Well, a new year is here, and I am happy to report that a new wind is blowing. So far, only the gusts - but, boy, does it feel good to fill your lungs with air and watch the cob webs swirl! Remember how I mentioned in a Zgram just a few weeks ago that Ernst Zündel suggested to the Swiss banks they ought to "...invest in Revisionism" since doing so would be, by far, the cheaper, smarter route to go than to "...succumb to blackmail regarding so-called Nazi loot"?
Ernst was the one, in fact, who has called the Holocaust: " parasitism elevated to a state of doctrine" for some time. Since 1981, he has openly called it an extortion racket. He has told every Revisionist leader, writer and researcher since at least 1988 that "...we must hammer away at this latest tool of the eternal parasite - people who hide behind their self-proclaimed, massively propagandised victimhood, while practising their Holocaust terrorism, Holocaust blackmail and Holocaust extortion racket...".
Bernie Farber, head of the Canadian Jewish Congress in his testimony in Ottowa before the SIRC Committee this spring, correctly pointed out that "...Zündel goes further than any other Holocaust Denier" making a direct connection from the Holocaust story to Jewish greed and money grubbing by calling it an extortion racket. [ We have always maintained that no group of people has a monopoly on such negative human characteristics. In his book Hitler's Willing Executioners, Goldhagen attempts to negatively stereotype the German people. In Zundel's case here, the group specifically targeted is the Holocaust lobby. Ed.]
That's why there are such desperate attempts in Canada to shut Ernst up. That's how you earn yourself derogatory titles such as "evil magician", "anti-Semite", "hate monger" and, for good measure, "racist". That's why the opposition has to mobilise the media of Canada, spend millions of taxpayer's money, and get huge government organisations to act as their hit squad for them. Ernst Zündel of Toronto, Canada - a "crank" whom no one in his right mind, takes seriously?
Day before yesterday, the President of Switzerland drew himself up to his full height on his last day in office and said, OFFICIALLY, as the first leader in the so-called "free" world, what Ernst Zundel has said all along.
None other than Swiss President, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, in a newspaper interview stated that Jewish demands for a fund to be set up for Jews who MIGHT be entitled to money supposedly stolen by Swiss banks during World War II was "blackmail" and "extortion".
"This is nothing less than extortion and blackmail", Delamuraz said, referring to a "temporary fund" suggested as an interim arrangement. "This fund would make it much more difficult to establish the truth. Such a fund would be considered an admission of guilt."
The President of Switzerland went even further. He pointed out that criticism of Swiss banks and the country's war role was not only "...due to the nature of the revelations but equally to the not very pure intentions which lay in their origin". In this newspaper interview with a reporter from Tribune de Geneve, Delamuraz reiterated the Swiss government's stance that any compensation measures should wait for the findings of a nine-member historical panel named by the Cabinet two weeks ago to investigate the Swiss financial role in World War II.
Now, when Ernst Zündel speaks, here's how he puts these matters: "...We are dealing with Ghetto-gangster elements in pin-striped suits who carry calculators in their violin cases, rather than Thompson machine guns, the way it was done at the St Valentine's Day Massacre. The take of their terrorism is far more lucrative than if they had used guns. Dead victims don't pay 'reparations'".
Live victims, of course, do. They pay through the nose and keep paying. Germans have paid to various "beneficiaries" more than DM100 billion in the past half century. Now Switzerland is supposed to start paying - along with a whole slew of financially less - endowed countries - such as Poland, for instance, on whom the same elements are kneeling to pay for all the so-called "confiscated" Jewish property. The Poles are in a worse fix - they are worried that if they pay the Jews, then they will also have to pay compensation to the Silesians and the East and West Prussians. Such reparations payments would amount to trillions, not just billions. So this development is pregnant with trouble. And speaking of billions if not trillions: According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October 1996, (p.44) Americans have supported the state of Israel to the tune of more than $5.5 billion in 1996 alone. Imagine how much it adds up to, directly and indirectly, since 1984! And no end yet in sight. Somewhere I read that the Aryan race is the only race on earth that carries its own parasites on its back wherever it goes and wherever it settles - like some exotic animal species take with them parasitic birds in Africa.
Repeat after me, class: "The
Holocaust is NOT about this so-called victimhood. It is a clever
TOOL for making victims out of fools by playing on their
Said Swiss President Delamuraz who doubles up as economics minister and, hence, has the credentials, that the initial Swiss response to criticism of the Swiss banking system had been "naïve" - exactly what Ernst said in one of his newsletters when this matter first came to the fore. Said Delamuraz: "No one...appears to see that apart from dogged research into historical truth there is also a strong political desire to destabilise and compromise Switzerland. This has one link in Washington and another in London, where it was a matter of nothing else than trying to demolish Switzerland's status as a financial centre", Delamuraz is reported to have said to a reporter of this French-language Swiss newspaper.
Said Zündel, the outspoken Swabian: "No wonder that they want to criminalize Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Revisionism. We are the ones who are blowing the whistle on them. The Holocaust Promotion Lobby has a protection racket going that makes the standard Mafia-take mere chicken feed. These folks are criminals, extortionists. They are hiding behind victimhood while operating on a global scale. Show the first sign of weakness, and the hyenas will move in.
"Remember the IKEA flap, where this billion dollar Swedish furniture chain store was accused of having a president who belonged to a Nazi organisation at the end of the war? World-wide strikes were threatened by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and only when the chain's management flew to Los Angeles and promised to establish a store in Israel were the threatened strikes put on hold.
"Remember how the Japanese caved in when in a similar situation, action was threatened against Marco Polo magazine, a lucrative, highly popular upscale glossy publication? One of my Japanese contacts had been able to place a seven page, top notch Revisionist article. Immediately the Israeli consulate and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre dispatched a delegation to Tokyo and leaned on Volkswagen Japan to withdraw its large ads from the magazine. The Japanese magazine's management, defiant at first, obediently caved in after its huge parent corporation fell all over itself in abjectly apologising to the Jewish Lobby.
