve the 1995 sentence. Rudolf was arrested when he appeared at an immigration office in Chicago to apply for a green card based on his marriage to a US citizen.

He was charged again in April 2006 with "systematically" denying or playing down the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews in documents and on the Internet and of stirring anti-Semitic hatred.

"He presented the Holocaust as invention," prosecutor Andreas Grossmann told the court in his closing speech.

Conviction follows that of associate Zündel

Rudolf's conviction follows that of neo-Nazi "historian" Ernst Zündel, one of the leading figures in the Holocaust denial movement and an acquaintance of Rudolf's, in February.

Zündel was jailed for five years in jail for his books and Web sites which contained fulsome praise of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and abuse towards Jews.

Auschwitz Sans Psyops

This is a side of things you won't see on CNN:

Message to Deborah Lipstadt

Ms. Lipstadt:

I have to confess, I am fairly new to the topic of Nazi era revisionism. At least, in so much as I have taken it the least bit seriously. I had been aware of the existence of such people as Ernst Zündel and David Irving. I had dismissed them as prevaricators and extremists. Recently, however, in the context of discussions with others about the various events and locations involved in the Nazi epoch, I begand to seek detailed information about the evidence of what had actually happened. What I discovered where a lot of statements of conclusions conjoined with alleged evidence which was neither persuasive, nor substantial.

One particular realm in which the evidence of what actually did take place seems quite ambiguous, and in many cases, intentionally misinterpreted, is that of the documentary evidence. Originally, I had trusted the English language translations; having given them a cursory review using a German-English dictionary. After finding many of the aspects of physical evidence lacking in persuasiveness, I decided to return to the documentary evidence with a more critical focus.

I will add that, in the decade and a half between my first exposure to (and rejection of) Nazi era revisionism, and the time I recently returned to the topic, I have spent a great deal of time and effort investigating the etymologies of Germanic words.

What I discovered, upon returning to the allegedly incriminating documentation is that much of it makes more sense if it is read differently than the orthodox historian will have it. In conjuction with reading about the (lack of) investigation on the part of the post war IMTs, I noticed the complete absence of any direct physical evidence for many of the alleged crimes in question. At the time the conceptual model took its initial form, there was virtually no effort to examine the physical evidence, nor to preserve the most significant components such as ruins of the alleged homicidal gaschambers. Several decades later, and as a direct result of challenges by revisionists, orthodox historians supported limited forensic investigations for the first time. These investigations were, at best, inconclusive.

Many of the initially circulated stories of what happened in Nazi occupied Europe have been quietly dropped, but not put to rest in the collective public awareness. It is thus somewhat difficult to determine exactly what the orthodox historian even means by "The Holocaust". To the naive investigator, many of the preconceived notions are quickly debunked by a careful reading of discussions of such topics as human skin lampshades. Even in this case, the discussion is often formulated to force the reader to follow the footnotes to determine the evidence is indeed lacking.

At some point during this exercise, reasonable minds will conclude the subject of "The Holocaust" has not been treated objectively by mainstream historians. The result is that the investigator become suspicious of what he reads, and looks for clearly presented, definitive proofs of the allegations which he had previously accepted as foregone conclusions. If, with that skeptical mindset, he then reads something of the nature of your recent BBC article found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/genocide/deniers_06.shtml, he will conclude that you are not being forthright and honest. Indeed, this article of yours is dishonest propaganda relying on the force of your credentials, as well as, the momentum of preconceived notions.

In conclusion, I will say, I do not know what happened 60 years ago in Nazi occupied Europe, and neither do you. The evidence for the existence of homicidal gaschambers used at Auschwitz is far less than convincing. Indeed, that which I have seen, is inconsistent. What is alleged to have happened is physically impossible.