Result? Everybody was fired. The entire magazine disbanded.
These are just two examples of Holocaust terrorism to extort behaviour favourable and profitable to current, not past, Jewish interests. We ought to finally get it straight in 1997, now that we can quote a President..."
Does the common man in the street need "hate laws"? Or does the Holocaust Promotion Lobby need them solely? You ask yourself that question. You have in Switzerland a country that WILLINGLY criminalized scepticism about the Auschwitz "gas chambers" a mere few years ago, there legally painting itself in a corner!
The Swiss are in a fix now. They have outlawed Holocaust scepticism and questioning the details of so-called "gassing" stories and other fabrications. Was it done by forces behind the scenes who knew the "Nazi Gold" scheme was coming? With this "hate law" in place, the Swiss disarmed themselves before the struggle for truth in their history even got going! How can the banks play the Revisionist card now? Publish their findings, which will have to be Revisionist information if they are honest findings, and go directly to jail?
Well, it is not too late. There still is Jürgen Graf, right there in Switzerland, to name just one Revisionist - and what a powerhouse of pen, that one!
It would be a magnificent beginning if tiny Switzerland would lead the way and systematically start using the hard work of people such as Graf and other pioneers who have, as one of our correspondents put it "...thrown career and reputations to the winds in their pursuit of truth and fairness..." and who, this writer then goes on to say while quoting from a dusty book he found in an old box, "..gave their breast(s) to the bullets of a mob, for the rights of free speech and opinion".
Stop Press: In customary fashion we have just received the news through Der Spiegel that the Swiss president has apologized to the Jews.
In our January newsletter we wondered why Professor Butz had not made the Internet Hatepage which has been set up by some of the feverish minds residing at the Harvard University Law Library. Since May last year Butz has maintained his own Internet webpage and this has caused uproar among those who wish to stop us from questioning the basic premise upon which the Holocaust story rests. What follows is an item from Sarah Nordgren, AP, taken from news provider, America On-Line News,
Evanston, Ill. (Jan.8) - Exiled to a dusty office in an obscure corner of Northwestern University's engineering school, professor Arthur Butz has been an academic pariah for two decades for declaring the Holocaust didn't happen. Now he's found a forum - Northwestern's site on the World Wide Web - to reach millions of people with theories that historians find absurd.
With a few keystrokes, computer
users can find Butz's argument that the Nazi genocide of more
than 6 million Jews is "a widespread but erroneous
belief", and that typhus and other factors were responsible
for the deaths. Northwestern, while repudiating Butz's beliefs,
won't interfere with his right to express them on the Internet
through the university.
"I believe his views are monstrous," said university President Henry Bienen. "But I don't want to set myself up as a censor of his views. Who decides what's distateful? Do you make general law around bad causes?"
Butz's posting has infuriated any number of groups, who argue the school has no reason to give the tenured professor what amounts to a free billboard. But the issue has also been muddled by the university's decision not to rehire another teacher who was so outraged by Butz's views that he taught a lesson on the Holocaust in an engineering class. The teacher, Sheldon Epstein, was told last fall that his contract would not be renewed, at least in part because he strayed from the course material in assigning students to research and write about the Holocaust. "I read his Webpage and said this stuff doesn't belong on Northwestern's site," said Epstein, who polled his students and found that many knew little or nothing about the Holocaust. "I owed it to my students."
Butz was trained in engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Minnesota. His area of expertise includes arcane fields such as digital signal processing.
Among students of the Holocaust, though, he is notorious. Although he has no formal training in history, he is the author of a 1976 book, The Hoax of the 20th Century, has published his arguments in the student newspaper, and is prominent among Holocaust deniers. Butz, a soft-spoken man with thick glasses, defends his right to his Webpage. "As long as the university has this server available for personal use, then it's perfectly appropriate for me to have this," Butz said.
"The question is whether the university has the right to say, "We're not comfortable having that promoted under the aegis of Northwestern University," countered Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, which is devoted to study of the Holocaust.
Legal experts said that, as a private institution, the university could place limits on what is posted on its Internet server. "Whether they should is a more difficult question," said Cass Sunstein, a First Amendment expert at University of Chicago's law school. "It's not simple to say when private institutions should regulate deplorable political speech." Some schools, including Cornell University, have gone that route, devising guidelines for what is and is not acceptable to put on the university's Internet server. Abraham Haddad, chairman of the electrical engineering department, said the difference between Epstein and Butz is that Butz keeps his opinions out of the classroom.
A university source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the school is seeking to buy out Butz to get him to leave the university. Butz and Bienen both refuse to comment. In any case, Haddad said the department hopes Butz, 62, will leave soon. "He's marginal. He teaches his classes, that's about it," Haddad said. "We give him an office where no one can find him."
We received the above as an email item from David Thomas, CODOH, who makes this pertinent comment: Digital signal handling is an "arcane" field which made it possible to send this message to you. And let us hope that Professor Butz can soon do something about that dust!
The Pauline Hanson phenomenon continues to preoccupy the media. Sensationalism rather than serious news value originally lit the flame, which has now ignited a totally unnecessary bushfire that threatens to envenom Australia's relationship with its nearest neighbours. The phenomenon itself, however, cannot be understood except in the more general context of the politics of 1996.
John Howard's victory on March 2 was to be expected, although nothing is certain until it happens. What was remarkable was its size and the extent of the groundswell it revealed. Labor recorded only 38.7 per cent of the vote, its worst national primary vote since 1931. In Queensland, it was reduced to 33 per cent, the worst since Federation.
What was clear was that regardless of whether they were voting for Howard or merely against Keating, the people were sick of Keating's vision of "the vision thing" and wanted radical change. Whether they understood the price they might have to pay and were prepared to accept it was a different and more difficult question.
But as this column observed at the time, while it is relatively easy to change a government, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change an entrenched situation, unless certain fundamental principles are jettisoned. Howard, in fact, set out to do the opposite - to reassure this country by saying there was no difference in the economic policies of both parties. How, then, could the situation change?
It would be wrong to say there is nothing positive in the Howard record. But as to the central issue, the results are exactly as anticipated. Unemployment and part-time work has increased and Howard has stated that rapid change cannot be expected. For the first time in our history, the foreign debt has crossed the $190 billion mark and it increases weekly.
Much more of the farm has been sold off. Hence, while $10 billion a year is payable in interest to foreign banks, more than $11 billion is exported annually in dividends. Domestic interest rates for small and medium business and for farming still range from more than 10 per cent to 15 per cent plus.
Almost all of our most valuable public utilities have been sold off, including the Commonwealth Bank, with Telstra, national railways and Victorian gas supply still to come.
With the existing policies - and with no proposal to change them - there is simply no way in which 1997 can be other than worse.
To understand why this defeatist, deflationary policy continues to be pursued, one may perhaps refer to the heavily unpublicised gathering of top executives from the world's biggest banks in Sydney during the first week in June. It was mentioned in this column on June 15.
"The bankers," said one media report, "the most internationally influential audience Mr Howard has confronted since taking office - had spent half a day discussing the price they would demand from countries around the world for bankrolling them. By the time Mr Howard took the lectern, the speakers ...had already set out a check list of policies. Most explicit was the chairman of the big United States investment bank Goldman Sachs & Co, Mr Jon Corzine, a former central banker who was asked by the group to specify conditions for what he called the 'inherently blunt process that leaves many worthy initiatives and investments without resources'." ( In other words, he was asked to describe which governments they would finance, and on what conditions).
He did not have to think long. "Rule number one: There is no substitute for consistent, disciplined, fiscal and monetary policies...We should not lose sight of the fact that for individual countries, chronic current account deficits are a symptom of a structural imbalance taking the form of over-consumption and under-savings.
"Rule number two: ... Commitment to privatisation, subsidy reduction, progressive tax policies, reduced public payrolls, pensions reform will solidify creditworthiness, enhance competitiveness and send welcoming signals to investors." (Australian Financial Review, June 7, 1996).
Howard was reported as passing the test with flying colours. Which obviously raises the question: On March 2 did the people elect Howard - or Corzine?
It is the consequence of the subservience of both parties to the hidden government that nobody elects that partly explains the Hanson phenomenon. Having won the securely held Labor seat of Oxley in Queensland with a swing of 20 per cent and despite having her endorsement taken away by the Liberals, Hanson set about making herself the voice of the disillusionment manifest in a large proportion of the electorate. The real foundation of the whole Hanson movement - if one can call it such - goes back to the massive swing of 600,000 Labor voters who, believing they had been sold out by their party, voted for Howard, only to find they got nothing in return.
The Coalition was merely determining to go faster down the same road. A certain element of the Hanson following is animated by racial antipathy against ethnic minorities, including Aborigines, who, rightly or wrongly, are believed to have received favoured treatment in a period of widespread unemployment and pervasive insecurity.
There will be those who manipulate both Hanson and her supporters, to Australia's detriment. The great antipathy, however, is levelled against party politicians who continually report "initiatives", "reforms" and "victories" that the ordinary citizen rightly regards as bunk. Hanson may ultimately fade away. But the factors that created her will not
John Bennett, President, Australian Civil Liberties Union
Opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Australians believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, and a majority, usually described as racists by the media, also believe the level of Asian immigration is too high. A significant minority of Australians of Asian origin also believe the level of Asian immigration is too high ( The Bulletin, 12/9/89; The Age, 12/11/96). Are they 'racists' or have they come from countries where multiracialism and multiculturalism have failed, and fear a similar failure in Australia? Are Aboriginals, such as Charles Perkins, who query the level of Asian immigration also 'racists'? The views of the majority of Australians including Australians of Asian origin have not been reflected in editorials, feature articles and cartoons in the print media. The Age, in the last 3 months , has published in aggregate more than 30 editorials, feature articles and cartoons condemning the majority of Australians who support a reduction in Asian immigration ( usually described as 'racist') and not even one feature article putting their point of view.
A similar bias was shown in 1988 after John Howard said that perhaps at a time of high unemployment Asian immigration should be 'slowed down a little'. Following that mild statement, The Age, over a period of only 16 days, published 12 feature articles, 2 editorials and 8 cartoons, critical of Howard and one feature article supporting him. (See: Your Rights, 17th ed., ACLU Publ.)
The journalists who attack and ridicule the majority of Australians including many of Asian and Aboriginal extraction, who call for a reduction in Asian immigration, seldom define "racism", rarely refer to Asian racism, and go 'over the top' in their attacks on Pauline Hanson, the main public critic of the government's (not the people's) immigration policies.
What is 'racism'? Racism is a word used by journalists and others seeking to stifle public debate and is seldom defined by them. It can mean a preference for one's own ethnic group, without any belief that that group is superior to others. It can also mean a belief in the superiority of a group.
Most people are racists in the sense of preferring their own kind, and most Australians are racist in that sense. The majority of Australians including members of the Anglo Celtic majority who prefer Europeans to Asians as immigrants are all racist in the sense that Europeans prefer their own kind. The large number of Australians of Asian extraction who believe the level of Asian immigration is too high would be aware of the extent of racism in Asia and the likelihood of the experiment of multi racialism in Australia failing as it has done elsewhere.
Robert Hughes, one of the many pundits professing expertise in areas in which they are not experts and called upon to condemn Pauline Hanson, stated on ABC TV's 7:30 Report that only 2.7% of Australians are ethnic Asians. The demographer Dr Charles Price says that the correct figure is about 6% and that if the immigration policies of the Hawke and Keating governments are continued this will rise to 20% by the year 2025. With an influx of some of the 150,000 Hong Kong inhabitants currently holding visitors visas and other sources of legal and illegal immigration, the percentage could be much higher. Kerry O'Brien did not seek to correct Mr Hughes. By contrast, Ray Martin on Channel 9's A Current Affair, attacked Ms Hanson because she could not exactly specify the polls which indicated the popularity of her views on immigration.
Such double standards also prevail in relation to the approach of the media and politicians to Asian racism. There has been almost no reference to the immigration policies of China and Japan, both of whom seek to retain racial homogeneity, and refuse to allow whites to become citizens. Both give the brush-off to whites seeking citizenship. Koreans whose ancestors have lived in Japan for centuries cannot become citizens. Leading Japanese politicians say part of the reason for a weak economic performance by the USA is negroes in the workforce. Japan refuses to accept Vietnamese refugees and polls indicate they don't want non-Japanese Asian immigrants.
Malaysia which lectures Australia on its alleged racism, ignoring the fact that Australia, unlike almost all Asian countries, has a non-discriminatory immigration policy, has institutionalized racism by its policy of 'bumipatra', giving preference in education etc. to ethnic Malays, over Chinese and Indian citizens. Why is there no criticism in the media of the Malaysian policy of cultural genocide against the Penan, the indigenous people of Sarawak? Indonesia pursues a policy of near genocide against an ethnic minority in Timor.
Why have Australian journalists and politicians failed to highlight the racist policies of Malaysia, China and Japan, and why do they argue that a multiracial and multicultural, society will succeed here when such experiments have failed elsewhere? Is it because of an implied white racism which seeks to apply higher standards to whites than to Asians? Asians who prefer their own kind ( other Asians of the same ethnic stock) are regarded by Australia's "chattering classes" as 'normal', while whites who prefer whites ( but do not regard Asians as inferior ) are regarded as 'racists'. The sense of moral superiority of Europeans over Asians is also reflected in the call by former Governor-General, Bill Hayden, when he was foreign minister, for the Asianisation of Australia. Mr Hayden said that it was inevitable and desirable that Australia become an Eurasian society in which whites are eliminated by intermarriage. Can you imagine Mr Hayden going to China and advocating that China become Eurasian through intermarriage between Chinese and Europeans?
People who call for a reduction in Asian immigration are subject to character assassination and are alleged to be inciting racial hatred. The attacks on John Howard in 1988 and the bias of the print media against him are nothing compared with the treatment of Pauline Hanson. At least The Age published one feature article in support of Mr Howard. No article has been published in support of Ms Hanson.
An attack on Ms Hanson in The
Age in the 'Good Weekend' featured an unflattering front
page photograph of Ms Hanson; referred to the 'stench' arising
from her remarks; contained references to Hitler and "( no
kidding) Goebels Rd (sic.)" and claimed that the journalist
could tell one of Ms Hanson's relatives, a concentration camp
survivor, feared Ms Hanson wished the relative to be deported
because of the relative's trembling hands.
I suppose The Age believes such attacks, and the failure to give feature space for a defence of Ms Hanson is justified because she has been pigeonholed as a 'racist', ignoring evidence to the contrary such as a statement by an Asian former employee of her, that she was not a racist (The Australian 6/12/96).
Some people opposed to the current level of Asian immigration believe that many Asian immigrants, especially Chinese, due to greater intelligence and motivation will eventually, during the course of the next century, take over the Australian economy. Perhaps they believe in Asian superiority and would call for a policy similar to 'bumiputra' in due course. Such nuances in the "controlled" debate on immigration seldom surface.
Journalists, politicians and the well-paid bureaucrats of the Human Rights 'industry', who have failed to significantly change public opinion on Asian immigration, despute decades of gobbledegook, censorship, intimidation and threats of 'racial vilification' sanctions, are largely responsible for the turmoil following the comments by a lone Federal MP. The ethnic composition of the migrant intake should have been a matter for legitimate public debate. Australia for many years has taken in per capita a higher proportion of races different to the predominant inhabiting local race, than almost any other country in the world. Has the proportion become too high? Why can't such a simple question be asked and debated without hysteria and censorship in a democracy? Why are simple questions about some aspects of 'history' also subject to censorship?
Perhaps the best known 'Holocaust victim' has been Anne Frank, whose name is known around the world for her famous diary. Of the variety of memoirs, those which present a picture of frail Jewry caught in the vice of Nazism, the most celebrated is undoubtedly The Diary of Anne Frank.
First published in February 1947, The Diary became an immediate best-seller to a naïve and gullible public; and quickly elevated Anne's status to that of a saintly victim. When various people were asked to recall 'Saint' Anne's memory, she is described evocatively as a "spicy girl". One mother stated that whilst "God knows everything, Anne knows everything better". Since then the book has been re-issued in paperback, going through forty impressions, and was made into a Hollywood film. In the fifty years since its 1947 publication the diary has been translated into fifty-five languages, and sold more than 25,000,000 copies. Consequently Anne's father made a fortune from the book's royalties, which purports to represent the real-life tragedy of his daughter. With its carefully designed emotional appeal, the book and the films have influenced literally millions of people, certainly more throughout the world than any other story of its kind. However, the truth concerning it is only one appalling insight into the fabrication of a propaganda myth.
The Diary has been sold to the public as the actual diary of a Jewish girl from Amsterdam, which she wrote at the age of thirteen while her family and four other Jews were hiding in the back room of an Amsterdam house for two years during the German occupation. Anne went into hiding on 9 July 1942 and the last diary entry is 1 August 1944. Three days later the authorities discovered and removed the family and other fugitives from their hideout. However, the Franks were not hiding for their lives but were only remaining discreet. This is revealed by the amount of noise that they made, chain smoking while supposedly short of food, contradictions over the windows and secret door, and the titilating sex.
Because the Jews had declared war on Germany on the coat tails of Britain's declaration, Jews were imprisoned as hostile aliens, just as the Allies imprisoned enemy nationals. The Frank's once captured, were treated no differently; besides they had lived in Germany until 1933. The girl and her father, Otto Frank, were deported from the Netherlands to the massive industrial complex at Auschwitz in September 1944 where the father contracted typhus and was sent to the camp hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews who were left behind when the Germans abandoned Auschwitz in January 1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Communists. He died in Switzerland in 1980. Anne was evacuated along with many other Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March 1945, her fate being typical of many who died whilst interned on both sides during World War II.
Neither were gassed, which is odd because the Nazis were supposed to have had a ruthless factory-like murder machine? If the Nazis had a widely alleged extermination policy, then neither Anne nor her father, sister, and many other Jews, would have survived Auschwitz. In short, like many 'Holocaust survivors', their fate cannot be reconciled with the extermination story!
When Otto Frank was released from a camp at the end of the war, he returned to the Amsterdam house and 'found' his daughter's 'diary' hidden in the rafters, though another story has it that Dutch woman, Miep Gies, was responsible for finding the 'diary' and gave it to Otto.
Whilst the famous Holocaust story is undoubtedly The Diary of Anne Frank, few people know that it, like the rest of the alleged 'personal experience' literature is largely fiction. (More than 10,000 'eyewitness' testimonies about Nazi atrocities against Jews have been shown to be false in Yad Vashem alone - the international centre for Holocaust documentation in Jerusalem - according to its former archives director, Shmuel Krakowski. (See Adelaide Institute newsletter, No. 41, 1996, pp. 6-7 wherein Krakowski is reported to have withdrawn this comment.) As documentary proof for the so-called Holocaust fall by the wayside, historians have increasingly depended on 'eyewitness' testimony to support their theories. The 1985 and 1988 Zündel 'false-news' trials showed how unreliable such testimonies are, being based on rumour, hearsay and Allied propaganda.
Anne Frank did live and may have written a six by four by a quarter of an inch thick diary. But when this becomes a standard 300 page paperback book one must conclude that most of it has been written by others.
Anne Frank left a diary containing only about 150 notes, according to The New York Times, 2 October 1955. The published 'diary', with its final 293 pages, is of a high literary standard which, together with its content dealing with historical events, makes it very unlikely to have been the work of a thirteen-year-old girl. This anomaly was detected immediately. Upon reading a copy of Anne's 'diary' in 1946, Jan Romin declared in the Dutch newspaper Het Parool:
The government Institute for War Documentation is in possession of about two hundred similar diaries, but it would amaze me if there was one among then as pure, as intelligent, and yet as human as [Anne's].
The reader will soon discover why this 'diary' has special qualities.
Any literary inspection of the work reveals that it is too intellectual to have been the work of a thirteen-year-old. It starts off with a detailed listing of Nazi measures against the Jews while the rest is full of Holocaust inaccuracies and distortions. It is also written in five different handwriting styles.
The fact is that this celebrated but pathetic 'diary' purported to have been written by this Jewish girl, was actually largely penned and elaborated by her father, Otto Frank, in ball-point pen which was not available until after the war.
The truth about the Anne Frank 'diary' was first revealed by the Swedish journal Fria Ord. Since then there have been a number of books written about this hoax, including D Felderer's Anne Frank Diary: A Hoax; R Faurisson's Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? (1985),; and G Knabe's Die Wahrheit (ber 'Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank' (1994.)
The handwriting attributed to Anne Frank and that in the 'diary' bear no resemblance to each other. Ditlieb Felderer, a Jehovah's Witness, and others had long tried to directly examine the 'diary' but had been rebuffed with the usual neo-Nazi innuendo. In April 1977 Ditlieb Felderer wrote to Otto Frank requesting permission to come to Switzerland with a party of experts to examine the original documents, but Frank refused.
On Otto Frank's death in 1980, a new attempt was made to rehabilitate the 'diary'. It was officially announced that Frank had deleted certain sexual references and this was why he wouldn't allow it to be examined. It was also announced that West German jurists had examined the 'diary' and declared it to be authentic. The handwriting discrepancy was of course ignored. Thus we have the first vague confirmation that the 'diary' is not quite what Anne wrote. When we also realise that the West German judiciary is influenced by the Jews having formulated laws which make it a crime to question the Holocaust story, we realise how worthless their declaration is.
On 20 May 1980 the State Criminal Office of West Germany gave the Hamburg District Court of Justice a report containing its official expert opinion on the 'diary'. Technical analysis of the manuscript showed portions of it were altered or added after 1951. Other German experts in the 1960s, determined that the handwriting was the same throughout the 'diary'. Of course, the court case bearing directly on the authenticity of the 'diary' was not officially reported.
In Germany the Jewish-owned magazine, Der Spiegel [the mirror] October 1980 revealed that the West German Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (B.K.U.) reported that "portions of the diary have been altered or added to after 1951, casting extreme doubt over the authenticity of the entire work". This confirms the widespread allegation that parts of the 'diary' were written in ball-point ink unavailable until after the war. (The ball-point pen or 'biro' was produced in the United States in May 1945, and whilst there remains some disagreement over who invented it, the first workable such pen was patented in 1937 by Ladislaus Biro, a Hungarian living in Argentina.)
In 1982 Dr Robert Faurisson published an article on Anne's 'diary' which demonstrated that at one time Anne had very mature handwriting but then, for months later, a childish scrawl. Faurisson's investigation took him to Basel, Switzerland, where he spent two days talking with Otto Frank who told him, "Dr Faursisson, I agree with you 100 per cent. All those things [i.e. contradictions which Faurisson found in Frank's alleged lifestyle-in-hiding] are theoretically, scientifically impossible, but so it was." Faurisson tried unsuccessfully to obtain a handwriting specimen from Otto Frank, but the man always used a typewriter.
Because Anne's 'story' has generated a fortune, the Jews have squabbled over the pathetic remnants of her life. From 1956 to 1958 a case was brought by Meyer Levin against Otto Frank in which Levin was granted $50,000 as indemnity for "fraud, default and unauthorised employment of ideas." The issue in this case was about the dramatised version of the 'diary', i.e. for use in film, radio, television and theatre productions, and the rights for which were claimed by Meyer Levin and upheld by a jury at a New York Court. Levin was an author and journalist who lived for many years in France where he met Otto Frank around 1949.
In 1996 it was reported that the Jews were battling over the rights to Anne Frank's trademark! The Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam is accused by The Anne Frank Foundation of attempting to licence companies to mass produce Anne Frank china, pottery, jewellery and even fountain pens ( why not an Anne Frank magic ball point pen?)! This is not the first time a legal battle has taken place over the Anne Frank myth. Before his death, her father was engaged in heated battles over the ownership of the mythical 'diary'. Again, it demonstrates that "There's no business like Shoah [Holocaust] business"!
With the great deal of emotional tear-shedding generated over the plight of Anne Frank, a museum has been dedicated to her and where her 'diary' is kept. The Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, which has been turned into a museum, has been carefully designed to play on the visitor's emotions, and as the 'victim' was an adolescent this is all the more easily accomplished. Each room deals with a period in her life, or with periods of the Nazi occupation of Holland. The visitor literally grows up with her ( an old ploy of using the visitor to identify with the victim). Finally, one comes to the last room and although being one of the millions who has read her 'diary', you know what the outcome is to be. The impact is shocking, just what you expected.
Meyer Levin declared in The New York Times Book Review:
Because the diary was not written in retrospect, it contains the trembling life of every moment...Anne Frank's voice becomes the voice of six million vanished Jewish souls.
This naïve emotional appeal, not based on fact, is typical of those emanating from the gullible, and the Jewish lobby waging a constant campaign of emotional blackmail through their control of large parts of the Western media, including Hollywood. A number of films have been made about Anne Frank, including The Diary of Anne Frank (1959), which perpetuates the myths and propaganda surrounding this individual. Despite its recent production the makers of the film Anne Frank Remembered are still oblivious to the historical facts, and similar errors are perpetuated by one film reviewer:
Anne Frank was perhaps Hitler's best known victim as crisp-vowelled narrator Kenneth Branagh points out at the beginning of this non-nonsense documentary.
The fact is that she was a victim of typhus, not Hitler!
Her war-time diaries are remarkable on many counts: the quality of the writing, the maturity of her insights, and the story of courage and resilience contained therein.
As we have seen, these came courtesy of Otto Frank's contributions.
Frank's diaries give a personal face to mind-numbing images of mass graves and belching human furnaces.
Attempts to contain the numerous typhus epidemics at some of the camps, are transformed into visions of Dante's Inferno. We are also told by the reviewer that by Anne's thirteenth birthday, "almost everything that was fun was already banned". Fun was not banned in the Third Reich though it was subdued, in consideration for those who were fighting and dying on the front lines, just as it was in Allied countries.
To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the original in February 1947, the Jewish-controlled Viking Books will publish an unexpurgated version of the 'diary' in Britain. Its said forty-two entries edited by Otto Frank would be restored. The full version had the blessing of Buddy Elias, Anne's cousin and president of the Swiss-based Anne Frank Foundation, who said:
It's really Anne-like now. Otto cut out a lot of things, all the really aggressive accounts. She wrote down everything, her sexual feelings as she grew from a girl to a young woman. These things you couldn't print in 1947. People try to make a saint out of her and glorify her. That she was not. She was just an ordinary, normal girl with a talent for writing. (Daily Telegraph, 24 October 1996)
Such claims are nonsense and the naïve public is duped again. All the material Otto Frank put in to 'spice' the diary up and then take out, are added again. Also such titillating material was being published in 1947 despite the denial. The reason to republish something old dressed up as new, is purely a financial one, squeezing more money out of a myth of a myth!
In short, 'Saint' Anne's 'diary' is an edited, revised, gone-over book which is not a spontaneous 'diary', a fact admitted by her father before his death, and by others.
Hiding the Innocent: The Diary of Anne Frank is one of the main canonical works of the Holocaust and Redemption literature. It echoes the emotion-packed theme of hiding children to avoid persecution that figures prominently in several other important works of Jewish origin: the Torah story of Moses being released into the fens of the Nile Delta to avoid a genocidal Pharoah; the story in the Gospel of Jesus' parents fleeing to avoid Herod's murder of children, and so on. Anne Frank combines this basic, powerful theme with sophisticated twentieth century Freudian psychoanalytic themes to produce a compelling account of an innocent, good Jewish child doomed by evil Gentiles to die in horror.
In the 2 December 1996 edition of the London Daily Telegraph, there appeared an article which claimed that a young American student reading history at Cambridge University, Bryan Riggs, had "discovered" that thousands of Jews, and/or half Jews had served in Hitler's armed forces. I would like to fill a few gaps in this none-so new information. Riggs tells us that in 1939 Lt. Col. Dr Ernst Bloch, a German Jew, serving in Hitler's Wehrmacht, in particular working for Abwehr chief Canaris, had special orders to rescue Rebbe Schneerson and his followers from German-occupied Warsaw and take them to Germany.
What Riggs doesn't tell us - or he was ignorant of this fact - is that these special orders had come directly from the Chancellory in Berlin, that is, directly from Adolf Hitler.
Hitler called Himmler at the Reichssicherheitshauptamt in Berlin to organise a free passage for Schneerson and his followers to a country of their choice. Hitler also ordered a special forces group, led by Bloch, to bring Schneerson and his group safely to Berlin. At the same time Himmler and Canaris organised their safe transit from Germany via Latvia to Sweden, and from there to New York, USA. Schneerson remained there until his death in 1994.
In 1971 my wife and I visited Mr Nicolai Zebergs and his wife, Dzintra, in Silverspring, Maryland, U.S.A. Nicolai is a relative of my wife's late mother, Mrs Grete Vitols, nee Zebergs who died in 1996 in Melbourne, Australia.
Mr Zebergs told us how in 1939 he helped Rebbe Schneerson and his group to get out of Warsaw, Poland. With the help of the German occupation military government in Poland, Zebergs had organised neutral clothing for all of them. He failed to convince Schneerson to cut off their traditional sidelocks which made them recognizable as religious Jews. They managed to hide their sidelocks behind their ears!
Nicolai Zebergs was the first secretary of the Latvian embassy in Warsaw and he issued Latvian transit visas to the Schneerson group. This enabled Schneerson's group to leave Germany and enter the then still unoccupied Latvia.
Himmler personally thanked Zebergs for his help and co-operation in this project and gave him a small painting which Himmler had signed.on the back. For me it was interesting to find out that Himmler had a hand in rescuing the leader of one of his supposed mortal enemies- the Jews.
The Hitler-Stalin Pact stopped Rebbe Schneerson from freely entering and leaving Latvia because Bolshevik Russia occupied Latvia on 17 June 1940.
During the 1970s I
wrote to Rebbe Schneerson advising him of the names and addresses
of those who helped him with clothing and visas, thereby getting
out of Europe. I gave Schneerson the full address of Nicolai
Zebergs but as far as I know, Schneerson never thanked this
Latvian 'Goy'. It is also not known whether after his arrival in
New York, Schneerson ever sent a thank-you letter to Hitler and
Schneerson, of course, is now in Jewish Heaven until his second coming, sitting on cloud 29, still studying the Babylonian Talmud. Hitler and Himmler, of course, are in Hell, where they are in the company of Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, sweating it out until Judgement Day.
What a picture! Can you imagine all these great conquerers sitting in this Gentile Hell? Hitler is reading Das Kapital; Himmler is reading The Communist Manifest; Stalin is reading Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations; Roosevelt is reading Tojo's Memoirs (sic), and Churchill is reading Mein Kampf.
As you can see, folks, history is never boring, especially my personal interpretation of historical events!
The question arising out of this Schneerson matter is this: Did Hitler really want to exterminate all the Jews?
I ask this question because if he did, then why did he co-operate and collaborate with the Zionists between 1933 and 1943? Why would he bother to rescue the head of the religious Jewish movement in Europe, Rebbe Schneerson and his followers?
The critical question arising out of the Schneerson-Bloch-Hitler-Himmler story is this: Is there something basically wrong with the official Holocaust story?
I ask myself: If Hitler was really driven by his 'murder lust' in order to kill all the Jews (extermination of European Jewry), how come he let the head of Europe's religious Jews go to America? How come he let thousands of Jews and half-Jews serve in his armed forces, 170 of them high ranking officers?
How come the double Noble prize
winner, Otto von Warburg, head of the Max Planck Institute in
Berlin was left alone to continue his research before and during
How come that the heart specialist, Professor Herz was able to continue his work in the Berlin- Buch Hospital?
How come Otto Liebknecht, brother of the communist revolutionary, Karl Liebknecht, lived with his wife, Sarah, throughout the war in a nice villa in Berlin Kohlhasebr(ck? They did not even have to wear the Star of David. Otto Liebknecht was the inventor of the first modern detergent for Henkel in D(sseldorf. PERSIL. Otto's enemies could accurately say: This was one of the many Jewish attempts to whitewash the Nazis!
One thing is for certain: The history of the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust has partly to be re-written in order to do justice to everyone who had to live through these tragic times. God bless the non-Nazi revisionist historians and scholars because the official court historians cannot be trusted. Their version of history is full of lies, half-truths and disinformation, dictated by the victors. More than 50 years after Auschwitz, the world has a right to know what really happened between 1933 and 1945, and most importantly, why it happened!
We were wrong: Around Christmas 1996 our trustworthy Israeli informant advised us that Professor Israel Shahak's home had been raided by Israeli security. We reported this in Fredrick Töben's 1996 Christmas Correspondence with Jamie McCarthy. We have now been advised that this information was wrong. For this we apologise.
Recently our Japanese friend, Aiji Kimura sent us a copy of the first issue of his newsletter, called (in English) Journal for Historical Review. We can't read Japanese, and thus can't decipher the newsletter - all the more frustrating because its first page includes a headline in English: "Rife with Discrepancies, the Story of Sugihara's Heroism Is Deeply Flawed" - by Masanori Tabata, with a picture of the subject, Chiune Sugihara. Thoughtfully enough, however, Mr Kimura included the complex text of the English story referred to, a six-page report on the "Sugihara affair" published in The Japan Times Weekly, December 17, 1994.
If you're wondering who Chiune Sugihara is, you have some cause. He was at best an obscure figure in the history of the Second World War, and in the various reports on his activities that have appeared in the Western press, he has sometimes been identified as "Sempo Sugiwara" (from a variant reading of the Chinese characters that represent his name). But press reports there have been, because these days Sugihara is often described as the 'Japanese Schindler': in August 1940, while Japanese consul in Lithuania, he issued thousands of visas to Jews and others, many of them refugees from Poland, seeking to leave Lithuania for Japan. Sugihara saved thousands of lives, the story goes, defying his own, anti-Semitic government; for his courageous actions, he was cashiered from the Japanese diplomatic corps and denied a pension.
For anyone who thought about the story, which has been uncritically told and retold in the Western media over the past decade or so, there has always been at least one obvious question. Sugihara issued the visas in August 1940, at a time when the 'Holocaust' hadn't begun yet, according to even Exterminationists, and at a time when Lithuania was about to be occupied, not by the Germans, but by the USSR. Is Sugihara, blessed with some quiet Asian wisdom, supposed to have foreseen both the German invasion of nearly a year later and the supposed extermination of the Jews?
The article in The Japan Times Weekly, published two years ago, provides an answer to this, as well as a thorough debunking of the Sugihara legend - all the more instructive in that the JTW article doesn't 'deny the Holocaust'
While it seems Sugihara did issue several thousand visas to Jews, The Japan Times Weekly, the Land of the Rising Sun's leading English-language newspaper, forcefully argues that there is no evidence that Sugihara was acting against the orders of his government. Its writers point out that after his service in Lithuania, Sugihara went on to hold important posts in Europe: in Prague, in K"nigsberg, in Helsinki, and in Bucharest, until the war's end. If anything, the report argues, Sugihara's actions seem to have reflected official policy.
Why was Japan eager to facilitate Jewish emigration? Predictably, the editors of the report argue that the Japanese government was not anti-Semitic. More interestingly, the JTW study suggests that Sugihara's actions were part of a policy aimed at co-operating with US Jewish agencies, with an aim to using their influence to affect US policy toward Japan. Indeed, there is evidence that the Japanese were seeking to organise an official Jewish haven in Manchuria. While this never came to pass, many Jews were admitted to Japanese-controlled Manchuria, and many thousands more found refuge in Shanghai.
Nor was Sugihara's post-war retirement from the diplomatic corps evidence of any punishment for 'rescuing' Jews: many diplomats were being retired in occupied Japan - particularly those, as the JTW report implies, who had been active in espionage and other covert operations against the USSR in Manchuria and elsewhere, as Sugihara had - and Sugihara received a pension!
Thus, a very temperate but quite convincing debunking of the 'Japanese Schindler'. Yes, Sugihara issued the visas, but in furtherance of his government's policies, not against them. Everything else, it seems, is lie or legend, serving the Holocaust myth, the vanity of Sugihara ( now dead) and his family - and serving to paint the rest of the Japanese as unrighteous, non-Sugihara/Schindlers: in short, as ordinary Gentile anti-Semites. Such is the real import of the 'righteous Gentile' myth, which, deriving from rabbinical lore, keeps alive age-old religious animosities by elevating a few supposedly philo-Semitic non-Jews at the expense of the allegedly hate-filled non-Jewish masses.
The Japan Times Weekly has done a real service by publishing the report on the Sugihara story, including the intriguing news that a Jewish functionary got hold of Sugihara's diplomatic seal after he left Lithuania and used it to forge several thousand additional visas ( we would like to think that the forger used this opportunity to play the 'righteous Hebrew' by helping Christian Lithuanians escape from Stalin's secret police, but - alas! - there's no word on that). And from the Sugihara affair the JTW's editors have drawn conclusions that are proper not merely to this one story, but to the larger issues of the last world war, including the Holocaust. They write:
"The debunking of the Sugihara myth demonstrates that World War II was more complicated than a Manichaean struggle between good and evil, as wartime and post-war propaganda would have the world believe. If there is a moral to the story, it is that historians should base history on facts, journalists are expected to ask the hard questions, and myth makers should limit their embellishments to ancient fictions."
The Jewish Defence League (J.D.L.) have joined the Hate-site on Internet as established by the Harvard University Law Library.
I am sure that the F.B.I. will
agree with Harvard's decision because, according to the F.B.I.,
the J.D.L. is classified as a terrorist organisation. I wonder
when Abe Bronfman and his Anti Defamation League (A.D.L.) is
going to join the Harvard Hate site? The
Simon Wiesenthal Centre which runs the Museum of Tolerance ( rather intolerance!) ought to be next on the Hatesite.
I wonder what role Harvard University Law Professor, Alan Dershovitz, played in setting up the Hatesite? Is he their webmaster?
The Nobel Peace prize ought to be given to Professor Israel Shahak for having had the courage to write the book Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Shahak is an honourable Jew because he has devoted his entire life to fight the evil of Talmudic-Pharisaic Judaism. May he live 101 years.source:
Website Note: This site does not agree with all the conclusions provided in this article. However, we defend their right to their opinion and their conclusions, and their right to publish and speak it. It is professionally written and brings up issues that are quite fair and open for debate. The truth always prevails in the end. Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.
This site is NOT pro-racist/hatred from either side of any race issue.
This article is placed in these archives to point out the fallacy of censorship by Bernie Farber, the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, and any group seeking to censor or promote hate/racism or reverse hate/racism of any sort. The snake ends up biting its own tail, time and time again. The serpent is already nipping at its tail, when the JDL, brothers of the CJC, (but much more honorable), are declared a hate-group, a terrorist group, a group to censor, by the same laws and authorities which the CJC and ADL empowered, by forcing an agenda which is NOT SAFE to the Jewish people or the Gentile people.
These so-called do-gooder organizations like the ADL, CJC, and the child molesting Southern Poverty Law Center founder, are setting up conditions which enable another similar type Nazi regime to come to power. When the JDL cannot promote its views which are for the protection of the Jewish people, due to the actions of the ADL, CDC, etc.... then the Jewish people along with the rest of us are getting herded for the slaughter, again......
We speak out in defense of the JDL's right to promote their views. The CJC and ADL have caused them to be censored, or worse....
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.